Does anyone ever have a "are we the baddies"* moment?

But if the PP read that and educated themselves, who could they then bully?

I mean the OP asks the poster whether they feel as a poster like they are a baddie. Not for an assessment of the entire GC community, whatever that is.

No chance of them actually reading.

Going back to the OP.

This is a really complex issue. I've never seen myself as a 'baddie' on this. But, there do seem to be some people who have severe gender dysphoria from an early age and never grow out of it. I have sympathy for them, even if I don't accept that they can actually change sex. Their voices are lost among the crowds who've got involved in this for other reasons.

Your friends and family likely think you're obsessed and bonkers, possibly even wondering how the person they love can possibly be so blinkered and hateful.

Not the case. Even my student daughter, at a very woke university and with a number of trans friends, says that although she keeps quiet about it, she can see that what I say about the erosion of women’s rights is 100% accurate. She can also see for herself the negative effects of the current trend on her personal demographic as a young lesbian.

In addition, she says her friends would probably agree with JK Rowling’s points if they actually read what she said and thought about it , even for a second. She says her friends completely saw the point when there was discussion over whether raped women should be able to ask for a same-sex doctor. But still JK Rowling and women like us are the enemy. Sounds to me as if the opposite position from mine is based on retaining cognitive dissonance at all costs.

Anyway, if anyone has a reason to disagree with me, she does. It’s part of her culture and she would love to go back to accepting it without question, but can’t unsee the problems now.

This thread is moving too fast! Learned something there though.

Of course, Jane Clare Jones doesn't just analyse in detail why and how both movements are very different indeed, complete with extensive footnotes, she also wrote an Appendix where she again explains in detail exactly how and why trans ideology and the movement to enshrine its demands in law harms women not only in theory but also in practice. She also explores the negative implications for gender-non-conforming people and for children, in particular for homosexual children.

I would recommend reading the whole thing, essay, footnotes and appendix, to fully appreciate why our resistance to the doctrine of gender identity being enshrined in law has nothing to do with the opposition to the gay rights movement.

Sealed With A Kiss
Cos the lick won't stick

SWAKCTLWS

Okay I'm stumped... Googling just brings up hits about Skittles!

charlieparley - good post. Absolutely nails it on why the argument about gay rights is not the same argument as it is for the T. And I certainly dont remember any gays demanding that women give up their spaces and the language that describes them and their experiences, to make gay people feel happier.

*cos the lick won't stick!"
Ah, was just wondering what the last bit meant got the SWALK bit though (didn't Jason Donovan do a song called that, that's what I remember it from - that and my teen mags )

You said it was the same. Can you not remember?

Yes, I did say it was the same.
The bit you quoted had me saying it's the same.
So what are you actually on about?

I was 10!

Sealed with a kiss cos the lick won't stick!

What is it with using lol at the end of sentences where I doubt the writer is really laughing out loud

I actually did, but I must admit on reading what I was supposed to have said but actually didn't, I did do a lol but it came out in a WTF type of confused snort instead

I wonder if it's homophobic to say that being gay means being same-sex attracted?

It isn’t that children are being taught about trans people that’s an issue. It’s saying liking stereotypes associated with the opposite sex might mean you are trans.

Section 28 was just about homophobia. It wasn’t schools saying to kids “you like musical theatre? Not keen on sport? You’re probably gay! (Insert own stereotypes)”. If it was I think many people would have issues with that, including LGB people.

What kids are being told is dolls are for girls so if a boy plays with dolls he’s a girl. This is nonsense. Teach kids trans people are people but don’t indicate stereotypes mean anything.

I also don’t recall any gay people threatening engaged couples with rape and murder. Or threatening to bomb register offices until gay marriage was made equal. Some people would need to learn a lot more about dignity and compassion before they can compare TRAs to gay rights campaigners.

You can keep trying to make out being concerned for women’s rights (and of course all posts about that are swerved because the only argument you have is the erroneous you’re right wing”) whilst specialists at gender clinics themselves have raised issues that parents have wanted their kids to transition rather than grow up to be gay adults but frankly the whole ideology reeks of homophobia these days. So maybe address that before you expect women to welcome rapists into women’s prisons where they rape, assault and terrorise women.

Of course you won’t because “right wing!” (Rolls eyes, knocks self out).

I rather think this is a splendid time to link to and quote from Jane Clare Jones' excellent essay on the question of whether or not objections made against the doctrine of gender identity and its political implications are the same as objections made against equal rights for gay people.

It's called
GAY RIGHTS AND TRANS RIGHTS – A COMPARE AND CONTRAST

Here's a few pertinent quotes, but I would urge you Mockolate to read all of it.

So, to get down to it. The discourse of ‘homophobia’ fundamentally relies on the idea that gay-people are discriminated against on the basis of moral disgust. And inside that are two more interwoven ideas. One, that moral disgust is not a legitimate basis for telling people what not to do. (Correct) Especially not when your disgust-feels are causing serious harm to other people. (Also correct) And even more especially given that moral disgust is a nasty, vicious emotion that tends to shade very easily into violence (and I mean that in the old-fashioned sense of ‘literal violence’). Two, that because discrimination against homosexuality was entirely mediated by moral disgust, there was, in fact, no legitimate basis for that discrimination, and all objections were, effectively, moral disgust in drag. That is, the success of gay rights was substantially down to disseminating the idea that that were no good reasons for anyone to object to their agenda, and that everyone objecting was just a nasty evil bigot whose ideas shouldn’t be given any weight as part of democratic political debate.

This structure has basically been transferred wholesale to the concept of ‘transphobia.’ And it’s doing important work for the trans rights movement in several ways. First, the idea of the visceral virulence of moral disgust has been taken and amplified to the hundredth power. Our response to things that disgust us is to try and eradicate them, and I think this resonance of the ‘phobia’ designation is doing a lot to undergird trans activist’s claims that any objection to their demands amounts to a ‘denial of their existence,’ or an effort to ‘exclude’ them bordering on intent to exterminate. (It’s also a key element of the endlessly recycled claim that a bunch of mostly left-wing feminist women are in cahoots with people who’d blend seamlessly into the Westboro Baptist Church or some such nonsense. (It’s wall-to-wall self-hating lesbians over here, honest)).

Second, and we’ll deal with this in detail because it’s crucial. The use of the concept of ‘homophobia’ to dismiss objections to gay rights carried a ton of weight because the basis for a legitimate moral or political objection would be that something causes a harm, and in the case of gay rights there is a complete dearth of convincing arguments as to why homosexuality is a harm. It doesn’t harm homosexuals (whereas repressing it evidently does), and it doesn’t harm anyone else.[1] But this is precisely where the ‘homophobia-transphobia’ parallel falls completely apart. Because in the case of the trans rights agenda there is actually a load of potential harms we might reasonably be worried about. Indeed, there is a kind of dull thudding irony to the fact that the very week Momentum decide to remind us that we’re all scaremongering bigots on the wrong side of history it also became public knowledge that Karen White – a trans woman on remand for rape – had been sent to a women’s jail where they sexually assaulted four inmates. (Who could have predicted it?)

The key thing to understand about trans rights activism is that, unlike gay rights activism, it is not just a movement seeking to ensure that trans people are not discriminated against. It is, rather, a movement committed to a fundamental reconceptualization of the very idea of what makes someone a man or a woman. In theory, this equally affects both men and women, but in practice, almost all the social pressure is coming from trans women towards the idea of ‘woman’ and the rights of women. And that’s because, when it comes down to it, this whole thing is being driven by male people who want something female people have, and that something, is, in fact, our very existence. Moreover, it turns out – who knew? – that male people have the inclination and social power to exert extreme coercive pressure on female people, and to court the sympathy and support of other males when they do so. (It’s almost as if sex is a thing and that it has something to do with power after all mmmm?).

[quote MsMarvellous]@Waitwhat23

What is a pirates favourite letter?

Arrrrrrr?

No. You would think it would be arrr, but 'it's the C

[/quote]
Love it . Going in my joke bank, thank you!

SWAKCTLWS?

Sealed with a kiss is as far as I can get

And SWAKCTLWS!

I literally put my opinion.
Mine.

And maybe you'd like to expand your reasons for stating that to fight against the conflicts in the rights for women and children by another group is similar in nature to imposing Section 28 and the opposition to gay and lesbian rights?

I happen to think the two you have chosen are very weak so I would like to hear more. You said you had a 'few'.

[quote Mockolate]@BlueberryCheezecake

History will look back on you in the same way it looks back on people who fearmongered about the gays and opposed LGB equality.

@redapplewreath

I'm LGB. I fought against section 28. This is utter bollocks. It is not the same. Gay rights wanted to take nothing from anyone else.

How is it utter bollocks and not the same?
It's completely the same argument, if you fought against section 28 , surely you must see that a little bit?
You say "gay right wanted to take nothing from anyone else"
Can you not see or are you not aware that the right wing argument towards gay rights people WERE saying things like they took away rights from others?
Some still will hold those views.
These aren't my views by the way but some definitely do think that gay rights
eg marriage - takes away the "proper" meaning of marriage as in man and woman, makes a mockery of etc
Also not wanting children to learn about being gay in schools because they fear that it will be a social contagion and if they know about it or their friends are that means they will want to as well

You really don't see ANY parallels there?
They're the exact same arguments used against trans people on this board.[/quote]
@mockolate

You said it was the same. Can you not remember?

It's 'lots of love'. Mockolate is just being affectionate.

Mockolate - were you posting an observation that some styles of argument used by one group of people are also used by another?

Or were you arguing that, noting the above, that means these groups of people also share many or all other values, because their arguing style is similar?