Author Topic: Gender Culture  (Read 10313 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline wilber

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5495
Re: Gender Culture
« Reply #1395 on: October 31, 2019, 11:32:22 am »
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC

Offline wilber

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5495
Re: Gender Culture
« Reply #1396 on: October 31, 2019, 12:14:45 pm »
Wilbur I don't understand what drove you to comment.  Nothing you wrote is objectionable to me, I think.

Do you want me to clarify anything?

My point was, it is women who are reaping the negative consequences. Guys wanting their gear waxed, to use women's washrooms, compete in women sports etc. I just think guys accusing them of losing their humour and kim-ness is a bit much.

"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC
Agree Agree x 1 View List

Offline MH

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7710
Re: Gender Culture
« Reply #1397 on: October 31, 2019, 12:58:41 pm »
My point was, it is women who are reaping the negative consequences. Guys wanting their gear waxed, to use women's washrooms, compete in women sports etc. I just think guys accusing them of losing their humour and kim-ness is a bit much.

 I feel she is putting me into a category with people she actively dislikes and I don't belong there IMO.  It's really between her and me.

Offline kimmy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3912
  • Location: Kim City BC
Re: Gender Culture
« Reply #1398 on: November 03, 2019, 03:58:05 pm »
My point was, it is women who are reaping the negative consequences. Guys wanting their gear waxed, to use women's washrooms, compete in women sports etc. I just think guys accusing them of losing their humour and kim-ness is a bit much.

That is something worth noting.

GLAAD does an annual survey in the US about attitudes toward LGBT people.  This fall, they found that for the second straight year tolerance and acceptance of LGBT people has decreased, not increased.  They put the blame on Trump and the alt-right, and vow to redouble their efforts in promoting positive media portrayals and so-on.   

A closer look at their data revealed that the decline was largely driven by a decline in acceptance among young women.  That's not a group that's involved in alt-right politics.  Maybe instead of blaming Trump and the alt-right, maybe they should ask young women what's changed.  Maybe they would hear that young women are less comfortable with LGBT people than they used to be because they're not happy about sharing their showers and changing rooms with creepy dudes who claim to be women.

Just a thought.

 -k
Masked for your safety.
Agree Agree x 2 View List

Offline kimmy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3912
  • Location: Kim City BC
Re: Gender Culture
« Reply #1399 on: November 03, 2019, 05:04:12 pm »
1. I resent being called a 'trans cheerleader'.  Though we have differed on points, I don't feel we are far apart on what we basically want, and certainly I trust your intellectual honesty that you generally are looking for a solution that makes our communities happier. 

It feels like you are losing humour, and starting to lose kim-ness in the face of this controversy, which makes me sad.

I don't remember making any argument like that earlier. I generally agree that designing group rights around the possibility of abusers like this is a bad idea, but I also agree that psychopaths and other bad actors exist.

If I seem to be losing my sense of humor around this topic it's because it's exasperating trying to have an honest conversation about this. Your suggestion that instead of talking about Yaniv we ought to talk about employment rights and other stuff that everybody agrees with is par for the course.  Nobody ever wants to address the Yanivs of the world or even acknowledge that they exist.

2. I don't think either of us know what this person's motives were, only that their case failed and they were penalized for using racialized language targeting complaintants, ie. bad faith use of the system.

Tribunal chair Devyn Cousineau's ruling indicated that she felt that Yaniv's motive was extortion. I see no reason to second guess her.

Yaniv was not penalized for using "racialized language".  Yaniv was penalized for using the system to perform extortion.

One of the things that's annoying about the coverage of the ruling is the focus on the racism aspect.  It leaves people with the impression that everything Yaniv did would have been on the level if xe'd just targeted white women.  That's not actually what Cousineau's ruling says at all.   Cousineau's ruling was that Yaniv has a scrotum, and that Cousineau would not require people who did not perform work on scrotum's to perform work on Yaniv's scrotum regardless of how Yaniv identifies.

Do you think Yaniv's conduct would have been okay if xe'd targeted white women instead of minorities?


3. "The argument is and always has been that on-demand gender self-id would be exploited by perverts and predators. "  Was that the argument ?  Ok so what do we do with that ?  Ban penises from women's shelters ?  Is that what we want ?  And sports should exclude based on the hormone level of the participant ?

