Мы тоже лучше этого. Никто их не высмеивает, и не притесняет. Наши правозащитники первыми выступили против этого закона, который запрещает трасгендерам водить машину. Только толку то... сами знаете почему...
Ms Rowling: insightful critic of gender policy or myopic [insult]
- Thread starter TheVat
- Start date
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
Just to add Starmer has now said he supports the UKSC ruling. Hopefully that now clears up what he said in 2022 in a Times interview, basically the opposite of what he is saying now.
In his defense, both times he was in line with the law with what he said but this just demonstrates that the law must have been wrong, at least once.
Define what a woman is for us, please, billvon. After all, if you're going to criticise others for not being able to do it...
After you've done that, explain to us why you think the label "TERF" is not just a slur.
TERF was introduced by one of their own in 2008, but in the years since has shifted to pejorative status. (It probably won't be reclaimed, as the gay community did "queer" after decades of the latter's abuse in the straight community.)
The gender-critical stance itself (or its historical roots) has actually floated among segments of radical feminists (in the US) since even before the 1970s -- that the article below seems to limit it to. (Though Firestone's publication of "The Dialectic of Sex" in 1970 was a key event.)
Although it has rarely been stated outright, one of the veiled concerns is that men identifying as women is just another (lesser) nook and long-term developmental project that the patriarchy has exploited to in order navigate through the era of feminism, to maintain power status in the future. A glimpse of that paranoia is reflected in one of the quotes below (1973).
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
'Pro-lesbian' or 'trans-exclusionary'? Old animosities boil into public view
https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc...nary-old-animosities-boil-public-view-n958456
EXCERPTS: The view that transgender activism is harmful to women, especially lesbians, has been held by radical feminists since at least the 1970s, according to Lillian Faderman, a lesbian historian and the author of “The Gay Revolution: The Story of the Struggle.” She said radical feminism does not reflect the beliefs of most lesbians.
What tends to set so-called radical feminists apart from other feminists is the belief that a woman’s identity is rooted in biology, a view criticized by some LGBTQ activists as “essentialist,” Faderman explained. She added that this group of feminists has a long history of hostility toward trans people.
[...] During the first National Lesbian Conference at UCLA in 1973, Faderman recalled, transgender folk singer Beth Elliot, who organizers invited to perform at the event, was booed off stage.
“I just remember these women sitting very close to me screaming, ‘He’s a goddamn man! He’s a goddamn man!’ and just really and absolutely erupted into this very unpleasant situation,” Faderman said.
[...] In recent years, radical feminists have been derided as “transgender-exclusionary radical feminists,” or “TERFs,” by many LGBTQ activists and writers for having what many see as illiberal and anti-transgender views.
Faderman said the term TERF is “relatively new” and has become synonymous with radical feminism in recent years. “It’s certainly meant to insult radical feminists and to raise suspicion about all of them,” Faderman added.
_
Last edited:
Гомосексуалы у нас есть, но их очень мало. Намного меньше, чем на Западе. По крайней мере, я за всю свою жизнь встретила такую пару только один раз. Наверное, так сложилось исторически, что у нас это никогда не было распространено. Это на Западе, годами воюющие рыцари, брали себе в оруженосцы молодых парней, и видимо из-за отсутствия женщин, пользовались их услугами. Трансгендеров же я не встречала ни разу. Возможно, они где то и есть, но их должно быть совсем мало, если о них ничего не слышно.
What's "the whole pre-op thing that Rowling, et. al, seem to obsess over"?
Again, if there's a law that says that anybody who says "I am a woman" is entitled to enter a women's restroom, then there's no necessity for any man to dress as a woman to enter one.
You are technically correct that this has nothing to do with transgender people per se, but the fact is that it is largely people who call themselves transgender activists who are pushing for laws exactly like that. So, it seems to me that there's some connection.
Maybe you ought to stop just reacting and start thinking, for a change.
