Cont: Transwomen are not women - part XI

Status
Not open for further replies.
In any case, you can't just not protest for a cause you believe in in case somebody evil turns up.
No-one suggested you had to. But you can avoid standing shoulder to shoulder with someone who cheerfully associated with the far right.

No-one ever did their own cause any good by doing that.


I was responding to this

This has nothing to do with 'associating with Nazis'.
LJ was talking about Moira Deeming and I was pointing out that they didn't try to expel her for her views on gender.

I don't know of anyone had been expelled from a political party has been expelled for this reason.
 
Last edited:
Talking of the Canberra edition of the "Let Transphobic Bigots Speak" rally, I highly recommend watching the cached livestreamed edition of the debacle. It picks up where Hobart left off, with Keen-Minshull impressively upping her own ante on unhinged ranting.

There's also a particularly delightful part where she aggressively c speakers who - having started off "on-message" - then dares to suggest that transgender people are a disadvantaged minority deserving of protection. As the saying goes: "Let Women Speak.... unless those women have the temerity to disagree with my zealotry, in which case Shut Women Up" :rolleyes:

And it all takes place against the backdrop of a dank, overcast, rainy day in the Australian capital. Though strangely in the light of this (or, more accurately, the distinct lack of daylight), Keen-Minshull doggedly sticks with the nasty-sunglasses strategy: seems like she's perhaps taking a tip or two from a rather well-known dictator and mass murderer from the previous century, who knew all about (and scrupulously adhered to) the maxim that ideologue demagogues gain more traction from the semi-educated and bigoted masses if they adopt a strikingly unique physical appearance and stick rigidly to that appearance....

Do you have a link to the livestream?
 
LJ was talking about Moira Deeming and I was pointing out that they didn't try to expel her for her views on gender.
She is not expelled yet, but when it happens the reason will be "any question of an association, even indirectly, with Nazis, white supremacists, eco-fascists or whatever else," according to opposition leader John Pesutto.

I suppose it's worth asking how indirectly might be too indirectly, since any given Victorian Liberal politician is likely to garner at least some support from some on the far right fringe with white supremacist sympathies.
 
She is not expelled yet, but when it happens the reason will be "any question of an association, even indirectly, with Nazis, white supremacists, eco-fascists or whatever else," according to opposition leader John Pesutto.

I suppose it's worth asking how indirectly might be too indirectly, since any given Victorian Liberal politician is likely to garner at least some support from some on the far right fringe with white supremacist sympathies.
It is not a matter of her garnering support, it is a matter of Ms Parker actively courting the far right.

The wording of the motion (full wording in the link)

on 19 March 2023 and on days prior organising, promoting and attending a rally where Kellie-Jay Keen (also known as Posie Parker), was the principal speaker in circumstances where Ms Keen was known to be publicly associated with far right-wing extremist groups including neo-Nazi activists

https://www.smh.com.au/interactive/...ion-regarding-Moira-Deeming-20-March-2023.pdf

Deeming must have known about Keen's reputation as someone who courted the far right. That is pretty direct.
 
Are you saying that a multidisciplinary collaborative approach providing the child with all information and ensuring that the diagnosis is correct and whether or not medical intervention is required ,is not the standard recommended practice when children claim to be trans or have gender dysphoria symptoms?

Recommended or not, it's not the care many actually receive.

I'll give an example I have mentioned before. Lots of providers claim that puberty blockers are fully reversible. But there is no evidence of that. So children and parents are being routinely lied to about the risks of going on puberty blockers. That's not an exception, that's the norm.
 
Recommended or not, it's not the care many actually receive.

I'll give an example I have mentioned before. Lots of providers claim that puberty blockers are fully reversible. But there is no evidence of that. So children and parents are being routinely lied to about the risks of going on puberty blockers. That's not an exception, that's the norm.
The norm worldwide? Can you cite your reasons for saying this is the norm?
 
Andy Lewis publishes part 2 of his critique of Novella's muddled attempt to produce a theory of sex as a bimodal distribution.

The Muddling of the American Mind – Part II

Dawkins is a very clever man but I don't think he has really gone into the question of reductionism, and probably neither has Lewis.

The idea that principles reduce neatly in a hierarchy down to the simplest principles is one which is rejected by many scientists. In 1961 Ernst Nagel attempted a strict definition which said that one level reduced to another if there could be, even if just in principle, a set of bridging laws which describes one level completely in terms of the lower level.

But physicists tell me that you can't even do that from chemistry to particle physics.

And you can't do it from thermodynamics down to the basic properties of particles.

So the idea that you could do it, even in principle, from psychology down to basic physics is dubious.

Now some say that Nagel's definition is not correct, in which case there needs to be another definition of what a "reduction" is, or else admit that it is not a rigorous concept.

The other thing is that there is a bait and switch going on here.

People say that sex is a biological binary. Fine. Then someone says that a man wearing a dress is going to harm the structure of society. So in what sense is "man" being used here? If "man" is an adult human biological male and nothing else then what have clothes got to do with the matter? Nothing.

So when someone says that men in dresses are a danger to society they are including the assumption of sex as a partial social construct.

So the issue is semantics. Sure, I am happy to have "man" meaning "adult human biological male" as long as Quentin Crisp is just as much of a man as John Wayne.
 
Last edited:
The norm in the US at least, probably the UK as well, likely Canada.



