Author John Boyne receives abuse from strangers on Twitter

Wibbs

B0jangles wrote: »

I've always wondered - would people who really object to being described as 'cis' feel the same way about being described as 'straight', 'gay' or 'bi'?

I know they aren't exactly the same thing, but they are reasonably similar.

It's much more political a term within the identity politics guff around at the moment. I've noted it's also more loaded a term too and often disparaging. A step below "breeders" with some commentators.

strandroad

cloudatlas wrote: »

If you are a woman and you are being harassed or receiving unwanted attention then the female bathrooms is like a sanctuary to escape that, the thought of it becoming an open space for all where you can be pursued and have the harassment legitimately continue concerns me.

No harassment is legitimate. I am a woman and if someone harasses me in the bathrooms they need to be dealt with whoever they are. And if they use the facilities just like everyone else that's fine with me whoever they are.

The Rape of Lucretia

RWCNT wrote: »

Or "able bodied"? Or "sober"?

I think "non-trans" would be a better term as it would be far less confusing to most people, but I don't mind "cis" at all. Some people seem to think it's a slur and that's simply not true.

"non-trans" only has a point though if you think "trans" is indeed something. If you regard gender as male or female from birth and thats that, and the whole trans thing being a kick that has kinda gotten out of control lately, then trans, non-trans, cis, are really just meaningless terms. Better than less confusing - no confusion at all.

RWCNT

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

If you regard gender as male or female from birth and thats that, and the whole trans thing being a kick that has kinda gotten out of control lately.

Ah right, if you're wrong, like.

cloudatlas

strandroad wrote: »

No harassment is legitimate. I am a woman and if someone harasses me in the bathrooms they need to be dealt with whoever they are. And if they use the facilities just like everyone else that's fine with me whoever they are.

You know what I mean, if toilets become gender neutral then men can come and go from women's toilets freely. People get drunk in night clubs women come into the bathroom when they are falling about the place and are vulnerable, it needs to be obvious if someone is in there who shouldn't be in there. The argument that 'harrassment happens everywhere so open up the toilets to everyone anyway and lets hope drunk men in nightclubs are on there bestest behaviour', just doesn't cut it.

Franz Von Peppercorn

strandroad wrote: »

No harassment is legitimate. I am a woman and if someone harasses me in the bathrooms they need to be dealt with whoever they are. And if they use the facilities just like everyone else that's fine with me whoever they are.

Isn’t it more likely that you would be harassed in a unisex bathroom.

Which would be inefficient by the way, as they could hardly have urinals.

seamus

Yermande wrote: »

For example, there's a new women's wellness clinic about to open near my apartment. Could I enter their premises, looking as I do, i.e. like an average man, and say I'd like to see a GP. If they give my any resistance could I just say, actually, I may look like a man, but I self-identify as a woman and I would like you to recognise me as a woman and schedule the appointment.

If they refuse to schedule the appointment have they discriminated against me based on my biological sex? But would that be an acceptable grounds to discriminate based on the entire rationale of the clinic?

It wouldn't be an issue because we'll woman clinics aren't "women-only GPs". They're clinics that specialise in women's medical issues.

The same way that a physiotherapist won't see you for tooth problems, a well woman clinic won't see a man for testicular pain. Well they might, but it'll be the biggest waste of fifty quid ever.
Specialisation is normal in medicine and permitted under the equal status act.

A transwoman would probably be advised to go elsewhere because the well woman clinic would have little to offer them. I doubt a transwoman or a man would actually be refused an appointment, and the doctor might endeavour to assist them, but won't be able to provide anything beyond some general advice, most of which will be "you should go to your GP"

sydthebeat

Wait.... "Gender" is now supposed to be a social construct.....

The world's going to hell in a hand cart

strandroad

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Isn’t it more likely that you would be harassed in a unisex bathroom.

When you balance it against the fact that it's more likely for someone to walk on the harassment I'd say it works out the same in terms of security. Many national parks in US have them, some places here as well. Never had any hassle, you are hardly ever alone.

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Which would be inefficient by the way, as they could hardly have urinals.

They tend to be efficient in terms of (the lack of) queues. Much easier to use with kids of the opposite gender, easier for fathers to access baby facilities as they are often in women's bathrooms only today.

