950 posts
|
Post by vdcni on Jun 21, 2020 14:47:50 GMT
I see the confusion. My original post was being written before yours was there. It wasn't responding to your post, but the ones before about dropping T from LGBT.
I agree Marsha Johnson seems to have been a drag queen, though her post Stonewall activism did seem to include helping Trans people, and that to me is distinct from being Trans.
|
|
|
Post by jamie2c on Jun 21, 2020 18:03:57 GMT
I 100% support JK Rowling. I do not know what her views are, but I am sure they are shared by the silent majority.
|
|
44 posts
|
Post by theatremole on Jun 21, 2020 21:02:39 GMT
Not to take anything away from Marsha P Johnson but by their own admission, they weren't present at the start of the riots (apparently turning up about 2hrs after).
Stormé DeLarverie was a mixed race butch lesbian, her arrest is what essentially kicked everything off. There were accounts of many butch lesbians who fought the police.
They're going to put a monument up for Marsha P Johnson and Sylvia Rivera up outside the Stonewall Inn, but not of Stormé DeLarverie.
|
|
215 posts
|
Post by frosty on Jun 22, 2020 10:38:31 GMT
What an interesting thread this is. And a fine example of people sharing their opinions, no one is being shouted down and everyone is being polite and respectful. I personally feel a bit uneasy about giving children hormones if they think they are in the wrong body. While I'm certain that gender dysphoria must be a terrible condition and we should do all we can to support those people to transition to the correct gender, it has to be something that the individual is completely certain of before life-changing hormones and surgery, and children especially need to have the correct guidance. When I was a child in the 70s, I was a very 'girly' boy, played with toys for girls and would prefer the company of girls and women, and would dress up in my Mum's clothes and shoes. I'm sure if someone had said to me, 'would you like to be a girl?' I would have said yes. That would definitely have been the wrong choice for me, but in those days it clearly would not have been an option and wouldn't have even been something I would have been aware of. But are there 'tomboy' girls and effeminate boys today who have the possibility of gender correction and are taking that route instead of just accepting that they are a bit different to the rest if their peers? I don't know the answer, but it is interesting to read everyone else's views. When I worked in an office in the 90s, we were all given a letter to state that someone there was suffering from gender dysphoria and would be now be coming to the office dressed as a woman, which was something they had to do as part of the 2 year transitioning period before surgery, to be entirely sure it was the right thing to do. I thought she was the bravest woman I had ever seen, to leave work as a man on Friday and walk through the office as a woman on Monday. The company and the staff were completely supportive and she went on to have her surgery and is now happy in the body she should have been born with.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2020 12:11:07 GMT
I 100% support JK Rowling. I do not know what her views are, but I am sure they are shared by the silent majority. Not to be that guy.... but how can you support someone when you don’t know their views? It’s like saying you support a politician but don’t know which party they belong to.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2020 1:29:29 GMT
I 100% support JK Rowling. I do not know what her views are, but I am sure they are shared by the silent majority. Not to be that guy.... but how can you support someone when you don’t know their views? It’s like saying you support a politician but don’t know which party they belong to. right . I have not applied to jobs due to the companies ethics
|
|
228 posts
|
Post by paulbrownsey on Jun 27, 2020 8:29:02 GMT
I’ve seen people confuse ‘drag queen names’ with gay men actually being trans. That’s why the ‘first brick thrown at Stonewall was by’ narrative changed from being ‘a drag queen’ to ‘a trans woman’. Even though people who were there at the time say they weren’t trans. The mythologisation of Stonewall and the competition to rewrite what happened is reminiscent of the way in which the execution of a troublesome (to the authorities) rabbi c. 33AD got embodied in a world religion its gospels.
