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 #1410 on: November 05, 2019, 05:22:52 pm »
BREAKING NEWS:  Comedian offends easily offended people!

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

 -k

Ricky offends everyone, that's what makes him great.
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC

Offline kimmy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3912
  • Location: Kim City BC
Re: Gender Culture
« Reply #1411 on: November 10, 2019, 01:59:07 pm »

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.

Refusing admission to a talk on discrimination is the only thing you've mentioned that actually is discrimination.

"Judaism is a fake religion"?  I can point you to a very interesting discussion about  the theory that Judaism began as a polytheistic pantheon of pagan gods just like its contemporaries, and that the monotheist Yahweh-centric version of Judaism that we know only emerged after priests of Yahweh (previously the war god) gained ascendancy and expunged worship of the other gods in the pantheon and removed them from the scriptures. Is Christianity a fake religion?  We have academic discussions about the historical existence of Jesus, we have discussions about how much of the scripture was contemporaneous and how much was fan-fiction created 200 years later by the early church.  Some of this stuff might upset religious people, but none of it meets the actual definition of discrimination.

What is discrimination?  Let's talk more about that.

In a broad sense, of course discrimination just means being choosy.  If someone likes music, but only polka music, they have discriminating tastes. If someone only considers movies real art if they're set in office building, they have discriminating tastes. If DeShawn only reads books by black authors, then he's discriminating, but not in a problematic sense.

Discrimination becomes problematic when it it unfairly denies someone opportunities or results in someone being treated unfairly.

If DeShawn walks into Hatori's Japanese book store and says "I want to read books by black authors", and Hatori says "Sorry, I only sell books by Japanese authors", has DeShawn been discriminated against?  Well, no.   If Hatori says "Sorry, I only sell books to Japanese people", then that would be discriminatory. But if DeShawn has the same opportunity to purchase Hatori's products as any other customer, then no.  It's not problematic, in a legal sense, that Hatori doesn't sell books that DeShawn is interested in.

If Hatori puts a Help Wanted sign in the window one day and DeShawn comes in and says "hey, I want to apply for that job", and Hatori says "sorry, I only hire Japanese people", then that's discriminatory.  If Hatori says "sorry, all my books are in Japanese, and many of my customers only speak Japanese, so I need an employee who can read and speak Japanese", then he has a justifiable reason for discriminating (a legitimate job requirement). But if DeShawn says "surprise, bud, I am completely fluent in Japanese", then DeShawn meets that requirement and Hatori has no justifiable reason for not considering DeShawn for the position.

If Wolfgang's Super Schnitzel and Pork Sausage Factory is hiring, and a Jewish person applies for the job but he can't handle pork products for religious reasons, is Wolfgang discriminatory for not hiring him?  If handling pork is a requirement of the job and an applicant won't handle pork, then Wolfgang has a justifiable reason for not considering their application.

How about 'Judaism is a fake religion' ? Or LGBT people are actually mentally ill - they aren't really gay they need therapy.  Like that ?

There might be a hate speech argument to be made, or maybe not.  It would depend on the specifics. 

How can it not be discriminatory to deny that trans women are women ?  If it's not then what is C16 even for ?

I don't think Bill C-16 was intended to suppress ideas that make people uncomfortable.   During the Lindsay Shepard debacle at  WLU, Professor Rambukkana had told Shepard that she'd violated Bill C-16; among the discussion that followed from that incident was opinion of legal analysts that no, Shepard certainly had not violated C-16.  Professor Rambukkana had it wrong.

Bill C-16 is intended, as far as I understand it, to guarantee everyone the right to gender expression, and prohibit discrimination based on gender expression.  It also adds gender identity and gender expression to the list of things covered under hate speech and hate crime laws.  Does saying "trans women are not women" qualify as hate speech?  As discussed earlier, declaring something hate speech in a legal sense is a high bar to reach.

And I'm not aware that Bill C-16 imposes any definition on the word "woman".  Someone like Murphy arguing that "trans women are not women" doesn't prevent anybody from expressing their gender identity as they wish.



