4 year olds able to change gender in Scotland
Comments
-
I’ll be honest with you @AllForIt, I thought you were using the “lived reality” term facetiously in the first instance, like you weren’t actually being serious, but the “once again my lived reality is being rubbished” line has me wondering 😂 I mean, I didn’t take it seriously when you were asking me what would I know about it and I must have only read whatever on the Internet and all the rest of it. I didn’t take it seriously because, well, at the risk of stating the obvious, y’know - we’re hardly likely to have shared identical experiences really, nor is it likely we have been frequenting gay bars with the same motivations in mind, and apart from that there wasn’t anything I wanted to tell you on a public forum really, other than we were unlikely to have had the same experiences 😁
Oh I probably was as I'd never use that kind of lefty language off my own bat, but just there I used it to show the irony of people rubbishing my personal experiences when they would be the kinds of people who would defend ones 'lived reality'. Anyway I was grateful to see @Annasopra back me up there in regards how lesbians and gay men would naturally split when both occupied in a single venue. And yes you are stating the obvious because I'm certain there are some men's bars you absolutely would not have any experience of. I can't imagine you attending underwear night on some dimly lit Brixton avenue for example. So I think it's fair to say you have only a limited experience to that of mine in these regards.
You seemed to be somewhat riled with my 'conversation' with @[Deleted User] which only amounted to a handful of posts where we have to listen to you having a conversation with yourself for the whole of the thread. But why you were riled is because we were painting a picture of a reality that doesn't match your reality or is it more accurate to say your perception of reality. Well, wouldn't' be much of a discussion forum if we didn't have thing to disagree on I suppose.
If you take a look at the school curriculum in Scotland though, or hell, even here in Ireland, you won’t find any of the rich cultural and political history of, and I’m reluctant to use the term, but it’s essentially what you’re referring to as what’s missing - “gay culture”. It hardly exists any more because there’s no need for it, and what’s on display nowadays as Pride and how commercialized the identity has become would have both Rodwell and Milk doing 9,000 RPM in their graves if they saw it, never mind whatever they’d make of Stonewall, because they were all about maintaining their own separate identity and culture and all the rest of it - separate, but equal.
There has to be a gay culture because gay people want to be with each other for obvious reasons. There is no obvious reason LGBT+ to be together. I recall when I complained here about a Limerick uni some years ago announcing they were to have designated LGBT+ student accommodation you weren't with me on that. I though it was a crazy idea even for only gay people who do wish to be together because then it would be like a matchmaking student accommodation. Bit distracting when you're supposed to be studying. A gay society where they would organize social events together would suffice. I think the decline of gay pride was as much of being about more than one topic i.e +, as the commercialism. It'll be Personalty Pride before long is my Titania McGrath like prediction.
I’m willing to bet you STILL don’t see the commonalities between the topics of conversation above in relation to people who are homosexual, and people who are transgender, and many of the of the same arguments which are commonly applied to try and deny that they are the entitled to equal status and participation in public life and an equal right to contribute to society.
Well we've been going around in circles on this one but I'm going to be perfectly clear. I totally get what discrimination means, it's not that difficult a concept. What I'm saying is that discrimination is discrimination and discrimination will always be similar because it's always the same thing and manifests in very similar ways. So overweight people may be discriminated against in employment as well as a gay person. But I have nothing in common with an overweight person because my waste is 32" and getting smaller currently. (important edit: from as big as 36 to 38 in the last year). I find loosing weigh easy, very easy actually, so I can't connect with an overweight person who says they find it so hard, they are just a big girl/boy, nobody understands me, etc. That's all alien to me. I hope that analogy makes sense.
Achieving equality has come at the price of meaning that people who are gay are regarded as being no different than anyone else - they’re parents, they’re responsible citizens with actual jobs, they’re your family, friends and neighbours, no longer secluded off on the margins of civilised society, they even live in the nice parts of town 😳
Yeah but the problem is though if one is going to say they are both genders at the same time or no gender at all - that is exactly saying you are different from everyone else. Being gay is an utterly trivial thing, it's just a personal preference. But saying you are different to everyone else is alien to me to and the fact I'm gay doesn't make the concept of gender fluidity any less alien to me because as you rightly pointed out I am the same as everyone else so why would I think any differently than the majority.
