Petition to ban Germaine Greer from upcoming lecture

feargale

RWCNT wrote: »

Yeah, that is a debate. This Greer character wasn't coming to debate, it was a talk or lecture.

Edit : Read the statement from the guy at the Uni saying all views would be challenged and debated. If they let the student body have a go at her there & then, fair enough. Debating with someone who's whole line is "Its my opinion - I don't care if people get offended"' probably won't actually be a real debate though.

So we're going to allow people to speak provided dissent from their viewpoint is heard ( especially if we disagree with the guest speaker? ) Well we'd better stop people publishing books with a point of view then since the books don't usually include dissenting opinions. Yes, there's an idea, let's start burning books again.

P.S. Would it be overdoing it to burn the writers as well?

sonny.knowles

Fukuyama wrote: »

"Womens Officer"

Stopped there.

Stopped at 'Female Impersonators', presume she means the likes of the lad who does Panty Bliss?

keano_afc

She's absolutely right in her assessment and it's nice to finally have someone in the public eye come out and say it.

Cienciano

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Universities are supposed to be places of free speech, learning and debate, banning speakers and shutting down debate flies in the face of all that. No matter who the guest is.

Universities are also a place of protest and students are perfectly within their rights to put a petition together

Dirty Dingus McGee

Cienciano wrote: »

Universities are also a place of protest and students are perfectly within their rights to put a petition together

Surely a much better idea from the person getting this petition signed would be to challenge her when she makes her speech by asking questions at the end.

By looking for her to be banned from speaking is pretty admitting that what she is saying is correct but they just don't happen to like it.

crazygeryy

German beer is great hic

Royal Irish

Very Bored wrote: »

Exactly, PC-ism is the new fascism. I was actually worried, initially, about what I wrote because I thought I'll get flamed for this or banned. I have enough balls to think f**k it though, I have as much right as anyone to say what I think. If people disagree so be it, but better a dissenting voice spoken than one that is too frightened to speak. That's the power of the PC brigade though, either you agree with this or your out. And too many are now too frightened to talk.

It doesn't take balls to be a bigot over the internet.

zeffabelli

It's always fun to watch the left eat itself.

We can question man claiming to be a woman as much as we can question a man being the son of God.

Jenner ... Woman of the year... Male privilege or what?

jank

She wouldn't be my cup of tea but obviously she has a right to speak at a lecture and I would not call her views on trans people hateful at all. She is just expressing an opinion, an opinion where many agree with her.

nullzero

"Caitlin Jenner is a hero, and an inspiration".

smoking_kills

nullzero wrote: »

"Caitlin Jenner is a hero, and an inspiration".

"You PC Bro"

Teafor two12345

nullzero wrote: »

"Caitlin Jenner is a hero, and an inspiration".

In many ways totally. Athlete and going through a huge change in public. Can you imagine the strength of character that takes?

tritium

Oh noes, two intolerant misandrist scumbags at each others throat!

OK, deep breath " I may not agree with your opinion but I will defend blah blah blah etc......"


Kind of reminds me of this really...

RWCNT

feargale wrote: »

So we're going to allow people to speak provided dissent from their viewpoint is heard ( especially if we disagree with the guest speaker? ) Well we'd better stop people publishing books with a point of view then since the books don't usually include dissenting opinions. Yes, there's an idea, let's start burning books again.

P.S. Would it be overdoing it to burn the writers as well?

I was responding to people saying the attempt to ban was "shutting down debate" by pointing out it wasn't a debate at all, it may however resemble a debate more closely than I thought, hence the edit. And miss me with your "burn the writers" exaggeration bullshyte, I never even said I'm down for anyone being banned from speaking.

Another thread where SJWs are compared to Nazis, many of you need to get a serious grip.

Azalea

NachoBusiness wrote: »

If anything, it is a sign of Misandry how Jenner is treated, not fecking Misogyny, as nobody gave a fcuk about him when he wa a man, but now that she's a woman.. you can't say a bad word about her, not even when she smashes into a car from behind which results in a person's death.

I disagree with Green's "misogyny" claim - don't know how she came up with that one, but... nobody gave a **** about Jenner when a man? Thought he was a highly regarded guy.

I think the hyper protection of Caitlyn is silly too, but I thought it is due to her making the transition and her bravery, not because she's a woman. I think a woman transitioning to a man would be treated the same.

