Author Topic: Gender Culture  (Read 56075 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Michael Hardner

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12477
Re: Gender Culture
« Reply #1935 on: June 05, 2021, 02:45:26 pm »
Ok... so it was a mistake then ?  It was perceived by the police as a death threat, but a misunderstanding ?

So it really doesn't have much to do with Transgender Politics, more with police incompetence then ?

I'm still where I stood on this: irreconcilable values question is at the core of this politics and many people will refuse to see the other side as reasonable. 

guest7

  • Guest
Re: Gender Culture
« Reply #1936 on: June 05, 2021, 02:50:22 pm »
I'm still where I stood on this: irreconcilable values question is at the core of this politics and many people will refuse to see the other side as reasonable.

Well, that's their mistake, then.  A misunderstanding.

Offline kimmy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5033
  • Location: Kim City BC
Re: Gender Culture
« Reply #1937 on: June 06, 2021, 11:27:24 am »
Ok... so it was a mistake then ?  It was perceived by the police as a death threat, but a misunderstanding ?

So it really doesn't have much to do with Transgender Politics, more with police incompetence then ?

From what I understand, an individual complained to the police and they acted upon the complaint.

Was it all just a misunderstanding?  If the authorities involved were willing to accept the explanation that it's a suffragette ribbon and not a noose, I don't think they would have had to interrogate her for hours, or laid charges afterward.

Is it a mistake?  There's a difference between an error and a mistake.  If this was an error, the whole think could have been resolved within a few minutes. "oh my gosh, lol, we thought it was a noose. sorry for the inconvenience!"  I don't believe this was an error.

Is it a mistake? That depends. To me it seems like regardless of the outcome the people behind this have already gotten what they wanted.  The bad woman had her kids taken by social services while she was taken to the police station for the day to be grilled. She had her fingerprints and DNA taken. She has been charged. She is trying to raise money for legal expenses (her GoFundMe was taken down yesterday because the transes complained about it).  The bad woman has been sent a message. The bad woman has been made an example of.  Other bad women will think twice about talking.  Millar's slogan is "Women won't wheesht."  When other women see what happened to Millar, they might well "wheesht".  ("Wheesht is apparently Scottish for "shush"; I had to look that up.)  The purpose of a witch-hunt isn't to burn one witch, it's to scare others into compliance.  If the intent of this exercise was to make an example of Millar, they've already achieved what they intended, even if the charges against her are dropped tomorrow.

Whether it turns out to be a mistake in the larger picture depends on the degree of backlash that results from this.

 -k
Paris - London - New York - Kim City
Agree Agree x 1 View List

Offline Michael Hardner

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12477
Re: Gender Culture
« Reply #1938 on: June 06, 2021, 02:29:09 pm »
 
1. The bad woman had her kids taken by social services while she was taken to the police station for the day to be grilled. She had her fingerprints and DNA taken. She has been charged. She is trying to raise money for legal expenses (her GoFundMe was taken down yesterday because the transes complained about it).  The bad woman has been sent a message.

2. Whether it turns out to be a mistake in the larger picture depends on the degree of backlash that results from this.
 

1. Ok the woman was charged because she was perceived to have made a death threat.  If that was an honest error then we have nothing to say about it.  If it was someone taking advantage of the situation to punish someone they disagree with, ie. they made a bad-faith accusation then shame on them.  It seems like someone on one side could be a bad person.

2. But it doesn't mean anything for or against the argument that society should let individuals declare their gender.  It does, however, support my argument that entrenched interests who see the opposing opinion as "invalid" will never be resolved.

I think when such things are being adopted, there's a period of transition during which pro/con arguments can be entertained in polite company.  After they're adopted, those who saw their arguments fall have to absorb the fact that their views are destined to be marginalized moving forward.

You could have argued publicly against interracial marriage in the 1950s and kept your job.  Not so sure you can do that today. 

Offline Squidward von Squidderson

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5630
Re: Gender Culture
« Reply #1939 on: June 07, 2021, 01:30:33 pm »
Where did one argue “publicly” in the1950s?

Offline Michael Hardner

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12477
Re: Gender Culture
« Reply #1940 on: June 07, 2021, 03:20:56 pm »
Where did one argue “publicly” in the1950s?

Short answer: media, the press, dedicated organizations for public engagement

Long answer:

Michael Warner has done writing about the place of 'publics' in our society, German philosopher Jürger Habermas etc.  Warner is a contemporary writer and Habermas is actually still alive (aged 91) and has argued against Postmodernism and the philosophies that have given momentum to the politics of liberation.

The idea is that 'publics' are distinct audiences ... bubbles with shared interests, who have some amount influence on power, even if that is small.  I'm only an amateur who comes to this topic through my interest in McLuhan and Philosophy so I can't do it justice, so please pursue these writers yourself. 

The general idea is that " the growth in newspapers, journals, reading clubs, Masonic lodges, and coffeehouses in 18th-century Europe" created the first body of public criticism to question power, and officially sanctioned or tolerated.  So when the American experiment was designed, freedoms of association, expression and the press were enshrined in their foundational document.  Publics are the foundation for democracy.

Eventually mass media arrived, and was added to the list of platforms considered as 'public' dialogue - but eventually restrictions were added to counteract their special attributes for propaganda.  We are essentially still in this period, with the computer and internet media now being as 'public' forums.  We're in a post McLuhan period, which hopefully means people are more aware that our media are colouring at least, or actually being the message.

