• 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.
theprestige said:
Now apparently it's the "fascists" who think gender is overrated.
Click to expand...
If I was going to say a movement is (quasi)fascistic I would at least take the trouble to spell out what I mean by fascism and make the comparison point-by-point. It strikes me as lazy and even anti-intellectual to casually label an opposing outgroup as fascistic (or, say, Marxist) without doing the work to show the commonalities.

As to whether "gender is overrated," I've had some trouble peeling this onion. Once we pull away all the socially-enforced roles, there isn't a lot left which is objectively observable (i.e. not qualia) so the traditional empirical toolbox is sort of useless.
 
Last edited:
JoeMorgue said:
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.
Click to expand...

My understanding is that while some object to the term "TERF" and prefer the "gender-critical" descriptor, they don't really dispute that there is a specific subset of people opposed to trans inclusion largely based in a particular form of feminist thought.

In the context of the UK, where major organizations in this debate are feminist splinter groups explicitly formed over disagreements about trans inclusion, I don't see why we should deny this obvious self-sorting.
 
The hilarious thing about the Guardian redaction controversy is that it wasn't redacted because of the answer. It was redacted because of the question.

They had no objection to calling anti-trans voices fascist. It's just that the question was about the person who was claiming to be an innocent victim of anti-trans hatred, when in fact he was...............well, I suppose that case isn't completely and totally closed....but

whatever he or she is or was, the person exposed their penis in a lot of places (articles I have read referred to 40) where they could have probably not exposed their penis, and they had been arrested for it, and just to have a bit more fun served time for burglary while in his 40s. The Guardian didn't really like the look of the question that was friendly and supportive to Darren Merager after they found out that Darren probably wasn't the best poster child for the trans rights movement. As a result, they got rid of the question, and because they got rid of the question, they had to get rid of the answer.
 
The hilarious thing about the Guardian redaction controversy is that it wasn't edited because of the answer. It was edited because of the question.

They had no objection to calling anti-trans voices fascist. It's just that the question was about the person who was claiming to be an innocent victim of anti-trans hatred, when in fact he was...............well, I suppose that case isn't completely and totally closed....but

whatever he or she is or was, the person exposed their penis in a lot of places (articles I have read referred to 40) where they could have probably not exposed their penis, and they had been arrested for it, and just to have a bit more fun served time for burglary while in his 40s. The Guardian didn't really like the look of the question that was friendly and supportive to Darren Merager after they found out that Darren probably wasn't the best poster child for the trans rights movement. As a result, they got rid of the question, and because they got rid of the question, they had to get rid of the answer.
 
Meadmaker said:
The hilarious thing about the Guardian redaction controversy is that it wasn't redacted because of the answer. It was redacted because of the question.

They had no objection to calling anti-trans voices fascist. It's just that the question was about the person who was claiming to be an innocent victim of anti-trans hatred, when in fact he was...............well, I suppose that case isn't completely and totally closed....but

whatever he or she is or was, the person exposed their penis in a lot of places (articles I have read referred to 40) where they could have probably not exposed their penis, and they had been arrested for it, and just to have a bit more fun served time for burglary while in his 40s. The Guardian didn't really like the look of the question that was friendly and supportive to Darren Merager after they found out that Darren probably wasn't the best poster child for the trans rights movement. As a result, they got rid of the question, and because they got rid of the question, they had to get rid of the answer.
Click to expand...

If you read the vice article, they also refused to run a follow-up interview question about TERFs aligning themselves with the far right Heritage Foundation, which illustrated the same point without the complexities of the Wi Spa case.

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.

“I explained that while I wasn’t attached to my question, and was happy for that to get revised or removed, I could not endorse removing Judith Butler’s answer,” Gleeson said. “Unfortunately, the Guardian editors decided to go ahead with their decision to censor Judith Butler.”
Click to expand...

Seems to me that the editors had lots of options short of just avoiding the issue. They easily could have just added an editor's note and/or follow-up question and response, for example, rather than yanking this part of the interview entirely.
 
Last edited:
- Transpeople want to be in all places that are meant for people of their identified gender.
- Women want places safe from, let's be honest here, penises.
- We can't have genitalia based safe space because "OMG what are going to do have genital checkers at the door?"

Solve for X.
 
d4m10n said:
If I was going to say a movement is (quasi)fascistic I would at least take the trouble to spell out what I mean by fascism and make the comparison point-by-point. It strikes me as lazy and even anti-intellectual to casually label an opposing outgroup as fascistic (or, say, Marxist) without doing the work to show the commonalities.

As to whether "gender is overrated," I've had some trouble peeling this onion. Once we pull away all the socially-enforced roles, there isn't a lot left which is objectively observable (i.e. not qualia) so the traditional empirical toolbox is sort of useless.
Click to expand...

Interesting coincidence with the linked author's first name, or are you just quoting yourself here?
 
