• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

[ED] Discussion: Trans Women Are not Women (Part 6)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Transgender MMA fighter Alana McLaughlin wins debut fight after surviving early scare and choking out opponent

https://twitter.com/SunSport/status/1436669480474718210

Seems like another dud of a boogiewoman. Based on the article, it sounds like she narrowly avoided being defeated in the first round and squeeked out a victory in the 2nd.

A closely won contest at a low level fight is not exactly a juggernaut.
 
Seems like another dud of a boogiewoman. Based on the article, it sounds like she narrowly avoided being defeated in the first round and squeeked out a victory in the 2nd.

A closely won contest at a low level fight is not exactly a juggernaut.

It doesn't affect you, so who cares?
 
More reporting on the split within the Guardian, especially between the UK and US branches, on how to handle criticism of TERFs.

Gleeson said that she expected publishing an interview with Judith Butler at the Guardian would be a “live wire” given the Guardian UK’s “editorial stance” on trans issue and Judith Butler specifically. Gleeson notes that the Guardian’s US editorial team has taken issue with the Guardian’s stance on trans rights in the UK. She also notes the Guardian regularly publishes editorials that are critical of Butler.

“Thirty years ago, academics were all high on Jacques Derrida. Now a lot of them appear to be drinking the Kool-Aid that is Judith Butler, high priestess of gender theory,” Rachel Cooke wrote in a Guardian story last month, for example.

“My impression is that there are two different teams, the U.S. team and the UK team,” Gleeson told Motherboard. “I know it’s not a totally different publication, but I expected some editorial autonomy from the U.S., which simply was not there.”

Interesting that an updated version of the article was rejected. There seems to be an unwillingness of the UK Guardian editorial leadership to explore the growing phenomena of TERFs aligning themselves with far-right groups, or, as in the Wi Spa incident, overt fascists.

Gleeson suggested to retract the question and replace it with something more timely, like the recent Texas abortion law. She offered the following revision, “free of charge:”

It seems that some within feminist movements are becoming sympathetic to these far-right campaigns. In 2019 NBC news reported that the US right wing lobbying group The Heritage Foundation had hosted 'gender critical' feminist perspectives. Remarkable given the Heritage Foundation is pushing for restrictions on abortion, as seen in Texas.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/7kv3m4/why-the-guardian-censored-judith-butler-on-terfs
 
Last edited:
You seem a lot more interested in having a boogeyman to hate then in actually helping anyone.

Do you actually give a crap about Transpeople or are "Terfs" just like cops and the Right in something that you really, really love having around to hate?

For all your moral high ground in all my interactions with you you only seem to like minorities to the degree if gives you another group to both hate AND act superior about how other people aren't hating them as much as you are.
 
Last edited:
You seem a lot more interested in having a boogeyman to hate then in actually helping anyone.

Do you actually give a crap about Transpeople or are "Terfs" just like cops and the Right in something that you really, really love having around to hate?

For all your moral high ground in all my interactions with you you only seem to like minorities to the degree if gives you another group to both hate AND act superior about how other people aren't hating them as much as you are.

I would prefer to not have them around, but I don't see any way towards that, so hate will just have to do.


Regardless what you may feel about me or my stance towards TERFs, a battle over the editorial stance towards liberal anti-trans voices in one of the liberal media mainstays in the UK is an important one.

For whatever reason, the UK seems to be a TERF stronghold in a way that their peer nations are not, and a conflict brewing within the editorial room of the Guardian is an interesting exploration of the topic.
 
Loving/supporting transpeople and hating "TERFS" isn't the same thing. If you can't see that there is literally no hope for you.
 
Loving/supporting transpeople and hating "TERFS" isn't the same thing. If you can't see that there is literally no hope for you.

Hey, if you wanna focus on the issues instead of personalizing which members of the forum are TERFs or real allies or whatever, the power is yours.

Any thoughts on Judith's Miller's comments where she argues that TERFs are on the wrong side in the battle against modern fascism? Do you agree or disagree with her comments, and why?

The quote, that was redacted from the Guardian piece, is here:

The Terfs (trans exclusionary radical feminists) and the so-called gender critical writers have also rejected the important work in feminist philosophy of science showing how culture and nature interact (such as Karen Barad, Donna Haraway, EM Hammonds or Anne Fausto-Sterling) in favor of a regressive and spurious form of biological essentialism. So they will not be part of the coalition that seeks to fight the anti-gender movement. The anti-gender ideology is one of the dominant strains of fascism in our times. So the Terfs will not be part of the contemporary struggle against fascism, one that requires a coalition guided by struggles against racism, nationalism, xenophobia and carceral violence, one that is mindful of the high rates of femicide throughout the world, which include high rates of attacks on trans and genderqueer people.

The anti-gender movement circulates a spectre of “gender” as a force of destruction, but they never actually read any works in gender studies. Quick and fearful conclusions take the place of considered judgments. Yes, some work on gender is difficult and not everyone can read it, so we have to do better in reaching a broader public. As important as it is, however, to make complex concepts available to a popular audience, it is equally important to encourage intellectual inquiry as part of public life. Unfortunately, we are living in anti-intellectual times, and neo-fascism is becoming more normalized.

ETA: For fuller context, the interview as it was published is still available via web archive here: https://web.archive.org/web/20210907130940/https://amp.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2021/sep/07/judith-butler-interview-gender

Butler says this much more concisely and clearly than I ever could, and I couldn't agree more with her analysis of the current situation.
 
Last edited:
TERF has joined SJW as a term that makes my brain shut off everytime I see it as part of someone's argument.

I knew there was a reason I pick True Neutral in video games.
 
For fuller context, the interview as it was published is still available via web archive here: https://web.archive.org/web/20210907130940/https://amp.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2021/sep/07/judith-butler-interview-gender

"The anti-gender ideology is one of the dominant strains of fascism in our times."

What are the tenets of this fascistic "anti-gender ideology" aside from the terribly conservative notion that sometimes human females get to have their own spaces/leagues?
 
Last edited:
Interesting that an updated version of the article was rejected. There seems to be an unwillingness of the UK Guardian editorial leadership to explore the growing phenomena of TERFs aligning themselves with far-right groups, or, as in the Wi Spa incident, overt fascists.
You know you don't need to align with "fascists", just to align against a serial sexual assaulter. In fact it's kind of weird to stand up for serial sexual assaulters just because you don't like to be on the same side of an issue as "fascists".

Ironically, none of the people involved in objecting to serial sexual assaulters at the Wi Spa were part of any trans-exclusionary or radical-feminist movement. They're all pretty much part of an ad hoc "no serial sexual assaulters in Wi Spa" movement.

Why are you on the side of the serial sexual assaulter, here? This guy is pretty much the worst possible thing for trans-inclusion. The last thing trans-inclusion needs is serial sexual assaulters gaining access through self-ID alone. You should probably be at the front of the line denouncing and repudiating this guy. Unless you figure it's a better strategy to just pretend he isn't a serial sexual assaulter, and that this is somehow a "TERF" problem.
 
"The anti-gender ideology is one of the dominant strains of fascism in our times."

What are the tenets of this facistic "anti-gender ideology" aside from the terribly conservative notion that sometimes human females get to have their own spaces/leagues?

Heh. Up until very recently, demolishing the social stereotypes of gender was very much a progressive thing. Now apparently it's the "fascists" who think gender is overrated.
 
That's still where I'm at.

I'm not crazy I know that gender roles were a bad thing not that long ago. I didn't imagine that. Now they are good again as long as they are being used non-traditionally.
 
Hey, if you wanna focus on the issues instead of personalizing which members of the forum are TERFs or real allies or whatever, the power is yours.

Any thoughts on Judith's Miller's comments where she argues that TERFs are on the wrong side in the battle against modern fascism? Do you agree or disagree with her comments, and why?

The quote, that was redacted from the Guardian piece, is here:



ETA: For fuller context, the interview as it was published is still available via web archive here: https://web.archive.org/web/20210907130940/https://amp.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2021/sep/07/judith-butler-interview-gender

Butler says this much more concisely and clearly than I ever could, and I couldn't agree more with her analysis of the current situation.

