Women's rights general conversations - Thread 5

[Kucinghitam]

Continuation of Thread 4.

There is so much excellent information and so many active discussions on FWR that I wondered if it would be useful to have a thread to sort of "cross-fertilise" between them - airing little thoughts or vignettes that wouldn't themselves merit their own thread, to highlight other posts/threads of particular interest or to point to notable developments on fast-moving threads so that casual observers know where to look.

(For example, "the X thread has meandered onto a fascinating discussion of Y" or "Poster P's amazing analysis on thread Z might have relevance to the scenario in thread W" or "Has anybody noticed this recurring theme that keeps coming up??" or even "Random bloke asked me to smile while I was choosing onions, grr"- that sort of thing).

and the world is overrun by small toasters

Aha! I see what you did! Left the true fact till last, hoping to catch us out!

Sneaky!

I don’t know any other Mr T and thought well, not the first man that came to mind but now you mention it I’m sure he’d be lovely!

Oops, never watched the A Team so didn't know about the other Mr T. I'll call him Mr Tric from now on.

😂

Mr T 👇

Just read about the toaster, glad that's been explained as I had no idea what it was about! Nice blast from the past.

Latest exciting development on that thread is that the evil cabal of Telegraph forum posters seems to actually be us.

Does the Telegraph even have discussion boards?

Apparently this is a hot bed of right wing extremist infiltrators trying to take over the world or something.

I'm dying to know which regulars are the infiltrators and how you can tell.

So, our origin story:

Flung off the Telegraph forums for being too right wing for them.

Or

Chose to leave a left-oriented male-dominated forum in order to keep it open for the other posters there.

Pity we can't have polls on here.

The morning team has woken up, is well into their shift and has reverted to “you’re all a load of evil racists”. i typed out a response but decided against it as it would get deleted for being flippant and not in the spirit etc. But for anyone familiar with Monty Python:

“but all I said was, that piece of fish was good enough for Jehovah”

@funnelfan Can we add the Monty Python "duck witch" scene? I'd say the Righteous People on that thread are basically reenacting it

Well, he does look pretty handy and probably nice to snuggle with too!

I sometimes wonder if we (on the GC side, if there is such a thing) have lost sight of the fons et origo of the problems, and whether there is an additional need (while defending rights) to unpick queer theory itself.

TWAW is the claim that underpins most of the behaviours and policies of stonewall/mermaids etc. This claim can only be true if Butler et al are right and the philosphical origins are not really challenged much.

I think this is in part the result of the deliberately obscure text of Butler. I've been reading GT and I don't find it difficult in essence, just pretentious in the way that academic texts can be. I wonder if she herself is embarrassed by her writing in that book.

I suppose simply denying TWAW is the solid policy - but fools everywhere seem to feel there's a genuine and accepted philosphical platform to base it all on, so they feel as we know they feel - virtuous and right.

But I suppose a poster campaign saying TWANOTW would be censored. As would something that said "JB is making shit up for giggles and destruction".

Good article here on men "breast feeding" infants. Not much new but clear and compelling:

https://with-woman.org/2023/05/26/should-trans-identified-men-be-supported-to-breastfeed-why-we-say-the-answers-no/

It's me, me, me, with these people, isn't it? Babies? Mothers? Just props.

Very clear article, thank you.

My position is that if a philosophical argument is at odds with observable, provable reality then the philosophy is wrong. No further dissection of the detail needed.

Although unpicking unpleasant details, internal contradictions, and unfortunate logical extrapolations can be entertaining if I have nothing better to do.

I am probably one of the few posters on this particular thread who actually reads the Telegraph as well as the Guardian, and reads the NYT as well as the Washington Post. I like to know how people who disagree with me think and why they think it. Not only is the thought that this thread is representative of people "thrown off" the Telegraph hilarious in itself, the other half of the joke is that as far as I can see the only people banned from the Telegraph comment threads are those posting from a left wing perspective. Commenters there are frequently eye-wateringly right wing and never, as far as I can tell, castigated by other posters for that perspective. One of the reasons I choose to read the Telegraph is that they are one of the few papers that allows articles from a gender-critical perspective so that's where I have to go if I want that perspective.

The Telegraph used to have a talkboard, I posted a lot on their Brexit threads, but was outnumbered 500-1, it was futile, so I didn’t go back, and eventually stopped getting emails from them so assumed the board was closed. In terms of opinion it was as far from good ol’ lefty GUT/JTT as it was possible to be. It was a good if depressing way to get “both sides” of an argument.

Ah, sorry Brit, I see you said that already.

@MavisMcMinty - like the Guardian, they have comments enabled on some articles.

I read all the papers too, Brit, a habit developed when reading everything from the Wall Street Journal to The Sun was part of my job. Like you, I like to know what everyone thinks.

This "There's been a sudden influx of right-wing posters" meme: now where have I heard that before? Sounds familiar....

I didn't catch that, duc - sorry, having a spot of bother with my jackboots.

When do they go home for tea? I've made the mistake of trying to be reasonable and its tiring.