Because the claim that puberty blockers are fully reversible gets parroted by pretty much all those advocating transition, including medical transition providers and supposed experts.
Probably not the norm in the UK for long anyway. We know that the problems in the UK were caused by a number of factors which are being addressed. I am looking at the Australian information:

Although puberty suppression medication is reversible and should not in itself affect long term fertility it is very rare for an adolescent to want to cease this treatment to conduct fertility preserving interventions (e.g. semen storage) prior to commencement of gender affirming hormones. It is therefore necessary for counselling to be conducted prior to commencement of puberty suppression or gender affirming hormone treatments.

https://www.rch.org.au/uploadedFile...d-gender-diverse-children-and-adolescents.pdf

Which matches what Dr Hutchinson and other critics of Tavistock were saying should be the information given to patients and their parents/guardians.

This is identified as being WPATH recommendations.

The Mayo Clinic information page on puberty blockers does not say it is completely reversible and does say that it can have an effect on future fertility.

Moreover the information on the hospital web page does not necessarily reflect what advice a clinician will give to the patient, which would most likely reflect the latest information available.
 
It is not a matter of her garnering support, it is a matter of Ms [Keen] actively courting the far right.
So if Deeming wants Keen to speak on some specific topic, we can safely assume that Deeming supports the views of anyone and everyone Keen has ever associated with? That doesn't strike me as good epistemology or ethics.

At any given "Women's March" here in the U.S. we had hardcore old-school radfems elbow-to-elbow with young intersectional feminist embies. Can we assume they are on the same page about all women's spaces and rights, because they showed up to the same protest march?

(Hint: Ofc not!)
 
Last edited:
So if Deeming wants Keen to speak on some specific topic, we can safely assume that Deeming supports the views of anyone and everyone Keen has ever associated with? That doesn't strike me as good epistemology or ethics.

At any given "Women's March" here in the U.S. we had hardcore old-school radfems elbow-to-elbow with young intersectional feminist embies. Can we assume they are on the same page about all women's spaces and rights, because they showed up to the same protest march?
Hey, you can use the standards you choose.

The rad fems were often extreme but basically harmless.

But if I was speaking at a rally and I found the organiser had been cheerfully palling around with white supremacists and holocaust deniers and the like I would probably decline.

I'm not so hard up for people who agree with my causes that I have to associate with people like that.
 
But if I was speaking at a rally and I found the organiser had been cheerfully palling around with white supremacists and holocaust deniers and the like I would probably decline.
Suppose I adopted your guilty-by-transitivity standard, and thus had to judge everyone based on whom they've been hanging about with socially or otherwise.

What would be the best evidence of said palling around on Keen's part?
 
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/65051900

"World Athletics has banned transgender female athletes from competing in the female category at international events.

The governing body's president, Lord Coe, said no female transgender athlete who had gone through male puberty would be permitted to compete in female world ranking competitions from 31 March."
 
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/65051900

"World Athletics has banned transgender female athletes from competing in the female category at international events.

The governing body's president, Lord Coe, said no female transgender athlete who had gone through male puberty would be permitted to compete in female world ranking competitions from 31 March."


Good. It's a correct and proportionate decision for elite-level athletics*. Which is what I have long argued, and which in no meaningful way impinges upon the deserved rights of transgender people.


*For elite-level athletics only.
 
(BTW: As Coe also pointed out, there are currently no transgender people competing (or seeking to compete) in this elite level of athletics.)
 
Good. It's a correct and proportionate decision for elite-level athletics*. Which is what I have long argued, and which in no meaningful way impinges upon the deserved rights of transgender people.


*For elite-level athletics only.

I thought you argued that transwomen should be allowed to compete until there was clear evidence they had an advantage over biological women.

World Athletics reversed that assumption, noting instead that "Many believe there is insufficient evidence that trans women do not retain advantage over biological women".

Their default is now - as it should always have been - that trans women are not allowed to compete unless and until it can be shown they have no advantage over biological women.

I hope that this decision now trickles down to the lower levels of sport: fairness and competitiveness isn't only important at elite level.
 
I thought you argued that transwomen should be allowed to compete until there was clear evidence they had an advantage over biological women.

World Athletics reversed that assumption, noting instead that "Many believe there is insufficient evidence that trans women do not retain advantage over biological women".

Their default is now - as it should always have been - that trans women are not allowed to compete unless and until it can be shown they have no advantage over biological women.

I hope that this decision now trickles down to the lower levels of sport: fairness and competitiveness isn't only important at elite level.

Which is why banning freakish fake women like Caster Simones is so important. No biological advantages are to be permitted in sports(many exceptions do apply of course)
 
Suppose I adopted your guilty-by-transitivity standard, and thus had to judge everyone based on whom they've been hanging about with socially or otherwise.

What would be the best evidence of said palling around on Keen's part?
I sent a link already. Again, it's up to you how you choose your allies.

But try to remember the conversation.

Someone suggested Deeming was expelled for her views on gender.

I said she was expelled for speaking at a rally organised by someone associated with the far right.

Now whether that is fair or not has no bearing on the truth of my statement. It is still the fact that the reason the Victorian Liberal Party is trying to expel her is that she spoke at a rally organised by someone associated with the far right.
 
Last edited:
I sent a link already.
The link you sent at #906 claims "Keen was known to be publicly associated with far right-wing extremist groups including neo-Nazi activists" but it doesn't say when or where this happened.
Again, it's up to you how you choose your allies.
Agreed. I'm not about to kick people out of my tent just because they associate with far-left activists (e.g. Marxists, Tankies) which I personally find distasteful.
 
Last edited:
*For elite-level athletics only.

This is fine for athletics, as long as “elite level” includes college level athletics. It is nowhere near fine for contact sports, which are a bit of a hodge podge at the moment. Transwomen who have gone through male puberty should be banned completely from contact sports.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom