Interesting reading - what do you make of this?

[NiceGerbil]

Hello

The Pullman thread sent me down a Twitter rabbit hole that stalled when I got to this

mobile.twitter.com/alisonphipps/status/1411387723034902531

Some extracts from their book are there- have a read (not sure how to put the text here!).

I found the extracts totally fascinating. If I knew nothing about this topic, I'd think well. IMO clear, succinct. Persuasive in the confidence of the points/ arguments.

Thing is it's... I suppose maybe true for an American USA context for the religious right who I would imagine fit what's written more or less.

Of course it's referring to all women who think sex is a thing that matters.

Would love to discuss if anyone wants?

.

Forgot link:

yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2020/07/16/where-does-british-public-stand-transgender-rights

I saw this earlier. It made me think of Ms Phipps

Or, you might say, queerin' stuff ain't politics.

'I think the public acknowledge the complexity of the issues and respond differently according to specific questions that are asked on the subject.'

Take it down a pub full of standard English blokes and see how it goes down!

The men at my work who have raised it till it's ridiculous.

Men know full well what men are like.

Men know full well what men are like.

Exactly. If you look at the results of the surveys posted by suggestionsplease1, men disagreed with almost everything. The first question was from a penis news survey, so results can reasonably be assumed to be biased (the answers to this question also conflict with the answers to the other questions about self-ID), and the questions about transgender people using opposite sex spaces when it's not made clear that they haven't had reassignment surgery are also irrelevant since most transgender people don't have this surgery.

So that's red crosses for every question from men apart from the one about refuges - but it doesn't say that they were told that the 'transwomen' hadn't had genital surgery. I suspect the answer might have been different if they had been told this. Men really don't believe this shit.

There are certainly clear trends to attitudes according to age...I wonder what that means for the future?

I would expect younger people's views to change as they get older and gain more understanding about the world.

@OldCrone

Men know full well what men are like.

Exactly. If you look at the results of the surveys posted by suggestionsplease1, men disagreed with almost everything. The first question was from a penis news survey, so results can reasonably be assumed to be biased (the answers to this question also conflict with the answers to the other questions about self-ID), and the questions about transgender people using opposite sex spaces when it's not made clear that they haven't had reassignment surgery are also irrelevant since most transgender people don't have this surgery.

So that's red crosses for every question from men apart from the one about refuges - but it doesn't say that they were told that the 'transwomen' hadn't had genital surgery. I suspect the answer might have been different if they had been told this. Men really don't believe this shit.

Interesting. So is the implicit assumption there that you value men's opinions more than women's?

Interesting. So is the implicit assumption there that you value men's opinions more than women's?

No. Why would you assume that? Your own personal bias perhaps.

I was replying to NiceGerbil who said Men know full well what men are like.

suggestionsplease1 - who do you think knows women best? Men or women?

'Interesting. So is the implicit assumption there that you value men's opinions more than women's?'

Or possibly...

Men are not raised or exhorted to 'be kind'

Men are not told constantly to give men the 'benefit of the doubt' when it comes to behaving in intimidating, creepy or aggressive ways, or when they are assaulted by men.

Men (in general) know how loads of men talk about women, think about women, dehumanise women, and find women being insulted, hurt, degraded etc enjoyable/ satisfying.

Maybe it could be that?

And let's face it over the years, it's hardly a secret that lots of men find spying on women and girls when they think they're in private/ women only situations extremely interesting.

Off the top of my head.

Those seaside 'peep show' machines years ago.

I'm pretty sure Benny hill had a peeping Tom character.

There was a film in the 80s (porkies? Not sure) where the young men found a way to spy on the girls in the showers.

I have a definite feeling that in carry on there was at least one scene with women running out of showers or similar screaming with their pants on and their hands over their breasts) (pants obv or it would be banned!).

Also a feeling it happened in mash? There was definitely a scene where the woman who they were always getting at had the covers pulled down while she was showering.

And etc.

The idea that men like to see/ embarrass/ etc women and girls in these situations is a given surely seeing as it's been put on screen as a totally normal and often hilarious and brilliant thing to do. See them when they think they have privacy for sexual kicks and sometimes reveal them to loads of other men (humiliation) or scare them (just nasty).

So yeah I don't think it's an off the wall thing to say...

Oh and while googling the Victorian things to remember what they were called I came across this lovely piece from 2007...

Reveals attitudes that are hard to shake. About it being sad men and it's just SO FUNNY and they're essentially doing no harm...

'We like a funny story on Londonist, and this has had us tittering into our tea mugs all day. One David Gay, of Finsbury Park, is up in the dock accused of using stealth cameras to film up ladies’ skirts.

