To be bored of the trans hate?

[DaisyUpsy]

Ok, there are extremists (like the punch people in the face person), extremists can be found in many areas of life but is anyone else fed up of the trans stuff constantly being dragged up?

I've seen some ridiculous statements on here recently. Everything gets something added related to trans when it's totally irrelevant. It's getting boring. Trans extremists are not the norm so can we stop pretending they are?

And no! Just because I listened to Pauline fucking Hanson doesn’t mean I have ever, or am ever likely to vote for her when I was back in country.

It doesn’t make me ‘far right wing’. And it didn’t diminish me as a person in any way to listen to her.

But hey, that I have to actually say this shows just how fucked up this has become and how low the fucking bar has become for ‘associating with’, ‘buddying up to’ and ‘aligning with’.

Always amazes me how TRAs insist on purity of associations from GC women, yet are happy to have the likes of Sarah Jane Barker as their spokesman.

Also thinking of many TW in training roles, paid NUS roles, Mermaids support roles, politics (and so many more) found to have close links to porn, paedophilia and/or fetish. We’re supposed to deny this, but I can’t think of many high profile TW that don’t have links that should ensure they shouldn’t be in the roles they hold.

RipXNutmeg on Twitter has documented these for years, possibly with a break as she was maybe banned for a bit, I can’t remember.

But yes, Posie Parker, clearly best friends with nazis at her open mic events where any fucker can get up and speak 🙄
So many double standards when it comes to GC women!

If you were far right, or they actually really truly believed we were far right, they wouldn’t use it as an insult.
It’s only because feminists are so viscerally opposed to far right politics that using that accusation has any strength as a silencing technique.
Their tactics are disingenuous and transparent.
Don’t let it bother you.

Thanks Grin.

To be honest, it merely blows my mind at the ridiculousness of the position rather than bothers me. As an Australian, I find political tribalism a strange phenomenon.

There are no words

It’s just another tactic to silence and diminish your pro women stance

It’s regressive.
If you refuse to listen to opposing views, how can you really form an informed and fully rounded opinion? How can you learn anything?

I think that’s the point.

It is the point precisely.

On yet another thread raised on site issues a week or two ago calling for FWR to be ‘more closely watched’, we were told repeatedly that good feminists shouldn’t be reading the daily mail, the times, the telegraph or watch clips from Fox News etc because it would influence our opinions! We were told we were poor feminists for ‘supporting’ those media outlets. I kid you not!

I also pointed out that Fox News has someone I know on their political panel shows who is very left leaning. Should I not listen to his views because he was on fox? Yet he was on the campaign teams for two labour PMs that I know of. Yet me watching him means I am a crap person supporting the far right!

It was unbelievable to have that conversation. And yet I feel we are back having echoes of that conversation right now on this thread.

It's all they have. The good people think this and this and this and only watch , read or listen to that and that and that.

Anyone stepping outside those rules is bad. You don't have to even agree with the bad things the bad people say on the bad TV, the fact that you didn't avoid the bad makes you bad.

The only person I've called right wing is a right wing politician though. It's not like I'm trying to frame a moderate as something she's not.

It's fantastic that Hanson knows what a woman is and like hellofabore said there's bound to be many universal truths that we do agree on, that's the same with anyone.

Maybe I'm wrong and I should listen to the likes of Tommy Robinson and Pauline Hanson, when they're talking about something else other than their main primary focus in politics, but to me it just feels a bit dirty.

If you don't feel that way then again we see things differently, but as someone says up thread allies are allies, at least someone is talking about it. My personal view is that it would be made more accessible to a wider audience if people like Hanson were left out though. She has a pretty toxic reputation in Australia with anyone with moderate political opinions. I would like to see more people won over to this argument, that's all.

I'm confused how that view, or any of my other comments ITT make me a TRA.

To reiterate: no legal recognition or accommodation for people "changing" sex. TWAM. anyone who's ever had a dick can get out of women's sports, women's jobs, women's recognition, gender affirming surgery procedures or chemicals for children is abuse.

