Transgender rights discussion
- Thread starter crappycraperson
- Start date
This post is an absolute crock of shite. I would insult you but you’re not worth the warning so I’ll just put you on ignore.
Just finished Father Ted for the billionth time and this is just sad.
The very same. And it's not just the party, it's the people they claim to represent. Are you living in a bubble? It's horrible.
You are an eejit.
He’s obviously discovered that AI avatar creator thingy, Lensa. It’s not a very funny joke but that doesn’t seem reason enough to share it?
Probably for having an opinion that promotes bigotry and the exclusion of an already vulnerable community.
Would you also qualify racism as a difference in outlook?
Is that a like for like comparison though? I guess it’s the natural limit of self-identity politics. I’m reminded of Rachel Dolezal, a white lady who self identified as a black lady. That, to me, would be a more like for like comparison. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Dolezal
(Goes without saying that this isn’t to say that anyone from the trans community should be subjected to abuse / exclusion etc.).
I'm pointing out that if I see someone being a bigot, for me that's not a difference in outlook that you should respect. I don't care who the target is, black people or trans people. That's the limit of my comparison.
I'm not familiar with that case and right now I can't read that article.
If you're comparing opinions about trans women being real biological women (or not) with racism then I think that's pretty ridiculous.
Why?
because the debate and opinions around trans women being real women or not is clearly valid. It’s not bigotry. Plenty of opinion polls out there demonstrating this.
Oh I think you'll find it is. Much like how certain people think homosexuality is wrong, or how entrenched racist views used to be (and still are, to be honest).
There's loads people can debate on the subject. It's certainly not a straightforward topic that's for sure! There's plenty of people out there who certainly will use the valid debate to push their bigoted views, but that absolutely should not stifle proper discussion because of that risk.
Just like some decades ago the debate and opinions around black people being real people or not was clearly valid and not bigotry, right?
Every time we use extremely rare cases (like people purposefully changing their sex to be able to commit sexual crimes more conveniently) in the debate about the so-called trans issues, we are doing the exact same thing as when we use "black on black" crime to justify an extra dose of police brutality against black people. They are all profoundly wrong premises that contaminate the debate or the argument from its very inception.
I honestly can't really fathom how someone proposing a debate under the terms "Are trans women "real" women?" may think it's not pure unadulterated bigotry. Absolutely nothing fair can come from that approach.
I guess it depends what you mean by real. Biological sex and gender are quite different things. I really don't see the problem with having these, admittedly, difficult thoughts about the subject. In terms of gender it's also quite difficult to be trying to stick people in the boy/girl group.
It’s probably just a lot for people to process. This ‘debate’ has only really sparked up over the last 5-10 years, and for many the idea that you can change from a man to a woman just because you say you have is a totally new concept. It’s not hard to see why they wouldn’t buy into the idea that they’re a real woman.
So I think it’s a bit disingenuous to paint any opposing view as pure, hate filled bigotry.
and yet they ignore the fact trans men also exist, which completely disproves their stupid little theory.
and this is why they ignore the existence of trans men.
if someone's biological sex and gender were the same thing, they wouldn't be trans.
I wasn't doing that though. I was being very specific about using terms like "real women". We either want to have rigorous, scientific debate and therefore avoid 100% subjective and loaded concepts like "real women" or we don't, in which case anybody can pretend that phrases like "real women" are a perfectly acceptable way to approach all this. Maybe there's a nuanced debate to be had, but it will certainly not start with the question "Are trans women real women?". What is disingenuous is pretending that's a good starting point for rigorous, in good faith debate.
the funniest part is him pretending he learnt photoshop when it's clearly an AI app. he's such an odious twat.
This logic doesn’t work, and it has pretty hilarious outcomes.
What logic doesn't work. Canvassing opinion of the general population? If you think there is no debate to be had you are extremely short sighted.
Odius twat for having an opinion different to yourself...over and over again the bile from some sectors is sad.
yes, his comic is also shit.
do you also excuse the racists who throw bananas at footballers as just having a 'different opinion'?
All of it
“It’s not bigotry. Plenty of opinion polls out there demonstrating this.”
If you look at a public opinion poll from the 1950s about gay people it would be bad. That a lot of people hold the same opinion doesn’t mean it can’t be a bigoted opinion. I’m not saying you’ve said anything bigoted or anything like that, just that this line of thinking doesn’t make any sense - I also see Cafecillos and Norway roux already mentioned all this so this post is pointless
I think it’s pretty healthy to judge people on their opinions. You’ve mentioned a few times that you don’t understand people judging others for differences In opinion,but if you genuinely think someone’s is transphobic, or racist, or cruel, why wouldn’t you think there a cnut? If my neighbour tells me all Muslims are bad people, I’m not gonna think we have different outlooks and I shouldn’t judge him, I’m gonna think he’s a wanker
Of course to go into specifics, how much do you know about Glinner?
Why do you keep saying it like it's just the fact that 'he has a different opinion' which makes him a terrible human being?
As an example... someone could be pro-life and anti-abortion. Personally, I wouldn't agree at all... but it's a different opinion. If that pro-life person was to spend every single day outside abortion clinics shouting abuse at women who were going inside, they'd be a terrible person too. Same as this clown is.
Sorry - I find the argument ridiculous. It's actually pretty uncomfortable that you are trying to associate the trans debate with racist abuse. Classic strawman 'just label those that disagree' a bigot type behaviour. It's pathetic, childish and unhelpful.
They just have an opinion different from yourself, calm down.
I think the idea that we shouldn’t judge people based on their opinions is about as ridiculous as it gets. What else should we judge people on if not their opinions and their acts?
Have you seen me labelling them awful human beings or odious twats?
Yep. Never understood the hype around Potter. It's gash. And I actually tried to get into it even as a kid and it was still gash.
No, but I've seen you talking about "bile" just because they have a different opinion than you.
I think even out and out self labelled transphobes find Glinner odious, he’s incredibly unlikeable.
Their looks?
I actually can’t remember how old I was when I read the first one. Probably an adult. I read it on holiday and enjoyed it. But I also enjoyed a Dan Brown novel once. Shit writers can write enjoyable books to read. In small doses.
To be fair, Linehan warrants that level of criticism.
He's the Morrissey of transphobia
Don't know a lot about him. certainly seems to have a bee in his bonnet about trans people. That comic tweet is bizarre.
As long as you know it's shit that you are enjoying it's cool.