[ rss / options / help ]
post ]
[ b / iq / g / zoo ] [ e / news / lab ] [ v / nom / pol / eco / emo / 101 / shed ]
[ art / A / beat / boo / com / fat / job / lit / map / mph / poof / £$€¥ / spo / uhu / uni / x / y ] [ * | sfw | o ]
logo
news

Return ] Entire Thread ] First 100 posts ] Last 50 posts ]

Posting mode: Reply
Reply ]
Subject   (reply to 15041)
Message
File  []
close
dragqueens_0.jpg
150411504115041
>> No. 15041 Anonymous
10th May 2018
Thursday 5:43 pm
15041 spacer
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/drag-queens-banned-from-performing-at-free-pride-glasgow-event-over-fears-acts-will-offend-trans-10405214.html

>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.
Expand all images.
>> No. 15042 Anonymous
10th May 2018
Thursday 6:25 pm
15042 spacer
>>15041
I wondered how one is reliably supposed to sort men in drag from trans birds and of course they've thought of this and found a solution that makes complete sense.

>It went on to stress that attendees can wear "what they want" and "express their gender how they please", but that "self-described drag acts" would not be allowed to perform.
>> No. 15044 Anonymous
10th May 2018
Thursday 6:34 pm
15044 spacer
This is very odd. I know a few people who are in to drag acts and from them I can tell it's a very inclusive sort of thing. As I understand it, it's a very specific form of expression for gay men and it seems daft to think it's in any way antagonistic or mocking of gender identity. There's a very big difference between drag acts and blokes wearing dresses for their stag do, and the difference primarily is tolerance.

Drag queens are just as much a part of LGBT culture as anyone else. It also seems illogical that a trans person would see a gay man dressing and acting as (a theatrical version of) a woman would be anything other than empowering or reassuring? If this bloke can do it then so can I, sort of thing?

People these days will argue their own communities apart with po faced righteousness. So much for solidarity.
>> No. 15046 Anonymous
10th May 2018
Thursday 6:41 pm
15046 spacer
>>15044
I have heard of petitions to ban certain drag acts from Canal Street in Manchester on the basis that their act is transphobic when in reality it's nothing of the sort.

We're living in strange times:

>A sexuality expert has said parents should ask babies for their permission before changing their nappies in order to set up a culture of consent from birth.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/im-going-change-your-nappy-12511101
>> No. 15048 Anonymous
10th May 2018
Thursday 6:43 pm
15048 spacer
>>15042

It's that snowflake thing...

"You can have any opinion you want, as long as it's my opinion or one that I deem suitable."
>> No. 15049 Anonymous
10th May 2018
Thursday 6:46 pm
15049 spacer
>>15046
So what are you supposed to do when affirmed consent is not forthcoming? Leave them to wallow in their own shit? Or teach them instead that the powerful can override consent?
>> No. 15050 Anonymous
10th May 2018
Thursday 6:50 pm
15050 spacer
>>15046

My hope is that within a generation or two LGBTetc will be normalised in a broad enough way that this bizarre "who is more hard done by" culture can stop. I suspect it won't as it's a great way to control people, but here we are.

A friend of mine made a great point that these sorts of social justice people annoy the piss out of him, as he's gay, and they treat him with an odd sort of reverence and sensitivity that they wouldn't a straight bloke - thus still treating him unequally. He can never be sure if he's really friends with these marple haired women or if he's merely part of a social proof of their righteousness. By being hyper aware of his sexuality at all times, they make him feel even less normalised - like their relentless crusade makes him feel like a freak who should be swaddled in bubblewrap, rather than just a bloke who happens to like blokes.

This is only one chap's opinion but I reckon he's not alone in feeling that way. I certainly would if I were gay.
>> No. 15052 Anonymous
10th May 2018
Thursday 7:05 pm
15052 spacer
>>15049

>Leave them to wallow in their own shit?

Exactly this, I would guess.

In its own strange way, that would then revive a parenting concept that has been falling out of fashion for fear of hurting your precious little snowflakes, and that is to learn from your own mistakes.

For example, I once fell into a knee deep ditch with water and mud, belly first and with my face then covered in dirt all over, while I was out in the woods with my parents on a Sunday afternoon walk. I started crying and screaming, but my dad just said "You're going to have to be more careful next time, if you want to keep this from happening". That was it. I knew from that point on that roadside ditches were treacherous, and it never happened to me again. Compare that to today's parents, who are even afraid to let their kids out of their walled up back gardens without all manner of protective devices.

We are raising a generation of eternal five-year-olds, with no appropriate sense of danger and no ability to look after themselves, and who will all be needing therapy by age 30.

But there is hope that not all countries are like that. Not every culture raises its children to remain children for life.
I travelled to Turkey a few years ago, and one night on the beach, I saw two weelads who couldn't have been older than about ten, and they were going out spear fishing at dusk, just wearing swimming trunks and children's diving goggles. And with daylight fading fast, they were hunting squid in the gloom of the coastal waters, as they later told me (and showed me their catch). Two completely unsupervised 10-year-olds, spear fishing for squid in the dark and without lights while the wind was picking up and the seas were getting slightly rough. I don't know any parents here in Britain who wouldn't be having kittens at the thought of letting their 10-year-olds do anything like that. But in Turkey, apparently this isn't out of the ordinary.
>> No. 15058 Anonymous
10th May 2018
Thursday 7:16 pm
15058 spacer
>>15052


You're not wrong. My mum told me she had to have words with my grandma, as when she looked after me she was deathly afraid of anything that might even come close to hurting me - she managed to make me afraid of bees for a few years because she'd freak the fuck out whenever one came in the garden and usher me inside as if we were in the middle of an air raid.

I don't doubt that she meant well, but I daresay if I'd been raised by her, I'd be a massive fucking fanny. Now that I'm thinking about it - my dad is a giant man baby who can't function without a woman to look after him. Hmm.
>> No. 15060 Anonymous
10th May 2018
Thursday 7:26 pm
15060 spacer
>>15050
As a bi-lad I'd say it's a mixed bag.

Most of this nonsense passes me by as I tend to view myself as a person first and foremost who just happens to be attracted to men and women rather than letting my sexuality define me.

I know some people who fully get wrapped up a bubble where they're obsessed with finding things 'problematic' or perceiving 'micro-aggressions' everywhere they go. They'll read blogs within their little echo chambers and convince themselves that something which has passed most people by, or if they're aware of it they just shrug and move on, is a really big fucking deal.

What I'm saying is that you find twats in all walks of life, regardless of sexuality.
>> No. 15063 Anonymous
10th May 2018
Thursday 7:39 pm
15063 spacer
>>15050

Some people just want something to be offended about, some cause that makes them a righteous warrior for good and everyone else an evil oppressor.

The QUILTBAG lot are absolutely tedious. They spend endless amounts of time bickering about labels and microaggressions, but they say and do nothing about the real issues facing gay and trans* people and MSMs. I've had numerous conversations with studenty social justice types who claim to be QUILTBAG "advocates" but have never heard of chemsex, Scruff, Birchplace or PrEP.
>> No. 15068 Anonymous
10th May 2018
Thursday 8:54 pm
15068 spacer
>>15063

>Some people just want something to be offended about, some cause that makes them a righteous warrior for good and everyone else an evil oppressor.

The SJW movement in a nutshell.
>> No. 15072 Anonymous
10th May 2018
Thursday 9:11 pm
15072 spacer
Christ this site has become like fucking YouTube comments.
>> No. 15073 Anonymous
10th May 2018
Thursday 9:13 pm
15073 spacer
>>15068
It's all been down hill since we acquiesced to the demands of the suffragette daft militant wog group.
>> No. 15074 Anonymous
10th May 2018
Thursday 9:14 pm
15074 spacer
>>15063
I'm gay and have never heard of Scruff or Birchplace. Am I not gay enough for you, gay police?
>> No. 15076 Anonymous
10th May 2018
Thursday 9:46 pm
15076 spacer
>>15074

Birchplace is a web site where you can meet GLBT people and reply to profile ads.

I'm straight and I know Birchplace.
>> No. 15077 Anonymous
10th May 2018
Thursday 10:03 pm
15077 spacer
>>15076
>I'm straight and I know Birchplace.
So? Again, does that make you more gay than me, or more pro-gay, or some other ridiculous contention? Why do you need to be aware of some dating site in order to support LGBT people? It's just nonsense.
>> No. 15080 Anonymous
10th May 2018
Thursday 11:29 pm
15080 spacer
>>15077
M8 you just lost in a gay-off to a straight lad.
>> No. 15081 Anonymous
10th May 2018
Thursday 11:42 pm
15081 spacer
>>15074

>Am I not gay enough for you, gay police?

I wouldn't expect any gay or trans* person to have a broad knowledge of the scene as a whole. Most people are just getting on with their lives, which is absolutely fine. I would expect a self-described activist or advocate to know that stuff. My grievance is with people who seem to spend most of their free time banging on about what society should and shouldn't be doing with respect to LGBT issues, despite being very ignorant about many of the people they purport to represent.

Birchplace is important because it's the main hub for trans* dating and sex work. If you don't know that it exists, you're highly unlikely to be aware of the extent to which many young trans* people engage in sex work in order to survive, or the huge number of foreign trans* sex workers who are living and working in the UK without legal residency status. These people are incredibly vulnerable, but they're not getting the support they need from the health service and the third sector.

Scruff is a masc-only version of Grindr. It represents a hugely significant issue in the gay scene, namely the stigmatisation of femme behaviour. It's also the venue for a lot of the highest-risk behaviour on the hookup and party scene. I should also mention Jack'd, an app predominantly used by BME gay men, because it highlights the remarkable amount of overt racism in some corners of the scene and the unique difficulties faced by many BME LGBT people.
>> No. 15082 Anonymous
11th May 2018
Friday 12:27 am
15082 spacer
>>15080

He did it to himself basically, when he misinterpreted that statement as an attack on his gayness.

I always thought they teach you in gay school very early on that gayer-than-thou cunt offs lead nowhere.
>> No. 15084 Anonymous
11th May 2018
Friday 7:17 am
15084 spacer
>>15081
>the remarkable amount of overt racism

This is a rather problematic statement to make.

Firstly, there's the rather patronising assumption that being gay automatically means you're more tolerant than other people. Some of the most intolerant people I know are gay. There's a good reason black and Asian people tend to be viewed with suspicion and that's simply because these groups tend to be more homophobic in general. Far more homophobic. The last few occasions I've experienced homophobia have all been by Asian men. Many gays are concerned about the demographic changes happening within this country as it is seeing an increase of people with more backwards views coming here; it's been noted in Germany that there has been a marked rise in anti-semitism since Merkel invited over millions of Arabs.

Secondly, not being attracted to other ethnicities doesn't make you racist. I'm generally more attracted to white people than black people. That's not racism.
>> No. 15085 Anonymous
11th May 2018
Friday 9:37 am
15085 spacer
>>15084
Thanks for proving his point.
>> No. 15087 Anonymous
11th May 2018
Friday 12:28 pm
15087 spacer
>>15084

>Secondly, not being attracted to other ethnicities doesn't make you racist. I'm generally more attracted to white people than black people.

I had this conversation with a Persian friend of mine once, who accused me of being slightly racist because I said I am attracted mainly to white British girls, and that blonde girls tickle my fancy the most. He wouldn't let it stand that this isn't racism, but simply a sexual preference.

But it makes no more sense to me than saying you're homophobic as a lad because you find yourself only sexually attracted to women.
>> No. 15088 Anonymous
11th May 2018
Friday 4:15 pm
15088 spacer
>>15087

You're completely within your rights to sleep with whoever you fancy, but we can't ignore the political and cultural aspects of desire. We're socialised from a very early age to conform and aspire to a particular ideal.

The obvious example is fat women - there are loads of blokes who would happily sleep with a fat woman, but wouldn't want their mates to catch them. In gay culture, I think there's a clear undercurrent of internalised homophobia; most of the guys you see in porn are hyper-masculine stereotypes and often presented as "straight". There's a clear stigma against twinks and effeminate or camp men; being obviously gay is a huge turn-off for a lot of gay guys. Before his death, Dale Winton often spoke about being a persona non grata on the gay scene, because he was "too gay" - he represented a kind of out-and-proud mincing poofter stereotype that many gay men are deeply ashamed to be associated with.
>> No. 15089 Anonymous
11th May 2018
Friday 4:18 pm
15089 spacer
>>15087
It's a bit of both, I think. There's certainly no inherent reason for you to find white women more attractive than people of other races - in fact from an genetic diversity perspective shouldn't you be finding exotic women more attractive? - so it boils down to the traits that society push as being desirable. To a certain extent you have been conditioned, as we all have, to desire whiteness.

People will also couple off because of strong cultural reasons within their own racial groupings, which affects people of all ethnicities. E.g. people are more likely to socialise, or feel safer, with their own ethnicity.

>>15088 is a bastard for posting while I was halfway through writing this.

In the end though you shouldn't really be blamed for your own sexual preferences, but you should question and acknowledge where those preferences may arise from, and assist in dismantling the systems that favour white people, even when it comes to personal relationships.
>> No. 15090 Anonymous
11th May 2018
Friday 5:03 pm
15090 spacer
>>15087
Alternatively, it is racist or homophobic, and okay with the fact that there's nothing wrong with that.
>> No. 15091 Anonymous
11th May 2018
Friday 5:49 pm
15091 spacer
>>15088

> I think there's a clear undercurrent of internalised homophobia; most of the guys you see in porn are hyper-masculine stereotypes and often presented as "straight". There's a clear stigma against twinks and effeminate or camp men; being obviously gay is a huge turn-off for a lot of gay guys.


My guess, as a straight guy, would be that gay men prefer blokey blokes just the same way as straight women do. It's masculinity that is attractive, and I could imagine that an effeminate, camp outward appearance and demeanor take away from that. In that sense, gays will probably much rather have a shag with Ricky Martin than with Julian Clary.

>>15089

>There's certainly no inherent reason for you to find white women more attractive than people of other races - in fact from an genetic diversity perspective shouldn't you be finding exotic women more attractive?

All I can say is, I've felt drawn the most to blonde white girls for as long as I can remember, certainly since early youth when I developed an actual sexual interest in them. What I can say is that in my family on both sides, we're all the dark haired light skinned Norman types, so my predilection for blonde white women could actually be a desire for somebody who is genetically different from me, if just barely.

>In the end though you shouldn't really be blamed for your own sexual preferences, but you should question and acknowledge where those preferences may arise from, and assist in dismantling the systems that favour white people, even when it comes to personal relationships.

I don't know, that sounds a bit too borrowed from 1970s feminism for me, where the personal was declared political.
>> No. 15100 Anonymous
11th May 2018
Friday 8:28 pm
15100 spacer
Hello lads. There's no such thing as black and gay. You're either one or the other because straight and white are defaults. Btw you're the real racist if you ever challenge this. Also blacks are a low percentage of the population and so are gays, that means they're both minorities and therefore in competition with each other for straight, white approval. How could they be working together unless they were LYING?
>> No. 15101 Anonymous
11th May 2018
Friday 8:32 pm
15101 spacer

65075245150d45e1a2dc837a955a8c8d_400x400.png
151011510115101
>>15100
>> No. 15102 Anonymous
11th May 2018
Friday 8:39 pm
15102 spacer
>>15100
Is this what that intersectionality thing is, again?
>> No. 15103 Anonymous
11th May 2018
Friday 9:02 pm
15103 spacer
>>15100

>You're either one or the other because straight and white are defaults.

Mirth.

I vaguely remember seeing an old sketch on TV a few years ago where one of the two people was a black woman in a wheelchair. She was applying for government benefits of some kind and when she was asked about her marital status, she said she was also a lesbian. And the person behind the desk gave her a John Cleese/Monty Python kind of look and said, "You just had to tick all the boxes while you were at it, didn't you".

Poor racial stereotype jokes aside, I had a few friends in the black Afro-Caribbean community while I was still living in London, and my perception was that homophobia was indeed very pronounced among them. When I was hanging out in the clubs together with them, they would react quite strongly when we came across a gay couple here and there, in a way that you wouldn't normally expect nowadays from white British people.
>> No. 15104 Anonymous
11th May 2018
Friday 9:10 pm
15104 spacer
>>15103
>Poor racial stereotype jokes aside, I had a few friends in the black Afro-Caribbean community while I was still living in London, and my perception was that homophobia was indeed very pronounced among them. When I was hanging out in the clubs together with them, they would react quite strongly when we came across a gay couple here and there, in a way that you wouldn't normally expect nowadays from white British people.

I'd say it's their macho culture, which is why they're all shooting/stabbing/throwing acid at each other because they've been dissing rival gangs on YouTube to show that they're Billy Big Bollocks, but the women are just as bad for it, if not worse.
>> No. 15105 Anonymous
11th May 2018
Friday 9:21 pm
15105 spacer
>>15104

> which is why they're all shooting/stabbing/throwing acid at each other

Let's stick with one assortment of racial sterotypes for now, before we open another can of worms.