JoeMorgue said:
- Transpeople want to be in all places that are meant for people of their identified gender.
- Women want places safe from, let's be honest here, penises.- We can't have genitalia based safe space because "OMG what are going to do have genital checkers at the door?"

Solve for X.
Click to expand...

Probably need to qualify this middle statement, as it varies quite a bit depending on who you're talking to. Feelings on this matter seem to vary quite a bit depending on where you are. Cis-women are not a monolith on this issue, despite the anti-trans side presuming to hold themselves out as some class representative.

For example, despite all the doomsaying going on in Canada in the run-up to them codifying gender expression into their civil rights law, it seemed to get remarkably little traction with the broader public. With years having passed now, the lack of broad backlash to this law speaks volumes.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
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?
Click to expand...
She lost me at "spurious biological essentialism".
 
Meadmaker said:
T As a result, they got rid of the question, and because they got rid of the question, they had to get rid of the answer.
Click to expand...

Apparently the interviewer wanted to substitute a different question while keeping the answer, and was unable to see any problem with that. The mind boggles.
 
Last edited:
SuburbanTurkey said:
Probably need to qualify this middle statement, as it varies quite a bit depending on who you're talking to
Click to expand...

That's true of this entire discussion. But at least one side, wrong as they are, isn't demanding the major variable they are arguing for remains forever undefined.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
If you read the vice article, they also refused to run a follow-up interview question about TERFs aligning themselves with the far right Heritage Foundation, which illustrated the same point without the complexities of the Wi Spa case.



Seems to me that the editors had lots of options short of just avoiding the issue. They easily could have just added an editor's note and/or follow-up question and response, for example, rather than yanking this part of the interview entirely.
Click to expand...

So, Gleeson offered to revise history by rewriting the interview to include things that didn't actually happen in the interview.

ETA: Or, as Elaedith put it, the mind boggles.
 
Last edited:
JoeMorgue said:
That's true of this entire discussion. But at least one side, wrong as they are, isn't demanding the major variable they are arguing for remains forever undefined.
Click to expand...

Drawing hard, clear lines that are needlessly cruel and motivated by animus is often a very simple thing to do.
 
theprestige said:
Nope, he's already registered as a sex offender. These are entirely substantiated allegations. You're really doubling down on the "pretend he's not real" strategy?
Click to expand...

I suppose we'll have to wait and see. Given a prior history of similar crimes, I would agree it seems likely, perhaps even most likely, that the allegations against this person are more or less correct.

What exactly does a repeat criminal committing a crime say about the broader debate? If anything, the prior convictions for the same crime from before trans-inclusive laws were in effect show that such laws had little impact.
 
theprestige said:
You know you don't need to align with "fascists", just to align against a serial sexual assaulter.
Click to expand...

The sex related charges against Merager all are related to exposure, not assault. (Assuming I didn't miss anything in the news.)

He (or whatever) was also convicted of burglary.

Basically - 2002 and/or 2003 (can't remember exactly), conviction for indecent exposure. I have seen no information regarding the nature of these incidents. i.e. was it classic "flashing", or was it being nude in a female facility where nudity would be expected, as in the Wi Spa case.

2008 - Conviction for not registering as a sex offender.

2014 - Conviction for burlary.

2018 - (I think) charges of indecent exposure. I don't know why those haven't been resolved. Numerous reports of other indecent exposure incidents.

2021 - Wi spa incident.

The burglary charges were actually quite prominent, and got a lot of press. The victim was an extremely wealthy and well known hedge fund manager, and Merager et. al. broke into his house and stole expensive art. It was noted in one not very trans friendly publication I read about that in none of the 2014 stories were any pronouns other than "he" used to describe Merager, and there was no mention of transgender issues.

ETA: And the above is all from memory. I'm confident I got the "big picture" accurate, but I might be off on a few details.
 
Last edited:
Meadmaker said:
The sex related charges against Merager all are related to exposure, not assault. (Assuming I didn't miss anything in the news.)

He (or whatever) was also convicted of burglary.

Basically - 2002 and/or 2003 (can't remember exactly), conviction for indecent exposure. I have seen no information regarding the nature of these incidents. i.e. was it classic "flashing", or was it being nude in a female facility where nudity would be expected, as in the Wi Spa case.

2008 - Conviction for not registering as a sex offender.

2014 - Conviction for burlary.

2018 - (I think) charges of indecent exposure. I don't know why those haven't been resolved. Numerous reports of other indecent exposure incidents.

2021 - Wi spa incident.

The burglary charges were actually quite prominent, and got a lot of press. The victim was an extremely wealthy and well known hedge fund manager, and Merager et. al. broke into his house and stole expensive art. It was noted in one not very trans friendly publication I read about that in none of the 2014 stories were any pronouns other than "he" used to describe Merager, and there was no mention of transgender issues.

ETA: And the above is all from memory. I'm confident I got the "big picture" accurate, but I might be off on a few details.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the correction. I withdraw my exaggerated allegations.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom