Why can't women be more nice?

[MrsSnippyPants]

"Here’s an idea: just for a change the world could try being nicer and kinder to women."

So good from Helen Saxby

notthenewsinbriefs.wordpress.com/2020/04/20/why-cant-women-be-more-nice/

[igivein]

Excellent article

[Melroses]

Yes that was good.

People who tell you how to behave are usually* acting in their own interests, not yours.

*ie always.

[Winesalot]

I have definitely noticed the 'negative' pile on and all its connotations is as over used as the term transphobic. It never seems to be acknowledged that so many people disagree. If people are pointing out facts (those accepted and robustly peer reviewed) or opinions that are relevant and not crossing into personal attacks, it is no pile on. It is just another way to shut down rational discussion.

Sadly, it is often that those who are supporting, or pushing, spurious, not accepted or even reviewed theories that are calling it a pile on. And it by doing that they do not need to take any notice of what is being said, because: 'uninformed bigots'.

[Goosefoot]

I find if you prod people about what they mean by this, in person rather than on Twitter, often they don't really know. If you prod them about how you can make policy decisions without looking at an issue in some real detail and with some real rigour, they don't know.

It's a bit odd, because they are adults, often educated, in professional jobs, they know that you have to think about things clearly to make good decisions.

The other thing I've noticed is they tend to see issues almost entirely based on what are considered truisms about other issues. So, they say, separating all men out for safety is like all separating black men out for safety which would be racist. There is no ability to talk in a calm way about what the similarities or differences between those things are, much less explore questions about what they think is racist.

I used to know a guy who was kind of a crazy commentator on things, and he contended that a lot of our political language now functioned to prevent thought rather than facilitate it, and he put all the language we use around race, sexuality, etc into that. I've started to think that for all practical purposes, he's correct.

[MoleSmokes]

Such a good article!

This contrast is so stark and yet somehow women are the "bad guys":

"It could not be clearer that the fight for women’s rights (which means existing rights, already fought for, well-researched and evidenced, and finally won) is not at the expense of trans rights and is not an attack on trans people.

In comparison, no trans advocacy group (Stonewall, Gendered Intelligence, GIRES, Mermaids, TELI, Trans Media Watch, Allsorts and countless others) has once expressed the corresponding wish that the changes they are fighting for should not come at the expense of women and girls.

There has never, in all their public campaigning, ever been a concern that other people’s rights might be affected by their demands, despite the fact that these demands do involve a rolling-back of women’s rights.

To use a technical term, none of them actually gives a shit about women and girls."

[ShleeAnKree]

In comparison, no trans advocacy group (Stonewall, Gendered Intelligence, GIRES, Mermaids, TELI, Trans Media Watch, Allsorts and countless others) has once expressed the corresponding wish that the changes they are fighting for should not come at the expense of women and girls. There has never, in all their public campaigning, ever been a concern that other people’s rights might be affected by their demands, despite the fact that these demands do involve a rolling-back of women’s rights. To use a technical term, none of them actually gives a shit about women and girls.

(Y) great article