Now I don't think I said your links are irrelevant and I'll have a gawp at the ones you posted there when I've a chance, I just said they were a bit distracting or that's what I meant anyway. And when you stick loads of points in one post it's a bit of a chore to reply to you, but having said that, I wouldn't' have you any other way.
Post edited by AllForIt on2 -
All it means is that your imagination is doing all the work in that scenario - you can’t imagine it so it didn’t happen, which is the impression I prefer people have of me tbh, rather than any knowledge of a well spent youth when I too was a rather svelte 32 inch waist, and not the rather rotund 44 inch waist I am now 😂
Ahh I wasn’t riled at all, I thought it was gas the way ye were going on, that’s all, and that’s why I said it reminded me of two ould biddys - that was MY imagination doing all the work. I don’t imagine either of you are ACTUALLY an ould biddy. The similarities were there is all. Very much in the same way that there are similarities between people who share similar political outlooks even though they are sexually attracted to the same, or opposite sex of themselves. It was Mary Robinson and Mary McAleese for example who joined David Norris in founding the Irish Gay Rights Movement - they moved in the same social circles, and later the two ladies became President of Ireland whereas, well, we all know what happened with David Norris’ bid for President.
The reasons they would all have wanted to hang out together are obvious - they shared similar interests in politics, literature, human rights and activism. That’s one of the reasons I’m reluctant to use the term “gay culture”, because it implies that there’s nothing more to it than just sex, and as far as I was always concerned - sex is just one of humans almost universal primitive instincts, I’d struggle to see anything uniquely cultural or learned about it. It’s like suggesting there is such a thing as “breathing culture”.
It’s really not saying they’re any different from anyone else. Really like, I’ve yet to meet anyone who doesn’t have a funky idea or two about something or other. Their ideas aren’t nearly as unique or special as the person thinks they are. Meet enough people and you’ll hear the same ideas over and over again from people who imagine their idea is unique. It’s like the way you’re saying that for you being gay is a trivial thing, and yet at the same time you’re saying there needs to be a culture for it. I’m not arguing the point, I’m just saying it’s not the first time I’ve heard it. It doesn’t really make any sense to me, and it’s not important enough to me to go away and think about it. “You do you!” kinda thing, and that’s the same as I’d say to anyone who told me they were infinite genders and none. I’m just like “Fine” 😒
And that’s the same way I see the ideas of having this stuff on the curriculum going - it’s not the downfall of society if anyone is exposed to ideas which are new to them, that idea is founded upon the beliefs of those people who hold it - they’re so insecure in their own beliefs that they don’t want anyone to be exposed to anything which forces them to challenge their beliefs, because tht would be “confusing”, especially for children of course, like they are even remotely primarily concerned about children’s welfare, and not at all the idea that their own ideas about other people who are different from them in some way might be shown up for the bullshìt that they are! What you’re suggesting is that what you need is an echo chamber, not a culture.
1 -
The reasons they would all have wanted to hang out together are obvious - they shared similar interests in politics, literature, human rights and activism. That’s one of the reasons I’m reluctant to use the term “gay culture”, because it implies that there’s nothing more to it than just sex, and as far as I was always concerned - sex is just one of humans almost universal primitive instincts, I’d struggle to see anything uniquely cultural or learned about it. It’s like suggesting there is such a thing as “breathing culture”.
It’s like the way you’re saying that for you being gay is a trivial thing, and yet at the same time you’re saying there needs to be a culture for it.
No, if you have a distinct societal grouping of people with common needs and interests, that is motivated by both sexual and relationship/friendship building, there is naturally going to derive from that a culture.
The culture part and what it looks like is unimportant. I meant gay is trivial in the grand scheme of things in terms of how (little) different a gay scene/culture is - distinct from the vast majority of the heterosexual cis-gendered social scene.
We (gays) have a distinct social scene, usually only in cities but are just exactly the same as wider heterosexual society, hardly dissimilar from all the late night heterosexual dives in towns all across Ireland that are driven by the same reasons a gay nightlife scene is.
