That Starmer fella...

Great post. The main issue is that we live in a gendered society that in its structures (physical and otherwise) does not leave room for people who fall, for whatever reason, outside those structures. These structures don't even serve the people who do fall into pre-existing brackets.

This, I think is at the heart of it. The issue of trans rights and self-identification (in the legal and social senses) needs to be seen within this context. In some instances adapting things to accommodate trans people removes a lot of that gendered bullshit as a bonus e.g., gender neutral toilets in workplaces (just like the ones everyone has in their house).

On the other hand there are concerns that trans issues actually reinforce gendering through the (mostly subtle, but sometimes not) message that as @user114644 noted i.e., the desire to dress, act, work, fuck someone or otherwise express yourself in a certain way indicates that your gender identity is uncertain rather than indicating that societal pressure around gender roles and expression is just bullshit. At it's most extreme this can come over as the message that your desired lifestyle can only or best be achieved by transitioning.

I think it's absolutely right that we've been moving towards a society in which your chromosomes/genital arrangement affects as little as possible in your life and is of interest really only to your doctor and any potential long-term relationship partner. Against that background, a campaign to ensure that everyone should be recognised as their self-perceived gender seems like a bit of a sideways step, since we're just swapping in self-perception for chromosomes. I mean, we could do it and I think there are very good reasons to do it, I also think that some of the concerns are overstated (not a woman though so take that with a pinch of salt), but it does seem like a temporary step off the positive track we've been heading down.

shouting down genuine concerns as terfism will just alienate and polorise people.

So how do we differentiate between genuine concerns and transphobia masquerading as genuine concerns.

And user114644 may indeed have genuine concerns, but even that doesn't preclude transphobia.

And that is with assuming good intentions from a first-time poster that chooses this moment and this thread to engage.

Amazing post @hoefla

It's not easy, but I guess listening or engaging with good intentions first, then do the shouting once they've proved themselves shoutworthy.

Thanks @TW and others. I'm glad if my post helped with some thoughts.

However, please stop now. Srs. Not just because it's embarrassing, but because, it is NOT a great post. It is a late night brain dump from someone who has neither first-hand experience of either viewpoint most often represented in the 'problem' nor who has read widely on the subject. One person. Not representative. Not comprehensive. I don't mention children, I don't mention non-binary. I don't challenge the arguments. Also for me, a discomfort in perpetuating the naming of trans-people as trans. What would actual be great - is more discussion, in good faith, ie seeking to learn.

Given my lack of expertise, I wouldn't usually put forth my opinion on this stuff - it was in response to a few posts earlier in the thread that seemed actually in good faith and looking for some kind of help.

The thing about distinguishing good faith and bad faith arguments is hard. New posters arouse suspicion. The BLM thread on here I think has value because some of it is clueless non-Black people unafraid to say daft things and actually doing some unpicking. In a predominantly White forum, where non-Black people are willing to take on some of that work I believe it has value. In a newspaper I think it has none.

However, the forum is still 'media' isn't it - this thread and the BLM thread are public - so carries some responsibility for contributing to the wider mood. There's always a danger that what we post causes harm. To my mind, it's only worth that danger if there's a stronger chance we can do good.

I have to do some work now.

It was a great post as part of a discussion, not a definitive put the matter to rest, it's solved everything article.

cheers yeah. just worried about it being seen as the latter :/

PMQs was odd today. KS again wining the intellectual argument but BoJo seemingly stronger on meeting points that will resonate.

KS will need to get better than this at being a showman

If people are going to give figures/statistics please can we have citations? Where does the 5000% increase stat come from? What research is there showing that there are serious concerns regarding autism in trans guys? There is no 'bending of reality'. I am a trans male/non binary person and it is upsetting having to read things like this. I am all for considered discussion but when people present an argument as a fact with figures that are not cited it is not ok.

I thought that seemed a huge difference so I googled it and it seems it's roughly correct
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/09/16/minister-orders-inquiry-4000-per-cent-rise-children-wanting/

There is research showing that trans men have higher incidence of autism than the general female population - some examples below.

Of course, it could be because no one looks for autism in females unless they are looking at them for another reason already.

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2019-07/aru-sft071619.php
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1750946719301540

can you stick all this in a new thread as I don't think its that Starmer related now, but clearly something people want to discuss

All threads go off tangent, it's part of the beauty of discussions. This one looks like it is part of a wider discussion, I'm sure it will be back on topic soon enough.

.

1 Attachment

How's he in it twice? Is this like that film about the Krays?

The drummer is Les Curtis.

1 Attachment

Thank you for the links @aggi and @brokenbetty.

Such an odd picture. Is he in prison with the referee David Ellery?

I think it is the canteen in Portcullis house. I can't figure out why he is holding that book.

More Starmer coming to a TV near you soon:
https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/1303422869385478144

His conference speech seems to have been received pretty well by most (although Momentum didn't seem too keen).

Lots of focus on getting back in power and an interesting approach to retake "national pride" which I suspect many may not be too keen on but could be a good move. Plus a bit of slating Johnson.

I thought it was a really well pitched speech. Broad setting out of stall of reclaimed values, emphasis on competence, family, hard work, fairness. I'm very glad to know we're not going to be walking into the culture war rakes that the Tories have been so good at laying at our feet.

Dunno; I've been reasonably well disposed to him, but from the Beeb's reporting it looked a bit like 'we're going to suck up to red wall bigots; fuck the rest of you.'

It felt a bit more nuanced than that I'd say. A lot of people seem to leap to any mention of pride in the country or whatever as just being racists and immigration.

If Labour continues to ignore national pride, sovereignty, jingoism, red wall bigots, whatever you want to call it they're going to carry on losing.