|
|
228 posts
|
Post by paulbrownsey on Jun 27, 2020 8:39:22 GMT
Certainly right wing organisations masquerading as gay right groups like the LGB Alliance are not the way to go. Steady on. Do you really KNOW that that is true? Since I cannot understand why, as a gay man, I am now always conjoined with trans people and told I am a "LGBT person"--a conjunction which makes no more sense than saying that all single parents and all sex workers are henceforth to be dubbed "SPSW people"--I have for a long time wanted to see gay (generic) disentangled from trans. Neither my husband nor I conceives himself to belong to the other sex. We had the nonsense of the Commons Women & Equalities Committee issuing a report on "LGBT health needs", whereas I don't think i have any in common with vT people that I don't share with everyone else. So I have given a guarded welcome to the LGB Alliance. I don't think the launch has been well handled. They base their emphasis on criticism of trans activism on the claim that young gays are being steered into regarding themselves as trans. I am not in a position to say whether that's true, but at the very least I'd like to see the LGBA's position here embodied within a general manifesto of gay rights, which they have not come up with. Their banner statements of aims and objectives in terms of "same-sex attracted not same-gender attracted" are too obscure to be intelligible to the general run of people and smack of spats in inclusivity committees between activists with gender-studies degrees. And many of their posts seem to prioritise the interests of *women* rather than gay people, which could lead those with a mind to embrace conspiracy theories to think that the LGBA is merely a front organisation for certain women's groups, designed to capitalise on the legitimate concerns of gay people like me not to be rebanded "LGBT". I think there is a need for something like the LGBA, but whether it fits that need, I haven't yet made up my mind.
|
|
5,840 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Jun 27, 2020 13:12:24 GMT
I think there is a strong case to be made for splitting up the LGBT+ coalition into individual campaign and support groups - who work on their own where it is appropriate and who work together when the situation demands.
There is no such thing as the LGBT+ community. There is no uniformity of approach or concern - nor should there be. We should celebrate diversity - not enforce compliance to a new set of 'norms'
What exists is a whole series of different communities with different needs, concerns, agenda, history - sometimes they overlap but more often than not, they don't. And occasionally they conflict.
Working as smaller groups might not have as much 'impact' in the eyes of some - but actually we could provide far better support for the individual communities this way rather than having far too broad a focus.
The focus, for me, should be on diversity - and that includes diversity of opinion. Not freedom to spread hate - but a freedom of expression of ideas, open discourse and discussion. That doesn't exist in the modern LGBT+ world. And we are all poorer as a result.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2020 16:47:57 GMT
Certainly right wing organisations masquerading as gay right groups like the LGB Alliance are not the way to go. And many of their posts seem to prioritise the interests of *women* rather than gay people, which could lead those with a mind to embrace conspiracy theories to think that the LGBA is merely a front organisation for certain women's groups, designed to capitalise on the legitimate concerns of gay people like me not to be rebanded "LGBT". Genuine question - because as a straight woman who doesn’t follow the LGB Alliance, I’m not in a position to know - might it be because up to now, lesbians have tended to bear the brunt of the radical side of the trans lobby? (As in: “if I am a male-bodied person who identifies as a lesbian woman, you should be as happy to have a relationship with me as with a lesbian who’s a natal woman. If not, you’re transphobic.”) I’d say that’s more an LGB specific concern than one for the more generalist women’s groups (who tend to focus more on the perceived risks of self-ID and potential losses to female achievement/representation in sports, arts and politics etc - which of course affect all natal women, whatever their sexuality)? Or is it that the LGB Alliance tend to post these generalist women’s concerns? It’s interesting - my perception so far has been that it’s mainly women who’ve spoken up against radical trans ideology (for obvious reasons; see paragraph above!). I’ve heard a couple of gay male friends (of a certain age) make comments that suggest they’re less than impressed by some things that go on in the name of the T in LGBT, but it’s really only since the tragic killings in Reading that I’ve been aware of a real outspoken-ness (if that’s a word!) from gay men generally, insisting on their right to be recognised specifically as gay. But it sounds like your perception of that may be very different, so I’m interested to hear more. Would you say some gay men have been as uncomfortable as gay and straight women over this issue for a while now?
|
|
724 posts
|
Post by basdfg on Jun 27, 2020 20:56:39 GMT
|
|
5,840 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Jun 27, 2020 23:47:56 GMT
He is an atrocious human being on so many levels. A really nasty piece of work
|
|
724 posts
|
Post by basdfg on Jun 27, 2020 23:49:42 GMT
He is an atrocious human being on so many levels. A really nasty piece of work Ive heard plenty of unprintable stories about him.
