Talk

Advanced search

The most ridiculous demand from TRAs I have heard recently

(33 Posts)
TwatticusFinch Sun 20-Oct-19 09:29:30

There's a podcast that I like called By the Book. The hosts live by the rules of a different self-help book every couple of weeks. It's usually pretty amusing although the hosts are a bit too woke and will use the term "c*s" when describing women which I find offensive.

In ep 85 the book they were doing (The Body is Not an Apology) required them to appreciate lots of different types of people's bodies. So one of the hosts, Kristen, was in the park describing what she could see in front of her.

Look at that cute little guy walking slowly and deliberately with his tiny little dog. His dog looks just like him actually. And over there, those two runners together, they look really fit, like extremely so, like Olympians. And oh those women I don't know what they're doing it looks like some kind of cross-fit thing but they look very, very, very strong.

So completely inoffensive you would think, but no. In a follow-up episode ep 99 they said this:

Kristen: So a couple of people wrote into me a few weeks after that episode aired and they said they didn't like the scene in the episode where I was observing diverse bodies in the park. I'm not sure if you remember this but...
Jolenta: I do.
Kristen: Yeah I said things like "Look at those strong, fierce women exercising. Look at that older man walking at a fast pace. He walks so much faster than me." I don't know if you remember but I was saying things like that. So a couple people wrote in and said "Kristen, you should never call somebody a woman or a man unless they give you permission to do that. Just because somebody is female-presenting or male-presenting doesn't mean they identify as female or male. And so, please don't ever call somebody a woman or a man again unless they give you permission first." So that's something I've been keeping in my mind. So thank you folks who wrote in."

Ugh. WTF is this? She was talking about anonymous strangers and presumably out of their earshot but she might have misgendered them? She should have gone up to them and asked if they didn't mind her describing them as a "man"/"women" on the audio diary she was recording? And then this is something she's taking seriously and is going to try to do. I am sure that it comes from a place of wanting not to offend anyone and be supportive, but this is madness now. We need to say no to this idiocy.

BuffaloCauliflower Sun 20-Oct-19 09:33:08

Oh FFS. This is beyond ridiculous now. Are we allowed to call a cat a cat, or a dog a dog? A human female and a human male are biological facts!

MonsteraCheeseplant Sun 20-Oct-19 09:39:30

What amazes me most, is the try hard allies who unthinkingly accept such ridiculousness. Surely, surely they see that it's bollocks???

EverardDigby Sun 20-Oct-19 09:44:38

I gave up listening to this a while ago because of the wokeness (as a working class bisexual woman). I think it was at the point that they were talking about (and I paraphrase slightly) self-care being racist because a load of white women were doing it. My point was that blanketing something as all this or that invisiblised those of us that might not be privileged who were there doing these things but got over-looked. Of course there are structural inequalities, but we don't fall neatly into boxes as individuals. I got fed up of hearing about all the things my working class family is apparently too disadvantaged to do from two women in the media who clearly have more opportunities and choices than most of my family.

testing987654321 Sun 20-Oct-19 09:54:27

So how do they propose a person describing the people they can see in the park? It will lose so much information.

Look at that cute little person walking slowly and deliberately with a tiny little dog. The dog looks just like the person actually. And over there, those two runners together, they look really fit, like extremely so, like Olympians. And oh those people I don't know what they're doing it looks like some kind of cross-fit thing but they look very, very, very strong.

TwatticusFinch Sun 20-Oct-19 09:59:08

I think it was at the point that they were talking about (and I paraphrase slightly) self-care being racist because a load of white women were doing it.

Yeah, this frustrates me too. I sort of get the point that some books might tell you to do X to make you happy, but not everyone is going to be able to do X because of lack of money, lack of time due to caring responsibilities, lack of access due to disability etc. But then should we not have any suggestions of ways you can make yourself happier unless absolutely everyone can do it?

Eg I'm interested in reading the Nature Fix which they reviewed and is about the benefits of getting out into the country/camping etc. Realistically, I don't think I'll be able to put it into practice any time soon with as I have a baby, but that doesn't mean it's not valid advice for those who can, and one day I might be able to do it.

iklboo Sun 20-Oct-19 10:00:15

They're not going to be happy until everyone is referred to as 'a carbon-based life form'.

Mind you, that would probably offend someone who identifies as silicon based.

EverardDigby Sun 20-Oct-19 10:08:19

The Nature Fix was one that someone complained about where they said it was difficult for poor people to get out into the country (which it might be for some, and I get that there are issues about racism in rural areas too) but then "poor" people said hang on a minute, some of us live here and/or we are more likely to take a cheap camping break than go to a flash resort or a hotel in the city. I also think going on about it can also reinforce the message that "this is not for you" and "we're just pointing out yet again that you are disadvantaged".