The heterosexual pub scene in Ireland is just that; I don't know how heterosexual people would even meet a partner if there was no social scene to facilitate that and since there is you could call that a heterosexual Irish Social Culture, an Irish pub scene culture even. So I don't accept your inference of a contradiction in what I said.
And that’s the same way I see the ideas of having this stuff on the curriculum going - it’s not the downfall of society if anyone is exposed to ideas which are new to them, that idea is founded upon the beliefs of those people who hold it - they’re so insecure in their own beliefs that they don’t want anyone to be exposed to anything which forces them to challenge their beliefs, because tht would be “confusing”, especially for children of course, like they are even remotely primarily concerned about children’s welfare, and not at all the idea that their own ideas about other people who are different from them in some way might be shown up for the bullshìt that they are! What you’re suggesting is that what you need is an echo chamber, not a culture.
In respect of gender fluid and non-binary, that IS a massive shift in thinking about what we are, imo. You talk about it as if it's just some triviality. I'd say otherwise.
I've heard a lot of the the TRA's say (as distinct from actual trans people), promote the idea that 'one should be able to be who they want to be". I fundamentally disagree with that. Not only do I think gender fluid and non-binary should not be considered a legitimate trait in law, that is as valid as a man or a woman, but I think the complete opposite; I think it should be ILLEGAL to not declare yourself as either male or female in a legal respect. What you go by personally is your own business, like a drag queen for example. Controversial eh.
And so, I don't know how any government (Scottish) can give guidance on non-binary identity but at the same time not accept that identity in law as a valid gender identity. If they infer via school guidance they consider such identities valid identity's then they'll have to update birth certificates, census papers, drivers licenses and all that. I think they actually haven't got a clue what their position is on all this.
1 -
There has to be a gay culture because gay people want to be with each other for obvious reasons. There is no obvious reason LGBT+ to be together. I recall when I complained here about a Limerick uni some years ago announcing they were to have designated LGBT+ student accommodation you weren't with me on that. I though it was a crazy idea even for only gay people who do wish to be together because then it would be like a matchmaking student accommodation. Bit distracting when you're supposed to be studying. A gay society where they would organize social events together would suffice. I think the decline of gay pride was as much of being about more than one topic i.e +, as the commercialism. It'll be Personalty Pride before long is my Titania McGrath like prediction.
Why does there have to be an "obvious" reason for a group to "want to be with each other" for there to be a culture.
We can all make up reasons that tie a community together and claim that it's "obvious" this will lead to a culture. I can just claim that trans people face similar oppressions to what gay people have faced and claim it's obvious.
It seems to me that whether a culture or community exists or is valid is not for someone that sees themselves as outside that community to judge.
If a significant number of gay and trans people see themselves as part of an inclusive community then it exists and is valid.
Your standards for community and culture are completely subjective. So subjective as to be nonsensical really.
If the standard for judging whether there is a natural culture is that people want to meet people like them then one could claim it's obvious that the steroid taking party gays are a culture (which isn't a bad claim btw) and that they are not part of the general gay community because it's not obvious that they'd want to engage with other gay people (which would be quite a silly claim).
So do we all get to judge whether a community exists or not by our own ideas of obviousness?
0 -
I think what all this alludes to is macro cultures vs micro cultures.
Panti Bliss might very well have transgender people on his phone, as he bragged about via a tweet, but he is famous and therefore his life is more part of a micro culture than a macro one.
So in heterosexual culture you have social classes and political classes, and the exact same applies to the gay demographic. If you are good with Excel, you can show all this on boring pie charts or bar charts.
If a significant number of gay and trans people see themselves as part of an inclusive community then it exists and is valid.
Well it all depends on what significant means. Excell would sort that one visually.
Your standards for community and culture are completely subjective. So subjective as to be nonsensical really.
As an argument it's not a good one because you are countering my subjective arguments with a subjective argument. Unless you have an Excell spreadsheet that proves your point.
If the standard for judging whether there is a natural culture is that people want to meet people like them then one could claim it's obvious that the steroid taking party gays are a culture (which isn't a bad claim btw) and that they are not part of the general gay community because it's not obvious that they'd want to engage with other gay people (which would be quite a silly claim).