Voyeurs are of course fundamentally pretty sad creatures, and the idea that someone has the power to see into areas which are private or sacred to another individual is, frankly, dead creepy. Clearly this guy is better off the streets, especially in view of the lewd connotations of his actions. Oh, and the fact that he wanted to sell the images on-line – that isn’t too much in his favour either.

But the peeping tom is also a figure of burlesque fun, in the best what-the-butler-saw, end of pier tradition. The idea of a rotund and bespectacled Victorian gent getting titillated by a bit of saucy seaside stocking is one of the stock figures of British popular culture. The fact that the Finsbury Fumbler went to all the trouble of installing cameras in the tips of his trainers, and another (for positioning purposes, apparently – oh, the technical wizardry) at the rear of his handbag renders him a clown of Benny Hill-esque proportions, and we should avoid getting on our moral or feminist high horses about it all.

Furthermore, with all due respect to the beautifully hosieried super-models amongst you, Londonist cannot think the perverted perpetrator got an awful lot of, er, exciting footage out of the exercise: a trip to Trafalgar Square (where he was finally rumbled) barely merits the donning of fine silk stockings, and, yup, we admit it – Brit women aren’t known for their sartorial elegance (inside or outside of the boudoir).

Wethinks the constabulary should take him on board and put his obvious surveillance experience to some use.'

The way I see it the gender identity parade is being marketed at the general public as being reasonable and about normal human decency.

Almost all articles state GC bad, pro-trans good, even when the science (real actual science, not biased witterings) supports there being significant sex based differences in post puberty strength, violence and sexual offending, over all groups of men and women separately.

The differences between the sexes in sport and violence are long known irrefutable facts. They are the very foundation of separate safe spaces and sports. The Equality Act specifically includes sex ss a protected characteristic in order to attempt to even the playing field for women. Or it did.

When people draft surveys for the general public, they forget that most people over 25 gave no idea that the terms that they have used all of their lives have now changed in meaning entirely. They also do not necessarily know about self ID now being sufficient.

Unclear surveys exploit the ignorance of the general public, not aware of the underhand dismantling of the biological sex based rights of women.

Any reasonable person would generally support using preferred pronouns/names, the right to self expression. They will be entirely unaware of the nuanced changes to word meanings, nor consequences of those.

This fuzzy cloud marketing causes deflection of people asking questions, because who wants to be called transpbobic and receive death and rape threats??

So through this toxic agenda men gain more and more access to women's safe spaces, undoing a century of equality fights. Whilst everyone is scared of calling it out for what it is. MALE PRIVILEGE IN THE EXTREME.

When a proper impartial, factually supported survey is issued to a fair representation of each demographic, with sufficient detail to make informed decisions, I will listen to it.

Until then, what do you want? Just to bully women Whilst trying to look smart? You don't. You look like the pathetic bully you are.

@OldCrone

Interesting. So is the implicit assumption there that you value men's opinions more than women's?

No. Why would you assume that? Your own personal bias perhaps.

I was replying to NiceGerbil who said Men know full well what men are like.

Men really don't believe this shit. - OldCrone The men at my work who have raised it till it's ridiculous.

Men know full well what men are like. - NiceGerbil

All of these statements have an implicit assumption that men know better.

They have explicitly referred to one sex, and not the other, otherwise they would have said "Everyone knows what men are like" or 'Nobody / few people believe that shit".

In referring to one sex and not the other, and valuing the conclusions that that male sex has come to, the indication is that female opinion on this matter is what...? naïve...? misguided....? confused....? unknowledgeable? badly judged...? poorly reasoned...? well meaning but weak...?

In any event, not as good as the men's opinions....right?

And no. That's certainly not what I believe.

Oh come on.

You are denying that on the whole men know more about what men think and feel about women.

And women in the whole know better what women think and feel about men?

????!!!!

This is another example of pretending not to know how real life works in order to make a point?

Ok.

Do you think that people with physical disabilities might know more about how people with disabilities feel, their experiences, than those who are not disabled?

You would propose that as a straight woman, it's both sexist and ? (some kind of sexuality-ist) for me to say I have no doubt that gay men have a more insightful view of the experiences etc of gay men than me?

The idea that an English man might have as much insight into the life of a recent asylum seeker from Iran feels reasonable to you?

Are you SURE?

@NiceGerbil

Oh come on.

You are denying that on the whole men know more about what men think and feel about women.

And women in the whole know better what women think and feel about men?

????!!!!

This is another example of pretending not to know how real life works in order to make a point?

Ok.

Do you think that people with physical disabilities might know more about how people with disabilities feel, their experiences, than those who are not disabled?

You would propose that as a straight woman, it's both sexist and ? (some kind of sexuality-ist) for me to say I have no doubt that gay men have a more insightful view of the experiences etc of gay men than me?

