Another excellent article from Spiked

[Campervan69]

www.spiked-online.com/2020/12/02/we-need-to-talk-about-ellen-page/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

"Do we matter? It seems not. The elitism of identitarianism is exposed in its commitment to overriding what society at large understands and believes, all those facts and customs we adhere to, and in its demand that we lie"

Talking of which, why are there no threads on this? Sure I saw one t'other day? Surely FWR hasn't been silenced.....

There was a thread - it was trending on Tuesday.

The FWR thread was zapped in the early hours.

Fantastic piece by Brendan O’Neill there.

The latest episode of Spiked’s Andrew Doyle podcast features Julie Bindel and they’ve put out some great Jo Bartosch pieces this year.
Might go make a donation (I used to make them to
Wikipedia when their yearly request went out, but they are absolutely infested with Newspeak now).

Yes great article.

I think some of this comes from taking how you might act towards an individual to be nice, and trying to turn it into hard rules for society.

For example I can understand the pronouns and deadnaming thing in a personal setting, e.g. say you knew a transwoman called Sally and they'd been trans for years and you found out they used to be a man called Dave, you probably shouldn't shout in the middle of a meeting "Hi Dave, I hear you used to be a man" as that would be cruel and unnecessary.

However I agree with the article that if you're talking about a famous person who was well known in their previous gender then I don't think it's wrong to mention it as long as it's respectful and relevant. So if you said "I saw Bruce Jenner on TV last night" that would seem a bit wrong as we all know they're known as Caitlyn now, whereas saying "when Caitlyn Jenner, as Bruce, won the medal" seems sensible to me.

IPSO have just put out the results of some research they commissioned on trans stuff in the media. I’ve only skimmed it so far, but they spoke with editors, writers, trans groups and feminists and the gaps between what trans activists are asking for and what papers are willing to change seems to be widening - puff pieces/celeb coverage is fine, but anything to do with rights/legislation/crime is, as the young are wont to say ‘problematic’.

Pleased to see resistance to ‘assigned at birth’, it’s nonsensical when most British babies have their sex observed via ultrasound at the halfway point of a full term pregnancy and absolutely everyone knows it.

www.ipso.co.uk/monitoring/research/

www.ipso.co.uk/media/1985/ipso-mediatique-response.pdf

The woke will condemn without reading no doubt, but that's an excellent and very honest article (in a sea of dissembling nonsense):

The cult of transgenderism isn’t liberation. All it does is allow individuals to ‘liberate’ themselves from reality while heaping pressure on the rest of us to deny the truth, to silence our own knowledge, to lie to ourselves and to others. That is the opposite of freedom.

you probably shouldn't shout in the middle of a meeting "Hi Dave, I hear you used to be a man" as that would be cruel and unnecessary.

Definitely. You also probably shouldn't try to get someone fired on the grounds of having said something that threw doubt on your personal politics, exclude women from services for having intersectional issues that get in the way of your personal politics, call believing in reality a hate crime or threaten to rape and murder women for expressing views that contradict yours either, as also - well, cruel and unnecessary.

I know where you're coming from but I'd be much more sympathetic to the 'kind' thing if it was a sincerely held value that was extended impartially to all, but it isn't. When it's used in this context it's nothing more than a demand of service from one group who are expected to provide, to a group who appear to be in this context as perceived to have no reciprocal responsibilities at all. It reminds me of trying to persuade a kid that if you treat others harshly and roughly but demand perfect treatment be provided to you in turn - you're onto a loser. Essentially because not everyone is your mum, or is someone your mum has employed to pander to you with the sky falling if they fail to entertain and please you, or show you any consequences for your actions, or dare to suggest you're anything but a perfect and wonderful angel.