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

Offline kimmy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3912
  • Location: Kim City BC
Re: Gender Culture
« Reply #1412 on: November 10, 2019, 02:43:57 pm »
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.   

I appreciate that you made the effort.   I think you'll agree that there's a considerable disconnect between what the activists told you'd see vs what she actually talked about.  Or at the very least, that there's nothing in her talk that warranted deplatforming, charges of hate speech, or threats of violence.

Yaniv's ball-waxing case has been resolved, but there's a lot more to talk about.

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"

The environment around the discussion has become an unavoidable part of the discussion.  The effort by trans activists and allies to silence all debate has become one of the major characteristics of this conflict.

 -k
Masked for your safety.
Agree Agree x 1 View List

Offline Granny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: Gender Culture
« Reply #1413 on: December 06, 2019, 12:28:44 pm »
The environment around the discussion has become an unavoidable part of the discussion.  The effort by trans activists and allies to silence all debate has become one of the major characteristics of this conflict.
No, I still don't get it.
Some might not like what Murphy says.
Others might not like what trans activists and allies say.
But that's all just free speech.
(Unless someone crosses the line and incites hatred, but the police pretty much ignore that anyway).

People may react to the free speech of others: That reaction is also free speech.

Nobody promised anybody a silent and adoring audience. Free speech has reactions and consequences, that are also free speech.


Offline Granny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: Gender Culture
« Reply #1414 on: February 02, 2020, 01:06:28 am »
Fascinating gender possibilities ... but at a point in reading this I started to feel like a voyeur spying on peoples private genes and chromosomes. 

http://geekxgirls.com/article.php?ID=12697

Offline MH

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7710
Re: Gender Culture
« Reply #1415 on: July 28, 2020, 01:30:44 pm »

Offline kimmy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3912
  • Location: Kim City BC
Re: Gender Culture
« Reply #1416 on: August 21, 2020, 08:02:25 pm »
I liked this one...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jUsTqarMiQ

I watched this, and felt it was as big a load of crap as the Canadaland podcast you told me was the "Greatest Ever Take" on the Jessica Yaniv situation.  The highlight of this video was very clearly his cool shirt, but beyond that I don't see much to recommend it.

I completely agree that Jordan Peterson turned the whole debate around C-16 into a farce. Because we ended up talking about Peterson's gripe about pronouns instead of talking about the real and potentially serious implications of the bill. Like beauticians being legally compelled to handle Yaniv's ball-sack. Or women's sports being ruined. Or women having to shower alongside people with raging hard-ons. Or male-bodied rapists being put in women's prisons because they've decided to "transition".  We didn't get to talk about any of that stuff.  The Trudeau government promised a gender-based analysis of everything from pipeline approvals to tax policy, but somehow we never heard what their gender-based analysis of C-16 revealed.

When it comes to "the TERFs" your Young Turk Hasan is on a strawman stampede of misrepresenting feminist concerns regarding gender theory and the things trans rights advocates are demanding.

When we get to Hasan's assertion that people can just trust their eyes to know which pronouns to use, that's great when we're talking about the examples he gives like Buck Angel or Contrapoints or Valentina Sampaio who are all highly passing. It becomes more challenging when it comes to people like Morgane Oger or Jessica Yaniv or Rachel McKinnon, who are light years from passing. And it gets even more confusing with people who are very obviously male or female but insist on using xe/xer pronouns or nonsense like that. This is Gregor Murray, a Scottish politician:

If you, as Hasan suggests, simply trust your eyes,  how are you supposed to know that Gregor is a "non binary" person who insists on "they/them" pronouns?   Maya Forstater, an English woman, was fired from her job because of her gender-cynical views; a squabble in which she referred to Murray using male pronouns was presented as evidence of what a terrible person she is.

It's easy for people like Hasan Piker to take a run at a bonehead like Jordan Peterson. Let me know when he or his ilk want to have a go at JK Rowling.


 -k
Masked for your safety.
Like Like x 1 View List

Offline MH

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7710
Re: Gender Culture
« Reply #1417 on: August 21, 2020, 08:07:57 pm »
We kind of moved on after Jessica's case was dismissed.

It validated the Canadaland take.