If you lived in North London, you knew to be more afraid of mean looking white lads than blacks. In my part of North London, luckily things were a bit more quiet than elsewhere, but when there was talk of a knife fight locally and all that sort of thing, very often the perpetrators were white teenlad dolescum. That isn't to say most black younglads there were model citizens, just that there was a very noticeable share of petty and small-scale violent crime committed by white (unemployed) younglads.
>> No. 15106 Anonymous
11th May 2018
Friday 9:51 pm
15106 spacer
>>15105

RACE THAT MAKES UP 90% OF THE POPULATION RESPONSIBLE FOR 50%+ OF THE CRIME SHOCKER.
>> No. 15107 Anonymous
11th May 2018
Friday 10:43 pm
15107 spacer
>>15105
It's definitely not exclusively a race thing, Glasgow used to have similar problems with knife crime, but the issue specifically in London seems to be perpetuated by certain cultures. To state otherwise is to ignore the rather large pachyderm in the room.
>> No. 15108 Anonymous
11th May 2018
Friday 10:48 pm
15108 spacer
>>15107

Again, I wasn't saying there was no crime committed by blacks. All I meant was, it was striking that there were many white (juvenile) delinquents in the area of North London where I lived.
>> No. 15109 Anonymous
11th May 2018
Friday 11:01 pm
15109 spacer
>>15108
#notallmen.
>> No. 15185 Anonymous
15th May 2018
Tuesday 8:50 pm
15185 spacer
It's official: a bisexual singer isn't allowed to write a song about her own sexuality because her own personal experiences of being bisexual are harmful to the LGBT community.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/commentisfree/2018/may/15/rita-ora-girls-got-bisexual-women-all-wrong
>> No. 15186 Anonymous
15th May 2018
Tuesday 8:57 pm
15186 spacer
>>15185
You could have given me a trigger warning that the linked article unironically contains the phrase "male gaze", you inconsiderate prick.
>> No. 15187 Anonymous
15th May 2018
Tuesday 9:06 pm
15187 spacer
>>15185
>>15186

I think we're at a point now where the whole gender malarkey has just been so muddled up that not even the proponents of LGBT rights know anymore which way is up.

But what really irks me these days is that you can't say anything without somebody blaring over the whole Internet how much the thing you had the audacity to say offends them.

People say things you will not agree with it. All the time. Some of those things you will find just daft, other things will feel genuinely upsetting. Deal with it, and don't fall into your conditioned knee jerk response at every turn of taking to your usual online echo chambers and moaning about it.

That's what's really wrong with Millennials. Their sense of entitlement, and that it does not compute to them that somebody else should get to say things that will upset or offend their own world view. No matter how greatly.
>> No. 15196 Anonymous
15th May 2018
Tuesday 11:07 pm
15196 spacer
>>15187

>That's what's really wrong with Millennials

I was with you up til this point and now I'm not sure if you're taking the piss or not.

These millennials are quite in vogue as the new acceptable target for discrimination these days, but it's about as vague as you can get. A millennial could be anybody, they just happen to fit into this age bracket.

At least black people all have a tendency towards violent crime in common when you make sweeping generalisations about their entire race, but the millennial thing is like discriminating against air breathers.
>> No. 15209 Anonymous
16th May 2018
Wednesday 1:59 am
15209 spacer
>>15185
>>15187
Only someone who has an inherent bias against a group could look at reasonable discussions taking place within it and declare them to be evidence that their entire standpoints are bankrupt.

If someone came to .gs and read some of our regular cunt-offs and then said 'This is yet more proof that white men are hysterical and irrational creatures that are unable to agree on anything', you'd think they were mental.

So for the love of Christ why can't you let the bisexual community decide what's best for the bisexual community?
>> No. 15210 Anonymous
16th May 2018
Wednesday 2:27 am
15210 spacer
>>15209

>So for the love of Christ why can't you let the bisexual community decide what's best for the bisexual community?

Because they're not a council, and telling someone who is bisexual that they 'got bisexuals wrong' is like me telling you that you're a rubbish white man (if you are). It means nothing. There's no metric to being white aside from that you have that colour skin. To dictate who or what is a valid bisexual or bisexual statement is mind-numbingly stupid, particularly if your platform is that bisexuals should be able to express themselves freely.

To say that it's wrong of a bisexual to talk about the sexual side of who they are instead of the romantic one is unfair. It's also short sighted considering we're talking about a pop song.
>> No. 15211 Anonymous
16th May 2018
Wednesday 2:53 am
15211 spacer
>>15210
Again, I think it's up to LGBTIQ people how they want their community to be represented. If you have a hundred people of that background telling you that you're being harmful to them, then you're probably being harmful to them.

You're being disingenuous with your idea that the song is merely talking "about the sexual side of who they are instead of the romantic one". The very real issues involved are of bisexual erasure and illegitimacy and how the song perpetuates these old tropes.

If you insist on bringing it back to the race analogy, it's like a black guy writing a novel about a black society founded on violent crime. Do you really think the black community would give that a pass because it's by a black author and therefore there is no "wrong" way to express blackness? And if they didn't, would you tell them it's "unfair" of them not to celebrate this novel?
>> No. 15212 Anonymous
16th May 2018
Wednesday 3:58 am
15212 spacer
>>15211

>would you tell them it's "unfair" of them not to celebrate this novel?

I wouldn't say they have to celebrate it, but I'd still disagree if they called it problematic. It's a novel, not a manifesto.

I don't get annoyed when people write novels about evil white men. Or is that somehow different?
>> No. 15213 Anonymous
16th May 2018
Wednesday 5:33 am
15213 spacer
>>15211

I can find a much larger community of Christians who will say gay marriage is harmful to them then gay people who want to get married. The fact that millions of people believe something doesn't make them any more correct, no matter how passionate they are about it.
>> No. 15214 Anonymous
16th May 2018
Wednesday 6:24 am
15214 spacer
>>15209
>Only someone who has an inherent bias against a group could look at reasonable discussions taking place within it and declare them to be evidence that their entire standpoints are bankrupt.

I'm bisexual. People do not need to have their personal identity and experiences vetted by the Ministry of Truth to ensure that they are thinking in the correct manner.
>> No. 15215 Anonymous
16th May 2018
Wednesday 8:26 am
15215 spacer
>>15211
> Do you really think the black community would give that a pass
Where would such a pass be obtained? Does the black community have regular meetings where all black people can get together and discuss the latest developments in blackness, and discuss new releases from black literature.

Does the white community have a similar meet-up? I'm a bit unsociable and perhaps never got invited.
>> No. 15216 Anonymous
16th May 2018
Wednesday 8:57 am
15216 spacer
>>15211

>Do you really think the black community would give that a pass

Why do you insist on speaking about minorities as if they're a collective? By allowing one, or several bisexuals to speak as the authority on bisexuals, you rob them of their individuality, and suddenly their sexuality is their defining factor. You actually promote segregation by implying that all bisexuals must think and act alike, or even consider 'bisexual' to be a separate community.

How about they're just people, who all have different opinions and thoughts on Rita Ora's new fucking song? Some may be offended, some may support her, but to suggest in any way that someone should be allowed to tell her she's doing bisexuality wrong is abhorrent, and promotes the very prejudices you're supposed to want to see conquered.

There are two types of people who try to put minority races and sexualities into segregated bubbles, who put a great amount of effort into reminding everyone that they're different and don't fit in. Those two groups are bigots, and social justice bemoaners.

Maybe if the discussion stopped being "gay people are not the same as you and you need to be aware of that at all times in case you upset them" and started being "gay people are just normal fucking people" everyone would be better off?
>> No. 15224 Anonymous
16th May 2018
Wednesday 12:28 pm
15224 spacer
>>15212
Yes it is different. White people haven't been subject to centuries-old prejudice that can be perpetuated in cultural artifacts. White people are considered default.

>>15213
Nice fallacy lad. If you think Christians have a right to a voice on same-sex marriage then I can see why you might also think everyone else can tell the bisexual community what to do.

>>15214
No-one is suggesting a Ministry of Truth. Collective reactions by a community of people are easily observed. You can be an outlier on this song issue if you like but if hundreds of others consider it harmful then they need to be listened to. You don't get to be David Brent saying it's OK to tell racist jokes because one black guy in the office didn't mind them.

>>15215
Yes they do, you just don't hear about the secret meeting times and places because they are communicated through energy waves of black power. Also Meetup.com, e.g.: https://www.meetup.com/afrocaribbeanbookclub/

>>15216
>Why do you insist on speaking about minorities as if they're a collective?
Because no minority in history has ever gained rights through the actions of a single individual.

>How about they're just people, who all have different opinions and thoughts on Rita Ora's new fucking song?
That's correct.

>that someone should be allowed to tell her she's doing bisexuality wrong is abhorrent, and promotes the very prejudices you're supposed to want to see conquered.
Could you explain this statement? What prejudices are promoted by the song being considered harmful to bisexuality?
>> No. 15226 Anonymous
16th May 2018
Wednesday 2:07 pm
15226 spacer
>>15224
>What prejudices are promoted by the song being considered harmful to bisexuality?
The perception of the minority being insular and isolated rather than an integral part of wider society.
>> No. 15227 Anonymous
16th May 2018
Wednesday 2:34 pm
15227 spacer
>>15226
That's just concern trolling. On the contrary, if these issues are taken seriously rather than dismissed on the grounds of 'free speech it's just a joke' etc., which is essentially what this is, the minority's place in wider society is made more secure.

To be more specific, the issue being taken with the song is that it portrays bisexuality as being a straight woman who does sexual things with women for a bit of a laugh. Bisexual people have long had to struggle against this perception that are just 'faking' their sexuality. If this isn't addressed, then to use your terms they become isolated rather than an accepted part of society.
>> No. 15228 Anonymous
16th May 2018
Wednesday 2:40 pm
15228 spacer
>>15227

>That's just concern trolling

Not if I'm bisexual.
>> No. 15230 Anonymous
16th May 2018
Wednesday 3:08 pm
15230 spacer
>>15227
>That's just concern trolling.
Yeah, no. Fuck off, mate.

>To be more specific, the issue being taken with the song is that it portrays bisexuality as being a straight woman who does sexual things with women for a bit of a laugh.
It's her identity. How she establishes and expresses her own identity is a matter for her and her alone. It's not for the Professionally Offended Brigade to decide for her what expressions of her identity are acceptable or not by bringing pressure to bear like this. The whiners have effectively forced her to apologise for who she is, and if you support that you're no better than the homophobes in the Free Presbyterian who consider the whole thing sinful.
>> No. 15232 Anonymous
16th May 2018
Wednesday 6:24 pm
15232 spacer
>>15230
>the Professionally Offended Brigade
I think you need to have a good fuqué offo yourself, lad.

Gosh is it her identity I didn't realise. But unfortunately in the real world how you express yourself has certain ramifications by virtue of impacting on how other people are treated. That's the way it is chum, and she seems to understand that better than you do: "I would never intentionally cause harm to other LBGTQ+ people or anyone".
>> No. 15233 Anonymous
16th May 2018
Wednesday 7:15 pm
15233 spacer
>>15232
Precisely what part of "it's none of your fucking business" are you struggling with here?
>> No. 15612 Anonymous
8th July 2018
Sunday 11:30 pm
15612 spacer
A Get The L Out spokeswoman said: "We protested to protect our rights and on behalf of all the lesbians intimidated, threatened and silenced by the GBT community everywhere.

"The GBT community today, by supporting the rights of males who "identify as lesbians" (also called "transwomen") over the rights of lesbians to choose their sexual partners (on the basis of their sex, not how they "identify") is in fact enforcing heterosexuality on lesbians.

"This is a misogynistic and anti-lesbian manifestation of the rape culture we live in."


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-44757403

Sometimes it feels like people are trying to string along sentences using as many buzzwords as possible.
>> No. 15613 Anonymous
9th July 2018
Monday 12:16 am
15613 spacer
>>15612
TERFs gonna TERF. Nothing to see here, except why the fuck London Pride thought it was OK to let openly anti-trans people lead a march to support trans people.
>> No. 15614 Anonymous
9th July 2018
Monday 1:13 am
15614 spacer
I wish trannies didn't exist.
>> No. 15615 Anonymous
9th July 2018
Monday 1:21 am
15615 spacer
>>15613
They didn't. It was supposed to be NHS LGBT+ Staff Network leading the march. Get The L Out (all eight of them) forced their way to the front.
>> No. 15616 Anonymous
9th July 2018
Monday 1:23 am
15616 spacer
>>15614
Just use your phone m7.
>> No. 15617 Anonymous
9th July 2018
Monday 6:48 am
15617 spacer

Dhf_FkzWkAAINJN.jpg
156171561715617
>>15613
They look like such reasonable people, too.
>> No. 15618 Anonymous
9th July 2018
Monday 8:39 am
15618 spacer
>>15617

Can someone explain what they're even on about? What do they actually want?
>> No. 15619 Anonymous
9th July 2018
Monday 9:00 am
15619 spacer
>>15618 If your entire life revolves about fighting for rights for those-born-female-of-which-you-happen-to-be-one, and transgender folk rock up saying 'look, I'm a woman now, gimme
those rights', there's a tension. Doubly so if it's a self identifying bloke in a frock. Triply so if it's a hypothetical perv bloke who says 'am girl, am coming into your changing room / battered womens' hostel / whatever'.
Rights clashing against rights. Not going to be any winners here, just a lot of acrimony.
>> No. 15620 Anonymous
9th July 2018
Monday 9:20 am
15620 spacer
>>15619

>a hypothetical perv bloke who says 'am girl, am coming into your changing room / battered womens' hostel / whatever'.

The thing is, that's an almost entirely hypothetical scenario. If pervs were claiming to be trans women to do pervy things, it'd be all over the front page of the Daily Mail. TERFs are equally annoyed about trans men, who they see as lesbians who have been bamboozled by the patriarchy.

IMO, there's a generation of radical lesbian activists who have found themselves marginalised in the LGBT movement. The likes of Andrea Dworkin and Valerie Solanas were once these scary revolutionaries who threatened the fabric of patriarchal society, but these days they're just a punchline to a very old joke.

Back in the late 70s and early 80s, it was quite common to encounter radical feminists who thought that women should completely separate from the patriarchy and build lesbian-only communities. A lot of radical feminists really did believe that all (heterosexual) sex is rape and all men are rapists. Those people didn't go away, but subsequent generations of feminists and lesbians see their views as so absurd that they scarcely believe that they were ever sincere.

TERFs aren't all that bothered about trans people, they've just chosen that issue as the hill to die on. It's the ideological shibboleth that separates the old radical ideology from the a younger generation of LGBT people who just want to get on with their lives. Bizarre as it might seem, they see the acceptance of LGBT people and the family-friendly vibe of modern Pride marches as a failure; they don't want to be accepted and don't want to integrate. They want to go back to war, which requires an enemy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_lesbianism
>> No. 15621 Anonymous
9th July 2018
Monday 9:42 am
15621 spacer
Oh good grief, this rabbit hole is deep.
https://www.autostraddle.com/how-to-have-trans-woman-lesbian-sex-with-a-penis-414839/
>> No. 15622 Anonymous
9th July 2018
Monday 2:37 pm
15622 spacer
>>15620

>Valerie Solanas were once these scary revolutionaries who threatened the fabric of patriarchal society

That's a very polite way of saying she was a nutter who tried to murder Andy Warhol.
>> No. 15623 Anonymous
9th July 2018
Monday 3:25 pm
15623 spacer
>>15622
He was terribly hack and deserved a winging, in my opinion.
>> No. 15624 Anonymous
15th July 2018
Sunday 10:46 pm
15624 spacer
>>15620

>Those people didn't go away, but subsequent generations of feminists and lesbians see their views as so absurd that they scarcely believe that they were ever sincere.

In truth, feminism at its core really hasn't come a long way since those days though. I dare you to spend one evening with a die hard feminist who eats, sleeps, breathes and shits feminism. You will be right to point out that every movement has its crackpots, but it is scary what some feminist women still think of men today. It's not about a fairer, more equal world for everybody. No, to them, masculinity is still the enemy. And you are a patriarchist arsehole if you don't agree with them.

You will never find me denying that women and men should have equal rights and opportunity, as well as equal responsibilities. Everybody deserves to get somewhere in life in accordance with how hard they try. But that is where it ends with me. Men aren't by default arseholes, nor do we by default support patriarchy or keep women down. Also, not everything that doesn't work out in your life as a woman, feminist or not, is the fault of men or patriarchy. Women, same as men, can simply fail. And if you don't accept that, then I cannot take you seriously as a feminist.
>> No. 15625 Anonymous
16th July 2018
Monday 1:04 am
15625 spacer
>>15624
Something I've seen in Hollywood is the idea of Feminism coming full circle and women saying "let us play characters who are flawed, these bland Mary Sues are shit!"

3rd wave extremist don't acknowledge that as a problem though, they are still dying on the hill of women being exploited and addressing issues about women hating the Characters they are forced to play is problematic for a number of reasons, at least to the people who write the scripts.

It makes no fucking sense to me. Harping on about women getting better roles and then those same women writing shit characters for women, who then complain and get called problematic for not supporting women in the Writers Guild or something. Then, men calling these women toxic like they have a fucking oar in the race.

