What is a PC Brigade and how has it stifled you?

Bruce7

StormWarrior wrote: »

By the way, I'm a she. I suppose I ought to be awfully offended that people thought I was a he. Not very PC of people to judge my gender without checking first.

I'll check for you if you like?

Gummy Panda

StormWarrior wrote: »

In France they already have unisex toilets with no cubicles, looks like we are heading that way.

I just noticed this. So in France I could walk into a toilet and see a bint taking a ****

MaxSteele

Lyaiera wrote: »

Every transexual I know has suffered abuse. The large proportion of them have suffered physical abuse. Anecdata, sure. But to be honest I doubt any of the "transexuals" you might know care one whit about you considering you described them as "a huge man in a dress" you transphobe.

:rolleyes:

Maybe because having your todger removed and a pair of fake tits implanted doesn't automatically blind the public to the fact that you're actually a man ?

Of course everyone who see's a "huge man in a dress" will be able to identify whether the "huge man in a dress" has a cock or not ? I think the poster was referring to trans genders being more noticeable in public.

I thought the whole point of becoming transgender was to switch and identify yourself as a member the opposite sex ? So why the need for more different toilets ?

StormWarrior

Lyaiera wrote: »

My problem is with you using scare quotes when you wrote the statement.

The PC brigade can legislate into people not being allowed to say anything that a transperson or any other person might find offensive but they can't yet legislate against thought. The general population may not be able to call someone who was born male "he" if he doesn't want them to but the vast majority of people are still going to see someone born male, as male.

Lyaiera

awec wrote: »

He didn't say they should expect to be stared at, he said that's the worst he's seen in his own experience, which is nowhere near as bad as someone getting beaten.

I don't think "man in a dress" is hatred, nor do I think getting the she / he wrong is hatred either. Insensitive yes, not hatred.

I do. And it's transphobic.

If someone called me a she is that hatred? I think not.

But if you can't see the difference between a cisgendered male being called "she" and a transgendered female being called '"she"' (including the scare quotes) then there's no way I can convince you otherwise.

Bruce7

Lyaiera wrote: »

And again, we go back to the issue which is because you're averse to something for no good reason other people lose the chance of just maybe having a better experience of safety when going to the bathroom.

I would bet that a person who was born a man and was in the process of getting a sex change - i.e. at the stage where it was still very clear that the person had been born a man - wouldn't get much trouble from anyone if they used a men's toilet or changing room. It would be the women that would give him / her a hard time.

(I don't know whether this is a transman or a transwoman and whether to use he or she to describe this person.)

awec

Lyaiera wrote: »

I do. And it's transphobic.



But if you can't see the difference between a cisgendered male being called "she" and a transgendered female being called '"she"' (including the scare quotes) then there's no way I can convince you otherwise.

I actually just noticed that she put the she in quotation marks, I thought the point you were making was that she had used she instead of he.

My bad.

Lyaiera

MaxSteele wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Maybe because having your todger removed and a pair of fake tits implanted doesn't automatically blind the public to the fact that you're actually a man ?

Of course everyone who see's a "huge man in a dress" will be able to identify whether the "huge man in a dress" has a cock or not ? I think the poster was referring to trans genders being more noticeable in public.

You're right. A lot of people ignorant to the science, medicine and law will continue to be ignorant of it no matter what happens.

I thought the whole point of becoming transgender was to switch and identify yourself as a member the opposite sex ? So why the need for more different toilets ?

More different toilets? The plan was for less but same toilets. It's partly because trans people are often the subject of physical and verbal abuse for using the "wrong" toilets (see how that goes back to my first point about some people being ignorant of science, medicine and law) and also because there are genderqueer people.

Bruce7 wrote: »

I would bet that a person who was born a man and was in the process of getting a sex change - i.e. at the stage where it was still very clear that the person had been born a man - wouldn't get much trouble from anyone if they used a men's toilet or changing room. It would be the women that would give him / her a hard time.

(I don't know whether this is a transman or a transwoman and whether to use he or she to describe this person.)

A transgender man and cisgender man are both men. A transgender woman and cisgender woman are both women. Whichever way they identify in regards to their gender is the way you title them. At the moment a general indication is the way someone is dressed, although transvestites are becoming more open and crossdressing on a daily basis rather than just for "special" occasions.

And there's a greater likelihood of a transwoman experience violence in a men's toilet than in a woman's. In women's toilets the chances are higher for verbal abuse and staff/security/the police being called.

Bruce7

Lyaiera wrote: »

I do. And it's transphobic.



