Genderism

[AlterEgo]

You agree, then, to the very same point I made immediately above. By 'involvement of others' I was talking about intimate relationships, not using the bog.

Then yes, we are agreed!

 

[roversfan2001]

How about this; there are two sexes, there are no set genders. Does that please the 'equality brigade', the feminists*, LGBT people, and the people getting worked up over other people's sexuality?

*note how I didn't include them in the 'equality brigade', feminists don't want equality, they just want women to have all the power, but that's a debate for a different thread

 

[GatwickDepress]

*note how I didn't include them in the 'equality brigade', feminists don't want equality, they just want women to have all the power, but that's a debate for a different thread

 

[Dent]

There are some very unique people out there!

What does that even mean? It certainly doesn't in any way justify your absurd and really rather offensive false parallel between people with genuine gender issues and people with delusion of being fictional characters.

 

[Tetchytyke]

You commence a relationship with somebody who, so far as you can tell, is of the appropriate sex. At some point later, you discover the individual is transgender. The person you have been having sexual relations with is, in fact biologically the 'wrong' sex. Is this okay? To be very blunt indeed, do you have the right to know if the person you're bonking used to be a bloke? It certainly wouldn't be to my taste. Or is it just tough luck?! Where do you draw lines as to what is acceptable, or where boundaries should lie?

That is a very difficult one. There's certainly been some "interesting" caselaw recently, where women pretending to be male have been convicted of rape after having sex with a woman.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-34258993

Personally I'm very uncomfortable about that conviction, regardless of how traumatising the victim may have considered it. Where does one draw the line? The undercover police officers who had sex with activists- even going so far as fathering children with them- were not prosecuted for rape by deception, and their lies were significantly worse than Gayle Newland's.

Saying "I really love you" when you don't, in order to get inside a girl's knickers, is deception. Taking your wedding ring off in a nightclub in order to pull is deception. But I don't think anyone would consider those situations to be rape.

I'd be very upset if someone I started a relationship (as opposed to a one night stand) didn't tell me they were trans, but that's the same as if they withheld something else important about themselves (e.g. children, marriage).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

How long I wonder before the first well publicised case of somebody who decides they can no longer 'identify' as human, and demands appropriate treatment to become whatever sort of beast/being/Star Wars character they have decided they really are on the inside?

OK, I'll bite.

There are already plenty of examples of people who wish to represent themselves as other things, especially within the kink community- furry fandom, pony play, etc etc. So what? If someone wants to dress up as Klingon, or live life like a pony, who cares?

I also don't see the parallel between a plushie and a transgendered person?

 

[Railops]

I used to know an Otherkin a few years ago and I imagine as it becomes more common this idea and Species dysphoria will eventually be accepted as legal and normal, maybe America first then here later.
If changing sex especially on a day to day basis as some do is deemed normal and legal then the similar step of identifying as an animal real or imagined cannot surely be denied.

 

[Harbornite]

I used to know an Otherkin a few years ago and I imagine as it becomes more common this idea and Species dysphoria will eventually be accepted as legal and normal, maybe America first then here later.
If changing sex especially on a day to day basis as some do is deemed normal and legal then the similar step of identifying as an animal real or imagined cannot surely be denied.

Well it can. The line will be drawn at bestiality.

 

[AlterEgo]

I used to know an Otherkin a few years ago and I imagine as it becomes more common this idea and Species dysphoria will eventually be accepted as legal and normal, maybe America first then here later.
If changing sex especially on a day to day basis as some do is deemed normal and legal then the similar step of identifying as an animal real or imagined cannot surely be denied.

Personally I don't care as long as they work and pay tax. We have more important issues to worry about than Otherkin (though I'll admit that's the first time I've had that - rather strange - word).

 

[Dent]

If changing sex especially on a day to day basis as some do is deemed normal and legal then the similar step of identifying as an animal real or imagined cannot surely be denied.

I see the old "slippery slope" fallacy appearing again.

Gender is a social construct of categorising people. Species is not, and neither is the distinction between real people and fictional characters.

 

[Railops]

Personally I don't care as long as they work and pay tax. We have more important issues to worry about than Otherkin (though I'll admit that's the first time I've had that - rather strange - word).

Never heard of Otherkin, blimey how strange.

 

[Gutfright]

*note how I didn't include them in the 'equality brigade', feminists don't want equality, they just want women to have all the power, but that's a debate for a different thread

That's going a bit far.