Julie Bindel was the last loon to get a platform in printed media and she used it to call Transgender people dangerous to the Lesbian community, when most of them are attracted to men asfaik. Rationality is checked at the end of the aisle of the feminist literature section of the library and not regained until they become pensioners, if Germaine Greer is anything to go by. She is even considered problematic these days, for her views about Men's role in society.
>> No. 15626 Anonymous
16th July 2018
Monday 11:19 am
15626 spacer
>>15625

You can't win with these types.

If you portray successful career women who somehow juggle being a mum of two and a darling wife with a 60 hours a week career at the top of their field, then you will get flak for putting pressure to perform on women because it's "unrealistic". But when you write a part of a stay at home mum who raises the kids while her husband is at work and makes him dinner every night, then that's a depiction of no longer desired antiquated gender roles. And thirdly, if you show women who are just about doing alright, you will be accused of attempting to deter women from striving for more.

The real problem, I've said it many times, is that women are just too impressionable. They are far too susceptible to believing verbatim the things they see on TV and read in the gossip rags about celebrities, career women, and other perfect pictures of uber successful other women that are simply not attainable for the average person and should serve as no standard to measure your own success as a human being in life.

I think men are much more prepared to go their own way in life and not pay attention to all of that. Men have always been expected to fend for themselves out there and make the best of what they are dealt. You are allowed to have your role models, but you won't see men all absorbed in a made-for-TV drama envying the main character because he is a CEO, drives a Porsche and has a five-bedroom house in Chelsea. Men are much more prepared to see it for what it is and to realise that that's fiction, that it's a fantasy world that they have little chance of turning into reality for themselves. And men are by and large fine with it.

Also, it isn't all just men who are hindrances to women being successful. Not all of it is the fault of the old boys clubs and what have you. Women tend to do a lot of it to each other, with the way they scheme, gossip, and exclude other women they don't like. With the same fierceness with which they compete for the most desirable men, they will also compete for everything else in life, and they will use unfair means against members of their own gender and they will put each other down left, right, and centre.

But what's really disturbing is that feminists blame even that on men not giving women enough opportunity. All I can say from decades of experience being with women is that a lot of women simply have that in them. It doesn't matter if there really are only few opportunities for them at their job or if they even have special workplace programmes for women. Women, if they reach a critical mass in a workplace, will turn almost every office into a reenactment of Dynasty.
>> No. 15627 Anonymous
16th July 2018
Monday 5:18 pm
15627 spacer
>>15626
Britfa just wouldn't be Britfa without the casual chauvinism.
>> No. 15628 Anonymous
16th July 2018
Monday 5:35 pm
15628 spacer
>>15627
Women can be as shit as men can, pooflad.
>> No. 15630 Anonymous
16th July 2018
Monday 6:07 pm
15630 spacer
>>15628
Of course they can. However, if a gender is being bashed on here then there's a 99.99% chance it's female.
>> No. 15631 Anonymous
16th July 2018
Monday 6:14 pm
15631 spacer
>>15630
Oh how terrible.
>> No. 15635 Anonymous
16th July 2018
Monday 7:18 pm
15635 spacer
>>15628
Gay men are notorious chauvinist cunts.
>> No. 15636 Anonymous
16th July 2018
Monday 7:55 pm
15636 spacer
>>15630

SLA.GS BEFORE FA.GS!
>> No. 15638 Anonymous
16th July 2018
Monday 8:28 pm
15638 spacer
>>15630

> However, if a gender is being bashed on here then there's a 99.99% chance it's female

And you are basing that finding on what exactly? Solid empirical testing?

But for argument's sake, it comes with the territory of image boards. I would say a good 90 percent on .gs and probably even more than that on 4chan are men. And not just any old (or young) men, but men who tend to not have the best chances with women, an experience which often leaves them frustrated, so they vent.

You don't need to wander far to experience quite nearly the exact opposite. If you look around some web forums of women's magazines, you will read endless litanies by women moaning and complaining about either the shit male partner they are with, or that men in general are shit. That's where women go to vent, and it often ain't pretty.

Everybody, men same as women, has had their share of frustration with the other gender. To accuse .gs, which is, again, almost all male, of women bashing kind of turns the issue on its head.

And if that creates a "hostile environment of gender based verbal violence", as some gender scientists would have you believe, so what. As a bloke, nobody greets you with open arms on women's forums either.
>> No. 15639 Anonymous
16th July 2018
Monday 8:38 pm
15639 spacer
>>15638
>To accuse .gs, which is, again, almost all male, of women bashing kind of turns the issue on its head.

Well it would be nice if women could get discussed once in a while without them being either belittled or objectified. Some times this board is quiet as fuck and then the opportunity for woman-bashing arises and you're like dogs with a bone, creeping out of the woodwork to chip in.
>> No. 15641 Anonymous
16th July 2018
Monday 8:42 pm
15641 spacer
>>15639

>like dogs with a bone, creeping out of the woodwork

I'm enjoying that mixed metaphor.
>> No. 15642 Anonymous
16th July 2018
Monday 8:47 pm
15642 spacer
>>15641
Like a tramp on chips.
>> No. 15643 Anonymous
16th July 2018
Monday 8:55 pm
15643 spacer
>>15639

>Some times this board is quiet as fuck and then the opportunity for woman-bashing arises and you're like dogs with a bone

I don't really see that being the case on here.

I've been coming here since 2013, and usually when threads get quiet, it's because somebody was either being a cunt in the last post or because some aspie shat up a thread with some entirely unrelatable drivel.

And not all complaints about women are woman bashing. If somebody has a legitimate complaint about a particular woman and wants to vent on here, then I see no reason to tell them not to. Particularly not because some delicate little snowflake flower of a woman might take offence reading it.

If you can't tolerate other people criticising members of your gender, then the Internet just isn't for you. To paraphrase Richard Dawkins, go home and suck on your thumb until you are mature enough to come back.
>> No. 15645 Anonymous
17th July 2018
Tuesday 6:20 pm
15645 spacer
>>15643

>usually when threads get quiet, it's because somebody was either being a cunt in the last post or because some aspie shat up a thread with some entirely unrelatable drivel. 


Ah, the irony.
>> No. 15646 Anonymous
17th July 2018
Tuesday 7:29 pm
15646 spacer
>>15641
Yeah, how small exactly are these dogs? Tiny dogs? Microscopic dogs? I'm intrigued
>> No. 15647 Anonymous
17th July 2018
Tuesday 7:35 pm
15647 spacer

shaihulud.jpg
156471564715647
>>15646
Oh, alternatively: absolutely fuckoff massive worms

I think I like this interpretation better

They will call me Muad'Dib
>> No. 15648 Anonymous
17th July 2018
Tuesday 9:55 pm
15648 spacer
>>15642
I like that more than I should.
>> No. 15649 Anonymous
18th July 2018
Wednesday 3:09 pm
15649 spacer
>>15639

I remember only once a thread about "being a man" here and it was quickly shat on by the "what about women?" Question, and treating any discussion of men's virtues like it was some sort of weird indirect attack on women.
>> No. 15650 Anonymous
18th July 2018
Wednesday 4:09 pm
15650 spacer
>>15649

>and treating any discussion of men's virtues like it was some sort of weird indirect attack on women.


Worse even, the notion that men can very well be strong and bold is dismissed by some third wave feminists as antiquated gender stereotypes that do no favours to sensitive, emotional men who are not like that. It is seen as part of the (pseudo) phaenomenon of "toxic masculinity".

In reality, it's a dismantling of classic male virtues. You are not allowed to be bold and strong as a bloke, because it puts pressure on manlets who never will be either of those.

The irony is that in real life, women still want bold and strong men as partners, both romantic and sexual. Classic masculinity always wins, and women don't favour wimps. Because it is hardwired in them, the same way that men are hardwired, by and large, to seek out particularly feminine women, no matter if they have a chance with them or not.
>> No. 15661 Anonymous
19th July 2018
Thursday 8:17 am
15661 spacer
>>15650
Yeah alright Sargon. Enough of the pseudointellectual anti-feminism, we aren't going to buy your testosterone cream.
>> No. 15663 Anonymous
19th July 2018
Thursday 12:06 pm
15663 spacer
>>15661
He's not wrong, his post reminded me of a Guardian (of course) article that explicitly said women are as physically strong as men before proceeding to talk about why our definition of 'strong' is wrong.

Nutters the lot of them.
>> No. 15664 Anonymous
19th July 2018
Thursday 12:19 pm
15664 spacer
>>15663

Obviously it's rather daft to say women on average are better at deadlifts than men or anything like that, but there's plenty of merit to pointing out that women live longer, suffer pain and illness less harshly and can do childbirth and that. I'd say that's all 'physical strength'.

We could just go back to saying humans are strong in general, like. We did manage to fight everything else on the planet.
>> No. 15665 Anonymous
19th July 2018
Thursday 12:23 pm
15665 spacer
>>15663
Gaurdian news article or Gaurdian opinion bin? The distinction is paramount.
>> No. 15666 Anonymous
19th July 2018
Thursday 12:46 pm
15666 spacer
>>15664

This isn't to detract from any biological qualities women do have, but I suspect that the greater longevity in lifespan statistics of women versus men owes at least in part to the smaller chance, on average, of death or injury at work, less chance of violent assault or suicide, and less risky behaviour generally.

It irks me a bit when people take stats at face value. Even my favourite economists come out with phrases like "the hardier constitution of women". Fair enough, it may be true, but you can't just take lifespan alone.

I would be interested to read about the illness and pain comparisons you mention, though.
>> No. 15667 Anonymous
19th July 2018
Thursday 1:02 pm
15667 spacer
>>15666

A 65 year old woman would expect to live about three years longer than a 65 year old man, so the difference in life expectancy isn't just young men doing daft things. The gap has been narrowing, partly due to a reduction in workplace deaths, partly because of the decline in smoking and partly due to the increase in female obesity.

Weird as it may seem, loneliness may be one of the biggest factors explaining the gap - it has a drastic effect on your life expectancy and older men are far more likely to be lonely than older women.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/223190/life_expectancy.pdf
>> No. 15669 Anonymous
19th July 2018
Thursday 1:19 pm
15669 spacer
>>15667
>A 65 year old woman would expect to live about three years longer than a 65 year old man, so the difference in life expectancy isn't just young men doing daft things.

Good point on loneliness, but this does presume that none of the daft stuff men do in their youth have physical or mental effects going into their sixties.
>> No. 15674 Anonymous
19th July 2018
Thursday 2:05 pm
15674 spacer
>>15666

I think the biggest impact on longevity is your lifestyle. Men tend to not look after themselves as well as women, by and large. In general, women go to the NHS-recommended regular health check ups more than men, and they also go to see a doctor sooner when something seems to actually be wrong.

Also, men are more drawn to savoury foods and saturated fats in their diets than women, who generally prefer lighter and vegetarian dishes. Men also drink loads more beer and alcohol than women and also smoke more.

What also has an effect is that it is usually men who work physically demanding jobs such as builders or technicians. That kind of work puts loads of stress on your body as well over the decades.

You can see that in men who reach very old age, i.e. 80 or 90 or even beyond. Most of them looked after themselves well their whole lives, and they were generally educated knowledge workers in the widest sense with quiet desk jobs during their professional lives.

So even if you were born male, there is a lot you can do to influence your individual life expectancy.

On the other hand, genes also play a role in your resilience. There are people who smoked their entire lives - in moderation - and drank a pint or two every night and still lived to be 90. It is thought that they simply carry more robust genes than most people and are thus able to withstand environmental stress better.

What you shouldn't do is assume that you will be one of those people, and smoke and drink your whole life hoping that it's not going to have an effect on you.
>> No. 15675 Anonymous
19th July 2018
Thursday 2:16 pm
15675 spacer
>>15674

I'm convinced in the world of medical marvel we live in, that the main difference between someone who lives to 80 or 90 Vs someone who dies earlier is mostly luck. Obviously being healthy will help, but if the NHS can keep someone like my grandad going, a career fireman who smoked 40 a day until he was 65, then I'm convinced a couple of cheeseburgers isn't going to be what stops me from hitting that age.

Physical jobs definitely knack you up though. Most head chefs look about twenty years older than they are. Ramsey's barely 50 ffs.
>> No. 15676 Anonymous
19th July 2018
Thursday 2:36 pm
15676 spacer
>>15675

> Most head chefs

Ah, cheflad. Good to see you again.


Gordon Ramsay looks as old as he does because he's a fucking choleric who will jump in your face if your eggs are 30 seconds underboiled. That's a kind of disposition that ages you pretty fast.

At one of my old jobs, my boss was a bit like that. He was an uber demanding A-person who expected you to give 120 percent all the time, and yelled at you as a matter of principle if someting you did wasn't to his satisfaction. He was the main reason I quit. Because I didn't like getting shouted at for every minor slip up that I didn't manage to hide from him. The last I heard from that company was that he apparently had a near fatal heart attack on the job last year, at age 47.

At the other end of the spectrum, one of my good friends has a granddad who is 82 and worked his whole life as a higher-level public service employee. He is just one of the most relaxed, laid back and balanced people you will ever meet, and according to my friend, he has always been that way. And he is in very good health for his age, and until recently still rode his bicycle everywhere.
>> No. 15680 Anonymous
20th July 2018
Friday 6:23 pm
15680 spacer
>>15676
What a load of shite - Gordon Ramsay is fit a fiddle. You can tell just by looking at him. He's a black belt in karate and an MMA cage fighter. Just cos he's got some lines on his face doesn't mean he has heart disease.
>> No. 15681 Anonymous
20th July 2018
Friday 6:46 pm
15681 spacer
>>15680

His face tells the entire story. He looks at least 60. The only reason he's still sprightly is because he got out from actual cheffing about fifteen years ago, and has the money and time to do the training.

You'll never get a look at how destructive it is from the celebrities, because they're rich and not chefs any more. The rest of us are all buckled over, twisted gargoyles by about 35.
>> No. 15682 Anonymous
20th July 2018
Friday 7:00 pm
15682 spacer
>>15674

There's not a huge gender difference in lifestyles. Men and women have similar obesity rates. Men are very slightly more likely to smoke (19% vs 17%) but it's not hugely significant. Men drink more, but they can tolerate it better - there's a legitimate justification in the gender difference for recommended units.

>>15675

Luck plays a role, but the effects of lifestyle are massive on a population level. The difference in healthy life expectancy between the poorest 10% and the richest 10% is nearly seventeen years. In some parts of the country, life expectancy changes by ten years in the space of half a mile. You might get hit by a bus or die of ball cancer in your thirties, but you're stacking the odds in your favour by looking after yourself.
>> No. 15683 Anonymous
20th July 2018
Friday 7:26 pm
15683 spacer
>>15681

I was chatting to a lad at the weekend in a pub as I waited for my mtb wheels to be mended. He told me he was a runner, I said I prefer bikes as he gave me concern regarding his 10k fitness. I asked him how old he was, he told me 25 so I said he's still got many miles left in him, once you get to my age things start to slow down. He asked 'how old are you, 30?'. My reply of 45 in a couple of months was met with a 'fuucking nooo way, really?'. I do get a lot of people doing a double take when they realise my age.
>> No. 15686 Anonymous
21st July 2018
Saturday 12:47 am
15686 spacer
>>15681

>You'll never get a look at how destructive it is from the celebrities, because they're rich and not chefs any more.

True. Just look at Jamie Oliver, who is well into his early 40s by now but still has that boyish air about him. He turned his back on all the hard kitchen graft about fifteen years ago, and his royalties from books, TV shows and everything else pretty much mean he can spend most of his time being a posh overweening annoying cunt, who expects average joe viewers to make 30 minute meals from salmon, truffles and lemongrass (which me may or may not use all in one recipe).


>>15683

I'm nearly your age, and I also still look improbably young. I started colouring my hair a few years ago because I am a vain enough git that my grey hair started bothering me. But other than that, I was lucky enough that I didn't have to spend the last 20 years working some tough as nails 12 hours a day office job, like some of my friends from uni. Things just went at a more leisurely pace in my life. And it shows. When I think back to one of my first bosses out of uni, he was 42, had his own business, and he just looked old. His hair was all white, his face wrinkled, and he just had an air about him like a spent middle aged human being. I kind of swore to myself I would never end up that way, and by and large, I think I have kept that promise to myself.
>> No. 15687 Anonymous
21st July 2018
Saturday 12:56 am
15687 spacer
>>15686

>True. Just look at Jamie Oliver, who is well into his early 40s by now but still has that boyish air about him. He turned his back on all the hard kitchen graft about fifteen years ago

From what I've heard on the Industry Insider Gossip Grapevine, he was a lazy, bad Sous chef at the River Cafe and it was a relief when he was discovered by the Beeb. That could just be jealous mumblings, mind. I can't particularly imagine a michelin place keeping dead weight around. But I'd like to believe it as he's so loathsome I'd like to believe I'm better than him.

where the fuck is my TV show
>> No. 15688 Anonymous
21st July 2018
Saturday 1:53 am
15688 spacer
>>15687

>From what I've heard on the Industry Insider Gossip Grapevine, he was a lazy, bad Sous chef

Those qualities aren't particularly relevant when you hang up the cooking spoon and become a TV chef though. What counts on TV is screen appeal. I still think he is being an overweening posh cunt most of the time, but I guess a critical mass of people have liked him enough over the years to have enjoyed watching him.

