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?

It is getting airtime and Parker is part of that

I mean she’s doing more than I am and others on here

So what if she’s not performing perfectly. It’s all a messy struggle right now and we need all the help on our side.

It’s not like she’s threatened to punch, decapitate, or actually punched a 70 year old in the face

Maybe people should look that way…

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.

It's not about me listening/reading or not. I'm not scared of being tainted (just bored). It's about how 'being seen with' or 'giving a platform to' can be used more widely to illustrate/demonstrate connections (say between gender-critical feminists and the right).

When I used to discuss related issues with students (just for example) I used to spend most of my time explaining that I wasn't in league with conservative religious groups or political parties and that my stance was coloured by leftist thinking - most people don't deep dive. They see a picture of Person A with Person B and an accusation that Person A is a Nazi, right-winger, or whatever and all the proof they need is there. Then they continue/start supporting SW or chanting 'TWAW' or whatever.

In the old days, it was about porn and I rarely got to feminist positions on porn because I rarely got past the 'are you like Mary Whitehouse then' ...

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

Yes, I was trying to say this.

Well, that is your view.

It is how the open mic rallies that has been set up by Let Women Speak work. If you disagree with them, are you in a group organising your own events? And how are those events working to spread the message?

I can say that because of that Canberra rally, I have had a number of conversations with women who had no real idea what was going on except their work place policies. Those people are also not right wing or far right wing. And those people listened to ALL the women and made their decision to ask for more information.

I also had other discussions based on what happened in Melbourne with women. Again, not one of them were 'nazis' or 'far right' or even 'right wing'.

You are basing your views on one person speaking out of how many? You are willing to right off all the other alternative views expressed that day because of Pauline Hansen.

And you assume that many other people will ignore all the other women speaking because Pauline Hansen spoke, rather them listening to Pauline Hansen speak and then think about it and realise that this issue is across political lines and that you don't agree with Pauline Hansen's views and that you see she shares some views from a different motivation about women's rights but that is all.

How do you deal with panels at seminars, conferences and on TV where they pull together people from a wide range of views? Do you associate that seminar / conference or TV show with only that one outlier view?

Do you expect TV political discussion shows, seminars and conferences to only allow people they politically align with to speak?

People should not be threatening violence against others, it's political and social suppression.

However, most people have opinions on more than one thing at a time, so me being critical of Hanson does not mean that I accept violence against women.

Again, I doubt this is a particularly uncommon point of view
**
**
**
**

I'll ask you this as well then.

How do you deal with panels at seminars, conferences and on TV where they pull together people from a wide range of views? Do you associate that seminar / conference or TV show with only that one outlier view?

Do you expect TV political discussion shows, seminars and conferences to only allow people they politically align with to speak?

Has Kellie Jay Keen said she is a 'feminist'?

I mean why all the focus on Hanson?

Out of the massive struggle that is going on she is the issue for you?

She’s what, an ex politician in Aus, who stood next to someone

ok next

You are willing to right off all the other alternative views expressed that day because of Pauline Hansen.

No and I've never said this.

It's not what I write off, I'm firmly decided. It's not about trying to get me on side.

Just have a normal conversation, it's not a competition to show how on side your are

These threads so often come back to PP those paragraphs and who she stood near

Out of interest would you rather Posie Parker just stopped or keeps going warts and all

Actually she is a senator and a leader for a political party in Australia. She is current.

I agree with oneTC that it is absolutely shit that there are so few politicians out there speaking. Where I disagree is that she should not have been allowed to speak because of 'optics'.

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?

I meant strategically aligning with them mostly.

I also mean that I might choose to work with (say) a known racist on issue x because we both want to see change y - but in doing so I'd have to consider what impact this might have on black women and how they might feel to see white sister work with a racist.

Or, in the old days, it was about porn and to some degree prostitution and I remember a very distressed lesbian woman who was distraught that her straight sisters were working with right-wing Christians who were not supportive of gays and lesbians and their rights. It was hard for this woman and other women to be in the room because they knew that they were considered sinners (and that in their other activism, the Christian women were working against them).

In social media land, I suspect it is painful for black women to see white women 'like' the views of racists and/or share these as they pertain to GC issues (if this happens - I don't engage with social media). In a way, this would be amplifying their views and sending very mixed messages to our black sisters.

Surely there comes a point where even those most opposed to purity spirals (as they call them) would choose not to engage with/align with or so on someone whose ethics or politics they found to be beyond the pale?

Sure but there is no need to address the rest of us as if we are students.

It's about how 'being seen with' or 'giving a platform to' can be used more widely to illustrate/demonstrate connections (say between gender-critical feminists and the right).

It's more often than not students and academics doing this and their orbiting journalists and writers sucking it up.

You want the rallies to be organised in such a way that limits who can speak.

How do you deal with panels at seminars, conferences and on TV where they pull together people from a wide range of views? Do you associate that seminar / conference or TV show with only that one outlier view?

I don't listen to such shows because they are not to my personal taste but generally the rules of engagement are very different and clear - it is about debate and there is a moderator.

Do you expect TV political discussion shows, seminars and conferences to only allow people they politically align with to speak?

No.

Has Kellie Jay Keen said she is a 'feminist'?

