Posting upton’s old photos and name on twitter

[Biggadyboom]

Look I’ve been in these discussions since before this forum existed. You don’t need to break it down for me. I peaked in 2018.

But the endless sharing of upton’s name accompanied by photos and horrible comments about him and his wife is not nice. It is totally is transphobia. It’s horrible.

I could kind of understand the point of it, if it was just the name being shared.

But equally the court has ruled that Upton has a right to privacy. I thought it was all about respecting court’s rulings?

but the sharing of private photos (presumably grabbed from social media) and especially their wedding photo with insults to both of them and speculation about their marriage is awful and will not help their be a resolution to this debate. It polarises it even more and is transphobia.

fair enough, don’t let Upton change the rules of the country and workplace based on personal beliefs . But that doesn’t involve posting personal information and photos , insults and horrible speculation.

or are we just going low now?

Some generalisations are in common use and serve certain purposes.
Single sex spaces exist for this reason, as do many health, education and other services. One cannot know everything little thing about each individual when planning a service or a provision.
Generalisations are not essentailly negative. They take a known and understood pattern and apply it more widely for positive purposes in all sorts of situations.

The context of this discussion was hate speech IE generalisations with abusive prejudice. Not all male bodied people are deluded predatory violent sex pests & to normalise false stereotypical narratives is a dangerous risk to civil society because it doesn't end well as Nazi germany & other genocides show. Now whilst I appreciate that logistics matter, there's no benefit to use inflammatory generalisations. Particularly given the necessary condition for sexual violence to occur is when the victim is isolated/alone & not because the perpetrator had 'permission'. Sexual abusers don't seem to be deterred even by laws & punishment.

www.un.org/en/hate-speech/understanding-hate-speech/hate-speech-and-real-harm

Being 'mean' isn't going to legitimise an argument further if anything it's going to turn people who are on the fence off.
To clarify, my tone was ironic as GC are not being mean or unkind when they ask all men (including the TW kind) to respect women’s (the biological kind) spaces/sports/short list’s etc.

No, but that's not all some of them do. They often accompany their concerns with a side of hateful abuse.

Someone coming on here and being hateful towards women saying that hateful behaviour towards women should be unilaterally condemned?

Such as?

Men pose a threat to women. it is impossible to know which men will pose this threat and which will not.

There is nothing uncivil in being able to recognise a man and calling him a man so as to exclude him from spaces that are designated for women.

Like what?

Familiarity with all these technical arguments and specialist trems about hate speech and straw mans and mottes and baileys suggests a bit too much time spent in the basement.

I think it would work in practice like this:

TRAs advance: TWAW and it’s literal violence to deny TW access to WSSS.
FWR: Men cannot become women and women have the right to safety, dignity and privacy in SSS.
TRAs / handmaidens retreat: You are all mean and unkind.

The arguer advances the controversial position, but when challenged, insists that only the more modest position is being advanced.

I also wonder again about the people who would be convinced supposedly some time in the future. The OP and others think that posting images and the name and a blunt comment about Upton’s actions will mean that those people will be convinced that Upton is female and should have the right to be in female single sex spaces.

When really, this discussion has been in the media enough for the past 4-5 years. If they haven’t already formed an opinion on it, after Bryson, sports discussions and this, what will get those people thinking more decisively?

Howseitgoin · Today 08:27
Being 'mean' isn't going to legitimise an argument further if anything it's going to turn people who are on the fence off.
To clarify, my tone was ironic as GC are not being mean or unkind when they ask all men (including the TW kind) to respect women’s (the biological kind) spaces/sports/short list’s etc.
No, but that's not all some of them do. They often accompany their concerns with a side of hateful abuse.
Such as?

Calling trans people 'mentally ill' & are all predatory sex fetishists.

Blah blah blah

Some quite obviously are. Are we supposed to just ignore that, while they also issue death/rape threats to us?

Yes. That is one way I under the tactic. And I don’t quite understand the repeated accusations the posters defending the prioritisation of sex of gender are doing this.

I doubt it is even relevant to the thread. But then the derail was about how poorly behaved women were on MN so I guess it is an extension of the thread.

I don't hate people with mental health issues. I have had occasional brushes with depression myself.

But obviously, gender dysphoria is a mental illness very similar in its outworking to Anorexia nervosa. If you love people afflicted with these conditions you should help them get treatment, not pamper them and pander to it. You've been eager to harness clichés - howseabout the last decade of genderism being a case of 'the lunatics taking over the asylum'?

x.com/Psychgirl211/status/1808825717204922755

Men pose a threat to women. it is impossible to know which men will pose this threat and which will not.
There is nothing uncivil in being able to recognise a man and calling him a man so as to exclude him from spaces that are designated for women.