TheVat
Registered Senior Member
Semantic problem with GCRF there? If you're a GC radical feminist, how do you promote the rights of what you assert is nothing but a learned social construct? If your goal is to transcend and shed the cultural corset of feminine, then your name should reflect common cause with anyone who wants to shake off a gender norm. Radical Humanist?
Olga:
It is far more likely that homosexual people in Russia are less willing to publically identify themselves as such than in the West. This is understandable since there appears to be widespread prejudice against homosexuality in Russia. It is considered by many to be something like an illness or an abberation, or else a mental illness and/or a moral sin.
Is it illegal, too? Remind me. Can you be sent to jail for being homosexual? Or for engaging in "homosexual acts" (even between consenting adults)? If so, it is understandable that homosexual people would want to keep their sexual preferences and activities secret. Do you agree?
That is highly unlikely, considering that the proportion of people who are homosexual appears to be quite uniform across the world.
It is far more likely that homosexual people in Russia are less willing to publically identify themselves as such than in the West. This is understandable since there appears to be widespread prejudice against homosexuality in Russia. It is considered by many to be something like an illness or an abberation, or else a mental illness and/or a moral sin.
Is it illegal, too? Remind me. Can you be sent to jail for being homosexual? Or for engaging in "homosexual acts" (even between consenting adults)? If so, it is understandable that homosexual people would want to keep their sexual preferences and activities secret. Do you agree?
Your country has a long history of actively persecuting homosexual people, especially those who are open and outspoken about it.
Is all your knowledge of homosexuality in the West based on stories from 800 years ago? Even if we assume that such stories are accurate, they do nothing to explain why homosexuality is as prevalent as it is in the modern era. Do you think it is because of the degenerate morality of Western peoples?
They are much more rare than homosexual people, and tend to be persecuted even more, in places that are intolerant of homosexuality.
Worldwide, about 1 in 10 or 1 in 12 people is homosexuality, if I remember the statistics accurately. Transgender people are much rarer - far fewer than 1 in 100.
In contrast to gender. however, they do not deem biological sex as a social construct. Which is where members of the gender-critical stance seem to ground their womanhood. That's very well clarified in one of the passages of the article presented in this post:
https://www.sciforums.com/threads/m...r-policy-or-myopic-insult.166757/post-3755901
_
TheVat
Registered Senior Member
I'm aware they keep the biology grounding. That still seems to contain the contradiction. The gender constructs that humans developed over the centuries mapped onto biology (however poorly), so if one rejects the construct then there is little reason to keep the scaffolding it was built on. Remove constructs and you have a landscape of people with just adjectives that don't map onto genital design (bold, timid, sloppy, tidy, pushy, passive, chatty, quiet, extro, intro, etc) and a couple forms of gametes they may or may not make use of in whatever pair-bonding they happen to do. So GCRF would seem to be trying to have your cake and eat it.
Sidenote - I'm personally not one to check all the construct boxes for being a male, as I enjoy renovation/tinkering, but also cooking and cleaning (am more of a tidiness and antidust-vigilante than my spouse). So I have a particular sympathy for the whole non-binary thing, where one's identity quest doesn't have to involve so much performative tasking of doing things to be a [gender designation].
Well that's the $64,000 question. And to answer it, we have to distinguish between sex and gender. Sex is biological; gender is societal and is how we determine things like names and pronouns (and whether someone is a woman.)
Let's start with the easy ones. Most people (>95%) are born as phenotypically male or female - a 0 or a 6 on the Prader scale. Their genome matches their phenotype, and their gender (chosen by their doctor as the default) matches both. So a woman from this category is XX and has normal presentation of labia, vagina etc.
Next comes people with CAIS. CAIS is complete androgen insensitivity. These people are born phenotypically female (vagina, labia etc) but are XY - genetically male. This is rare but there are on the order of 10,000 of them in the US alone. Typically (but not always) these people identify as women since that's what on their birth certificate, and many of them do not even know that they are genetically male until they get a genetic test later in life.