There's a lot of things potentially going on here, not least issues with empathy, theory of mind and respecting others being very visible in many representations from people speaking for this political lobby, particularly in viewing female others and children, as equally human. And very cynical use of language and marketing. But one of the big parts of the movement is, intentionally or not, moving towards the setting up of a counter elite. Those who get to say they feel unsafe and those who get told to get over it. Those who get to name their identity and those who better accept what others call them and shut up or (death threat). It appears to seek to divide society into the givers and the takers, with the choice of which you are certainly not being yours. There's nothing 'kind' about that. There's nothing foresighted about it either, with limited understanding of how people work under such circumstances.

Oh and of course those who get to state what reality is, and those who must control their language and thoughts and actions to protect those others' personal experience, in denial of their own. In denial of their 'authentic selves'. With policed penalties for failing to do this right.

That isn't kind. It isn't even humane.

A great article, I often enjoy his writing.

It’s the involving other people that irritates me so much. It’s like asking everyone else to remember you’re really into, say, knitting and every time anyone addresses you or talks about you everyone else has to remember you’re into knitting and include that in what they say. Everyone around that person and their supporters has to walk on eggshells - is that not considered abusive behaviour?

It was good.

I agree with TweeBree about the view from a male perspective of maleness. He is also spot on about the elitism of it all.

regards
Mel (K2tog/psso)

K2tog/psso

Come for the feminism, stay for the knitting jokes

There was a thread but it got to 800 posts before it was also zapped into the memory hole for the reasons in that article. So thanks for posting.

@MichelleofzeResistance

you probably shouldn't shout in the middle of a meeting "Hi Dave, I hear you used to be a man" as that would be cruel and unnecessary.

Definitely. You also probably shouldn't try to get someone fired on the grounds of having said something that threw doubt on your personal politics, exclude women from services for having intersectional issues that get in the way of your personal politics, call believing in reality a hate crime or threaten to rape and murder women for expressing views that contradict yours either, as also - well, cruel and unnecessary.

I know where you're coming from but I'd be much more sympathetic to the 'kind' thing if it was a sincerely held value that was extended impartially to all, but it isn't. When it's used in this context it's nothing more than a demand of service from one group who are expected to provide, to a group who appear to be in this context as perceived to have no reciprocal responsibilities at all. It reminds me of trying to persuade a kid that if you treat others harshly and roughly but demand perfect treatment be provided to you in turn - you're onto a loser. Essentially because not everyone is your mum, or is someone your mum has employed to pander to you with the sky falling if they fail to entertain and please you, or show you any consequences for your actions, or dare to suggest you're anything but a perfect and wonderful angel.

There's a lot of things potentially going on here, not least issues with empathy, theory of mind and respecting others being very visible in many representations from people speaking for this political lobby, particularly in viewing female others and children, as equally human. And very cynical use of language and marketing. But one of the big parts of the movement is, intentionally or not, moving towards the setting up of a counter elite. Those who get to say they feel unsafe and those who get told to get over it. Those who get to name their identity and those who better accept what others call them and shut up or (death threat). It appears to seek to divide society into the givers and the takers, with the choice of which you are certainly not being yours. There's nothing 'kind' about that. There's nothing foresighted about it either, with limited understanding of how people work under such circumstances.

YES.

It's so weird. How are people supposed to know who [Newname] and why they are supposed to be interested in [Newname]'s identity, if no one is allowed to say [Oldname]?

I guess you figure it out from the pictures, but it's still weird and borderline Orwellian to have headlines saying [Newname] comes out as trans as if you're supposed to magically know who [Newname] is.

Years ago EP had a relationship with a man. Assuming that the historical record has now been rewritten that EP is and was a man, does that mean that everyone, including the man EP dated, has to say that this was a gay relationship?

What if the dated man doesn't want the record to show he was in a gay relationship? Is the solution to say that holding this view is homophobic so fuck him and his wishes? Or does there need to be some kind of Schrödinger thing going on?

All happiness to EP. The thing I can't get on board with is rewriting the past.