Offline kimmy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3912
  • Location: Kim City BC
Re: Gender Culture
« Reply #1418 on: August 21, 2020, 08:17:39 pm »
I logged on to the TERF Dark Web last week and found this image being discussed.  It originated on Reddit in one of the gender-fabulous anime-obsessed communities there, and is was posted by a "Non Binary" person about themselves.



This really resonated with me because it embodies so much of why I think "non binary" is a complete load of total dogshit. Non-binary people say they're smashing gender stereotypes, and yet they can't explain themselves except in reference to outdated gender stereotypes.  "Non binary" only exists in reference to a "binary" that's built around gender stereotypes. They're not smashing gender stereotypes at all, they're building them up.

This isn't just stupid, it's also a slap in the face to everything feminists fought for from the 1960s right up to sometime around 10 years ago when feminism started being necrotized by gender theory.

 -k
Masked for your safety.

Offline kimmy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3912
  • Location: Kim City BC
Re: Gender Culture
« Reply #1419 on: August 21, 2020, 08:27:30 pm »
We kind of moved on after Jessica's case was dismissed.

It validated the Canadaland take.

Mainstream media moved on. Yaniv didn't move on.  Yaniv immediately set out to "fix" their complaint, this time instead of requesting their ball-sack be waxed, they requested leg waxing services, once again targeting single-employee businesses from conservative South Asian backgrounds.

Yaniv was informed that they would not be able to pursue a new HRC complaint until they paid the $6000 they owed the defendants in the settlement for the last fiasco, but now that has apparently been paid. And the JCCF people who defended the last beauticians are ready to defend the next ones too, and they're planning to play the religion card.

So despite your-- and Jesse Brown and Mary Rogan's-- wishes, this issue is still out there. Canadaland's take boiled down to  "if we ignore this it'll go away" but it's not going away.

 -k
Masked for your safety.
Agree Agree x 1 View List

Offline MH

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7710
Re: Gender Culture
« Reply #1420 on: August 22, 2020, 07:44:15 am »
Mainstream media moved on. Yaniv didn't move on.  Yaniv immediately set out to "fix" their complaint, this time instead of requesting their ball-sack be waxed, they requested leg waxing services, once again targeting single-employee businesses from conservative South Asian backgrounds.

Yaniv was informed that they would not be able to pursue a new HRC complaint until they paid the $6000 they owed the defendants in the settlement for the last fiasco, but now that has apparently been paid. And the JCCF people who defended the last beauticians are ready to defend the next ones too, and they're planning to play the religion card.

So despite your-- and Jesse Brown and Mary Rogan's-- wishes, this issue is still out there. Canadaland's take boiled down to  "if we ignore this it'll go away" but it's not going away.

 -k

Your metric for 'moving on' seems to be that Yaniv is still litigating.  So what ?  She can do that forever.

We *have* moved on, in that nobody is talking about her anymore.  I didn't even know she was still litigating.  If that's your measure of the issue still being 'out there' then, frankly, it will never go away.  Can you see that ?

It feels to me that we have, as a country, adopted an idea of 'trans rights' and that the details of things need to be worked out.  As the 'Yaniv' case shows, declaring onesself a woman isn't carte blanche to get any kind of service you want. 

Don't take extreme viewpoints as a measure of what will eventually be the 'norm'.

Offline kimmy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3912
  • Location: Kim City BC
Re: Gender Culture
« Reply #1421 on: August 27, 2020, 12:37:44 am »
Your metric for 'moving on' seems to be that Yaniv is still litigating.  So what ?  She can do that forever.

We *have* moved on, in that nobody is talking about her anymore. 

It's ridiculous for you to suggest that Jesse Brown and Mary Rogan are vindicated by the fact that we're not talking about Yaniv's case 10 to 12 months later. That's laughable.

Other stuff from that time frame that we're not talking about anymore includes the vast wildfires in the Amazon and the Hong Kong protests, numerous political developments, terror incidents, and more.  By your logic one would assume the Amazon wildfires and Hong Kong protests didn't deserve any coverage either. 