Harry Palmr

Modern Universities have a mindset more akin to the Taliban than the Enlightenment Movement.

The Black Oil

The approach of Rachael Melhuish et al seems to be, we don't like what you have to say, please move to another parish.

Very Bored

DivingDuck wrote: »

Because they have asked you not to. It's as simple as that. If you met a guy in a the pub, and his friend introduces him as Ben, and a little while later, you said 'Hey Benny, get your round in', and he asked you not to call him Benny, would you do it again? It's the same thing, except much bigger and much more hurtful for the other person. If someone asks to be referred to with female pronouns and you continue to refer to them with male pronouns, you are implicitly stating that you don't care that you're hurting them, and that your desire to use their birth pronouns trumps their hurt.

Does it really hurt you to use "she" when referring to someone who happened to be born with a penis, but wants to live as a woman? Would it make you feel worthless to do so? Would it make you hate yourself, or wish you hadn't left the house that day? Would it make you question your place in the world, and wonder why people have to be so needlessly cruel? That's what it does to the trans person. Why would you inflict this on a person when it's so easily avoided?

I understand what you're saying here, but it is often necessary to use third-person pronouns in conversation. You can end up referring to the person you're speaking to in their presence quite easily, especially in groups of more than two. Also, I think most trans people would like to feel their pronoun choices were respected even when someone was speaking about them rather than just to them, whether they're there to see it or not.

You are conflating gender and sex here. Gender is a psychological construct, which is not exclusively related to the sex organs. Have you read any of the literature on the difference? There's a lot out there which explains it.

As I said above, in my view, it's the difference of level of concession and the impact it has. For someone to use a different pronoun than the one that occurs to them naturally (i.e., the feeling of, I know this person was born a man, so my instinct is to refer to the person as a "he") takes a bit of effort, but not a lot, and shouldn't cause huge psychological damage to the speaker. To the listener, however, they have already made a huge effort in admitting they are transgender, and the psychological damage caused by hearing what they feel is the wrong pronoun is immense.

If a little effort can prevent immense damage, shouldn't it be applied?

There's a bit of a difference here, you'll have to admit. The difference being that "the greatest footballer" or "the president" is a fairly small and exclusive category, and usually also a title that is conferred upon you by outside forces. The category "women" is quite expansive once you divorce it from the sex organs, and it's something people can decide whether they are or aren't.

If you want to live as the POTUS, you need the agreement of others or it won't work. You're not allowed in the Oval Office, or Airforce One, and you definitely can't command America's armed forces. If you want to live as the greatest footballer ever, you can't just go to the shop and buy a Ferrari on your non-footballer salary. You can't get into the hotspots of Europe's nightlife with a smile and a word from your bodyguard.

It's not the same for a trans person. They're not trying to live as a specific individual. So they can buy, on their ordinary salary, a new dress instead of a new suit. They can get a gender-stereotypical haircut. A trans man can do anything a male-at-birth man can, apart from producing children-- and if we're going to go down that road, we're going to upset a lot of men with fertility problems.

You are trying to compare a very general group (a gender-based group) with specific roles with massive barrier to entry, and they're not comparable because if someone wants to live as a woman, they can do so without the approval of the rest of the world-- it isn't fully hinged on the agreement of others, in the same way as being the president or a specific footballer. It does, however, make it easier for the person to live as a woman if they're not constantly tripped up by others. They'll still feel like a woman regardless of how you refer to them, they'll just also feel hurt and disrespected.

I understand your desire for a distinction between women who are biological/"cis"/"original"/"natural" women and those who have transitioned from being male, but once you accept that a person's sex organs or chromosomes doesn't determine whether they feel mentally male or female, I can't understand how you could be so opposed to speaking to and treating people as the sex they feel they are.

Thank-you for your very interesting response. It was extremely informative and I feel I understand your position much more clearly now. However, I still don't agree with it. For me, a man is born a man and a woman is born a woman, simple as. I understand what you're saying regarding my comparing specific roles with more general roles so I'll highlight it in another way. I speak pretty fluent Italian. I understand, appreciate and can join in with Italian humour. My football team is Inter. My favourite singer is Antonello Venditti. My favourite actor is Roberto Benigni. I love and am also able to cook Italian food. If I introduced myself as Italian with my broad Kilkenny accent, you found out I was born in Kilkenny as were both my parents, would you accept me as an Italian? No, you would not, because I'm clearly Irish.

