- Date published:
6:00 am, June 20th, 2022 - 119 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:
Open mike is your post.
For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose.
The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).
Step up to the mike …
Mate …YOU have nothing to be ashamed of ! And so cool your daughter helping. And the others who stopped. I thank you. We ALL need to action this. And stop the plastic pollution. At its source !
This sounds potentially dodgy?
And then…theres this.
“On several occasions here at The Watch, we’ve noted that while police body cameras are an important step toward transparency and accountability in law enforcement, they’re only as good as the policies that govern their use.”
And this !
For others, the company’s drone announcement prior to a formal report by the board broke with practice, said member Ryan Calo, a University of Washington law professor.
“I’m not going to stay on an advisory board for a company that departs so far from expectation and protocol or, frankly, who believes ubiquitous surveillance coupled with remote non-lethal weapons is a viable response to school shootings,” he said.
Barry Friedman, the board chairman, resigned as well.
Haven't said much on the Russia's invasion of the Ukraine, largely because it has been impossible to work is going on in the Donbass attrition battles. The reason for that is that both sides are more or less completely silent on combat losses. That impacts any attempt to know what is happening because of what is known as the "Lanchester square law". Put simply, this attempts to predict the combat interaction between two sides in an attrition engagement. At it's most simple, it is the "snowball effect". For example, if one side has ten battleships and the other has seven then in a battle the result won't be the the side with ten ships wins with three remaining ships. Rather, the Lanchester law predicts that everything else being equal, the superior numbers of the winning side means they will lose three ships in destroying all ten of the enemy. Now, that doesn't mean at the beginning of the fight both sides give as good as they get. But of course, the three ship overlap means that four can engage one, then once successful the surviving four aid a friend and it becomes five engage one, etc etc in a snowball.
It seems to be becoming clearer that the Russian attacks in the Donbass have completely stalled. The front hasn't moved much for weeks. Reliable reports say the Russians have been pulling in troops from other sectors and is still getting nowhere. I have seen reports many Russian battalions are down to 10-15% of their infantry component and the LNR/Wagener forces have also been bled white. The Russians are throwing hastily formed actual Nazi ultra-nationalist units into the fight (with reports of wannabe Dirlewanger behaviour) and men in their fifties are being forcibly conscripted into the LNR. The Ukrainians revealed they are losing 1000-1500 men a day KIA, MIA, WIA and POW – 365,000 – 600,000 men per year which may sound a lot but the Ukraine has a population of 44 million people which is the same as the UK had in 1914 and has fully mobilised so manpower won't be a problem for at least 2-3 years (I did see a report in the Atlantic of a wounded Ukrainian volunteer who was sixty, perhaps speaking to their trained manpower issues).
What I think can be discerned from the fragmentary nature of the reports of both sides losses is the Ukraine has burned through it's pre-war army and has lost most of it's qualititive edge and both sides are now effectively militias reliant on artillery.
So I think that is the context we should put the offer of the British to train 2,500 men every month – it would restore a significant qualitative edge to the Ukrainian army, especially as this training would most likely happen safely in Poland.
Which brings us to the role of Poland. it has become vital to Ukraine war effort, quietly repairing damaged equipment and offering a safe haven for weapons and equipment depots, training etc as well as supplying the Ukrainians with huge amounts of ammunition and equipment. The longer the war goes on the more the likelihood of it escalating to include Poland and the Baltic states. How long will Russia tolerate Poland's role in arming and supporting the Ukraine before lashing out with missiles? And that leads us to Lithuanian's transit ban (effective yesterday) on Russian rail traffic to the Kalingrad Russian exclave. Fully 50% of all the requirements of the exclave come by rail. With the closing of airspace to Russia as well the Russians will now have to move everything by sea. Expect lot's of sabre rattling. Russia may attempt to establish an airbridge in defiance of the air ban, with the violation of NATO airspace offering a clear potential for serious escalation.
Thank you for this. Believe it or not I have some regard for your opinion, because while it is sometimes different from mine you do put real consideration and effort into forming it. Reality check so to speak.
Your assessment feels as accurate – and sobering. Given the fog of war there is not much to quibble with.
I also had too google Dirlewanger.
PS. 1000 per day is very much a recent surge – and neither side will likely sustain this intensity for more than a few weeks.
Hadn't seen that Lithuanian rail ban. Big move.
Notably Lithuania has the big fat floating gas port so it's not reliant on Russian gas pipeline flows.
It's a very dark horizon.
Something like our old Alliance has done fine electoral work in France against President Macron's majority.
France votes, with Macron facing tough battle for control of parliament – CNN
"Leftist coalition New Ecological and Social People's Union (NUPES), led by far-left figure Jean-Luc Mélenchon, is set to come in second place and is projected to win 30.34% of the votes, according to the interior ministry's partial results.
