Transgender

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Please be aware that the tolerance of anti-trans language on BF is at an all-time low. Jokes and insults that are trans-related, as well as anti-trans and bigoted rhetoric will be met with infractions, threadbans etc as required. It's a sensitive (and important) topic, so behave like well-mannered adults when discussing it, PARTICULARLY when disagreeing. This equally applies across the whole site.
 
Last edited:

Log in to remove this ad.

scoman said:
So if we did we would just have to shut up and stick to topics we are qualified in?
Click to expand...
If any of us did, we should be more circumspect about what we say and how we say it.

We should be aware of the weight which our words are given. The law of the land recognises this.

Joe Rogan gives out medical advice all the time. He has an interest in selling vitamins, supplements, and snake oils. He is looked at as a source of authority on health. This is part of his marketing.

To tell people in their 20's not to get vaccinated is irresponsible.
 
Bizarre to see a couple pages nitpicking over a pretty standard comment on maybe reflecting upon the possible influence of societal prejudice in your sexual preferences. It is clearly put forward as a harmless constructive consideration that might apply and might not. Weird hill to die on.

Also, as a trans person I have never actually met a 'radical' trans activist. The very concept of a radical trans activist is irrelevant to most lived realities of being trans. It just reads as a clickbait strawman for a touchy audience, when most trans people have never been far left in their lives (and might even be more right-wing than you), and the very act of implementing a transition will tend to preclude radical posturing if you have any sense. So forgive me for rolling my eyes whenever the cartoonish apparition of the 'radical trans activist' escapes some fool's lips.
 
Last edited:
Roobs321 said:
Bizarre to see a couple pages nitpicking over a pretty standard comment on maybe reflecting upon the possible influence of societal prejudice in your sexual preferences. It is clearly put forward as a harmless constructive consideration that might apply and might not. Weird hill to die on.

Also, as a trans person I have never actually met a 'radical' trans activist. The very concept of a radical trans activist is irrelevant to most lived realities of being trans. It just reads as a clickbait strawman for a touchy audience, when most trans people have never been far left in their lives (and might even be more right-wing than you), and the very act of implementing a transition will tend to preclude radical posturing if you have any sense. So forgive me for rolling my eyes whenever the cartoonish apparition of the 'radical trans activist' escapes some fool's lips.
Click to expand...
Are you saying radical trans activists don't exist?

You might not agree with them - you can call it clickbait or a strawman - but it seems to me there are indeed folks making some quite radical claims.

Is that not the case?
 
Sweet Jesus said:
Chief This is now taboo:



www.theguardian.com

Sussex professor resigns after transgender rights row

Kathleen Stock announces resignation as university says ‘no substantive allegations of wrongdoing’ were made against her
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com

How many examples do you need before you accept that there is a radical activist ideology here, which 99 percent of people would regard as nonsensical?
Click to expand...

Reading the article, especially this bit;

"She has said she believes gender identity does not outweigh biological sex “when it comes to law and policy”, and that people cannot change their biological sex."
.
I find myself disagreeing. The only thing transgender people can't change is biological function. A male-to-female transgender person can never develop a child in her uterus from one of her own eggs just like a female-to-male transgender person can never shoot active sperm to begin the other half of conception. Maybe in the future, but not now.

Legally speaking, in many countries they already have the possibility to assert their identities (passport, birth certificate, etc) as their chosen gender. I don't quite know what she means by policy, but I'd imagine for a number of organisations that policy allowing any person the legal right to work and live lives as their chosen gender to be quite broad based on the change in legal stature.

Biological function means very little, apart from the ability to generate offspring. Gender identity - the public face that every person shows to the world - should far outweigh biological function in terms of addressing people, interacting with them, employing them, having a working relationship with them.

There's only one time that biological function matters, and that's when it's time to make babies.

EDIT: Just to make it clear, I think it was very wrong of those activists to harrass and bully her out of her job. She made a statement and the correct way to go about things is debate it with her. If she dosen't change her mind so be it. If you win her over to at least neutral ground if not to the progressive side that's a plus.

But people will always have contrasting and/or contrary positions about everything. Toxic interactions and instant shutdown mentalities aren't helping anyone get to grips with opposing viewpoints at all.
 
Last edited:
Geelong_Sicko said:
Reading the article, especially this bit;

"She has said she believes gender identity does not outweigh biological sex “when it comes to law and policy”, and that people cannot change their biological sex."
.
I find myself disagreeing. The only thing transgender people can't change is biological function. A male-to-female transgender person can never develop a child in her uterus from one of her own eggs just like a female-to-male transgender person can never shoot active sperm to begin the other half of conception. Maybe in the future, but not now.

Legally speaking, in many countries they already have the possibility to assert their identities (passport, birth certificate, etc) as their chosen gender. I don't quite know what she means by policy, but I'd imagine for a number of organisations that policy allowing any person the legal right to work and live lives as their chosen gender to be quite broad based on the change in legal stature.

Biological function means very little, apart from the ability to generate offspring. Gender identity - the public face that every person shows to the world - should far outweigh biological function in terms of addressing people, interacting with them, employing them, having a working relationship with them.

There's only one time that biological function matters, and that's when it's time to make babies.
Click to expand...
For example, "when it comes to law and policy", should prisoners born biologically male be allowed to serve their sentences in women's prisons?

The professor argues that gender identity does not outweigh biological sex "when it comes to law and policy". So she would say that if you are born biologically male, that is not automatically outweighed by however you might identify when it comes to deciding whether you'd go to a men's prison or a women's prison.

Do you disagree with that?

And regardless of whether you agree or disagree, it's not clear that her position is automatically transphobic. And that's the point.
 
Sweet Jesus said:
For example, "when it comes to law and policy", should prisoners born biologically male be allowed to serve their sentences in women's prisons?

The professor argues that gender identity does not outweigh biological sex "when it comes to law and policy". So she would say that if you are born biologically male, that is not automatically outweighed by however you might identify when it comes to deciding whether you'd go to a men's prison or a women's prison.

Do you disagree with that?

And regardless of whether you agree or disagree, it's not clear that her position is automatically transphobic. And that's the point.
Click to expand...

First to your last point - I don't think she was being transphobic either. Based on what I read the bullying and harrasment leading to her abandoning her job is more of a worry here.

On the prison thing, I believe if they still have a penis but are outwardly female they go into protective custody if they so choose, but in a male prison as there are no 'neutral' correctional facilities as far as I know. If they have transitioned fully I believe they should join the female population of a womens' prison, as long as there is no history of sexual violence.

Someone like Frankston serial killer Paul/Paula Denyer (HISTORY - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paula_Denyer) should never be allowed into a womens' prison, no matter how far along the transition process is.
 
Geelong_Sicko said:
First to your last point - I don't think she was being transphobic either. Based on what I read the bullying and harrasment leading to her abandoning her job is more of a worry here.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's the point.

The illiberal impulse to hound a professor out of her job because she was "transphobic".

Geelong_Sicko said:
On the prison thing, I believe if they still have a penis but are outwardly female they go into protective custody if they so choose, but in a male prison as there are no 'neutral' correctional facilities as far as I know. If they have transitioned fully I believe they should join the female population of a womens' prison, as long as there is no history of sexual violence.

Someone like Frankston serial killer Paul/Paula Denyer (HISTORY - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paula_Denyer) should never be allowed into a womens' prison, no matter how far along the transition process is.
Click to expand...
You're welcome to your own opinion on that. The point is that her position, as reported, was not remotely close to "transphobic".
 
Sweet Jesus said:
This is now taboo:
Click to expand...
No it isn’t.


A university spokesperson said: “Over the past several weeks, the University of Sussex has vigorously and unequivocally defended Prof Kathleen Stock’s right to exercise her academic freedom and lawful freedom of speech, free from bullying and harassment of any kind.

