- Files: GIF, JPG, PNG, Maximum:10000 KB, Thumbnails: 600x600 pixels
- Currently 1527 unique user posts. View catalogue
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]
Posting mode: Reply [Last 50 posts][ Reply ]
556 posts omitted. Last 50 posts shown.
Expand all images.
|>>|| No. 15041
>Drag queens banned from performing at Free Pride Glasgow event over fears acts will offend trans people
>The organisation said in a statement that it hopes to create a safe space for all members of the LGBTQIA+ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, queer, intersex, asexual) community, and that while the decision may "disappoint" some people "the needs of the most marginalised groups within our community come first."
>Free Pride Glasgow said: “It was felt that it [drag performance] would make some of those who were transgender or questioning their gender uncomfortable. It was felt by the group within the Trans/Non Binary Caucus that some drag performance, particularly cis drag, hinges on the social view of gender and making it into a joke, however transgender individuals do not feel as though their gender identity is a joke.”
Life rarely takes the piss out of itself like this. It almost sounds like the plot of a South Park episode.
|>>|| No. 20494
Transgender lobby forces sanitary towel-maker Always to ditch Venus logo from its products
The maker of Always sanitary pads has given in to claims of discrimination by transgender men and removed the ‘Venus’ symbol of the female sex from the wrapping.
A trans activist using the pseudonym ‘Melly Boom’ had tweeted in July asking Always why it was ‘imperative’ to have the sign on their sanitary products. The tweet said: ‘There are non-binary and trans folks who still need to use your products too you know!’
Another activist, Ben Saunders – named young campaigner of the year by LGBT charity Stonewall in May after making a documentary about being transgender – contacted the sanitary pad makers in June with a similar complaint. The Always marketing team replied with a comment that Saunders, 18, posted on Twitter, reading: ‘We are glad to inform you that as of December we will use a wrapper design without the feminine symbol.’ The message stated that sanitary towels with the new packaging would hit the stores by January 2020 and added: ‘We are absolutely grateful for having people like you voicing their opinions.’
P&G, the American company that owns the Always brand, has confirmed that the new sanitary pad packaging without the venus symbol would be introduced across Europe. A spokesman for the firm said: ‘For over 35 years, Always has championed girls and women, and we will continue to do so. We’re also committed to diversity and inclusion, and we realise that not everyone who has a period and needs to use a pad identifies as female.’
Removing the Venus symbol from female sanitary products because it discriminates against transfolk. What magnificent bastards we are as a species.
|>>|| No. 20497
What sort of headline is that?
There was nothing forced about it. It sounds like two people made a complaint, and there'll be another type of sanitary pad released without the symbol. It doesn't even say that they're discontinuing the old one.
The story is trivial. The worst thing that's happened here is that a private company has made an effort to make a particular product more inclusive to people who don't want to strictly identify with a gendered logo. Has anything really been lost, here?
|>>|| No. 20498
It's big because Venus, Aphrodite, the Morning Star is losing worship. Nobody wants to be responsible for that. Call it hocus pocus if you want but names and symbols have meaning, Venus is losing her feminine call in the eyes of the many and that is huge.
|>>|| No. 20499
>Has anything really been lost, here?
There's an entire culture war between women and transfolk that is passing us by. Apparently there's a Flora boycott after they pulled advertising from Mumsnet because refusing to deny basic biology has been deemed transphobic.
|>>|| No. 20506
Imagine bumping the same thread every morning.
|>>|| No. 20558
A birth coach has been ‘ostracised’ by her professional organisation after transgender activists branded as offensive a Facebook post in which she said that only women can have babies.
Lynsey McCarthy-Calvert, 45, was forced to stand down as spokesperson for Doula UK and has since resigned altogether from the national organisation for birth coaches. Her exit comes after transgender rights activists triggered an investigation in which Doula UK concluded her message breached its equality and diversity guidelines.
They did not expel the mother- of-four, who has been a doula – who provide continuous support during pregnancy – for six years, but threatened to suspend her unless she deleted the post. Mrs McCarthy-Calvert did so, but resigned believing Doula UK had ‘acquiesced’ to demands from a small number of activists and failed to stand up for women’s rights.
The Doula UK row started after Cancer Research UK dropped the word ‘women’ from its smear test campaign, instead saying screening was ‘relevant for everyone aged 25-64 with a cervix’.
It's offensive to point out that only women can give birth or should have smear tests. The world's gone mad!
|>>|| No. 20559
The point is that people can identify as something other than a woman but still have the reproductive organs of a binary woman. It might be quite a lot to get your head around, but if you just ignore it and stop getting angry about it and let people decide who they are, it'll get much less infuriating for you.
|>>|| No. 20561
Perhaps she should have said 'only females can have babies.
It seems rather extreme to force her out of a job for such a simple mistake, if it even is one tbh.
You do you expect to have happened if she stood her ground and refused to leave?
|>>|| No. 20562
Why don't the gender bending wierdos take your advice then, and stop getting angry when someone innocently assumes they're not going to offend anyone by stating a fact that has been empirically true for the last several thousand years of human thought, and has only recently begun to change thanks to a tiny minority of individuals.
I've nothing against people being blokes with fannies or vice versa, but the way some of that lot kick up a stink sometimes is sheer entitlement.
|>>|| No. 20567
This whole "cancel" nonsense is getting tiresome. It sends entirely the wrong message, and has some perverse effects in practice.
Case-in-point: A woman says something that's not entirely on-side, and she's ostracised and loses her livelihood. Meanwhile, actual sexual predator Harvey Weinstein turns up at a comedy club, gets called out in-person by no fewer than four people, and they're the ones that end up having to leave.
The moral of the story: Never be a bit of a dick, because you'll be punished by a moralising mob. Instead, be a complete and utter cunt, and they'll never be able to touch you.
|>>|| No. 20568
I agree, despite agreeing with the general idea of what the braying justice mob are standing for, I just don't think the way it's done is useful or helpful. I don't for a second think you'll ever get someone who doesn't 'believe in trannies' to change their mind, but attacking and shaming them for talking about it only serves to strengthen the idea that this is two sides of an argument, rather than the idea of treating people how they want to be treated with the least emotional casualties possible.
TL;DR be nice to each other?
|>>|| No. 20569
I feel like if side A of the argument is "I feel bad/disrespected when you call me x" and side B is "I'm aware of that but still angry that I have to call you x", then there's a pretty clear answer here, but I don't fucking know, I'm just some bloke and I can't really imagine ever caring about how other people label me, but I can certainly empathise with the difficulties of being 'not normal'.
|>>|| No. 20571
You are being dishonest to the non tranny supporting crowd.
If someone told you they believed the sky was green and that to say any different was offensive you might not cooperate because you think it is an absurd fantasy you don't want to indulge, or they are mistaken and need correcting. In fact you might consider it deeply unhealthy that you indulge them, and that doing so would only make them worse, what would be better is to correct their mistake. Or at least walk away accepting they are wrong but you can't correct them, so be it.
What becomes weirder is when other people around you start saying the sky is green, out of some sort of solidarity. They surely know the sky isn't green and is clearly blue, it is obviously blue why are we all saying it is green? At some point society becomes so used to calling the sky green that people gasp when someone says it is blue.
The same is true to them for genitals and sexual identity 'Were you born with x genitals? therefore you are a Y?' It is a very simple formula. It is much more logical to assume someone is mistaken then that the entire way we identify our functional purpose in reproduction is wrong. It is a very simple self evident classification system that has been the model to every culture since the dawn of history why is it suddenly not right?
But now that we can cosmetically change the appearance of a person does that make the classification system wrong? Well we still aren't at the stage of functionality changing the reproductive system so the argument would be no. No more than wearing black face makes you black even if you do it with the deepest sincerity and it is really convincing.
I suspect those people would be won over when functional transitions exist But I suspect there will be a new movement of appeal to nature and slippery slope at that point. After all I was brought up with a belief cosmetic surgery (when not used to correct some serious deformity) was a vanity driven abomination on society and we should be comfortable with what nature made us otherwise we'll never be satisfied, and it takes some effort to square the circle that we now accept cosmetic surgery correcting nature to conform to how we see ourselves for a lot of people rather than change our opinions to fit what is seemingly more objective.
|>>|| No. 20572
Your analogy is shit and implies being transgender is purely a mental illness, which is an interesting discussion in itself, but a rather troubling conclusion to make considering the medical community as a whole supports and actively carries out gender reassignment.
>After all I was brought up with a belief cosmetic surgery (when not used to correct some serious deformity)
A serious deformity like being in the wrong body, you mean?
|>>|| No. 20573
You know that the medical fields position is that being trans is a form of body dismophia, which is indeed a mental illness. They just concluded that it is easier to appease body dismophia than to 'cure' it. Treatment is just a form of relief.
But yes the same way regardless how offended a religious person might get that you don't believe in their god. You are entirely allowed to not believe in their God.
>A serious deformity like being in the wrong body, you mean?
No much more like you don't like the hand nature delt and want a mulligan.
If I told you I had blue eyes when you can see from looking at me my eyes are brown, would your first reaction be to assume that I was trapped in the body of a person with brown eyes? And if the only way of giving me blue eyes would result in replacing them with non functional glass eyes that made me blind. Would you consider that a good idea? Anything short of a court battle before a medical person agreed to deliberately blinded me would be inappropriate. Do you think everyone around me should be supportive of my plight without question and cast away immediate doubts that I am doing the right thing?