The idea that an English man might have as much insight into the life of a recent asylum seeker from Iran feels reasonable to you?

Are you SURE?

This yougov survey was about "Where does the British public stand on transgender rights?"

It's not asking about who knows who better (where on earth did you get that from?!!) , it's asking for public opinions on a varying array of rights for transgender people.

In fact, according to your logic, only trans people should be asked about rights for trans people, right?

Because they are the ones that have the most in-depth understanding of themselves, only they have that insight into themselves. So we should exclude what everyone else thinks because how can anyone else have insight into trans peoples' experiences?

That's fine, we'll see what a public survey on rights for trans people filled out by exclusively trans people comes up with.

All of these statements have an implicit assumption that men know better...

...what men are really like.

Yes, I do think men know better what men are really like, in general.

Do you really think that women in general know as well as men what men are really like? As you get older you learn more, which would explain why the answers given by people aged 50+ align more closely with those given by men.

I didn't take your post to be about a survey?! The comment of mine about men at work you quoted is nothing to do with a survey.

Your post:

'Men really don't believe this shit. - OldCrone
__
The men at my work who have raised it till it's ridiculous.

Men know full well what men are like. - NiceGerbil

All of these statements have an implicit assumption that men know better.

They have explicitly referred to one sex, and not the other, otherwise they would have said "Everyone knows what men are like" or 'Nobody / few people believe that shit".

In referring to one sex and not the other, and valuing the conclusions that that male sex has come to, the indication is that female opinion on this matter is what...? naïve...? misguided....? confused....? unknowledgeable? badly judged...? poorly reasoned...? well meaning but weak...?

In any event, not as good as the men's opinions....right?'

'
It's not asking about who knows who better (where on earth did you get that from?!!) , '

From your post saying it was a bad thing for women to think that when it comes to men and their behaviour, men know what men are like. Better then women. (At a group level, as ever there will be exceptions).

So to me your posts don't make sense tbh saying you never said that etc.

Oh lol.

The idea that women should not be listened to at all has been invented from nowhere!

Ok take an example. Off the top of my head.

A community has issues with knife crime among boys.

Everyone will have thoughts ideas opinions etc about it. Especially eg their parents. Including their mothers.

When it comes to getting to grips with the root causes dynamics issues etc as to why the boys are becoming involved.

Who is it best to ask? The boys. Obviously. They are the ones embedded in that world.

Others should also be listened to of course. But the ones who REALLY know are the ones at the centre.

Yes? No? Sexist???!!!

@Bosky

suggestionsplease1 - who do you think knows women best? Men or women?

Asking you again, suggestionsplease1

Who do you think knows women best? Men or women?

The number of arguments that rely on totally ignoring real life is really interesting.

@Bosky I don't place any inherent value on a person's judgement or knowledge of any subject matter simply based on their sex.

A person might possibly know themselves better than someone else, but even that is not a foregone conclusion - I am sure we all know people who have little self awareness. By virtue of sharing the same sex with someone else I make no assumptions that I know them, their preferences and attitudes better than someone of the other sex. They will likely have people close to them of the other sex that know them far better than I am likely to simply through possessing the same set of genitals.

If men know men better and women know women better then surely trans people know trans people better? But yet many people on these boards claim to have greater insight into trans people than trans people have for themselves - they call them delusional.

What we know about ourselves and the social categories we belong to functions differently from the knowledge that others outside the categories have for us. There might be rich, but subjective, self-understanding, and clear, more objective but perhaps more limited understanding from others towards us.

So I don't think you can assume a greater understanding from one sex for their own sex - it's not a valid assumption and it's not an entirely relevant assumption for the purposes of establishing rights for a group of people, otherwise each social category throughout history would be more entitled to determine their own rights and restrictions within the comprehensive social setting of their time and place, and I think we call all imagine the anarchy that would lead to.

The case has been made in this thread that someone who shares similar backgrounds and experiences is in a better place to have insight into that person, and also consequently better judgement about the rights that they should or should not be entitled to. So presumably the closer in background and similarity they are, the better placed they are to engage in this process? So then it follows that, in fact, trans people are better placed to make judgements about rights for trans people, aren't they? They are embedded in the world of trans issues, they are at the centre of it - therefore they are surely better placed to understand and pass comment on the rights they are entitled to? According to the logic that some people are posting.

So then it follows that, in fact, trans people are better placed to make judgements about rights for trans people, aren't they? They are embedded in the world of trans issues, they are at the centre of it - therefore they are surely better placed to understand and pass comment on the rights they are entitled to?

What rights do trans people lack in the UK?

And do you think women should also have rights?