|
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Jun 28, 2020 8:36:19 GMT
Ive heard plenty of unprintable stories about him. I first became aware of him when he was being obnoxious about women on the BBC's lunchtime politics show, and he does seem to have form on this. I'm also surprised a comment like this could make it through Tribune's editors (it's a paper I used to read) - that it didn't ring alarm bells suggests this sort of misogyny runs deep. If he remains on the front bench, I'm quitting the party.
|
|
724 posts
|
Post by basdfg on Jun 28, 2020 9:01:40 GMT
|
|
1,107 posts
|
Post by alicechallice on Jun 28, 2020 17:51:19 GMT
He is an atrocious human being on so many levels. A really nasty piece of work Ive heard plenty of unprintable stories about him. Oh my God, me too. Fancy slipping one in my DM's?
|
|
228 posts
|
Post by paulbrownsey on Jun 28, 2020 19:54:01 GMT
And many of their posts seem to prioritise the interests of *women* rather than gay people, which could lead those with a mind to embrace conspiracy theories to think that the LGBA is merely a front organisation for certain women's groups, designed to capitalise on the legitimate concerns of gay people like me not to be rebanded "LGBT". Genuine question - because as a straight woman who doesn’t follow the LGB Alliance, I’m not in a position to know - might it be because up to now, lesbians have tended to bear the brunt of the radical side of the trans lobby? (As in: “if I am a male-bodied person who identifies as a lesbian woman, you should be as happy to have a relationship with me as with a lesbian who’s a natal woman. If not, you’re transphobic.”) I’d say that’s more an LGB specific concern than one for the more generalist women’s groups (who tend to focus more on the perceived risks of self-ID and potential losses to female achievement/representation in sports, arts and politics etc - which of course affect all natal women, whatever their sexuality)? Or is it that the LGB Alliance tend to post these generalist women’s concerns? It’s interesting - my perception so far has been that it’s mainly women who’ve spoken up against radical trans ideology (for obvious reasons; see paragraph above!). I’ve heard a couple of gay male friends (of a certain age) make comments that suggest they’re less than impressed by some things that go on in the name of the T in LGBT, but it’s really only since the tragic killings in Reading that I’ve been aware of a real outspoken-ness (if that’s a word!) from gay men generally, insisting on their right to be recognised specifically as gay. But it sounds like your perception of that may be very different, so I’m interested to hear more. Would you say some gay men have been as uncomfortable as gay and straight women over this issue for a while now? REPLY (I seem to have screwed up the replying mechanism). You may well be right that women have been at the forefront of setting up the LGBA and that as women they BOTH perceive threats to women as women AND are particularly aware of what appear to be threats to lesbians (apparently, some lesbians have got abuse for refusing to date trans women, and the LGBA thinks young lesbians are particularly liable to persuasion that they are 'really' boys). But, as I said, to be convincing as a gay rights organisation, the LGBA needs to locate its position on T within a much broader conception of gay rights and gay campaigning. That would help to defuse the common charge that it's 'just' an anti-trans group. I think, too, that the emphasis on women's sensibilities ignores men's (though I realise that women are more likely to be victims of violence from men than vice-versa). Sometimes the idea seems afloat that whereas women are rightly disturbed at male-bodied people in their changing rooms, men are insensitive clods who don't mind female-bodied persons in male changing-rooms. That idea needs questioning. My own concerns have two sources. First, as a gay man, I find it increasingly odd that i should be perpetually glued to trans people as a "LGBT person". The House of Commons recently went so far as to issue a report on "LGBT health needs", whereas I don't think I share any healthy needs with T that I don't have with the rest of the population. Moreover, I thought we were getting away from the old stereotype according to which gay men were women on the inside and lesbians thought of themselves as men, but the relentless use of the "LGBT" initialism suggests that gay and trans are fundamentally the same. I have seen a number of comments outwith the activist bubble which suggest just that misunderstanding. In the Wolfenden Report of 1957, homosexuals were treated in common with prostitutes; in the 1970s, paedophile groups tried to cloak themselves in the gay movement; then gay people were told that they were to be termed "LGBT people". Can't we ever just be ourselves? Some LGBA posts have talked of it as defending the interests of gay people, women and girls, and I worry that "LGBT" is going to be replaced by "LGBW". Second, as an ex-academic I do find myself seriously doubtful about many of things asserted by trans theorists. With me, the question, "Is there any reason to think that that is true?" usually bubbles up when I see claims like "Trans women are women" or "A woman is someone who dientifies as a