I wrote at considerable length here about why Brown and Rogan's podcast was a flaming cartload of dogshit.   But I'll reprint some of it here anyway, because I love being repetitive and because I don't feel that you or Cyber or anybody else attempted to respond to any of this last time:

Quote

I've taken the time to listen to this podcast, and I have to disagree with you.  This is not a good take at all.  I wish I had a transcript so I could rip this apart in detail.  Instead I'll just remark on some of the more egregious aspects of it.

In his intro he starts by riffing on Quillette and gives his listeners the false impression that trans issues are an "obsession" of Quillette. (they aren't.  Even right now, when trans issues are allegedly "everywhere" I don't see a single article on the Quillette main page on that topic.)   To demonstrate his point he reads some headlines from past Quillette articles.


 Titles referencing things like women's athletics, silencing feminists, the campaign against "terfs", homophobia in the trans movement, trans-radicalism's effect on kids, and so on.  He implies that these are topics without merit and that Quillette is simply scaremongering.   But these are real and valid topics; we've discussed most of them in some depth in the "Gender Culture" thread.  That people like Jesse Brown are so dismissive of these topics is one of the main reasons that sites like Quillette can brand themselves as "a platform for free thought."

 Brown proposes that the transgender movement is just about "basic human rights", but things like male-bodied people demanding to compete in women's sports or demanding that lesbians not exclude your lady-**** from their dating pool, or  taking an aesthetician to the Human Rights Commission because she wouldn't wax your lady-testicles certainly stretch far beyond the notion of "basic human rights".   

(...)

 He goes on to suggest that this allegedly outsized share of attention is because people are bigoted, at which point he introduces the Yaniv issue and argues that Yaniv is in the headlines because she's the perfect trans bogeyman that bigots have been waiting for. But "nobody has ever actually been forced to wax Yaniv's genitals," Brown smugly informs us.  Well, there's a disclaimer with that, which Brown neglects to mention for some reason.  The disclaimer is that some of the people who refused to wax Yaniv's balls were forced out of business, others who refused to wax his balls had to pay a settlement because they didn't have the resources or ability to defend themselves in the HRC process, and most importantly, if Yaniv does win his HRC cases, a precedent will be set such that yes, aestheticians pretty much will have to wax his testicles.  So that's why this HRC issue is actually a pretty big deal.  But Brown doesn't mention any of those things, because he's either an ignoramus or a propagandist.

Brown goes on to argue that we shouldn't take Yaniv seriously because there's reason to believe Yaniv is acting in bad faith and isn't a real activist.  Well, guess what: Yaniv's case is going to set a precedent whether Yaniv is acting in good faith or not. Yaniv might well be a creep or a predator or a racist or a goon trying to shake down immigrants by filing bogus HRC claims, or all of the above. But the HRC has decided that they have to give these complaints a fair hearing, and rule on the merits of the complaint regardless of how scummy Yaniv's character may be, and when the ruling is delivered it will affect real people in the real world who have to live with the results.  Jesse Brown seems oblivious to all of this.  He seems to think that since Yaniv is a scumbag the HRC process isn't real, or something. Brown is wrong.

(...)

They mock the "we're protecting the children" angle.  They mockingly talk about the hysterical fear that "some trans cabal is trying to get tomboys to transition" or something like that. But there has been a major controversy at the UK's Tavistock clinic over a report that says young people are being fast-tracked for medical transition without adequate evaluation, so maybe it's not so hysterical after all.   

And they imply that the "man in a dress preying on young girls in a bathroom" is a preposterous boogeyman scenario, even though Yaniv is literally exactly that, and then immediately move on to "we don't need to talk about Yaniv, because Yaniv is just an outlier, he's the worst case scenario, he's not representative of trans people in general."

(a transgender writer at Canadaland, Niko Stratis, wrote this MUCH BETTER take on Yaniv, explaining why Brown and Rogan are completely wrong in saying "we" don't need to talk about Yaniv. Give it a read here:  https://www.canadalandshow.com/we-need-to-talk-about-jessica-yaniv/  )

And then they go back to talking about Peterson, pronouns, "the downfall of western civilization", and so on. They rant about how people won't defend their arguments, while they themselves talk about pronouns and completely ignore any real issues that have been raised.