Nobody with a shred of credibility can deny that some feminists are just man-hating lesbians who see nearly 50% of the population as "walking abortions", but such vicious misandrists do not represent all feminists.

Some feminists are reasonable people. Unfortunately they all too often find their voices drowned out by the shrill hateful lunatics and clickbaity attention-seekers in the feminist movement.

 

[Harbornite]

That's going a bit far.

Nobody with a shred of credibility can deny that some feminists are just man-hating lesbians who see nearly 50% of the population as "walking abortions", but such vicious misandrists do not represent all feminists.

Some feminists are reasonable people. Unfortunately they all too often find their voices drowned out by the shrill hateful lunatics and clickbaity attention-seekers in the feminist movement.

Agreed.

 

[PHILIPE]

Just wondering why we have been hearing about it at this level only fairly recently. Never seemed to be discussed at one time

 

[AlterEgo]

Just wondering why we have been hearing about it at this level only fairly recently. Never seemed to be discussed at one time

It's because people who are protesting it have become more organized, and because our media have taken an interest.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Some feminists are reasonable people. Unfortunately they all too often find their voices drowned out by the shrill hateful lunatics and clickbaity attention-seekers in the feminist movement.

About 99% are.

The problem, really, is Twitter. You can't have a rational conversation in 140 characters so the absolute screeching mental cases end up drowning everyone else out.

It's the same with any political position. Corbyn, Brexit, Byron burgers; the only ones who get heard are the total head jobs.

 

[TheNewNo2]

How about this; there are two sexes, there are no set genders. Does that please the 'equality brigade', the feminists*, LGBT people, and the people getting worked up over other people's sexuality?

*note how I didn't include them in the 'equality brigade', feminists don't want equality, they just want women to have all the power, but that's a debate for a different thread

Technically one can be intersex, where your chromosomes are neither XX nor XY, but that's vanishingly rare.

As for feminism, yes there are some people who use the word feminism to protect their vicious opinions, but that's the same as every group. The point of feminism is equality, and everyone should want that, because it's not only women who are harmed by gendered expectations.

Gender is a social construct of categorising people. Species is not, and neither is the distinction between real people and fictional characters.

Technically species is still a bit of a construct. It's like the "when does a hill become a mountain?" idea - we can say this lump is a hill, that giant peak is a mountain, but in between there's a bit more of a grey area. We don't doubt that one species evolves into another, but since the changes are gradual somewhere in the process there was a creature which could count as both species, or neither.

Well it can. The line will be drawn at bestiality.

I object to beastiality on the same grounds as child abuse - informed consent. If your partner can't legally consent, it's statutory rape, end of.

Just wondering why we have been hearing about it at this level only fairly recently. Never seemed to be discussed at one time

It's become more visible recently because people have been willing to stand up and be counted. They've always been there, but in the past admitting to those feelings was social (and sometimes literal) suicide.

 

[backontrack]

I'm an egalitarian. I want equal rights for men and women in all respects - and that also includes areas where men are left behind.

 

[Harbornite]

I'm an egalitarian. I want equal rights for men and women in all respects - and that also includes areas where men are left behind.

Indeed. Regarding areas where men are left behind, I'd suggest male rape and domestic violnce victims.

 

[BestWestern]

Indeed. Regarding areas where men are left behind, I'd suggest male rape and domestic violnce victims.

Absolutely agree. I don't have high hopes though. Every campaign against domestic violence that I've ever seen is firmly of the opinion that it is men who hit women, and that's it. There is a current/recent TV ad which listed several scenarios along the lines of "If you x, that's not OK. If you do y, that's not OK", etc. Some relate to physical acts of violence, others to emotional abuse and control. Each is played out by actors, and every single one of them depicts the aggressor as the male. I find that totally unaccpetable, and indeed a touch offensive. But of course, nobody really cares sufficiently to tackle such imbalances. If on the other hand somebody released a 'Bad driving is wrong' campaign and showed every instance to be a woman, then understandably there would be a massive outcry. Equality is indeed not equal.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I don't have high hopes though. Every campaign against domestic violence that I've ever seen is firmly of the opinion that it is men who hit women, and that's it.

I don't agree that it is, but you would expect most advertising to deal with male on female domestic violence because 85% of domestic violence is male on female. Less than 5% of domestic violence is female on male, with about 5% being male on male and about 5% female on female.

If 90% of the victims of domestic violence are women, you're going to target your advertising towards this fact.

That doesn't dismiss domestic violence where men are the victims, and the fact that men are significantly less likely to report domestic violence and sexual abuse (even compared to the very low levels of reporting from women) is something that needs urgently addressing.