The potential for fraudulent relationships also worries me. Its not a concern for me because I am happily married, however, I do have a young son. Supposing, as is probable, my son grows up to be a heterosexual man, though before somebody jumps on me I'm fine if he grows up to be homosexual or bisexual as long as he's happy. Lets imagine a transexual who has "transitioned" from "male" to "female" starts dating him. Now, if he knows about the status of this person and is happy with it then that's fine. However, there are devious people in all walks of life, including the transexual community. Again, before someone jumps on me, I'm not saying all transexual people are devious, I am well aware that the majority, just like the majority of any group, are not. So lets imagine this person is devious, and he only finds out after dating for a long time, perhaps even going so far as marrying the person. What about the effects on his mental health following such a situation?

Very Bored

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

Not to get too personal, but do you know any transgender people, or have you ever met one?

I have a reason to ask this question.

Had I been asked two years ago whether I would call a transgender person by their preferred pronoun or not, I wouldn't have had a straight answer. There is every possibility I might have said 'no'.

However, about a year ago, I began working with a transgender woman, and at no point did I hesitate for a second in using the pronouns 'she' and 'her', despite knowing this person was born 'with a penis', as you previously said.

I'm not getting on my high horse, here. I think this is a deeply complex and understandably divisive issue. But there seemed to be no good reason not to use female pronouns with this person.

You may be making a point if you insist on using pronouns like 'he' and 'him' to refer to a transgender woman, but the thought of even doing so once made me feel incredibly petty and insensitive.

Had I done so, I may have won some small battle from an intellectual standpoint, but I also would have been disrespecting this person, whether or not that disrespect was intentional. It didn't seem worth it.

So, really, while it's easy to say "I would use the term 'she' or 'her' to refer to a transgender woman", imagine if a transgender woman were standing in the room.

Are you really going to maintain that insistence, knowing how they will interpret it?

I have actually. I got around the issue by constantly referring to the person in question by their names rather than using he/she. I refuse to use he for a woman or she for a man, however, for strong reasons, some of which I've outlined.

Royal Irish wrote: »

It doesn't take balls to be a bigot over the internet.

Oh I'm not being the bigot mate. At no stage have I attacked transexual or transgender people, far from it. The person on the attack is you because you don't like the fact I hold a different opinion to yours, ergo making you the bigot in fact.

Wibbs

When someone like Germaine Greer is effectively banned by a university's "Women's officer" modern third wave feminism has eaten itself.


As for pronoun use, I'd go on whatever the person involved is happy with. Basic politeness and no skin off my nose.

Carlos Orange

Wibbs wrote: »

As for pronoun use, I'd go on whatever the person involved is happy with. Basic politeness and no skin off my nose.

Usage isn't really enough though. You have to be a true believer.

RWCNT

Very Bored wrote: »

The potential for fraudulent relationships also worries me. Its not a concern for me because I am happily married, however, I do have a young son. Supposing, as is probable, my son grows up to be a heterosexual man, though before somebody jumps on me I'm fine if he grows up to be homosexual or bisexual as long as he's happy. Lets imagine a transexual who has "transitioned" from "male" to "female" starts dating him. Now, if he knows about the status of this person and is happy with it then that's fine. However, there are devious people in all walks of life, including the transexual community. Again, before someone jumps on me, I'm not saying all transexual people are devious, I am well aware that the majority, just like the majority of any group, are not. So lets imagine this person is devious, and he only finds out after dating for a long time, perhaps even going so far as marrying the person. What about the effects on his mental health following such a situation?

Seen this sort of bollocks trotted out many times in anti trans rhetoric. It's right up there with the "fellas going trans to prey on women in the ladies' room". I'm not saying you're a bigot or a horrible person or anything, but I definitely think you're being very silly and more than a bit paranoid.

Very Bored

RWCNT wrote: »

Seen this sort of bollocks trotted out many times in anti trans rhetoric. It's right up there with the "fellas going trans to prey on women in the ladies' room". I'm not saying you're a bigot or a horrible person or anything, but I definitely think you're being very silly and more than a bit paranoid.

http://www.gaymanners.com/queeries/when-to-tell-your-date-qim-transgenderq wrote: »

Question: "I've told men upfront that I'm a male-to-female trans woman (I date straight guys) and I've also waited till longer into the relationship, and I still don't know which is the better approach. I don't want them to be upset (or to lose their attention), but I also want them to know I'm an honest person—someone you could have a relationship with. What's the best strategy for this if I'm looking for a keeper, i.e. not just sex?