NUPES would then become the main opposition force in the country, but the coalition is expected to be divided on some issues once in parliament.
"It is a totally unexpected situation, absolutely unheard of," said Mélenchon shortly after partial results were released.
"The collapse of the presidential party is total, and no majority is presented. We have achieved the political objective that we had set ourselves, in less than a month, to bring down the one who, with such arrogance, had twisted the arm of the whole country, who had been elected without knowing what for," he said."
Great to see the broad left being able to cooperate to clear electoral effect.
That's hard enough at local government level here.
Not sure if that tweet has imbedded, so I will copy and paste some of the thread too (from Jewish granddaughter of holocaust victims who; concerned by the rise of fascism in the USA, literally wrote the book on Cultural Warlords):
While onsite with the Tauranga election and possibly related events, I have noticed that there has been a bit of recycling of US "grooming" talking points about people in drag reading to children. So this from last week came to mind:
Of course drag performers aren't necessarily trans, though there'd be some overlap in a Venn diagram of the two groups. However trans people and drag artists do generally support one another within the wider struggle for; LGBTQ+, and other human; rights – even if we might not understand, or even like, each other all that much. It's not like the fascists, or their useful idiots, are inclined to make such fine-grained distinctions anyway. We are all deviant chaff to be stripped away from the pure seed in their eyes.
Drag artists: Fighting fascists from the present day, back through the Stonewall uprising (the genesis of Pride month), through the Holocaust and opposition to Nazi Germany, and back, and back through time:
Drag show for the troops?
I'm seeing gingham, puffed sleeves and flounces….not fishnet stockings, platform shoes and high cut sequinned bodysuits.
Believe it or not there is a difference.
. It shouldn't be necessary to state, yet again, that it is not appropriate to expose children to what is most definitely adult entertainment of a highly sexualised nature.
That is a ridiculously narrow view of what drag is and can be. It's a lot more diverse than that these days and ranges from vanilla pantomime stuff to stand up comedy to raunchy cabaret acts.
Sigh. "…these days…" That's a ridiculous stretch…drag equals pantomime. wtf?
Being up with the latest Pouluxe1…you will be aware that there is growing concern from some transgender people that pedophilia is becoming normalised too?
And drag equals paedophilia isn't an even bigger stretch? Well, if your expertise in any given area is second hand from agenda-driven YouTube videos the tone of paranoid delusion makes more sense.
Do you think it's just that there is a knee-jerk reaction to any concerns raised about children, Rosemary? (You know, when it comes from 'unkind' women)
You would think that raising concerns about:
– would mean that people would stop and think, and at the very least, let's make sure there is no issue here.
It's both horrifying and fascinating to read the responses given.
You see, what I observe on your part is massive mission creep from a couple of quite reasonable gender critical concerns to a whole batsh*t raft of conspiracies, half-truths, cognitive bias, logical fallacies, and cherrypicked propaganda that it doesn't seem to occur to you has been largely manufactured in bad faith to be consumed by (I presume) well-meaning people like you to generate clicks for the sort of people who regard The Handmaid's Tale as aspirational. Paedos under every bed. Dildos being handed out at primary school. That sort of nonsense.
All this burble, and not one salient point.
Like I said, both horrific and fascinating.
Ditto, I'm sure
It's funny how some folks who are obsessed with what is (or was) in other people's pants (or what they do with them) ignore the obvious character of their philosophical bedfellows.
Oh, McFlock – resorting to the "obsessed with what is other people's pants" trope?
Women share one universal factor, the occupation of a female body. How that is experienced for an individual female, is predicated in terms of culture, race, and class. The reality is, not matter where women live, their biological sex will play a significant role in how they are expected to behave, and treated within their society. The oppression of women is inextricably linked to their material bodies, which includes the reproductive role whether they reproduce or not.
Single-sex spaces have value for women. Whether it is recognised or not, it is not justified to break those single-sex boundaries without considering the impact.
The language women use to describe themselves, also should not be appropriated, to accommodate the feelings of others.
And yet you really don't quite know what to do with all the women who think you're overreacting. And how exactly do we get from perfectly reasonable concerns like some of the more egregious silliness of inclusive language as applied to women's bodies, the right to association, and the issue of women's sports, to the ridiculous notion that a secret cabal of transgender illuminati are campaigning to be allowed to molest children and god knows what else?
Why would I have to do anything with other women, who hold a different view?
Once again, mostly burble, but I will answer this:
"…to the ridiculous notion that a secret cabal of transgender illuminati are campaigning to be allowed to molest children and god knows what else?"
When raising basic safeguarding concerns is conflated with this accusation, instead of reviewing actions, I consider it an attempt to shame people into not raising such concerns.