Women also pose a threat to women as do adults to children & on & on and yet we don't feel the need to stereotype all women or adults as deluded sex pests. Consistency & framing matters.

The facts are we can never know for sure who we can be safe with. Women are significantly likely to be sexually abused in the work place & yet there's no demand that there be separate work spaces or we be constantly chaperoned. Where's the consistency here?

That there are quite a large number of men who have adopted trans identities in recent years, and who once would once have been referred to as transvestites, is a fact. Transvestitism is a widely understood paraphilia; otherwise known as a fetish.

A fetish is an object or a practice which becomes the sole focus for erotic fulfilment. It has been written about widely. Some women who post on this board are, or have been married to men who engage with this fetish.

This is not " calling". It is correctly identifying a whole sub set of trans identified men.

Dysphoria is a mental health condition. the clue is in the prefix 'Dys'..and the word 'phoria'.

A - if you genuinely think you are the wrong sex, then that is by definition a mental health issue
B - if you don't genuinely think you are the wrong sex but are pretending to be, especially just to access female sex spaces, then you are more than likely to be either mentally ill [see A] or a predator or a sex fetishist.

Neither are hateful abuse, but statements of understanding and explanation.

Which posters are making generalisations about all trans people being predatory sex fetishists?

I call that a catastrophic generalisation that is a flawed mischaracterisation.

Being 'mean' isn't going to legitimise an argument further if anything it's going to turn people who are on the fence off.
To clarify, my tone was ironic as GC are not being mean or unkind when they ask all men (including the TW kind) to respect women’s (the biological kind) spaces/sports/short list’s etc.
No, but that's not all some of them do. They often accompany their concerns with a side of hateful abuse.
Such as?
Calling trans people 'mentally ill' & are all predatory sex fetishists.

Some quite obviously are. Are we supposed to just ignore that, while they also issue death/rape threats to us?

As are all people including women. The point is not to use inflammatory generalisations that implicate entire groups.

It is not inflammatory to correctly identify a pattern, and to name it...and to understand its application.

Who is saying 'all' are? Receipts please.

The fact some are is very relevant when people like you want to give them Carte Blanche access to women's spaces. This is about safeguarding. Women, quite rightly, do not want to open up their spaces to a) men and b) men with issues that are going to cause additional problems for women.

That may not include all transwomen, but as we have asked many, many times, how are we supposed to tell the difference?

This thread is about a male doctor.
Trained under the UK medical training system.

He claimed under oath that he a medical doctor has with his medical training reached a conclusion that he is female.

You: Not all male bodied people are deluded predatory violent sex pests

He said that he expected staff that he works with to ignore their training around consent and fetch him to a woman who clearly said she only wanted same sex care provision.

You: Not all male bodied people are deluded predatory violent sex pests

He said that he would ignore his training around consent when a woman who clearly said she only wanted same sex care provision.

You: Not all male bodied people are deluded predatory violent sex pests

Is there a word that we are allowed to use that defines the entire group of men who insist on transgressing female single sex spaces and who threaten any women who rail against this, who are doing it for their own fetishes or predation?

If so can you share. I'd love to know. Also include how we know the difference between those men and men who are just doing it for shits and giggles?

Howseitgoin · Today 08:27
Being 'mean' isn't going to legitimise an argument further if anything it's going to turn people who are on the fence off.
To clarify, my tone was ironic as GC are not being mean or unkind when they ask all men (including the TW kind) to respect women’s (the biological kind) spaces/sports/short list’s etc.
No, but that's not all some of them do. They often accompany their concerns with a side of hateful abuse.
Such as?
Calling trans people 'mentally ill' & are all predatory sex fetishists.
That there are quite a large number of men who have adopted trans identities in recent years, and who once would once have been referred to as transvestites, is a fact. Transvestitism is a widely understood paraphilia; otherwise known as a fetish.
A fetish is an object or a practice which becomes the sole focus for erotic fulfilment. It has been written about widely. Some women who post on this board are, or have been married to men who engage with this fetish.
This is not " calling". It is correctly identifying a whole sub set of trans identified men.
Dysphoria is a mental health condition. the clue is in the prefix 'Dys'..and the word 'phoria'.

Non sequitur. Whilst there's no doubt fetishes exist, it does not follow every transperson is a 'fetishist'. The increase in trans identifying people in recent times can be easily attributed to increased social acceptance. Non gender conforming people have existed since dot & now have the freedom to express themselves fully & publicly.

Telling women that we have not spent our lives from puberty on (the lucky ones, it can start earlier) being sexually harrassed, abused and sometimes assaulted by men and boys on a constant basis is not a good look.

There was a survey a few years ago that said 97% of girls reported having experienced abuse. The general feeling among women discussing it was that that was an under-estimate. Of course we don't bother reporting it, males don't care. But we will defend the few single-sex spaces we have.