And then they complain about how Yaniv somehow got to be considered an activist or a representative for trans people.  Well, Yaniv is the one before the HRC arguing their case.   The HRC has ruled that these cases need to be heard.

The HRC representative, Devyn Cousineau, ruled that she can't throw out these charges based on the possibility that Yaniv may be playing the system. Cousineau also isn't allowed to consider that Yaniv might be a scumbag or a child predator either. She has to consider the merits of the case.  They don't get to "no true Scotsman" Yaniv out of the movement just because she's not a very appealing activist.

They also mock the conservatives who suddenly care about the marginalized immigrant women who Yaniv targeted.  But that argument cuts both ways.   Why are the progressives who'd normally fight tooth and nail for marginalized immigrant women so silent on this?  Why do progressives no longer give a **** about standing up for feminists, or for women's sports, or for lesbians?  Why are progressives so quiet when it comes to trans issues?  And as I've said before, I reject the notion that these women's racial or cultural background changes the case anyway: I think that all of these women, be they marginalized immigrants or white and affluent, have the right to refuse to handle a dong.   

  And why do Jesse and Mary think that conservative "concern trolling" on the issue is a reasonable response?  "Conservatives don't really care that Yaniv targeted marginalized immigrant women, therefore we should not care about the marginalized immigrant women that Yaniv targeted either."  Is that the argument? Is that what they're saying?  Not really, it's just a deflection. They think they've found a "gotcha"-- that by pointing out conservative hypocrisy, they don't have to address the much tougher question of whether women should be compelled to handle a ****. It's a dodge. It's cowardly.

And your response to all this, at the time, was "but you see, this is a media-criticism podcast."   But their criticism of media outlets that covered this story depends on the notion that this story had no merit, which is why they spent most of their podcast on insipid, dishonest, and trivializing portrayal of the issues being discussed.

I didn't even know she was still litigating.  If that's your measure of the issue still being 'out there' then, frankly, it will never go away.  Can you see that ?

This won't go away until these kinds of issues-- ones that Brown and Rogan and perhaps yourself would prefer to ignore-- have been resolved. Now that we have C-16 we are in a world with all kinds of new questions. There has to be real discussion, not the one-sided parade of propaganda that some favor.


It feels to me that we have, as a country, adopted an idea of 'trans rights' and that the details of things need to be worked out.  As the 'Yaniv' case shows, declaring onesself a woman isn't carte blanche to get any kind of service you want. 

Don't take extreme viewpoints as a measure of what will eventually be the 'norm'.

If policies are going to be made based on feel-good stories, then we are going to have to have these discussions every time something not-very-feel-good happens.  If we're going to make policy based on the notion that people like Yaniv are just fictional boogeymen, then we're going to have these discussions when these fictional boogeymen appear in the real world.

If those of us who disagree with "extreme viewpoints" are going to be muzzled and silenced as transphobes, then those extremists will get their way.


 -k
Masked for your safety.
Like Like x 1 View List

Offline MH

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7710
Re: Gender Culture
« Reply #1422 on: August 27, 2020, 11:08:46 am »
It's ridiculous for you to suggest that Jesse Brown and Mary Rogan are vindicated by the fact that we're not talking about Yaniv's case 10 to 12 months later. That's laughable.

Other stuff from that time frame that we're not talking about anymore includes the vast wildfires in the Amazon and the Hong Kong protests, numerous political developments, terror incidents, and more.  By your logic one would assume the Amazon wildfires and Hong Kong protests didn't deserve any coverage either. 

I'm not suggesting that the fact we're NOT talking about it justifies saying it shouldn't have been covered.  There are other reasons it shouldn't have been covered. 

Here's your quote "the real and potentially serious implications of the bill. Like beauticians being legally compelled to handle Yaniv's ball-sack"


So, the bill didn't lead to that happening... so that wasn't an implication.  The hearing was a year ago, and we moved on and maybe it validated Canadaland's take that people (and by people, I mean right-wing media distributed and consumed for angertainment by non-impacted males) were overreacting.