There are – unfortunately – within all demographics, including women – and minorities – including disabled – adults who are adept at bypassing safeguarding practices for children and identifying and abusing them when opportunities arise.
Some safeguarding practices are about identification of such individuals by basic checking procedures. Other safeguarding practices are about reducing opportunities, ie. not putting children in places where they are not protected or supervised by trusted adults. Safeguarding practices also include not familiarising children with adult sexual practices before it is age appropriate, or requiring them to participate in such, blurring the boundaries so that children cannot rely on their own unease, and are more easily manipulated.
You not agreeing with something, or not understanding something, or even completely getting the wrong end of the stick about something that is not in fact happening outside of your most surreal feverdream, does not, ipso facto, mean that these things are not under review, by people with considerably greater expertise than yourself, or indeed even exist.
Not being able or willing to respond to a criticism does not make it burble.
No, populuxe, nothing to do with me. This –
… is what makes it burble…
Then I suggest you get a dictionary
One wonders if the #MeToo movement made the slightest dent in your cocksure skepticism. Women are repeatedly saying their boundaries are under assault. Just because some other women prefer to turn a blind eye (an easier/safer option) does't make the problem (eg. eg. eg. …) go away. There is plenty of disgusting/ unbelievable stuff going on if you scratch the surface. Happy delusions are generally preferable.
Sure. Drag in #MeToo as well. Why not? Let's conflate multiple different issues into a single spurious conspiracy. The glare from your white armour is blinding.
It might be a trope, but it's true.
A couple more lines and you'll have a limerick.
What you haven't provided is an indication that you understand that your trope is neither true, nor relevant, but rather a tedious accusation with no merit.
OK. Person walks into a changing room. You think they shouldn't be there. What, to you, is the conclusive evidence that they shouldn't be in that room?
If single-sex spaces were recognised as single-sex spaces, then the onus is on the adult who uses them to use the one that relates to their sex.
That is a social contract, that is not often broken.
However, if we blur the sex category, then we also break the understanding of that existing social contract.
This means that some individuals will attribute to themselves the distinction of being outside of that contract. As that happens more and more, the consistency of single-sex spaces will diminish. For women, this means that some will be excluded from those spaces.
Women have for many years accommodated without concern, transsexual women in their single-sex spaces. This accommodation for most part, was due to the recognition of the level of distress that those individuals could only alleviate by GRS.
This compassionate accommodation, is now being used to justify a huge expansion of such accommodations in women's single-sex spaces, services, sports and support groups.
The majority of transwomen (85-93%) do not have GRS. So the accommodation of those transsexual women, is expected to now expand tenfold to include those with intact male genitalia. Self-id means that men do not even have to present in a different way to break the boundaries of single-sex spaces.
One of the reasons many women found it easier to accommodate transsexuals is the knowledge that most would have had a significant amount of time with therapists treating their distress, and GRS would have been a solution determined after much care.
It's deliberate that the term transsexual is not used anymore. If it is brought up in conversations current activists will refer to transsexuals using derogatory terms such as "truscum". A practice I find quite disrespectful, but that is by the by.
So, we cannot assume a clinical presentation of gender dsyphoria for the other 85 – 93% of transwomen that may wish to use the single-sex spaces of the opposite sex.
Once again, research on this topic (if you care to look) identifies differences in reasons for gender identities divided by biological sex.
Quite a few to do with men presenting as women, have a connection to sexual paraphilias, as well as/or instead of being purely an identification issue.
Some of the paraphilias include: voyeurism, exhibitionism, and autogynephilia.
This reality should not be ignored when discussing the impact on single-sex spaces.
Recognising it, should also not be conflating with accusing all transgender people of being predators. The exclusion of men from single sex spaces did not assume all men were predators, it was the result of a combination of risk assessment AND a recognition of the different needs of biological females.
As you can imagine, self-id, also has provided opportunities for non-transgender men to identify their way into single-sex spaces for women.
Misogynistic and predatory heterosexual men, will not pass the opportunity by, just because people want them not to.
I'm off to have dinner now. But there is more to this issue than "genital inspections". In fact, I have never heard a women referring to this, even in jest.
None of that answered the simple question.
"If single-sex spaces were recognised as single-sex spaces, then the onus is on the adult who uses them to use the one that relates to their sex."
Right at the beginning. I included the rest as further considerations, in the hope that you may fully engage, and give some thought to wider perspectives.
I see I was mistaken.
But the question was about someone whom you think has not bothered with that onus.
A person walks into a changing room and you think they shouldn't be there.
How do you, or the establishment, or the police, challenge their presence if it's not about the contents of their pants rather than the nature of their character?