It's also typically not the most capable people who get promoted and/or discovered. I used to work in politics, and that included breathing the same air as a handful of well-known figures of national politics. People whose names you really actually hear on the news almost every night. I could tell you about two or three of them who were really useless as fuck as (typically local) politicians before they got promoted to do greater things. Politics in particular is an area where the only thing that really counts is to forge alliances to the people who hold positions of power, who will then take you under their wing and help you up through thre ranks. And I think that also goes for many things, including becoming a TV personality. If you know the right people, and if they see something in you, even if it's just the fact that you know how to suck up to them, then there is a good chance you will have it made. However shit you really actually may have been at the job you were doing up to that point.
>> No. 15689 Anonymous
21st July 2018
Saturday 11:44 am
15689 spacer
>>15688

It's true that being a good chef has little to do with being a TV chef, and I can't deny his popularity, my mum loves him.

I fully understand why the big hitters like Ramsey, MPW and Tom Kerridge move off into TV land, but I'd much rather them still be helming a three star restaurant somewhere, it's the equivalent of Picasso giving up painting to go do Art Attack.

I suppose it's truly a young man's game though. I'm not even thirty and I don't think I could do full time on the line anymore.The problem is most people in the industry certainly aren't lucky enough to get TV or book deals, or even just move up into ops/development/management like myself. They're stuck in that sweaty horrible life until they retire, but to be honest I've NEVER seen a 60 year old chef, let alone 75. I don't know what happens to these lads, but they just can't keep up at a certain point, especially when they've been crippled by 40 years of kitchen work already.
>> No. 15690 Anonymous
21st July 2018
Saturday 12:20 pm
15690 spacer
>>15688

This makes me feel quite stupid for leaving a job in which I had an unofficial mentor who unilaterally hired me and promised me training, future career, etc..

Still, have to forge your own path I suppose.
>> No. 15691 Anonymous
21st July 2018
Saturday 12:29 pm
15691 spacer

James-Martin-on-a-motorbike-404701.jpg
156911569115691
>>15688
>What counts on TV is screen appeal
>> No. 15692 Anonymous
21st July 2018
Saturday 2:35 pm
15692 spacer
>>15690

>a job in which I had an unofficial mentor who unilaterally hired me and promised me training, future career, etc..

That may have been just a carrot that was dangled in front of your face. Loads of employers promise you great things if you put your back into your job and what-have-you. Quite often, very little of it comes true. And then when you ask, where is my promotion or my raise now that I have put in all the extra effort, you are told that business is slow at the moment and they can't afford to give you any of that right now. And so the charade continues. It's one of the oldest tricks in the book.


>>15689

>The problem is most people in the industry certainly aren't lucky enough to get TV or book deals, or even just move up into ops/development/management like myself. They're stuck in that sweaty horrible life until they retire

Also, if what a friend who is also a trained chef told me is true, incomes vary widely in the restaurant industry. He said if you are lucky enough to be hired by a reputable five-star restaurant or hotel, you will earn a decent amount of money. But if you work in an unremarkable country inn, you will make barely enough to support yourself.
>> No. 15693 Anonymous
21st July 2018
Saturday 7:28 pm
15693 spacer
>>15689

>I fully understand why the big hitters like Ramsey, MPW and Tom Kerridge move off into TV land

I'm no chef and will probably never cook food for a living, but to be honest, I think working under somebody like Ramsay doesn't seem such a scary thought. He's straightforward and outspoken, with him, you always know what is expected of you. He runs a tight ship, but he's not just a choleric cunt, but somebody with a warm side as well. He cares. The only thing you probably have to do under him is to keep giving 110 percent all the time. But these days, if you can't do that, in your respective field, then the job world may not be for you as a whole.
>> No. 15694 Anonymous
21st July 2018
Saturday 9:25 pm
15694 spacer
>>15693

Dunno mate. I work in the public sector, people ask me if I'm feeling alright if I so much as make it in on time.
>> No. 15695 Anonymous
21st July 2018
Saturday 9:33 pm
15695 spacer
>>15694

So... that's your 110 percent then? Showing up for work every morning on time?
>> No. 15696 Anonymous
21st July 2018
Saturday 9:34 pm
15696 spacer
>>15695

Once or twice a week if I'm feeling extra motivated.
>> No. 15699 Anonymous
21st July 2018
Saturday 9:38 pm
15699 spacer
>>15696

Definition of socialism there, lad
>> No. 15703 Anonymous
21st July 2018
Saturday 10:56 pm
15703 spacer
>>15699

No. Reality in about 70 percent of all workplaces in the UK.
>> No. 15704 Anonymous
21st July 2018
Saturday 11:34 pm
15704 spacer

anmige.jpg
157041570415704
>>15703
>> No. 15705 Anonymous
22nd July 2018
Sunday 12:15 am
15705 spacer

IMG-20160630-WA0003.jpg
157051570515705
>>15692

>Also, if what a friend who is also a trained chef told me is true, incomes vary widely in the restaurant industry.

True enough. There's a lot of variation. 8 quid an hour is fairly typical for a CDP (line cook) of an unexceptional restaurant, but usually you'll also get a share of tips, and in a busy restaurant that can work out to be two or three pounds extra per hour. Also consider that many chefs are doing 60 hour weeks, and it adds up, though it's still hugely unfair considering the amount of work they're doing.

The industry is shooting itself in the foot, as underpaying your general staff leads very quickly to staff shortages, which means you need to hire an agency chef, and they get paid 12-15 quid an hour at the very least, plus agency fees. So, all the disgruntled chefs at Carluccios or Zizzi or wherever tell them to shove their zero hour minimum wage contract up their arse and go work for the agencies. When I was agency I was sold as a head chef, and I was making 25-35 an hour depending on how desperate they were for someone competent.

Probably the smartest thing any competent British chef can do is fuck off to Dubai. I have friends there pulling silly money, 100k+ running their hotels, and the teams are so huge you get to spend a lot of your time on the fun stuff.

>>15693

I've certainly worked with much cuntier people than him. Like you say, he's an incredibly chef and most of the team who have worked under him in his heyday are industry leaders in their own right, most with at least their own restaurant under their belt. So a bit of screaming is absolutely worth it for working with one of the most talented and knowledgeable men in the industry.

It's impossible to be a good chef without being passionate, and in a hot, cramped, stressful, noisy environment, this passion is most easily manifested as aggression. There's not really time during service in a place like that to gently prod someone or talk them through their mistakes, you just have to shout at them to fix it, and if they're not capable of fixing it, then they have to fuck off. The risks are too great at that level - lose a michelin star and you lose a couple of million in revenue that year.

Many chefs insist it's impossible to run a kitchen at any level without this aggressive demeanour, but that's really not true, I don't even think it's the easiest way - but you chuck 8 blokes in a 35C metal box for 14 hours and the natural response is a bit of shouting, so that Ramsay style is found all over. I happen to think it's much easier and less fatiguing to run a kitchen calmly. You can still apply pressure without calling someone a donkey, you can still bark orders without sounding like you want to kill someone. I find it makes for a more efficient team, and you're much less likely to have anyone walk out mid shift on you - a frequent occurrence in the industry.

Rene Redzepi doesn't allow shouting or swearing at all at Noma, yet that managed to be literally the best restaurant in the world, so it's definitely not necessary.
>> No. 15706 Anonymous
22nd July 2018
Sunday 12:24 am
15706 spacer
>>15705

I should probably also say that a lot of chefs truly love what they do and that's worth a lot when it comes to thinking about your salary. I earn an embarrassing amount doing consulting and ops work now, but honestly I was a lot happier in the tiny seafood gastropub that paid me 22 grand and let me experiment with my menu and put out proper quality food.
>> No. 15709 Anonymous
22nd July 2018
Sunday 1:07 pm
15709 spacer
>>15705

The British version of Kitchen Nightmares makes it clear that Ramsay isn't a cunt, he just has standards. Whenever he encountered a chef who really wanted to do a good job, he was supportive and encouraging; he reserved his ire for people who clearly didn't give a shit.
>> No. 15710 Anonymous
22nd July 2018
Sunday 1:23 pm
15710 spacer
>>15709

He can be a cunt with standards.
>> No. 15711 Anonymous
22nd July 2018
Sunday 3:43 pm
15711 spacer
>>15710
He wasn't a cunt to the lad who couldn't move past not having a star anymore, he really helped him sort his priorities out and showed him resting on his laurels had resulted in his partner moving past him as he had forgot how to prepare fish.
>> No. 15712 Anonymous
22nd July 2018
Sunday 3:55 pm
15712 spacer
>>15711



500 pounds to think about a fucking cheeseboard you fat bastard
>> No. 15713 Anonymous
22nd July 2018
Sunday 3:58 pm
15713 spacer
>>15712

(I'm not trying to call him a cunt here, to be honest. He's pretty much on the money throughout)
>> No. 15724 Anonymous
23rd July 2018
Monday 12:37 pm
15724 spacer
>>15709
>>15711

I think it's pretty easy to get on Gordon Ramsay's good side. Even if your restaurant is in deep shit, the thing he expects from you is to take responsibility for it and give it your all to try to turn it around.

I think that's really what aggravates him. People not taking responsibility for their own failures and making excuses, blaming others and not wanting to admit they've screwed up. He's always ready to meet you halfway, and if you accept his help and are ready to change your ways, you're golden with him.

Also, he has a particular disgust for minging storage freezers.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9xQWYsOnDc

The latter with good reason. One of my parents' friends worked 20 years for the council as a restaurant food safety inspector. She had discretion to shut down restaurants and forbid them from serving any more food until their food hygiene issues were sorted out. Gordon Ramsay isn't taking the piss on Kitchen Nightmares when he tells them he's shutting them down for the evening. Poorly stored food ingredients really can develop pathogens that can make you spend a few days puking and shitting your guts out, and much worse.
>> No. 15725 Anonymous
23rd July 2018
Monday 3:46 pm
15725 spacer
>>15724

I'll never understand how people let kitchens get in these sorts of states. I've seen them myself and it's the only time I've not felt an ounce of guilt for firing them.

Three people died last year from restaurant hygiene or cross contamination related issues, and a lot of people involved got prison time for it - rightly so.
>> No. 15727 Anonymous
23rd July 2018
Monday 4:04 pm
15727 spacer
>>15725

The sad thing is, most people would never allow their fridges at home to deteriorate into a state like that.

I'm a bachelor and my fridge looks a little gross now and then, so I adopted a habit a few years ago of clearing it out completely every two to three months, scrubbing all its removable shelves in the kitchen sink with chlorine bleach, and then proceeding to the inside of the fridge and spraying and wiping it, too, with bleach. Well and then wiping it down throughly with warm tap water in a bucket afterwards, so the chlorine smell won't seep into the food that much.

I sometimes discover things in the back of my fridge like a mummified courgette or a lemon covered in blue mold. That isn't ideal, but I don't think it's really a health hazard as such. From what you see on Kitchen Nightmares, on the other hand, some restaurant kitchen staff apparently don't give their storage freezers a good clean for two or three years, or even longer.

But maybe it's because I am the only person who has access to my fridge at home. If I don't clean it, nobody on this wide Earth will. I guess if you've got eight or nine people working in a restaurant kitchen, it's difficult to instill a sense of responsibility into each and every one of them that a storage freezer simply must not be allowed to get that way.

But in the end, that's a universal problem in many workplaces. Nobody feels responsible, so things go to shit.
>> No. 15728 Anonymous
23rd July 2018
Monday 4:16 pm
15728 spacer
>>15727

Cleaning all the ram packed freezers, fridges and walk ins is a daunting task once you've let it get on top of you, so I understand how it happens in understaffed kitchens, but cleanliness should be priority #1 and it's distressing to me that professionals don't understand that. I've never questioned any head chef under me who went over his labour if the reason was cleaning.

>But in the end, that's a universal problem in many workplaces. Nobody feels responsible, so things go to shit

This is basically it, though you'd hope the head and sous would feel responsible enough to make sure it's sorted, but plenty of them are simply not good managers.

What I've always done is assign one fridge or freezer as the responsibility of one person - every week he pulls everything out, sorts and cleans it, and keeps an eye on it throughout the week. There's usually six or seven fridges and freezers in a kitchen so it's easy to do, and usually it's enough to instil that responsibility in them, and very quickly you get them bollocking others for messing up THEIR freezer, which is great to see and ends up pushing everyone's standards up.
>> No. 15729 Anonymous
24th July 2018
Tuesday 11:55 am
15729 spacer
>>15728

>What I've always done is assign one fridge or freezer as the responsibility of one person - every week he pulls everything out, sorts and cleans it, and keeps an eye on it throughout the week.

That's a bit like you see in some restrooms at service stations. Some have a chart at the restroom entrance with a list of the last times the bathroom was cleaned, with the time and date and the signature of the person who cleaned it. That way, not only will management (and also customers) see that the toilets are cleaned regularly, but there will be no mucking about because you stand for the cleaning job you did on those toilets with your name.

A lack of a feeling of responsibility comes from being able to blame others. If you know that nobody can blame you for your laziness, then most people will assume they will always get away with it. But as soon as something can be traced back to you and you only, most people will know that their reputation, maybe even their job as a whole hangs in the balance.

Another example are luxury carmakers like Rolls-Royce and others. The name of the mechanic who oversaw the assembly and mounting of a particular engine is put on a small little brass plaque on the engine itself. Not only does it instill a sense of pride in those mechanics, because what mechanic wouldn't want their name on a Rolls-Roye engine, but it also means they know that their reputation as an employee is at stake if they don't deliver top quality.
>> No. 15856 Anonymous
3rd September 2018
Monday 10:46 pm
15856 spacer
A blue plaque celebrating a woman described as “the first modern lesbian” is to be changed after complaints it “erased” her sexuality. The tribute to 19th-century diarist Anne Lister described her as “gender-nonconforming” but did not explicitly say she was a lesbian.

The plaque was unveiled on 24 July at Holy Trinity church in York, marking the location where Lister received communion with her girlfriend after exchanging rings at home almost 200 years ago. A draft of the new wording will be proposed and opened for public comment in the coming weeks.

The original plaque read: “Gender-nonconforming entrepreneur. Celebrated marital commitment, without legal recognition, to Ann Walker in this church. Easter, 1834.”

An online petition calling on York Civic Trust to change the wording attracted more than 2,500 signatures. The petition said: “Anne Lister was, most definitely, gender non-conforming all her life. She was also however, a lesbian. Don’t let them erase this iconic woman from our history.”

Julie Furlong, who started the petition, told the BBC she was pleased the wording was to change: “I am very happy that they have realised that lesbian erasure is not acceptable, but I will wait to hear on the final wording before expressing opinion as to that.”


https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/sep/03/plaque-for-first-modern-lesbian-to-be-reworded-after-complaints

I'd have thought the fact the plaque had a rainbow outline and mentioned marital commitment to another woman would have been a massive hint about her but apparently it's lesbian erasure.
>> No. 15857 Anonymous
3rd September 2018
Monday 10:57 pm
15857 spacer
>>15856

>Julie Furlong

I wonder if she's a TERF.

https://radlesfemsurvivor.wordpress.com/2018/07/12/open-letter-to-stonewall-2/

Yep, she's a TERF.
>> No. 15858 Anonymous
3rd September 2018
Monday 11:11 pm
15858 spacer
>>15856

I have the strongest feeling that if they'd used the word lesbian instead, there'd still have been someone asking why they didn't mention her gender nonconformity.
>> No. 15860 Anonymous
4th September 2018
Tuesday 3:18 am
15860 spacer
>>15857
Does being sane require its own acronym now?
>> No. 15861 Anonymous
4th September 2018
Tuesday 3:36 am
15861 spacer
>>15860

Julie, I just want to say, I loved Sugar Rush, but you're really annoying.
>> No. 15862 Anonymous
4th September 2018
Tuesday 3:44 am
15862 spacer
>>15860
We could call ourselves Non-Radicalised Moderate Adult Laiety. NORMALs for short.
>> No. 15918 Anonymous
25th September 2018
Tuesday 12:35 pm
15918 spacer
>“I’ve had people saying to me, ‘You just want to fuck about!’” says 29-year-old Calum James, who identifies as a heteroflexible pansexual solo polyamorous relationship anarchist.

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2018/sep/25/truth-about-polyamory-monogamy-open-relationships
>> No. 15919 Anonymous
25th September 2018
Tuesday 1:20 pm
15919 spacer
>>15918

When I read about non-monogamy from people like those in the article it sounds like a profound bore of endless conversations about how people feel, how they feel about what you do, and what they want and avoiding doing the things they don't want. It would suck out any of the interest I had in the fucking, I couldn't imagine a worse way to spend my existence.
>> No. 15920 Anonymous
25th September 2018
Tuesday 2:20 pm
15920 spacer
From that article - "Ninety per cent of polyamory is talking. Sometimes I think, I want to watch a movie! I don’t want to talk about our relationship again. But it’s important to be able to express your fears, rather than waiting for the worst thing to happen."

