4 ms·

Putting things in a list is not automatically equivalence. Lists can serve many purposes. In this case, they're enumerating a set of different things because th

Putting things in a list is not automatically equivalence. Lists can serve many purposes. In this case, they're enumerating a set of different things because the inclusion of one is not obvious based on the inclusion of the others!

johnnyworker 3y ago
[flagged]
- mcv 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - johnnyworker 3y ago
    > Boy, that article isn't cherry-picking at all! Because most people reacted well? Good one. No, it's representative. Women lost their jobs just for agreeing with JKR on this. People talking about how they want to or how everybody should "punch TERFs" and all that is also not made up either, that reaches into the ranks of German politicians even. The question isn't so much whether that's going on but rather who looks the other way while it does, and why. > This whole argument of support for a very marginalised group somehow being a "widespread attack on women" is Your strawman, and basically proves my point. I can, in context of TERF's being mentioned in one breath with Nazis and pedophile, even show you threats of violence for a perfectly valid statement, and you can neither confirm the statement is valid, nor condemn the threats. Instead you attack me as well, that I am "thinly veiling" what you make up from thin air. And women are also VERY marginalised, and brutalized, and have been for millennia. That lesbians get attacked for "genital preferences" or women for saying "actually, don't call us menstruating bodies, we're women", is just a continuation of that. Women don't want trans people to not have human rights, they just want to keep theirs, too. To frame that as an attack on trans people is just rich.
    - mcv 3y ago
      But support of trans people does not deny women their rights. That is your strawman. You can support both cis women and trans women. This doesn't have to be a dichotomy. > That lesbians get attacked for "genital preferences" or women for saying "actually, don't call us menstruating bodies, we're women", is just a continuation of that. Of course attacking lesbians or women in general is not okay. But that doesn't require throwing trans people under the bus either.
      - didcote 3y ago
        > This doesn't have to be a dichotomy. How not? There is an inevitable clash of rights when it comes to protected spaces and who is permitted where.
        mcv 3y ago
        Why? Why does this have to be a problem? As far as I can tell, it's an entirely manufactured problem. For political purposes, to vilify a vulnerable group for electoral gain among bigots and stir up transphobia.
        didcote 3y ago
        Here's an example of the issue at hand: https://www.womensforumaustralia.org/tribunal_says_men_who_identify_as_lesbians_cannot_be_excluded_from_lesbian_events https://www.womensforumaustralia.org/tribunal_says_men_who_i... A group of lesbian women want to hold female-only events, but they're not permitted by law to exclude the heterosexual males who call themselves lesbian women. Similar conflicts apply to most other women's spaces, between the women who want to maintain these spaces as female-only, and the males who want to gain access to these spaces on the basis that they identify themselves as women or female.
        mcv 3y ago
        Do we need to distinguish between transgender women and men who identify as women for the purpose of gaining access to female-only spaces? Because it does sometimes sound like there are predatory men who see this as some sort of loophole. That obviously needs to be stopped. To me, it seems the obvious criterium is: have you transitioned? I don't think that's an unreasonable standard, although it can be hurtful to transgenders who are still transitioning and eager to finally get accepted for who they are. In cases of single-gender events, it also depends on what the exact reason is for making it single gender. There are fuzzy edges around gender, and if you're going to draw a line somewhere, it doesn't hurt to stop and think about why and where exactly you're going to draw it.

johnnyworker 3y ago

[flagged]

mcv 3y ago
[flagged]
- johnnyworker 3y ago
  > Boy, that article isn't cherry-picking at all! Because most people reacted well? Good one. No, it's representative. Women lost their jobs just for agreeing with JKR on this. People talking about how they want to or how everybody should "punch TERFs" and all that is also not made up either, that reaches into the ranks of German politicians even. The question isn't so much whether that's going on but rather who looks the other way while it does, and why. > This whole argument of support for a very marginalised group somehow being a "widespread attack on women" is Your strawman, and basically proves my point. I can, in context of TERF's being mentioned in one breath with Nazis and pedophile, even show you threats of violence for a perfectly valid statement, and you can neither confirm the statement is valid, nor condemn the threats. Instead you attack me as well, that I am "thinly veiling" what you make up from thin air. And women are also VERY marginalised, and brutalized, and have been for millennia. That lesbians get attacked for "genital preferences" or women for saying "actually, don't call us menstruating bodies, we're women", is just a continuation of that. Women don't want trans people to not have human rights, they just want to keep theirs, too. To frame that as an attack on trans people is just rich.
  - mcv 3y ago
    But support of trans people does not deny women their rights. That is your strawman. You can support both cis women and trans women. This doesn't have to be a dichotomy. > That lesbians get attacked for "genital preferences" or women for saying "actually, don't call us menstruating bodies, we're women", is just a continuation of that. Of course attacking lesbians or women in general is not okay. But that doesn't require throwing trans people under the bus either.
    - didcote 3y ago
      > This doesn't have to be a dichotomy. How not? There is an inevitable clash of rights when it comes to protected spaces and who is permitted where.
      - mcv 3y ago
        Why? Why does this have to be a problem? As far as I can tell, it's an entirely manufactured problem. For political purposes, to vilify a vulnerable group for electoral gain among bigots and stir up transphobia.
        didcote 3y ago
        Here's an example of the issue at hand: https://www.womensforumaustralia.org/tribunal_says_men_who_identify_as_lesbians_cannot_be_excluded_from_lesbian_events https://www.womensforumaustralia.org/tribunal_says_men_who_i... A group of lesbian women want to hold female-only events, but they're not permitted by law to exclude the heterosexual males who call themselves lesbian women. Similar conflicts apply to most other women's spaces, between the women who want to maintain these spaces as female-only, and the males who want to gain access to these spaces on the basis that they identify themselves as women or female.
        mcv 3y ago
        Do we need to distinguish between transgender women and men who identify as women for the purpose of gaining access to female-only spaces? Because it does sometimes sound like there are predatory men who see this as some sort of loophole. That obviously needs to be stopped. To me, it seems the obvious criterium is: have you transitioned? I don't think that's an unreasonable standard, although it can be hurtful to transgenders who are still transitioning and eager to finally get accepted for who they are. In cases of single-gender events, it also depends on what the exact reason is for making it single gender. There are fuzzy edges around gender, and if you're going to draw a line somewhere, it doesn't hurt to stop and think about why and where exactly you're going to draw it.