“These freedoms and protections apply to and benefit us all, and we will defend them today and in the future. Rather than conflicting with our progress on equality, diversity and inclusion, these freedoms and protections are in place to support those with protected characteristics, particularly those who are under-represented or disadvantaged.

“Universities must remain places where everyone – staff or student – has the right to, and benefits from, lawful freedom of speech.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Chief said:
No it isn’t.


A university spokesperson said: “Over the past several weeks, the University of Sussex has vigorously and unequivocally defended Prof Kathleen Stock’s right to exercise her academic freedom and lawful freedom of speech, free from bullying and harassment of any kind.

“These freedoms and protections apply to and benefit us all, and we will defend them today and in the future. Rather than conflicting with our progress on equality, diversity and inclusion, these freedoms and protections are in place to support those with protected characteristics, particularly those who are under-represented or disadvantaged.

“Universities must remain places where everyone – staff or student – has the right to, and benefits from, lawful freedom of speech.
Click to expand...
Yeah, the university supported her, some say a little too late.

That wasn't the issue.
 
Soft Downhill Skier said:
It takes a fair bit of work to find and then be offended by trans groups if you’re not reading right wing sh*t.
Click to expand...
Who's "offended"? I'm pretty sure it's the trans activists who were offended when it comes to Chappelle.

Stop projecting nonsensically.

You can reject an idea or an argument without being "offended". You might simply disagree.

Are you "offended" by Scientology? Or do you just regard it as nonsense?
 
Last edited:
Isn't one of the main points of being a skilled actor about adapting to roles, and challenging oneself especially in unfamiliar territory?

If (for a hypothetical) an actor had no experience for example being a paraplegic, and succeeded as playing one in an an acting role. With all the right research and understanding with paraplegic viewers especially praising the work. Then that's a real achievement IMO.
 
hiking said:
Isn't one of the main points of being a skilled actor about adapting to roles, and challenging oneself especially in unfamiliar territory?

If (for a hypothetical) an actor had no experience for example being a paraplegic, and succeeded as playing one in an an acting role. With all the right research and understanding with paraplegic viewers especially praising the work. Then that's a real achievement IMO.
Click to expand...
It further marginalises real amputees.
 
I've personally got no issue with choosing the best person for the role, whether they are trans or cis (and vice versa, when this conversation first became loud around the time of Leto's Oscar win I was uncomfortable with the sense that trans actors would be typecasting themselves, and the trauma of that down the line). I think the issue is more multi-pronged, how you write, shoot, play, etc. the archetype, let alone the individual. Trans people are highly diverse, and like black people, disabled, whatever, if they aren't allowed to be anything between saintly and evil, rich and poor, promiscuous and asexual, genius and imbecilic, etc. then that's bad and lacks imagination and true representation. Everyone tends to be more complex than a single identity feature, so if focusing on just one it better be outstanding. About a decade ago it became old-hat to just make a woke film about a trans person being trans, ever since there has needed to be a bit more going on in order for the film to not come across as bait.
 
Chief said:
If any of us did, we should be more circumspect about what we say and how we say it.

We should be aware of the weight which our words are given. The law of the land recognises this.

Joe Rogan gives out medical advice all the time. He has an interest in selling vitamins, supplements, and snake oils. He is looked at as a source of authority on health. This is part of his marketing.

To tell people in their 20's not to get vaccinated is irresponsible.
Click to expand...

Getting your medical advice from a UFC commentators podcast is more irresponsible
 
the_interloper said:
Getting your medical advice from a UFC commentators podcast is more irresponsible
Click to expand...
I know, right?

But the reality is he holds himself out as a source of health information. Millions of people listen to him. He's got to be careful about what he says.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

sherb
Launceston Newspaper Gets Caught Publishing Letter About Non-Existent Transgender Incident
Replies
7
Views
790
schneebly111
S

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top