Yet more problematic stuff

[Brian Peacock]

Sorry, but this sort of gender argy-bargy seems to me like medieval theologians arguing about how many angels will fit on the end of a pin...

Perhaps, if the theological conflict was between inclusivists and exclusionists, in circumstances where the exclusionists were saying that the inclusivists shouldn't exist.

Many more serious issues than some academics expressing views about gender; the actual real oppression of non-hetero people all over the world, frequently violent and nasty...

People like Linehan and Rowling not only provide moral cover for the violent and nasty, but they perpetuate the narrative that the existence of the people on the recieving end of the violent and the nasty justify the abuse they endure by being unnatural and wrong. Objecting to, pushing back against, or resisting the view that your existence is illegitimate identifies one's unnatural wrongness and is usually taken as further justification for abuse - similar to the charges that we were intolerant, strident, radical, fundamentals and Marxists when we objected to, pushed back against, or resisted the view that our atheism was immoral, threatening, socially divisive or dangerous, or otherwise illegitimate.

[L'Emmerdeur]

I choose to believe that they're on a hiding to nothing. Plenty of damage done along the way though.

[JimC]

Sorry, but this sort of gender argy-bargy seems to me like medieval theologians arguing about how many angels will fit on the end of a pin...

Perhaps, if the theological conflict was between inclusivists and exclusionists, in circumstances where the exclusionists were saying that the inclusivists shouldn't exist.

Many more serious issues than some academics expressing views about gender; the actual real oppression of non-hetero people all over the world, frequently violent and nasty...

People like Linehan and Rowling not only provide moral cover for the violent and nasty, but they perpetuate the narrative that the existence of the people on the recieving end of the violent and the nasty justify the abuse they endure by being unnatural and wrong. Objecting to, pushing back against, or resisting the view that your existence is illegitimate identifies one's unnatural wrongness and is usually taken as further justification for abuse - similar to the charges that we were intolerant, strident, radical, fundamentals and Marxists when we objected to, pushed back against, or resisted the view that our atheism was immoral, threatening, socially divisive or dangerous, or otherwise illegitimate.

My worry is that people who are basically on the progressive side of politics seem to spend more time on internal battles over relatively small differences than they do on combatting the actual right...

[Brian Peacock]

Sorry, but this sort of gender argy-bargy seems to me like medieval theologians arguing about how many angels will fit on the end of a pin...

Perhaps, if the theological conflict was between inclusivists and exclusionists, in circumstances where the exclusionists were saying that the inclusivists shouldn't exist.

Many more serious issues than some academics expressing views about gender; the actual real oppression of non-hetero people all over the world, frequently violent and nasty...

People like Linehan and Rowling not only provide moral cover for the violent and nasty, but they perpetuate the narrative that the existence of the people on the recieving end of the violent and the nasty justify the abuse they endure by being unnatural and wrong. Objecting to, pushing back against, or resisting the view that your existence is illegitimate identifies one's unnatural wrongness and is usually taken as further justification for abuse - similar to the charges that we were intolerant, strident, radical, fundamentals and Marxists when we objected to, pushed back against, or resisted the view that our atheism was immoral, threatening, socially divisive or dangerous, or otherwise illegitimate.

My worry is that people who are basically on the progressive side of politics seem to spend more time on internal battles over relatively small differences than they do on combatting the actual right...

People like Linehan and Rowling are as much a part of the 'actual right' as Shapiro or Peterson. We can tell this by their eagerness to downgrade the fundamental rights of particular people, whom they'd like everyone to agree to permanently exclude from the public domain. I don't think it's reasonable or accurate to say that objecting to, pushing back against, or resisting Terfism is an internal progressive battle over relatively small differences.

[pErvinalia]

Perhaps he's referring to Dawkins and co.

[Brian Peacock]

Perhaps he's referring to Dawkins and co.

Perhaps, and I know Jim's a decent guy and basically an ally of the Queer community. I just felt his framing of a high-profile Terfist and former comedy writer being effectively banned from a comedy venue as a progressive squabble was, on this occasion, a little wide of the mark. The broader point about progressive squabbling still stands though.

[Sean Hayden]

Uganda charges man with 'aggravated homosexuality' punishable by death penalty under new law

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/ ... -lgbtq-law

[JimC]

Uganda charges man with 'aggravated homosexuality' punishable by death penalty under new law

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/ ... -lgbtq-law

It is these situations in various parts of the world that are the real threat to the queer community. Internal petty squabbles within or between broadly progressive groups pale into insignificance in comparison...