The number of incidents where this would be necessary, would be greatly reduced, if not eliminated by clear guidance around the protection of single-sex spaces.
Given the large majority of transwomen have had no GRS, and will be relying mostly on the feminisation effects of hormones only, most people will be able to distinguish their sex if they break such boundaries.
Women – like myself – who are not necessarily the most feminine of women may be challenged, but even I was, it doesn't bother me.
Photos are sometimes hard to judge, but most people indicate their sex IRL by look, movement, voice and other “non-genital” methods and signals.
I don’t understand why people pretend this is no longer true.
"This would be necessary"? What would be necessary? Because you still haven't actually said what you would regard as evidence that the person has indeed chosen the correct room.
Although you offer little in regards to perspective yourself, you are constantly demanding more and more. This is as always, a one-sided conversation, in terms of give and take.
"… but most people indicate their sex IRL by look, movement, voice and other “non-genital” methods and signals."
I'm off to play cards.
I don't believe you are taking the time to read the responses.
I do believe, you are trying to create a "gotcha" scenario, which ignores any other consideration in favour of your intention.
I read the waffle, and we both know it all comes down to the genital inspection (or certified paperwork thereof) of anyone who doesn't meet surface expectations of "sex".
That's not a gotcha. If you read the thread, it's legislation in some places.
… and so it continues. You ask how I would determine the sex of someone without using your suggested method of genital inspection.
I responded, and now that response is completely ignored, and the original assumption repeated.
Now the legal angle. I don't know what the legal impact in NZ is because the politicians and legislators that were asked to clarify this refused to answer. Instead they adopted a #NoDebate approach, and said there was no impact on women.
If that final statement is true, then women will legally retain their single-sex spaces, sports, support services, prison estates, accurate statistics to do with sex etc…
But I suspect, those politicians and legislators lied.
You may be happy about the result of that approach, and think that excuses it.
I think that approach is dishonest and disrespectful, and believe the result is harmful.
So if it works with "most", that's all fine then. And the women (trans or otherwise) who don't move in a feminine-enough manner by your estimation, well, who cares what happens to them.
An erect penis would be a clue
Besides the entire "offense behaviour rather than trespass is the problem" issue, apparently you're just repeating a trope.
A trope? Wow you would make a great police officer. Treat the traumatised victim as the problem and join the side of the offender.
Hey, I didn't come up with the term.
I'd have a lot more respect for her if she just said "they have a penis on view", which is at least a position one could argue from.
I think it's perfectly understandable that a lot of women have good reason to not want to have to deal with that.
It's where it turns into an ideological hot mess of accusations and ideology that I bridle.
"I'd have a lot more respect for her if she just said "they have a penis on view", which is at least a position one could argue from.'
So, you want me to lie, and hold out your "respect" as a prize?
You may be hampered by your inability to determine sex in other ways, but stop assuming all share it.
Begging the question. If single-gender spaces are recognised as single-gender spaces then your whole argument falls apart.
Better to put energy into addressing the source of your fears. I doubt it is transwomen sharing a changing room with you.
And no, I have no intention of another long discussion about this.
"And no, I have no intention of another long discussion about this."
Yes. Here's my pointless rebuttal…. now be quiet.
I'm familiar with this argument.
Bugger… I'm not being quiet…..
What else, you (don't) say?
… oh, and this….
Interpreting the social contract to suit yourself is not a basis for good faith argument.
… In terms of genital obsessions bollocks (- see what I did there? )
And lastly for now, but not in terms of the comprehensive list of the value of single-SEX spaces for women and girls:
On this we agree.
But I do not pretend that we share the same interpretation of this statement.
Better to put energy into addressing the source of your fears.
That old tactic, eh Sacha? Shame on you for making this about our uteruses.
It saddens me if you think your fear comes from an organ.
That's a funny organ to be doing your thinking with.
@ McFlock – Megan Rapinoe has a sensible, rational position on transwomen in sport
United States star Megan Rapinoe has made it clear she is "100% supportive" of trans inclusion in women's sports, suggesting those debating the matter have been looking at it the wrong way.
Nailing your bed fellows point with “Frankly, I think what a lot of people know is versions of the right’s talking points because they’re very loud. They’re very consistent, and they’re relentless.”
Well, she also provides absolutely no justification for ignoring the realities of biological sex differentials in performance.
Might be sufficient evidence for you, but not convincing to those who still recognise reality.
I can paste many more such links in this regard, from other sportswomen, but the follow similar patterns in terms of evidence and of understanding of the impacts for women in sports.
"I can paste many more such links":
I'm sure you can, and will, probably multiple times a day.
Well, that's an example of a contribution that's of little merit, but oft repeated.
Snap, except I find yours much uglier.
I know you do.