Zorya

Wibbs wrote: »

It's much more political a term within the identity politics guff around at the moment. I've noted it's also more loaded a term too and often disparaging. A step below "breeders" with some commentators.

Yes, it is used as a derogatory term. Breeders, exactly. Rachel McKinnon, the male-bodied winner of women's cycling championships, philosophy professor and self appointed trans spokesperson recently used it thus -


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D21LHN2WoAAY4ij.jpg

strandroad

cloudatlas wrote: »

You know what I mean, if toilets become gender neutral then men can come and go from women's toilets freely. People get drunk in night clubs women come into the bathroom when they are falling about the place and are vulnerable, it needs to be obvious if someone is in there who shouldn't be in there. The argument that 'harrassment happens everywhere so open up the toilets to everyone anyway and lets hope drunk men in nightclubs are on there bestest behaviour', just doesn't cut it.

I was in many unisex bathrooms with no hassle at all, being unisex they tend to be busier and therefore safer. Clubs are quite particular in that their bathrooms are problematic not because of men being there, but because of people (any gender) puking, crying, fighting you name it. Club bathrooms should and often do have security and instant cleaning service.

strandroad

Wibbs wrote: »

It's much more political a term within the identity politics guff around at the moment. I've noted it's also more loaded a term too and often disparaging. A step below "breeders" with some commentators.

But that's how some people use the term white. Would you oppose being called a white man (if that's who you are) for this reason?

cloudatlas

strandroad wrote: »

I was in many unisex bathrooms with no hassle at all, being unisex they tend to be busier and therefore safer. Clubs are quite particular in that their bathrooms are problematic not because of men being there, but because of people (any gender) puking, crying, fighting you name it. Club bathrooms should and often do have security and instant cleaning service.

Then why have the two been traditionally separate. I've been in unisex bathrooms and felt unsafe, my friend was followed into a unisex bathroom and leered at as she was drying her hands, she felt unsafe and like she couldn't have a moment free to herself. Club bathrooms do not have security staff.

Zorya

B0jangles wrote: »

I've always wondered - would people who really object to being described as 'cis' feel the same way about being described as 'straight', 'gay' or 'bi'?

I know they aren't exactly the same thing, but they are reasonably similar.

Cis is being used as a qualifier, to break up or limit the definition of something that cannot be broken up or limited, it is not being used as a descriptor.

Black or tall or strong or straight or gay would be descriptive. Cis and trans seek to qualify/limit what is fundamentally a state that cannot be qualified - the state of being man, the state of being woman. It seeks to create new classifications/divisions/categories of what is by its nature an indivisible state.

I cannot explain this exactly in words, sorry.

Wibbs

strandroad wrote: »

But that's how some people use the term white. Would you oppose being called a white man (if that's who you are) for this reason?

In those instances yes. However "White" is used widely in non identity politics ways, CIS rarely is. If I see I see someone write "White" they might be just descriptive, they might be identity politics type, they might be racists of all stripes. When I see "CIS" written down in earnest I can almost always guarantee the writer is steeped in identity politics.

strandroad

Wibbs wrote: »

In those instances yes. However "White" is used widely in non identity politics ways, CIS rarely is. If I see I see someone write "White" they might be just descriptive, they might be identity politics type, they might be racists of all stripes. When I see "CIS" written down in earnest I can almost always guarantee the writer is steeped in identity politics.

We might be reading very different sources but honestly I've seen cis around for years now and the twitter quote above is the first time I see it used as a slur. To me it's just a handy shortcut to replace longer phrases. Better than "not trans" anyway!

StinkyMunkey

These days it can be a mine field for some people, refer to somebody as the wrong gender or what they identify as and they could kick off.

If I'm unsure I don't use certain terminology, just to play it safe.

One thing I can't abide though, is if someone makes an honest mistake and refers to someone incorrectly, and said person kicks off, I've not time for that BS.

I seriously couldn't care less if you wanna identify as a buffer fly, but don't expect the world to know this as a fact.

If in doubt play it safe.

Silentcorner

Church on Tuesday wrote: »

The permanently outraged cabal of Twitter(irrelevant who the sub section is, everyone is angry on Twitter it would seem) giving sickening abuse to a middle aged man who dared ask pertinent questions about a certain societal situation.

I'm shocked so I am.

Twitter, who's day is numbered I believe...it a pestilence to modern day discourse...people are addicted to the reaction they get from their opinions aired in a smug manner that the twitteratti revel in....its like a hysteria generating machine, I wonder will they ever look back at the idiocy of it all!!

Jonathan Pie puts it better than I ever could...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQIGXsKSj7w

If everyone just stopped talking about what they saw on Twitter there wouldn't be half as much bull**** to have to listen to/read.

The radio and newspapers take their lead from it too. None of that crap is any way representative of peoples lives.

CroatoanCat

seamus wrote: »

People need to drop their preciousness about segregated toilets. Women fart and sh1t and piss just like the rest of us. If it makes you squeamish that a man might hear you, that's your problem.

My personal belief is that segregated toilets place women at more risk by creating places where women may be alone for extended periods of time.

A straight guy raped a woman in the women's toilets of the George. If there had been a single set of toilets for everyone, there would have been more people milling around.

Extraordinary. Toilets are segregated by sex for reasons of safety, privacy and dignity. Women campaigned for sex-specific toilet facilities not because they are prudes, heaven forfend, but on the basis that they are entitled to those facilities for reasons of safety, privacy and dignity.

There is very recent research to show that women are more at risk of male sexual violence in mixed-sex spaces. Women are entitled to assert their right to retain these spaces. If you are a women who is comfortable sharing such spaces with male-bodied people, that does not give you the right to hand over those spaces, hard fought for by women in previous generations, on behalf of all women.

A third, mixed-sex space is required. Women and men, regardless of gender identity, who are comfortable sharing the facilities with persons of the opposite sex can use that space. Single-sex spaces, for men and women, must be retained.

If you, male or female, are distressed, discomfited or enraged by the notion that women have a right to assert their boundaries around who should have access to their sex-segregated spaces, please take the time to ask yourself why.

Wibbs

CroatoanCat wrote: »

If you, male or female, are distressed, discomfited or enraged by the notion that women have a right to assert their boundaries around who should have access to their sex-segregated spaces, please take the time to ask yourself why.

I'd say similar of male boundaries too CC. But apparently according to Seamus earlier on "personal comfort is not a valid reason for restricting the rights of others". Seems to depend on the people claiming discomfort of course.

The Rape of Lucretia

CroatoanCat wrote: »

A third, mixed-sex space is required. Women and men, regardless of gender identity, who are comfortable sharing the facilities with persons of the opposite sex can use that space.

Why is it required ? The world cant go around catering for the whims of every tiny minority, who decide they want something special for themselves. Where does it end ? Is the minute minority or individual going to pay or expect everyone else, who is happy to have male and female, and leave it at that, to pay for it ?

RWCNT

CroatoanCat wrote: »

Extraordinary. Toilets are segregated by sex for reasons of safety, privacy and dignity. Women campaigned for sex-specific toilet facilities not because they are prudes, heaven forfend, but on the basis that they are entitled to those facilities for reasons of safety, privacy and dignity.

There is very recent research to show that women are more at risk of male sexual violence in mixed-sex spaces. Women are entitled to assert their right to retain these spaces. If you are a women who is comfortable sharing such spaces with male-bodied people, that does not give you the right to hand over those spaces, hard fought for by women in previous generations, on behalf of all women.

A third, mixed-sex space is required. Women and men, regardless of gender identity, who are comfortable sharing the facilities with persons of the opposite sex can use that space. Single-sex spaces, for men and women, must be retained.

If you, male or female, are distressed, discomfited or enraged by the notion that women have a right to assert their boundaries around who should have access to their sex-segregated spaces, please take the time to ask yourself why.

Any sources for your claim that women campaigned for same sex toilets on those grounds? I looked into the history of the whole idea a while ago and was surprised at how complicated the politics behind it were.

Good article about the UK here: https://www.historic-uk.com/CultureUK/History-of-Womens-Public-Toilets-in-Britain/

This one looks at the American side of things as well, also interesting: https://www.google.com/amp/s/theconversation.com/amp/how-did-public-bathrooms-get-to-be-separated-by-sex-in-the-first-place-59575

Also, any chance of a link to the research you refer to? I shared this earlier, which concludes that trans inclusive policies don't amount to an increased safety risk: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs13178-018-0335-z

Regardless of the conclusion of that study, I have to agree that the statement "Women are more at risk of male sexual violence in mixed-sex spaces" is of course correct. How are women going to get assaulted by men if there are no men around? But is the answer to segregate everything by gender?

As far as dignity and privacy go, I don't really follow you. Someone is going to hear you taking a cr@p. I can't think of any logical reason why it would matter what the person hearing you had between their legs.

I massively sympathise with the safety aspect however. Fear isn't usually something we can reason our way out of, especially if it's based on a past trauma. As far as I'm aware the main push for trans women wanting access to the women's toilets is for that very reason: fear of being assaulted should they use the men's room.

Im intruiged by your idea of a third mixed sex space, and I wonder how people would respond to that, how many would use it, how that number might shift over time etc. It would be hugely reliant on men learning to not piss all over the seat though.

BBFAN

WTF have toilets got to with the OP?

People are so obsessed with jacks like????

BBFAN

RWCNT wrote: »

Any sources for your claim that women campaigned for same sex toilets on those grounds? I looked into the history of the whole idea a while ago and was surprised at how complicated the politics behind it were.

Good article about the UK here: https://www.historic-uk.com/CultureUK/History-of-Womens-Public-Toilets-in-Britain/

This one looks at the American side of things as well, also interesting: https://www.google.com/amp/s/theconversation.com/amp/how-did-public-bathrooms-get-to-be-separated-by-sex-in-the-first-place-59575

Also, any chance of a link to the research you refer to? I shared this earlier, which concludes that trans inclusive policies don't amount to an increased safety risk: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs13178-018-0335-z

Regardless of the conclusion of that study, I have to agree that the statement "Women are more at risk of male sexual violence in mixed-sex spaces" is of course correct. How are women going to get assaulted by men if there are no men around? But is the answer to segregate everything by gender?

As far as dignity and privacy go, I don't really follow you. Someone is going to hear you taking a cr@p. I can't think of any logical reason why it would matter what the person hearing you had between their legs.

I massively sympathise with the safety aspect however. Fear isn't usually something we can reason our way out of, especially if it's based on a past trauma. As far as I'm aware the main push for trans women wanting access to the women's toilets is for that very reason: fear of being assaulted should they use the men's room.

Im intruiged by your idea of a third mixed sex space, and I wonder how people would respond to that, how many would use it, how that number might shift over time etc. It would be hugely reliant on men learning to not piss all over the seat though.

Again, all very interesting and well researched but nothing to do with OP.

Spanish Eyes

The entire Trans issue is being puppeted by someone or some entity.

It is of zero concern for most I would suggest apart from trans people. I have to be honest and say I am baffled as to where this issue came from all of a sudden.

Anyway just to mention I thoroughly enjoyed Boyne's book "The Hearts Invisible Furies". A brilliant read, and you will be sorry when you have finished it. OK just my opinion.

CroatoanCat

Wibbs wrote: »

I'd say similar of male boundaries too CC. But apparently according to Seamus earlier on "personal comfort is not a valid reason for restricting the rights of others". Seems to depend on the people claiming discomfort of course.

Agreed, Wibbs. It is indeed very interesting to observe who is deemed entitled to advocate for their own comfort and boundaries, and who is not.

Women have borne the brunt of the assault on their boundaries, their ability to name themselves, to advocate for themselves as a category of humans based in biological reality, but the extremist gender activists always were going to spread the net more widely.

The women who have been warning for years about the problems inherent in extremist trans ideology/post-modernist queer theory, at great personal cost, always predicted that what would eventually spark a wider debate would be:
- The assault on free speech and associated attempts to enforce coerced language;
- The threat to any semblance of a fair playing field for female athletes in women's sports at all levels;
- The attempts to label as transphobic any attempt to assert a sexual preference - indeed, a sexual ORIENTATION - that excludes trans-identified people. Young lesbians have been under consistent, insidious pressure in this regard, but the same tactics are increasingly being deployed against men, especially gay men; and
- The pressure, on medics and on parents worried out of their mind, to set confused, vulnerable and gender non-conforming children on a path to lifelong medication, infertility and sexual dysfunction, with no clear evidential support for such treatment effectively alleviating dysphoria and no rational basis for differentiating the children who are "just" likely to grow up gay, or who have suffered abuse, or who are autistic, or are struggling with gendered expectations.