[Strontium Dog]

People like Linehan and Rowling not only provide moral cover for the violent and nasty, but they perpetuate the narrative that the existence of the people on the recieving end of the violent and the nasty justify the abuse they endure by being unnatural and wrong. Objecting to, pushing back against, or resisting the view that your existence is illegitimate identifies one's unnatural wrongness and is usually taken as further justification for abuse - similar to the charges that we were intolerant, strident, radical, fundamentals and Marxists when we objected to, pushed back against, or resisted the view that our atheism was immoral, threatening, socially divisive or dangerous, or otherwise illegitimate.

Yes, far better to push the view that Linehan and Rowling's atheism is immoral, threatening, socially divisive, dangerous and illegitimate...

[Brian Peacock]

People like Linehan and Rowling not only provide moral cover for the violent and nasty, but they perpetuate the narrative that the existence of the people on the recieving end of the violent and the nasty justify the abuse they endure by being unnatural and wrong. Objecting to, pushing back against, or resisting the view that your existence is illegitimate identifies one's unnatural wrongness and is usually taken as further justification for abuse - similar to the charges that we were intolerant, strident, radical, fundamentals and Marxists when we objected to, pushed back against, or resisted the view that our atheism was immoral, threatening, socially divisive or dangerous, or otherwise illegitimate.

Yes, far better to push the view that Linehan and Rowling's atheism is immoral, threatening, socially divisive, dangerous and illegitimate...

Meh. Their presumed atheism is irrelevant (Rowling counts a far-right Catholic anti-abortionist among her friends and allies btw - so much for protecting women eh?) because it was a simile - the clue is in the words 'similar to'. Atheism is nothing special. If an atheist was advocating that some members of the community should be excluded from society because of something they inherently, intrinsically, consistently, and persistently are (like being ginger, black, or trans) I'd criticise their bigotry just as freely.

Feel free to address what actually I said - in your own time.

[Strontium Dog]

People like Linehan and Rowling not only provide moral cover for the violent and nasty, but they perpetuate the narrative that the existence of the people on the recieving end of the violent and the nasty justify the abuse they endure by being unnatural and wrong. Objecting to, pushing back against, or resisting the view that your existence is illegitimate identifies one's unnatural wrongness and is usually taken as further justification for abuse - similar to the charges that we were intolerant, strident, radical, fundamentals and Marxists when we objected to, pushed back against, or resisted the view that our atheism was immoral, threatening, socially divisive or dangerous, or otherwise illegitimate.

Yes, far better to push the view that Linehan and Rowling's atheism is immoral, threatening, socially divisive, dangerous and illegitimate...

Meh. Their presumed atheism is irrelevant (Rowling counts a far-right Catholic anti-abortionist among her friends and allies btw - so much for protecting women eh?) because it was a simile - the clue is in the words 'similar to'. Atheism is nothing special. If an atheist was advocating that some members of the community should be excluded from society because of something they inherently, intrinsically, consistently, and persistently are (like being ginger, black, or trans) I'd criticise their bigotry just as freely.

Feel free to address what actually I said - in your own time.

Well, neither of them has ever advocated for anyone to be "excluded from society", but the atheism I was talking about wasn't the same as the atheism you were talking about.

[Brian Peacock]

...

Well, neither of them has ever advocated for anyone to be "excluded from society", but the atheism I was talking about wasn't the same as the atheism you were talking about.

If you say that some members of the community don't exist, because of something they inherently, intrinsically, consistently, and persistently are (like being ginger, black, or trans), then you are excluding them from society - they literally don't count as members of society. Using a public platform to repeat or promote this view, or funding, organising, or taking part in events focused around this view is advocating for social exclusion.

[JimC]

Do the Terfers actually claim that trans people don't exist? From what I've read, they acknowledge their existence and their right to be a part of society, just insisting that they are in a different category to biological women. If that remains at an academic level it is surely not a major issue. I suppose what would really matter is real actions or exclusions, things involving public toilets, women's sports, participation in women-only events etc. If Terfers push hard for actual exclusion in real-world activities, I can see that would be hurtful...

[Sean Hayden]

[L'Emmerdeur]

That's just unkind. Too polite by far, making the team (and the theme of using quasi-or-outright slurs for team names which still exists in some places in the country) look its worst. It would have been more sporting to use something like 'Palefaces'.