The Greens
- Thread starter Herzog
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Feb 21, 2006
- 20,735
- 19,581
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Turtles, NYJets, Celtics, Tottenham
I've read it, I don't believe it is transphobic.
It is not a cut and dry issue and demonising someone for having the discussion is extremely problematic in my eyes.
Gralin
Super Moderator
- Moderator
- #1,953
I think you'll find Demonic Ascent agrees with Linda's views
I notice you never responded to this post I made addressing your beliefs.
Do you really think she was asking for a neutral discussion in good faith? Her wording was dripping with trans-exclusionary assumptions and rhetoric.
Well that should disqualify everyone in the IPA. they think all Government is a waste of time and should be reduced. They should simply start with themselves.
The idea that a transphobe, who is a strong transphobe, and makes people feel uncomfortable but has risen to the upper ranks of the Greens over decades is nonsense.
It's like calling Morrison a Marxist and that he should be booted from the LNP for being Christian.
The Greens realllly don't like people inside the party who don't just agree with everything. Robust discussions are for everyone else to have because of the Greens, not for the Greens themselves.
“The rights of trans and gender diverse people are not up for debate. To defend the use of trans-exclusionary language and allow debates about whether trans women should have access to the same spaces as cis women is to deny their very identities and right to equality,” said Ratnam.
This statement is nonsense.
It only makes sense if you replace the words "cis women" with "people".
This statement is nonsense.
It only makes sense if you replace the words "cis women" with "people".
The discussion has been had over the past decade. The party has achieved a position, now people can either comply or find another one more suited to them. People are not required to tolerate intolerance.
So an internal committee can overturn the result of a vote conducted as per the constitution? Yay democracyGood to see Linda Green get to have her say. ( Being published in The Age, I appreciate that makes her thoughts null and void for some of you ; )
I was elected Greens’ state convenor. Two days later, all hell broke loose
For a party that claims to champion grassroots democracy, my ousting as state convenor raises real concerns about the future of the Greens.www.theage.com.au
It makes perfect sense to me. Women's spaces should be open to all women.
Oh look, someone else who has had the issue explained to them multiple times and still chooses to ignore the facts.So an internal committee can overturn the result of a vote conducted as per the constitution? Yay democracy
What part of my assertion is incorrect? Was the initial vote invalid under the constitution? Was this vote then overturned by an internal committee?
It goes to the definition of women or of women-only spaces (you have to define both or neither. The assertion of the statement is that trans women are the same as cis-women (Clearly not all cis-women agree), but really it should just be that people are people. What's the point of having agreed defined spaces for women if you don't have an agreed definition of what a woman is?
There's just a logical flaw in the argument, but the Greens have banned discussing it unless you agree with them.
Yes, the vote was invalid under the constitution as the correct processes were not followed. This is the basis of the ARPs decision to annul the results.
Yeah... about that... the role was filled as a casual vacancy, which doesn't have the same restrictions as a full annual vote. The panel are making stuff up as they go along when it suits them. Corporate Governance 101 is that any panel that reviews a decision like this should be independent. The Libs might have wasted a tonne of money going through the courts, but at least they left it to an independent arbitrator.
Its gotta give you confidence that the processes was thorough, fair and democratic when they say "yeah, you're out, and we recommend you don't run again".
- Feb 21, 2006
- 20,735
- 19,581
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Turtles, NYJets, Celtics, Tottenham
She cannot be held responsible for the views of the co-author. I don't know why that person was expelled from the party and I hadn't even heard of Linda Gale until Gralin brought it up in this thread. I had to google what TERF meant because I hadn't heard the term before which is why is asked the initial question, what makes her a TERF?
Some of the examples she gives are a bit silly but I don't disagree with the principle that it is a matter of language that is being twisted. That doesn't make her transphobic in my opinion, it doesn't mean transgender people are being discriminated against or victimised.
I support anyone living their lives however they see fit as long as it doesn't harm anyone else. That doesn't mean I have to agree with everyone's opinion or beliefs. In the same way I don't care about someone's religion as long as they don't impose it on others I don't care about someones beliefs around their gender - but that doesn't mean I believe in their god or that a man can become a woman.
It's not equivalent though is it? If you compared it to an Asian person who identifies as African and then claimed others were being racist because they didn't agree that they were African then you might be on to something.
It's not that I don't read Twitter threads, I don't have twitter so often it kicks me off if I start reading something that goes on for too long. I can accept that "gender" is a spectrum but I don't accept that biological sex is. That is not a discriminatory statement, being discriminatory would mean that person being denied opportunities or rights/liberties based on the fact they identify as a different gender to their biological sex.
I don't believe she needs to repudiate her previous comments as I don't believe they or she is transphobic. She is not discriminating against trans people in my opinion.
Gralin
Super Moderator
- Moderator
- #1,970
The views were in the paper she co authored
The language used and arguments put forth in that paper included work from an anti trans group in the UK
If you don't know what TERF means you don't know enough about this topic to make the judgment that its all good
Her views are transphobic, they are that trans people should be discriminated against
She doesn't believe in self ID
She suggests that trans women are actually sex predators trying to gain access to womens spaces to rape them
Thats not just a bit silly
And here we are you don't believe trans people actually transition which is why you don't see anything wrong with what she says
What are you even on about
Biological sex is what to you exactly?
How is it defined? What makes up someone's biological sex?
Yeah and you don't believe people really transition and you don't really know whats going on
But you think you know more than everyone who has a problem with her statements
- Sep 17, 2019
- 22,326
- 35,376
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Moderator
- #1,975
The fact there are trans and intersex people proves that biological sex is not binary.