People always turn their nose up at trans ethic and otherkin comparisons, like it is a slippery slope argument, but it is perfectly appropriate. Why are those ideas any less sound? The same way a religious person would scoff if you compared belief in the Lord to Zeus. There absolutely is a point there and if you reaction is anything other than 'makes sense' you are intellectually hypocritical.
|>>|| No. 20574
>But yes the same way regardless how offended a religious person might get that you don't believe in their god. You are entirely allowed to not believe in their God.
Absolutely, but if I tweeted that Christians were mentally ill I'd probably expect my boss to tell me to delete it.
|>>|| No. 20575
>Do you think everyone around me should be supportive of my plight without question and cast away immediate doubts that I am doing the right thing?
I don't think you quite understand how hard a trans person has to work to convince their doctor that reassignment is for them. There's little point continuing this discussion while you labour under the delusion that you can wander into your GP and get your knob chopped off on a whim.
|>>|| No. 20577
I doubt they would, you can be as critical as you like about christianity as a general rule in society as long as it is in public. They might not want you to on the grounds of loss of business which is a different point altogether. And hardly a moral high ground.
There are other one true religions they would encourage you to take down more aggressively but that is mostly because they don't want to get killed. Which again I understand but not a good principle.
|>>|| No. 20578
>You know that the medical fields position is that being trans is a form of body dismophia, which is indeed a mental illness. They just concluded that it is easier to appease body dismophia than to 'cure' it. Treatment is just a form of relief.
This. I don't think a transgender person will perceive their body as "deformed", but just as a body they don't want.
Gender dysphoria/dysmorphia is a very difficult phaenomenon to explain on a good day. There are a lot of patients who outgrow it eventually and accept their body, especially among teenage patients. A lot of those patients will then however turn out gay or lesbian. Then there are those who consider themselves "gender fluid" and don't want to fully commit to either (binary) gender.
The step from gender dysphoria to procedures of gender reassignment is only permitted (in the UK) when a patient has shown a persistent, long-term conviction that they are really in the wrong body. Those patients are actually the smallest group. Their gender dysphoria does not respond to traditional approaches like cognitive behavioural therapy, and seems to be as hard coded in them as sexual orientation is in many people.
And in the same way that gay conversion therapy only leads to more emotional problems for the patient, nobody commonly tries to "cure" transgender patients of their transsexuality. The most effective approcach is gender affirmation therapy, again, because transsexuality is often so hard coded in the brain that other forms of treatment are ineffective in improving the emotional well being of the patient.
|>>|| No. 20579
You know, the more I think about, the more I feel like TERFlad (Trans Exclusionary Radical Furry) had a point. If gender is a social construct and you can be a woman despite fully functioning male genitals, I don't see how it's a big leap towards people identifying as black despite their lack of melanin, or people identifying as dogs despite their lack of a tail.
I know a lot of people's gut instinct is to say "Well that's different, obviously." but just out of plain principle I'm struggling to see if it really is.
There is a lot of infighting within the trans culture it seems, I was reading on another site about terms like "transmedicalist" which appears to be some sort of stigma against people who classify trans identity as a medical condition to be treated, even if they are fighting in favour of trans rights. I am broadly supportive of the cause but I can't help but think there's a lot of folks on-board purely because it suits them, and not practicing what they preach about inclusivity.
|>>|| No. 20580
>some sort of stigma against people who classify trans identity as a medical condition to be treated, even if they are fighting in favour of trans rights
I've said this here before, the reason the people on that side aren't prevailing is the constant TK'ing from people on their own side.
|>>|| No. 20581
As many movements tend to be, I think it's also that they're a pretty fragmented lot, with each subgroup adhering to often very dogmatic sets of beliefs and schools of thought that can be very much mutually exclusive.
I see nothing wrong with calling transsexuality a medical or psychological condition. Or even a disorder. I don't think it implies any kind of judgement. Something obviously isn't in order, i.e. you're unhappy with your hairy sweaty bollocks genitals, ergo you undergo treatment so things will be in order for you.
I struggled with depression for many years, and I have no problem at all with someone calling it a mental disorder. Because clinical depression very much fucking is. Nothing about your life is "in order" if you compulsively contemplate suicide almost every day when you get up. I got treatment for a serious mental disorder as far as I am concerned, and I see no stigma attached to the word "disorder" at all. Everything else is just common snowflakery.
|>>|| No. 20584
So I've been reading up on the transmedicalist thing. This bit otherlad said got me pondering.
>I don't think a transgender person will perceive their body as "deformed", but just as a body they don't want.
Basically what it is, is that you're being exclusionary if you don't consider people without dysphoria to be real trans people. In other words, it's frowned upon to draw a line between people who are medically trans, and people who, for lack of better words, simply want to be trans of their own free will.