Quote
I don't feel that you or Cyber or anybody else attempted to respond to any of this last time:

You're right - I don't see a response.  In retrospect, though, it seems to me that people were going crazy about the Yaniv story and it amounted to nothing.  I see your point that they discredit 'the issue' by focusing on Yaniv but I also don't think that Trans rights themselves was the topic.

Quote
And your response to all this, at the time, was "but you see, this is a media-criticism podcast."   But their criticism of media outlets that covered this story depends on the notion that this story had no merit, which is why they spent most of their podcast on insipid, dishonest, and trivializing portrayal of the issues being discussed.

Yes, in response to the insipid coverage in the MSM.  If there was a serious piece on how to negotiate trans rights in, say, pro women's sports I don't think they would have had that same response.

Quote
This won't go away until these kinds of issues-- ones that Brown and Rogan and perhaps yourself would prefer to ignore-- have been resolved. Now that we have C-16 we are in a world with all kinds of new questions. There has to be real discussion, not the one-sided parade of propaganda that some favor.

This always happens when rights change.  There's no free pass for this issue either.


Quote
If policies are going to be made based on feel-good stories, then we are going to have to have these discussions every time something not-very-feel-good happens.  If we're going to make policy based on the notion that people like Yaniv are just fictional boogeymen, then we're going to have these discussions when these fictional boogeymen appear in the real world.

Yes we will.  That always happens.

Quote
If those of us who disagree with "extreme viewpoints" are going to be muzzled and silenced as transphobes, then those extremists will get their way.

If you remove the quotes, and changed muzzled and silenced to 'shouted down' then I agree with this.  But you don't trust the system enough.  It's proven by the fact that you thought Yaniv for sure would win her case.  Same sex rights also never resulted in kids being instructed to do gay sex...

I think it comes down to you not trusting the system enough, which is understandable.

Offline kimmy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3912
  • Location: Kim City BC
Re: Gender Culture
« Reply #1423 on: August 29, 2020, 02:10:01 pm »
I'm not suggesting that the fact we're NOT talking about it justifies saying it shouldn't have been covered.  There are other reasons it shouldn't have been covered. 

Meaning "if we talk about these issues, angry white males will beat up trans people", I gather.


Here's your quote "the real and potentially serious implications of the bill. Like beauticians being legally compelled to handle Yaniv's ball-sack"

So, the bill didn't lead to that happening... so that wasn't an implication.

It was certainly a potential outcome of this tribunal. And that's why it needed to be discussed.

The hearing was a year ago, and we moved on and maybe it validated Canadaland's take that people (and by people, I mean right-wing media distributed and consumed for angertainment by non-impacted males) were overreacting.

I think the mainstream media outlets were very restrained in what they reported about Yaniv.  ThePostMillennial in Canada (and others abroad) reported on more lurid aspects of Yaniv's history, including Yaniv's lengthy history of sexual advances towards adolescent girls. And some of that reportage resulted in more victims of Yaniv's attempts at grooming filing complaints with Canada's cyber crimes authority as well as a spotlight being shone on some of Yaniv's more recent activities. Isn't that a good thing?

You're right - I don't see a response.  In retrospect, though, it seems to me that people were going crazy about the Yaniv story and it amounted to nothing.  I see your point that they discredit 'the issue' by focusing on Yaniv but I also don't think that Trans rights themselves was the topic.

Yes, in response to the insipid coverage in the MSM.  If there was a serious piece on how to negotiate trans rights in, say, pro women's sports I don't think they would have had that same response.

As I wrote previously, his intro begins by mocking Quilette for writing articles like:
Quote
Titles referencing things like women's athletics, silencing feminists, the campaign against "terfs", homophobia in the trans movement, trans-radicalism's effect on kids, and so on.  He implies that these are topics without merit and that Quillette is simply scaremongering.   But these are real and valid topics; we've discussed most of them in some depth in the "Gender Culture" thread.  That people like Jesse Brown are so dismissive of these topics is one of the main reasons that sites like Quillette can brand themselves as "a platform for free thought."