Well this is just the macro vs micro argument again. The steroid gay community is just a sub-culture of the gay culture. And on an Excell spreadsheet the gay steroid community is part of the heterosexual steroid community in a wider community. Interconnected, sure.
So do we all get to judge whether a community exists or not by our own ideas of obviousness?
Well you should apply that idea to what you yourself are claiming.
edit: So all i'm saying is that any LGBT+ society that exists, and I have no personal experience of that, is a micro culture (niche) within the macro gay society.
Post edited by AllForIt on1 -
Advertisement
-
@AllForIt I understand what you’re saying, you’re basically describing a community, and from your point of view it’s the gay community, with your own culture and behaviours and beliefs and all the rest of it, but what I don’t understand, is how then you claim you don’t understand the whole concept behind the LGBT community? Isn’t it just a community by another name? They too have their own culture and behaviours and beliefs and all the rest of it. What you’re describing isn’t by any means unique, nor does it explain why one is legitimate and the other isn’t.
With respect to the gender fluid and non-binary stuff, it may well be a massive shift in thinking to you, and I get that, and you can’t be compelled to make that massive shift, so I wouldn’t stress over it. For me, well, I believe in the Holy Trinity so the idea of three people in one? Really not the stretch you think it is, let alone the idea of there being over 3,000 religions and about as many deities to boot!
What you’re suggesting isn’t the least bit controversial, it’s no different than the idea of compelled speech and behaviour being foisted upon others in violation of their fundamental human rights - being forced to pretend to be something they’re not. It would be like saying it’s not illegal to be gay, and also introduce legislation to make homosexual acts illegal. I think we tried that before, it didn’t work out so well for your community.
0 -
I think what all this alludes to is macro cultures vs micro cultures.
Panti Bliss might very well have transgender people on his phone, as he bragged about via a tweet, but he is famous and therefore his life is more part of a micro culture than a macro one.
The Panti example Makes zero sense. You are saying Panti is in a microculture based on their fame. That would make that a celebrity microculture. Trans people are not celebrities so they are not part of that celebrity microculture.
Therefore the reason Panti socialises with trans people can't be because they are part of the same microculture that most gay people are not a part of.
So in heterosexual culture you have social classes and political classes, and the exact same applies to the gay demographic. If you are good with Excel, you can show all this on boring pie charts or bar charts.
You don't have social and political classes as part of heterosexual culture. Those social and political classes include gay people. You don't have separate working class cultures of gay people and straight people. Unless you reduce the meaning of cultures to any group of people who share a trait but may not have much in common otherwise. In which case it's very easy to lump in L G B and T together which would prove there's an LGBT community.
Well it all depends on what significant means. Excell would sort that one visually.
Well Excel wouldn't sort it for you. Firstly significant isn't something that you can put numbers on. It's like saying Excel could tell you whether MANY people like apples. Excel might say 2 million people like apples and two people could disagree whether that is "many" or not.
As an argument it's not a good one because you are countering my subjective arguments with a subjective argument. Unless you have an Excell spreadsheet that proves your point.
I don't get the focus on excel spreadsheets. That wouldn't prove anything either way. Do you have a spreadsheet that shows an LGBT community doesn't exist?
I think it's pretty obtuse to pretend that the numbers who see themselves as part of an inclusive LGBT community aren't significant.
Yes the word significant is fuzzy and subjective but we are being subjective in two very different ways.
I am saying that a community exists if there is a significant number of people who see themselves as part of that community. Yes there is subjectivity around the word significant and that means there is no 100% clear line to decide what a community is and what it isn't. But a community is a fuzzy thing. It's hard to define any community. Does the Irish community include all people living here or just people born here? What about foreign born citizens etc. We shouldn't expect an algorithmic precise idea of community.
The subjectivity in your argument is not about reflecting the natural fuzziness of definong communities. The subjectivity is that you think there's a clear answer and it just happens to be your answer.
Two different subjective arguments. I'm saying there's inherent subjectivity and I don't have all the answers.
You are saying you have all the answers.
