Sandi Toksvig "doesn't get it", poor love....

[HootyMcBooby]

Sandi Toksvig slams anti-trans bigots ‘claiming to be radical feminists’ (msn.com)

"I could weep. I don’t get it. It’s beyond me"

Yeah Sandi, I don't get it either.
How is it possible that men can say they are women and have unfettered access to females in their safe spaces?
How is it possible that we are medicating children against puberty?
How it is possible that a woman can be raped on a female hospital ward by a man claiming to be a woman and then gaslighted to be told a man was not on the ward?
How is it possible that men are claiming titles, sponsorships and medals in women's sports?
How is it possible women and females are being literally erased from so many spheres of life, including health/medicine and marketing campaigns? How come the same isn't happening to males?

As a lesbian do you like "lady penis"?
Or do you actually know that men remain men whatever surgeries they may have had, and are just on the "be kind" train?

Have you even THOUGHT about the issues this ideology ushers in?

Actually you don't need to answer that.
It's obvious.

Of course, Sandi will not be ‘cancelled’ by any feminists. Do women protest in front of the WEP meetings and conferences now? No. There is no symmetry in this particular’both sides’ argument.

Exactly. I am so sick of people claiming that we are trying to silence or even cancel Toksvig or others like her. There is a massive difference between robustly disagreeing with someone and trying to stop them from speaking.

As usual, I wonder whether trans activists are genuinely so stupid they can't tell the difference, or whether they are deliberately lying as a way of scoring points.

On past performance, neither would surprise me.

I suspect corgi that some of those ‘activists’ believe that we are the ones lacking the ability to see their tactics. They seem to generally believe that readers can’t see the tactics too.

Disagreement and even argument is the opposite of silencing.

I always love the extreme end double standards rife in this movement.

GC women may not state what is wrong with the views of a woman behaving in an exceptionally silly way, because it's not nice.

But they scream death threats, kettle, set off smoke bombs, beat up, exclude and hold signs calling for the rape and execution of women they dislike the views of. And believe this is justified and fine.

These double standards are what Lundy Bancroft describes as the hallmark of a male abuser.

Lols. No-one forces people on who they choose to have sex with.

Wtf!!!! Tell me you're a man without telling me you're a man!

I’m discussing the CoE because a poster complained about Sandi Toksvig calling the CoE bigots.

I’m not sure why you think a bigoted view can’t be called bigoted if it’s also a religious view. And of course no one here has said people can’t hold bigoted beliefs. But others are also perfectly entitled to call them bigoted beliefs.

I don’t want to silence Sandi at all, I want to hear her speak! But she needs to clarify her position. She has said anti-trans feminists make her want to weep and she’d never want to exclude anyone as she’s been excluded herself. How does she define anti-trans? How does she define exclusion?

In my opinion, an anti-trans viewpoint would be saying something like this:

”I hate all trans people and I want to exclude them from society.”

How many feminists are saying that, Sandi?

As a feminist who centres women, just like old-fashioned feminism used to, I’m saying that there is a conflict of interest between what trans people want and what women NEED.

Third spaces and categories are the answer, creating provision for everyone who needs it. That’s not hateful, that’s fair to all.

I'd also love Sandi to explain what she plans to do with women of faith, BAME, other cultures, disabilities, traumas, women with CSA/DV/DA, PTSD.....?

And why she's not weeping for them? Or their exclusion? Or their needs?

Bloody hell. You really are determined to be obtuse about this.

A poster starting complaining that women on the thread weren’t being nice and were calling Sandi names.

So I pointed out that Sandi started out by calling people names in the media, so the name-calling genie was already out of the bottle.

But somehow you are utterly determined to pretend there is no difference between describing views and describing people. Calling a view bigoted is not a ‘fact’ as you claim, but an opinion (your opinion in this case). Regardless, it is a comment on the views.

Once you have started talking about ‘bigots’ though you’ve moved on to defining the people who hold the views you feel are bigotry entirely by their beliefs and are calling them a name that you absolutely believe yo be an insult.

No one talking about ‘bigots’ can complain about others calling them names.

She has said anti-trans feminists make her want to weep and she’d never want to exclude anyone as she’s been excluded herself.

This is the sort of sentence that makes me think she just doesn't have a clue, that she's in a bubble, receiving diluted information from TRAs, or TRA adjacent people who think they're progressive.

And not just because the sentence misrepresents the position, but because there is no way on earth she would even offer an opinion, if she knew what she was getting into.

And claiming that Toksvig was talking about CofE bishops when she started name calling is also quite disingenuous.