My comment re being labelled right wing has been made previously in the thread to no comment. The people I know who are most ardently pushing the trans agenda are all tied up in pretty extreme left politics, as a group they like to characterise anyone to the right of them a "Literal fucking Nazi" and that's what I and others in the thread were clearly referring to.

The fact that humans can't change sex and that sex matters when it comes to situations when women are vulnerable shouldn't really be a matter of political leanings.

I mean how have we got to the point where women wanting to protect ourselves from ALL males is seen as a bigoted position?

The fact that this has become a heated debate should not be blamed on those who want to protect women's rights but on those who want to remove them.

I'm Australian but I live in the UK. I don't vote for one particular party, I think you look at a parties policies and decide what's best. I'm not wedded to a political or economic model.

I don't believe in deplatforming people but I think they can get their own platform sometimes. She did use them platform to promote her party as you would expect.

I don't think the UK posters would be like oh yeah fine if Jayda Fransen was standing next to Parker

I find it sad that people close their ears to all said by a person because they disagree with them. I think you have to understand your "enemy" in order to "defeat" them. I absolutely disagree with every single person on the planet over something, and I will absolutely agree with them over another thing.

I expect I'm more or less absolutely normal in that respect. I don't expect anyone, especially not politicians, to pander to my beliefs 100%.

I think the TRA and MRA movements DO expect it. And they've been very successful, haven't they? We're chest feeders. Cervix havers. We have bonus holes. Girls get top surgery, not double mastectomies. We're gestators, bleeders, etc. It's this generation's "tarts, Where's and sluts", just another way to continue the dehumanisation of females.

It is just the same old "women shut up and know your place". Again.

Sure oneTC, but if you don’t listen to what she says, how on earth do you know what she says? She is one of the only people getting up to say anything in parliament. It is absolutely mind blowing that she is one of the only ones!

It is such a poorly understood discussion in Australia for the most part. And the reality is that it should be discussed just as widely as it is here. But I don’t believe that it is yet.

So Pauline Hansen is doing it. And that is, quite frankly, shit. Because she also then spruiked for One Nation and turned her speech into a campaign speech at a Let Women Speak event. But hey, she is of course able to do that, it probably was not the right place for her to do so though as it detracted from what she said.

You and I can feel that it is crap. But the reality is that she is doing it. And yes, it IS better to know what she said and to have listened for yourself. Because when some lack of thinking person then claims you are ‘aligning’ yourself with Pauline Hansen, you can then intelligently refute why you are not and address the issues she did talk about and ask why they are not worthy of support by all political parties.

Instead you haven’t listened to what she has said and therefore have no informed argument. It is your choice. But I know which approach I need to take, I need to understand the truth and that includes knowing what she said because she keeps being brought up as some kind of twisted ‘gotcha’.

It is like Kellie Jay Keen. I don’t agree with all KJK says, but I am fucking over having untruths or partial truths being spread and perpetuated. Look at what ended up happening with Moira Deeming because of the Wikipedia entries that were locked for editing and maintained those lies. I remember going through on a thread and pulling apart all those ‘far right’ accusations.

And I have pointed out on other threads the distortions of the WPUK page and pointed out the group of people those misrepresentations come from and provided other ‘approved’ feminists who said similar or the same as KJK who were applauded. All because they used slightly different language and was not as blunt.

I do look further than some other people when I am presented with things that don’t seem right. Because I am appalled at the way misrepresentations are now simply accepted in so many areas of life. This is one of those areas I do a lot of double checking with.

I'm confused how that view, or any of my other comments ITT make me a TRA

The same way that women talking to other women who may be of any political persuasion makes them Far Right?

Honestly, stop demonising other women. If you want to make sure right wing women don't come to your events then don't invite them, and make sure you vet them all before hand. Should be simple to do right?

So we are very similar in approach.

Maybe I don’t associate Hansen with the far right as you do. I think you have portrayed her as such though with that comparison with Jayda Fransen.