Such allegations continue to be the main (and only) point of your responses.
And no doubt mercifully for other readers, thanks to heavy doses of self moderation and restraint, without your frequency or venom.
A contributor provided a long comment with a scattershot pattern of accusations that could be ignored, or addressed.
I addressed them, requiring a necessarily long comment with accompanying links. Not something I'd do usually, but appropriate here, given the random and diverse nature of the original comment.
You imply I should refrain from using links to support my contribution. Scroll on.
As for: "…venom".
I look forward to a link to an example of this.
If I imply anything it's I absolutely disagree agree with your position, think your opinions are frequently ugly and that you post them so often you're basically stealing site oxygen.
I find you repeatedly offensive and gross. There is no debate to be had with you. For me it's them and us, and you've chosen them.
"One of the reasons many women found it easier to accommodate transsexuals is the knowledge that most would have had a significant amount of time with therapists treating their distress"
Can't pray away the gay but we can victimize transgender kids and psycho logic it out of them and fuck the consequences. Fuck you.
I'm out until the site fixes itself.
Good, that's one less misogynist defending the indefensible.
Misogynist, me? You’re not a fuckwit, you’re a lackwit.
No link then.
Regardless of how frustrated I get, I have not resorted to no debate, name calling, or tribalism. In fact, with the slightest encouragement I will respectfully engage. And I have spent a lot of time reading and researching, so I will offer comprehensive answers and try to put forward my perspective.
I don't even know who "them" is, but do know that the use of an othering term, provides many with permission to ignore, deride and abuse.
""One of the reasons many women found it easier to accommodate transsexuals is the knowledge that most would have had a significant amount of time with therapists treating their distress"
Can't pray away the gay but we can victimize transgender kids and psycho logic it out of them and fuck the consequences. Fuck you."
These two sentences do not relate. The conflation continues. As does the abuse, I see.
"I'm out until the site fixes itself."
If the site moderators ask me to desist, I will.
I understand the use of this site is a courtesy, and I have – and will continue – to abide by the site rules.
But until that happens, I will engage, as respectfully and with as much information on this topic as possible, mainly because it is one of the few NZ sites where this topic is allowed to be discussed.
I appreciate that this is the case.
There's no links because there's no debate to be had.
I think you're a nasty old cunt with an offensive position and I'm turning around, walking away, thinking you're a nasty old cunt with an offensive position and I’m happy I don’t have to read your bitter astroterfing anymore.
Ta TS, but do better.
[six month instant ban. Don’t call women cunts, and don’t use misogynistic slurs. Feminists have as much right to be on this site as anyone else. The site Policy says this,
And you’ve been here long enough to know this.
I will protect trans people (or anyone) the same way (anyone can reply to any comment of mine to link me to problem comments).
Argue the politics, and if you can’t, stay away – weka]
Still here….Not a man of your word then?
But apparently a man who knows what a women is when he feels the need to throw around some sex-based insults.
What a surprise.
Also calling bullshit on this. You treat the site like shit and then tell us what to do? If you want good things to happen here, then put the mahi in and add the kind of conversations you want. But all I can see is you willing to call women cunts when you don't like what they say and fuck the site or the politics.
This applies to anyone else using 'do better' about TS as well.
Funnily enough, interesting thread popped up in my twitter feed:
Includes the line:
That's a Twitter thread, McFlock, one similar to many I've seen, and have responded to online.
Easily addressed point by point, but for the moment, I'm reluctant to do so here, as it requires a lot of time and effort. Your exchanges in the past, have been light on good faith discussion, and really heavy on accusations of bigotry.
How much effort would you put in to answering this for someone who did that to you repeatedly?
What does super hyped mean Mc Flock and what is actually happening there?"
Republicans backing russia, feminists using alt right attack lines, and they thought twin peaks was weird.
Have you seen the tweets about the "transphobic" meeting of a dozen feminists in a pub that sparked riots from "trans rights activists" in Bristol. This is not your Mum's civil rights movement.
It's disgraceful misogyny, not even bothering to dress in drag anymore.
Nah, didn't see that.
Ever wonder why the anti-trans "debate" in NZ is full of UK tweets?
No. I have several explanations for why.
But you need to do some independent thinking.
I view it as a warning of the insanity that is just as likely to occur here, when the apathetic hobbits get annoyed enough
Thanks for the link McFlock, I did look at it on Monday night (am not the best at navigating Twitter myself).
Should have replied to this thread before, but mobile commenting on TS wasn't working for some reason and I have not had desktop time for the last couple of days. Probably better to save responses for future discussions now.
Megan Rapinoe's words may be 'passionate', but not particularly rational.
"So we need to start from inclusion, period."
We already do. Women's sports teams are for biological women. That is inclusive of all biological women. That we're even discussing this is a sign the world is going nuts.