Many transsexuals have expressed the same concerns, only to be dismissed as truscum. Unfortunately, it is they who will bear the brunt of any backlash from the hard right.

Extremist transgender activism is not a progressive movement. It is definitively not a feminist movement, in the true sense of that beleaguered, bastardised political movement.

The Rape of Lucretia

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

The entire Trans issue is being puppeted by someone or some entity. I have to be honest and say I am baffled as to where this issue came from all of a sudden.

The pharmaceutical industry, the plastic surgeons, and the psychiatrists.
There was no such thing as trans before that trio saw a new market opening.

RWCNT

BBFAN wrote: »

Again, all very interesting and well researched but nothing to do with OP.

Haha, believe me, I wouldn't have steered the conversation this way myself. A charming gent by the name of punisher did on the 2nd or 3rd page. I just go with the flow. *flushing sound effect*

Spanish Eyes

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

The pharmaceutical industry, the plastic surgeons, and the psychiatrists.
There was no such thing as trans before that trio saw a new market opening.

I don't know if that's true, but you may be right.

However, transactivism has really taken hold now and I would love to know why. Is it power and control over the rest of us out of proportion to trans population numbers, I definitely think so.

But we are not allowed to say anything. Sinister things going on with Trans now I think. The whole issue just allows things to happen for fear of offending anyone or causing an explosion, and is there anything we can do to stop it? I'm talking sports, changing rooms etc. Don't mind gender mixed toilets as long as they are all cubicles.

TCM

Negative Waves wrote:

I get home about 10 minutes before he’s due to arrive and get the place ready. 9.55 comes- no sign. 15 minutes go by, 30 minutes, 45 minutes. After an hour I left to go back to work, texting the engineer to thank him for wasting my morning. Arrived back in work 2 hours after I left for nothing except an absolute waste of time. I specifically texted the engineer to avoid this situation.

krankykitty wrote:

People have read the book (to review it), have summarised it and have come to the conclusion that yes, the book lacks research

Who are these people?

TCM

krankykitty wrote:

Nope. They weren't looking for praise, just not to be portrayed in damaging and incorrect stereoypes

Can you enlighten me as to what these stereotypes are please?

NewbridgeIR

It's an angry place. I see that I am now blocked by one of the shrillest of sniveling lefties, despite having never interacted with him. I must have *liked* the wrong tweet.

The Rape of Lucretia

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

But we are not allowed to say anything.

We certainly can call it out for the nonsense that it is.
Hopefully that tiny minority wakes up and realises the mistake. It has the characteristic of a cult I think. Scientology or something. And people under its spell are very tenacious at trying to shutdown people calling it out. I think on one deep level, they do indeed know that they have gone down a totally garbled path based on nothing and leading nowhere. And when they hear criticism of it, there is a sliver of light that they see also, but are too committed to the cult, cannot leave it, and so become irrationally defensive rather than embrace their mistake.

TCM

valoren wrote:

Remember the film The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas? He wrote the novel.

He should never have written that novel, as he was never in a concentration camp. Actually, if one follows this argument to its natural conclusion only autobiographical novels should ever be written.

Spanish Eyes

Why do trans need so much validation? Just get on with it privately. No one cares really.

But the radicals do not seem to do it quietly and privately do they?

I am sure some outside the Movement do just that, and are fine with it, but always wondered about the vocal crowd.

Spanish Eyes

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

We certainly can call it out for the nonsense that it is.
Hopefully that tiny minority wakes up and realises the mistake. It has the characteristic of a cult I think. Scientology or something. And people under its spell are very tenacious at trying to shutdown people calling it out. I think on one deep level, they do indeed know that they have gone down a totally garbled path based on nothing and leading nowhere. And when they hear criticism of it, there is a sliver of light that they see also, but are too committed to the cult, cannot leave it, and so become irrationally defensive rather than embrace their mistake.

