The Pushback against Leftism

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119722163#Comment_119722163

Not every minority movement can be hijacked and compared to the gay rights movement.

They have no similarity whatsoever.

Gay rights is about homosexuality and nothing more.

In some respects trans rights actually undermines gay rights because lesbians are being told they are transphobic if they refuse to date trans women (who may or may not have a penis).

Therefore whilst you portray this as similar, the trans issue has undermined gay rights more than anything else in recent years.

Shoog

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119722203#Comment_119722203

Thats a wild accusation given the general rising acceptance of gay rights, but its not the attack I was refering to - what I was refering to is the position you dare not name for fear of a thread ban.

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119722203#Comment_119722203

Not seeing how that "undermines gay rights"

They have no similarity whatsoever

They have many similarities so this throwaway line if anything, undermines your post.

km991148

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119722203#Comment_119722203

Still to meet a real life lesbian that has encountered such a situation. In fact haven't even read about such scenarios outside of certain publications.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119722253#Comment_119722253

If a lesbian refuses to date a trans woman, do you consider the lesbian to be bigoted and transphobic?

Shoog

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119722277#Comment_119722277

I consider them to be following their own preferences and there really isn't any reason for condemnation for doing that. But lets see some examples of such attacks please.

km991148

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119722277#Comment_119722277

Yawn.. If someone doesn't want dick then they are entitled to not want dick. That's fair. If you blanket refuse to date based on trans status alone then that would technically be transphobic, yeah but that's not exclusive to lesbians. It's also no problem, we can all have preferences. I don't generally find Asian people attractive but I wouldn't blanket judge anyone on race until I met them / got to know them. This stuff really isn't hard.

Still haven't met a lesbian that's faces persecution over this (or any such difficulties actually). Actually the most common complaint from gay women I know, is as usual, from straight men that don't take no as an answer. Of course as someone that cares so much about women and lesbians, I'm sure you have posted many times about your outrage on this and what you do to stop it.

@km991148

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119722292#Comment_119722292

Well I think it's interesting how you and @km991148 have opposing views on this, as one side considers it transphobic and the other side doesn't.

km991148

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119722352#Comment_119722352

As usual, the nuance is lost on you, isn't it?

I'd be gutted if I were in this position.

Shoog

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119722352#Comment_119722352

Its not really an issue - we both accept the women's choice in this matter. People can have preferences and prejudice and still be generally nice.

km991148

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119722352#Comment_119722352

And no, they are not opposing views, I said I believe people are allowed their choice and to further clarify I don't think people should be persecuted for having their preferences. And in my experience that's how most people roll too. Nice try though!

km991148

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119722394#Comment_119722394

Exactly. Besides it's just another example of something that doesn't *generally* seem to cause many problems (of course I expect individual examples to be given)..

Many more realistic and dangerous problems that women and lesbians face with.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119722394#Comment_119722394

But you really don't.

The other poster openly stated that lesbians who outwardly refuse to date trans women were transphobic.

Put another way I am a homosexual and therefore I am only interested in biological men. By the same logic, you would regard me as bigoted and transphobic because my pool of who to sleep with does not include people who were observed as female at birth.

If you cannot see how that tears homosexuality apart, there's not much more I can do.

So whilst on the surface you say you "accept" people's decision, in reality you consider that decision bigoted and transphobic. And therein lies the core of the problem.

km991148

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119722457#Comment_119722457

Ah behave now, this isn't the gotcha you think it is and far removed from reality. It's like you only read a subset of the words and try and shoehorn them into your own narrative. It's a very difficult way to have a conversation tbh.

Shoog

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119722457#Comment_119722457

Where have I called anyone in this latest digression transphobic or bigoted. Your making another straw man so you can appear to defeat it. I feel fairly certain that yours is a minority view among the homosexual community anyway. Its straw man on straw man with you.

The ironic thing is that my position freely accepts that you would prefer not to associate with trans men. Its to funny the contortions you attempt to make your point.

km991148

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119722523#Comment_119722523

He's talking about me. I said if you decide to exclude all trans people on the basis of them being trans then technically that would be transphobic.

But I also clearly stated people are of course allowed their choice (and gave the example of a pre op transwoman with a penis and a lesbian that doesn't want to sleep with someone with a dick).

I don't think generally people are being attacked over this, no matter how hard EH tries.

It's just another example if how a conversation is manipulated in a way that frames conversation in a very narrow and unrealistic basis that manages to avoid the realities of the situation.

Posters behaving in such a way would do well to get out in the real world and would soon learn that there is not so much to worry about... Assuming there is no malevolence in their posting (as a lot if the time I believe much of the rhetoric about here is just noise and distraction and there is no real will to solve real problems or care about women's rights or protections.. certainly not the degree many claim...).