KJK did allow someone who is a very conservative political commentator to speak before here in the UK. Because KJK has an open platform.

“I don't think the UK posters would be like oh yeah fine if Jayda Fransen was standing next to Parker”

Did Kellie Jay ‘stand next to’ Pauline Hansen in any political sense? Rather than physically being there to clip a microphone one or off her?

Did KJK show any political support for One Nation?

Funnily enough I volunteer for a sports charity and the last women's event I was involved in organising I actually withdrew from in protest at what they decided was "women only"

Maybe I should have proceeded and heard them out

Had you checked that the event was being run within the bounds of their policy on who can and cannot compete before you withdrew?

I have no idea who most of these people are — and can’t help it if they agree with me.

None of this political stuff can make a male female, or vice versa.

No and I don't assume she would support her wider views. As I've said throughout the main problem for me is the optics.

Agreed that what happened Deeming was awful, you'll notice I didn't jump on those optics because Deeming is a mainstream politician and it's the mainstream that need to be the ones talking about it. Calling someone like her far right undermines the accusation when it's leveled at others.

My views on this cost me an IRL friend recently and I'm gutted because I thought we were good friends and she also happens to really believe in something Really Far Out and I've never used that difference in opinion as a reason to judge her, I just think she believes in some stuff I don't, but we discussed trans people in sports and I've been ghosted ever since

I am sorry that your friend is one of those who cannot have a friendship that isn’t based on political alignment.

However, ‘optics’ in the case of trying to create an alignment between KJK and Pauline Hansen is using poor logic that is the logic of people who cannot think something through critically but need to grasp onto political purity.

I think you will find the group of UK feminists who are grasping onto their purity positions have some rather intolerant thought leaders. Whose ‘optics’ are appalling in the way they behave themselves.

Optics are not a solid base to pitch your political beliefs on. And, in my opinion, it only appeals to those who are ‘optics followers’ who don’t do the research needed to make their own informed decision. Fair enough for those who are influenced by optics, in their opinion forming or their opinion influencing. my background in manipulating those optics probably means I have a different approach to them.

However, ‘optics’ in the case of trying to create an alignment between KJK and Pauline Hansen is using poor logic that is the logic of people who cannot think something through critically but need to grasp onto political purity.

Sure, but people with poor logic skills, etc. (or who are deliberately twisting situations) often have a lot of power and influence.

I think you will find the group of UK feminists who are grasping onto their purity positions have some rather intolerant thought leaders. Whose ‘optics’ are appalling in the way they behave themselves.

That's a bit of a broad brush methinks. I don't have a 'thought leader' and nor do the women I associate most closely with - and we tend to use the term 'principles' rather than 'purity positions'.

Many of us have been around for a while and have seen the dangers of bedding with the right (way back before the term 'far right' was used much, let alone misused).

"Sure, but people with poor logic skills, etc. (or who are deliberately twisting situations) often have a lot of power and influence."

They do indeed. And yet you can then have a better understanding of their tactics and as a group push back on them because you have some depth of understanding of the issues. Whereas if you don't go and listen to what they are saying you only have superficial opinions about what they said to support your arguments.

"That's a bit of a broad brush methinks. I don't have a 'thought leader' and nor do the women I associate most closely with - and we tend to use the term 'principles' rather than 'purity positions'."

"Many of us have been around for a while and have seen the dangers of bedding with the right (way back before the term 'far right' was used much, let alone misused)."

I know that you don't have a 'thought leader' Spartacus, I don't consider you to be within that group that I am referring to.

But what do you mean about 'bedding with' the right, please?

And, in my opinion, it only appeals to those who are ‘optics followers’ who don’t do the research needed to make their own informed decision.

And it is my belief that these people are the numbers that make the difference for this debate getting the mainstream airtime it deserves. An absolutist pro lifer, domestic abuse denying MRA talking at your pro women rally really undermines that chance. I'd be surprised if that's an uncommon view