She might only have explicitly used the word bigots to refer to the bishops in the House of Lords, but it’s very clear that she views anyone with what she refers to as ‘anti-trans’ beliefs falls into the same territory.

Regardless, it makes no difference that she was only calling bishops names.

I don’t want to silence Sandi at all, I want to hear her speak!

I do too. I want to hear why an educated woman has decided to espouse a wholly irrational ideology. Surely someone as articulate as Sandi can explain her position to those of us who don't agree with her? Perhaps if she explains it well enough, she will convince us.

I think we all suspect, however, that the reason Sandi doesn't defend her position is because she can't.

I believe that there are those, they are few but they are out there, who try the dishonest thing of saying someone is anti-trans / transphobic/ bigoted is just stating facts. But that anyone who might even infer that supporting prioritising gender over sex or medicalisation of children is complicit in harming women is being abusive. That seems to be the degree of lack of proportionality. And it spills over onto these threads sometimes.

It is like recently a poster repeatedly stated that ‘all they were doing was pointing out transphobia’ and denying that it is abusive to the posters to be called transphobic when they are being falsely accused. It is fuckwittery driven by entrenched ideological beliefs. That same poster then quickly claimed to be the victim of bullying. It wasn’t done on just one thread. It was done on several.

But it is not just one poster who acts in this disproportionate way, there are others. Luckily it is only a few though.

I doubt Sandi is interested in defending her position. She’s just presented it as emotively being about whether you’re a good person or not.

IME people whose main line of argument is to complain that anyone who disagrees is nasty and unkind is not going to be interested in examining the substance of their supposedly morally superior position.

Yes @Helleofabore. It is a recurring tactic. And an irritating one.

But she's said "I don’t get it. It’s beyond me". She's admitted she doesn't understand what our arguments are about. Has she even tried to find out what they actually are?

From Wikipedia: She read law, archaeology and anthropology at Girton College, Cambridge, graduating with a first-class degree and receiving two prizes (The Raemakers and the Theresa Montefiore Awards) for outstanding achievement.

I don't believe she's too stupid to understand our arguments. She doesn't understand because she doesn't want to. The question is, why doesn't she want to? Claiming "it's beyond me" is bizarre from someone with her level of education.

I'd say that "It's beyond me" was never intended as an expression of her struggle to grasp it conceptually.

It's a moral position, a deliberately hyperbolic, emotive attempt to suggest that our views are "beyond" the ethical pale.

NB. Just googled the etymology of "beyond the pale", and it comes from "beyond the paling" - the fence, the home area. Apt. There's a safely circumscribed set of views she's adhering to, and, beyond them, a dangerous frontier, or new tu/erf (geddit?!).

Again, the metaphors of colonialism work quite well here, if in an enjoyably mixed way.

Beyond the pale, there be dragons. Or dinosaurs. 😉

Yes. I agree it’s ‘beyond’ in the sense that it’s so outlandish that it’s simply inconceivable.

Inconceivable!

Out-land-ish. Hah. Never thought about or broken that one down before.

Love language.

And that made me actually weep to think that a young woman who has been deeply traumatised can no longer be in places that would once have been safe for her.

Then the anger sets in!

Sandi can take her concern for these space invaders and do one. 😡

Just for the sake of illustration, I've included a screenshot of a grotesque homophobic rape threat directed at "TERFS".

It's marked as sensitive. Click at your own risk.

Thanks for that example Neighbourhood

That kind of deranged filth emanates from this movement constantly. And makes you realise how truly stupid it is to be dragged into 'well you're as bad' debates with the realityphobic.

Pass Sandi another tissue incase the man who typed that filth broke a nail doing it.

Usually I find there is a pretty simple and clear logic that people like this use, and it is absolutely about what is and is not beyond the pale.

It all starts with TWAW. That is the premise that they accept without question. It's like saying, in their minds, black people are human beings, or men and women are equal. It's what right thinking people understand.

Everything else follows from that. They really do believe differentiating transwomen from women is the same kind of thing as separating out black women or disabled women, because they accept wholly that woman is the correct category.

The basis for that acceptance is where you have to poke these people. It's tricky though because it's usually along the lines of a starting point that's accepted for moral reasons. They aren't looking from a really rationalist or philosophical, much less scientific, perspective.

Neighbourhood kind of blows the no-one is forcing anyone to have sex with TW out of the water doesn't it?

Of course, of course, it's both sides isn't it I am sure the allies on this thread will be able to come up with exactly the same threats aimed at TW from people who do not believe TWAW and are fighting for women's rights and spaces to be free from any and all males.