Answer: Whether and when to disclose that you are transgender is a personal decision, so there is no right or wrong here. It's a private fact about you that might become relevant to someone you’re dating if the relationship progresses past a certain point, but it's also something that you don’t owe other people an explanation about.

Some trans people prefer to be open about their transgender status in all aspects of their lives; others prefer to disclose it only under certain (safe) circumstances, and many folks fall somewhere in between. In the past, many transgender people received advice from health care providers that they should keep their trans status hidden at all costs. Today, however, there is a growing understanding that it can take a heavy emotional toll to feel obliged to conceal such an important aspect of a person’s life.

In light of that, here are some considerations that might help you decide what feels like the right choice for you. Let's say you decide not to say anything early on, what could happen? You may end up spending more time and energy feeling anxious about when you will disclose that you are trans, and how the other person might react. With that in mind, if you disclose your trans status up front, you can avoid wasting your time dating anyone who does not accept who you are, or who would feel deceived. It can be hard to talk about something personal, like being trans, with someone new, but this is a pretty big payoff.

Regardless of when you tell someone that you are trans, be aware of your safety. It is sad, but true, that violence against trans women in the dating context is all too common, and it can be hard to know in advance whether someone is prone to violence. If you have any cues that he might be—say, if he seems to be homophobic, or controlling—be extra careful. But no matter what, make sure that you are able to get help and support immediately if you need it, whether from your friends and family or from local LGBT or anti-violence organizations.

http://metro.co.uk/2014/09/22/the-big-reveal-should-you-tell-a-date-youre-transgender-straight-away-4874517/ wrote: »

The big reveal – should you tell a date you’re transgender straight away?
Lee Hurley for Metro.co.ukMonday 22 Sep 2014 11:56 am
172
Should transgender people tell you the truth on a first date?
Like revealing you’re a superhero, only different (Picture: Daylife)

All transgender people want to do is trick you to get you into bed, right?

Wrong.

Despite what you’re led to believe by large parts of the media, transgender people don’t want to hide their identity to fool you.

It might even amaze you to know that when we hide it, it has nothing to do with you.

Not you, reader, of course, you’d never assume such a stupid thing, would you?

Being transgender and moving into the heterosexual world comes with a host of problems, not least of all when to tell your date.
Should transgender people tell you the truth on a first date?
What will I tell you first? (Picture: Daylife)

When I first announced to my friends that I was going to transition from female to male, one of my male friends asked me when I would tell a date.

‘Immediately’ was my reply, though I’m still not quite sure what business it was of his to begin with.

That was back before I started testosterone and I was in a phase of in-betweeness – you might have thought I was a guy but, chances are, you would have seen me as a woman then and I didn’t want there to be any misunderstandings.

Now, however, I rarely get misgendered so the news is likely to come as a surprise.

For me, the decision about when to tell a date depends on the date itself.

Clearly, as I’m currently pre-surgery, any announcement would be made long before we got our kit off, but it doesn’t feel like it should be my lead item.

Imagine you were born with a birth defect, something that had to be corrected medically.

Would you feel the need to announce that during a first date?

To me, that’s all my transgenderism is – a birth defect.

While developing in the womb my brain went one way and my body the other and I’ve been trying to reconcile the two ever since.
Should transgender people tell you the truth on a first date?
There’s something I need to tell you…(Picture:Daylife)

Trans guys face the prospect of being rejected because of who they are, something I touched on in this piece, but, especially for trans women (or trans men who are into cis men), the threat of violence is very real.

(NB Cisgender or cis refers to those whose gender identity matches their anatomical gender at birth).

The decision about when to out yourself has to be weighed against the situation and circumstance.

A cis man may be angry that his date is transgender and he didn’t realise.

But the trans person he’s about to punch because of that anger has the right not to be assaulted.

It’s not their fault their gender identity falls outside the binary we are all indoctrinated with.

And that’s when you should tell someone about being transgender – only when you feel it is safe enough to do so.

Their right to know will never outweigh our right to be safe.

Perhaps I'm not so silly and paranoid eh?

Incidentally, the Metro article seems to be making the assumption that all cis men are violent nutters. Utter b******s!