Going by that rationale I honestly can't see a counter argument to trans-racialists or extreme furries who claim to identify as their animal of choice. If that's the body you want, these people are saying you have a right to be identified as such.
The feeling I get is that I'd be torn to shreds for suggesting this in certain places, as though I'm trolling or trying to discredit trans people.
|>>|| No. 20585
Gets even more complicated when you consider that some gay and lesbian groups are regarding HRT/GRS as a medical assault on young LGBT people who after a period of teenage confusion would eventually settle into their gay/lesbian identity (or so the theory goes).
I don't even care anymore, it's a fucking circus.
|>>|| No. 20586
I'm with you here. I don't actually think that changes my mind about supporting trans people and gender reassignment though, I quite simply don't care if someone wants surgery to look like a cat either, and I feel like a society that accepts that sort of thing is probably quite advanced. I'm sort of reminded of the Alien genome people in Transmetropolitan, though society wasn't kind to them in that story either.
To bring it back from comic books a bit, there are people who suffer from feeling as though a limb doesn't belong to them and they want it amputated. As far as I know nobody really entertains actually providing this service to these patients, but I don't know if it's fundamentally any different to gender reassignment, is it?
|>>|| No. 20587
>there are people who suffer from feeling as though a limb doesn't belong to them and they want it amputated. As far as I know nobody really entertains actually providing this service to these patients, but I don't know if it's fundamentally any different to gender reassignment, is it?
They absolutely do entertain it. This is a cornerstone of justifying transitioning on the NHS and why it is treated as dysmopher. Because it doesn't require you to believe what they think is true only that they are in psychological distress that this will relief.
|>>|| No. 20589
My nan got one 60 years ago. Granted, it was at a factory rather than a hospital ...
|>>|| No. 20601
Furrylad here. Can confirm, people have been very fucking short with me for trying to draw comparisons like that. You make some valid points.
I think mainly the perception is that it's a disingenuous thing, similar to those times where a white middle class lad claims they're just as much victims of discrimination because X Y Z reason. Even if it's a valid point, people react against it because they will usually assume you're a "bad faith actor" trying to hit them with one of those "Gotcha!" arguments.
There's also just a perception (based on the old attack helicopter meme) that going beyond gender is self evidently either ridiculous, or dishonest. Maybe you don't need dysphoria to be trans, but I personally definitely have dysphoria about being a boring hairless ape. Role playing and hanging around other furs is the only way I get to feel some kind of connection to what feels like my "real" self identity.
I've had self proclaimed leftists attack me because being a furry is "just a hobby", not a self identity- I mean if you want to split hairs I could say having sex with other men is just a hobby. Dressing in drag is a hobby. A hobby that often leads to coming out as trans.
But, you know, people are hypocrites. Nothing surprising about that.
|>>|| No. 20602
How is it that you identify as a furry? I'm not even sure what that means.
|>>|| No. 20605
You know how in the Matrix where in the real world aboard the Nebuchadnezzar, everyone is a pasty malnourished baldy cunt; but when they go into the matrix they're attractive, athletic and sharply dressed. Morpheus tells Neo that's your projected self image.
It's kind of like that. If I went in the Matrix I'd be an anthropomorphic animal.
In fact, as a piece of related trivia, there was supposed to be a character in an early draft of the Matrix who was male outside, but female inside. It got cut presumably for being unacceptable back then.
|>>|| No. 20619
> there was supposed to be a character in an early draft of the Matrix who was male outside, but female inside. It got cut presumably for being unacceptable back then.
Funny when you think that that movie was done by two transsexuals.
|>>|| No. 20621
Not really. Maybe they wanted to do it for the exact reason but felt society wouldn't be accepting of it.
|>>|| No. 20622
It more likely got cut for being confusing to the audience than anything else.
|>>|| No. 20625
That's how the character Switch got their name. You know, the "Not like this..." one. I doubt the removal was political since nobody knew enough about transexualism back then to object to it. But it would have been one more weird element in a film that execs already worried would be too hard to understand for the general public.
|>>|| No. 20627
That's the one. I tried to find a picture but couldn't remember the character's names. But yeah, I suppose they already got away with a lot in that movie. It's more or less a kitchen sink of philosophy and speculative sci-fi ideas.
|>>|| No. 20629
>It's more or less a kitchen sink of philosophy and speculative sci-fi ideas.
Nearly all of which were pretty much nicked from other sci-fi movies and franchises. In that sense, the Matrix was kind of a pastiche of all the ideas about a high-tech dystopian future that were already out there.
Even the production design wasn't as groundbreaking as everybody said (bullet time aside), and took loads of inspiration from films like Men in Black. Not even the effect of (faux) Japanese characters running down a monochromatic computer screen was new, it could first be seen in Independence Day while they're aboard the alien mother ship.
Ok, so bullet time was the one effect that the Matrix genuinely created. Good for them. Everything else, they copied.
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]