Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The non-PC PC Thread

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • etenguy
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    The problem is that the woman who wrote it will probably get burnt in effigy for doing so. Why is the above issue even an issue? It looks like science can’t at this moment in time prevent a formerly male athlete getting a big physical advantage when competing in women’s events. So until science can ensure that no advantage exists then the athlete shouldn’t be allowed to compete against women. It’s unfortunate for the athlete of course but that’s life (at the moment at least)
    Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

    thanks for posting diddles
    interesting article, I hadnt see that before. its germaine to the whole point I was making in regards to the artists comments and that the issue she was bringing up is a tough and serious question that many in sports/sports orgs are struggling with now.

    'However, I cannot accept people's unsubstantiated assertions that they are in fact the opposite sex to when they were born and deserve to be extended the same rights as if they were born as such.”

    I guess such subtleties are lost on some people and such orgs as the RA who in my mind unfairly and kneejerk punished this artist for bringing up this type of valid and reasonable question.
    Hi Herlock, Hi Abby

    The issue of fairness in sport is very complex and you may or may not know that some women (born and lived their whole lives as women) who happen to have greater levels of testosterone than others are being required to take drugs to reduce their testosterone levels in order that they can compete.

    Another article from the same newspaper has a more in depth analysis of some of the issues about fairness in sport involving testosterone and sex which you may find interesting. It challenges some of the assertions made in the article Ms Diddles posted:
    https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...-sports-bodies

    Regardless of the complexities raised by the two articles, I would argue that denying someone's identity on the basis that it may raise issues that need resolving with regard to fairness in sport is disproportionate.

    Leave a comment:


  • Abby Normal
    replied
    Originally posted by Ms Diddles View Post
    https://www.theguardian.com/sport/bl...droidApp_Other

    I thought this was an interesting and unhysterical article about trans women in sport (as mentioned by Abby in his post above).
    thanks for posting diddles
    interesting article, I hadnt see that before. its germaine to the whole point I was making in regards to the artists comments and that the issue she was bringing up is a tough and serious question that many in sports/sports orgs are struggling with now.

    'However, I cannot accept people's unsubstantiated assertions that they are in fact the opposite sex to when they were born and deserve to be extended the same rights as if they were born as such.”

    I guess such subtleties are lost on some people and such orgs as the RA who in my mind unfairly and kneejerk punished this artist for bringing up this type of valid and reasonable question.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by Ms Diddles View Post
    https://www.theguardian.com/sport/bl...droidApp_Other

    I thought this was an interesting and unhysterical article about trans women in sport (as mentioned by Abby in his post above).
    The problem is that the woman who wrote it will probably get burnt in effigy for doing so. Why is the above issue even an issue? It looks like science can’t at this moment in time prevent a formerly male athlete getting a big physical advantage when competing in women’s events. So until science can ensure that no advantage exists then the athlete shouldn’t be allowed to compete against women. It’s unfortunate for the athlete of course but that’s life (at the moment at least)

    Leave a comment:


  • Ms Diddles
    replied
    https://www.theguardian.com/sport/bl...droidApp_Other

    I thought this was an interesting and unhysterical article about trans women in sport (as mentioned by Abby in his post above).

    Leave a comment:


  • Al Bundy's Eyes
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
    I wont be posting anything on this subject again.
    Bit ironic there Herlock.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    I wont be posting anything on this subject again.

    Leave a comment:


  • etenguy
    replied
    Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

    thanks herlock
    so not quite as harsh as saying theyre not real women. its a tough one for me because i cant imagine the torment of being born in the wrong sex body, so I sympathize with them and fully support transitioning. its when we get to the question of competition in womens sports where i might have an issue, because then it comes down to a question of fairness. for example the NZ weightlifter who is going to be in the olympics (they still allow up to five times the normal testostorine level than in biological women). I think this sort of thing actually harms, more than helps, all women (biological or otherwise).

    so i kind of agree and disagree with the artist. i disagree that they cant be viewed as the opposite sex ( i think they can and should), but I agree , when it comes to things like competition in womens sports, that they deserve the same rights etc.-we still need for it be fair to biological women.

    that being said, i dont think she said anything horribly wrong or divisive. and agree with you another example of the slippery slope of the pc thought police.
    Hi Abby

    so not quite as harsh as saying theyre not real women.
    That is exactly what she is saying - albeit without using exactly those words. That is why her comments have come under scrutiny.

    But whether you agree or disagree with her comments - the issue she raises is whether those who disagree with her are entitled to say so and also decide not to work with her due to having diametrically opposed values and views. It seems she believes (as she said on the radio this morning) that is OK for her to air her views that may harm others but if anyone reacts in a way she doesn't like - then that shouldn't be allowed. There is no thought police - she is free to believe what she has said, no-one has silenced her - she was on the radio just this morning repeating her comments, she has suffered no punishment (she is not being charged with a crime) - all that has happened is that the RA have refused to work with her so as not to legitimise views which are in direct opposition to their own. The people who really have been silenced in all this is the group she opines about.

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    Hi Abby,

    In short, she said this:


    “This isn't going away,' she said. 'This is a conversation that needs to happen, it needs to happen in public. They will have to talk eventually.'

    'I find it interesting that in this entire conversation we now talk about the nature of biological sex, that there's only two sexes, as an opinion. When has that become an opinion?'

    In her essay Miss De Wahls wrote how she had 'no issue with somebody who feels more comfortable expressing themselves as if they are the other sex (or in whatever way they please for that matter).'
    Well that's good of her. I'm sure everyone who is not as lucky as she is, or as comfortable as she is in her own skin, will be truly grateful that she has 'no issue' with them.

    'However, I cannot accept people's unsubstantiated assertions that they are in fact the opposite sex to when they were born and deserve to be extended the same rights as if they were born as such.”
    She doesn't have to 'accept' such assertions, or believe that such people 'deserve' the same rights that she enjoys, but luckily she doesn't get to decide such matters.

    I can think of little that would be worse than having to go through the torment, as Abby described, and then on top of that have opinionated talking heads condemning me simply for being who I am. Compared with that, I'll take condemnation for my words and opinions any day of the week.

    I really do have to wonder sometimes who the real 'snowflakes' are. The brave souls who have to deal with ignorance and prejudice on a daily basis, simply for the way they were born? Or the cowards, who whinge whenever their hateful opinions about those who are 'different', are rightly challenged?

    Love,

    Caz
    X

    Leave a comment:


  • Abby Normal
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    Hi Abby,

    In short, she said this:


    “This isn't going away,' she said. 'This is a conversation that needs to happen, it needs to happen in public. They will have to talk eventually.'

    'I find it interesting that in this entire conversation we now talk about the nature of biological sex, that there's only two sexes, as an opinion. When has that become an opinion?'

    In her essay Miss De Wahls wrote how she had 'no issue with somebody who feels more comfortable expressing themselves as if they are the other sex (or in whatever way they please for that matter).'

    'However, I cannot accept people's unsubstantiated assertions that they are in fact the opposite sex to when they were born and deserve to be extended the same rights as if they were born as such.”

    thanks herlock
    so not quite as harsh as saying theyre not real women. its a tough one for me because i cant imagine the torment of being born in the wrong sex body, so I sympathize with them and fully support transitioning. its when we get to the question of competition in womens sports where i might have an issue, because then it comes down to a question of fairness. for example the NZ weightlifter who is going to be in the olympics (they still allow up to five times the normal testostorine level than in biological women). I think this sort of thing actually harms, more than helps, all women (biological or otherwise).

    so i kind of agree and disagree with the artist. i disagree that they cant be viewed as the opposite sex ( i think they can and should), but I agree , when it comes to things like competition in womens sports, that they deserve the same rights etc.-we still need for it be fair to biological women.

    that being said, i dont think she said anything horribly wrong or divisive. and agree with you another example of the slippery slope of the pc thought police.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

    hi eten and herlock

    eten does she actually say transgendesr arent real women? whats the full context of her statement?
    (sorry having tech difficulties with the link/my computer)
    Hi Abby,

    In short, she said this:


    “This isn't going away,' she said. 'This is a conversation that needs to happen, it needs to happen in public. They will have to talk eventually.'

    'I find it interesting that in this entire conversation we now talk about the nature of biological sex, that there's only two sexes, as an opinion. When has that become an opinion?'

    In her essay Miss De Wahls wrote how she had 'no issue with somebody who feels more comfortable expressing themselves as if they are the other sex (or in whatever way they please for that matter).'

    'However, I cannot accept people's unsubstantiated assertions that they are in fact the opposite sex to when they were born and deserve to be extended the same rights as if they were born as such.”


