Dickens wrote something along the lines of ‘(it) sets up merit where it does not exist & demotes it where it does’. I can’t find the quote but you get the drift. Discrimination has had a bad rap in recent years; but is, surely, a beneficial human skill. We use this skill all the time in our judgements about how we live, what work we do, what we eat etc. why should one strive for excellence if the only outcome is equity? We may as well stay in bed all day.
And, as for trans, I will not bow down to a denial of biological fact: sex is binary and immutable. I will not use compelled speech or respect any law that takes away women’s rights to our language, spaces or sports. Michael Foran is wrong; he is asking us to believe in something that is not true. If we give an inch on this, the TRAs will take the whole measuring stick & beat us with it.
That was good. I myself am as hardline as KJK. I was dissappointed with sex-matters latest statement. Any time "trans people" are referred to, or wrong pronouns used, I see it as a watering down. A muddying of the waters rather than being as clear as the binary of sex itself. It implies exceptions, special cases, special needs of a group of people. It suggests some men can be at least a little bit women. It suggests a group that falls between the binary. It's compromise, which keeps us exactly where we are. Compromise = submission, submission is non consent but our consent is of no consequence - same as now.
Plus, one would not refer to teenage girls starving themselves and obese middle aged men who gorge themselves as "people with weight issues". Because they are so widely different. Using the term "trans people" allows terms like "minor attracted people" which are already sliding in under the "love is love" rainbow.
No-one would be talking or thinking about what "trans" is without KJK's statement. And I don't think she's wrong. I don't think we deal with homophobia by allowing victims to live in an alternate reality bubble. I don't believe we should allow sexual fetish in public. I do believe that puts people in danger of starting on the path to far more unacceptable paraphilias as we know they cluster.
It's the source of why people have this belief that we need to deal with. Cutting off dandelion heads helps but until you've dug out all of the tap roots you've got an ongoing problem.
Michael Foran compared trans to religion, proving, whether he knows it or not, that trans is a cult/religion.
The disabled neanderthal shows that compassion for others is a human emotion. When religious people as atheists 'where do your morals come from?', they come from being human.
My disappointment in Foran goes back to FSN last Sunday when he spoke about trans during a discussion with Doyle and Forsarter, and I found myself saying ,no,no there is no such thing as trans.
A person who believes in a religion usually goes through the world with their belief system as personal to themselves. A person who calls themselves transgender is presenting a persona to the world which he or she expects everyone else to accept as real. By using the word transgender we are complicit in that belief system. We are accepting it as real that they have somehow changed sex/gender identity when all they have done is indulge in body modification or are just playing dress up. I’m with KJK on this. It’s all fantasy, delusion and we should not indulge any of it. By criticising her, Michael Foran has left the GC movement open to ridicule from trans activists. This weakens the GC position and as the stakes are so high for society, women, children and gay people, we can’t afford weakness. I can understand the point Foran was making but he really didn’t need to say anything.
Is KJK wrong though? When to discriminate just means that I can refuse to have a male nurse attend me in an intimate way, when it means I can just refuse to play along at work when a man wears a dress? Currently that is discrimination - and I want that right. I want to be free to not obey and accept men as women in their say so.
As to the other chap - he is wrong. Trans doesn’t exist as anything other than a belief. He just wants to walk the line to appear ‘good’.
Unfortunately we can’t do this because it means women have to accept any man as a woman - accepting all the impositions and risks that creates.
Sex Matters objects are lengthy but they chose this:
THE OBJECTS OF THE CIO ARE: (1) TO PROMOTE HUMAN RIGHTS (AS SET OUT IN THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND SUBSEQUENT UNITED NATIONS CONVENTIONS AND DECLARATIONS) THROUGHOUT THE WORLD, WHERE THEY RELATE TO BIOLOGICAL SEX, BY ALL OR ANY OF THE FOLLOWING MEANS:
So we're in areas of "cruel and degrading treatment" arguments every time women ask for safe spaces or fair sport because trans isn't mentioned at all as a specific class in that.
On the subject of fanciful thinking Barry, I suspect much of those historical meritocracies were achieved at the point of a sword and with the lash of a whip rather than any thought of the common good.
