no morrissey songs on jk rowlings tracks of my years

A

Anonymous

Guest
That's hilarious. So anyone should be able to say what they like unless you disagree with it, in which case they become 'twats?' You really are the man who put the 'moron' into 'oxymoron,' aren't you?
You've already been there, done that.... :thumb:
 
M

Meathead

Guest
My only opinion on this is that you have to be careful about what's written into law.
Biology is an objective fact. Inner 'gender' feelings can't be verified. Legislation could easily become riddled with loopholes & absurdities.

Sometimes social mores deal with these things in a more flexible & kind way than strident activism & rules.

This article may help. At least we can see that it's not as simple as it seems. @Uncleskinny should be ashamed as an alleged man of science but his virulent so-called anti-racist tirades often reveal that he sees 'others' as those who need his help and so he plays out his role as the white savior. Really he's just old and dull.
The point here is that biology itself is not always such an objective fact and gender definitely can be quite subjective.
Back to @Uncleskinny he's using the guise of protection here again except this time it's to protect women from those who 'have a penis.' Hilarious that he exposes himself, so to speak, with this issue.
I will agree with you in part that if people would just treat other people fairly and try to understand or at least make room for others to exist, then there would be no need for activism and rules.
I'll admit that the transgender issue is something I can't personally understand although I have learned to understand it better over the past few years.
But it's not really about creepy men saying that they are women so that they can use the ladies room. It's not really even about understanding. It's about recognizing that others have a right to exist and do not require my understanding or acceptance. They only require that I do not work to make their lives more difficult. Anything past that is a bonus.
What I'm saying is that many white liberals pride themselves on accepting people of color or people of different religious beliefs, and they pat themselves on the back for doing so. The White Saviour model is something they aspire to. While this is better than virulent racism, it is in fact a lie because it's simply another form of racism. Giving yourself a pat on the back for accepting that black people exist and you're not bother by it is pretty racist.
Trans people have very difficult lives generally, or at least it's a difficult problem to face. And while I don't think it has anything in common with homosexuality or race other than it's 'other' if we consider white heterosexuals the default setting, it does have something in common with those things.
Would you have also felt that we shouldn't bother to make rules about racism or that it is okay that Alan Turing was treated worse than an animal? Should social mores be left to sort those things out?

And all of this has gotten far from J.K. Rowling's stance which is that transgender women are not women because they do not have menstrual periods.
Now there are some feminists who see it as transgender men having the privilege of passing for male but then sliding their way into the feminine identity without having to have done the work involved in what used to be called women's liberation but which might better be called gender equality. They might have some kind of a point although I don't agree with them. But I don't think it's based on the same sort of hatred or ignorance as the 'no penises in the ladies room' argument.
That I think is a good place for your philosophy about social mores to be put into place. Imagine being a raging women's libber your whole life only to find men turning up to your rally. That would make anyone upset!
Then there is Fran Leibowitz' take on it. She's a very funny writer and social commentator who is very liberal in some way and quite conservative in others. In addition to being a lesbian she's also Jewish and a native of New York City so it's not so easy to predict what she's going to say. Her take on it is that any man who would want to become a woman is a fool because they're giving up the position of privilege. 'Become a woman' isn't really the right way to say it but while this is an ancient issue it's still pretty new to the public discussion so we're all learning.
Anyone directing hate or fear, which is just another form of hate, at transsexuals is still a bigot and if it's okay to do that openly it gives those in the shadows the courage to commit brutal crimes against them which is quite common. Most transsexual males are not fighting to get into the ladies locker room. They just want to be who they are and walk down a city street without being beaten to death.
That's why this issue really is not that subjective. You are either for human rights or you're not.
 

gordyboy9

GAME OF DEATH.
That's hilarious. So anyone should be able to say what they like unless you disagree with it, in which case they become 'twats?' You really are the man who put the 'moron' into 'oxymoron,' aren't you?
trust you to reply.you certainly never thought of the moron in oxymoron,go on what programe did you see it on.
 

rifke

ladies bear (inquire within)
And all of this has gotten far from J.K. Rowling's stance which is that transgender women are not women because they do not have menstrual periods.
i dont think she was quite saying that. i think she was trying to reclaim the word "woman". it's not so much about what transwomen are or arent. it's about what cervix havers, menstruators, etc are and have always been: women. why does our name have to be modified (why must we be refered to as "cis-women", "menstruators", "cervix havers") just because some penis-havers came along and decided they'd rather like to be women too? that doesnt change what we as women are, so why the f*** should OUR name change?
 
H

Hairy Potter

Guest
i dont think she was quite saying that. i think she was trying to reclaim the word "woman". it's not so much about what transwomen are or arent. it's about what cervix havers, menstruators, etc are and have always been: women. why does our name have to be modified (why must we be refered to as "cis-women", "menstruators", "cervix havers") just because some penis-havers came along and decided they'd rather like to be women too? that doesnt change what we as women are, so why the f*** should OUR name change?
You can refer to yourself however you wish. I think you know how I refer to you. First word five letters starts with an S, second word four letters starts with a C.
 
A

Aldine

Guest
She's absolutely 100% spot-on, and women's spaces need to remain as women's spaces.
Is this meant to be a joke? You seem to have real hatred for women. Please leave women and girls alone. Please leave trans people alone. Please leave Morrissey alone. You have no understanding of vulnerable people. This isn't the Victorian times anymore or even the 1950s.
 
Top Bottom