A far larger cohort has AIS. These number in the hundreds of thousands in the US. These are people with partial insensitivities, and who are between 1 and 5 on the Prader scale. In other words, their phenotype is halfway between male and female. Traditionally the doctor in charge of their care takes a look at them and decides "this baby is closer to female than male, so we'll do some surgery to correct her to female." Note that nowadays this surgery is NOT intended to "choose their gender" for them - it's designed to make things like urination easier and improve their health outcomes. These are generally genetic males, ending up as either male or female phenotype through surgery.
A very small cohort are XX infants born on the Prader scale due to exposure to androgens in utero. Same as above - doctor does some surgery to correct their anatomy so they are functional.
Next comes people who are trans. Some of these are from the categories above - they were surgically corrected to be female, but they feel like they are male, and they want to return to that. But some were born an XY male (for example) and simply want to have a different phenotype. There are a few things that may cause this (prenatal hormone exposure, environmental influences in childhood) but like being gay there's no hard and fast formula for how someone develops as trans (or gay for that matter.) The technical term for this is "gender dysphoria" and a great many people who experience this use surgery/hormone replacement to change their phenotype to the sex they want to be. Others do this partially, or cannot afford it, or don't do so for other reasons (fear, disappointing loved ones etc) There are a little over a million trans people in the US.
So:
Genetic sex - determined by your genes; whether you are XX or XY
Phenotypic sex - determined by your physical presentation. Most are male or female, some are in between.
Gender - based on the decision of the person.
I didn't think it was since it is used by some feminists to describe themselves. But others are using it as a slur. Which is why I was asking if GC is now the politically correct term.
Я где то читала, что настоящих гомосексуалистов около 4%, остальным просто привили такие предпочтения в период полового созревания. У нас нет сейчас уголовного преследования за гомосексуализм( в СССР была такая статья), есть статья за пропаганду гомосексуализма.
Даже в дореволюционные времена, когда среди аристократии встречались гомосексуалисты, и их никто не преследовал, всё равно их было немного, а среди простого народа их не было совсем, иначе это каким-либо образом отразилось бы в народном фольклоре. Но среди рабочих и крестьян о таком никогда раньше и не слыхивали. Так что, вероятно всё-таки традиции.
Yah, but "in house" it still goes back to the radical feminist conception of gender (or specifically female gender) as just being an invented, inferior caste. They don't view the latter as falling out of biological sex anymore than enslavement of sub-Saharan Africans was an inherent and inevitable consequence of having dark skin. Genitals slash biological sex matters to the extent that the patriarchy uses such to perceptually distinguish "women" in the population and then program them with the applicable (submissive) gender construct.
Arguably, in the radical equality of Firestone's vision of the future, "biological woman" will no longer even matter as a category (Marx hand-waved about his own version of a classless society at the end of the revolution's rainbow). But while oppression still endures, there is no escaping that such physical (reproductive) attributes are the source of it, similar to how Black activists still have to retain that adjective to in order to represent themselves as a distinct group fighting for rights (rather than just be "people" without a modifier).
That said, however, Shulamith Firestone was like many literary intellectuals who appeal to the existing non-science theories of other such scholars. In a sense, it's like a secular version of various religious treatises reciprocally referencing each other for mutual support (i.e., mostly invented speculations). It doesn't matter whether Firestone interpreted Freud and so-forth correctly or not. If Freud and the rest were academics potentially full of ___ from an evidence standpoint (or a supposed reality that is independent of human ideologies, with its own objective facts).
The Dispute Between Radical Feminism and Transgenderism
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/08/04/woman-2
EXCERPTS: Trans women say that they are women because they feel female—that, as some put it, they have women’s brains in men’s bodies. Radical feminists reject the notion of a “female brain.” They believe that if women think and act differently from men it’s because society forces them to, requiring them to be sexually attractive, nurturing, and deferential. In the words of Lierre Keith, a speaker at Radfems Respond, femininity is “ritualized submission.”