That really doesn't sound attractive, no matter how many nutters I can line up for a good talking to.

Fair play though, if it floats their collective boats.
>> No. 15921 Anonymous
25th September 2018
Tuesday 2:27 pm
15921 spacer

E7r43.png
159211592115921
>>15918

>heteroflexible pansexual solo polyamorous relationship anarchist

You see, I'm from a generation where you were either straight or a 'moe. Bisexual maybe, but rarely.

All of that just blows my mind and kind of doesn't compute with me.

I'm not saying don't do whatever floats your boat, but it's just an alien way of thinking to many people who grew up when I did.
>> No. 15922 Anonymous
25th September 2018
Tuesday 2:36 pm
15922 spacer
>>15920

I personally have more invested interest being non-monogamous myself so I don't quite accept the 'what ever floats your boat angle'. This model of thinking is suckling all of the joy out of it. I don't want to have to have endless conversations about feelings and have to swear allegiance to intersectionality, but that seems to be what most of the culture thinks they need to do.
>> No. 15923 Anonymous
25th September 2018
Tuesday 2:44 pm
15923 spacer
>>15921

A lot of the string of definitions is really people with too much time on their hands, it's kind of the difference between saying you like rock music and saying you like a very specific subgenre that most people haven't heard of, you are at some level doing it for attention.
>> No. 15924 Anonymous
25th September 2018
Tuesday 2:47 pm
15924 spacer
Is it just that the people who talk endlessly about it are the ones who end up in articles in the Graun, and the ones where it's a simple n-way group getting on with things how they like, fly under the radar?
I imagine shouty gaym8 will be along to say that it's important that people stand up and be counted and proud. And he's probably right. But dammit, heteroflex pan solo(tm), soon to appear in a desneyfied movie near you, sounds like a fuckwad.
>> No. 15925 Anonymous
25th September 2018
Tuesday 3:13 pm
15925 spacer
>>15924

>Is it just that the people who talk endlessly about it are the ones who end up in articles in the Graun, and the ones where it's a simple n-way group getting on with things how they like, fly under the radar?

Exactly. A majority of young people identify as "not entirely heterosexual", but most of them don't feel the need to concoct an extremely specific set of labels for what gets them off. A tiny minority of sexual trainspotters have turned the whole thing into a nerdy subculture, which The Guardian is only too happy to publicise because it gets loads of rageclicks.

This shouty gaym8 does think that it's important for people to stand up and be counted and proud, but you don't need a massive string of sub-sub-sub-categories to do that. If anything, that hyperspecific sexual categorisation is much more stigmatising than a simple taxonomy of "gay", "straight", "bi", "heteroflexible" and "not too picky after four pints".
>> No. 15926 Anonymous
25th September 2018
Tuesday 3:28 pm
15926 spacer
>>15921
It's the sort of person who lets a label define them rather than defining themselves as a person first and foremost who also happens to be x.

Twats, in other words.
>> No. 15927 Anonymous
25th September 2018
Tuesday 5:17 pm
15927 spacer
>>15923

I agree.

Or if you like chicken, you probably won't blurt out to everybody when they ask you if you do, whether they care or not, that it needs to be organic, farm raised, free range, organic grain fed chicken, and that you need your chicken breast to be done five minutes on either side and with a very specific marinade and side dishes of mashed potato and green beans.

And if you do, you're probably just a pompous toff who thinks his taste in chicken is far superior to everybody else's. Which I assume to be true also for people who overspecify their sexual preferences. You don't become a superior bell end nosher just because you can throw around half a dozen sub catergories of gay sexual preferences.

Just to be clear - this is not a post against gays. Really not. It's simply about people who think that they're better than everybody else in this respect.
>> No. 15928 Anonymous
25th September 2018
Tuesday 5:35 pm
15928 spacer
>>15918
>heteroflexible pansexual solo polyamorous relationship anarchist
I don't think there's been a more appropriate trigger for "you're just saying words now".
>> No. 15929 Anonymous
25th September 2018
Tuesday 8:19 pm
15929 spacer
>>15928

>you're just saying words now

People like that very often don't do much else, frankly.
>> No. 16010 Anonymous
7th October 2018
Sunday 6:37 pm
16010 spacer
Graham Linehan, the co-writer of the sitcom Father Ted, has been given a verbal harassment warning by police after a complaint by a transgender activist.

Linehan was told by West Yorkshire police not to contact the activist Stephanie Hayden, after a row on Twitter. Hayden reported him for transphobia after he referred to her as “he” and for “deadnaming” her by referring to her by names used before she transitioned.

Hayden has previously accused Sussex University of being a “temple of transgender hate” and supported the campaign to oust female academics if they challenged transgender orthodoxy. She was also among the activists who pressurised a billboard company to remove a poster in Liverpool, which said the dictionary definition of “woman” was an “adult human female” because it was offensive.


https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2018/oct/07/graham-linehan-police-warning-complaint-by-stephanie-hayden-transgender-activist-twitter
>> No. 16011 Anonymous
7th October 2018
Sunday 6:54 pm
16011 spacer
>>16010
I was observing Lineham's decent into TERFdom and his subsequent Twitter freak out, although in fairness he's been in a perpetual state of Twitter freak out for years now, just the other day. There's no excuse for deadnaming or calling a transwoman "he", even if I do think getting the coppers involved is a bit much. This is just another example of how grossly unproductive most "debate" on Twitter is, whether it's Mary Beard making herself cry by way of an apology or my poor, naive, mum watching a music video because some band told her to, the whole thing has gone to hell in a handbasket.

And while that poster's supposed to sound innoculous, it's a bit like if a bunch of white nationalists put up posters saying "aren't little white babies beautiful?", which yeah, they are, sort of, but there's obviously a further implication that non-white kiddies aren't. Not that I'm saying TERFs are as bad as white nationalists, I'm just making a point about the posters' true meaning. It's essentially a troll poster, likely conceived, where else? On Twitter.
>> No. 16012 Anonymous
7th October 2018
Sunday 7:11 pm
16012 spacer

4838548-6249719-image-a-58_1538926626659.jpg
160121601216012
>>16011
>There's no excuse for deadnaming or calling a transwoman "he", even if I do think getting the coppers involved is a bit much

It doesn't seem that unreasonable in this instance. However, I've definitely had to mentally separate Graham Lineham the Father Ted creator from Graham Lineham the Twitter drama queen; don't meet your idols and all that.
>> No. 16014 Anonymous
7th October 2018
Sunday 10:04 pm
16014 spacer
>>16011

A large part of me believes that the shenanigans of gender identity politics are one insurmountable reason why the human species does not deserve to survive in the future.
>> No. 16015 Anonymous
8th October 2018
Monday 9:25 am
16015 spacer
>>16012
It doesn't look understandable at all to me, he's clearly just trying to get under her skin by being a cunt, unnecessarily so. But yeah, whatever happened to him when he found Twitter has long rendered Linehan* a confirmed div.

*Honestly thought he was "Lineham" all this time until I saw his cropped tweet there, which means I was on his Twitter, reading his tweets and still didn't notice, just days ago.

>>16014
Two points, firstly stop being so melodramic, you great, bloody, baby. Second, the "shenanigans of gender identity politics" is a phrase that makes very little sense. You've smushed "gender identity" and "identity politics" into one and thought it still carried meaning, which it doesn't really rather doesn't. The first bit is about how people express themselves with regards to the present definitions of gender we have, and the second is a right wing slur for when black Americans don't want to bathe in lead polluted water or women are all "hey, quit raping me". I suppose you could say that "gender identity politics" is the advocacy and awareness side of talking about transsexual people, but it's a very cynical way to frame it, especially when trans men and women are all "hey, quit beating me up and raping me" about it. Oh, and don't misgender them just because it makes your six-hundred-and-seventy-two-thousand Twitter followers feel like they got one over on Stephanie Hayden and her twelve-hundred followers.
>> No. 16016 Anonymous
8th October 2018
Monday 9:29 am
16016 spacer
>>16012
>It doesn't seem that unreasonable in this instance.

I don't know why you'd say that. The screenshot you've posted is Linehan lying that trans women have multiple identities. Stephanie Hayden wishes to be known as a woman named Stephanie Hayden; not respecting that is transphobic. And Linehan says he only respects the names and pronouns of trans women who agree with him, which is hilarious.
>> No. 16017 Anonymous
8th October 2018
Monday 11:12 am
16017 spacer
>>16015

And next thing I'll know, you are probably going to tell me that gender science is an actual science.
>> No. 16018 Anonymous
8th October 2018
Monday 11:51 am
16018 spacer
>>16017
I don't think I've ever heard the term "gender science" before now, but well done finding fault with something entirely unknown to me and not anything I actually said, it shows impressive intellectually cowardice on your part.
>> No. 16019 Anonymous
8th October 2018
Monday 12:44 pm
16019 spacer
>>16018

Fine, so the broadly accepted term is gender studies. Which I assume you are indeed familiar with.

The problem though is that gender studies, despite claims to the contrary by its proponents, does not employ methods that conform with what the scientific academic community would accept as indeed scientific. It is largely a pseudoscience which attempts to justify sometimes quite bold and daring claims by attempting to corroborate those claims with skewed methods of data gathering or by outright ignoring well-established and peer reviewed scientific fact if it goes against the ideas that gender science holds to be true.

In that sense, gender studies has more in common with organised religion than with social or even natural science as such. This is especially true when you look at the sometimes quite extreme and fanatic reactions of its followers when you doubt the overall scientific legitimacy of gender studies.
>> No. 16020 Anonymous
8th October 2018
Monday 2:37 pm
16020 spacer
>>16014
Not all the war, genocide, man-made famine, extinctions of fellow species and climate change. No, a non-issue fed to me by some YouTube stars is the reason our species no longer deserves to exist.

This post was brought to you by LOGIC and REASON.
>> No. 16021 Anonymous
8th October 2018
Monday 3:27 pm
16021 spacer
>>16020

You present no reason why you should be spared from the coming extinction of our species.
>> No. 16022 Anonymous
8th October 2018
Monday 3:44 pm
16022 spacer
>>16021
I'm pretty sure no one can escape the extinction of their species.

Besides, >>16020 doesn't exactly read as a "Application to Defy the Laws of Nature".
>> No. 16023 Anonymous
8th October 2018
Monday 3:46 pm
16023 spacer
>>16021
I'm from Buenos Aires, and I say kill 'em all!
>> No. 16024 Anonymous
8th October 2018
Monday 3:56 pm
16024 spacer

Its-when-you-start-to-become-really-afraid-of-deat.jpg
160241602416024
>>16023
>> No. 16025 Anonymous
8th October 2018
Monday 5:28 pm
16025 spacer
>>16019

Except medically diagnosible transexualism is just that, medically diagnosible. Doctors and nurses in the health service aren't spreading the post-modernist view of gender, they're treating people with gender dysphoria. Gender studies is the study of the philosophical and social aspects of gender, not the medical treatment of transgender people. Given that and the amount of TERFs who would fall under the perview of those studying gender, your assumption that it's a field entirely pro-trans and has anything to do with the medical aspects of being transgender leaves me thinking you're terribly confused.

I mean, you wouldn't ask Decartes to show you his sums after he told you "I think therefore I am"; it's just not how philosphy works. Again, I think you've confused being trangender with "why do girls like pink and boys like blue?"
>> No. 16026 Anonymous
8th October 2018
Monday 5:51 pm
16026 spacer
>>16011
I think his argument is predatory men will pretend to identify as female, to sexually assault women in toilets. There is a little evidence for this. This can be solved with gender neutral toilets.

As to my own interaction with the tranny community, I saw some back guy in a dress with a beard, which made me want to retch, on TV (a la Conchita Wurst). I tweeted about it fairly innocuously and received a tirade of abuse from said tranny and the para-tranny militants. Broken and about to rebut the insults, I decided to report the abuse and twitter locked xe's account. The system works.
>> No. 16027 Anonymous
8th October 2018
Monday 6:04 pm
16027 spacer
>>16026
>There is a little evidence for this

It was in the news recently that a sex offender, I think he'd raped a few women and diddled a child, claimed to be trans despite not having reassignment surgery so they could get placed in a female prison. He sexually assaulted four women whilst he was there. His ex-girlfriend said he wasn't really trans but was trying it on.
>> No. 16028 Anonymous
8th October 2018
Monday 6:15 pm
16028 spacer
>>16026

>I saw some back guy in a dress with a beard, which made me want to retch

>I tweeted about it fairly innocuously

I find the innocuous part hard to believe, frankly.
>> No. 16029 Anonymous
8th October 2018
Monday 7:14 pm
16029 spacer
>>16027
Yeah that was what I remember. Though I don't have figures for the number of transgender people using toilets and the number of assaults to make any meaningful conclusions.

>>16028
It was "Why is there a black tranny on [TV programme]?"
>> No. 16031 Anonymous
8th October 2018
Monday 7:58 pm
16031 spacer
>>16025

Are you deliberately being daft?

The issue isn't if somebody will be diagnosed as transsexual. Nor is the issue if transsexuality as such exists. Modern psychology, from empirical scientific studies, says it does very much exist. The problem is that gender studies says gender is all a construct that is ultimately entirely arbitrary. But when you look at the world around you, that is hardly the case. People aren't forced into "stereotypical" gender roles, but the majority assume them freely, which means that most girls will indeed enjoy playing with dolls or wearing pink skirts, whereas boys will largely prefer cars and mechanical toys and they will want to assert their masculinity as they grow into juveniles and young adults. Nobody twists their arm, they tend to fall into those modes all on their own. And now gender studies tries to tell us that boys should discover their fondness for dolls or assume what is typically considered more feminine behaviour, and masculinity as such is branded as "toxic".

And that is why I will never take gender studies seriously. In essence, it is another covert attempt by feminism to "overcome patriarchy" by deconstructing and destroying masculinity.

The bitter truth though is that the vast majority of women will always prefer a "lad's lad" who exudes all the markings of traditional masculinity. Women by and large don't give a fuck about soft, understanding, in touch with their feminine side types. They want manly men, even if they tell themselves they don't, and no matter how fervently gender studies advocates try to deconstruct masculinity.
>> No. 16032 Anonymous
8th October 2018
Monday 8:10 pm
16032 spacer
>>16031
Daft bollocks like this is why I choose the blue pill every time. Now I always win the pissing contest.
>> No. 16033 Anonymous
8th October 2018
Monday 8:54 pm
16033 spacer
>>16031
I'm being consistantly smarter than you.

Almost all that first paragraph of your's does is reiterate the point about gender studies having little to do with people actually being transgender or not, only the philosophic thought around it. You seem to think I'm taking a stance on the "blue v pink" thing, but I very much haven't no matter how hard you try to spark a cunt off about it. As for your wilful conflation of what feminists mean when they say "toxic masculinity", the very prefix of "toxic" is there to distinguish it from regular, non-harmful, masculine behaviour. IE, the difference between wanting to physically exert ones self by climbing a tree to rescue a cat (good, okay, keep it up, lads) and wanting to physically exert yourself by getting pissed and starting a fight because you can't talk to your dad (bad, stop it, cut it out, mate).

Mainstream feminism is making no effort to stop you from going to the gym, becoming a tree surgeon or shagging loads of birds, and doing so by showing off your lovely, big muscles. I think what mainstream feminism is more concerned with is all the sexual violence and entitlement, wage inequality and empowering women. Whatever your take on those select issues, none of them can reasonably be seen as an attack on masculinity, unless you're so far gone as to think rape, gender based pay gaps and disenfranchising young girls are positive things for men.

One thing I woud just add, and I think it's highly pertenant, is what the name of fuck does any of that have to do with transgender people? You know, that thing I was talking about before you made up this other thing called "gender science".
>> No. 16034 Anonymous
8th October 2018
Monday 9:44 pm
16034 spacer
>>16033

Learn to spell, for fucks sake.
>> No. 16035 Anonymous
8th October 2018
Monday 9:59 pm
16035 spacer
>>16031
>The bitter truth though is that the vast majority of women will always prefer a "lad's lad" who exudes all the markings of traditional masculinity. Women by and large don't give a fuck about soft, understanding, in touch with their feminine side types. They want manly men, even if they tell themselves they don't, and no matter how fervently gender studies advocates try to deconstruct masculinity.

This isn't true. In my anecdotal experience the kind of birds who are worth bothering with want someone who is both. Kind of like how (stereotypically at least) a lot of men want a virginal, homely wife who is still a filthy slag in the bedroom for him and only for him.

Also why should we be factoring sex-appeal in later life into how we socialise and educate our children? How do you even know a lad will want girls to fancy him when he's older?
>> No. 16036 Anonymous
8th October 2018
Monday 10:08 pm
16036 spacer
>>16031
>>16033

>People aren't forced into "stereotypical" gender roles, but the majority assume them freely, which means that most girls will indeed enjoy playing with dolls or wearing pink skirts

Unless I'm wrong, pink was very much for boys (and blue for girls) until 100 years ago. I don't really think there's a particular reason for girls = pink (possibly boys = cars) aside from everyone insisting that that is the case.