Why are some people so opposed to the existence of sex-based protections?  Why is it not enough that every other women's shelter in Vancouver accepts trans women, people are determined to destroy the only one that is exclusively for biological female people? 

As for sports, testosterone levels are a red herring.  Testosterone-blockers can't undo the advantages of male physiology.  Maybe people like Rachel McKinnon and Laurel Hubbard should go compete with people their own size instead of trying to turn womens' athletics into a fkkking farce.

4. "Which is why it's so crucial that we silence Murphy and others like her, amirite?"  She denies that trans women are women which is a world apart from the suggestions I put forward in #3 above.

Maybe the notion that biologically male people aren't actually women isn't as radical as you seem to think. Murphy's point is this: Women, in almost every culture around the world throughout history, have been oppressed.  Not because of gender identity, but because of biological sex. Therefore, a new kind of feminism based around gender identity rather than biological sex is an exercise in stupidity.

The circus surrounding Murphy's appearance in Toronto last week was disgraceful and your whole city should wear a bag over its head in shame.

Here's CBC "As It Happens" host Carol Off berating the head librarian, proposing that the talk puts the safety of trans people at risk, and casually comparing Murphy to Holocaust deniers and white supremacists.
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/i-m-not-going-to-reconsider-toronto-s-top-librarian-refuses-to-bar-speaker-critical-of-transgender-rights-1.5324431
(more of that balanced journalism the waldo has a hankerin' for, ayy wallay wallay wallay?  ;D)



I challenge you, and Carol Off, and John Tory, and the rest of the Thought Police to watch Murphy's speech at the library and point out which parts, exactly, you think are promoting hatred, or deserve comparison to Holocaust deniers and white supremacists, or merit her being censored or banned or threatened with violence. I dare you. I double dog dare you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIzXSLFeAxQ

 -k
Masked for your safety.

Offline the_squid

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2809
Re: Gender Culture
« Reply #1400 on: November 03, 2019, 05:45:28 pm »
Quote
...watch Murphy's speech at the library and point out which parts, exactly, you think are promoting hatred, or deserve comparison to Holocaust deniers and white supremacists, or merit her being censored or banned or threatened with violence. I dare you. I double dog dare you.

I don’t think the people protesting even believe the person they’re protesting against is espousing anything violent directly.   I think this is actually a case of the protestors not wanting someone with a different opinion than them to even have the right to express it.   That they’re on the side of the angels and they’ll resort to violence to accomplish they’re goals.

People like MH seem to be their enablers, for whatever reason.  It’s turning people off of their support for this community...   I would argue that there is as much acceptance as there is of the LGBTQ community as there is because of feminists.   Now, that the community has been co-opted, to whatever degree, by violent SJWs, their cause is total bull-****.   They’re espousing fascism.  Unfortunately for them, the vast majority of the public aren’t on their side.

Offline waldo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3757
Re: Gender Culture
« Reply #1401 on: November 03, 2019, 06:52:40 pm »
Mr. Gervais takin' some heat over this tweet... right image is 'shopped'!

Funny Funny x 2 View List

Offline MH

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7710
Re: Gender Culture
« Reply #1402 on: November 03, 2019, 09:44:22 pm »
1. If I seem to be losing my sense of humor around this topic it's because it's exasperating trying to have an honest conversation about this. Your suggestion that instead of talking about Yaniv we ought to talk about employment rights and other stuff that everybody agrees with is par for the course.  Nobody ever wants to address the Yanivs of the world or even acknowledge that they exist.

Ok but what does it serve to talk chiefly, or maybe even only about someone who is abusing the system as though this person is representative of trans people ?  Of course the system can be abused, and fake claims can be filed.  The Pride parade in Toronto was persecuted in the early days because of homosexual **** murders in Toronto. 

I don't think this is anything like an analogy but many people did use pedophelia as a reason to disallow gay rights.

Quote
Tribunal chair Devyn Cousineau's ruling indicated that she felt that Yaniv's motive was extortion. I see no reason to second guess her.

Yaniv was not penalized for using "racialized language".  Yaniv was penalized for using the system to perform extortion.

