Jo Brand on transgender debate in the Guardian

[kesstrel]

www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/10/women-avoid-transgender-debate-fear-reaction-jo-brand-germaine-greer-feminism

How is that anything but a contradiction? You're agreeing that maybe they can be, but then saying matter of factly that they aren't.

I could easily be a murderer. But I am not. Logic 101, really.

Dismissing other women. As they're not allowed to think differently, they must be being woke or talking bollocks and just haven't peak transed or whatever.

I am not specifically dismissing women. I am dismissing everyone, who cannot back up their 'thinking' with facts. Nothing personal, really. Just no patience for factfree arguments.

Some (not all) views on here are extremely bigoted and not everyone will think the same because of that.

Of course you couldn't back this up with hard data, even if you tried.

Woman's Rights as Donald Trump! For not toeing the line of thinking. That's a new one. Jo Brand has said both sides can be as bad as each other. I agree. It doesn't all have to be a literal well they're doing that bit but we're not so therefore we can't be as bad."

You really don't understand the difference between 'being able to do something' and 'doing something', do you?
And that is why you think you need no facts to back it up. After all WPUK could beat someone up or make a bomb threat.

Some (not all) views on here are extremely bigoted and not everyone will think the same because of that.

Do you think humans can change sex though?

Do you think humans can change sex though?

It's like the ultimate treasure hunt, isn't it? I have found the third gamete and I claim my Nobel Prize.

This person thinks you can change sex, and that anyone who does not think that, is extremist and bigoted.

😐

ah the beauty of pomo. facts mean nothing and all opinions are equally valid, irrespective of fascist concepts like definitions and science. except if said opinions hurt the most oppressed group in the hierarchy of oppression, namely - how else could it be - some loud, white males.

For the both sides are as bad as each other annals...

The usual well-informed Twitter complaint to Debbie Hayton's employers... (via Prof. Kathleen Stock)

Solidarity with DebbieHayton who is facing the usual sneaky, insinuating nonsense, designed to cause maximum anxiety, from idiots who can't understand how a transwoman could possibly deviate from the Stonewall-approved mantra. Thanks for all you do Debbie

twitter.com/Docstockk/status/1050716021139619841

The sub-tweet is of someone @-ing Debbie's school, accusing Debbie of transphobia and #WPUK and Posie Parker

Verbeena

Jo Brand has said too both sides can be as bad as each other. Why does she get dismissed?

I don't understand why you think she has been dismissed. Her claim was presented without any evidence being given to support it. Posters here have evaluated the claim against their factual knowledge of what they know about the levels of violence, harassment and doxxing on one side, and the absence of those things on the other. That does not constitute "dismissal" - it constitutes disagreement.

May I ask, what sort of responses of disagreement to her claim would you regard as not being 'dismissive'? That is, can you give us examples of how do you think the posters who disagree should express their disagreement?

For the both sides are as bad as each other annals...

Yeah, but Debbie could doxx some TRA and smear them at their workplace, sooo... It is both sides, really.

Yeah, but Debbie could doxx some TRA and smear them at their workplace, sooo... It is both sides, really.

I'm on the list for the gulag's pilot programme. deepwatersolo I have to ask, are you in the seed project the findings of which will be used to refine the larger scale pilot programme?

NB, seed project = we will sow 'right think' into your brain if we have to drill your head to facilitate it....

No worries, aranfan, everything will turn out just fine...

As they're not allowed to think differently, they must be being woke or talking bollocks and just haven't peak transed or whatever.

You are right about this, maybe Jo Brand is pro self ID and believes human beings can change sex. She IS allowed to think differently, I don't have to agree with her though.

However, going on what she has said in the past about being a feminist and standing up for women, I can't believe she would.

But you never know....

I'm pretty sure Jo Brand said her favourite mumsnet name was eatshitderek in a guardian interview - am I imagining things (can't be bothered to check)?

I bet she's reading this thread - Hello Jo !

For me my peak trans problems are :
Not being able to state biological facts without being labled a transphobe. If this all passes in law are they going to accuse biology departments of hate crimes ?

Changing the definition of woman to something undefinable.

The thought of walking into a public toilet alone late at night and seeing a man and if I question this then I'M the one who needs educating.

I'm pretty sure Jo Brand said her favourite mumsnet name was eatshitderek in a guardian interview - am I imagining things (can't be bothered to check)?

I remember reading this on MN.

www.theguardian.com/culture/2018/feb/04/jo-brand-bullies-are-lurking-around-every-corner-

It's in this. Thanks for drawing my attention to it.

Just notice "Bullies are lurking around every corner" in the text of that link - rather apropos, isn't it?

kesstrel I have a good memory for random information.

yes she spoke about bullying.
Jo if you're reading please look into the bullying tactics used by the TRA to silence women. Look into the organisations going into schools and what they are telling children. Look into the funding from Big Pharma in america.

Then there are all the cases of 'this will never happen' of men claiming to be women to abuse women - see prisoners Karen White, Jacinta (surname?) etc

Gosh, let's talk about silencing, belittling, minimising etc

Just because Jo Brand chooses to see that there is nuance in the discussion, people are seeing her as bullied into saying what she said, mistaken in what she said, or quoted out of context.

People on here often tell me I must hold my convictions because a man told me to. They tell me I'm clearly not a 'real lesbian'. Because I disagree on here, my womanhood is called into question. Prof Sally Hines was called a man because she isn't anti trans! There was a whole conspiracy theory about it. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

At the House of Lords, apparently some of the gender critics tried to claim they had no voice. A Govt Equalities Office person stood up and named several GCs in the room as people who had been both invited to and attended GRA consultation meetings by the GEO.

Crying wolf and belittling other women with different ideas isn't a good look.

People on here often tell me I must hold my convictions because a man told me to.

But you actually do hold your convictions, because the man Foucault told you so. Not only 'can you not unread (aka critically challenge) him', you even erase and belittle the work of feminist and woman Simone de Beauvoir in the process.

''isnt a good look'' displays expectations of feminine socialisation in place of critical thinking. Its another way to say ''be nice and give way''.

Try using more critical analysis of your own approach first. Consider your audience.
For example, women working in the field of VAW have a specific skill set, and are used to making tough decisions including a risk analysis of other people based on their language and behaviour.