Well this is just the macro vs micro argument again. The steroid gay community is just a sub-culture of the gay culture. And on an Excell spreadsheet the gay steroid community is part of the heterosexual steroid community in a wider community. Interconnected, sure.
And the gay community (do you mean just men or both men and women) is a sub-culture of the LGBT community.
You could show it on an Excel spreadsheet which seems to be your new criteria for whether something qualifies as a community.
edit: So all i'm saying is that any LGBT+ society that exists, and I have no personal experience of that, is a micro culture (niche) within the macro gay society.
Other way round. Gay society/culture/community is a microculture of the wider LGBT community.
0 -
History wont look kindly on this whole palava
A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer
1 -
History itself doesn’t have the capacity to form an opinion either way, it’s whoever is recording history has the capacity to present it according to whatever narrative suits their purposes. Already there are people of all different opinions putting their own spin on that particular case.
The facts of the case indicate that her employers were at fault for not adhering to proper disciplinary procedures, which is why she won her case. The judgement or the case offer nothing to the discussion about how best to treat children experiencing gender dysphoria, but that didn’t stop Helen Webberley from using the same case to present a narrative which suits her purposes -
The guidelines for schools in Scotland are about recognition of the legal rights of children, accommodating social transition for children who are transgender. Historically this approach has been more beneficial in terms of children’s overall health and welfare than attempting to undermine children’s right to their identity -
1 -
Well it's easy to seen why you don't understand if you think the gay demographic has a belief system that underpins it. That's totally ridiculous. You'd hardly call something as simple as people being sexually attracted to their own sex as a belief system. That's like saying the demographic of people who love chocolate is a belief system.
As for a concept of an LGBT+ demographic, I'll explain exactly why I have a problem with it.
And that is when Stonewall UK give guidance to the Scottish state, on the back of themselves being originally an LGB advocacy charity, the Scottish government will implement their proposals, without thought, as if LGB and + are exactly the same kind of thing. And I'm arguing, as I have consistently argued, they are not the same kind of thing at all. And that is why I've brought up the subject that there is no such thing as an lgbt+ community.
And that point has always been my angle on this, a major one anyway.
So what I'm accusing the Scottish government of doing, is giving no thought to the 'expert's guidance', but just thinking of homosexuality as the same kinda thing as gender fluidity, under a 'rainbow flag' idea, but in reality there is no such connection between homosexuality and gender fluidity at all. So they haven't thought about it and are just championing the rainbow flag thing for Lefty political reasons.
Furthermore, it is clearly working. And that is why the tra's argue all the time that there is such thing as a lgbt+ community, because they are getting results from it, as seen by the Scottish state's guidance. I think it wouldn't happen in a million years that the Scottish government would talk about gender fluid pronouns if it weren't for the gay rights movement, which the + activists are leaching off.
2 -
Advertisement
-
I don’t think the gay demographic has any particular belief system that underpins it, I know that there’s a particular set of beliefs that gay men have amongst themselves that they believe about themselves and about other people, such as the idea that there’s something unique about being gay that anyone who isn’t gay wouldn’t understand. Even that idea itself isn’t unique to gay men, or the gay demographic, if you like.
I think in any case anyway you overestimate the influence of gay rights groups like Stonewall UK who were originally only concerned with gay and lesbian rights (not sure when they became concerned about the B tbh) and overturning prop. 28 in the UK. They were formed FROM a bunch of Lefties so it’s no surprise in fairness that the SNP, who are also Lefties, would share their ideas in common as socialist activists, and not all SNP members feel that way, but that doesn’t mean the SNP isn’t the SNP!
Trans lobby groups were doing just fine on their own and would still be doing just fine on their own had Stonewall under Ruth Hunt not reached out to them in 2015 to see could she broker a deal to expand the Stonewall organisation. She reached out to a lot of different communities hoping to increase the influence of Stonewall within those communities which had no love lost for Stonewall, contrary to this idea that anyone was leeching off the gay rights movement - each of these organisations and groups existed on their own and formed on their own, separate from Stonewall, but they all shared similar political ideas, beliefs, objectives, aims and experiences in common, the idea that they were being oppressed and fighting for the same thing - equality. That’s where the idea of an LGBT community comes from, and why Stonewall decided to incorporate the T’s in it’s organisation, much to the dismay of some people already within the organisation and some people who supported the organisation who felt like you that the T’s didn’t belong (same way some of the original Stonewall organisers felt put out by the inclusion of the T’s).