    Leave a comment:


  • Abby Normal
    replied
    Originally posted by etenguy View Post

    Hi Herlock

    I don't have a problem with the Royal Academy's action. It is up to them if they do not want to be associated with transphobic people and views. I appreciate you don't think what the artist said was anything but her opinion (to which she is entitled), but those views translate into real world violence and RA are free to distance themselves if it does not fit with their values. Imagine if the artist was saying that black people aren't real people - I think most people would not question RA's action in that circumstance. To me these two things are the same.
    hi eten and herlock

    eten does she actually say transgendesr arent real women? whats the full context of her statement?
    (sorry having tech difficulties with the link/my computer)

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Developements.

    https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/c...e-b941715.html

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...gift-shop.html

    Leave a comment:


  • etenguy
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    We’ll have to agree to disagree on this one Eten. I don’t think that the artist has done or said anything hateful. She expressed an opinion that millions concur with. The end is nigh.
    Hi Herlock

    Well we can agree that lots of people agree with the artist's opinion and lots disagree and find the opinion transphobic. We are clearly on different sides of that divide and I suspect neither is going to change the view of the other. But unlike RA and Jess de Wahls we can agree to disagree.



    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by etenguy View Post

    Hi Herlock

    I am clearly in the minority here, but I don't see it like that at all.

    The artist expressed an opinion that many find offensive and disagree with. That opinion was basically saying to trans people - I deny you the right to define who you are, instead my opinion is the right one and you are not who you say you are. She is quite at liberty to both hold that opinion and to express it. It will nevertheless cause hurt and offense and potentially harm to a group of people. It is she that then goes on to criticise anyone (stonewall in particular) that disagrees with her view.

    The RA have said - our values are very different to the views expressed and we cannot work with an artist who is incompatible with our values. They have not insisted their's is the only right view (unlike the artist).

    I don't see this as one of the parties being right and the other wrong, or of RA punishing an artist, or of an artist punishing trans people. Instead it is two parties, who by virtue of their different views and values, one has said it cannot work with the other.




    Again, I disagree. In my opinion, what the artist has expressed is very clearly hateful and offensive and potentially harmful to a group of people. She is of course free to both hold and express that opinion, but it is in no way so subtle or nuanced that you have to search for or find some convoluted logic to see that. She is quoted as saying

    That is basically saying 'I define who you are - you don't have the right to do that yourself.' She may believe that but whether you agree with her or not, you do not have to dig to see why some people would be upset with that opinion.
    We’ll have to agree to disagree on this one Eten. I don’t think that the artist has done or said anything hateful. She expressed an opinion that millions concur with. The end is nigh.

    Leave a comment:


  • etenguy
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
    To be honest I suspect that the RA couldn’t give a collective rats arse about trans issues. They just don’t want to lose money. They don’t want labelling that would detrimentally affect them. It’s the labellers that are to blame. It’s a new form of bullying. “Conform to our opinions or we’ll destroy you.” The RA should have told them to “f^*k off!” They should accept that people might have opinions that they don’t like. They should accept that they’ve no right to keep insisting that their opinion is the only correct one and that opposing ones should be silenced. They should stop whining and find something constructive to do that doesn’t involve vindictively punishing people (with the help of cowards) that have done absolutely nothing wrong.
    Hi Herlock

    I am clearly in the minority here, but I don't see it like that at all.

    The artist expressed an opinion that many find offensive and disagree with. That opinion was basically saying to trans people - I deny you the right to define who you are, instead my opinion is the right one and you are not who you say you are. She is quite at liberty to both hold that opinion and to express it. It will nevertheless cause hurt and offense and potentially harm to a group of people. It is she that then goes on to criticise anyone (stonewall in particular) that disagrees with her view.

    The RA have said - our values are very different to the views expressed and we cannot work with an artist who is incompatible with our values. They have not insisted their's is the only right view (unlike the artist).

    I don't see this as one of the parties being right and the other wrong, or of RA punishing an artist, or of an artist punishing trans people. Instead it is two parties, who by virtue of their different views and values, one has said it cannot work with the other.


    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
    If you have to look at something that someone has said and think “well maybe if you looked at it this way or if you construed x as indicating y then it’s possible that a small proportion of z might, under certain circumstances, be upset” then it’s time to pack up and go home. If the artist had said something obviously hateful about trans people then they’d definitely have a point but she categorically didn’t. So they don’t. She had an opinion which differs from theirs. Which is only a level or two down from murder these days.
    Again, I disagree. In my opinion, what the artist has expressed is very clearly hateful and offensive and potentially harmful to a group of people. She is of course free to both hold and express that opinion, but it is in no way so subtle or nuanced that you have to search for or find some convoluted logic to see that. She is quoted as saying
    I can not accept people's unsubstantiated assertions that they are in fact the opposite sex to when they were born and deserve to be extended the same rights as if they were born as such
    That is basically saying 'I define who you are - you don't have the right to do that yourself.' She may believe that but whether you agree with her or not, you do not have to dig to see why some people would be upset with that opinion.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X