Whilst I agree that people should put their safety ahead of other concerns, the fact is someone who is violent is far more likely to be violent if they feel they have been deceived rather than told up front. Also, its not beyond the realms of possibility that a cis man may do something dangerous to himself if he later realises he's been intimate with someone who was born the sex he doesn't find himself attracted to.

Dirty Dingus McGee

Teafor two12345 wrote: »

In many ways totally. Athlete and going through a huge change in public. Can you imagine the strength of character that takes?

Can you imagine the amount of money she is making out of it?

Character in my opinion would be going beyond what is reasonable and doing something you don't actually want to do.Choosing to do something like this in public isn't all that worthy of praise in my opinion.

Tarzana2

RWCNT wrote: »

How does this shut down debate exactly? Nobody was debating anything, some dickhead was just going to talk in a room for a bit.

Debate was probably the wrong word for him to use. Universities are places of learning. She is giving a lecture.

I like Greer, she's interesting.

Saipanne

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

Well-known feminist academic and writer Germaine Greer is set to give a lecture at Cardiff University in Wales. However, the Women's Officer at the university's Student Union, Rachael Melhuish, has started a petition with Change.org asking for for Greer to be banned from speaking at the university.

It is because, according to Melhuish, Greer has “demonstrated misogynistic views towards trans women, including continually misgendering trans women and denying the existence of transphobia altogether”.

As of 9:34pm UK/Ireland time on 23rd October 2015, the petition has been signed 369 times. However, it should be noted that there are 30,000 students enrolled in Cardiff University, and that it cannot be proven that the 369 signatures are comprised of students from that university, at whom Greer's upcoming lecture is aimed.

Greer has been dismissive of both the petition and the university, who said the lecture will go ahead.



What are your thoughts? Should she be allowed to go ahead with her lecture, or are the people behind this petition right?

Feminists = Fascists

RWCNT

Very Bored wrote: »

Perhaps I'm not so silly and paranoid eh?

Perhaps not! I only know a few trans people and they're very open. It's a possibility but I wouldn't let that type of thing make me suspicious or wary of trans people as a whole.

@ your edit :Try not to take that in a "cis men are all violent nutters" way. Many, many trans women are the victims of often fatal violence in that situation. You spoke before about the potential effect on your sons mental health of such a late disclosure. I don't know what the data out there is on that but there's plenty of data on the violence against trans women and it ain't pretty.

Very Bored

RWCNT wrote: »

Perhaps not! I only know a few trans people and they're very open. It's a possibility but I wouldn't let that type of thing make me suspicious or wary of trans people as a whole.

I'm not. If people actually read what I wrote rather than jumping on one piece of it they'd see I actually said the majority of trans people will not be devious.

Carlos Orange

RWCNT wrote: »

I don't know what the data out there is on that but there's plenty of data on the violence against trans women and it ain't pretty.

Could you post some links to some official data?

alcaline

Wibbs wrote: »

When someone like Germaine Greer is effectively banned by a university's "Women's officer" modern third wave feminism has eaten itself.

They wouldn't have a pot to piss in if Greer had not done the heavy lifting in the 70's and now they turn on her. Comical is the only word that describes the PC SWJ mob.

alcaline

psinno wrote: »

Usage isn't really enough though. You have to be a true believer.

Some can't get their head around the fact that most men don't believe a castrated man is the equal to a woman in all her glory.

NachoBusiness

Azalea wrote: »

I disagree with Green's "misogyny" claim - don't know how she came up with that one, but... nobody gave a **** about Jenner when a man? Thought he was a highly regarded guy.

As Kim's step dad, he was the butt of jokes constantly.

I think the hyper protection of Caitlyn is silly too, but I thought it is due to her making the transition and her bravery, not because she's a woman. I think a woman transitioning to a man would be treated the same.

Chasity Bono (Cher's daughter) has had nowhere near the level of understanding, protection, that Jenner has had.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Cienciano wrote: »

Universities are also a place of protest and students are perfectly within their rights to put a petition together

Yes they are but the better course of action imo would be to allow Greer to speak and then challenge her on her views and have a civil debate on the matter. It's not good for students to run away from opposing opinions and live in a bubble.

alcaline

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Yes they are but the better course of action imo would be to allow Greer to speak and then challenge her on her views and have a civil debate on the matter. It's not good for students to run away from opposing opinions and live in a bubble.

Could it be that the PC SJW mob know that this is a debate that they can't win so they try to shut down all debate on said topic?