But if you can't see the difference between a cisgendered male being called "she" and a transgendered female being called '"she"' (including the scare quotes) then there's no way I can convince you otherwise.

If someone called me "she" I wouldn't care. But I do object to being called a cisgendered male. I identify as "male" not "cisgendered male." Please try to be respectful.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

old hippy wrote: »

Has the PC Brigade stifled you lately? Has it had a direct impact on your day to day life? Have you any amusing anecdotes about it going mad, somewhere in your locality?

Answers in red crayon, please.

No, because, like God, I have yet to see proof of existence.

StormWarrior

Lyaiera wrote: »

And again, we go back to the issue which is because you're averse to something for no good reason other people lose the chance of just maybe having a better experience of safety when going to the bathroom.

Why does someone's comfort in a toilet only matter if they're transgender? If a transgender person wants toilets changed to make them feel comfortable that's fine, but if a non-transgender person wants toilets to stay the same as they'd feel uncomfortable sharing with the opposite sex, they're a bigot?

Bruce7 wrote: »

I'll check for you if you like?

PM sent.

Lyaiera

StormWarrior wrote: »

Why does someone's comfort in a toilet only matter if they're transgender? If a transgender person wants toilets changed to make them feel comfortable that's fine, but if a non-transgender person wants toilets to stay the same as they'd feel uncomfortable sharing with the opposite sex, they're a bigot.

If the basis of their comfort is on an irrational hatred/fear/dislike* then yes, they're a bigot.



*that's for you awec :P

B0jangles

StormWarrior wrote: »

Why does someone's comfort in a toilet only matter if they're transgender? If a transgender person wants toilets changed to make them feel comfortable that's fine, but if a non-transgender person wants toilets to stay the same as they'd feel uncomfortable sharing with the opposite sex, they're a bigot?

Because your right to not feel uncomfortable is less important that their right to not get verbally and physically attacked?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/01/transgender-new-yorkers-face-scorn-violence-public-restrooms_n_1928748.html

Jester252

old hippy wrote: »

We should try equality for all.

In terms of the law we should. However in the real world that not possible how about people whos religion might not agree with unisex toilets is it fair on them?

Lyaiera

Bruce7 wrote: »

If someone called me "she" I wouldn't care. But I do object to being called a cisgendered male. I identify as "male" not "cisgendered male." Please try to be respectful.

You're transmen brothers would be proud of you.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

What's all this bull**** about toilets?

I've always wondered: a toilet bowl and a sink. In the next room, an identical set up. What is the point in not having them unisex?

suicide_circus

To me, the PC Brigade are those who are terrified of offending anyone and who live behind a facade of false tolerance.

kupus

old hippy wrote: »

Yes, I'm sure all those who have been racially abused, beaten, had dog**** posted through their letterboxes or swastikas painted on their windows lead terribly sheltered lives. Damn them for wanting equality and an end to discrimination.

Everybody that you named as an aggressor in the above has one thing in common. They ARE ASSHOL£s. They may not be racist or clever they are just asshol£s and dont need to be united under the banner of racist cos that gives them more of an incentive to be bigger asshol£s.

Strong policing should sort that out,
but criminals now have more rights than a cop. THe human rights brigade and PC brigade have deemed a common criminal to be worthy of more rights than a cop.

When what should happen is the criminal should be given hard labour morning to night, then locked up. and repeat. 24/7.

And when he comes out IF he comes out, I bet he wont be racist anymore.

But of course criminals need rights according to the human rights lawyers who then make mountains of money on free legal aid services for lil old johnny up in court for the 70th time.

But hey at least the lawyers have a job. Right?

Bruce7

Lyaiera wrote: »

If the basis of their comfort is on an irrational hatred/fear/dislike* then yes, they're a bigot.



*that's for you awec :P

Who decides what is rational and irrational?

Lyaiera

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

What's all this bull**** about toilets?

I've always wondered: a toilet bowl and a sink. In the next room, an identical set up. What is the point in not having them unisex?

I believe poo sounds of your own gender are generally considered less offensive. Or at least that's what I've drawn from this thread.

StormWarrior

Lyaiera wrote: »

If the basis of their comfort is on an irrational hatred/fear/dislike* then yes, they're a bigot.



*that's for you awec :P

Who said anything about hatred, fear or dislike? You are putting words in my mouth. Not wanting to share toilets with the opposite sex has what, exactly, to do with hating or disliking people? The vast majority of public toilets in the world are single sex because the vast majority don't want to share with the opposite sex.

do you not see that I'm not complaining about sharing toilets with transgendered people? actually so few people are transgendered that I doubt I'd ever be in a toilet when a transgendered person came in (my other point - they'll be used so infrequently by the transgendered that its a waste of money). It's because most women don't want to share toilets with strange men and most men don't want to share toilets with strange women!

FTA69

I was told at a recent equalities seminar that the term "mixed race" was no longer applicable and we should use "dual heritage" instead. I was also told that the terms "nitty gritty" and "picnic" were racist as the former was a term used to describe rape of women on slave ships and the latter was related to lynching in the Americas.

While I would have no problem identifying as a Marxist socialist who is pro-choice, pro-gay rights, anti-racist etc I would have to decry the above as a big pile of b*llocks to say the least. Sometimes these professional equalities people lose the bloody run of themselves by seeking to upgrade a word or term every two seconds.

Lyaiera

StormWarrior wrote: »

Who said anything about hatred, fear or dislike? You are putting words in my mouth. Not wanting to share toilets with the opposite sex has what, exactly, to do with hating or disliking people? The vast majority of public toilets in the world are single sex because the vast majority don't want to share. do you not see that I'm not complaining about sharing toilets with transgendered people? actually so few people are transgendered that I doubt I'd ever be in a toilet when a transgendered person came in (my other point - they'll be used so infrequently by the transgendered that its a waste of money). It's because most women don't want to share toilets with strange men and most men don't want to share toilets with strange women!

I've already pointed out the times you called transgender women "a man in a huge dress" and used scare quotes around the word "she."

Bruce7

suicide_circus wrote: »

To me, the PC Brigade are those who are terrified of offending anyone and who live behind a facade of false tolerance.

They are the guys who got trapped in the friend zone with the girls in the student union.

StormWarrior

B0jangles wrote: »

Because your right to not feel uncomfortable is less important that their right to not get verbally and physically attacked?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/01/transgender-new-yorkers-face-scorn-violence-public-restrooms_n_1928748.html

And attacks on transgender people actually seem quite few and far between. btw even when unisex toilets are introduced, what makes you think that'll make transgender people suddenly magically safe from attack?

StormWarrior

Lyaiera wrote: »

I've already pointed out the times you called transgender women "a man in a huge dress" and used scare quotes around the word "she."

and yet again, what has that got to do with the toilet issue? there's no point continuing this discussion because you are clearly determined to twist the issue to make out that anyone who dosn't want to share toilets with the opposite sex, and waste hundreds of thousands of pounds, must be a hate-fuelled maniac who hates everyone transgendered.

hames

Lyaiera wrote: »

It's partly because trans people are often the subject of physical and verbal abuse for using the "wrong" toilets (see how that goes back to my first point about some people being ignorant of science, medicine and law) and also because there are genderqueer people.

I think a lot of people who believe in the malleability of the gender are the ones who are ignorant on its diagnosis.

Diagnosis of what is called "trans-sexualism" or "gender identity disorder" is little more than evidence of significant distress or clinical distress arising out of one's natural gender.

It doesn't make an individual another gender, it just recognizes that, for whatever reason, their actual gender is a source of stress to them.

Unfortunately, advocates of the view that this is perfectly normal feel that a diagnosis of gender identity disorder legitimizes some sort of inner identification. It does not, it merely recognizes the stress they feel without commenting on the original source of that stress, be that psychological or environmental.

Nodin

I'm actually not in the "PC brigade".....nobody believes me though.

Cienciano

We can't have a star on the christmas tree in work which I thought was fairly sad. Other than that the PC brigade are pretty much unnoticed for me.

Gbear

Madam_X wrote: »

I'd be interested to see Fry's reaction to someone calling him a <insert homophobic, anti-semitic insult here>.

People who say being offended is no big deal tend to be talking about others, not themselves. I agree some folks can be too sensitive and look for reasons to be offended (from the left and the right; it's not the sole preserve of the "liberals") but it's with good reason at times.

I think the primary point that Fry was trying to make (i'm going on the way he generally says - you'd have to ask him yourself to be sure) is that being offended doesn't grant you any rights.
It's specifically a rebuttal of things like blasphemy legislation.

I don't think anyone finds it particularly unreasonable to be offended by anything. That's someone's prerogative as the offendee. So long as they don't try to use that offence to magically grant them rights they don't earn (and impinge on the rights of those that are in question) then I doubt Fry has a problem with that.

If someone hurled homophobic abuse at him I would imagine he'd give at least as good as he got in return, being considerably more clever than your average homophobe.



In general people don't like being told what to do. That's the primary backlash concerned against the whole PC brigade thing. When they wheel out "it's PC gone mad" when someone calls them on their bigotry, they're wrong.
When people use the law to unfairly stifle their bull**** and then they call "PC gone mad", they're right.

B0jangles

StormWarrior wrote: »

And attacks on transgender people actually seem quite few and far between. btw even when unisex toilets are introduced, what makes you think that'll make transgender people suddenly magically safe from attack?

Because transpeople have repeatedly said that they do feel safer using them? So much so that apps have been created to help people find one close to them.

http://blitztrans.org/transitioning/bathroom-search/

CreepingDeath

The thread was on how the PC brigade stifled others... not the other way around.
But these threads tend to get hijacked by certain groups.

Yes, I was banned from discussing specific topics on AH.
* Disclaimer: Which is why I only made comments about general sexism on this thread.

The PC brigade attempt to force legislation, rules and censorship to silence critics.

I'm surprised there isn't a gimp costume wearing group, fighting for the right to wear latex outfits in public without being discriminated against by pubs & restaurants and verbally abused by the public.

The truth of the matter is that if you are considered to be operating outside the "norms" of society, you will get grief in the form of peer pressure, slagging and abuse.
It's societies way of self regulation to try keeping everyone conforming to the groups communal sense of identity.

When minority groups express themselves, then people may not identify with them and want them to conform or else they socially reject them.
It's the nature of human groups.
Some groups are going to have a broad definition of themselves, and others a narrow definition of who they identify with.

You can't legislate for this.
That's why the PC brigades attempts to silence this natural human social behaviour is never going to change peoples thoughts.

The only thing they can achieve is to repress other peoples thoughts from being verbalised or acted upon.

B0jangles

CreepingDeath wrote: »

The thread was on how the PC brigade stifled others... not the other way around.
But these threads tend to get hijacked by certain groups.

Yes, I was banned from discussing specific topics on AH.
* Disclaimer: Which is why I only made comments about general sexism on this thread.

The PC brigade attempt to force legislation, rules and censorship to silence critics.

I'm surprised there isn't a gimp costume wearing group, fighting for the right to wear latex outfits in public without being discriminated against by pubs & restaurants and verbally abused by the public.

The truth of the matter is that if you are considered to be operating outside the "norms" of society, you will get grief in the form of peer pressure, slagging and abuse.
It's societies way of self regulation to try keeping everyone conforming to the groups communal sense of identity.

When minority groups express themselves, then people may not identify with them and want them to conform or else they socially reject them.
It's the nature of human groups.
Some groups are going to have a broad definition of themselves, and others a narrow definition of who they identify with.

You can't legislate for this.
That's why the PC brigades attempts to silence this natural human social behaviour is never going to change peoples thoughts.

The only thing they can achieve is to repress other peoples thoughts from being verbalised or acted upon.

Classic Appeal to Nature.

reprazant

What the hell is all this crap about unisex toilets for transgenders? I did a google search and all I could find was some article about it from the Daily Mail. There was no other mention anywhere else about it.

The only other unisex toilets information was from a Brighton-Hove council which gave a map of all male/female and disabled unisex toilets. Is that what Stormwarrior is getting all angry about? Disabled toilets which are pretty much always unisex to begin with?

And the development mentioned in the Mail is a new development being build by the council. It is not even alleged that they are not changing all toilets but just the toilets in this one new building will be unisex. The whole building is to cost £140,000.

StormWarrior

B0jangles wrote: »

Because transpeople have repeatedly said that they do feel safer using them? So much so that apps have been created to help people find one close to them.

http://blitztrans.org/transitioning/bathroom-search/

And yet again, many women won't feel safe sharing toilets with strange men. But that's fine of course.

B0jangles

StormWarrior wrote: »

And yet again, many women won't feel safe sharing toilets with strange men. But that's fine of course.

Do you see trans women as men?

Lyaiera

hames wrote: »

I think a lot of people who believe in the malleability of the gender are the ones who are ignorant on its diagnosis.

Diagnosis of what is called "trans-sexualism" or "gender identity disorder" is little more than evidence of significant distress or clinical distress arising out of one's natural gender.

It doesn't make an individual another gender, it just recognizes that, for whatever reason, their actual gender is a source of stress to them.

Unfortunately, advocates of the view that this is perfectly normal feel that a diagnosis of gender identity disorder legitimizes some sort of inner identification. It does not, it merely recognizes the stress they feel without commenting on the original source of that stress, be that psychological or environmental.

No. That's what sex is about. Not gender. Gender is malleable and it's current thinking that it's a partially a social construct as has been seen by the many people falling outside a gender binary.

For a long time the only evidence was that when people with gender identity issues changed sex to match their gender the dysphoric symptoms reduced. However in the past few years as neurological imaging has become more common a lot of transgender (transexual) people have been noted to have neurological sexual characteristics in line with their actual gender. This was thought to have been the case before in line with the many variations on both chromosomal and general biological intersex conditions but is now being seen with first level evidence in regards to the brain.

As time progresses and if funding was allocated there would probably be a fairly heavy observable diagnosis of transgenderism available but with the current psychiatric and psychological diagnostic criteria available that are incredibly successful it would be an unnecessary expense.

Gummy Panda

StormWarrior wrote: »

And yet again, many women won't feel safe sharing toilets with strange men. But that's fine of course.

I love how casually men can be labelled potential attackers without anyone batting an eye lid.

"Uni sex toilet... MUST RESIST URGE TO RAPE!!"

Seachmall

B0jangles wrote: »

Classic Appeal to Nature.

It's not an appeal to nature because he's not arguing if it's right or wrong, he's arguing that that is what happens or what will happen.

B0jangles

Seachmall wrote: »

It's not an appeal to nature because he's not arguing if it's right or wrong, he's arguing that that is what happens or what will happen.

With the implication that it cannot or indeed should not be combatted because it is "natural" and any effort to to so would be pointless.

StormWarrior

B0jangles wrote: »

Do you see trans women as men?

I have to leave now as I'm going to the cinema so this will have to be the last response from me. I don't know for sure what "trans women" means, so I will assume that it means someone who was born male, but either had a sex change, or else even without an operation, considers themselves female?

If that's so, then yes I see them as men, and I'm sure quite the majority of people do too.

Seachmall

B0jangles wrote: »

With the implication that it cannot or indeed should not be combatted because it is "natural" and any effort to to so would be pointless.

Exactly, so it's not an appeal to nature.

CreepingDeath

B0jangles wrote: »

Classic Appeal to Nature.

Humans are social animals, that's what we do.
Our brains are hard coded to form small groups or communities.

I refer you to the peer reviewed anecdote of the scorpion and the frog

B0jangles

StormWarrior wrote: »

I have to leave now as I'm going to the cinema so this will have to be the last response from me. I don't know for sure what "trans women" means, so I will assume that it means someone who was born male, but either had a sex change, or else even without an operation, considers themselves female?

If that's so, then yes I see them as men, and I'm sure quite the majority of people do too.

Well there's no point in arguing with you.

reprazant

StormWarrior wrote: »

I have to leave now as I'm going to the cinema so this will have to be the last response from me. I don't know for sure what "trans women" means, so I will assume that it means someone who was born male, but either had a sex change, or else even without an operation, considers themselves female?

If that's so, then yes I see them as men, and I'm sure quite the majority of people do too.

Just a query, you do realise that Brighton council is not spending £140,000 changing the toilets to unisex, don't you?

Anyone

StormWarrior wrote: »

And yet again, many women won't feel safe sharing toilets with strange men. But that's fine of course.

Just be honest....you know we are going to leave that toilet seat up, and that's the real issue, isn't it???

Bruce7

B0jangles wrote: »

Well there's no point in arguing with you.

I have to admit, I do too. If someone was born male, I consider them to be a man, and if someone was born female I consider them to be a woman, regardless of whatever they consider themselves to be.

Notwithstanding that, I will still make every effort to be sensitive and not to offend them. I will do my best to use the correct terms when referring to them. But that won't change my perception of them. Sorry.

P_1

Drakares wrote: »

What exactly is a PC brigade?

Is it the IT section of the Army by any chance? :pac:

Lyaiera

Bruce7 wrote: »

I have to admit, I do too. If someone was born male, I consider them to be a man, and if someone was born female I consider them to be a woman, regardless of whatever they consider themselves to be.

Notwithstanding that, I will still make every effort to be sensitive and not to offend them. I will do my best to use the correct terms when referring to them. But that won't change my perception of them. Sorry.

That's an admirable thing, fair play.

However there is a lot of evidence that both sex and gender not as simple as either male or female. Society's ideas of what male and female is is being challenged more and more as science advances and we begin to understand more of the human body and mind. The notion that their is either male or female from both a sex and gender point of view has been firmly disestablished.

Bruce7

Lyaiera wrote: »

The notion that their is either male or female from both a sex and gender point of view has been firmly disestablished.

You're entitled to your point of view, but I would say that the "notions" of male and female are as fundamental to biology as the "notion" of gravity is to physics.

If this had been firmly disestablished, as you say, I think we would have heard a bit more about it.

Anyway, I'm done with this. 500 posts is enough wasted time.