Cancel Culture or Free Speech

That was Dickens I cant take credit for that.
There is a conversation to be had about identity I think. Identity is I think a two way process it's very difficult to control how others view our identity.

GagaJo

Well, I sat through lectures in trans theory, read trans books off the reading lists of my professors and wrote essays on it. Including, as I've said, my thesis.

So I think my first person experience of a big trans focus (not to mention a VERY well stocked library of books on it - fabulous!) trumps your opinion to the contrary.

It was there. It was in full focus. Before the millennium. Before Kathleen Stock set foot there.

You're wrong. If I could find my thesis, I could produce it as primary source evidence.

Just because you studied a trans course there at the Uni doesn’t mean it was a huge pro trans establishment, pushing that ideology above all else.
Am curious as to what sort of job that lead to in the real world.
Stonewall need a reason to exist so have moved to supporting and promoting trans issues, they didn’t give it a mention back in the day😄

Stonewall need a reason to exist so have moved to supporting and promoting trans issues, they didn’t give it a mention back in the day😄
It’s a bandwagon thing that we’ve heard about-something in the news-they must have it, suffer from it or support it.

Stonewall need a reason to exist so have moved to supporting and promoting trans issues, they didn’t give it a mention back in the day😄 I agree, as I said up thread, 26 years between Stonewall's inception and adding that T, and of course now adding even more letters. Keeps the gravy train rolling for the likes of Nancy Kelley who readily throws lesbians under the bus.

Oreo

GagaJo

Well, I sat through lectures in trans theory, read trans books off the reading lists of my professors and wrote essays on it. Including, as I've said, my thesis.

So I think my first person experience of a big trans focus (not to mention a VERY well stocked library of books on it - fabulous!) trumps your opinion to the contrary.

It was there. It was in full focus. Before the millennium. Before Kathleen Stock set foot there.

You're wrong. If I could find my thesis, I could produce it as primary source evidence.

Just because you studied a trans course there at the Uni doesn’t mean it was a huge pro trans establishment, pushing that ideology above all else.
Am curious as to what sort of job that lead to in the real world.
Stonewall need a reason to exist so have moved to supporting and promoting trans issues, they didn’t give it a mention back in the day😄

Sussex was a trail blazer in its approach to Queer Theory. I appreciate people not in academia may not be aware of that. It's less ground breaking now, because other universities have followed their lead. But it definitely led the pack. Sadly, a lot of the original academics there, leaders in their field, have since died. Replaced I'm sure with equally eminent figures, but I'm not up to date with that.

But feel free to disparage things you have no experience of.

I'm a teacher. Self employed now. Never been out of work. Clearly my qualifications while not up to snuff in the opinions of the GC are fine in the real world.

Well anyone who thinks Stonewall would simply be irrelevant if they hadn't brought trans issues under their umbrella simply isn't living in the real world are they?
For the record homophobic and transphobic hate crime increased rapidly when we were in lock down and are continuing to rise. There are of course links between the two. Imagining Stonewall isn't still necessary is ridiculous and not realising how one form of hatred feeds into others is showing ignorance.
People who hate difference hate difference. It doesn't matter if it is homosexual or transsexual they see it as a threat. And posting negative things about trans people feeds that. And that's why Stonewall still matters
www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/03/recorded-homophobic-hate-crimes-soared-in-pandemic-figures-show

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

Thats ok gagajo I bet that all those who are against the GC point of view are compulsive shoplifters.

I spent 10 years working for an HIV charity, my best friend died of Aids, I have detailed my sexuality. To be told that because I am gender critical I am anti immigration is foul. Those who tend to take the high ground on social media behaviour tend to demonstrate their own poor behaviour time and time again.

GagaJo

This is the key point for me, Glorianny. People who hate difference hate difference.

Today it is trans people.
Yesterday it was gay people.
It has (very sadly) always been people with different coloured skin, religion, nationality.

I'm betting those that are GC are also vehemently anti-immigration.

I'm betting those that are GC are also vehemently anti-immigration.

I wonder about that.

Who comes under the umbrella of "GC" in your view?

I ask because there are those on here - and I'm one of them - who question one particular aspect... that TWAW, but do not deny that it is normal for anyone to be trans gender - or even agender.

And I don't see myself as part of the GC group. And certainly not part of the anti-immigrant mob. Who are often also anti EU, anti 'wimmin' (usually men who insist that women are taking precedence over men in education, health, the family courts, etc, etc) - not to mention anti anyone who is in receipt of State benefits. In fact 'anti' anything that doesn't conform to their world view, or anyone who isn't just like them... those who use the word "woke" and "leftie" like a flippin' salad-dressing to their words.

I certainly don't see myself as part of this crew of discontents.

I hate dishonesty and deceit, especially when it's deliberate deceit, deliberately concealed as do I Galaxy.

That was Molly smileless.

There is something about not being able accept difference though. But not from me. Many of those who are GC are of course lesbians and gay men. But that's very difficult for some people to think about.

People who hate difference hate difference. It doesn't matter if it is homosexual or transsexual they see it as a threat. And posting negative things about trans people feeds that.

Who are these ‘people’? It would be good if you could make clear whether this is a thinly-veiled dig at ‘Some People’ on here, or if it is a reference to some other ‘some people’’ somewhere else. As it stands, it is one of those tactics that make it impossible to refute. If we answer, we are assumed to be saying that the cap fits, and if we don’t, we are complicit in agreeing.

Some clarification would be helpful, please.

GagaJo, I’m not sure what your point is. And FWIW I am ‘in academia’ . Sussex may well have led the way with Queer Theory back in the day, but Stock resigned much more recently. And contrary to any misconceptions about dreaming spires and dotty professors, academia can be cutthroat and ruthless - and if someone wanted to get rid of a competitor, it is not beyond the realms of possibility that they would whip up a media storm to do so. I’m not saying that did happen (not my area at all) but it’s perfectly possible.

People who hate difference, hate difference

Gagajo I haven’t noticed any posters hating on this thread.

I certainly do not hate trans, gay or immigrants.

I respect trans rights to dress and present how they wish.

I cannot agree that TWAW, because for numerous biological, physiological and their birth as a man mean they are not.

I can only hope that they respect the non trans communities rights of single sex spaces and women/girls sports.

Dickens

^If I visit a doctor it is a private not a public transaction and not something I do every day. If I ovulate or not is no one's business. My mother never had a period from the age of 25 until her death at 94. A good friend never ovulated or had children after she had cervical cancer at the age of 32. Are you saying their biology mattered and they were not women? You have actually vividly illustrated why it isn't possible to use biology or science in everyday life, because you do not, cannot and should not know the intimacies of anyone else's body unless they choose to tell you about them, and making assumptions or posting generalities about women is demeaning and dangerous for all women.^

Isn't this missing the point?

Who is asking to know the intimate details of your body?

The medical relevance to your biological sex might matter if you present to your doctor with the symptoms of a possible heart attack - symptoms which are not infrequently quite different to those presenting in males.

It also might matter in relation to various other conditions and illnesses which are known to statistically affect women more than men - or the other way round.

Whether you ovulate or not won't be of any interest to the wider public, but it might be relevant to a member of the health profession if he or she is attempting to form a diagnosis relating to symptoms you present with.

As for those women who don't ovulate, or haven't for an extended period of time, these are anomalies that usually have a cause - it's no different to men who have difficulty peeing, or all the other things that don't work properly with the male anatomy. They are not the norm and it's quite useful for a doctor to know whether you're a biological male or female when he or she is attempting to figure out what's gone wrong. Unless you think the intimate details of your body are not their concern either unless you choose to tell them?

Thank you, Dickens, you put the words so much better than me. Whether transactions are private or public, it doesn't change your biological gender! I'd be quite pee'd off if I went to the GP and he told me I had a prostate problem because biological gender doesn't matter!

Ooops sorry Molly

icanhandthemback

Dickens

If I visit a doctor it is a private not a public transaction and not something I do every day. If I ovulate or not is no one's business. My mother never had a period from the age of 25 until her death at 94. A good friend never ovulated or had children after she had cervical cancer at the age of 32. Are you saying their biology mattered and they were not women? You have actually vividly illustrated why it isn't possible to use biology or science in everyday life, because you do not, cannot and should not know the intimacies of anyone else's body unless they choose to tell you about them, and making assumptions or posting generalities about women is demeaning and dangerous for all women.