>The bitter truth though is that the vast majority of women will always prefer a "lad's lad" who exudes all the markings of traditional masculinity. Women by and large don't give a fuck about soft, understanding, in touch with their feminine side types. They want manly men, even if they tell themselves they don't, and no matter how fervently gender studies advocates try to deconstruct masculinity.

I really feel like you're trying to write a homoerotic novel here.

The problem here is that you're polarising the argument into two opposing types of men and then asserting that people want A but pretend to want B. The issue is a lot more complicated than that, but if I may- yeah, women do like a lot of masculine traits and they are important, however if us lad m8s could be a bit more open about our feelings it would do both us and them a favour.

As >>16035 has just written; most girls just want a decent bloke that's alright with talking about his feelings.

General feminism doesn't want us all in chastity getting cucked and knitting, it just wants us to be a bit more open about our feelings and to stop having high suicide rates. We do have a bit of a shit time, and if you're not dense about it- it is an invitation to tell your story.

Or you could just conflate sexuality, gender studies, feminism, etc in to one ball.
>> No. 16037 Anonymous
8th October 2018
Monday 10:26 pm
16037 spacer
>>16036

I'm interested to know where feminism has shown serious concern about male suicide rates. Ideally specific writers or researchers.
>> No. 16038 Anonymous
8th October 2018
Monday 10:42 pm
16038 spacer
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/feminism/2018/10/dog-rape-and-mein-kampf-feminist-text-why-we-hoaxed-journals-terrible
>> No. 16039 Anonymous
8th October 2018
Monday 10:42 pm
16039 spacer
>>16036
I can't think of any evidence at all that would suggest feminism gives a shit about anything so irrelevant to them as male suicide.
>> No. 16040 Anonymous
8th October 2018
Monday 10:45 pm
16040 spacer
>>16036
>Unless I'm wrong, pink was very much for boys (and blue for girls) until 100 years ago.
You're wrong. I don't have the source to hand, but it's an urban myth. The current order is only around 100 years old, but it wasn't a straight flip.
>> No. 16041 Anonymous
8th October 2018
Monday 10:53 pm
16041 spacer
>>16037
Oh, clear off ShowYourWorkingLad, this is a shedpub, not A Level trigonometry.
>> No. 16042 Anonymous
8th October 2018
Monday 11:06 pm
16042 spacer
>>16041

PEOPLE ARE MAKING INTERESTING CLAIMS BUT NOBODYS ALLOWED TO ASK FOR FURTHER INFORMATION.GS
>> No. 16043 Anonymous
8th October 2018
Monday 11:07 pm
16043 spacer
>>16041

Actually I am genuinely interested, because I've been honestly losing faith that anyone beyond a few very specific groups gives a shit about it.
>> No. 16044 Anonymous
8th October 2018
Monday 11:11 pm
16044 spacer
I feel like there is a conflagration with performed and performative gender blue and pink is quite irrelevant (baby blue is far more a woman's colour then a mans).

Where as boys like cars girls like dolls seems far more rooted in biology. Girls will develop more sophisticated social/people skills then boys and much earlier (dolls tend to be about role playing this for girls) and boys will develop practical, fighting and mechanical skills much earlier. And as far as I am aware this will happen without promoting in controlled conditions. (I've met people who were quite determined to prove this is conditioning and we're somewhat disappointed with their results when they found them but objective enough scientists to acknowledge their results).

Academia has something of a circle jerk at the moment where the conclusions about gender have already been made and only the evidence and research that reaches this conclusion is acknowledged or even funded in the first place.
>> No. 16045 Anonymous
8th October 2018
Monday 11:31 pm
16045 spacer
>>16044
How can boys be biologically predisposed to be interested in something invented in the late 19th century?
>> No. 16046 Anonymous
9th October 2018
Tuesday 12:02 am
16046 spacer
>>16045

It did seem like he explained that already.
>> No. 16047 Anonymous
9th October 2018
Tuesday 1:15 am
16047 spacer
>>16045
Time travel lad.
>> No. 16048 Anonymous
9th October 2018
Tuesday 3:00 am
16048 spacer
>>16045

How do cats know to use the litter tray but don't bother to learn to use the loo?

Something else for you to ponder whilst you consider the idea of how instincts for tool use might lead to favour play with mechanical objects over social reenactment.
>> No. 16049 Anonymous
9th October 2018
Tuesday 4:11 am
16049 spacer
>>16048
>How do cats know to use the litter tray
Conditioning.

>but don't bother to learn to use the loo
They tend to have trouble with flushing, the lid and (in case of single males) the seat.

>instincts for tool use
In primates we've observed tool use in the wild by females.
>> No. 16051 Anonymous
9th October 2018
Tuesday 7:09 am
16051 spacer
>>16048
>How do cats know to use the litter tray but don't bother to learn to use the loo?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vNpujPhs_U
>> No. 16052 Anonymous
9th October 2018
Tuesday 10:23 am
16052 spacer
>>16044

>Girls will develop more sophisticated social/people skills then boys and much earlier (dolls tend to be about role playing this for girls) and boys will develop practical, fighting and mechanical skills much earlier. And as far as I am aware this will happen without promoting in controlled conditions.


It just seems to be hardwired, and it both has its purpose and has made us a successful species, from an evolutionary standpoint. As a very generalised statement, boys tend to grow up to be the toolmakers, the ones who drive technology and are more mechanically inclined, and have probably done so since cavepersons first started fashioning hand axes from lumps of flintstone. While girls and women seem to have more of a knack for shaping and influencing social structures in a tribe or group of people, and they also seem to be more drawn to the task of rearing and looking after the children.

Gender studies sees this as a so-called biologism at best, but more generally as forced gender roles that should be abolished. While at the same time ignoring that it just very much seems to be the way our hardwired biology functions in the majority of human specimens.

That isn't to say girls should not strive to be engineers. They absolutely should, if they have that kind of talent and want to make a career out of it. More power to them. And also, there are boys and men with quite sophisticated social skills who are more tuned into the subtleties of human interaction, and good social skills often actually make you appear attractive as a potential mate to women as well (still talking from the evolution biology standpoint here).

Also, it's all well and good that people nowadays get to say they're gender fluid, or that they are one of a dozen genders that gender studies appears to have found out about. But the scientific fallacy of gender studies again is that it projects the concept of gender fluidity which around five to ten percent of the population will agree with and project it onto the remaining 90 percent of the population, who, if you ask them, will invariably identify as wholely male or female, and maybe even give you a funny look for even bringing up such a non-issue. And it is then not the fault of their ignorance that they adhere to fixed genders, but it is the fault of gender studies for not realising that gender for the majority of people really isn't fluid at all.
>> No. 16053 Anonymous
9th October 2018
Tuesday 2:02 pm
16053 spacer
>>16049

>>How do cats know to use the litter tray
>Conditioning.

Except it isn't otherwise it would be equally easy to teach them to use the loo and we would have never bothered with litter trays, there is something in cats programing that litter trays appeal to.

>instincts for tool use
>In primates we've observed tool use in the wild by females.
I never implied we didn't, or that they were incapiable, just that the early development of males is more focused towards it than females. If I said black men can run the hundred meters faster than white men it doesn't mean that white men can't run the 100m and every white man is slower than every black man.


>>16051 I was aware of this, and the fact that you first have to make the toilet a litter tray to get them to make the association demonstrates my point, there is something hardwired into cats that litter trays play upon (like boys with mechanical toys), even though the litter tray is a relatively modern concept (like the toy car) it is designed in a way that appeals to the 'instict' for lack of a better term.
>> No. 16054 Anonymous
9th October 2018
Tuesday 3:00 pm
16054 spacer
A TRANNY
IS A TRANNY
DOESN'T MATTER IF THEY'VE GOT A FANNY
STOP BEING SO UNCANNY
OR I'LL REPORT YOU TO YOUR GRANNY
YOU PATHETIC LITTLE MANNY
DOESN'T MATTER IF THEY'RE IRANI
IF THEY WANT TO CALL THEMSELVES ANNIE
OR EVEN DANNY
A TRANNY IS A TRANNY
THATS THE PLANNY
>> No. 16055 Anonymous
9th October 2018
Tuesday 5:52 pm
16055 spacer
>>16053
>it would be equally easy to teach them to use the loo[citation needed]

>I never implied we didn't
Yes, you did. See, you can't really have your idea that males are biologically wired for tool use without the inherent implication that females are not biologically wired for it, because it would otherwise be a completely empty statement. If males are indeed biologically wired for tool use, then in the wild we would see mainly male primates using tools, but what we've actually observed is mainly females.

>the fact that you first have to make the toilet a litter tray to get them to make the association demonstrates my point
No, it doesn't. It demonstrates the exact opposite. It's a fairly straightforward example of conditioning.
>> No. 16057 Anonymous
9th October 2018
Tuesday 7:31 pm
16057 spacer
You have to either pick

that cats only use litter trays because we 'condition' them to and therefore we could' condition' them to use the loo without using a litter tray first just as easily. given both are completely unnatural concepts to them.

OR

cats have a better understanding of litter trays because of instict and it is therefore harder to train them to use the loo.

you can't have both.
>> No. 16059 Anonymous
9th October 2018
Tuesday 7:38 pm
16059 spacer
>>16057
One behaviour is easier to condition because it's closer to natural instincts, but it's still conditioning.
>> No. 16061 Anonymous
9th October 2018
Tuesday 7:54 pm
16061 spacer
>>16055

>Yes, you did. See, you can't really have your idea that males are biologically wired for tool use without the inherent implication that females are not biologically wired for it,because it would otherwise be a completely empty statement.


>without the inherent implication that females are not biologically wired for it

Where is that written? female lions are better hunters than male lions that doesn't mean the male can't hunt.


> If males are indeed biologically wired for tool use, then in the wild we would see mainly male primates using tools, but what we've actually observed is mainly females.

That might be relivant if there wasn't 4-13 million years of genetic drift from our closest common ancestor with them that is more than enough time for social roles to change..
>> No. 16062 Anonymous
9th October 2018
Tuesday 7:56 pm
16062 spacer
>>16059

Good now take that sentance and apply it to everything that has been said about male and female developmental differances.

(A good day to you Sir!)
>> No. 16063 Anonymous
9th October 2018
Tuesday 8:06 pm
16063 spacer

DnP3TIUW4AAnxLG.jpg
160631606316063
Finally, moaning about cats, we're back on topic.
>> No. 16068 Anonymous
9th October 2018
Tuesday 10:04 pm
16068 spacer
>>16061
It's getting late, lad. You can stop making shit up now.
>> No. 16069 Anonymous
9th October 2018
Tuesday 10:21 pm
16069 spacer
>>16061
>Where is that written?
In the definitions of the words "more" and "less". Surely you aren't stupid enough not to realise this. If boys are more inclined to mechanical stuff than girls, then by definition girls are less inclined towards it than boys.

>genetic drift
>social roles
2/10 SEE ME
>> No. 16070 Anonymous
9th October 2018
Tuesday 10:28 pm
16070 spacer
>>16069

Less isn't the same as not.
>> No. 16071 Anonymous
9th October 2018
Tuesday 10:44 pm
16071 spacer
>>16070
Do you want to argue substance or semantics?
>> No. 16072 Anonymous
9th October 2018
Tuesday 11:59 pm
16072 spacer
>>16071
Don't ask questions you're not ready to hear the answer to.
>> No. 16073 Anonymous
10th October 2018
Wednesday 12:07 am
16073 spacer
>>16072
I'll take that as "semantics", and direct you to kindly fuck off and leave the grown-ups to it.
>> No. 16074 Anonymous
10th October 2018
Wednesday 12:16 am
16074 spacer
>>16073
I'm not him, you horrible little sod.

And even if I was, stop calling people names and telling them to "fuck off" like you're some kind of hardcase. You're Anonymous not Achilles.
>> No. 16076 Anonymous
10th October 2018
Wednesday 12:40 am
16076 spacer
>>16074
>I'm not him, you horrible little sod.
I'm not entirely sure what difference you think that makes. If you don't have anything constructive to add, I would refer the honourable member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
>> No. 16077 Anonymous
10th October 2018
Wednesday 12:57 am
16077 spacer
>>16076
I don't even know what you pair were talking about, I just made an off-hand comment and got your melodramitic, smug reply chucked at me and thought you might benefit from having it pointed out that you're taking yourself far too seriously and you're beginning to look silly.

Maybe your little sparring partner is as well, but he hasn't proudly declared himself one of the "grown-ups" while telling people to fuck off on an imageboard in the middle of the night.
>> No. 16078 Anonymous
10th October 2018
Wednesday 8:11 pm
16078 spacer
>>16077

>telling people to fuck off on an imageboard in the middle of the night

A low point in anybody's life.
>> No. 16359 Anonymous
6th November 2018
Tuesday 5:33 pm
16359 spacer
>The notion of racial fluidity, or transracialism, first hit the headlines when Rachel Dolezal, the white woman posing as an African American, was exposed in 2015 and used it in her defence. The terms apply to any person identifying with a race or ethnic group that differs from their biological reality or heritage. Being transracial is not the same as simply “feeling” black, or Asian, or white. It is the complex situation of being split between cultures and denied knowledge of one’s heritage’. Lennon has been identifying as a mixed-black man for large portion of his life, both on and off stage, and some believe he has a legitimate claim to blackness. Unlike Dolezal, Lennon hasn’t had to alter his appearance to be seen as black, stating in 2012 that he went through “the struggles of a black man, a black actor” when it came to landing roles. In 1990, he starred in a BBC docu-drama about his experiences and the show’s publicity declared that Lennon’s parents “both come from Ireland and are both indisputably white”.

>I know that racial fluidity can be a very real, very unsettling experience, but I’m not convinced that Lennon’s story relates to this concept. I was born to white parents, one of whom is Irish, with no real explanation for my obvious blackness. I looked mixed race, but found that well-meaning whiteness scrubbed out a large part of who I was. We didn’t discuss race within my family, and anxieties around whether I was really related to my parents disrupted an otherwise happy childhood, until a DNA test later proved my mother had an affair. Since writing about this, many others have shared with me strikingly similar battles of belonging: black adoptees who have been raised in white spaces; those who have been lied to about their heritage; others who have had their identities rocked to the core with DNA test revelations.

>We don’t know whether difficult truths about Lennon have yet to emerge. The black-Irish “throwback gene” story that some say applies to him was also repeated to me to justify my family narrative. Lennon hasn’t spoken about any genetic evidence of his heritage, so who knows if there’s something he doesn’t know, as there was for me. I can relate to his description of flirting with multiple identities – and in psychological terms, there has been much written about how the ways others view you can contribute to your overall sense of self.

>However, I’m concerned that the conversation around racial fluidity continues to be hijacked by a privileged minority, white or white-passing people opting for a performative, monolithic type of blackness that fails to acknowledge the complexities of being a real-life person of colour. Lennon’s new racial identity was apparently born after he failed to achieve success in the acting world as a white man. But this means he may have prevented talented ethnic-minority actors from accessing an already very limited pool of funding in the creative industries. One therefore can’t help but compare this maddeningly entitled approach to Dolezal who, as a white woman, unsuccessfully tried to sue Howard University in 2002 for discriminating against her because of her race, before deciding that co-opting blackness would improve her career chances.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/06/black-anthony-lennon-theatre-director-white-mixed-race

Is race fluidity a thing now?
>> No. 16360 Anonymous
6th November 2018
Tuesday 5:39 pm
16360 spacer
>>16359
You know you're not supposed to take anything on CiF seriously, right?
>> No. 16361 Anonymous
6th November 2018
Tuesday 5:42 pm
16361 spacer
>>16359
No. No it isn't.

Poor trans people, all they want to do is take hormones and feel sad and we can't even let them do that in peace, instead they get lumped in with these chancers and forced to explain their existence every fifteen minutes.
>> No. 16362 Anonymous
6th November 2018
Tuesday 5:55 pm
16362 spacer
>>16359

>the conversation around racial fluidity continues to be hijacked by a privileged minority

That's the kind of sentence that just crashes my brain, like a paradox does with robots in Futurama.

I mean I want to react with indignation but honestly, it's not a big logical leap that if you an be the wrong gender, you can be the wrong race. Or the wrong species. Or hell, the wrong time period, why not.
>> No. 16363 Anonymous
6th November 2018
Tuesday 10:23 pm
16363 spacer

blacksimpsons.jpg
163631636316363
>>16359
>Being transracial is not the same as simply “feeling” black, or Asian, or white.

Why not? That sort of "feeling" is precisely how Gender Identity Disorder is defined, and even that's facing calls to be depathologised anyway. The biological differences between ethnic groups are miniscule compared to those between genders, deciding that you can change yours based on a feeling is a far less ridiculous conceit.
>> No. 16364 Anonymous
6th November 2018
Tuesday 10:59 pm
16364 spacer
I remember when the Dolezal story first hit the headlines and I somehow found myself discussing it with a couple of liberal North London type white girls at a party somewhere. At the time, basically just to amuse myself, I pretended to agree with the principle of being able to choose your own race because I knew they would pretend to agree with me or at least be too polite and right-on to challenge my perspective.