In this view, gender is less an identity than a caste position. Anyone born a man retains male privilege in society; even if he chooses to live as a woman—and accept a correspondingly subordinate social position—the fact that he has a choice means that he can never understand what being a woman is really like.
By extension, when trans women demand to be accepted as women they are simply exercising another form of male entitlement....
[...] “It’s aggrieved entitlement,” Lierre Keith told me. “They are so angry that we will not see them as women.” Keith is a writer and an activist who runs a small permaculture farm in Northern California. ... Three years ago, she co-founded the ecofeminist group Deep Green Resistance, which has some two hundred members and links the oppression of women to the pillaging of the planet.
D.G.R. is defiantly militant, refusing to condemn the use of violence in the service of goals it considers just. In radical circles, though, what makes the group truly controversial is its stance on gender. As members see it, a person born with male privilege can no more shed it through surgery than a white person can claim an African-American identity simply by darkening his or her skin.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Sheila Jeffreys: ". . . the vast majority of transsexuals still subscribe to the traditional stereotype of women" [and by identifying as female are] "constructing a conservative fantasy of what women should be ... an essence of womanhood which is deeply insulting and restrictive." --Transgender Activism: A Lesbian Feminist Perspective
_
Last edited:
billvon:
Is it your opinion, then, that anybody who "decides" to be a woman is a woman?
Are there any further requirements? For instance, can somebody "decide" to be a woman for a short time - say, long enough to feel entitled to use a women-designated public space such as a restroom - and then "decide" to be a man again, as the whim takes them? Or is more required?
The cry of the trans activists is "Trans women are women!" So, for you, when a "trans woman" decides that she is a woman, then that is sufficient to make it so?
When it comes to issues of fairness or "equality" between "trans women" and "cis women", are there any circumstances in which you think discrimination (positive or negative) might be warranted?
It is not clear to me, from your post, what you think defines a woman. Is gender all that matters for you, when it comes to this? You said gender is "based on the decision of the person".
Is it your opinion, then, that anybody who "decides" to be a woman is a woman?
Are there any further requirements? For instance, can somebody "decide" to be a woman for a short time - say, long enough to feel entitled to use a women-designated public space such as a restroom - and then "decide" to be a man again, as the whim takes them? Or is more required?
The cry of the trans activists is "Trans women are women!" So, for you, when a "trans woman" decides that she is a woman, then that is sufficient to make it so?
When it comes to issues of fairness or "equality" between "trans women" and "cis women", are there any circumstances in which you think discrimination (positive or negative) might be warranted?
We should remember that "terf" is a self-selected word that stand for transgender-excluding radical feminist. The term has two weaknesses: One is that terfs claim to be exclusionary radicals.
The other weakness is that the styled a "feminism" hewing to traditional patriarchal standards. Their ostensible worry on behalf of cis women and girls actually constrains what a cisgender woman is allowed to be. And the fact that we're over fifteen years into that part of the discussion only further undermines the crackpottery of calling these people feminists. Indeed, calling them feminists is something of a denigration of feminism; how convenient for terfs.
"Gender critical" is a phrase that emerged in recent years, hoping to scuttle talk of exclusion and turn attention away from the feminism of being a proper lady.
"Terf" becomes a slur when the people who self-identify as terfs decide it is improper to pay attention to what the word they chose for themselves actually means. It's one of those things that people do to themselves. Kind of like "teabaggers". These days I prefer "terf" because it is simple, the word they chose for themselves, and hides their abuse of the word "feminism", even if in plain sight; calling terfs "gender critical" "feminists" is a decision one makes to validate the denigration of feminism.
Olga:
Are you saying that you think that about 6 to 8% of all human beings can be convinced by propaganda to change their sexual preferences?
Do you think that fear of prosecution for homosexual propaganda might discourage homosexual people from publically revealing their sexual preferences?
What are the penalties for somebody convicted of the crime of propaganda of homosexuality?