Isn't this missing the point?

Who is asking to know the intimate details of your body?

The medical relevance to your biological sex might matter if you present to your doctor with the symptoms of a possible heart attack - symptoms which are not infrequently quite different to those presenting in males.

It also might matter in relation to various other conditions and illnesses which are known to statistically affect women more than men - or the other way round.

Whether you ovulate or not won't be of any interest to the wider public, but it might be relevant to a member of the health profession if he or she is attempting to form a diagnosis relating to symptoms you present with.

As for those women who don't ovulate, or haven't for an extended period of time, these are anomalies that usually have a cause - it's no different to men who have difficulty peeing, or all the other things that don't work properly with the male anatomy. They are not the norm and it's quite useful for a doctor to know whether you're a biological male or female when he or she is attempting to figure out what's gone wrong. Unless you think the intimate details of your body are not their concern either unless you choose to tell them?

Thank you, Dickens, you put the words so much better than me. Whether transactions are private or public, it doesn't change your biological gender! I'd be quite pee'd off if I went to the GP and he told me I had a prostate problem because biological gender doesn't matter!

Please will people have the grace to stop posting things out of context and if they must requote me at least have the decency to post the whole conversation.
I was told that my biology mattered everyday and did so because I ovulated, had children and went through the menopause. None of which are essential to be a woman. I simply explained why.
My doctor would know my biology but it would certainly not be public knowledge.
Because, as I have consistently stated, and none of the bizarre and contradictory selective posts have yet managed to disprove, in everyday life the biology of me, or anyone else is neither obvious nor checkable.

I have no idea who you are, nor any idea about which biological facts apply to you, nor any interest in your existence you are quite right.

However, your (generic term for all people) biology affects your life every single day, whether or not you ovulate, have children, go through the menopause, have prostate problems, grow man boobs or say you’ve changed sex (which is a lie).
It just does.

Why don't trans views on who they are matter though?

We have not walked in their shoes

There are so many comments saying their feeling are invalid in direct or indirect ways

Most of us would hate that, so why do it?

What is actually wrong with just speaking up for safe spaces and sports etc if those are the real issues?

Telling trans people they cannot be who they are, that no medical science that supports them is good enough and that no amount of transition will actually help them align their outside with their inside... Why is that actually even necessary if people are trans inclusive?

Is not good enough

VioletSky

I'm not talking about hurt feelings I lovecheese

I'm talking about violence

If I can stand here and say, no violence is acceptable and I will never speak or act in such a way to inspire any form of hatred and violence towards anyone no matter how disgusting I find their views

Can you?

Well since you ask Violetsky I have never incited violence either, I've just not felt any need to announce it on social media.

No one's saying they cannot be who they are, they're trans and no one's denying that. What is being said is that you cannot change your sex. A trans women is not a woman and a trans man is not a man.

No one's saying here that "no amount of transition will actually help them align their outside with their outside", I've not seen that mentioned at all until now. Again, what is being said is they cannot change sex.

VioletSky

Why don't trans views on who they are matter though?

We have not walked in their shoes

There are so many comments saying their feeling are invalid in direct or indirect ways

Most of us would hate that, so why do it?

What is actually wrong with just speaking up for safe spaces and sports etc if those are the real issues?

Telling trans people they cannot be who they are, that no medical science that supports them is good enough and that no amount of transition will actually help them align their outside with their inside... Why is that actually even necessary if people are trans inclusive?

Why don't trans views on who they are matter though?

Who is saying hat they don't?

There are so many comments saying their feeling are invalid in direct or indirect ways

I haven't read all the posts - has someone said that? If I say that biological sex is immutable, and you disagree - I could suggest that you are saying my feelings are invalid - indirectly. But it wouldn't be true, would it... and you'd probably direct me to a site that was debating biological and scientific evidence. As you have done, to others.

What is actually wrong with just speaking up for safe spaces and sports etc if those are the real issues?

Which is exactly what we are attempting to do because those are the real issues. But we are being derailed by those who are suggesting that we are GC / transphobic because of it, so then the postings meander in all directions.

... and then you appear, to repeat the whole process again.