The real issue though, is that Trans seem to seek to make Non Trans the enemy. So unnecessary really when you think about it. Trans should not ever need a movement behind them. Most people don't care as long as they do not present as female (which is the big issue really) when they are actually male and invade female spaces.

Women have been subjected to so much up to now. This is just ridiculous IMV.

Sinister ain't the word for this sudden movement re Trans.

AndrewJRenko

cloudatlas wrote: »

If you are a woman and you are being harassed or receiving unwanted attention then the female bathrooms is like a sanctuary to escape that

Unless of course, the aggressor follows you into the bathroom.

Is there some magic forcefield that keeps aggressors out of bathrooms?

Gimme A Pound

NewbridgeIR wrote: »

It's an angry place. I see that I am now blocked by one of the shrillest of sniveling lefties, despite having never interacted with him. I must have *liked* the wrong tweet.

Look at this misandric sh1t and all the support it gets:

https://twitter.com/MaxHomo/status/996724431908147206?s=19

Absolutely despicable. So would they like to inflict that punishment on their fathers/brothers/uncles/grandfathers/male cousins? :rolleyes:

RWCNT

Gibson Lazy Pita wrote: »

Look at this misandric sh1t and all the support it gets:

https://twitter.com/MaxHomo/status/996724431908147206?s=19

Absolutely despicable. So would they like to inflict that punishment on their fathers/brothers/uncles/grandfathers/male cousins? :rolleyes:

B0jangles

Zorya wrote: »

Cis is being used as a qualifier, to break up or limit the definition of something that cannot be broken up or limited, it is not being used as a descriptor.

Black or tall or strong or straight or gay would be descriptive. Cis and trans seek to qualify/limit what is fundamentally a state that cannot be qualified - the state of being man, the state of being woman. It seeks to create new classifications/divisions/categories of what is by its nature an indivisible state.

I cannot explain this exactly in words, sorry.

I dunno, this sounds an awful lot like a sort post-rationalization dressed up in philosophical-like language.

Zorya

B0jangles wrote: »

I dunno, this sounds an awful lot like a sort post-rationalization dressed up in philosophical-like language.

Hahah Accepted. I am stuggling to put it in words because, yes, I guess the idea relates to neo-Platonic thought about such things as fundamentals and essences.
But bascially I hold with the underlying idea.

Woman is woman. She can be described with adjectives. But the category of woman cannot be divided into Cis and Trans like the branching of a family tree.

The person born male can call themselves a transwoman, after identifying as such, or after hormones, after surgery etc. But they cannot qualify the existent category of all woman by referring to biological females as ''cis'', thus attempting to create a sub-category of what is in truth an undivided reality.

It is simply untrue. Biologically.


Likewise man is man. Etc.

I've made it worse, I know. Aw well. :pac: :pac:

Wibbs

RWCNT wrote: »

You do realise that some of the worst misogyny that sprung up back in the bad old days was "defended" in the same way? Women, eh? Poor dears, no sense of humour, probably hormonal, usually whining about nothing etc. Still a joke?

Zorya

Gibson Lazy Pita wrote: »

Look at this misandric sh1t and all the support it gets:

https://twitter.com/MaxHomo/status/996724431908147206?s=19

Absolutely despicable. So would they like to inflict that punishment on their fathers/brothers/uncles/grandfathers/male cousins? :rolleyes:

Hahaha!could not figure out who that guy was, wondered if by any chance he was the poseurish lad married to that DJ Louise something or other, so I clicked to check and lo and behold I am blocked! Must be the demonic company I keep.

(Is he Louise's husband?)

(Anyways he sounds like a bit of a wanker...I'm not missing much)

B0jangles

Zorya wrote: »

Hahah Accepted. I am stuggling to put it in words because, yes, I guess the idea relates to neo-Platonic thought about such things as fundamentals and essences.
But bascially I hold with the underlying idea.

Woman is woman. She can be described with adjectives. But the category of woman cannot be divided into Cis and Trans like the branching of a family tree.

The person born male can call themselves a transwoman, after identifying as such, or after hormones, after surgery etc. But they cannot qualify the existent category of all woman by referring to biological females as ''cis'', thus attempting to create a sub-category of what is in truth an undivided reality.

It is simply untrue. Biologically.


Likewise man is man. Etc.

I've made it worse, I know. Aw well. :pac: :pac:

Again, this is appears to be trying to overlay a neat and tidy framework of concepts over the undeniably messy, irregular and almost infinitely variable reality of biological reality. Many people find it more satisfying to deal in pure philosophical concepts because they provide such a framework but it's still only another way of viewing reality, not automatically an exceptionally accurate or informative one.

Zorya

B0jangles wrote: »

Again, this is appears to be trying to overlay a neat and tidy framework of concepts over the undeniably messy, irregular and almost infinitely variable reality of biological reality. Many people find it more satisfying to deal in pure philosophical concepts because they provide such a framework but it's still only another way of viewing reality, not automatically an exceptionally accurate or informative one.

I disagree completely.
Biology is actually not messy or variable. The study of it is a science. Empirical. Provable. Reliable. Predictable. Knowable.

There are irregularities but the anomalies do not undermine the overall regularity of science. The categories of humans - man and woman - are not infinitely variable. They are predictable, scientific reality.

The fields of gender theory studies which claim to be social 'sciences' are the ones attempting to impose messy and irregular on what is in reality regular and predictable, and they are as a result insanely inaccurate and prone to political influence.

Neo-platonism or many older forms of philosophical thought, are exceptionally rigorous, that is what they are known for.

RWCNT

Wibbs wrote: »

You do realise that some of the worst misogyny that sprung up back in the bad old days was "defended" in the same way? Women, eh? Poor dears, no sense of humour, probably hormonal, usually whining about nothing etc. Still a joke?

Yeah, sure.

It's still a joke. Made by a man.

B0jangles

Zorya wrote: »

I disagree completely.
Biology is actually not messy or variable. The study of it is a science. Empirical. Provable. Reliable. Predictable. Knowable.

There are irregularities but the anomalies do not undermine the overall regularity of science. The categories of humans - man and woman - are not infinitely variable. They are predictable, scientific reality.

The fields of gender theory studies which claim to be social 'sciences' are the ones attempting to impose messy and irregular on what is in reality regular and predictable, and they are as a result insanely inaccurate and prone to political influence.

Neo-platonism or many older forms of philosophical thought, are exceptionally rigorous, that is what they are known for.

In the macro sense biology is largely predictable. On the individual level, the variations are infinite - mostly tiny variations, but they ar still variations. We do not live our lives on the macro level, we live on the micro.



Most trans people want to live quiet, ordinary lives - they should not be endlessly forced to defend their right to simply publically exist because some people have objections to the effect such recognition has on their own philosophical framework. Philosophy is a tool, not a religion.

Zorya

B0jangles wrote: »

Most trans people want to live quiet, ordinary lives .

I completely agree. Have always defended the right of the individual to the dignity of their existence. Most trans people people want to get on with their lives. Many loathe the gender battles that are being played out in their names. It must be horrible for them. I have read quite a lot around the area and very many mature and notable trans people are aghast at trans activism.

Because trans activism is largely made up of very noisy intolerant ideologues promoting unscientific, political theories which are leading to unthinkable irremediable damage being done at the present time to vulnerable and impressionable sections of our society.

As mean as it makes me appear I will speak out against this violence and suffering.

B0jangles

Zorya wrote: »

I completely agree. Have always defended the right of the individual to the dignity of their existence. Most trans people people want to get on with their lives. Many loathe the gender battles that are being played out in their names. It must be horrible for them. I have read quite a lot around the area and very many mature and notable trans people are aghast at trans activism.

Because trans activism is largely made up of very noisy intolerant ideologues promoting unscientific, political theories which are leading to unthinkable irremediable damage being done at the present time to vulnerable and impressionable sections of our society.

As mean as it makes me appear I will speak out against this violence and suffering.

You are entitled to your opinion of course, but it's sounds an awful lot like the same sort of slippery-slope fearmongering that was so prevalent when gay people were fighting for their rights, and when women were fighting for theirs. I know there were plenty of people who were very vocally opposed to those rights being granted who equally could cite gay people they knew, women they knew who were opposed to this divisive and dangerous battle for equality.