So what does it mean to the topic of identity politics and rights ? 

We have a democratic system that was designed at a time when the designers did not consider non-white, non-Christian, non-male landowners to be full citizens... which written even before the mechanical age had started or the age of modern newspapers... They did know that their Constitution had to include a renewal formula, which meant that who was to be considered to be a "full" person would change.  Most enlightened framer of the constitution would be considered to be a regressive thinker, by today's moral standard.  And yet they created an enduring system that would come to recognize equality of millions.

Now as equality progresses, there are periods of debate wherein we discuss, say, rights for minorities.  At such times, such as today, an opinion which is widely held can decline in popularity as a rights debate plays out.  So some opinions can thereby become unfashionable, or even repugnant to many .  In recent years, there was widespread opposition to gay marriage which somehow evaporated quickly.  Barack Obama opposed gay marriage during part of his term as president.

So 'trans women are women' 'trans men are men' have made a foothold in law now.  I support the idea, but I also expect that this is a difficult concept for many to adopt so my work as an ally includes helping work through the debate.

The main finding I have from my talks on here is that the entrenched positions won't be resolved, and that one sign of being entrenched seems to be that you can't accept the opposite view being reasonable at all.  Like abortion, this is a values debate, and there is actually no correct answer.



Winner Winner x 1 View List


Offline Michael Hardner

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12477
Re: Gender Culture
« Reply #1942 on: June 10, 2021, 09:31:01 am »
Well....

"The panel said only views akin to Nazism or totalitarianism were unworthy of protections for rights of freedom of expression and thought."

“The EAT’s decision sets the threshold for exclusion so high that it will leave marginalised groups more vulnerable to discrimination and harassment and place employers in an impossible position. Our clients are considering their next steps.”

I would say it would be a lot easier to isolate rights surrounding 'offensive' views in the workplace as being actionable than to allow 'philosophical opinions' not akin to "Nazism or totalitarianism" (?) to be protected.  From my POV people who believe women shouldn't have the right to vote can now work at a lipstick store. 

It's not hard to project how the government would now be protecting outrageous points of view.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That said, if "the" public can work this ruling into our social fabric then I applaud it.

Offline Black Dog

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 9078
  • Location: Deathbridge
Re: Gender Culture
« Reply #1943 on: June 10, 2021, 12:45:11 pm »
Sometimes I despair for my country.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jun/04/gender-critical-feminist-charged-over-allegedly-transphobic-tweets

So not the rampant racism, runaway austerity, crumbling healthcare, rising nationalism?

Offline Black Dog

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 9078
  • Location: Deathbridge
Re: Gender Culture
« Reply #1944 on: June 10, 2021, 12:47:51 pm »
Maybe there's hope:

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2021/jun/10/gender-critical-views-protected-belief-appeal-tribunal-rules-maya-forstater

lol:

Quote
Forstater said of the judgment: “It doesn’t mean the freedom to harass others. That was never what my case was about.

Quote
Later that month, in a long series of tweets, [Forstater] repeatedly misgendered Credit Suisse senior director Pips Bunce, who identifies as gender fluid, referring to her as "a man who likes to express himself part of the week by wearing a dress,” "a part-time cross dresser" and "a white man who likes to dress in women’s clothes.”



guest7

  • Guest
Re: Gender Culture
« Reply #1945 on: June 10, 2021, 08:06:20 pm »
So not the rampant racism, runaway austerity, crumbling healthcare, rising nationalism?

No, that's been around for a while. Same as most places, I guess.

guest7

  • Guest
Re: Gender Culture
« Reply #1946 on: June 10, 2021, 08:08:20 pm »
lol:

Yeah, I wouldn't want anyone to harass anyone.  I don't mind them offending people, though.

guest7

  • Guest
Re: Gender Culture
« Reply #1947 on: June 10, 2021, 08:13:30 pm »
Well....

"The panel said only views akin to Nazism or totalitarianism were unworthy of protections for rights of freedom of expression and thought."

“The EAT’s decision sets the threshold for exclusion so high that it will leave marginalised groups more vulnerable to discrimination and harassment and place employers in an impossible position. Our clients are considering their next steps.”

I would say it would be a lot easier to isolate rights surrounding 'offensive' views in the workplace as being actionable than to allow 'philosophical opinions' not akin to "Nazism or totalitarianism" (?) to be protected.  From my POV people who believe women shouldn't have the right to vote can now work at a lipstick store. 

It's not hard to project how the government would now be protecting outrageous points of view.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That said, if "the" public can work this ruling into our social fabric then I applaud it.

As long as they don't make views akin to Nazism or totalitarianism illegal.  I can see an employer wanting to fire someone with those views.  But then, I can see an employer wanting to fire someone with all kinds of views.  I don't know if they should be able to though.

Offline Squidward von Squidderson

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5630
Re: Gender Culture
« Reply #1948 on: June 10, 2021, 08:59:02 pm »


Can I, as an employer, fire some for pro-transgender views if I want to keep women in my workplace safe from being called TERFS?  If not, why not?

Offline Michael Hardner

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12477
Re: Gender Culture
« Reply #1949 on: June 10, 2021, 09:11:30 pm »
As long as they don't make views akin to Nazism or totalitarianism illegal.  I can see an employer wanting to fire someone with those views.  But then, I can see an employer wanting to fire someone with all kinds of views.  I don't know if they should be able to though.
It sounds like you haven't been following the case.