Also, why is it a crime? Is propaganda of homosexuality demonstrably harmful to society in some way?
It sounds like there's a fear of the spectre of evil "Western decadence" still in play, despite the fall of the USSR.
You think that homosexuality is a disease peculiar to rich people, then? Regular people are immune? Homosexuality doesn't distinguish between classes in any country other than Russia. Don't you find that strange?
Instilled how? By homosexual propaganda?
Are you saying that you think that about 6 to 8% of all human beings can be convinced by propaganda to change their sexual preferences?
Who do you think are more likely to be prosecuted for "propaganda of homosexuality"? Real homosexual people or heterosexual people?
Do you think that fear of prosecution for homosexual propaganda might discourage homosexual people from publically revealing their sexual preferences?
What are the penalties for somebody convicted of the crime of propaganda of homosexuality?
Also, why is it a crime? Is propaganda of homosexuality demonstrably harmful to society in some way?
It sounds like there's a fear of the spectre of evil "Western decadence" still in play, despite the fall of the USSR.
The aristocracy, of course, would never have violently tried to suppress undesirable folklore.
You think that homosexuality is a disease peculiar to rich people, then? Regular people are immune? Homosexuality doesn't distinguish between classes in any country other than Russia. Don't you find that strange?
Ultimately, yes. A lot goes into it, but the final decision is by the person.
Yes. Ultimately it's their decision.
Well, in the same way a straight man could "decide" to be gay just long enough to have sex with a gay man, then go back to being straight - yes, I suppose. I don't think either happens with any regularity.
Nope. Discrimination is not warranted. If there is discrimination against cis women that trans women are immune to - then the right solution is to eliminate the discrimination, not to ensure all women (cis and trans) are discriminated against.
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
This was to Billvon but I will answer if I may. I do not think gender is based on a decision.
Gender is more like sexuality, intimately related to sex but part of ones development, personality, feeling of self.
That sounds like last week there was no issue about being a man, the thought had never arisen about being female, however today after some consideration a person could now identify as a female.
It does not and should not work that way.
No but is there evidence it works that way?
I do not think anyone would support a guy suddenly identifying as a woman then demanding to walk into a woman's changing room.
Women should not have suddenly absorb that into their world BUT I don't think that is going happen like that.
What is likely to happen is that trans women who have made the painful psychological and physical transition, alienation from their family but finally get recognition as a woman cannot use a woman's facility.
Would women want to deny this already marginalized minority this right?
Would they know half the time?
How often would that happen with 1/200 trans people?
Я сейчас почитала закон, за пропаганду ЛГБТ предусмотрен административный штраф. В долларовом эквиваленте от 500$ до 1000$ с физических лиц, и в несколько раз больше с юридических.
Привлечь к штрафу могут за рекламу ЛГБТ в средствах массовой информации любого, хоть гомосексуала, хоть гетеросексуала.
Считается, что у подростков сексуальные предпочтения ещё не сформированы, а гормоны "зашкаливают", поэтому любой взрослый может навязать ему определённые предпочтения. На Кавказе, где добрачные и внебрачные связи для женщин запрещены, мальчиков вообще часто подводят к овце в хлеву... Т.е. в таком возрасте подросткам гормоны "бьют в голову", и их легко увлечь чем угодно. Поэтому, с этой точки зрения пропаганда ЛГБТ не полезна. Но у нас её никогда особо и не было, даже во времена оттепели. У людей других забот хватает. Особой неприязни в обществе не было тоже, скорее недоумение, как к чему то странному. Я сама никакой неприязни к гомосексуалам не испытываю, хотя сама я гетеросексуальная. Скорее, мне неприятны люди, которые лезут в чужую личную жизнь. Кому какое дело до чужих предпочтений? Это личное дело каждого, и если это не вредит окружающим, то пусть люди делают что хотят, хоть с кастрюлей на голове ходят.
У меня нет статистики по количеству гомосексуалов в разных странах. У вас есть?