woman." Some of us do care about truth simpliciter. I think there was a time when people were much less clear on the crucial difference between gay and trans. Many gay men seemed to have thought they had to act girly (see, for instance, a mid-century novel like City of Night); perhaps T people somehow felt that they had to think of themselves as basically gay, but with a sort of add-on. The differences are now clearer. On issues like shared bathrooms and changing-rooms, I have no fixed views. In any case, I think the idea that people are happy to strip off in front of their own sex needs to be looked at critically. Certainly, I loathed communal showers at my all-boy school. A bigger emphasis on cubicles for all might defuse some of the issues. On some boards I come across as a defender of T people. For instance, there is a Roman Catholic poster in The Herald (Glasgow) who repeatedly dismisses T people as mentally ill; I routinely tell him that since he believes that what is empirically bread and wine has the substance of flesh and blood, what was the problem about adapting that metaphysics to accommodate the idea that what is empircally a man might be in substance a woman?
|
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jun 29, 2020 8:22:50 GMT
Just read this, and I feel so sorry for these kids: www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2020/jun/29/non-binary-four-teens-explain-gender-genderqueer-generationTotally normal experiences of growing up - so many girls have a passionate sparkles-and-pink-dresses phase that they just as passionately reject a couple of years later! - turned into an identity crisis. Still, as long as they only go as far as asking to be called they/them there'll be no harm done. The one who is experimenting with chest binders might regret it later, when the back pain starts. Hopefully the therapist will help.
|
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Jun 29, 2020 9:33:58 GMT
Totally normal experiences of growing up - so many girls have a passionate sparkles-and-pink-dresses phase that they just as passionately reject a couple of years later! - turned into an identity crisis. It's a very telling piece - I think for many kids this is the fall-out from the pink and blue aisles toyshops started bringing in about 20 years ago, to the horror of many women, especially feminists (I remember writing to a middle class catalogue I'd been sent for listing nature kits and building toys on pages designated 'for boys' and endless manicure, glitter and beautification crap on the pages 'for girls'.). And I really think the role of fanfiction and fansites hasn't been properly looked into for its role in shaping these teenagers' thinking. I noticed a few years ago that many at the younger end were starting to call themselves 'trans' - my initial thought was, are these particular fandoms very appealing to that group, in the way that Doctor Who had a very gay fandom, but there were so very many that it was clear there was something else going on. And I do think it has a similar pattern to the surge then clampdown on 'pro-ana' sites: chest-binding has come in to fill that space for teenage girls uncomfortable with their changing bodies and the attention and expectations they bring.
|
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jun 29, 2020 9:57:27 GMT
There’s definitely a social contagion element in play. And of course a bit of old-fashioned teenage rebellion against the status quo.
Back in my day everyone got piercings and wore lots of black...
|
|
228 posts
|
Post by paulbrownsey on Jun 29, 2020 11:02:28 GMT
Totally normal experiences of growing up - so many girls have a passionate sparkles-and-pink-dresses phase that they just as passionately reject a couple of years later! - turned into an identity crisis. It's a very telling piece - I think for many kids this is the fall-out from the pink and blue aisles toyshops started bringing in about 20 years ago, to the horror of many women, especially feminists (I remember writing to a middle class catalogue I'd been sent for listing nature kits and building toys on pages designated 'for boys' and endless manicure, glitter and beautification crap on the pages 'for girls'.). And I really think the role of fanfiction and fansites hasn't been properly looked into for its role in shaping these teenagers' thinking. I noticed a few years ago that many at the younger end were starting to call themselves 'trans' - my initial thought was, are these particular fandoms very appealing to that group, in the way that Doctor Who had a very gay fandom, but there were so very many that it was clear there was something else going on. And I do think it has a similar pattern to the surge then clampdown on 'pro-ana' sites: chest-binding has come in to fill that space for teenage girls uncomfortable with their changing bodies and the attention and expectations they bring. Good point. Someone whose son is now in his thirties told me that when he was a toddler, things like dungarees for kids were unsexed and she and other mothers passed them around to each other as the kids grew. Then it came to be that there were dungarees with glittery butterflies attached, for girls, and dungarees with racing cars and footballs attached, for boys. (Patches fceaturing those things, obviously...)
|
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Jun 29, 2020 12:12:23 GMT
Then it came to be that there were dungarees with glittery butterflies attached, for girls, and dungarees with racing cars and footballs attached, for boys. (Patches fceaturing those things, obviously...) Yes - I get the feeling it started as a cunning plan to stop kids sharing or handing down toys and making parents have to buy everything twice!
|
|
228 posts
|
Post by paulbrownsey on Jun 29, 2020 12:35:13 GMT
Then it came to be that there were dungarees with glittery butterflies attached, for girls, and dungarees with racing cars and footballs attached, for boys. (Patches fceaturing those things, obviously...) Yes - I get the feeling it started as a cunning plan to stop kids sharing or handing down toys and making parents have to buy everything twice! And I can sort of glimpse that, if you were a boy that didn't have much time for conventional boy stuff like footballs and racing cars, you might feel it a bit alien to present yourself in that garb, posing as what you're not, and if you don't distinguish between mere conventions and reality, that could segue into "I'm not a boy." I'm old enough to remember boys wearing long hair in the 1970s and the number of cries there were of "Looks like a girl."
|
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jun 29, 2020 12:46:19 GMT
Then it came to be that there were dungarees with glittery butterflies attached, for girls, and dungarees with racing cars and footballs attached, for boys. (Patches fceaturing those things, obviously...) Yes - I get the feeling it started as a cunning plan to stop kids sharing or handing down toys and making parents have to buy everything twice! I saw someone theorise on Twitter that it’s the absence of a trendy new band creating their own fashion subculture for teenagers to identify themselves with, a la Nirvana and grunge, or Punk, that is causing teenagers to look online for other ways of expressing their sense of alienation. Capitalism may have shot itself in the foot!
|
|
1,127 posts
|
Post by samuelwhiskers on Jun 29, 2020 12:50:53 GMT
I'm completely trans supportive but it does seem like the more militarised element of the TRA is predicated on phallocentrism and gynaphobia. The unequal treatment of transwomen and transmen shows that. Cis-lesbians are told they must accept "ladydick" and are subject to screaming rape threats simply for wanting the right to sexual consent. But according to the TRA it's homophobic and triggering to even suggest that a cis-gay man might consider sex with a transman. A gay male organisation in Canada released a statement saying "Dysphoric females aren't men and can never be men and are naturally excluded and we don't care what trans rights activists say" and it caused barely a peep in the trans rights community. Yet cis-women asserting their right to sexual agency causes mass outrage. Why the double standard? And it's only ever cis-women the TRA target, when cis-men commit the vast majority of transphobic abuse and violence.
I have lots of trans friends and they all want to be allowed to live their lives in freedom and peace. Most of them care passionately about issues like sexual consent and women's rights. Yet there's a huge disconnect between ordinary transwomen who are far more likely to be a victim of abuse and sexual assault, and TRA. A disproportionate number of high profile TRAs used to be members of the MRA/incel community or have a history of sexually predatory behaviour. They appear more concerned with claiming ciswomen shouldn't be allowed sexual agency, or closing down rape crisis centres, or supporting the rights of convicted rapists to be held in women's prisons, than advocating for trans rights. The "MAP" community (Minor Attracted Persons i.e. child rapists) is also trying to align themselves with and exploit the trans rights movement. I consider all of that deeply transphobic, because it exploits trans rights and pushes the dangerous lie that transwomen are sexual predators or paedophiles. Yet it's ciswomen who raise legitimate concerns about safeguarding who are attacked and smeared as transphobes.
|
|