Deliberate and orchestrated silencing of trans rights supporters on GN

trisher

Galaxy

What do you mean trisher, jkr talks about transmen quite a lot, particularly about detransition and what that means for the women that go through it.

Maybe she does I don't follow her. But she certainly didn't in the piece the link was given for.

So, why not link us up to something that JKR has actually said, and say what you find offensive, rather than complaining about something (as the basis of your complaint) that she didn't say in the one I linked to?

You may as well point out that she didn't talk about tangerines, or giraffes. The piece was about how she came to be vilified as a 'transphobe' (for liking a Tweet) and why she posted that intact men should not be in female safe spaces (because she has been attacked by a man and is still traumatised by that). There is no reason why that piece should have concentrated on transmen just because you find that topic 'an interesting one for debate'.

Doodledog

trisher

Galaxy

What do you mean trisher, jkr talks about transmen quite a lot, particularly about detransition and what that means for the women that go through it.

Maybe she does I don't follow her. But she certainly didn't in the piece the link was given for.

So, why not link us up to something that JKR has actually said, and say what you find offensive, rather than complaining about something (as the basis of your complaint) that she didn't say in the one I linked to?

You may as well point out that she didn't talk about tangerines, or giraffes. The piece was about how she came to be vilified as a 'transphobe' (for liking a Tweet) and why she posted that intact men should not be in female safe spaces (because she has been attacked by a man and is still traumatised by that). There is no reason why that piece should have concentrated on transmen just because you find that topic 'an interesting one for debate'.

She mentioned transmen as her main concern in the piece you linked to Doodledog (have you read it???) then immediately forgot about them and posted her personal experience and criticised transwomen. If something is your main concern shouldn't you actually express and develop those concerns? Or is it OK just to forget them and write about yourself. I don't think that shows real concern.

If something is your main concern shouldn't you actually express and develop those concerns? Or is it OK just to forget them and write about yourself. I don't think that shows real concern.
You could have a full time job on GN making that criticism. Enjoy!

I said that there is no reason why she needed to concentrate on transmen, as they were not her main concern in the piece. The alternative would have been to cover so much that she would have been accused of writing too long an article and blamed for the fact that (some of) her readers had lost concentration.

oh.

I shall certainly be quoting this to every prospective mp or councillor who wants my vote.

Respect my sex if you want my X

www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-10674135/Three-women-launch-significant-female-movement-Suffragettes.html

Is a bus a taxi?

Me Too...MerylStreep

Thanks MerylStreep.

Mollygo

Thanks MerylStreep.

Anticipated Tory, Labour, LibDem response?

Request duly noted
I will
Till you’ve voted!
???

MerylStreep

I shall certainly be quoting this to every prospective mp or councillor who wants my vote.

Respect my sex if you want my X

www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-10674135/Three-women-launch-significant-female-movement-Suffragettes.html

OMG the Daily Mail, announces a women's movemment run by an ex conservative councillor, an ex company director and an unemployed woman. All I can think is the Tories must be seriously worried. And they have the nerve to try and piggy back on the suffragettes. Well you could look and see how much this government has really done for women and then reflect on how much a penis matters compared with poverty and starvation.

Rather lively discussion on this happening on another thread at the moment...

Why do some people think caring about one thing precludes the the ability to care about anything else at the same time?

Is anyone on GN or in real life, really that single purposed?
Does caring that my DD has Covid mean I don’t care about the war in Ukraine, or poverty and hunger in the UK, or even the inability of politicians to do a good job re female rights?

Why do some people think caring about one thing precludes the the ability to care about anything else at the same time?

Search me, Molly. It's about as logical as assuming that because someone cares about women's rights they must be racist and/or homophobic.

Why do some people think caring about one thing precludes the the ability to care about anything else at the same time?

Because of the people who say they could never vote for a party that doesn't know what a woman is. Ergo, that is the one thing that they worry about, not the economy, defence, or anything else. Or, they are saying something that isn't true.

volver

^Why do some people think caring about one thing precludes the the ability to care about anything else at the same time?^

Because of the people who say they could never vote for a party that doesn't know what a woman is. Ergo, that is the one thing that they worry about, not the economy, defence, or anything else. Or, they are saying something that isn't true.

???

You know what strikes me hardest about these conversations is even when people think they are in the majority and have "right" on their side, they still can't see that....

Picking and choosing what they respond to, looking at the comments of others with a lens that puts negatives that aren't there, using personal insults or simply just seeing others as less because they don't share an opinion...

Weakens their arguments tremendously

I can't see any examples of that.
This thread always appears pretty polite, actually, however frustrated people get.

I've seen far worse.

volver

^Why do some people think caring about one thing precludes the the ability to care about anything else at the same time?^

Because of the people who say they could never vote for a party that doesn't know what a woman is. Ergo, that is the one thing that they worry about, not the economy, defence, or anything else. Or, they are saying something that isn't true.

How does someone saying that they won't for a party that does or doesn't [insert 'thing' of choice] mean that that thing is the only one they worry about? That makes no sense at all.

I can see that if someone is invested in a political party that is bent on doing something they find unconscionable they have a dilemma. A bit like I did when Blair took us into Iraq.

The decision then is whether to compromise your principles and continue to vote for them (either because of the policies they have of which you do approve, or because the alternatives are worse), or to ditch them and vote for someone else. Or choose the third way and not vote at all, which for many is not a viable option.

Saying that you wouldn't vote for something that is wholly against your principles does not equate to not caring about anything else, though. I can't get my head around that 'logic' at all.

Picking and choosing what they respond to,
and twisting vocabulary to suit their purpose e.g. when answering questions that include the mention of females with the word ‘women’, which no longer necessarily means female. . .

looking at the comments of others with a lens that puts negatives that aren't there,

and dragging in diversions e.g. using race, to try and support their point of view because without the diversion the point can’t be answered to give the answer they want.

Weakens their arguments tremendously

I totally agree.
I keep trying to explain that to those who frequently use those tactics but they either can’t or won’t hear or they don’t see it as applying to them.

Mollygo Your strictures do not just apply to discussions on gender. They apply to a whole host of other subjects, including race. On another thread, someone took two words out of a sentence I wrote, ind inferred that I was saying the reverse of what the whole sentence said.

trisher a women's movemment run by an ex conservative councillor, an ex company director and an unemployed woman.

And your point/problem is?

Because of the people who say they could never vote for a party that doesn't know what a woman is. Ergo, that is the one thing that they worry about, not the economy, defence, or anything else.
Sometimes they are saying that’s the last straw!
Imagine some people who are already not happy with the political antics of BJ. or KS or NS.
Reading that they ‘did not know what a woman is’ or did not respect female's rights might be the final thing that decides their vote.

Getting back to the OP, Gagajo you are definitely not being silenced as you continue to post on trans issues

If all posters agreed with every thread, there would be no discussions and therefore little point to online forums such as GN.

I do believe in the policies of the LP, but their stance on women’s rights may be a step too far for me. It’s a massive deal. I still care about other things though - can anyone explain to me why they think I wouldn’t?

People use the phrase I could never vote for a party that doesn’t know what a woman is. That’s it. Not it’s a step too far, not I have considered everything, and on reflection…. Not I have studied the policies of a party with respect to gender quality. Just that “They don’t know what a woman is”. I don’t have the energy to trawl through this 24 page thread to see if it’s here, but it’s certainly used on Mumsnet. But I am talking about his sentence - "I could never vote for a party that doesn’t know what a woman is."

So this isn’t “I could never vote for a party that doesn’t respect women’s rights” its saying that unless they agree with you on the definition of a word, you won’t vote for them. It’s reducing a complex argument to a simplistic phrase. Now I know that so many people think that the use of the word “woman” is a shibboleth that must not be trifled with – look at posts on this thread yesterday – and that it all means that the speaker is really hiding a plan to rob women of all their hard won rights, or worse still is a shill for the pressure groups. But for many of us this is all just self-indulgent and nit-picking.

So the leader of some party or other refuses to answer the question “can women have penises?” the way you want them to and immediately they are on the naughty step. They don’t know what a woman is!!! Not voting for you, you are part of the patriarchy!

But the other guy says he’s selling off the NHS, bringing in laws to make life difficult for refugees, encouraging foodbanks and making it illegal to protest in the street (for instance). So by not voting for Party A you are making Party B more likely to win. Just because of semantics. Because that’s what it is, however much its positioned as the frontline of the battle for women’s rights. (Women? females? Who knows…)

In a debate where the use of language appears to be central, I would think that people would be careful about how they express themselves so as not to make their argument seem fatuous.