Tarzana2

NachoBusiness wrote: »

If anything, it is a sign of Misandry how Jenner is treated, not fecking Misogyny, as nobody gave a fcuk about him when he wa a man, but now that she's a woman.. you can't say a bad word about her, not even when she smashes into a car from behind which results in a person's death. As someone once said: Misery loves company, but it hates competition and I think Greer just can't stand that the spotlight is on the Transgender community more and more these days as a minority, and less and less so on women.

What a load of bollocks. You're really reaching to find misandry in this situation. Pick your battles, seriously.

DarkyHughes

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Universities are supposed to be places of free speech, learning and debate, banning speakers and shutting down debate flies in the face of all that. No matter who the guest is.

Plenty of them managed to do that to Norman Finkelstein when he was talking about Israel/Palestine

oceanid

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Modern Universities have a mindset more akin to the Taliban than the Enlightenment Movement.

Universities have always been like this.

If it were any issue other than transgenderism, it's unlikely this would have even been reported, it would simply be the way that universities work.

MakeEmLaugh

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

Not to get too personal, but do you know any transgender people, or have you ever met one?

I have a reason to ask this question.

Had I been asked two years ago whether I would call a transgender person by their preferred pronoun or not, I wouldn't have had a straight answer. There is every possibility I might have said 'no'.

However, about a year ago, I began working with a transgender woman, and at no point did I hesitate for a second in using the pronouns 'she' and 'her', despite knowing this person was born 'with a penis', as you previously said.

I'm not getting on my high horse, here. I think this is a deeply complex and understandably divisive issue. But there seemed to be no good reason not to use female pronouns with this person.

You may be making a point if you insist on using pronouns like 'he' and 'him' to refer to a transgender woman, but the thought of even doing so once made me feel incredibly petty and insensitive.

Had I done so, I may have won some small battle from an intellectual standpoint, but I also would have been disrespecting this person, whether or not that disrespect was intentional. It didn't seem worth it.

So, really, while it's easy to say "I would use the term 'she' or 'her' to refer to a transgender woman", imagine if a transgender woman were standing in the room.

Are you really going to maintain that insistence, knowing how they will interpret it?

Very Bored wrote: »

I have actually. I got around the issue by constantly referring to the person in question by their names rather than using he/she. I refuse to use he for a woman or she for a man, however, for strong reasons, some of which I've outlined..

Fair enough, I respect your opinion.

I just imagine it would get pretty exhausting having to skip over pronouns if you dealt with a transgender woman on a regular basis e.g.

Colleague: Have you seen Catherine?
You: Catherine's gone home. Catherine told the boss Catherine had a doctor's appointment, so Catherine left about an hour ago. Catherine left those files you wanted on Catherine's desk, for you to pick up. Catherine told me to tell you that when you stopped in here.

TheLastMohican

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Universities are supposed to be places of free speech, learning and debate, banning speakers and shutting down debate flies in the face of all that. No matter who the guest is.

Eminent professors are not the cheapest to hire.

This antiquated old windbag should be ignored.

DivingDuck

Very Bored wrote: »

Thank-you for your very interesting response. It was extremely informative and I feel I understand your position much more clearly now. However, I still don't agree with it. For me, a man is born a man and a woman is born a woman, simple as. I understand what you're saying regarding my comparing specific roles with more general roles so I'll highlight it in another way. I speak pretty fluent Italian. I understand, appreciate and can join in with Italian humour. My football team is Inter. My favourite singer is Antonello Venditti. My favourite actor is Roberto Benigni. I love and am also able to cook Italian food. If I introduced myself as Italian with my broad Kilkenny accent, you found out I was born in Kilkenny as were both my parents, would you accept me as an Italian? No, you would not, because I'm clearly Irish.

Actually, for me personally I would probably refer to you as Italian if that's really what you wanted. It wouldn't bother me to do so-- I'm presuming you've been there a good bit if you speak what is a fairly non-standard language, you say you're pretty fluent in it, your preference is for Italian food and entertainment, and it costs me nothing to refer to you as "that Italian guy" or "that Italian-Irish guy". Being honest, I'd probably take it a bit more seriously if you made an effort to curb your accent, but ultimately, I'd think it was your call. Others might disagree, but if you really felt you were Italian and wanted to be treated as such, why would I ignore this?