It’s working because there is strength in numbers, and there were other organisations besides Stonewall who contributed to the Scottish guidelines, it lists them in the references section, not all transgender rights groups either, but organisations who campaign for children’s rights and organisations involved in education and so on. That’s why I’m suggesting that if you imagine it wouldn’t have happened without the gay rights movement you’d be mistaken, but I understand why you’d think that because you’re given to this idea of what would anyone else know who hasn’t been to a gay underpants party or stayed in their own separate groups in the back of the front lounge or wherever. And that’s not me being riled or anything else, it’s just again that you have some funky ideas and I’m the same - wouldn’t have you any other way either, if we couldn’t be straight with each other, pardon the pun 😂
Of course the Scottish Government would be talking about gender fluids and non-binary and all the rest of it because it was feminists who came up with the whole theory of intersectionality and that framework to describe oppression while being inclusive of everyone, and that’s why it was so easy for modern feminism to incorporate the T - they too saw an opportunity to latch onto the T, as opposed to what you’re suggesting, the other way round.
Do all these groups represent as Dave Chapelle puts it “the alphabet people”? Of course not, but what they’re representing is the idea that all people are equal. Doesn’t take a genius or any special knowledge that can only be gained through ‘being’ to know that people are different, but the point is that all people should be treated as equals regardless of their differences, and that’s where the idea of an LGBTQIA+ community comes from. I still don’t particularly care much for the acronym, nor do I share their political beliefs, but that doesn’t mean I don’t understand where they’re coming from or that I couldn’t know anything about them. I think that’s the whole point of them trying to educate people through schools from an early age - promoting their own ideology and trying to bring as many people as possible into their community isn’t exactly all that unique a concept.
Dave Chapelle’s take is fairly on the nose, from around the 6 minute mark on -
EDIT: NSFW
Post edited by One eyed Jack on1 -
"NewsForAll"..
I love a good oxymoron.
0 -
i dont get your point?
A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer
0 -
Really?
I mean, given the name of the Twitter account and the content of the tweets and their responses then I think it's a bit of a contradiction? I found it amusing.
0 -
again I dont understand, I dont know anything about the account I saw it as a retweet, are you suggesting the story isnt true?
A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer
0 -
I'm clearly doing no such thing.
You posted a quote from an account called "News For All" that clearly isn't, based upon what it tweets and what it allows in it's replies.
I'm laughing at the disingenuous naming of the account.
I assumed it was an account you are familiar with therefore you would appreciate the humour, but it's obviously lost.
Now, I'd be interested to know what it's (MMA) got to do with the guidance being issued to Scottish schools. You always seem to think there is something to do with clowns, but I think it's another confusion because I didn't see that in the guidance either.
0 -
I think I can read though your feigning ignorance of the English language and use of Idioms but my point was history will not be kind to society today that has parked basic common sense to humor an ideology especially in the case of the care of children or more social aspects of like basic fairness in sports
A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer
1 -
Yeah I understood your point. I just got lost when you went deep on trying to understand what an oxymoron was and the "News for all" account, which by all accounts seemed be be neither news or for all.
My feigned ignorance was perfectly fine I recon for someone that jumps straight to name calling.
We can't really talk about MMA or professional sports as this isn't s general gender thread.
Regarding your point, I disagree with your assertion. Things have changed a lot in the last 10 years and it doesn't seem to be causing the issues that people imagine amongst the incoming generation.
As for comments regarding child abuse.. well that's just a level of ignorance that I'd expect on some parts of the internet (I know that wasn't you that said that).
0 -
My problem with that take on things, is that gay rights, and all the people who took part in it in the early years - are presumed out and out Lefties. Certainly it was the Left political parties that listened to them and got results. No doubt about that.