Good article. BoN sometimes comes across as a bit of a knob, but at least he’s out there going against the orthodoxy, even if it does regularly get him smeared as ‘far-right’.
Very few seem willing to admit the excessive mental burden the trans movement insists everyone else shoulders at their insistence, or just how blindly selfish the whole ideology is, it’s all take and no give. We must have the empathy, we must be kind, we must absolutely not acknowledge that all you’ve done is had a haircut and put on a trucker cap, or that even with the lipstick you still look more like Henry Rollins than Helena Bonham Carter. Expecting any kindness in return? Yeah, good luck with that, we don’t need to because we’re oh-so vulnerable, especially when we’re making violent sexualised threats on social media about your own failure to be kind enough to us.
And how about this- for all the noise, anguish, stress, and ridiculous policing of language, we’re talking about a group of people so small that, with the best will in the world, their needs are not really particularly important.
This’ll probably get zapped, but fuck it.

My gut feeling is that the average man is not going to look at EP and think "yeah, that's a bloke, that is".

I imagine that the average man is rather perplexed by Caitlyn Jenner and has concluded that since no real man would choose to wear dresses or have surgery* etc. then Caitlyn Jenner must be a woman. At the very least, the average man probably regards Caitlyn as not male. (I'm not sure how many heterosexual men would be willing to date Caitlyn, so I don't know whether they fully see Caitlyn as female). The average man is probably fine with the idea of Caitlyn using women's facilities since the average man can accept that Caitlyn is not a man. Ergo, Caitlyn must be a woman.

I suspect the reaction to EP will be rather different. Even the wokiest of woke blokes is going to have to concentrate very hard to think the right thoughts. I just wonder if this is going to be the point where people start saying "yeah, but the Emperor's got no clothes on", like this article is doing.

Maybe I am overgeneralising and being naive.

*I realise that it's highly unlikely that Caitlyn has had full SRS, but most people unfamiliar with the subject will assume that Caitlyn has.

@EdgeOfACoin
It seems highly unlikely to me that the average bloke accepts Caitlyn Jenner is a woman. Even the, as you say, wokier than woke bloke, if he’s heterosexual, isn’t really going to be interested in dick, and that’s where their acceptance comes unstuck, their libido still operates in the real world and doesn’t care about their performative wokery.
However, in my experience, heterosexual woke blokes are totally cool with dating transmen, just for the notch on the bedpost...

Vermeil, I think the average man doesn't regard Caitlyn as male. I imagine the average man thinks it is fine for Caitlyn to use women's toilets, women's changing rooms etc because he thinks Caitlyn doesn't belong in the men's. I agree that the average man probably wouldn't want to date Caitlyn. (Basically, the average man will accept Caitlyn as a woman until it affects him).

I just wonder what the reaction would be if EP wins an Oscar for Best Actor. Will it be treated in the same way as CJ winning a Woman of the Year award? This is where we'll find out.

I know where you're coming from but I'd be much more sympathetic to the 'kind' thing if it was a sincerely held value that was extended impartially to all, but it isn't. When it's used in this context it's nothing more than a demand of service from one group who are expected to provide, to a group who appear to be in this context as perceived to have no reciprocal responsibilities at all. It reminds me of trying to persuade a kid that if you treat others harshly and roughly but demand perfect treatment be provided to you in turn - you're onto a loser. Essentially because not everyone is your mum, or is someone your mum has employed to pander to you with the sky falling if they fail to entertain and please you, or show you any consequences for your actions, or dare to suggest you're anything but a perfect and wonderful angel.

Brilliantly put.

EP is never going to win Best Actor - not that EP is not a good actor - but it is never going to happen. A TW will probably win Best Actress though, if that category is even kept in the future. This stuff only ever goes one way.

I think the average man will accept EP as male in the same way as 'Bob'

I'm having fun on twitter today. Have a look at the evidence provided by this tweet:

twitter.com/abrahams_wife/status/1333967658484633601

Just adding this equally good article from the spectator to this thread.

spectator.us/elleniot-ellen-elliot-page-too-old/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

"For many, Page seems to embody a sort of boutique transgenderism we’re all now accustomed to seeing, a prêt-à-porter queer identity that is so mired with inconsistency and highfalutin gender theory as to be rendered utterly meaningless."