That said, I still think there's a big difference between your example here and the gender issue. I don't think I'd treat an Italian person very (or perhaps at all) differently from an Irish person in how I spoke to them or about them. Gender, as a general rule, does change how we treat, think of, and speak about a person.

We make assumptions about people based on the gender they present as-- even the most "enlightened" of us tend to be prone to assuming that women are likely to be the most [insert adjective], or that men are more likely to think [opinion]. Can any cis guy really say he's never thought "God, women are mental" or are there any cis girls who've never thought "Men are bastards"? We group people by gender. It's very difficult to mentally avoid doing this-- which is what the trans person is trying to avoid by presenting and wanting to be thought of and treated as as the opposite gender.

The potential for fraudulent relationships also worries me.

I completely understand your concerns here. Honestly, as with the sport issue, I can see why people take issue with this, and it's difficult to navigate for both cis and trans people.

I obviously can only speak for myself, but it is my opinion that if being trans becomes more accepted by society, this will become far less of a concern. A lot of the time, people are afraid to admit that they are trans for fear of rejection in the form of violence. I find that very understandable.

Granted, there is also the less (to me) understandable position that some people take where they want to wait to allow their cis partner time to "get to know them as a person" so they don't reject them automatically because they are trans.

It is my personal belief (and others will most definitely disagree with me here) that this is very wrong, and that no relationship should ever be entered into with the intention to hold back information because you know it might affect the other person's desire to be with you. I'm not talking about little but potentially off-putting quirks like having a secret passion for line-dancing, or that you can't eat a sandwich without the crusts cut off, or that you hold birthday parties for your cat, I'm talking about big, life-altering things like the fact that you want to emigrate to Australia next year, or that you have three children to your ex-wife, or that you're trans. These are things that are going to have a huge impact on the relationship, if it lasts, and it's my belief that people should always be direct and upfront about them.

However, once trans people feel they can admit to being trans early on (in their dating profile, for instance) without streams of abuse and threats of violence, there will be far fewer people keeping this information quiet for their safety. And once society is more accepting in general, people won't feel so much need to hold back this information to give themselves "a chance in the dating scene"-- why bother trying to deceive Paddy if Mick, Johnny, and Dave are happy to date you without any deception necessary?

Of course there will always be people who will hold back information from potential partners-- criminal convictions, children with previous partners, marital status, job status, living at home with the Mammy, being trans... But the potential for deception will always exist in general, and with regard to people being trans, if we reduce the "need" for it, we'll reduce the instances of it.

Maybe it would just be simpler if people would be upfront about only wanting to date cis people in their own profiles-- I doubt many trans people would approach someone who said upfront that they were looking for a cis partner; why would they? In my view it's a preference, just like anything else-- the same as some people don't want to date someone with kids or who is a smoker or who doesn't like dogs. You can be respectful of these people's right to exist and present themselves how they choose, and still respect your own right to exist and not want to be intimately involved with someone who is of that category.

Cienciano

Cienciano wrote: »

Universities are also a place of protest and students are perfectly within their rights to put a petition together

^ This.

I don't agree with the petition or banning Greer from speaking (nor do I agree with Greer's views on transgender people) but this Women's Officer is perfectly within her rights to organise a petition if she feels it's the right thing for her to do. If the lecture goes ahead and they proceed to disrupt it (I know this has happened a few times in the US and Canada) then that's going over the line. But an online petition is not really something to get hugely worked up over.

I suspect quite a few people objecting to this petition and the Women's Officer's actions couldn't give a shít about Greer or her lecture and just love any chance to get a dig in at feminism and those pesky liberals. Someone even managed a comparison with the fúcking Taliban ffs! Outrage porn at its finest. :rolleyes:

Tarzana2

Deleted User wrote: »

If the lecture goes ahead and they proceed to disrupt it (I know this has happened a few times in the US and Canada) then that's going over the line.

Actually, I'd find this preferable to stopping her speaking at all.

Teafor two12345

Don't follow a nutter because occasionally they speak to your political beliefs.

She doesn't care about the people she is hurting because she can't see it. She will swing every which way during her lifetime.

She was a culture snob who trashed pop culture on critical reviews and then when on Big Brother saying it was to raise money for charity to buy a rain forest.

She gave out about porn then published a picture of her vagina in a newspaper saying it was because it was the one part of the female anatomy porn was afraid of.

She did a series on the sex appeal of young male youths because it's ok to do that if it's to counter the over sexualization of young female youths apparently.