No regrets. It was really funny at the time.
>> No. 16365 Anonymous
7th November 2018
Wednesday 12:32 am
16365 spacer
>>16363

It is not the same in the way that being religious isn't just being superstitious; your manager is being is assertive, not just being an arsehole; and that it is gardening tool primarily for digging, comprising a blade and a long handle, not a spade
>> No. 16366 Anonymous
7th November 2018
Wednesday 1:58 am
16366 spacer
>>16365

So in lieu of explaining why it's different, you're just going to say "it's different"? If you're going to take the view that all transracial people are chancers or disturbed, how are you any different from someone who dismissively says the same about transgenders? If a black friend of mine told me he'd always identified with white people and considered himself to be transracial then I'd find it bloody weird but I wouldn't laugh in his face or say "no, biologically you're not nor can you ever be". I've never had to sit down and consider this before, but it ultimately makes no more or less sense than transgenderism. If anything it's a more naturally fluid area of human identity.
>> No. 16367 Anonymous
7th November 2018
Wednesday 2:49 am
16367 spacer
>>16366
>So in lieu of explaining why it's different, you're just going to say "it's different"?

I explained why you just failed to understand.
>> No. 16369 Anonymous
7th November 2018
Wednesday 3:00 am
16369 spacer
>>16367

Could you explain it better or more simply for the unwashed masses, then?

You seem to have just said 'it's not the same because these other things aren't the same' which isn't helpful to someone as thick as I am. Please help.
>> No. 16370 Anonymous
7th November 2018
Wednesday 10:17 am
16370 spacer
>>16369

Sorry I only state my opinion in vague statements. What is the difference between being religious and being superstitious?
>> No. 16372 Anonymous
7th November 2018
Wednesday 10:19 am
16372 spacer
>>16370

>What is the difference between being religious and being superstitious?

That society traditionally assigns more value and legitimacy to one than the other.

HMMM
>> No. 16373 Anonymous
7th November 2018
Wednesday 10:25 am
16373 spacer
>>16370

1. A larger network of followers
2. Government recognition
3. Viewed with more weight simply because more people believe it
4. Arguably religion is just superstition with more arbitrary respect behind it

I'm struggling to see how this makes thinking you're black any different to thinking you're a woman.

You should have gone with brain chemistry or something.
>> No. 16374 Anonymous
7th November 2018
Wednesday 10:54 am
16374 spacer
>>16373

Good. One more step. Compare and contrast.
>> No. 16375 Anonymous
7th November 2018
Wednesday 11:12 am
16375 spacer
>>16360
They're having a pop at Attenborough today, fucking hell.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/07/david-attenborough-world-environment-bbc-films
>> No. 16376 Anonymous
7th November 2018
Wednesday 11:17 am
16376 spacer
>>16375
*Gasp*

How dare someone voice disagreement with somone else?
>> No. 16377 Anonymous
7th November 2018
Wednesday 11:20 am
16377 spacer
>>16375

that article was pure clickbait, why did you post a link? I could have not given them the satisfaction.
>> No. 16378 Anonymous
7th November 2018
Wednesday 11:23 am
16378 spacer
>>16376

it isn't is disagreement (they are just moaning that the good work he has done isn't perfect), it is raw character assassination for attention.
>> No. 16379 Anonymous
7th November 2018
Wednesday 11:30 am
16379 spacer

serveimage.jpg
163791637916379
>>16366

Gender really is complicated and ambiguous.

Look at the athletes Caster Semenya and Dutee Chand. They both have XX chromosomes, but the IAAF and the IOC aren't entirely sure that they count as female and you can see their point. If a committee of scientists can spend eight months trying to figure out whether someone is male or female and come back with an answer that includes the word "probably", then you know you're dealing with something pretty bloody complicated.

All foetuses start out as completely undifferentiated by gender. It may or may not have a Y chromosome, but it doesn't start developing any sex-specific characteristics until about 10 weeks. By default you develop into a female. If you do have a Y chromosome, the SRY gene usually causes you to develop male traits - you develop testes rather than ovaries, those testes produce androgens, the androgen receptors in your cells respond to those androgens and you become male.

The thing is, there are at least 400 known mutations of the androgen receptor gene. Those mutations can cause your androgen receptors to be partially or completely insensitive to androgen; you develop testes as a foetus, they're pumping out signals to the rest of your body telling it to develop male traits, but your body either struggles to hear or completely ignores those signals. The prevalence of these mutations is a lot higher than you might imagine - at least 8% of people with a Y chromosome have one or more mutations.

If you've got XX chromosomes, your development in the womb can be significantly affected by your mother's androgen levels. People without testes still produce androgens, albeit in much lower levels. There's fairly good evidence to suggest a link between prenatal androgen exposure and transsexualism, homosexuality and autism-spectrum disorders. We know that people on the autism spectrum are drastically more likely to be transsexual or homosexual, supporting the plausibility of this link. On a population level, there have been some fairly significant changes to prenatal androgen levels due to environmental exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals.

Human biology is unfathomably complicated and there are myriad ways that the development of sex characteristics can go a bit wonky. I'm willing to extend the benefit of the doubt to most people who say "you got it wrong, I'm not the gender you thought I was at birth".
>> No. 16380 Anonymous
7th November 2018
Wednesday 11:40 am
16380 spacer
>>16378

Firstly "they"? It isn't "they" it's George Monbiot, it says so at the top of the thing you didn't bother reading. Secondly, proper grown ups can have big massive disagreements that aren't "character assassinations". Highlighting Attenborough's gently gently approach to protecting the enviroment, and expressing frustration with it, doesn't come close to "character assassination" and to claim it does is hysterical guff. Stop being such a whinging, mardy, baby and learn how to disagree with people instead having a teary because someone was mean to dear old Grandpa gorilla whisperer. I doubt David Attenborough, being an intelligent, passionate, adult of quite some vintage, is feeling especially devestated this morning.
>> No. 16381 Anonymous
7th November 2018
Wednesday 12:04 pm
16381 spacer
>>16380

The only person having a teary here is you.

The guardian knows exactly what it is doing, it is like printing an article by Morrissey about eating meat being the same as the holocaust, or by Sean Penn about how Britain should give the Falklands to Argentina. It is the incoherent ramblings of a famous person for the sake of being contrarian and get attention disguised as giving balance.
>> No. 16382 Anonymous
7th November 2018
Wednesday 12:06 pm
16382 spacer
>>16381
Morrissey is actually a cunt though.
>> No. 16384 Anonymous
7th November 2018
Wednesday 12:32 pm
16384 spacer
Oxygen of publicity, lads.
>> No. 16385 Anonymous
7th November 2018
Wednesday 12:37 pm
16385 spacer
>>16379
>Look at the athletes Caster Semenya and Dutee Chand. They both have XX chromosomes, but the IAAF and the IOC aren't entirely sure that they count as female and you can see their point.

If they stopped gendering athletics, you could solve the problem over night, if you phrase it right buzz feed would feel obligated to support the movement.

>The thing is, there are at least 400 known mutations of the androgen receptor gene. Those mutations can cause your androgen receptors to be partially or completely insensitive to androgen; you develop testes as a foetus, they're pumping out signals to the rest of your body telling it to develop male traits, but your body either struggles to hear or completely ignores those signals.

If a TV has no antenna is it still a TV or is it just a monitor?

If a male has a no willy, Are they a woman?


>at least 8% of people with a Y chromosome have one or more mutations
I'm not quite sure what point you are making here, 100% of people have mutations we still consider them human even if they have 6 fingers or 3 kidneys, why would that 8% not just be male.
I think a lot of these things are over complicated for the sake of feelings, peoples obsession with genitals and corner cases.
>> No. 16386 Anonymous
7th November 2018
Wednesday 1:01 pm
16386 spacer
>>16385

>I'm not quite sure what point you are making here

At least 8% of people with a Y chromosome have one or more mutations of the gene that determines whether you have male or female characteristics. When you raise the issue of intersex conditions, a common retort is "ah, but they're very rare exceptions to the gender binary". There is concrete scientific evidence to support the idea that sex and gender are a spectrum with a meaningful grey area.

The crux of my argument is that any effort to establish a gender binary is in fact massively overcomplicating things. "Some people are male, some people are female, some people are a bit ambiguous" is fully supported by science and perfectly straightforward. "Everyone is either male or female, no exceptions, no swapsies" means you have to explain a whole bunch of weird and complicated stuff that doesn't fit into a neat either/or.

Essentially, I think we should all just fucking relax about it. The gender binary is stupid, having 47 different gender identities is stupid, but it's perfectly reasonable to acknowledge that lots of people switch teams at some point in their life or just aren't sure which side they're on. It's only a big deal if you choose to make it a big deal.
>> No. 16388 Anonymous
7th November 2018
Wednesday 1:07 pm
16388 spacer
>>16366

>it ultimately makes no more or less sense than transgenderism

I think what it boils down to is that there's a lot of people on that spectrum who have a vested interest in the whole biological argument for transgenderism. Those who want it legitimised as a real life medical thing, and not just a fantasy everyone collectively allows you to indulge for the sake of making you happy. If they let the slope become slippery enough to allow transracialism or transpeciesism, their position becomes blatantly and transparently absurd, and that's the issue. It really does make no difference, from an ethical viewpoint, whether it's a "real" biological thing or not.

I'm the bitter furfag from the last time we talked about this sort of thing. I think they're a bunch of fucking hypocrites really.
>> No. 16389 Anonymous
7th November 2018
Wednesday 1:44 pm
16389 spacer
>>16388

You're not a fox m8, get over it.
>> No. 16391 Anonymous
7th November 2018
Wednesday 2:28 pm
16391 spacer
>>16386

>At least 8% of people with a Y chromosome have one or more mutations of the gene that determines whether you have male or female characteristics.

A mutation of the Y chromosome is not the same as being intersex, the majority are benign and meaningless. Intersex really covers 2 key areas an unusual arrangement of sexual phenotype chromosomes (typically caused by unusual cell division), or an atypical development (typically because of a resistance to developmental hormones) or if feeling really generous with your definition the majority are just the failure for the urethra to properly form in a bloke.
None of that has anything to do with mutation of the y chromosome.
>When you raise the issue of intersex conditions, a common retort is "ah, but they're very rare exceptions to the gender binary". There is concrete scientific evidence to support the idea that sex and gender are a spectrum with a meaningful grey area.

They are a very rare exceptions to the gender binary, it isn't a spectrum for more than 99% of the population there is really very little grey area, you are more likely to be born with only one kidney then to be intersex we don't re-write text books to include every single exception to the rule it all points to an obsession with genitalia to me.

>The crux of my argument is that any effort to establish a gender binary is in fact massively overcomplicating things. "Some people are male, some people are female, some people are a bit ambiguous" is fully supported by science and perfectly straightforward. "Everyone is either male or female, no exceptions, no swapsies" means you have to explain a whole bunch of weird and complicated stuff that doesn't fit into a neat either/or.

Vague non-committed statements are always supported by science but not terribly useful or meaningful, particularly as you seem to be suggesting that there is a more broad quantity of 'a bit ambiguous' then actually exists, and ignore the very obvious point that intersex people are the result of a malfunction in process of churning out one or the other which although not very nice is the truth of the matter. If we had stable human hermaphrodites passing on human hermaphrodite genes with regular frequency or your mother's line always gave birth to six worker children who were infertile for every fertile one who look after her and you, you might have a point but we don't.
>> No. 16392 Anonymous
7th November 2018
Wednesday 4:35 pm
16392 spacer
>>16388
>Those who want it legitimised as a real life medical thing
It is legitimised, though. It's treated as a physiological condition as there is sufficient evidence to support the theory that is a brain abnormailty and sufficient evidence to support transition being the only recourse.

Gender dysphoria is a symptom, not the condition, the condition is Gender Dysmorphia. Gender dysphoria can present itself in patients with mental health issues. It's the gender clinics job to weed them out.

You don't just get to say you're a woman and then they give you hormones, in the UK at least, so it is different from whatever being a furry is (A fetish? Who the fuck knows). Auto-gynephilia is what I suspect you're conflating with trangenderism to come to the conclusion trannies are hypocrites, which again is different.
>> No. 16393 Anonymous
7th November 2018
Wednesday 5:23 pm
16393 spacer
>>16374

So because loads of people say religion is different to superstition, it just is?

Got it, thanks. This means if I get enough people to sign my petition I'm legally black. Cheers pal
>> No. 16394 Anonymous
7th November 2018
Wednesday 5:40 pm
16394 spacer
>>16393
Is it possible to legally even be a particular ethnicity? I mean, I'm White British but am I legally White British?
>> No. 16395 Anonymous
7th November 2018
Wednesday 5:53 pm
16395 spacer
>>16394

I'm some countries it goes down on your birth certificate and you can use it get places at university despite having scores in the 70% range instead of the 90% range.

And that was your pointless factoid of the week
>> No. 16396 Anonymous
7th November 2018
Wednesday 5:56 pm
16396 spacer
Pensioner, 69, 'who identifies as a 45-year-old' begins legal action to have his age reduced so he can attract more women on Tinder

A 69-year-old Dutchman is battling to legally reduce his age by 20 years so he can get more work and attract more women on Tinder.

Emile Ratelband argues that if transgender people are allowed to change sex, he should be allowed to change his date of birth because doctors said he has the body of a 45-year-old. The motivational speaker, a media personality in the Netherlands, is suing his local authority after they refused to amend his age on official documents.

Mr Ratelband's case has now gone to a court in the city of Arnhmen in the eastern Dutch province of Gelderland. He was born on 11 March, 1949, but says he feels at least 20 years younger and wants to change his birth date to 11 March, 1969.


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6363439/Pensioner-69-identifies-45-year-old-tries-change-age.html
>> No. 16397 Anonymous
7th November 2018
Wednesday 6:00 pm
16397 spacer
>>16392

Isn't generalised body dysmorphia/dysphoria also a thing?

>You don't just get to say you're a woman and then they give you hormones

Of course not, but you pretty much do (and should) get to just say you're a woman and have people treat you as such.

>It really does make no difference, from an ethical viewpoint, whether it's a "real" biological thing or not.

Was my main point. There's trannies, there's people who are half way between, there's people who feel like one on Monday and the other on a Tuesday. The scientific evidence is irrelevant in the face of all that, it's a philosophical question about whether you're willing to accommodate people's self image.

>>16389

I am and I've yiffed your mum.
>> No. 16400 Anonymous
7th November 2018
Wednesday 6:27 pm
16400 spacer
>>16396
I don't know what's worse, that this cunt thinks he's funny or that not a single person in comments seems to realise he's just taking the piss. I'm getting those "get me off this fucking planet" feelings again.
>> No. 16410 Anonymous
7th November 2018
Wednesday 7:26 pm
16410 spacer
>>16400
Plenty of people in the comments realised it.
>> No. 16414 Anonymous
7th November 2018
Wednesday 7:47 pm
16414 spacer
>>16400
You don't know he's taking the piss.
>> No. 16416 Anonymous
7th November 2018
Wednesday 8:24 pm
16416 spacer
>>16397

>The scientific evidence is irrelevant in the face of all that

It really is though. The NHS doesn't offer treatment to people who just fancy a penis enlargement. The Disability Discrimination Act doesn't require employers to make reasonable adjustments for lazy bastards. The scientific basis for transsexuality is very much relevant to the social and legal status of transgender people.

>I am and I've yiffed your mum.

Joke's on you mate, my mum is dead.
>> No. 16442 Anonymous
10th November 2018
Saturday 7:52 am
16442 spacer

offspring-pretty-fly.png
164421644216442
The transracialist gives his side.

>I have never made any secret of the fact that I was born to Irish parents, and that my parents and grandparents are white. But my identity is different. It’s there for all to see in Chilling Out, a documentary I took part in back in 1990. As I said then: “When I’m alone in my bedroom looking in the mirror, thinking about stuff I’ve written down, thinking about my past … I think I’m a black man.”

>I am the eldest of three brothers, but during early childhood, when there were only two of us, to neighbours on our west London estate, we looked as if we weren’t our parents’ children. There was an old saying: “Mother’s baby, father’s maybe” – only the mother knows. When I was born, my dad wasn’t sure if I was his son, and this was heartbreaking for my mum, to say the least. Two years later another little boy came along with the same physical characteristics, which must have been another bombshell.

>Both of us had a sense of this not being our home, or our parents. People would arrive on the doorstep to gawp at us. In primary school, when I was seven or eight, people would ask me where I came from and would conclude that I must be adopted. So, at an age where I didn’t know what race or identity was, I became the subject of whispering and conversation. My best friend was black, and he gave me an afro comb because my mum couldn’t manage my hair.

>After my parents divorced when I was 12, we moved into a flat with a Rastafarian couple living upstairs, and the woman would take me up to their flat and I would feel at home. There was a salon where I got my hair canerowed. It was like being adopted or fostered by people who “got” you, or knew what you needed. It was at about that time that I heard the word “throwback”. I wasn’t sure what they were talking about. But in my mind there is no doubt that I have some African ancestry.

