Mailwatch(ed) Forum

That's mainly maths- there aren't many trans people. But also because hearing directly from trans people would likely increase sympathy for them.

You're seriously saying there's not a massive imbalance here in the media, politics etc?

Malcolm Armsteen wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2024 2:18 pm Do you not think that they covered the 'fault on both sides' argument rather powerfully, and showed it to be, at best, a fallacy?

and

Isn't that shutting down the discussion? And think about where that line of reasoning ends.

First point, no not really, as some of the people they mention have said some pretty lousy things, and they didn’t bring up said lousy things (to be honest, this was one of the weakest parts of the discussion). Maya Forstater for example, agreed with and repeated an article saying pronouns are like rohypnol ( - that’s disrespectful of course, but also an old as the hills tactic of linking something you don’t like to sex-related crime. But in the podcast around 15 minutes she is described (with others) as ‘a real star’ and ‘brave’.

Also, the host literally said “there’s always fault on both sides”, so not a fallacy even in terms of the video. Regardless, the above would be just one example of it going the other way - another would be Rowling’s deliberate lumping together of trans women and sex criminals, broadcast to her millions of followers. The presenter just chose to say ‘it’s heavily slanted to one side’ stated as fact though (and it’s certainly easy to paint that picture if you only mention things from one direction). But it’s this sort of thing where hearing from others about what they’ve faced would be helpful - because I would be *astounded* to discover that no gender inclusivity activists have ever faced abuse and trolling.

Second point, absolutely the reverse. I’m not saying replace their voices, but I am saying listen to other people as well. Not necessarily the most rabid opposite opinion, of course - they aren’t the only voices out there though.

But since we’re talking about this video in more depth, there does almost seem to be some weird leap of logic in it that this report on the situation at one centre for gender issues means everything that everyone on one side of the debate said was ‘correct’ and that wholesale apologies need to be issued? That seems to be quite a leap.

Plus I don’t think it helps that the hosts occasionally seem to go “oh well the worst thing will definitely happen now because these people are awful”, such as when they mention the trans author and say how they’ll definitely get called bigots for talking about her pre-transition name and work. Reasonable people would entirely understand the context, but they’re almost framing it as if there are no reasonable people on one side of the discussion. In fact one literally says at one point “people on that side are shutting down discussion and it’s got to stop”. Not *some* people, just ‘people’.

That broad brush isn’t helpful either if they truly want to take the fire out of a situation and encourage more open, respectful discussion.

I agree with almost all of that, except for downplaying that part in the podcast where they point out that the verbal violence, the vitriol comes from the trans-supporting side against people they (largely wrongly*) accuse of being transphobic - and it's undeniable that real harm has been done. If you say that only a few have been so aggressive - well perhaps, but livelihoods have been lost and reputations trashed. The trans activists have acted very badly on occasion ('behead terfs'?) and alienated what would otherwise have been sincere support.

Never forget our own example.

Mind, I'm pleased if that rancid little twerp Radcliffe gets a shoeing (metaphorically).



*I'm not talking about Graham Linehan or Tory politicians

Malcolm Armsteen wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2024 5:43 pm I agree with almost all of that, except for downplaying that part in the podcast where they point out that the verbal violence, the vitriol comes from the trans-supporting side against people they (largely wrongly*) accuse of being transphobic - and it's undeniable that real harm has been done. If you say that only a few have been so aggressive - well perhaps, but livelihoods have been lost and reputations trashed. The trans activists have acted very badly on occasion ('behead terfs'?) and alienated what would otherwise have been sincere support.

Never forget our own example.

Mind, I'm pleased if that rancid little twerp Radcliffe gets a shoeing (metaphorically).



*I'm not talking about Graham Linehan or Tory politicians

Yeah, I absolutely agree some activists have been truly awful, and many people have been jumped on for very little.

Playing devil’s advocate, I have some sympathy for over-reaction from people who’d probably be more reasonable in their approaches if they didn’t themselves have a barrage of people saying they’re flat out perverts on the one hand, or their existence is just a lie on the other. But just more evidence that the best thing that could happen is a de-escalation all round, and a return to an assumption that - unless evidence says otherwise - simply disagreeing isn’t an immediate indication someone holds the absolute worst possible viewpoints.

One of my issues with this topic has always been the language.
As long-time readers will know I am a bit on the autistic spectrum, specifically I have real issues understanding badly written or badly spelled messages. So can anyone help with this - it's a petition started by Billy Bragg, for whom I once had a lot of time...

We want the Government to hold a Statutory Public Inquiry into the extent to which Gender Identity Ideology and Queer Theory have become prevalent in public services, and the impacts. We believe Education, the NHS, and the broader public realm have been cognitively captured resulting in harm.

I really can't make head nor tail of it.

OK.
So I've read up on Queer Theory.

Wiki wrote:At its core, queer theory relates to queer people, their lived experience and how their lived experience is culturally or politically perceived. Specifically referring to the marginalization of queer people. This thinking is then applied to various fields of thinking.

No problems with that, although some of the examples seem a bit esoteric. Why, though, such ideas have to be wrapped in such obscure language escapes me (well, actually it doesn't, having read a fellow student's thesis on the use of non-standard terminolo,gy to exclude outsiders and cement group identity back in 1969...)

And Gender Identity Ideology. Does this mean that a person's sense of their own gender is important and should be recognised? Can't argue with that. The devil will be in the detail, and where one person's needs and wants have to be balanced against someone else's - I suppose.

So I believe that sex is inherent but gender is mutable. The trick is to decide where sex and gender are, in relation to each other, in different circumstances.

By extrapolation, although biological sex is determined by chromosomes, gender identity is much more complex. Which may lead to the desire to acquire the physical characteristics (as far as possible) of the preferred gender. Which is fair enough if we believe that all people have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

But then the issues of sex versus gender arise. And decisions have to be made and followed in good faith.

Apologies for ramble. Trying to get stuff straight in my head and feeling a bit long Covid today...

Malcolm Armsteen wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2024 5:43 pm I agree with almost all of that, except for downplaying that part in the podcast where they point out that the verbal violence, the vitriol comes from the trans-supporting side against people they (largely wrongly*) accuse of being transphobic - and it's undeniable that real harm has been done. If you say that only a few have been so aggressive - well perhaps, but livelihoods have been lost and reputations trashed. The trans activists have acted very badly on occasion ('behead terfs'?) and alienated what would otherwise have been sincere support.

Never forget our own example.

Mind, I'm pleased if that rancid little twerp Radcliffe gets a shoeing (metaphorically).



*I'm not talking about Graham Linehan or Tory politicians

Almost at the start of this debate I couldn't understand why two sets of people who should be sympathetic to each other are so vehemently opposed and I still can't. I also don't know why such a comparatively minor issue to most people has become so important.

Malcolm Armsteen wrote: ↑Sat Apr 13, 2024 11:22 am One of my issues with this topic has always been the language.
As long-time readers will know I am a bit on the autistic spectrum, specifically I have real issues understanding badly written or badly spelled messages. So can anyone help with this - it's a petition started by Billy Bragg, for whom I once had a lot of time...

We want the Government to hold a Statutory Public Inquiry into the extent to which Gender Identity Ideology and Queer Theory have become prevalent in public services, and the impacts. We believe Education, the NHS, and the broader public realm have been cognitively captured resulting in harm.

I really can't make head nor tail of it.

There's an anti-trans person online who calls themselves "Billy Bragg". That's them, not the real Billy.

Ah...
That helps.

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Sat Apr 13, 2024 3:00 pm

Malcolm Armsteen wrote: ↑Sat Apr 13, 2024 11:22 am One of my issues with this topic has always been the language.
As long-time readers will know I am a bit on the autistic spectrum, specifically I have real issues understanding badly written or badly spelled messages. So can anyone help with this - it's a petition started by Billy Bragg, for whom I once had a lot of time...

We want the Government to hold a Statutory Public Inquiry into the extent to which Gender Identity Ideology and Queer Theory have become prevalent in public services, and the impacts. We believe Education, the NHS, and the broader public realm have been cognitively captured resulting in harm.

I really can't make head nor tail of it.

There's an anti-trans person online who calls themselves "Billy Bragg". That's them, not the real Billy.

Thank fuck for that.

I'd feel really sad if I saw the bard of Barking siding with wrong-uns.

Well if Shroomy says so it must be true.

The Weeping Angel wrote: ↑Thu Apr 18, 2024 1:43 am
Well if Shroomy says so it must be true.

Regrettable choice of moniker aside, there are some genuine issues with the Cass report coming to light. Chief of which being it relies on double-blind, randomised controlled trials. Now in of itself this is great - these are the gold standard for showing the effect of something. The drawback here though is it’s literally impossible to do a double blind study of this sort of treatment - someone will unsurprisingly notice if they are going through puberty or not and it’s neither possible or remotely ethical to do placebo tests. So you have to (carefully) look at other evidence, such as user-reported outcomes on satisfaction with care.

The Cass review seems not to have done/included a great deal of that. This doesn’t mean any or all of its findings are invalid, but it does suggest this isn’t the definitive take it’s being hailed as by some.

I see the people who claim to be on the right side of history are at it again.

There's a thread of quotes from Cass here (this is the real Billy Bragg). The review sounds much less "fuck you" than some of its loudest advocates are making out.

This on the other hand by the leader of the Scottish Greens is poor. Joining up with these lightweights must have seemed like a bit of nice cheap youth-friendly branding for the SNP at the time. I know Kate Forbes wanted to drop them. Humza should have done, and will likely have to.

Remember the race report? The government has form for commissioning reports and heavily editing them to fit their chosen message prior to publication.

I find it interesting how people have gone from trust the science, believe in experts to this report which was written by an expert in her field and has been researched to the highest scientific standards should be disconted because reasons.

Has that happened here? Is the stuff Cass mentioned quoted by Billy Bragg not in the report?

Edit- to Andy.

I was referring to those who made claims like 98% of studies were rejected amongst others. More or Less debunk this and other claims here.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p0hry4wj

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Sun Apr 21, 2024 8:39 pm Has that happened here? Is the stuff Cass mentioned quoted by Billy Bragg not in the report?

Edit- to Andy.

Not really, more a "wouldn't put it past them".