Those are serious issues, and Brown laughs them off as fearmongering. It is very obvious that Brown has no interest at all in having a serious discussion about any of this.

Brown is clearly part of the progressive herd that develops a collective blindness towards any topic that might cause people to feel unsympathetic towards trans people.

This always happens when rights change.  There's no free pass for this issue either.

Quote
If policies are going to be made based on feel-good stories, then we are going to have to have these discussions every time something not-very-feel-good happens.  If we're going to make policy based on the notion that people like Yaniv are just fictional boogeymen, then we're going to have these discussions when these fictional boogeymen appear in the real world.

Yes we will.  That always happens.

Why do we insist on forging ahead based on the idea that people like Yaniv are fictional, then act surprised that they're not? 

If you remove the quotes, and changed muzzled and silenced to 'shouted down' then I agree with this. 

We live in a world where the only way for a woman to speak her mind on this issue is to be as wealthy and famous as JK Rowling.

But you don't trust the system enough.  It's proven by the fact that you thought Yaniv for sure would win her case.  Same sex rights also never resulted in kids being instructed to do gay sex...

I think it comes down to you not trusting the system enough, which is understandable.

I wasn't sure that Yaniv would win their case. But if you think it was a given that the side of sanity would prevail, you simply haven't been paying attention to things that have been going on.

 -k
Masked for your safety.

Offline MH

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7710
Re: Gender Culture
« Reply #1424 on: September 01, 2020, 10:38:54 am »
Meaning "if we talk about these issues, angry white males will beat up trans people", I gather.

Possibly.  But rather than project some negative effect, let's maybe acknowledge the perpetual tinder box that is identity politics and endeavour to have a mature conversation about the topic.

Quote
It was certainly a potential outcome of this tribunal. And that's why it needed to be discussed.

"needed to be discussed" - well, I don't think I can advocate for obliterating all discussion.  But what is the audience for a discussion of trans rights, if it's discussed by 'The Rebel' ?  Is the discussion in the best public interest in all cases, or can we request that they maybe raise the bar in terms of how it's examined ?  If they don't want to raise the bar, then - yes - maybe they shouldn't discuss it.

Quote
I think the mainstream media outlets were very restrained in what they reported about Yaniv.  ThePostMillennial in Canada (and others abroad) reported on more lurid aspects of Yaniv's history, including Yaniv's lengthy history of sexual advances towards adolescent girls. And some of that reportage resulted in more victims of Yaniv's attempts at grooming filing complaints with Canada's cyber crimes authority as well as a spotlight being shone on some of Yaniv's more recent activities. Isn't that a good thing?

Possibly, but I doubt you can draw a direct line between things published by The Rebel and Vietnamese salon workers filing complaints.

Quote
As I wrote previously, his intro begins by mocking Quilette for writing articles like:
Those are serious issues, and Brown laughs them off as fearmongering. It is very obvious that Brown has no interest at all in having a serious discussion about any of this.

I don't think that's true that he laughs off all such issues, but I'm open to calling Brown out if that is the case.

Quote
Brown is clearly part of the progressive herd that develops a collective blindness towards any topic that might cause people to feel unsympathetic towards trans people.

You want to divine his motives so you can put a tag on him.  He's also been tagged as a 'defund the CBC' type right winger, by the way.

 

Quote
Why do we insist on forging ahead based on the idea that people like Yaniv are fictional, then act surprised that they're not? 

I don't think they're fictional, but I also don't think that a nuisance person is relevant in the large scheme of things.

Quote
We live in a world where the only way for a woman to speak her mind on this issue is to be as wealthy and famous as JK Rowling.

Lots of people speak their minds on this issue and they don't have her kind of money.  Furthermore, while I don't agree with the way the general public was brought into the discussion they are clearly being counted on as an asset in the push back.

Quote
I wasn't sure that Yaniv would win their case. But if you think it was a given that the side of sanity would prevail, you simply haven't been paying attention to things that have been going on.

What things ?  The fact that she brought a lawsuit at all seems to be a sign of insanity to some people.  And I don't think it's a given that sanity will prevail but ... maybe we should complain about such things after the rulings rather than before.