This woman is in some ways brilliant. She said 'Revolution is the festival of the oppressed.' ....poetry. Does that not sound like someone who logically might be sympathetic to the oppression of trans people? What stops that is prejudice. Her ways of dealing with oppression are extreme to the extent that they hurt people. Her protest and her prejudice are two sides of the same coin. She is extreme because she lacks emotional intelligence and is unhinged.

It's hate speech. It's hateful and political beliefs that come from hate are infantile.

Royal Irish

Very Bored wrote: »

Oh I'm not being the bigot mate. At no stage have I attacked transexual or transgender people, far from it. The person on the attack is you because you don't like the fact I hold a different opinion to yours, ergo making you the bigot in fact.

I don't mind someone having a different opinion to mine and I'm glad you shared it.

But in my opinion your views on transgender people and especially your refusal to acknowledge a transgender by him/her/she/he whatever is just very bigoted and just rude.

It absolutely costs nothing for you to be polite and address a male to female transsexual by her or she.

You said it takes balls to post what you did which is ludicrous to think it takes balls to post anything on the internet.

It takes balls to identify yourself as being transgender. Coming out to your friends and family. Start taking hormones. Get sexual reassignment surgery and start living as the person you feel you are on the inside. That takes balls. Not posting your views on an internet forum.

Teafor two12345

I don't know if you can ban her though. Free speech and all you can ignore. Easier said than done though.

Azalea

NachoBusiness wrote: »

As Kim's step dad, he was the butt of jokes constantly.

The whole family are the butt* of jokes in fairness. Wasn't he highly regarded as an athlete?

Chasity Bono (Cher's daughter) has had nowhere near the level of understanding, protection, that Jenner has had.

He doesn't have anything as high a profile as the Kardashians though.

Maybe you're right about how a woman making the transition to a man would be treated, but I guess we can't know until it's someone as high-profile as a member of the Kardashian extended family.




*especially Kim

nervous_twitch

I feel awful for transgender people who have to trawl through this sh1te online. Looking for legitimacy off folks like 'I wont use your pronoun' VeryBored. Intelligent.

I think Greers opinions on this actually strangely undermines all the work she has done thus far; for all her radical, shes become a bumbling conservative. Of course she should be allowed to express these views in the university though. It's the best place to challenge them.

Teafor two12345

nervous_twitch wrote: »

I feel awful for transgender people who have to trawl through this sh1te online. Looking for legitimacy off folks like 'I wont use your pronoun' VeryBored. Intelligent.

Well said.

A petition doesn't equal a banning, especially a petition that (at best) has signatures from about 10% of the student body. Big storm in a small teacup.

Very Bored might not be 'attacking' transgendered people, but he's being very small-minded if he thinks being bad mannered amounts to standing up for any dearly held belief. It's petty, nit-picking, rude and disrespectful, and reveals more about the person who thinks it's more important to use the pronoun they believe someone should use rather than one the person themselves is comfortable with.

Anyone who is determined to look and act like a complete tosser won't be paid much attention anyway.

Links234

Teafor two12345 wrote: »

Don't follow a nutter because occasionally they speak to your political beliefs.

And this right here is why I said calling for her to be banned is counterproductive, and only draws attention to her.

This is someone who had been thankfully an irrelevant fossil. Modern day feminism wants nothing to do with her, and for extremely good reason, her view on female genital mutilation obscene and abhorrent, likening the barbaric practice to getting a tattoo or a piercing, and that attempts to outlaw FGM are "an attack on a cultural identity", a viewpoint that I sincerely doubt a great many people here would agree with. In light of what happened to Tim Hunt, I am more than a little surprised to see people fighting her corner considering she pretty much did the exact same thing previously, leading a witch-hunt against Cambridge Professor Rachael Padman in the 90's. The old pederast's (oh, did I mention she published an art book of "succulent teenage male beauty") views on trans people are nothing short of outright demonization, singularly hateful rhetoric, calling transgender people 'delusional' or 'ghastly parodies', but unsurprisingly a few here would agree with her on that.

And this is what attempting to cancel her lecture has done, it has brought her back into the public eye. She had previously condemned herself to irrelevence by being nothing short of a troll, making a fool of herself by mocking Daniel O'Donnell, her display on Big Brother, or commenting on then Australian PM's "Fat Arse"...

People who want to ban stuff really, really should understand the Streisand Effect. Because more often than not, it's gonna blow up in your face.