Drag is "womanface". Blackface, brownface and yellowface – cultural appropriation based on offensive stereotypes are all un-acceptable – but womanface is lauded as entertainment.
Really? Because I'm pretty sure the vast majority of women don't dress like that on a regular basis and those that do are sufficiently comfortable in their femininity not to worry about it. Maybe just focus on your own performance of gender and let everyone else get on with theirs.
I don't need to "perform my gender", I don't have one. I have a sex and a personality. Neither of those is a performance.
You seem to be putting on one now.
The idea of "gender" as something separate from biological sex is a novel use of the word, but fairly widely understood in the last couple of years. Until recently it was interchangeable with "sex" but a more politely descriptive term. The other use of the word "gender" was in reference to parts of speech, particularly in foreign languages where all sorts of objects have a seemingly randomly assigned gendered preposition (der, die, das).
Gender identity as separate from one's body is a descriptive term for dysphoria, which was (until recently) correctly viewed as a mental health issue, similar to anorexia, where one’s perceptions are not in congruence with reality. Affirming these cognitive errors is not compassionate or kind, it is throwing vulnerable people down a rabbit hole and giving them no way out. A terrible failure of gender medicine, and a gross injustice.
At this point all you need is a fedora and a t-shirt that says "pick me m'lady"
At least I don't follow an emperor with no clothes
How else will you know if the Emperor should be allowed into the changing rooms then?
I'm with rob on this. For most of my life the word gender was just a stuffy way of saying sex. Now it has been given a wholly new life of it's own – and like most new kids on the block is causing more grief than good.
It's been that way since the 1970s and there are certainly valid criticisms for some of it. It's the blanket panic, baseless accusations and the effortless jumping into bed with conservative right wing factions that are clearly no friend of women either that I object to.
John Money (NZ born) introduced the new definition of gender – as in gender identity in the late 60s/early 70s.. It doesn't mean this use was valid, standardised or universal.
His research supporting his theory was both flawed and abusive.
He's worth independently researching to get full story, but here's a link to something I'm currently reading that provides a summary – bottom of Pg 2: We Are All Hermaphrodites
Not too fussed about 'womanface', but prefer 'manface' – hear them roar.
Well I don't expect to see them demanding the heads of Linda and Jools Topp any time soon.
It appears that Talia Lavin, like many, repeats an assumption of the gender critical movement that actually has nothing to do with what they articulate about sex, gender stereotypes and gender identity. Par for course.
What surprises me is that you think there is substance in the tweet itself.
Let's see what your reference shows:
1. Required purity and unchallengeable authority test. Which when you look at it, holds little value apart from background. Author of book on white supremacy, that is useful to know, determines whether she will focus on the whole, or concentrate on a part:
(from Jewish granddaughter of holocaust victims who; concerned by the rise of fascism in the USA, literally wrote the book on Cultural Warlords):
2. Surmise, poetic analogy, a demand, and a declaration.
3. Theory, and conclusion (but no testing of theory or evidence).
4. Hasn't actually defined transphobia. Also, hasn't described the 'different future', or the 'calcified norms' so hard to determine whether the right and far right are 'obsessively upkeeping' the norms and how they are doing so.
5. Apart from the fact "historic inevitability" is a bit of a contradiction, when did the thread move on to include the LGBQ, women and people of colour? (and I hate to point this out but surely these groups are intersected in real life, and separate in terms of political advocacy, goals and agency?).
Once again, how are rights of all these groups being 'destroyed'? What is meant by sitting back, dismissing it and letting it float by – there is no idea what actions she is criticising. Once more with the poetic turn of phrase, which I myself am fond of, but link to a concrete idea or evidence. Then the final sentence – which reads like pre-emptive justification for any behaviour.
Now, before I make further comment, I will address the rise of the right-wing rhetoric on this issue. I'm not right-wing, or far right, but I acknowledge there is significant pushback against minority rights from that sector. That has to be addressed, and dealt with, but to conflate all minorities as one amorphous group denies them the means and voices to represent those groups.
In the same way, conflating any concerns as right-wing rhetoric is poor justification for #NoDebate.
Many woman (gender critical or not), gays, lesbians, transgender people have included their concern for the impact of gender ideology on the wider transgender community. Demanding people ignore the facts of biological reality, the impact of legislative change, the medicalisation and indoctrination of children etc.. will lead to pushback not only from the right, but also across the political spectrum – and this should be recognised.
Many who have declared support for transwomen, while raising concerns are denied both their language, and their agency by such rhetoric as above.
These are two different issues – can't you see?
It doesn't matter here if the women was trans-identified or straight, it was still inappropriate to have a child present, let alone participating.
