Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Canadian struggle session

156 replies

ArabellaScott · 17/09/2024 14:56

Independent MLA Jennifer Johnston has been forced to attend re education.

Quite a watch.

x.com/marco_huigenbos/status/1835818141160477015

OP posts:
Thread gallery
7
NecessaryScene · 18/09/2024 15:53

But they can't take 'woman', because we're still using it.

Some would counter, well you can use "cis women".

Except that doesn't work, because it isn't fully inclusive of all female-bodied people. (Including many here, as well as all the non-binaries etc).

A term for "female people who believe they're women and that's what makes them women"(*) is far less useful than a term for "all female people regardless of what they do or don't believe".

In almost every situation where someone attempts to use "cis women", the resulting sentence ends up less accurate than if it was replaced with "women" with the adult human female definition.

(*) and often roping in "female people I insist are covered by this term because I know they're female, even though they insist they don't believe in any of this nonsense and I insist it's impossible to tell anyone's sex"

NoBinturongsHereMate · 18/09/2024 16:41

Which I why I got my previous workplace's women's network description changed from 'all who identify as women' to 'all women, however they identify'. I don't think our DEI persion, who proposed the initial wording, understood the difference.

quantumbutterfly · 18/09/2024 16:48

NoBinturongsHereMate · 18/09/2024 16:41

Which I why I got my previous workplace's women's network description changed from 'all who identify as women' to 'all women, however they identify'. I don't think our DEI persion, who proposed the initial wording, understood the difference.

👏Cunning. I like it.

ArabellaScott · 18/09/2024 16:54

NoBinturongsHereMate · 18/09/2024 16:41

Which I why I got my previous workplace's women's network description changed from 'all who identify as women' to 'all women, however they identify'. I don't think our DEI persion, who proposed the initial wording, understood the difference.

Excellent.

OP posts:
DuesToTheDirt · 18/09/2024 17:08

"Transwomen are women. We are who we say we are."

They just don't get it, do they? Defining themselves as women, i.e. as the same as us, redefines who WE are. And WE are who we say we are, i.e. women, who are not men.

RedToothBrush · 18/09/2024 17:20

DuesToTheDirt · 18/09/2024 17:08

"Transwomen are women. We are who we say we are."

They just don't get it, do they? Defining themselves as women, i.e. as the same as us, redefines who WE are. And WE are who we say we are, i.e. women, who are not men.

Oh I think they do get it...

XChrome · 18/09/2024 18:30

popeydokey · 18/09/2024 07:52

"Enjoy (the cookies), I only put a teaspoon of poop in them, but it doesn’t matter because it’s only a teaspoon in the whole batch. Same idea — we can be top three per cent, but that little bit of poop is what wrecks it.”

This analogy is often used when talking about abuse in relationships. It doesn't mean anyone is literally poo.

This time it was about actual people, not an action like abuse.
What part of she has admitted it and apologized for it are people not getting?
Defending a statement like this only opens GC people up to the usual "bigot" slurs.

XChrome · 18/09/2024 18:41

FlirtsWithRhinos · 18/09/2024 07:44

I'd still like to read the context not the paraphrasing of someone on very much the other side, from a movement that has made great capital out of asserting any opposition is hate and is therefore highly motivated to the worst possible reading of others' words.

I have not forgotten how the lady who quoted the very well known passage about "the big lie" to show how gender ideology was using the same methods as Naziism was gleefully reported by trans activisits as "we told you TERFS are Nazis, she even quoted Hitler!!!"

The "little bit of poo" analogy is widely used to explain that even if most of something is good, a small amount of very bad that cannot be removed from the good may be bad enough that the whole thing can't be done.

From the quote I read, she might indeed have meant "all trans kids are like shit", but she might also have meant "most trans identifying kids are fine but some are badly behaved or otherwise impacting the rest if the school" or "this ideology is harmful so even if it's only a few kids who actually identify as trans, endorsing the belief that mental gender exists and is more significant than sex has a bad impact on the whole community"

All I've been able to find so far is Trans Activits and allies gleefully performing aghastness.

Is this for real?
You're only giving TRAs ammunition against GC people by coming up with convoluted ways to let people like this off the hook.

What paraphrasing? That was a direct quote, and since when is Global news "very much on the other side?" Do you know anything about Global news? I'm assuming you're in the UK, so you haven't watched it.
The same quote can be found from multiple news sources, and I repeat; she has admitted that is what she said. She is not claiming there is an alternate meaning such as you suggest.

XChrome · 18/09/2024 18:48

ArabellaScott · 18/09/2024 08:26

Well, I'm afraid that does leave an awful lot of room for doubt. Doubt is something I've learned is very important, especially given the wider context of a culture and legislation that is pushing one narrative very hard, prone to manipulation, and frankly is dishonest.

If someone is arguing that men can be women, it's not really that big a leap to misrepresent a quote out of context and claim something else than what was actually said. The fact that the full quote isn't given is what arouses my suspicions.

There is no doubt when she has admitted it herself and apologized for it. Every news source has the same quote and she has not disputed it or claimed she meant something else by it. The news sources using the quote are not arguing men can be women. They are reporting on a politicial scandal.
You're really reaching. Why? Not all gender realists are good people. Why defend assholes just because they share your POV on an issue?

XChrome · 18/09/2024 18:53

SpidersAreShitheads · 18/09/2024 08:27

@ArabellaScott @FlirtsWithRhinos

I found this audio clip. I don’t know the actual full extent of the discussion but I do think her comments have been taken out of context (surprise….not).

To me, she seems to be saying that it doesn’t matter what children achieve academically if they’re allowed to permanently fuck themselves up in the process, because many will go on to regret it. Shes saying that indulging whims is unhelpful for the classroom and for the individual.

The optics probably aren’t great because they’re also laughing about modern indulgences and how parenting in the past wouldn’t have had any patience with gender confusion.

But, as expected, she’s not likening trans teens to “pieces of poop”. The point she’s making is that teens trans lives can be ruined by allowing chemical castration and no amount of academic success can override this. Allowing children to be chemically castrated is the “poop”, not the child themselves. Or at least that’s how I’ve interpreted this….

www.reddeeradvocate.com/news/ucp-candidates-hateful-comments-cast-shadow-on-important-lgbtq2s-day-6826590

Oh please. You must know the use of that particular analogy about actual human beings is disgusting.
Why are people defending this fool? Even her own party (extremely right wing, not at all TRA) found her too hateful and bounced her.
It's ludicrous. Some people who happen to be GC are actually scummy people. Face it.

ArabellaScott · 18/09/2024 18:53

I'm not reaching. I'm pedantic. She has not compared children to faeces. I don't know anything about this women to defend or otherwise; I'm just interested in the specific quote. This has been misrepresented.

OP posts:
XChrome · 18/09/2024 18:54

Cambiarenome · 18/09/2024 08:37

Whether it's a common analogy or not, it clearly should not be used when talking about children. It's dehumanising language.

100%.

XChrome · 18/09/2024 18:59

ArabellaScott · 18/09/2024 18:53

I'm not reaching. I'm pedantic. She has not compared children to faeces. I don't know anything about this women to defend or otherwise; I'm just interested in the specific quote. This has been misrepresented.

Okay, I give up. If you want to defend some far right asshole (who is even too far right for her own far right party) because you insist GC people have to all be lovely people, have at it.

ArabellaScott · 18/09/2024 19:00

XChrome · 18/09/2024 18:59

Okay, I give up. If you want to defend some far right asshole (who is even too far right for her own far right party) because you insist GC people have to all be lovely people, have at it.

Stop putting words in my mouth, thank you.

OP posts:
XChrome · 18/09/2024 19:00

RapidOnsetGenderCritic · 18/09/2024 09:51

She had already apologised for that, but that apology (which appeared to be a real apology, not one of those non-apologies) is nowhere near enough for "Victoria", who requires her to submit to his bullying.

I know that. Victoria is an asshole as well.

XChrome · 18/09/2024 19:05

ArabellaScott · 18/09/2024 19:00

Stop putting words in my mouth, thank you.

Okay, withdrawn. It's just that if that's not your reason I can't imagine what else it could be and it seems to me it can only be something worse, so I don't want to know.
That was actually a charitable interpretation of your motives, then? Yikes. Please tell me no more.

ArabellaScott · 18/09/2024 19:10

What are you actually on about?

OP posts:
RainWithSunnySpells · 18/09/2024 19:28

A flight of fancy I think.

ArabellaScott · 18/09/2024 19:30
Drama Reaction GIF by MOODMAN

Or a guess that I'm actually Pure Evil Personified.

I thought I was hiding it quite well, too.

OP posts:
CaptainCarrotsBigSword · 18/09/2024 19:48

For goodness sake. She can be a TOTAL ARSEHOLE and still be right about something!

Life is an awful lot more complicated than "everything nice people think is right" and "everything mean people think is wrong".

Even if she's the biggest fucking twat ever to walk the earth, she shouldn't be compelled to agree that Victoria is a woman. Because Victoria IS a man, and always will be a man.

Boiledbeetle · 18/09/2024 19:58

ArabellaScott · 18/09/2024 19:30

Or a guess that I'm actually Pure Evil Personified.

I thought I was hiding it quite well, too.

I hope you are! I'm already onto the personified bit of your personalised christmas cross stitch!

NecessaryScene · 18/09/2024 20:05

I always find it fascinating how incredibly hateful those who accuse other of being "hateful" are.

XChrome · 18/09/2024 20:35

CaptainCarrotsBigSword · 18/09/2024 19:48

For goodness sake. She can be a TOTAL ARSEHOLE and still be right about something!

Life is an awful lot more complicated than "everything nice people think is right" and "everything mean people think is wrong".

Even if she's the biggest fucking twat ever to walk the earth, she shouldn't be compelled to agree that Victoria is a woman. Because Victoria IS a man, and always will be a man.

Edited

Exactly so. I don't get why people feel the need to defend her as a person. She's clearly a far right lunatic. Assholes can indeed be right about things. Why defend them as people just because one happens to agree on that particular issue?
It's puzzling to me and I fear the answer is something unpalatable. So I don't really want to know.

XChrome · 18/09/2024 20:45

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 18/09/2024 21:01

Why the personal attacks against Arabella, @XChrome? You disagree with her. The end. There's no deeper subtext to her comments that I can see.