This is bullshit thread #3

OK, first post on any of these matters and I'm still vague and fuzzy on many of the issues but thinking, gradually.

The recent posts have talked about conservative, homophobic, bigoted Christian views. Yet many of the posters have rejected being labelled transphobic and bigoted for their deep convictions about truth and reality.

Is there any contradiction here that might cause some some assumptions to be questioned?

Also if anyone wants a laugh regarding the use of offensive pronouns and how ridiculous things are right now

slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2014/06/07/about-that-hate-crime-i-committed-at-university-of-chicago

Dan Savage..who actively campaigned for trans-rights, is himself a gay man and a drag queen. Its interesting reading the comments quite how many of the LGB community would like to distance themselves from the T. I understand it too really, being trans has nothing to do with being lesbian/gay/bi and some of the movement has seemed quite homophobic to me for a while now. I didn't really click on until a few days ago that the reason is...in a few cases it comes across as effectively...curing 'the gay'. Man who likes men...be a woman. You are now straight? Not in all cases mind. This is obviously excluding those who 'are a woman' to get into the knickers of lesbians.

I think the "how about trans people and non-trans people" suggestion has been telling.

Yes, very much like the cries about centering transwomen in all feminist issues right? Bloody ridiculous.

Absolutely, walter.

Yes, totally makes sense. It places transpeople (OK let's be honest, transwomen) at the centre of the Universe where they belong.

Anything else is bullying. innit?

I think the "how about trans people and non-trans people" suggestion has been telling.

I know the Spartacus thread has kicked off and don't want to derail anymore than it has been, me included.

We are women. We are on the side of Science and Logic.

I'm not fucking submitting to this shitehead wankdom!

I am so grateful for these threads. It is so valuable to be able to read and learn from an open and intelligent discussion. It is vital that we are able to have this conversation on MN. I am not seeing or hearing it anywhere else. Thank you all.

Nothing - it's been withdrawn at her request so I assume too personal in cold light of day.

She chose to have it deleted, the message states withdrawn at the poster's request.

I missed it too, can anyone fill us in please?

I missed VVV's post that got deleted - what was the problem with what she said?

The truth will set you free, but first it will really piss you off.

How very true, Helen. I had to deal with the truth when recovering from alcoholism and it was extremely painful. I'm very long term sober now and attribute this to becoming willing to confront the lies all addicts tell themselves and others. Hurts, yes, but it's immensely liberating.

But another very interesting one, prawn

Too many people think sex is a human right. It isn't. In the animal kingdom lots of creatures don't manage to mate or pass on their genes. Those are the rules of attraction. Nobody has the right to sex, but everyone should have the right to refuse unwanted sex. Sadly a lot of TAs don't seem to realise that.

And now I've made a terribly long post too

Veni, your post was long but I found it interesting and identified with much ot it. I remember the sometimes frightening, often disgusting, hassle I got as a young girl from men of all ages. After I was raped at 17 I put on stacks of weight, several stone before I registered it as a defensive measure. Worked too. Few things reduce male sexual interest more than obesity. Later it came off again. I gained the confidence to reject unwanted attention and became assertive about my boundaries.

To a certain extent people's sexual attractiveness stems from their self image. Someone born with a penis who hates his body so much that he's prepared to have it surgically removed is someone hugely sexually conflicted and this is intrinsically off-putting. Many will consider a relationship with someone who feels like that about themselves too much like hard work.

Entitlement is just as repellent. Anyone who demands sex as their due, who issues threats against those who don't find trans/fat/old people attractive, is a twat. The demand is, of itself, really, really off-putting.

You cannot oppress someone by refusing to consider them as a sexual partner. You can discriminate against someone over housing, employment etc, but as no one owes anyone sex no one can claim to be unfairly disadvantaged by being denied it.

My point is that people have been linking to hateful organisations during the debate over these 3-5 threads; it doesn't help the cause.

Rumbling, excellent point.
Nautical, I think the problem is that other people will align you with hate groups, not that I'd ever align myself with them, but because of my concerns on this, there are people who will say "you are agreeing with so and so group".

I think it's an easy mistake for a non American to make.

My point was that it can be interpreted as to be automatically aligning yourself with a hate group to express an opinion that is off message/unconditionally positive.

The massive majority of the people trying to have conversations about immigration/Brexit/trans issues/Isis etc can't stand those hate groups and don't want anything to do with them. A shut down response is often paraphrased as 'well THAT horrible extremist hate group say that, so you must be one of them, so you shouldn't be listened to'.

Not entirely sure where/how this is related but it might fit in somehow.

University Challenge is usually fairly low key, but this year the most 'activity' has been when people who are (presumably) transgender or non-binary have appeared.

It's seems to be half "just wondering if are they male/female" and half "you're so amazing, and a truly beautiful person". Nobody seems to actually care how they do at answering the questions!

I don't think it should change how UC cast, but surely that fact they identify as something particular shouldn't be more important than why they're actually there?

Even if I had supported Brexit I would not have used anything published by the BNP to make my case.

It is fine to hold differing opinions, it is not okay to align yourself with hate groups.

When the subject is shut down as too offensive or too painful, the silenced group have no way to protect themselves from real and serious consequences coming from the extreme end of the subject - and I mean that for people at both ends of the viewpoint.

It's no different to the immigration or Brexit discussions, both on MN and nationally.

'If you voted Brexit you must obviously be a hater/bigot/evil' and on the side of Farage/BNP etc

'If you voice any concerns of any kind about unlimited immigration you are obviously a hater/bigot/evil' and on the side of Farage/BNP etc.

Mostly because only those extremist groups are the ones willing to voice any discussion at all. Whateverphobia is coming to mean saying or thinking anything but unquestioning, unlimited approval and support for. None of these are black and white arguments. There can't be the good narrative (unquestioning, unconditional support) and the bad narrative (anti/hater/evil/bigot), there are difficult but valid, reasonable and important discussions to be had on the middle ground.

The backlash of Brexit happened out of the blue in part because too many people had learned they would be socially punished for expressing an off message POV, and became increasingly angry about being silenced over real life things that affected them, encroached on their lives, their wellbeing, and not being allowed to show it or say so. This aspect of liberal politics is not positive, it's not helpful, it doesn't support anyone, and when the inevitable backlash comes from those punished and ostracized and called names for having doubts or a different reality to the on message one, a lot of vulnerable people from those vulnerable groups get more damaged than they would have been had those points of view been something possible to talk about.

Something being offensive, painful or personally upsetting to hear cannot be a basis for making it taboo to talk about. When the subject is shut down as too offensive or too painful, the silenced group have no way to protect themselves from real and serious consequences coming from the extreme end of the subject. That bottled up anger and concern does not go away because it's no-platformed.

It's similar to the fact that the TRA has much narrative in common with the MRA narrative.

I posted in the last thread about it being important to look at where the news stories are coming from, e.g. someone posted a link to the American College of Pediatricians, which is a right wing, conservative, Christian, homophobic organisation which tries to confuse itself with the American Academy of Pediatrics to try and gain credibility.

I don't want any of the basis for my arguments against gender based classifications, as opposed to sex based, to come from hate groups.