Just a lot of nothing specific.
People do lie online, and post contrived messaging, misinterpretations and false accusations, which is why I will always link to source, or avoid posting if I have any concerns about validity. I note many others on TS do this as standard practice. So, your example does not surprise, and I do not support such tactics at all.
However, that does not mean that I have not seen a multitude of videos showing inappropriate drag queen entertainment while children are present. I just haven't posted them.
Here are a couple from just the last week, which seem legitimate.
(I want to reiterate, it is not related to the sexual orientation or the gender identity of those performing. It is the degree of nudity, and sexual nature of the adult entertainment that makes it inappropriate to have children present):
Rosemary, has dealt with the last item as much as it needs.
Let's have a look at the actions of a serving police officer in Leicester, UK.
Without forgetting that the same de-platforming is happening here, with women's rights groups, and currently with a therapists convention discussing the treatment of minors identifying as transgender.
Shaneel Lee – unlikely to disappoint in this regard – has also started a petition. I particularly like the first response to this tweet and Shaneel's response:
At least the petition can advise what the conference is about, what the concerns are, whether they offer an alternative. Or just accept that this is mostly slurs, waffle, threats and demands. So far, 6,796 have signed without needing to know those details.
But let's finish off with a demonstration of the progressive left on the weekend in action in the UK, a familiar and apparently (unavoidable) presence at gatherings for women:
Feel free to find and post any demonstration of women's rights groups attending a meeting or workshop arranged by another minority, so we can see and compare.
Oh yes the Conference that the trans activists are trying to shut down. Enclosed is a link from the sub committee on the Conversion Therapy Bill . click on it and scroll down. There you will find the key not speaker for the conference making a submission on the Bill. This is Stella O'Malley, an International author and psychotherapists. This delightful women who works with de-transistioners and was. gender non conforming (with gender dysphoria) as a child, has the sub committee listening to her very valid points. That includes Louisa Wall.
This is the health professional the trans activists want to cancel. If you have signed the petition against the conference at least have the decency to listen to the key note speaker who you are wanting to cancel
Link to a significant body of information, co-created by Stella O'Malley and Sasha Ayad. Many experts interviewed:
This is a video of Stella O'Malley interacting with young transgender people, so you can see her manner and approach:
Them/they Lal also abused Niccole Duval for not being the "right kind of Trans". Niccole was one of the original entertainers at Carmen's and worked with various other revues etc and was part of Alfie's night club in Auckland.
Bunch of "Pound Shop Ninjas". And who are they – mostly straight white chaps gagging for the excuse to beat up on women
Nails it as usual.
Another good read from Suzanne Moore.
Temp @ 5
Do you mean that you have to go along with the phrase trans women are women, if not your transphobic?
Do you mean you have to accept the statement that women can have penises, otherwise you are transphobie?
Do you mean if you are a lesbian that you have to date and have sex with trans women (who are in fact male bodied) else you are transphobic?
Because if these are the definitions of transphobia and according to Talia you have to defend without caveat trans people from transphobia, then what she is requesting is that you have to suspend biological reality i.e science in order not to be a facist.
BTW the requiring of one set of views about transgenderism and shutting down debate ("no debate") is one of the few experiences of a fascist like mentality I have experienced in my life time. Shutting down SUFWs meetings and advertising is just the political censorship that authoritarian regimes require.
As for transgender people being happy. Well I hope they are and I wish them well.
We do not that to date there are 35,000 detransitioners on Redit and climbing. These are young people with irreversible damage to their bodies that they regret. But the ideological purist movement that is gender ideology, doesn't want to acknowledge or hear about them
There have always been people who cross-dressed – mostly for very good reasons. When sex between men was likely to get you the cell, the scaffold, or the stake – being able to pass as a woman was lifesaving. Women took on male identities to do things that women were not allowed to do, like join the military, go to university, marry other women. Even something as simple as the ability to travel in relative safety.
In more recent times when sex between men was still unlawful, some gay men internalised their homophobia and risked their lives to have "sex change" surgery and have spent the rest of their lives on artificial hormones.
What we have now is something completely different. Most of those reasons are gone in Western society.
There are some people with genuine bodily dysphoria who are unhappy in their sexed bodies, but the loudest voices these days in the Trans "Rights" movement are those of the autogynephiliacs. These are men who are sexually aroused by the thought of themselves as women. Most have little or no surgery and retain their male genitalia. They are engaged in a constant search for more and more validation that they are a woman. There is nothing that women do that they will not require to be part of, and will require to centre them. Everything from Rape Crisis services to knitting groups.
And we now have the new religion of Gender Ideology. This says that you have a gendered "soul" which over rides biological reality. It requires other people to constantly express their belief in your gendered soul and to educate their children in its existence. It requires the medical system to change its language "pregnant people" for example to ensure that gendered souls take precedence.