One of the things that's annoying about the coverage of the ruling is the focus on the racism aspect.  It leaves people with the impression that everything Yaniv did would have been on the level if xe'd just targeted white women.  That's not actually what Cousineau's ruling says at all.   Cousineau's ruling was that Yaniv has a scrotum, and that Cousineau would not require people who did not perform work on scrotum's to perform work on Yaniv's scrotum regardless of how Yaniv identifies.

Ok, well I am glad the system worked.  I am basing my knowledge on a radio report I heard so sorry if I got something wrong.

Quote
Do you think Yaniv's conduct would have been okay if xe'd targeted white women instead of minorities?

Extortion ?  Of course not.

Quote
Why are some people so opposed to the existence of sex-based protections?  Why is it not enough that every other women's shelter in Vancouver accepts trans women, people are determined to destroy the only one that is exclusively for biological female people? 

I don't know.  I think people are trying to be maximally accommodating maybe.  Do you think it's possible that we, as a society, are working through these things now ?

Quote
As for sports, testosterone levels are a red herring.  Testosterone-blockers can't undo the advantages of male physiology.  Maybe people like Rachel McKinnon and Laurel Hubbard should go compete with people their own size instead of trying to turn womens' athletics into a fkkking farce.

Maybe the notion that biologically male people aren't actually women isn't as radical as you seem to think. Murphy's point is this: Women, in almost every culture around the world throughout history, have been oppressed.  Not because of gender identity, but because of biological sex. Therefore, a new kind of feminism based around gender identity rather than biological sex is an exercise in stupidity.

The circus surrounding Murphy's appearance in Toronto last week was disgraceful and your whole city should wear a bag over its head in shame.

Here's CBC "As It Happens" host Carol Off berating the head librarian, proposing that the talk puts the safety of trans people at risk, and casually comparing Murphy to Holocaust deniers and white supremacists.
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/i-m-not-going-to-reconsider-toronto-s-top-librarian-refuses-to-bar-speaker-critical-of-transgender-rights-1.5324431
(more of that balanced journalism the waldo has a hankerin' for, ayy wallay wallay wallay?  ;D)



I challenge you, and Carol Off, and John Tory, and the rest of the Thought Police to watch Murphy's speech at the library and point out which parts, exactly, you think are promoting hatred, or deserve comparison to Holocaust deniers and white supremacists, or merit her being censored or banned or threatened with violence. I dare you. I double dog dare you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIzXSLFeAxQ

 -k

Jeez... it's 27 damn minutes.  Do I really have to ?  Look I'm a straight male, don't I get a pass on this ?  I mean when I post on these topics I can get told to shut up about it, and I have admitted mistakes and really have tried to stick to basics.  The only thing I resent is the media circus, especially when RW media suddenly discovers feminism so they can beat down trans women.  I am very tired... if you insist I listen then I will out of respect for you but not now...

My understanding is that Murphy has made discriminatory comments in the past, and the Canadaland discussion panel - someone indicated that that alone should be enough to disqualify you from renting a room given their policy...
Dumb Dumb x 1 View List

Offline kimmy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3912
  • Location: Kim City BC
Re: Gender Culture
« Reply #1403 on: November 04, 2019, 12:46:23 am »
Mr. Gervais takin' some heat over this tweet... right image is 'shopped'!

BREAKING NEWS:  Comedian offends easily offended people!

Good for Ricky;  there aren't many people more richly deserving of mockery than our Jessica.

 -k
Masked for your safety.

Offline kimmy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3912
  • Location: Kim City BC
Re: Gender Culture
« Reply #1404 on: November 04, 2019, 02:27:13 am »
Ok but what does it serve to talk chiefly, or maybe even only about someone who is abusing the system as though this person is representative of trans people ?  Of course the system can be abused, and fake claims can be filed.  The Pride parade in Toronto was persecuted in the early days because of homosexual **** murders in Toronto.

I don't think this is anything like an analogy but many people did use pedophelia as a reason to disallow gay rights.

Is that how we design policy?  By focusing on what could go right and ignoring what could go wrong?    The mainstream thought in gun control debates is now apparently that we need to take handguns away from hundreds of thousands of responsible gun owners because a few dozen young men in Toronto won't stop shooting each other.