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119722583#Comment_119722583

We could go back and forth on this. At the end of the day, we both know each other's positions - and that's fine.

I think the viewing public, who read the threads and so on but who don't get involved, are far more likely to agree with my perspective. Of course, these days many people are afraid to speak their mind on this subject because of the genuine fear of being silenced or censored in some way. It's not an empty threat.

I, however, refuse to be intimidated to speak my mind on the matter. This is a question of free speech, too, and that is very much under attack by the far-left.

km991148

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119722827#Comment_119722827

I've no interest in any back and forth. I answered your basic (and tiresome) question. You demonstrated that you had no interest in having any kind of discussion outside your own unrealistic and narrow band and then you top it off by demonstrating your own bias if opinion before finally wheeling out the next clichéd trope.. the silent majority and the fear in speaking out.

You aren't being intimidated, you're allowed your opinion (or to parrot other people opinions and mistruths) and you can have your free speech. It's just that it's all a bit boring and predictable at this point. I wonder, what is the real goal here? What exactly are you trying to achieve with all this, because I certainly see no evidence of protecting women's rights (as you often claim) or trying to do anything towards building a better society (however you want to define it).

In fact, I see so many strawmen and regurgitated nonsense that I believe very little about what you claim or who you claim to be.

SafeSurfer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119665895#Comment_119665895

Not so sure about that. Governor DeSantis in Australia is very opposed to trans ideology and may very well be the next president of the USA.

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119722373#Comment_119722373

More avoided (or evaded even) than lost.

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119722905#Comment_119722905

Australia?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119722874#Comment_119722874

Well I'm clearly not on the front line of that particular battle.

But other women, such as Kellie-Jay Keen Minshull and Professor Kathleen Stock and Maya Forstater and Olympian Sharron Davies - and to some extent, JK Rowling - are very much defending their territory, so to speak. Some men have waded into the debate, such as Graham Linehan, but if it were left to the women to argue their case, that would be enough for me. We could also talk about prominent trans women such as Blair White who, with over 1 million subscribers on YouTube, cannot be considered a minority voice when it comes to these questions. In fact, there are many trans women out there who agree with my perspective rather than yours. You falsely frame the debate as "trans rights", but only for trans people who agree with you. Activists and actual trans people are two different communities. You know this.

I'm certainly not going to make their case, as I'm sure you're very familiar with it. You know what they are advocating, in terms of women's rights and so on. I have listened to all the above and have seldom heard an unreasonable point.

km991148

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119723059#Comment_119723059

That's because you seek out and only hear what you want to hear. It's why you continually try and bait people with the same silly questions. Over and over. It adds nothing, but I suspect that's exactly what you and others like you want.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119723101#Comment_119723101

Not at all.

It's about which side is more reasonable, offers the best points, backs up what they say with logic and evidence and reason - and, perhaps most importantly, who don't need resort to casual dismissals, abuse, censorship, and sarcastic refutations.

Summitatem

The lefties generally want to fund wasters at workers expense ..... Most folk are anti racism though.

km991148

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119723112#Comment_119723112

Hmm ok thanks, good to know where your mind is at.

Fwiw, I think few few if your point are "reasonable". I also don't see it as a competitive between two sides and who is "best" and I pity anyone that is stuck in that trap. I've offered you many opportunities to to talk about serious matters but each time you dismiss or ignore them to hone in on to either very specific points or you jump to massive generalisations.

No sarcasm, I mean this with sincerity. You add little but obfuscation and it remains my strong suspicion that's exactly what you want.

I do however get a chuckle out if your claims to redefine the conversation as one involving censorship. You have had, and continue to have plenty of airtime to spout whatever nonsense you want. To claim censorship is laughable.

kowloon

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119722163#Comment_119722163

Take their comments in isolation from whatever they claim to be.

AllForIt

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119722035#Comment_119722035

Flanagan steps one foot out of line and he gets the quick find some dirt on him treatment.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119723344#Comment_119723344

That's the standard tactic.

If a public figure steps out of line, another person - whether they be a relative or a friend or some sort of distant association - is dragged in to smear, by association, the public figure. In this case, a relative 75-100 years ago.

Then, the current public figure who "stepped out of line" can be dismissed.

It's literally the worst form of argument I've ever come across and would fail a philosophy 101 course in the first year of college. It's that bad.

It's not really an argument. It's a strategy; a strategy to ensure that the person who stepped out of line is never taken seriously, even if what they say or what they are concerned about is absolutely valid.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119722905#Comment_119722905

Well, the context was European countries and I'm assuming you meant Governor De Santis in Thailand?