10 years ago – practically none of this was happening. Now it is everywhere.
These are men who are sexually aroused by the thought of themselves as women.
I have scrolled through this very long thread determined not to comment – but to my mind it is 99% summed up in this single line of yours above.
Just been to the chemist for a routine prescription refill.
No stock over the weekend. No stock today (anywhere in NZ, apparently). No idea on when there will be stock.
They offered me a 'replacement' at triple strength – no idea how I'd safely determine the dosage….
Have an urgent call in to my GP to discuss what we can do in the interim (going cold turkey off medication is usually contra-indicated!)
Chemist is blaming Covid disrupted shipping (which we're experiencing in my work-life). But it's a bit different waiting an extra week or two for an overseas parcel (or cancelling the order, if shipping proves impossible); to a whole country running out of a fairly commonly used prescription-only medicine.
Again my daughter the courier driver has been mentioning this kind of disruption for several months now. It's across many sectors at a subcritical level.
When dreamy old Hippies/Greenies imagine a deindustrialised world this is what you get.
Don't know what you are talking about. I regularly have equipment arrive from New York in 3 or 4 days.
So, presumably air freight (unless you've got some form of teleportation).
Which still works, though the prices are massively through the roof, and you pay a further premium to get on one of the few planes actually coming to NZ.
However, shipping (which is the bulk of the transport, internationally) is still massively disrupted, and our procurement staff are telling us that it's not going to improve in the next 18 months.
We’re seeing booked shipping routes being cancelled: when the NZ leg was so delayed, by loading issues ‘upstream’ that it was a better solution to just cancel the NZ leg, and go straight to the next one. We’ve had cargo off-loaded in Singapore, waiting for the next scheduled ship to have space (good luck with that). And NZ shippers are also missing their export windows.
Bloody hell, Belladonna. Do you have much left of your current prescription?
Due to coating on tablets – if that is what you take – cutting or dividing is ill-advised as well, as you interfere with the assumed absorption rate.
Not that I am advising this, but I did notice that women unable to get the HRT because of the UK, were posting and sharing solutions online. You are unlikely to be the only one in this position.
Pharmaceutical manufacturing is one of the industries we need here in NZ for resilience purposes.
Agree that I'm not the only one.
The pharmacist was massively apologetic (and I didn't blast him for something that's clearly completely outside his control).
And said that I was the 20th person that he'd had to have this conversation with over the last couple of days (not all over the same prescription)
Have an emergency appointment with my GP tomorrow to discuss alternatives.
And am right down to the dregs on the current prescription – since it's so routine, I never thought about building in a fortnight buffer (my bad, I'll know better next time).
Owning my privilege here. I can afford an emergency GP consult. I can afford an off-prescription alternative (if that's the best solution). I can even afford to take a fortnight's sick leave (if I need to – though that wouldn't be my preferred option – nor would my boss be over the moon). I can afford to take Ubers, if I can't drive (though, again, not my preferred alternative).
Thinking about the people who can't and for whom this would be a disaster.
Supply chains just need to be a heck of a lot more robust in this Covid world. And 'just in time' needs to change to 'just in case'
"Supply chains just need to be a heck of a lot more robust in this Covid world. And 'just in time' needs to change to 'just in case'"
The supply chain issue is a big one. Part of the solution needs to be identifying where we can manufacture or produce high-priority items domestically.
IIRC, we manufactured drugs here in the past. Not sure if we do now. Someone else might have a better recall. (I seem to remember Smith, Kline and French manufacturing in Pah Road in the '80s but maybe they were just distributors.)
Oh yes the Conference that the trans activists are trying to shut down. Enclosed is a link from the sub committee on the Conversion Therapy Bill . click on it and scroll down. There you will find the key not speaker for the conference making a submission on the Bill. This is Stella O'Malley, an International author and psychotherapist. This delightful women who works with de-transistioners and was. gender non conforming (with gender dysphoria) as a child, has the sub committee her very valtaking note of her very valid points. That includes Louisa Wall.
This is the health professional the trans activists want to cancel. If you have signed the petition against the conference at least have the decency to listen to the key note speaker who you are wanting to cancel
Some interesting debate here. You have to give it to Western society: we have been so successful we can navel gaze to our hearts content. Unlike people in the Ukraine and Africa.
I would like to send these twats there to show them that ''feeling safe'' is not an option…and bullets don't discriminate against any gender.
When everything has been deconstructed by postmodern lies, the kids lose the ability to understand what truth even is. Everything is a made up narrative in their heads. They don't absorb education, they just pass mediocre tests.
In a nutshell.
Similar topic, but much more entertainment value… 😂