pride vs rte (1 Viewer)

Deadmanposting

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
2,023
That's exactly what we have, right? Nobody's arguing that trans men shouldn't be allowed to compete with non-trans men, I don't think, or if they have I haven't noticed. Any kerfuffle there is seems to be about trans women, whether it's sports or outside sports. Nobody gives a shit if an assigned-female-at-birth man is pissing in a urinal or racing Usain Bolt
Yeah, there's a male trans swimmer Iszac henig and he competes against men
No one cares because there's no blatant unfairness involved
The Lia Thomas controversy strikes a lot of people far differently
It keeps coming back to the reason we have women's sports in the first place
 

Deadmanposting

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
2,023
Got bored about halfway through.
Can someone with more patience please summarise?
It is a lot to get through
This group The Countess is opposed to the legislation changes and were banned from the NCWI meeting because they were going to start trouble (presumably start yelling)
The main concern of the beacon is that this is being discussed in parts of the media as a free speech and silencing story.
If you step back, this goes along with Una Mullaly's piece in the Times, and the Liveline controversy, it is about framing the debate and who gets to speak and what they get to say.

To one side - an active hate group has been banned from disrupting the meeting and causing trouble and pain.

To the other side - a group with real concerns about the legislation removing the word "woman" from laws has been refused the right to contribute to the debate.

If you believe in a cause, or that an issue needs discussion, disruption is good. If you don't, it's bad.


Again, like with abortion and marriage equality, I think we can get through - we have proved we can - this if we just keep talking.
 

taubstumm

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Joined
Aug 6, 2003
Messages
4,844
Location
52° 30′ 41.69″ n., 13° 27′ 38.42″ e.
Website
kvt.red
just off the top of my head, that countess site has all the look of a fake grassroots front that has a lot of money from somewhere to try to make it all look less fake. organisations don’t just magically have all that nice neat branding, message-consistency, well-maintained social media, branded videos, news updates and all the rest of it without someone paying for it all. that’s without actually getting into the merits of the arguments or anything else. someone is putting a thumb on the scale here to create the impression of a “grassroots” that more-or-less doesn’t exist.

the main thing it reminds me of is the anti-abortion groups that used to magically have money for all kinds of things but were always very vague about who was involved, what their membership actually was, who their leadership was beyond media talking heads, and, crucially, who was paying the bills.
 

egg_

nerd/hippy
Supporter
Since 1999
Joined
Nov 15, 1999
Messages
12,689
Location
Where dogs wear hats and birds fly backwards
Hmm actually from that article

the countess (paraphrased) said:
Feminists: accept biological sex, reject gender roles
Trans-includers: reject biological sex, accept gender roles

Is that accurate? If so it's a useful model for why many feminists are a bit uncomfortable - if you've spent your life fighting against gender roles then it's understandable that you'd be upset with people who say gender roles are of primary importance
 

taubstumm

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Joined
Aug 6, 2003
Messages
4,844
Location
52° 30′ 41.69″ n., 13° 27′ 38.42″ e.
Website
kvt.red
Hmmm ... I don't think it's helpful to go conspiracy-spotting whenever someone disagrees with you. This particular article suggests The Countess has Marxist roots, not typically a well-funded ideological grouping Why has a conflict arisen between Trans Activists and Feminists?

It’s not a conspiracy to say that someone is paying the bills for their nice neat media presence. I also explicitly said that I was pointing this out external to any debate on the merit of the arguments, and so this is not about who “disagrees” with me or anyone else. in all honesty, this is something where I feel ultimately not well-qualified to crash in with my notions, which was why I hadn’t posted anything previously in the thread. but I do think that it is worth pointing out that this group is more-or-less an invented front, and judge them accordingly.
 

Cornu Ammonis

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2011
Messages
9,611
Solutions
2
Location
Dublin
Website
brainwashed.com
Hmm actually from that article



Is that accurate? If so it's a useful model for why many feminists are a bit uncomfortable - if you've spent your life fighting against gender roles then it's understandable that you'd be upset with people who say gender roles are of primary importance
It’s completely arseways because the biological sex argument should be reversed. Trans-inclusive groups believe that sex and gender extends beyond XX = female, XY = male.