You know what would encourage "intellectual inquiry" and prevent "anti-intellectualism"? Actual dialogue.

In the past, I enjoyed debating gay marriage with opponents, because they were armed with a collection of fairy tales and hate, while I was armed with science and rudimentary ethics. They were the ones grasping at straws, and the ones who became uncomfortable when they couldn't find a better answer than "because God".

Meanwhile, basic questions on this topic make people run for the hills.
 
Any thoughts on Judith's Miller's comments where she argues that TERFs are on the wrong side in the battle against modern fascism? Do you agree or disagree with her comments, and why?

I'm sorry they pulled it. It showcases how totally unhinged, paranoid, histrionic, and incoherent Butler's moronic gibbering is. If more people were aware of the irrationality and fundamentalism underpinning this movement, they might wake up.

Butler and Gleeson are in a cult and clearly have no awareness of how unhinged they sound to those not indoctrinated.
 
Last edited:
You know you don't need to align with "fascists", just to align against a serial sexual assaulter. In fact it's kind of weird to stand up for serial sexual assaulters just because you don't like to be on the same side of an issue as "fascists".

Ironically, none of the people involved in objecting to serial sexual assaulters at the Wi Spa were part of any trans-exclusionary or radical-feminist movement. They're all pretty much part of an ad hoc "no serial sexual assaulters in Wi Spa" movement.

Why are you on the side of the serial sexual assaulter, here? This guy is pretty much the worst possible thing for trans-inclusion. The last thing trans-inclusion needs is serial sexual assaulters gaining access through self-ID alone. You should probably be at the front of the line denouncing and repudiating this guy. Unless you figure it's a better strategy to just pretend he isn't a serial sexual assaulter, and that this is somehow a "TERF" problem.

An awfully strong stance considering the allegations against this person remain unsubstantiated. Criminal charges means we'll likely learn more in time.

Regardless, ginning up a fascist rally doesn't seem like a particularly useful response to a specific instance of allegedly criminal behavior, unless someone's goal is to conflate the actions of a supposed pervert with all trans people.
 
You know what would encourage "intellectual inquiry" and prevent "anti-intellectualism"? Actual dialogue.

In the past, I enjoyed debating gay marriage with opponents, because they were armed with a collection of fairy tales and hate, while I was armed with science and rudimentary ethics. They were the ones grasping at straws, and the ones who became uncomfortable when they couldn't find a better answer than "because God".

Meanwhile, basic questions on this topic make people run for the hills.

Running a piece in the Guardian might be a good way to engage in dialogue, but the editors were not interested in views critical of TERFs.
 
How about we just stop assigned people labels arguing about which team gets points added or subtracted and just try our best as people to make things better for everyone?

But that means there's no "bad guy" for someone to play out their Great White Savior by way of "I'm still not over that I missed the 60s" dreams.
 
Dig through the threads if you actually care, I'm not going to dig any further.
I can't judge for you what quote you think support your claim.

ETA: and in case you still don't understand how extreme Boudicca90's position is, this person insisted that they are biologically female. With a penis.
Boudicca has a tendency to use non-standard definitions of terms. She meant that she thinks the biological causes of a person's gender identity should determine who counts as "biologically female". That is of course not what is meant by "biological female", and it would complicate already complicated discussions about gender vs biological sex, but I get where she is coming from.

She does not deny biology, but does question what aspects of a person's biology ought to determine a person's sex, and which ones ought to be seen as sexually neutral.
 
TERF has joined SJW as a term that makes my brain shut off everytime I see it as part of someone's argument.

At this point, to me it (repeated use of the word when you are aware it is a slur) signals misogyny - disdain for the idea that females face any hardships based on their sex & signaling support for the idea that the feelings of a small group of males are more important than safety, fairness, representation, etc. of females.

Wanting those things for females is not right wing/fascistic. Again, there seem to be 3 basic positions, as notedhere


I noted that McLaughlin has posted anti-TERF messages before.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom