>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.
The problem is that they only actually got to the point of making that assessment on the basis of gender, when really, if you stop to actually think about it, why is gender imbalance the only reason we ended up considering it?
If you have a fully male workforce can't we also have a look at wether the warehouse is more valuable than the shop floor? And while we're at it why don't we have a look if the manager sat around picking his arsehole all day is actually more valuable than the sales team...? Ah... Well... Erm... Well... You see... But... Uhhh...
>>42377 Sometimes you just need to talk shit without any women around. The dynamics are always completely different when they're around, so it's nice to get a break from them at times.
Someone from Hope Not Hate wrote an article for The Guardian the other day about infiltrating far-right groups and it turns out most of them simply want a social group to belong to.
>Among the rank and file members of far-right organisations, I was struck by their loneliness. In discussion groups, in city pubs, at secret meetings in the countryside, many of them spoke about feeling like outcasts. In one organisation, I noticed that most members seemed more interested in companionship than political debate. They described their days of working in dull, unfulfilling jobs, and evenings spent listening to hours-long fascist live streams. When they attended conferences, many of them tuned out of the talks – I used to count the nodding heads of sleeping audience members, frequently reaching double figures. They looked forward most to the coffee breaks and post-event pints. Wanting connection is a common reason people give for arriving at these groups, and also what makes it hard for them to leave, even if they’re not enjoying themselves.
>At a conference of the Traditional Britain Group, an organisation that campaigns for the deportation of immigrants and citizens of foreign descent, I met a lot of conspiracy theorists. They believed shadowy elites were encouraging white women to have children with men of other races and ultimately extinguish the white race. Others claimed to have discovered the far right during the pandemic, when lockdowns and masks and vaccines prompted bizarre fantasies about the government trying to launch a genocide on its own people. Many of the men I encountered (they were at least 90% men) shared their disappointment that the friendships and relationships they expected from life had yet to materialise. One said he believed his romantic prospects were slim. “I consider myself pretty low down on the totem pole of society,” he said. Conspiracy theories can appeal to people who feel isolated, ignored and insignificant. Believing that an evil cabal controls the outcome of major world events could explain why one’s own life might not be unfolding as planned.
>What surprised me most was that despite my revulsion for what my new associates said and did, I often felt myself becoming friendly with them. It was hard not to. To fit in, I had to endear myself to new groups by being friendly and smiley. Naively, I hadn’t reckoned on them being friendly and smiley back. They thought I was one of them. On long bus journeys with Britain First, they would shout at south Asian drivers, jeer at black people and tell jokes about the Holocaust. Then they told me about their weight-loss goals and divorce proceedings, their grandchildren’s birthday parties and their garden renovations, their girlfriend troubles and their summer holidays.
>As they greeted me with cheers and handshakes, I told myself that what I was feeling was merely relief at their acceptance of me. But was there also the beginnings of warmth? I felt a confusing mix of disgust at what they did, fear about my own exposure and guilt. Guilt at befriending dozens of people with the intention of betraying them. As abhorrent as their views are, and as nasty as some of their actions may have been, these people invited me into their homes and shared intimate details with me about their lives and hopes and dreams. One day, I knew, I would sell them out.
I think this is what gets often overlooked. These types of organisations are very good at welcoming people and making them feel part of a community. A lot of men are crying out for social connections, particularly as the modern world seems to lead to to more and more isolation.
In a similar vein, I've heard that many Andrew Tate fans aren't drawn to him by his message. What appeals to them is the lifestyle; the women, the flash cars, whatever other trinkets and baubles he has. I know someone who taught in a school near Dewsbury and several of the Asian lads seriously aspired to be drug dealers because they aspired to have the cars that the dealers they knew in their community drove.
Reading this took me on a different train of thought.
>As they greeted me with cheers and handshakes, I told myself that what I was feeling was merely relief at their acceptance of me. But was there also the beginnings of warmth?
To some extent, this is a natural function of human relationships, surely. Being able to recognise someone's humanity and agree to disagree about external topics is important to maintaining any kind of friendship, in my experience. It's understandable if you want family and romantic partners to hold values similar to yours, but I've always thought it was better to have a range of views among a circle of friends and the wider community.
In my view, the issue isn't just atomisation, but also politicisation of the stupidest variety. There is very little scope for people to bond over meaningful topics, because the quality of discourse around these topics is extremely low - interestingly, some of the worst examples are found in well-funded media outlets. I know we poke fun of the "well akshually"-type intellectuals on the internet, but these represent people trying to find out something about the truth of the world. Some even make an effort to find supporting evidence. Compare that to news media where standards were never very good, but have fallen through the floor in the last ten years or so.
To gender things more, yes, this is more of an issue for men because women naturally hold a certain cache in social settings - they don't need to prove they belong, because usually at least one or two of the men will be interested in having them around. This easy access tends to give women a much broader social network without as much of a need for shared interests or activities. Men face a somewhat more stark set of options: settle down with a woman to fulfill their social needs and/or bond with make friends over more frivolous hobbies like the pub or computer games. The third option, to meaningfully participate in some larger movement based on belief, has all but disappeared and been supplanted by fringe political groups like this.
I have to wonder how many of the lads described in the article, with some interest in politics, society, morality, etc., might have belonged to a church group or a trade union a generation or two ago.
>>42380 >I have to wonder how many of the lads described in the article, with some interest in politics, society, morality, etc., might have belonged to a church group or a trade union a generation or two ago.
There's less of a jump to make - mainstream political party membership is on a downward trend. But I also think it's an article that lacks a smug sense of self-reflection because acceptance and someone to share the details of life with is what almost everyone wants - I don't for a second think that there aren't members of Hope Not Hate or trans/evangelist christian korean youtuber who aren't more committed to it as a social club and really by simple tribalism that's obviously a lot of the problem with issues.
I did watch a video recently that only drew me in because this weird kid started talking about her own childhood spent playing AoE obsessively on easy mode - then she started drawing the connection to Heidegger and it clicked in me how old this whole issue of atomisation actually is as I remember using Ferdinand Tönnies to talk about societies evolution of ad reaction to the New Poor Law over a decade ago at university, there's nothing new under the sun.
>>42381 >her own childhood spent playing AoE obsessively on easy mode
I have done that at various times, and I have been considering going back and doing it again. It's delightful and you shouldn't judge, although I also refuse to watch that video.
>>42378 If only there were some way of changing the law. If you had some point of contact with the people who make the laws, you'd have an outlet for the point you're making.
>>42382 >>42383 You can just ask Gemini to give you a short explainer of Youtube videos. You'll miss relating to her spending her childhood playing an RTS only to get destroyed when she played it with someone else as an adult but admittedly that won't allow you to be a smug cunt about it.
I feel like this picture encapsulates why a lot of people are uncomfortable with transwomen. You've got the one solitary cutie at the forefront of this protest who can pass as an actual women, which is why the cameras tend to gravitate towards her, but she's surrounded by a freakshow of assorted oddballs who still look like men and are, frankly, so ugly you can understand why they make people uncomfortable.
>>42450 >she's surrounded by a freakshow of assorted oddballs
I think that's more of a projection on your part, though it is a recognisable phenomena. It's quite possible to see these people as simply 'trans' rather than necessarily trying to be one or the other gender. The attractive people will stand out and gravitate.
I think right most dark hair could be cute, right most safe Dahmer, left wing looks dommy. Center is OF and production porn.
I'm more suprised with the unusual censoring - I thought they were pasties at first. It's as though the publisher couldn't decide of it's necessity or not.
Might read the article later :)
Do trans people actually feel attacked by he recent gender ruling (I don't think there was anything else in the news) and if so is it reasonable?
Surely they've already the freedom to live how the choose, with the possibility of a third toilet option?
>>42453 Do they feel attacked? If it was just a paper ruling it may not matter so much, but it's emboldened nutters to scream at them in the toilets, so yes, they do feel attacked.
Also if someone came to you and said sorry, you can't use the same facilities you've been using all your life because the government says so, you have to use this 'seperate but equal' option, oh and also we may need you to change all your identity documents - wouldn't you feel attacked? Wouldn't you think what is this Nazi shit?
>>42450 I don't think those of us who belong to tiny colony of internet oddballs ought to be deciding who gets rights and who doesn't based on how well we photograph.
>>42453 If the court ruling didn't strike you as an obvious attack (apparently a legislative aim of the EA2010 was actually to make the GRA2004 pointless, who knew?), the subsequent utterly unworkable EHRC guidance (just suggest everyone in Britain build a new gender neutral loo for the filthy evangelist christian korean youtubers, which will totally happen) should've given the game away.
It's one of those things that isn't really about what it's about. It's not about toilets, it's about piling small indignities on people, about pushing them outside the normal workings of society, hoping they'll become invisible again.
It'll never happen, barring a much more dramatic social conservative turn (which many of the people behind this want, mind you), 95% of trans visibility is online-only, spotlighted only to rage-bait boomers. This is them hiding.
>>42456 First of all I think if a person has been using a certainly designated public bathroom for all their life, they probably haven't experienced disproportionate difficulty in doing so. We all felt anxious shitting at school, that extends into adulthood.
The enboldened nutters are a legit concern and I suppose they have legal backing.
>Wouldn't you think what is this Nazi shit?
No, I'd have thought it's people not caring to think and empathise about things, like I've just found happen.
I suppose you could argue that 'a 3rd toilet' degrades a self-identified trans person to an oddball seperate from society, but as I'm aging I'm coming to redefine disabled toilets as 'okay to use when in dire necessity' from 'that weird spacker toilet', so there's every reason the trans toilet could be accepted. Wouldn't that solve a lot of issues?
>>42462 There isn't really an issue to solve. Even when it comes to public bathrooms, most aren't really single sex spaces for equality act purposes. The mens/womens bathroom in Tesco is labelled as such out of convention. Nobody cares when a mum takes in her 3 year old son, or takes any notice of the "these bathrooms are cleaned by staff of either gender" signs. If a man walked in, it'd be an issue for the store management, not the cops.
>>42463 I had been wondering about that. If I, a man who looks like an especially unathletic snooker player, stomped into the women's bogs, what would happen? Would I go to prison? Would I get fined? Would I just get tutted at? If it's the last one, what is the purpose of this bullshit law?
>>42464 What 'bullshit law'? The Equality Act? The purpose of the Equality Act is to protect people from discrimination on the grounds of, among other things, sex. There is a specific exemption to allow sex discrimination in toilets, so premises may not allow gents to enter the ladies', and vice versa.
It is not a crime to enter a toilet designated for the use of a gender other than your own, although you risk being accused of other offences such as voyeurism. As the poster above said, it's an issue for the management and not the cops, so to answer your question 'what would happen', they will do what you'd expect: ask you to leave, refuse to serve you, eject you, etc.
>>42465 In fairness, the equality act is bullshit. It's had a fair amount of help by dubious judicial decisions, bad-faith executive actions, and the Tories stacking the EHRC with bigots, but the fact that was possible at all speaks of its weaknesses as a piece of legislation. Almost everything it does well was covered by prior laws (some of which it turns out it accidentally made pointless), while much of the terrible stuff is new to it.
Unfortunately all this really means is that I won't be counting it as an "achievement" of the Brown government. After all, we're not going to replace it with anything better, are we?
The final of the ESL Impact women's Counter Strike 2 series had a team of cis women against a team where 4/5 members were transwomen. I'm not sure if biological males have an innate advantage over females when it comes to esports, but if I were in the women's league and lost to four transwomen, I'd be miffed.
>>42470 So which one was born female? My guess is bottom left, but she kind of has a manly jaw as well that I wouldn't have noticed if I wasn't getting very paranoid. I was going to say, "Maybe this is why intolerant women are always monster uggos" but then I remembered that the exact opposite is often true, with the infamous "Tory MILFs" and other hard-right fascist babes like Julia Hartley-Brewer and Isabel Oakeshott.
>>42471 >they just look like lads with long hair.
Only curly right I'd have thought a pretty renaissance boy, the others are distintly 'trans adjacent' though I couldn't tell you why. Something in the curve of the faces? Leftmost has that pointey shrew like quality not necessarily assosiated with trans, but coupled with the straight hair and clear skin (makeup?) it suggests something. Maybe I didn't spend enough time around rockers?
Bottom left looks like a trans male, which is cool too.
It's probably the mix of base masculine coupled with the traditionally feminine qualities like long hair, skincare and cute eyeglasses.
But that doesn't explain the difference in my perception of the curley haired one.
I feel like a bit of a pedo saying this shit. Is it any different to rating womens looks? These lot are are a protected - apparently vulnerble - group after all :|
I'm sorry for being a bad person :(
I think I might have been drawn into the whole trans thing if it was about when I went through school. I have a vague awareness of what older gay people must have felt when their sexuality became socially valid - jelousy having missed the boat, forced to suddenly see the pretty things you could have at one point been.
It's just a matter of will, isn't it? They had the option to forfil their sexuality even when it was socially unaccepted - presumably many did. I could start wearing that sarong and plaited hair publically even though I'm an ugly middle aged man. Someone might like it - then I've got to come to terms with the fact that it's unlikely an attractive person might like it and start all that bollocks of shame knowing I could only get with other people like me.
Fuck it all - probably easier to hate myself and them instead.
We've had recent controversies about trans women competing in darts and chess. I see a lot of apparently intelligent people driving themselves completely insane by trying to reconcile their belief that women are equal to men with their instinct that trans women can't be allowed to compete against cis women in any context. It'd be tragic if it weren't so fucking annoying.
>>42472 Bottom left (raven) is the one I think is cis. But looking at some of her pics on X I'm not 100% confident. Her actual first name is Raven, which is quite trans-coded. Though if she is trans, she passes and is cute.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/may/26/uk-equality-watchdog-months-sign-off-gender-guidance-mps-fear So the solution to getting EHRC guidance on how to not break the law appears to be "wait until the reactionary crank appointed by Liz Truss fucks off, then do something sensible" because her first attempt at guidance was comically dire - a mix of self contradictory gibberish and comically expensive proposals - that it barely mattered that it also had almost no relation to what the recent court ruling actually said.
But remember, this whole fuss is totally a battle of legitimate concerns against evangelist christian korean youtuber perverts, not total bullshit pushed by deranged, America-brained newspaper columnists, the idle rich, and a desperate Tory government that underestimated just how many groups Keir Starmer would throw under the bus and so decided that permanently fucking up the devolution settlement was a small price to pay for a culture war that might boost them 2% in the polls.
>A train driver insisted they were not evangelist christian korean youtuber but “just ugly” when challenged by colleagues after the Supreme Court ruling on gender.
>The “just ugly” comment was quoted in a submission made by Aslef, the train drivers’ trade union, to an Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) consultation. In its submission, Aslef said: “Since the ruling, there have been examples of our members being questioned about their biological sex by colleagues to the level where one member felt the need to explain to their colleagues that ‘they are just ugly’.
>“We are seriously concerned that similar situations may arise where women in particular are queried about their biological sex to the extent that a birth certificate may be requested and the certificate itself even then queried further.”
>>42638 I think, in the desperation to post your favourite passage from noted childrens author and derranged racist, Roald Dahl, you've failed to understand a single thing that is mentioned in the post you replied to.
No one is going to like you here if talk smack about beloved heroes. This isn't the woke side of twitter. People are going to off hand dismiss you as someone who feels they need to says provocative things for attention.
>>42641 👍 Roald Dahl - "I've become anti-semitic".
I'm quite certain this has been rather well covered and indeed it formed a minor conspiracy theory of mine regarding that time publishers of his books announced they'd be editing out some stuff from his children's books. That is to say, they were only doing that because a couple of years prior Roald's last big round of media coverage had been about how anti-Jewish he had become. And the publishers knew a lot of easily outraged folk, not unlike yourself, would blow their stack upon hearing what the "snowflakes" were doing to Dahl's work. The publishers, no doubt under unrelenting public pressure, were forced to throw up their hands and say "well, if you really want to buy the original books from us, you leave us no choice". Again, this is a theory of mine, but I find it more convincing than the idea that the publishing houses all of a sudden decided that Augustus Gloop needed to be given a gastric band.
I think the anti-semitism reporting was in 2020 with the plot of the publishers being a couple of years later. Not on Twitter either, haven't been in some thirteen years.
If you still think my labeling of Dahl as a racist is inexplicable then how about you gargle my balls instead, you odious pedant.
Virginia Woolfe still gets hours of programming dedicated to her on Radio 4 yet she was a proper screaming racist, like an actual undeniably textbook one, as well as vicious class snob. If she can still be a cornerstone of literature than I don't understand why we have to have this level of meltdown over Rol'd Daal.
It would be my pleasure to point out that, like a lot of the stuff people fly into a blind rage about me posting, I thought saying "children's author and derranged racist" was funny. Because it's a shocking juxtaposition. It is also true, which is why I posted >>42644 , but I only had to do that because Twitterlad had a teary. However, not everything you find disagreeable requires DEFCON 1-level reaction, or renders someone as the very essence of your most loathed social archetype. Do you watch films and fly off the handle when a protagonist does something you don't like? Or listen to stand-ups crack jokes that you can't relate to and start throwing shit at your telly? I properly don't understand why half the posters on .gs are so highly strung. Perhaps it's the heat.
> Do you watch films and fly off the handle when a protagonist does something you don't like? Or listen to stand-ups crack jokes that you can't relate to and start throwing shit at your telly? I properly don't understand why half the posters on .gs are so highly strung. Perhaps it's the heat.
How long have you been posting here? It's one of the trademarks of .gs. Come for the quibbling, stay for the full blown cunt off.
Just saying, old timey writers generally get to be racist and shit. If even the snobby middle class hummus eaters at the BBC are alright with it then I defer to my betters and shrug my shoulders. Role Darl has to be one of the least egregious cases where he was probably a very nice and pleasant person all around despite some backward attitudes, but I doubt the same can be said of a great many authors. So why are we bothering with a cunt off about him?
>>42652 I've heard "grimdark" without any reference to the Black Library (it was in reference to The Black Company). Culture permeates, but I think this is one that persists.
https://www.11kbw.com/knowledge-events/case/police-participation-in-pride-held-unlawful/ >In a claim raising issues described by the Judge as “important, current, controversial and of public interest”, the High Court has ruled that participation by police officers in a Pride event was unlawful, on the basis that it breached duties of impartiality.
>The claim for judicial review was brought by Lindsey Smith, a gender-critical lesbian, who objected to the participation of officers in Newcastle’s Pride in the City 2024. The officers marched in the parade, and staffed a stall displaying the colours of the Progress flag, at which a police van painted in the Progress colours was stationed.
>In a judgment handed down today, Mr Justice Linden held that by authorising officers to participate in Pride in the ways they did, the Chief Constable of the force, Vanessa Jardine, made a decision which was not legally open to her, since “on any view” the activities authorised “would be likely to give rise to the impression amongst members of the public that they may” interfere with the officers’ impartial discharge of their policing duties. The decision was therefore irrational. The Court held further that it was irrational on further bases, including that the Chief Constable had misunderstood the nature of the public sector equality duty.
Having read the judgement, I feel quite sorry for the Chief Constable. There's such a tangled mess of legislation that it seems like they would have ended up in court no matter what.