Dickens wrote something along the lines of ‘(it) sets up merit where it does not exist & demotes it where it does’. I can’t find the quote but you get the drift. Discrimination has had a bad rap in recent years; but is, surely, a beneficial human skill. We use this skill all the time in our judgements about how we live, what work we do, what we eat etc. why should one strive for excellence if the only outcome is equity? We may as well stay in bed all day.
And, as for trans, I will not bow down to a denial of biological fact: sex is binary and immutable. I will not use compelled speech or respect any law that takes away women’s rights to our language, spaces or sports. Michael Foran is wrong; he is asking us to believe in something that is not true. If we give an inch on this, the TRAs will take the whole measuring stick & beat us with it.
Thank you for a thoughtful video, Barry.
Hear hear Liz.
That was good. I myself am as hardline as KJK. I was dissappointed with sex-matters latest statement. Any time "trans people" are referred to, or wrong pronouns used, I see it as a watering down. A muddying of the waters rather than being as clear as the binary of sex itself. It implies exceptions, special cases, special needs of a group of people. It suggests some men can be at least a little bit women. It suggests a group that falls between the binary. It's compromise, which keeps us exactly where we are. Compromise = submission, submission is non consent but our consent is of no consequence - same as now.
Plus, one would not refer to teenage girls starving themselves and obese middle aged men who gorge themselves as "people with weight issues". Because they are so widely different. Using the term "trans people" allows terms like "minor attracted people" which are already sliding in under the "love is love" rainbow.
No-one would be talking or thinking about what "trans" is without KJK's statement. And I don't think she's wrong. I don't think we deal with homophobia by allowing victims to live in an alternate reality bubble. I don't believe we should allow sexual fetish in public. I do believe that puts people in danger of starting on the path to far more unacceptable paraphilias as we know they cluster.
It's the source of why people have this belief that we need to deal with. Cutting off dandelion heads helps but until you've dug out all of the tap roots you've got an ongoing problem.
Michael Foran compared trans to religion, proving, whether he knows it or not, that trans is a cult/religion.
The disabled neanderthal shows that compassion for others is a human emotion. When religious people as atheists 'where do your morals come from?', they come from being human.
My disappointment in Foran goes back to FSN last Sunday when he spoke about trans during a discussion with Doyle and Forsarter, and I found myself saying ,no,no there is no such thing as trans.
Good micro teaching ,well worth listen.
A person who believes in a religion usually goes through the world with their belief system as personal to themselves. A person who calls themselves transgender is presenting a persona to the world which he or she expects everyone else to accept as real. By using the word transgender we are complicit in that belief system. We are accepting it as real that they have somehow changed sex/gender identity when all they have done is indulge in body modification or are just playing dress up. I’m with KJK on this. It’s all fantasy, delusion and we should not indulge any of it. By criticising her, Michael Foran has left the GC movement open to ridicule from trans activists. This weakens the GC position and as the stakes are so high for society, women, children and gay people, we can’t afford weakness. I can understand the point Foran was making but he really didn’t need to say anything.
We are, our little group the true meaning of diversity of thought.
Is KJK wrong though? When to discriminate just means that I can refuse to have a male nurse attend me in an intimate way, when it means I can just refuse to play along at work when a man wears a dress? Currently that is discrimination - and I want that right. I want to be free to not obey and accept men as women in their say so.
As to the other chap - he is wrong. Trans doesn’t exist as anything other than a belief. He just wants to walk the line to appear ‘good’.
Unfortunately we can’t do this because it means women have to accept any man as a woman - accepting all the impositions and risks that creates.
Sex Matters objects are lengthy but they chose this:
THE OBJECTS OF THE CIO ARE: (1) TO PROMOTE HUMAN RIGHTS (AS SET OUT IN THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND SUBSEQUENT UNITED NATIONS CONVENTIONS AND DECLARATIONS) THROUGHOUT THE WORLD, WHERE THEY RELATE TO BIOLOGICAL SEX, BY ALL OR ANY OF THE FOLLOWING MEANS:
So we're in areas of "cruel and degrading treatment" arguments every time women ask for safe spaces or fair sport because trans isn't mentioned at all as a specific class in that.
Yes Labour brought it all in.
And now we are going to give them power again.
God give me strength
On the subject of fanciful thinking Barry, I suspect much of those historical meritocracies were achieved at the point of a sword and with the lash of a whip rather than any thought of the common good.
Great piece, Barry
Dusty
Thank you. Spot on Barry.