Our gun laws go to considerable effort to try to ensure that people who might be mentally unstable or criminally inclined can't get a firearms license.   You mention pedophiles... organizations that place young people in the care of adults, like Boy Scouts and foster child placement and school boards, try to make sure that the adults are trustworthy. Policies in those two areas, and many others, spend a lot of time considering what could go wrong and trying to figure out

In the case of enshrining gender self-ID into Canadian law, no thought seems to have been given to what could go wrong. Perhaps Jordan Peterson deserves a hearty ****-you for that, for making the public debate around C-16 focus on fake pronouns rather than serious efforts to discuss the potential ramifications of the bill.  But regardless of why there was so little serious discussion of C-16, nobody seems to have paid much attention to voices like Murphy, who were trying to point out the ramifications for women and girls.




Ok, well I am glad the system worked.  I am basing my knowledge on a radio report I heard so sorry if I got something wrong.

Extortion ?  Of course not.

Okay, that's good.  Coverage of the ruling seems to be giving people the impression that Yaniv only lost because of the racism aspect of this.


I don't know.  I think people are trying to be maximally accommodating maybe.  Do you think it's possible that we, as a society, are working through these things now ?

I don't think "we" are "working through these things".   I think that women have been told what is expected of them, and that anybody who objects is branded as a heretic of some kind.  "Working through these things" would imply that there is some sort of dialogue going on.

Jeez... it's 27 damn minutes.  Do I really have to ?  Look I'm a straight male, don't I get a pass on this ?

You're willing to listen to 42 minutes of Canadaland podcast explaining why Meghan Murphy is a terrible person, but you can't spend 27 minutes to listen to what Murphy herself says?  That says a lot.

  I mean when I post on these topics I can get told to shut up about it, and I have admitted mistakes and really have tried to stick to basics. 

I won't criticize you for being a man and expressing an opinion.  But it doesn't seem to me like you've made much effort to learn about other aspects of this issue, especially ones that challenge your cheerful preconceptions.

The only thing I resent is the media circus, especially when RW media suddenly discovers feminism so they can beat down trans women. 

That cuts both ways, though.  Okay, the right-wing is willing to listen to feminists when it comes to criticisms of the impact of gender ideology and trans activism on women.  But how come progressives are completely deaf when feminists talk about these things?

I am very tired... if you insist I listen then I will out of respect for you but not now...

I am not going to tell you what to do.  If you wish to continue getting your information about Murphy from hearsay, I can't stop you.  I would bet that 95% of the protesters at TPL have never read or heard a single word from Murphy, and are there protesting because somebody told them that she's transphobic.

I think that for many people (and perhaps you might be among them, you can decide that for yourself) clinging to the belief that Murphy is some kind of villain is easier than listening to her and risking discovering that there might be aspects of this that they haven't considered.

My understanding is that Murphy has made discriminatory comments in the past, and the Canadaland discussion panel - someone indicated that that alone should be enough to disqualify you from renting a room given their policy...

Vickery Bowles, the Toronto Public Library head librarian, responded to that claim during her struggle-session with Carol Off, which I linked to in my previous post.  That claim is false.  The library actually has a high bar in determining what whose speech they won't allow, just as they would have a high bar in determining whether to remove a book from their collections.  Your podcast expert got it wrong.

Quote
There is a very high bar for establishing what is hate speech in this country. It is established in the Criminal Code of Canada, and that bar is very high to allow free speech to flourish.

We use the same principles in making decisions about room bookings as we do for our collections, Carol. We have a broad diversity of information and ideas and perspectives that are represented in all the books in our collections, and some of those ideas and perspectives people would find hurtful and painful.

But we're not going to remove those books from our collection. And we are not going to eliminate programs from our branches that are controversial. And we're not going to shut down room bookings because the speaker in the room booking has controversial ideas.
-Vickery Bowles

Also, I wasn't able to find that episode of your podcast, but I'd bet dollars to donuts that they can't actually cite any specific instance of Murphy actually saying anything discriminatory beyond her opinions regarding the need for sex-specific protections for biologically female human beings.  Much like how the "hate speech" she's accused of is just saying that male people aren't women. 


 -k
Masked for your safety.
Like Like x 2 View List

Offline MH

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7710
Re: Gender Culture
« Reply #1405 on: November 04, 2019, 06:09:45 am »
Jeez, Kimmy.... It's like homework...  :(

Given that my point was that cis straight white middle aged males are poking their noses into this more than needed...

Anyway....

All right, then, because I love you I will read this ... tome ... later today....
Dumb Dumb x 1 View List

Offline MH

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7710
Re: Gender Culture
« Reply #1406 on: November 04, 2019, 07:19:09 pm »
Is that how we design policy?  By focusing on what could go right and ignoring what could go wrong?    The mainstream thought in gun control debates is now apparently that we need to take handguns away from hundreds of thousands of responsible gun owners because a few dozen young men in Toronto won't stop shooting each other.

That's a pretty bad analogy.  No we don't ignore what could go wrong, but that's not what this ostensibly public discussion was about.  There was no discussion of what transgender rights were about here, it was just an entertainment for people like me.

Quote
Our gun laws go to considerable effort to try to ensure that people who might be mentally unstable or criminally inclined can't get a firearms license.   You mention pedophiles... organizations that place young people in the care of adults, like Boy Scouts and foster child placement and school boards, try to make sure that the adults are trustworthy. Policies in those two areas, and many others, spend a lot of time considering what could go wrong and trying to figure out

Since I don't advocating ignoring what could go 'wrong' then I'll skip by that.

Quote
In the case of enshrining gender self-ID into Canadian law, no thought seems to have been given to what could go wrong. Perhaps Jordan Peterson deserves a hearty ****-you for that, for making the public debate around C-16 focus on fake pronouns rather than serious efforts to discuss the potential ramifications of the bill.  But regardless of why there was so little serious discussion of C-16, nobody seems to have paid much attention to voices like Murphy, who were trying to point out the ramifications for women and girls.

Well, yes Peterson initially had some serious qualms about the debate but not about that part.

Quote

Okay, that's good.  Coverage of the ruling seems to be giving people the impression that Yaniv only lost because of the racism aspect of this.

I'm a good bellweather of the public perception on this, because I only 1/2 pay attention.  I remember 3 things: racism, online harassment, and the fact that they weren't trained to remove hair from male genitalia.

Quote
I don't think "we" are "working through these things".   I think that women have been told what is expected of them, and that anybody who objects is branded as a heretic of some kind.  "Working through these things" would imply that there is some sort of dialogue going on.

Aren't we having a dialogue ?  There's a lot of cis white male outrage coming out of this... that's feedback if not outright dialogue.  The Murphy talk was dialogue... the Peterson discussion...

Quote
You're willing to listen to 42 minutes of Canadaland podcast explaining why Meghan Murphy is a terrible person, but you can't spend 27 minutes to listen to what Murphy herself says?  That says a lot.

I listen to Canadaland anyway.  That just happened to be the topic.  I am still planning to listen to this, don't worry.   

Quote
I won't criticize you for being a man and expressing an opinion.  But it doesn't seem to me like you've made much effort to learn about other aspects of this issue, especially ones that challenge your cheerful preconceptions.

Mostly because I'm not a stakeholder in any of this.  People actually tell me to stay out of topics like abortion, for example, because it's a woman's issue.  I don't fully recall but I was drawn into this because of the media aspect - which makes sense as Canadaland is a media show.  There are lots of topics I don't fully immerse myself in, believe it or not.

Quote
That cuts both ways, though.  Okay, the right-wing is willing to listen to feminists when it comes to criticisms of the impact of gender ideology and trans activism on women.  But how come progressives are completely deaf when feminists talk about these things?

I have been following the debate, so I'm not deaf.  I haven't heard your side defended, so much.  Again, maybe if I were a woman people would ask me to join the discussion and I would find out. 

Quote
Your podcast expert got it wrong.

Also, I wasn't able to find that episode of your podcast, but I'd bet dollars to donuts that they can't actually cite any specific instance of Murphy actually saying anything discriminatory beyond her opinions regarding the need for sex-specific protections for biologically female human beings.  Much like how the "hate speech" she's accused of is just saying that male people aren't women. 

Firstly, the library doesn't outlaw 'hate speech' it outlaws 'discrimination'.  I heard the interview and I couldn't figure out why she kept saying hate speech when that's not what the policy is. Saying a trans woman is not a woman seems to me would violate the C-16 provision and therefore would qualify as discrimination.  I can say this whether or not I agree with the TPL's policy...   The Canadaland episode is here, I think.  I'm not sure why it's so hard to find episodes after August - https://www.canadalandshow.com/podcast/short-cuts-234-the-cbcs-very-dumb-lawsuit/

The host is against the library denying free speech, but the guest supports the library.