TheProdigalKittensReturn Sun 20-Oct-19 10:08:51

You know, at a certain point the only rational response is "no, I am not going to do that".

kalinkafoxtrot45 Sun 20-Oct-19 10:10:54

This kind of idiocy needs to be rejected, not pandered to.

Justhadathought Sun 20-Oct-19 10:11:30

They're not going to be happy until everyone is referred to as 'a carbon-based life form'

But what about those who are formed out of glitter?

TheElementsSong Sun 20-Oct-19 10:15:45

Look at that cute little person walking slowly and deliberately with a tiny little dog.

So much wrong with this sentence. "Little/tiny" - you might have mis-sized them. "Slowly" - you might have mis-speeded them. "Dog/person" - you might have mis-speciesed them.

Do better!

<Kidding, BTW, in case it's not obvious>

kristallen Sun 20-Oct-19 10:16:43

* Look at that cute little person walking slowly and deliberately with a tiny little dog.*

Well lots of difficulties there.
1. How do we know that person identifies as little?
2. How do we know that person identifies as a person?
3. How do we know that person identify as cute?
4. How do we know that person walking slowly really is? Maybe they have a health problem and are walking as fast as they can?
5. How can we look at that dog and know it identifies as a dog? It could be a cockatoo or a zebra.

If we can't assume the biological markers of man or woman, then there's no only no point in pronouns, there's no point in other markers tall or short, old or young. We shouldn't refer to the person with light hair as blonde, nor use terms such as fat or thin.

Why are we only supposed to ignore sex markers but the rest of biology is fact?!

TheCountessofFitzdotterel Sun 20-Oct-19 10:17:09

The prevailing mode of people who claim to be on the side of social justice is negativity and picking holes in other people's more concrete or imaginative work, rather than bothering to make something themselves.
It's so easy to score points by pointing fingers and telling people they are being transphobic / racist etc. The thread about the knitting wars is all about this too.
I have less and less patience with it.
You can never win because they will always just make up new things to find fault with.

TheProdigalKittensReturn Sun 20-Oct-19 10:17:16

Also this proves that the more accommodating you try to be the more pressure TRAs will put you under, since they've already learned that you're easy to bully.

ArnoldWhatshisknickers Sun 20-Oct-19 10:18:19

You know, at a certain point the only rational response is "no, I am not going to do that".

This and indeed, this

This kind of idiocy needs to be rejected, not pandered to.

I'm going to go right ahead and continue to accurately describe people according to their sex, as determined and observed at birth, and give no consideration whatsoever to the vague possibility that they might be believers in disembodied gendered souls.

Karabair Sun 20-Oct-19 10:19:22

There must be other podcasts to listen to. Unless you’re doing a sociological study of misogyny and the erasure of women. In which case, carry on.

Aspley Sun 20-Oct-19 10:20:23

They can't even keep up with their own shite half the time. Recently a non-binary commentator misgendered Sam Smith twice during a BBC discussion show. Just yesterday the ever well meaning (!) mimmymum did the same about the person with the oversupply of contraceptive pills.
If the people who belief in this cack can't manage to keep up the illusion then people who don't care have no chance.

SuperMeerkat Sun 20-Oct-19 10:21:11

OMG!! Talk about removing the rights of the author. I refuse to refer to the gender of the trans person that they’ve decided on. A trans man will always be a woman. So there 😂

TheProdigalKittensReturn Sun 20-Oct-19 10:21:29

Also, 99%+ of people will "identify" as the sex they quite visibly are. So why should our entire way of speaking be redesigned around the possibility that everyone we meet might be part of the less than 1%?

OneTerrificMouse Sun 20-Oct-19 10:22:36

Basically women, just stop speaking. Thanks.

TheCountessofFitzdotterel Sun 20-Oct-19 10:25:04

'Also this proves that the more accommodating you try to be the more pressure TRAs will put you under, since they've already learned that you're easy to bully.'

See also knitting wars where grovelling apology just led to more and more attacks. Race rather than gender was the pretext but it is a pretext for people who get a buzz out of bullying, this isn't about dealing with actual prejudice.

ErrolTheDragon Sun 20-Oct-19 10:30:43

The complainant is making the huge, almost certainly unjustified assumption that the people referred to would prefer to be referred to neutrally rather than by their observed sex.

The thing that jumps out at me is that one of the observations was stated neutrally. ^ And over there, those two runners together, they look really fit, like extremely so, like Olympians.^

What was your mental image?

And now do the same with the neutrally stated dog walker and cross-trainers.

testing987654321 Sun 20-Oct-19 10:44:43

It's a really interesting exercise Errol, I hadn't noticed that the two runners weren't described by their sex until I rewrote it.

TwatticusFinch Sun 20-Oct-19 10:45:37

Even if they did what the complainant wanted I'm sure it wouldn't please everyone. I have heard people complain that using gender-neutral language and "they" instead of him/her for everyone is non-binary erasure confused

Join the discussion

Registering is free, quick, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Get started »