But when the aggressor is male 90% of the time, arguing that advertising should be "equal" is wrong.

 

[BestWestern]

I don't agree that it is, but you would expect most advertising to deal with male on female domestic violence because 85% of domestic violence is male on female. Less than 5% of domestic violence is female on male, with about 5% being male on male and about 5% female on female.

If 90% of the victims of domestic violence are women, you're going to target your advertising towards this fact.

That doesn't dismiss domestic violence where men are the victims, and the fact that men are significantly less likely to report domestic violence and sexual abuse (even compared to the very low levels of reporting from women) is something that needs urgently addressing.

But when the aggressor is male 90% of the time, arguing that advertising should be "equal" is wrong.

No, but what advertising should be doing is using the platform it has to raise awareness and foster inclusiveness, not disregard and ignore. The fact that the problem is barely reported gives all the more reason to enourage victims to come forward. In an ad containing several sequences, one of those showing something other than the 'blokes hit women' stereotype would be a powerful tool. As for those figures, how can anybody put a meaningful percentage against something which is commonly kept entirely secret?

Alas, convention suggests it should be ignored, it seems.

 

[Dent]

I don't agree that it is, but you would expect most advertising to deal with male on female domestic violence because 85% of domestic violence is male on female. Less than 5% of domestic violence is female on male, with about 5% being male on male and about 5% female on female.

If 90% of the victims of domestic violence are women, you're going to target your advertising towards this fact.

That doesn't dismiss domestic violence where men are the victims, and the fact that men are significantly less likely to report domestic violence and sexual abuse (even compared to the very low levels of reporting from women) is something that needs urgently addressing.

But when the aggressor is male 90% of the time, arguing that advertising should be "equal" is wrong.

I don't see anyone saying advertising should be "equal", but I do see legitimate concerns that this advertising is unfairly focussed on one group to the detriment of others.

Focussing entirely on male aggressors and female victims is damaging as it perpetuates a myth that any domestic dispute between a man and a woman must be the man's fault and the woman must be a victim. It's not hard to see how this can be damaging when it leads to men being wrongly blamed in cases where they are actually victims.

 

[backontrack]

I also feel that being male is a problem from an educational perspective. People assume that boys are more badly-behaved, and that girls are whiter than white. It's something that gets ignored.

 

[Howardh]

When I go to the Olympic parade in Manchester wearing my Union Flag skirt, what category will that put me in?

(It won't be Category C, m'lud, I'll have my Union Flag undies on below, of course. One has standards to maintain.)

 

[BestWestern]

When I go to the Olympic parade in Manchester wearing my Union Flag skirt, what category will that put me in?

(It won't be Category C, m'lud, I'll have my Union Flag undies on below, of course. One has standards to maintain.)

You'll be done for indecent exposure, as both Union Flag garments will be deemed outrageously racist and confiscated instantly

 

[Howardh]

You'll be done for indecent exposure, as both Union Flag garments will be deemed outrageously racist and confiscated instantly

Was it "Not The Nine-O'Clock News" which informed us all it was illegal to wear a loud shirt in a built up area?

 

[CarlSilva]

Was it "Not The Nine-O'Clock News" which informed us all it was illegal to wear a loud shirt in a built up area?

Yes. In the Constable Savage sketch. Probably on youtube if anyone that wants a laugh.

Is this your hedgehog sir ?

 

[Steveman]

When I go to the Olympic parade in Manchester wearing my Union Flag skirt, what category will that put me in?

I know what category I would put you in.

 

[Harbornite]

I object to beastiality on the same grounds as child abuse - informed consent. If your partner can't legally consent, it's statutory rape, end of. .

Indeed, that's why I find it silly when people say that bestiality and whatnot will be legalized next because homosexual marriage has been legalized. The two issues are really different, one is morally right and the other isn't.

 

[miami]

Indeed, that's why I find it silly when people say that bestiality and whatnot will be legalized next because homosexual marriage has been legalized. The two issues are really different, one is morally right and the other isn't.

But morality is never an absolute, it's a cultural concept. Topless women on the beach tends to be a no-no in the US, fine in Spain, and stoning time in Kuwait.

When I go to the Olympic parade in Manchester wearing my Union Flag skirt, what category will that put me in?

(It won't be Category C, m'lud, I'll have my Union Flag undies on below, of course. One has standards to maintain.)

Men wearing skirts? Must be Scottish.