But what is happening is there is a presumption that all people, lgbt+, are necessarily Lefties. And the Left are claiming them as their own nowadays, for the votes. They are building up a demographic to be naturally anti-conservative. And the problem with that is, one doesn't know their own mind or opinions about anything, but just vote Left, no matter what, because they share an identity with each other, which to me is just a trivial similarity.
Do young people these days know what far-left is? It certainly isn't about individual identity, that's for sure.
Of course the Scottish Government would be talking about gender fluids and non-binary and all the rest of it because it was feminists who came up with the whole theory of intersectionality and that framework to describe oppression while being inclusive of everyone, and that’s why it was so easy for modern feminism to incorporate the T - they too saw an opportunity to latch onto the T, as opposed to what you’re suggesting, the other way round.
Oh I thought modern feminism was full of TERF's, so I'm a bit sceptical they have accepted the T, idk. Seem unlikely to me.
Do all these groups represent as Dave Chapelle puts it “the alphabet people”? Of course not, but what they’re representing is the idea that all people are equal. Doesn’t take a genius or any special knowledge that can only be gained through ‘being’ to know that people are different, but the point is that all people should be treated as equals regardless of their differences, and that’s where the idea of an LGBTQIA+ community comes from. I still don’t particularly care much for the acronym, nor do I share their political beliefs, but that doesn’t mean I don’t understand where they’re coming from or that I couldn’t know anything about them. I think that’s the whole point of them trying to educate people through schools from an early age - promoting their own ideology and trying to bring as many people as possible into their community isn’t exactly all that unique a concept.
Well I suspect the reason you are not comfortable with the LGBTQIA+ acronym is precisely because of what I stated earlier, and that is that all those people are not a hive mind of lefties; that they are one-dimensional - whereas cis-gendered heterosexuals are not considered in this one dimensional way. Cis-gendered heterosexual's can be anyone from Obama to Trump, they are exactly the same in a one-dimensional sense, but of course they aren't at all. And the LGBT+ thing to me takes away one's individuality, as if everyone who identifies that way are all the same, carbon copies of each other.
Here's the Chappelle thing without the need for ID.
It's funny how this reviewer goes "Oh you can't say that". He's right of course because thanks to the Left there are things now you can't say. Chappelle says 'the gay community got upset over xxx", again, as if the 'gay community' is a hive mind. I personally love dark humour. Well I shouldn't say love it, I just ain't gonna go all righteous about it, and giggle along as well. It's funny how funny is most funny when it's offensive.
But I would disagree with Chappelle funny LGBT+ wagon scenario, because afaic, the G has already reached it's destination, so the 'we're all travelling in this car together' analogy doesn't hold. And I don't think we've ever really been in the same car in the first place. That's an idea some people are trying to portray that I've never been conformable with, because I've never seen it irl, other than in a Pride march, which is hardly significant.
1 -
I've no problem with this once the family are bankrolling it fully. If it's NHS funds not a single £ should go towards it.
0 -
Advertisement
-
I am beginning to believe that non-binary children are reacting, somewhat naturally, to an overly gendered world that has been created around them.
Clothes , toys, books, games, blankets, stationery…. Almost everything now is heavily gendered. Pink, princesses, dinosaurs, blue. You struggle to buy a pencil or a pencil case for children now, without making a clear statement about gender. This was not how the world was when I was growing up. It’s all so bloody binary.
Most people don’t fall into those artificial definitions that have been created. So I can perfectly easily understand how they now feel that this is what gender is, and how not fitting it makes them the opposite gender, or fluid, or on a spectrum.
Post edited by notAMember on2 -
-
NHS? Clearly you dont even know whats being discussed
It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.
Terry Pratchet
3 -
yeah - there is a problem with this topic and ignorance (and I am not having a pop here - I include myself in this statement).
Its vastly complicated, covers a lot (Trans in general I mean).
But this topic is some simple education guidance so the NHS will have nothing to do with it (Unless its been massively over-funded since this morning and they are now in a position to help other gov departments).
0 -
Sure now it's all go fund me now ,oh look I'm trans can you please pay for my expensive surgeries and cosmetic surgeries ....
Just be grateful that the HSE ended their contract with the taviststock clinic ,or we would seeing and hearing more of this
0 -
and the ignorance continues...!* also - what do you want - people to raise funds themselves or the HSE to pay?