Offline kimmy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3912
  • Location: Kim City BC
Re: Gender Culture
« Reply #1407 on: November 05, 2019, 02:15:56 am »
That's a pretty bad analogy.  No we don't ignore what could go wrong, but that's not what this ostensibly public discussion was about.  There was no discussion of what transgender rights were about here, it was just an entertainment for people like me.

Since I don't advocating ignoring what could go 'wrong' then I'll skip by that.

It's not a bad analogy, it's a very apt analogy.   When it comes to gun laws, we're in the process of deciding to what degree the potential of a small handful of dangerous individuals merit restricting the rights of a much larger group.   In the case of giving trans women access to single-sex spaces intended to provide safety for female people, no comparable discussion has occurred.

For example, our friend Yaniv, aside from attempting to coerce vulnerable women to handle xer genitals, also has a well-documented and disturbing history of predatory interaction with girls 15 and under.  Despite that, current Canadian law gives xer the right to walk into the girls' changing room in any public pool or gym in the country.  A convicted sex offender could do the same, as far as I can tell.  To me it doesn't seem like any consideration has been given to the possibility that dangerous individuals could (and will) exploit this.

Aren't we having a dialogue ?  There's a lot of cis white male outrage coming out of this... that's feedback if not outright dialogue.  The Murphy talk was dialogue... the Peterson discussion...

You and I are having a dialogue.  We as a country certainly aren't.   The few like Murphy who are willing to publicly challenge gender ideology or voice concerns about its impact on the safety of women and girls are demonized and deplatformed. Murphy was likened to a white supremacist or Holocaust denier by our national broadcaster, banned from Twitter, her website is regularly targeted by cyber-attacks, and she was once again deplatformed this weekend because SFU campus security rated the risk of violence from trans-activists as "11 out of 10".  People who attended Murphy's talk in Toronto were threatened with violence and needed police protection just to get into the building. People are demanding Vickery Bowles' resignation for just allowing Murphy's event to proceed. Toronto city councilors are now talking about changing TPL's policies to prevent a similar talk from occurring in the future. 

This isn't what a dialogue looks like.   It's closer to a pogrom than a dialogue.
 

Firstly, the library doesn't outlaw 'hate speech' it outlaws 'discrimination'.  I heard the interview and I couldn't figure out why she kept saying hate speech when that's not what the policy is. Saying a trans woman is not a woman seems to me would violate the C-16 provision and therefore would qualify as discrimination.  I can say this whether or not I agree with the TPL's policy...   

I highly doubt your interpretation of C-16 is accurate.   I don't think that guaranteeing each individual's right to gender expression  outlaws discussion of whether trans women are women.  The law may say that they are (although I am not sure it actually does) but expressing disagreement with a law isn't illegal.  And disagreeing that trans women are women doesn't restrict anyone's right to gender expression.

I also doubt your interpretation of discrimination, in this context, is accurate.  If the TPL were refusing members of some group admission to Murphy's talk, or to any other program or service, that would be discrimination.  But nobody was refused admission to the event based on gender identity or any other group characteristic.

 -k
Masked for your safety.

Offline MH

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7710
Re: Gender Culture
« Reply #1408 on: November 05, 2019, 05:42:04 am »
It's not a bad analogy, it's a very apt analogy.   When it comes to gun laws, we're in the process of deciding to what degree the potential of a small handful of dangerous individuals merit restricting the rights of a much larger group.   In the case of giving trans women access to single-sex spaces intended to provide safety for female people, no comparable discussion has occurred.

No, we gave broad rights protection to a class of people, much different than amending gun ownership laws to address a perceived threat of increased murders in cities.  And the number of gun murders is far more central to the question of gun rights than a single freakshow bad actor is to trans rights.  You won't find an equivalent of Yaniv as the key actor in a pro/anti guns rights discussion.

You could flip it around and say "why didn't they consider the implications when they allowed people to own handguns" also.

Nobody tries to or should try to or COULD try to imagine accurately what all the impacts of our laws are.  They probably imagined same sex marriage when they enshrined the rights of 'groups' in the charter of rights, but they didn't imagine the impact on cake makers, spas and health clubs either.  I'm not trying to be trite, but these are the mechanics of law.


Quote

For example, our friend Yaniv, aside from attempting to coerce vulnerable women to handle xer genitals, also has a well-documented and disturbing history of predatory interaction with girls 15 and under.  Despite that, current Canadian law gives xer the right to walk into the girls' changing room in any public pool or gym in the country.  A convicted sex offender could do the same, as far as I can tell.  To me it doesn't seem like any consideration has been given to the possibility that dangerous individuals could (and will) exploit this.


Can't male sex offenders walk into a locker room with young men also ?  Can't female sex offenders walk into a locker room with young women ?

And more importantly - aren't we in the process of figuring all of this out ?  We live in a society where nudism is illegal in a public place, so it's hard for me to imagine enforcing a law where young girls have to gaze on an erect **** in a washroom.

And a society where a single **** gay murder set gay rights back for years, so don't underestimate the force of reactionism.

And - again - I'm not a stakeholder in this.  I am getting pulled into it because the freakshow bad actor came into my media space...

Quote
You and I are having a dialogue.  We as a country certainly aren't.   The few like Murphy who are willing to publicly challenge gender ideology or voice concerns about its impact on the safety of women and girls are demonized and deplatformed. Murphy was likened to a white supremacist or Holocaust denier by our national broadcaster, banned from Twitter, her website is regularly targeted by cyber-attacks, and she was once again deplatformed this weekend because SFU campus security rated the risk of violence from trans-activists as "11 out of 10".  People who attended Murphy's talk in Toronto were threatened with violence and needed police protection just to get into the building. People are demanding Vickery Bowles' resignation for just allowing Murphy's event to proceed. Toronto city councilors are now talking about changing TPL's policies to prevent a similar talk from occurring in the future. 

This isn't what a dialogue looks like.   It's closer to a pogrom than a dialogue.

Because she denies that trans women are women, which is the third rail.  Get a better spokesperson I guess.
 
Quote
I highly doubt your interpretation of C-16 is accurate.   I don't think that guaranteeing each individual's right to gender expression  outlaws discussion of whether trans women are women.  The law may say that they are (although I am not sure it actually does) but expressing disagreement with a law isn't illegal.  And disagreeing that trans women are women doesn't restrict anyone's right to gender expression.

It does not outlaw such discussion.  Only pure 'hate speech' is against the law.  If we are looking for a definition of 'discrimination' though, as per what the Toronto Public Library explicitly disallows, we can use that as an example.

Quote
I also doubt your interpretation of discrimination, in this context, is accurate.  If the TPL were refusing members of some group admission to Murphy's talk, or to any other program or service, that would be discrimination.  But nobody was refused admission to the event based on gender identity or any other group characteristic.

 -k

Fine - you tell me how speech can discriminate against LGBT, against black people, against religions then.  How about 'Judaism is a fake religion' ? Or LGBT people are actually mentally ill - they aren't really gay they need therapy.  Like that ?   How can it not be discriminatory to deny that trans women are women ?  If it's not then what is C16 even for ?

And, no, refusing admission to a talk on discrimination isn't discrimination. 

Offline MH

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7710
Re: Gender Culture
« Reply #1409 on: November 05, 2019, 08:10:03 am »
Ok.  I listened to that entire lecture.  It was worse than church.  I listened as a personal favour to you, kimmy.  I respect you and appreciate that you want to hear my thoughts on this.

I really want to extricate myself from this discussion now, but you'll want to know my thoughts.

Firstly, in terms of me being influenced by all of these discussions - you can count this as a 'win'. She (and you) have some definite good points to consider.  I have expressed a desire to let the process unfold, and I can see many problem with the discussion process as it is.  That said, we have one famous case before an HRC so far and it seems to have gone the right way from the perspective of Murphyites.

And... Murphy is a much worse spokesperson for her cause than I had suspected.  She ranks with Peterson as an academic who is too sloppy with language to navigate through a minefield like this.  There is no trust between these stakeholder groups, so if you want to be heard you have to be more careful with your language... and parse it down, watch your tone and leave out characterizations of the ugliness around the arguments.

But she did have some good and even great points.  And some terrible ones.   And a lot of discussion of the environment around the discussion, which Trans people do equally also... ie. "this person got beat up, and that person over there got called a name - and now therefore here are my arguments"

 


Dumb Dumb x 1 View List