I have no idea. I wasn't discussing KJK I was talking about generalities.

I too am bored with the trans hate. That is to say, the hatred of the more virulent trans rights activists for women.

Any objections to the increasingly outlandish demands of this activism are increasingly framed as a hatred for trans people per se. Push back even mildly. and this will be interpreted as a statement that you hate all trans people; would frame every trans woman as at best a fetishist or worst a would-be sex offender; that you 'want them not to exist', or, to take that argument to its nth degree, you're a genocidal fascist.

This extremist hyperbole would be risible if it hadn't taken such root. It's also a base, fat lie. 'Trans rights' activitism is a façade for something far more sinister which I suspect has little, if anything at all, to do with trans rights anymore, if it ever had.

This is male supremacy on steroids. It's the incels coming out of the basement: the red pill sites spilling over onto conventional SM and, ultimately, offline.

Trans people are not their key target - women are that - they're just a convenient front for legitimizing the MRA agenda and, if need be, mere collateral damage.

Homophobia, 'curing' lesbians of their sexuality, rank misogyny, public threats, waving flags everywhere, chanting slogans, terrorizing individuals who dare to dissent - all this is the familiar territory of the far right. That MRA has adopted the mantle of the progressive left and are eating it up from within is pretty much the ultimate irony.

Not really, I just believe that there's a negative impact from it

You want the rallies to be organised in such a way that limits who can speak.

Assuming that an individual held GC views is there any other view, behaviour or attribute of a person that you would deem made it unacceptable for them to speak?

I do find it quite telling that so called 'left wing' women only care about the children of 'left wing' women and the children of 'right wing' women are fair game in the gender wars.

Only wanting left wing kids to grow up and be able to procreate, is quite 'eugenics adjacent'...which in turn has been a right wing position.

Weird. You'd think left wing women, if they care about kids, would care about all kids. It's a conundrum.

Some mothers breast feed until their child is 2/3.

Can you imagine this poor child if this man was allowed to continue this fetish for this long? I wonder if people would still be ok with that?

Haven't read until the end of the thread yet and things have probably moved on from here but this post really stuck out for me because it shocked and saddened me so much. It sort of sums up how far gone this whole shit show is now.

@NewNameNigel - you seem like a really reasonable person but as I said, your post really shocked me.

Because in it you are arguing for girls and women to have to wait even longer for essential health care than they do anyway in order to accommadate men's wants.

But I'm jumping ahead. If I unpack what I understand from you post it looks like this:

Your post is based on the assumption that girls and women are being unreasonable in exercising their right to request a female HCP and that they should take what they are given regardless of the distress that may cause them. And if the distress is too much for them well, they'll just have accept being bumped down the queue and waiting longer for healthcare which may be both vital and time dependant for its success; abortion / cancer screening / etc.

Your post is also based on at least one of the 2 below opinions:

1. Transwomen are female (all transwomen regardless of what if any action they have taken in that regard[
2. or at they very least girls and women should pretend that they are female no matter at what cost to those girls and women themselves

Do you genuinely believe all / or any transwomen to be of the female sex?? And if you do what makes you think that anyone else should coerced into accepting this clear and absolute denial of scientific fact and biological reality just because you and others choose to believe it??

And if you don't believe the above, do you genuinely think that it is acceptable to force girls and women to wait for healthcare that they have a right to in circumstances that they have a right to because a male dominated socio-political ideology dictates that they must in order to validate a set of beliefs that are at best highly controversial.

And that is what shocks me. To the core.

Hearing reasonable sounding people arguing that girls and women's health, well-being, dignity and safety be compromised, if not actually dismissed, in favour of a political ideology which is founded on the concepts of brainsex / ladybrain / woman as a feeling / pseudoscience and bigotry. Concepts which have no place in a modern progressive society and which it it incredible to encounter in the year 2023 in a Westernized country.

In this brave new world we must either make ourselves believe an ideology, pretend that we believe that ideology or give up hard won gains on the long and unfinished road to equal rights for girls and women as punishment for attempting to resist the ideology.

Nicely written post, @Beachcomber . Thank you for taking the time to articulate your thoughts so clearly.

@Beachcomber

👏👏

Your post is based on the assumption that girls and women are being unreasonable in exercising their right to request a female HCP and that they should take what they are given regardless of the distress that may cause them.
You are completly wrong about this @Beachcomber

My post is based on the fact that if there are 10 people in a queue and the next available physician is someone who number 1 doesn't want to treat them they will see if number 2 is happy then number 3. The first person who will see this particular hcp will get seen first.

The other options would be to make everyone wait so people can be seen in order or take people out of an already stretched workforce. Neither of which are good for women.

You have decided that I think these women are being unreasonable and then gone on to lambaste me for a viewpoint I don't hold. It would have been nice if you had clarified this with me first.

You have instead jumped to the worst possible reason in a similar way that trans activists jump on the incorrect assumption that gc people hate trans people.

How can there be any way forward when everyone just assumed the worst of all who disagree with them?

FYI I've also been called a TERF and a bigot for saying that women have a right to object. Its so strange to me that you've read the same sentiment and interpreted as me thinking that transwomen are female and should always be treated as such by everyone.