Its simple - if people do a go fund me etc and you don't want to pay - then just don't?
*its still got nothing to do with the guidance issued to Scottish schools nor the NHS and certainly not the HSE!
2 -
Its vastly complicated, covers a lot (Trans in general I mean).
I'm not sure if any letters in these regards are 'vastly complicated'. If you are going to make an alphabet soup out of it, well maybe then it becomes unnecessarily vastly complicated, and perhaps being made vastly complicated intentionally.
I've been thinking about this "Trans umbrella" idea, and the more I think of it, the more it doesn't make any sense. It makes sense in a political sense, but in a human sense it make little sense. Not to elaborate too much on that, but when you consider that trans people say they are the opposite to their gender body, I don't see what that has to do with having no sense of gender at all, or flipping between genders, or genders not one of either male or female, because a transgender person will say they are either male or female, just like what a cis-gendered person would say. And typically they say it's nature gone wrong, some do anyway (otherwise why would you transition), but gender fluid and non-binary do not say it's nature gone wrong, they say it's just a fundamental characteristic of us humans that hitherto hasn't been acknowledged as a human trait. So In that respect I don't know what a truly trans person would have in common with someone who is gender fluid, outside of a common cause to be accepted.
I made the exact same point way back in this thread. So yes excellent point :D
I do think there is something in it, when you see parents do this 'gender reveal party' stuff, taking the gender of their kids so seriously, and styling them and their surroundings accordingly. I don't think it's 'so complicated' to see how a child would be able to recognize and reject (from age 4) being forced into gendered roles especially when it's being done so over zealously by some parents.
And the funny thing about that is: I thought we were supposed to be moving away from all this stereotypical male and female / masculine feminine stuff in the adult world, but it does't seem to be the case when it comes to children, rather the opposite. Do working class people do 'gender reveal parties', I doubt it, more a very middle class activity. I would have thought the middle classes would be the last type of people to engage in that kind of stuff but seemingly not, given they are more of the lefty variety these days.
I tell you something; apart from my sisters wore dresses and had ponytails, that was about the only gender differences in regards the way we were gender treated in my large family when I was growing up. My older sister was a 'Tom boy' and I did all the cooking and housework, and it just naturally fell like that. My parent's wouldn't have given a flying who did what when it came to house work and chores, indoors or outdoors, as long as it was done.
Post edited by AllForIt on1 -
Going a bit off-topic but my god that "Gender Reveal" stuff annoys the piss out of me. Both for the aspect that yourself and NotAMember refer to and just because it's yet another Americanized event that some people feel obligated to follow for some reason. Going back a few years you'd never have heard of a "Baby Shower" either - how many more events have to be attended now when someone you know gets pregnant?
I suppose it's just an excuse to get together and have the craic, but meh, Im a miserable prick and I don't like it.
3 -
Funnily enough, for all the fearmongering that all these ideas will “confuse” children, that’s providing they live that long 😳
Even the woman who originated the idea of the gender reveal since changed her thinking on the concept.
Jenna Karvunidis wrote yesterday, “Stop it. Stop having these stupid parties. For the love of God, stop burning things down to tell everyone about your kid’s penis. No one cares but you.
It was 116 degrees in Pasadena yesterday and this tool thought it would be smart to light a fire about his kid’s dick. Toxic masculinity is men thinking they need to explode something because simply enjoying a baby party is for sissies.”
Last year she went further on Facebook, explaining, “Plot twist! The baby from the original gender reveal party is a girl who wears suits.
“She says ‘she’ and ‘her’ and all of that, but you know she really goes outside gender norms.”
0 -
Advertisement
-
I think people don't realise that the.younger generation do actually see genders in a very different way then we did until recently.
things are much more fluid to them.
I was out last Saturday with my friends 26 year old daughter, who is bisexual, she is going out with an individual who is non binary. Her best friend, since school, is a gay man, who is also a drag queen. One of her other friends is a trans woman, waiting on her operation. they also have hetrosexuals in their group.
none of those things are unusual in their lives and groups.
2
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)