And this is where biology firmly sits. If we look at the animal kingdom, male birds are XX and females are XY (it’s actually a little different but the principle is the same), many reptiles’ sex depends on incubation temperature not on chromosomes, and it can happen (even in humans) that the chromosomes don’t line up with the genitalia.

In humans, there are other genetic sexes including XXX, XYY, and XXY. There are even people that have mosaicism, where some cells are XX and some are XY. There is also intersex where the genitalia don’t match the chromosomes (XY appear female or have both, XX appear male or both). And these cases are not rare, maybe only 1/1000 live births (which is about 1 every 50 days in Holles St alone).

So trans-exclusionary views very much reject biology. You can’t even say they only have a high school understanding because some of these examples are on the leaving cert.
 

YoungHearts

Well-Known Member
Contributor
Joined
Oct 21, 2009
Messages
519
Location
Dublin, Mayo
Website
www.youngheartsrunfree.ie
The feminist texts that I grew up on, and that were portals of discovery for me, very much wanted to break the gender roles attached to the female sex, but also acknowledged the biological realities attached to the female sex. Because there are realities attached. I write this as someone of the female sex. It doesn't lessen us-that's another cornerstone of feminism.

I am indebted to those women, who were often maligned for talking and writing about the lived realities of the female sex under a patriarchal system. In some ways things are a little improved, but in other ways there seems to be a regression going on. I find myself going back to many of these texts to feel less mad. People are perfectly entitled to have different types of feminism, mine links back to those great teachers.

Through my own experience and observation, disrespecting girls and women has become so normalised that it is practically part of the culture, but I won't lose hope, nor stop "kicking against the pricks" (of which there are many) to borrow from Nick Cave and gang. I know I said that I had exhausted my contribution to this thread - but then Godfather-style, was pulled back in. I suppose it's never not on my mind, and that has been the case since I was very young. It's this low-level (and sometimes not so low-level) stress always humming in the background. Anyway, as @Deadmanposting has been positing - continuing talking, seeking to understand more, from all angles, is really the way through.
 

egg_

nerd/hippy
Supporter
Since 1999
Joined
Nov 15, 1999
Messages
12,689
Location
Where dogs wear hats and birds fly backwards
So trans-exclusionary views very much reject biology. You can’t even say they only have a high school understanding because some of these examples are on the leaving cert.
Ok so let me re-phrase

I'm trying to understand why so many feminists are so uncomfortable with trans-inclusion, and it occurs to me that there's a fundamental philosophical difference on gender roles between traditional feminists and trans-inclusion - one thinks they should be abolished and the other thinks they're super important

... but then reading @YoungHearts post I guess there's more to it than that. Never mind me, carry on
 

YoungHearts

Well-Known Member
Contributor
Joined
Oct 21, 2009
Messages
519
Location
Dublin, Mayo
Website
www.youngheartsrunfree.ie
Ok so let me re-phrase

I'm trying to understand why so many feminists are so uncomfortable with trans-inclusion, and it occurs to me that there's a fundamental philosophical difference on gender roles between traditional feminists and trans-inclusion - one thinks they should be abolished and the other thinks they're super important

... but then reading @YoungHearts post I guess there's more to it than that. Never mind me, carry on
I think your questions and curiosity is sound @egg_ - and it got me thinking about some other bits and bobs. I unfortunately rambled a bit. But was just thinking back to my own trajectory with feminism and why I feel the way I feel, and why I feel deeply uncomfortable with the discourse (generally, beyond Thumped) at the moment.
 

Deadmanposting

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
2,023
I'm trying to understand why so many feminists are so uncomfortable with trans-inclusion
Feminists can explain this themselves but my understanding is that it changes their very-important identity

If the identity that has given your life meaning and structure is co-opted and the definition rendered virtually meaningless - and the spaces you fought to preserve for that identity are forced to change, then it's reasonable to expect pushback. Or I think anyway.

We are supposed to listen to each other.

These are some of the same women who were at the forefront of everything from changing workplace rules, reproductive rights, marriage equality and MeToo, and every other area of life the patriarchy has fucked, but we're expected to believe they have hate in their hearts if they speak on this issue.
I personally don't buy it. I think we have to hear them out.
 

Unicron

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Joined
May 21, 2003
Messages
18,715
Solutions
2
Location
Near Cybertron
Website
theformersovietreublic.bandcamp.com
These are some of the same women who were at the forefront of everything from changing workplace rules, reproductive rights, marriage equality and MeToo, and every other area of life the patriarchy has fucked, but we're expected to believe they have hate in their hearts if they speak on this issue.
I personally don't buy it. I think we have to hear them out.
Ah here, this is utter nonsense. People can have good opinions about things and shitty opinions about things. You'll meet plenty of people who wanted repeal or support equal marriage but who also wouldn't want a traveler living next door
 

nuke terrorist

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Joined
Dec 21, 2004
Messages
3,807
Location
'north munster'
The feminist texts that I grew up on, and that were portals of discovery for me, very much wanted to break the gender roles attached to the female sex, but also acknowledged the biological realities attached to the female sex. Because there are realities attached. I write this as someone of the female sex. It doesn't lessen us-that's another cornerstone of feminism.

I am indebted to those women, who were often maligned for talking and writing about the lived realities of the female sex under a patriarchal system. In some ways things are a little improved, but in other ways there seems to be a regression going on. I find myself going back to many of these texts to feel less mad. People are perfectly entitled to have different types of feminism, mine links back to those great teachers.

Through my own experience and observation, disrespecting girls and women has become so normalised that it is practically part of the culture, but I won't lose hope, nor stop "kicking against the pricks" (of which there are many) to borrow from Nick Cave and gang. I know I said that I had exhausted my contribution to this thread - but then Godfather-style, was pulled back in. I suppose it's never not on my mind, and that has been the case since I was very young. It's this low-level (and sometimes not so low-level) stress always humming in the background. Anyway, as @Deadmanposting has been positing - continuing talking, seeking to understand more, from all angles, is really the way through.
Hearing Nick Cave invoked in a post about feminism reminds me how many women and girls have had horrible shit happen to them in his songs.
 

Deadmanposting

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
2,023
Ah here, this is utter nonsense. People can have good opinions about things and shitty opinions about things. You'll meet plenty of people who wanted repeal or support equal marriage but who also wouldn't want a traveler living next door
No one's saying everyone's right all the time on everything.
I mean we either listen to women and hear them out on the issues that affect them or we don't.

Those with a track record of working for women's rights, even more so.
Or I'd have thought so.
 

Unicron

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Joined
May 21, 2003
Messages
18,715
Solutions
2
Location
Near Cybertron
Website
theformersovietreublic.bandcamp.com
No one's saying everyone's right all the time on everything.
I mean we either listen to women and hear them out on the issues that affect them or we don't.

Those with a track record of working for women's rights, even more so.
Or I'd have thought so.
You don't seem that interested in listening to the ones that are cool with trans people
 

Cornu Ammonis

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2011
Messages
9,611
Solutions
2
Location
Dublin
Website
brainwashed.com
The feminist texts that I grew up on, and that were portals of discovery for me, very much wanted to break the gender roles attached to the female sex, but also acknowledged the biological realities attached to the female sex. Because there are realities attached. I write this as someone of the female sex. It doesn't lessen us-that's another cornerstone of feminism.
I’m genuinely curious (as in this is not a trick question or an excuse for an argument) but what are the biological realities as you view them? And what was understood at the time as the biological reality when the texts were written versus what we know now? For that matter, what was the understanding of transgenderism/transexuality?
 
New posts

Users who are viewing this thread

21 Day Calendar

Anvil
The Grand Social
35 Liffey St. Lower, North City, Dublin, D01 C3N0, Ireland
Destroyer
The Button Factory
Curved St, Temple Bar, Dublin, Ireland
Vultures You Know album launch with Crowhammer
The Thomas house
86 Thomas St, Saint Catherine's, Dublin, Ireland
Angel Olsen
Vicar Street
Vicar St, Saint Catherine's, Dublin, Ireland

Latest Activity

Loading…

Support thumped.com

Support thumped.com and upgrade your account

Upgrade your account now to disable all ads... If we had any... Which we don't right now.

Upgrade now

Latest posts

Trending Threads

Latest threads

Top