>In our early teens, both my brother and I developed nervous tics as a result of our experiences, so somebody suggested we did out-of-school activities to build up our confidence. My brother got into sport and I started doing youth theatre, where there was a black youth leader who would spend time with me. When rap and hip-hop hit the UK I got really intoxicated by it, and began to develop a sense of ownership of who I was through music and other aspects of black cultural expression. There was a local all-black body-popping crew, and at 18 I asked if I could join it. I strolled up and showed them my “robot”. (They later said they didn’t know if I was simple or just really confident, because nobody just asked to join a crew like that). The leader of the crew was of mixed parentage, and he reflected me back to myself.

>By 1995 I was living in Manchester, and got heavily involved in African-centred studies. This had a major impact on what I was bringing through as a mixed-heritage actor. As my interests developed, I began working as an assistant director around the country. I had been doing so for many years when this opportunity came up to apply for the two-year artistic development leadership programme bursary through Talawa Theatre Company, and I went for it. It isn’t about training to be a director but about developing leadership skills. Then, suddenly, a year into it, all these accusations start flying around about my white background – something I’ve never hidden.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/10/white-parents-african-ancestry-anthony-ekundayo-lennon

His mum's shagged a black man.
>> No. 16444 Anonymous
10th November 2018
Saturday 10:42 am
16444 spacer
>>16442

Excellent use of the "Message too long. Click here to view the full text."

I wish they had a family photo.
>> No. 16445 Anonymous
10th November 2018
Saturday 11:23 am
16445 spacer

6003092-6373927-Anthony_Lennon_on_the_left_and_bro.jpg
164451644516445
>>16444
The Mail article has pictures of his parents and he certainly seems to have similar facial features to his Dad.

>Even more curiously, it emerges that Anthony is not the only family member to have been born looking as if he has black heritage. A cousin on his father’s side was also known for his dark skin and hair — so much so that he was, in the Fifties, given the racist nickname ‘Wamba Womba’ by neighbours in reference to the fact he looked almost black.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6373927/He-took-grant-black-actors-parents-white-read-bizarre-story.html

His Grandma shagged a black man.
>> No. 16446 Anonymous
10th November 2018
Saturday 12:57 pm
16446 spacer
>>16445

I think his apperance is probably a phenomena known as 'black irish' that is mostly anecdotal and therefore not well understood or documented, but has been reported as happening for hundreds of years.
>> No. 16447 Anonymous
10th November 2018
Saturday 5:07 pm
16447 spacer
>>16445
I guess it's just a genetic mutation or recessive genes.

His story is a bit bollocks though. Oh he loves hip-hop because he's black, of course. No white Irish fans of rap exist I guess.
>> No. 16448 Anonymous
10th November 2018
Saturday 6:46 pm
16448 spacer
>>16447
I've always found white boys who predominantly listen to rap music to be a little odd.
>> No. 16450 Anonymous
10th November 2018
Saturday 7:27 pm
16450 spacer
>>16448

I know what you mean, though I don't think it's a bad kind of odd. They're usually quite self-aware, particularly if they're involved in making/writing the music too.

The weirdest white boys I've met are the ones who are very into IDM and ambient type stuff. No, I don't want to talk about your monome.
>> No. 16454 Anonymous
10th November 2018
Saturday 8:30 pm
16454 spacer

51SS6kreEQL.jpg
164541645416454
>>16450

>No, I don't want to talk about your monome.
>> No. 16456 Anonymous
10th November 2018
Saturday 9:14 pm
16456 spacer
>>16454

Ptolomy's wine
>> No. 16457 Anonymous
10th November 2018
Saturday 9:29 pm
16457 spacer

>> No. 16458 Anonymous
11th November 2018
Sunday 2:11 pm
16458 spacer
>>16450

What about the white boys who quite like rap and electronic music?
>> No. 16459 Anonymous
11th November 2018
Sunday 3:01 pm
16459 spacer
>>16458

That describes myself, and I'm weird as fuck, but I like to think I get away with it.
>> No. 16460 Anonymous
11th November 2018
Sunday 6:03 pm
16460 spacer
>>16458
They'll catch a jpeg to the head!
>> No. 16510 Anonymous
17th November 2018
Saturday 11:10 pm
16510 spacer

>> No. 16513 Anonymous
17th November 2018
Saturday 11:40 pm
16513 spacer

>> No. 17226 Anonymous
6th January 2019
Sunday 9:14 am
17226 spacer

8170404-6561259-image-m-69_1546734455873.jpg
172261722617226
You might have thought it was the most innocuous item someone could wear: a simple black T-shirt bearing the dictionary definition of woman as ‘human female’. Rebekah Wershbale said she was ‘stunned’ when a barwoman at the pub informed her she was banned because of the definition.

Ms Wershbale said: ‘She told me that the T-shirt I was wearing was upsetting people because it was transphobic and not inclusive so I was barred. What she meant was that I was somehow offending men who say they are women because my T-shirt did not include them in the definition of a woman. There aren’t even any transgender staff or patrons at the pub. It’s crackers.

Ms Wershbale is a member of feminist group Fair Play For Women, which opposed a Government’s consultation to reform the Gender Recognition Act (GRA). This proposed legal change would allow people to self-identify as the gender they believe they are without any medical diagnosis. Feminists and transgender campaigners have been locked in an increasingly heated battle with leading feminists fearing the change will harm the safety and privacy of women.

Ms Wershbale, a mother-of-one, had gone last Sunday with her girlfriend to play board games at the pub where she has been a regular for three years. But the 34-year-old was surprised to be approached by a member of staff with a complaint. Nothing out of the ordinary had happened that evening, except when she spoke to another drinker at the pub, a gay man called Mika Johnson.

‘I sat down next to him and asked him how he was,’ Ms Wershbale said. ‘He said, “I don’t want to talk to you to be honest – please leave me alone.” ‘So I said OK and left it.’

Thirty minutes later a member of the bar staff named Heather came to Ms Wershbale’s table to tell her she was no longer welcome at the pub. ‘Heather said I’d been upsetting people and Mika was crying,’ Ms Wershbale said. ‘She told me that the way I talk about radical feminism was a problem and said: “The T-shirt you’re wearing is upsetting and not inclusive.” I replied that it simply said the dictionary definition of being a woman – how can it be offensive? She mumbled a bit about it being transphobic and that I had been transphobic previously. She then said I was barred and that she had been nominated by the other bar staff to come to tell me that. I asked if she thought it was troubling that I was being removed from my own local because I was wearing a feminist T-shirt that had upset a gay man. But she just repeated I wasn’t being inclusive.’

On the same day Mr Johnson – the pub goer Ms Wershbale had offended – took to Twitter to talk about his distress. He wrote: ‘When you’re trying to relax in your fave pub and there is a TERF [trans exclusionary radical feminist] wearing an anti-trans T-shirt… it’s disgusting and I’m so upset by it.’ The owner of Five Clouds Tap and Bottle Brewery Tom Lewis confirmed Ms Wershbale had been ordered to leave after the complaint. But he said there had been a series of incidents where she had upset staff and customers by challenging them about their views on men identifying as female.

Tory MP David Davies said: ‘Terrifyingly this insidious creep of open debate no longer being tolerated and freedom of speech being suppressed is now spreading from our university campuses to the streets of our historic market towns. It is a very sad day when a woman is barred from her pub for wearing a T-shirt that states the obvious because it might offend transgender people.’


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6561259/Young-mother-barred-pub-wearing-T-shirt-saying-Woman-human-female.html

Lads. I think we've been infiltrated by a Tory MP. Also, I don't get how people can invest so much time and effort into this level of petty drama.
>> No. 17227 Anonymous
6th January 2019
Sunday 10:33 am
17227 spacer
>>17226

>The owner of Five Clouds Tap and Bottle Brewery Tom Lewis confirmed Ms Wershbale had been ordered to leave after the complaint. But he said there had been a series of incidents where she had upset staff and customers by challenging them about their views on men identifying as female.

The Daily Mail, burying the lede as per bloody usual. "Pub bars customer for being a persistent nuisance" isn't much of a story.
>> No. 17230 Anonymous
6th January 2019
Sunday 11:49 am
17230 spacer
>>17226
Just look at that smug look on face, the wearing of a graphic t-shirt as an adult, going to some shitty converted bar to play boardgames and bother gay men. I wonder if she knows why people are so rough with her in the bedroom.

>Rebekah

And learn to spell your own name.
>> No. 17233 Anonymous
6th January 2019
Sunday 12:16 pm
17233 spacer
>>17227

It's upsetting that Daily Mail readers will skip over this part. It seems like she wore that shirt specifically to annoy the people she'd been blathering on to in the pub.

I really don't understand this TERF shit anyway, it seems counter-intuitive, though I suppose it's just that some people found a way to be both a Tory and a feminist.
>> No. 17238 Anonymous
6th January 2019
Sunday 3:20 pm
17238 spacer
>>17233
Proper TERFism is basically "No, this is my oppression, get your filthy man-hands off it!"
>> No. 17239 Anonymous
6th January 2019
Sunday 3:25 pm
17239 spacer

cb28e56f944f546887f565e09fbdfc23.jpg
172391723917239
>>17230
>Just look at that smug look on face, the wearing of a graphic t-shirt as an adult, going to some shitty converted bar to play boardgames and bother gay men

A lot of well off and insufferably righteous women seem to have almost the exact same face. Lily Allen, Jack Monroe, Phoebe Waller-Bridge, etc.
>> No. 17240 Anonymous
6th January 2019
Sunday 3:37 pm
17240 spacer
>>17239

Lily Allen and Jack Monroe are a pain in the cock, but Phoebe Waller-Bridge is absolutely piss funny and proper dirty to boot. I won't have a word said against her.
>> No. 17241 Anonymous
6th January 2019
Sunday 5:32 pm
17241 spacer
>>17233
I find it pretty easy to grasp actually, if men and women are truly perfectly equal then there isn't space in-between for transgenderism because things like the gendered brain don't exist. If gender is a social construct then a bloke flipping the otherside is just an exercise of patriarchy rather than mental illness. It's not exactly helped that MtF is a culture that seems to take femininity to an over-sexualised parody form.

Although obviously I imagine the majority do it either because it offends people or they've ended up in a world they no longer recognise.
>> No. 17242 Anonymous
6th January 2019
Sunday 6:08 pm
17242 spacer
>>17241
>It's not exactly helped that MtF is a culture that seems to take femininity to an over-sexualised parody form.

None of the MtF people I've met do that. Are you thinking about things like Ru Paul's drag race?
>> No. 17243 Anonymous
6th January 2019
Sunday 6:40 pm
17243 spacer
>>17239
>"Girls make me nervous so I want them to not speak."

Okay, retardlad.

(A good day to you Sir!)
>> No. 17244 Anonymous
6th January 2019
Sunday 6:44 pm
17244 spacer
>>17243

Where on earth did you get that from? I thought the lad was talking about how those women look. If you want to be offended by the insidious creep then at least get it right.
>> No. 17245 Anonymous
6th January 2019
Sunday 6:53 pm
17245 spacer
>>17244
Don't respond to cuntofflad. He's off his meds again.
>> No. 17246 Anonymous
6th January 2019
Sunday 7:02 pm
17246 spacer

jack-monroe-microwave-guide-image_1.jpg
172461724617246
>>17244
I was talking about how they look. They've all got the same haughty "I'm a massive pain in the arse" face.
>> No. 17247 Anonymous
6th January 2019
Sunday 7:59 pm
17247 spacer
>>17239
>>17246
Wait wait wait hang on. Jack Monroe? Well-off? So you evidently know fuck all about them?
>> No. 17248 Anonymous
6th January 2019
Sunday 8:15 pm
17248 spacer
>>17247

Do you think they didn't get paid for those books and columns, or what? The blog alone will generate enough revenue to describe Jack as 'comfortably off'.

I can't think of a more short sighted statement than yours.
>> No. 17249 Anonymous
6th January 2019
Sunday 8:17 pm
17249 spacer
>>17247
Jack Monroe's father, MBE, is a station manager in the fire service and owns a number of rental properties under the company name Marine Villas. Jack Monroe's mother was a nurse until she gave it up because she could afford not to work.

Jack Monroe had a relatively well-off upbringing. She slummed it for a year or so after giving up work, a job a dad got her at the fire service, which would give her enough material to go to The Guardian with as she knew they'd be hooked on tales of giving her crying son mashed Weetabix with water. Did you think The Guardian would employ an actual poor person?
>> No. 17250 Anonymous
6th January 2019
Sunday 9:03 pm
17250 spacer
>>17249
I was right, then.
>> No. 17251 Anonymous
6th January 2019
Sunday 9:12 pm
17251 spacer
>>17250

Do you feel like explaining yourself instead of being an obstinate twunt?
>> No. 17253 Anonymous
6th January 2019
Sunday 9:31 pm
17253 spacer
>>17251
>twunt
I know this isn't a /101/ thread, but made up insults are always crap. Bumder and gunt might be the only two exceptions and gunt isn't inherently an insult.
>> No. 17254 Anonymous
6th January 2019
Sunday 9:34 pm
17254 spacer
>>17253
What makes an insult not made up?
>> No. 17255 Anonymous
6th January 2019
Sunday 9:36 pm
17255 spacer
>>17253

All insults are made up, mate.

https://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/1230684--to-hate-the-use-of-the-word-TWUNT
>> No. 17256 Anonymous
6th January 2019
Sunday 9:37 pm
17256 spacer
>>17254

What makes any word not made up?
>> No. 17258 Anonymous
6th January 2019
Sunday 9:44 pm
17258 spacer
>>17254
Has it made it insto the Big Book of Insult Cannon.

>>17255
vmcd28 makes a fine point, but they also don't land the same.
>> No. 17259 Anonymous
6th January 2019
Sunday 9:46 pm
17259 spacer
>>17258
Twunt has been around since 2000, I think it's generally acceptable as part of the language canon now. Canon.
>> No. 17260 Anonymous
6th January 2019
Sunday 9:54 pm
17260 spacer
>>17251
They don't have a point. The fact stands that Jack Monroe has been popular with the chattering classes exactly because she is the right sort. She looks like them. She acts like them. She talks like them. Her face fits. If she was named Courtney and grew up on a council estate, with the vernacular and mannerisms that entails, then they wouldn't have given her the time of day. Monroe may have been temporarily poor, assuming her seriously minted parents actually left their early twentysomething daughter and grandson to starve, but she was only slumming it and is quite clearly comfortably middle class.

>>17253
>made up insults

If you blend two words into one then it's known as a portmanteau.
>> No. 17261 Anonymous
6th January 2019
Sunday 10:10 pm
17261 spacer
If it's in here it's allowed as an insult. http://viz.co.uk/category/rogers-profanisaurus/
>> No. 17262 Anonymous
6th January 2019
Sunday 10:14 pm
17262 spacer
>>17260

Check who people are replying to before you reply to them, I was talking to otherlad.
>> No. 17263 Anonymous
6th January 2019
Sunday 10:20 pm
17263 spacer
>>17260
>quite clearly
Mmm, OK. Continue spouting off your assumptions, lad.
>> No. 17264 Anonymous
6th January 2019
Sunday 10:21 pm
17264 spacer
>>17263

You still haven't managed to explain your point.

Do you think Jack Monroe is poor, right now?
>> No. 17265 Anonymous
6th January 2019
Sunday 10:39 pm
17265 spacer
>>17262
I know you were.

>>17263
If, when you were growing up, your parents had a combined income of c. £60/70k excluding rental income from their property portfolio and money from fostering then it's fairly safe to assume you had a comfortable middle class upbringing.

If you're a successful blogger with a number of cookery books, newspaper columns, advertising campaigns and TV appearances under your belt then it's fairly safe to assume you're doing well for yourself.
>> No. 17266 Anonymous
6th January 2019
Sunday 11:07 pm
17266 spacer

>> No. 17267 Anonymous
6th January 2019
Sunday 11:17 pm
17267 spacer
>>17265
Why is it safe to assume any of that? Is everything you mention always well-paid?

Fact is, you have no idea about the state of Monroe's finances.
>> No. 17268 Anonymous
6th January 2019
Sunday 11:22 pm
17268 spacer
>>17267
>Is everything you mention always well-paid?
Not him, but if they weren't people wouldn't be doing them instead of just getting a proper job.
>> No. 17269 Anonymous
6th January 2019
Sunday 11:29 pm
17269 spacer

judge rinder.jpg
172691726917269
>>17261
I have just consulted my 2005 edition of the Profanisaurus Rex

>twunt n. Useful, satisfying yet inoffensive combination of two very rude words which can safely be spoken in the primmest and properest of company.

I believe that settles the matter as to the terms validity, as to its correct usage, I must agree with my learned colleague that poster >>17250 has demonstrated qualities of both a twat and a cunt in this, and other messages we can reasonably conclude to be theirs, and therefore the description of twunt is appropriate in this instance.
>> No. 17270 Anonymous
6th January 2019
Sunday 11:37 pm
17270 spacer
>>17267

>Is everything you mention always well-paid?

How do you think the job market works? Do you reckon there's one specific sort of newspaper columnist/nationally published author that only gets 50p an hour?

You're accusing someone of making assumptions about Monroe's finances, while intimating that you think Monroe's finances are poor, which, unless you two are well acquainted, is also an assumption you're making.

So either explain why you think Monroe is poor (without assuming anything) or fuck the fuck off.
>> No. 17271 Anonymous
6th January 2019
Sunday 11:41 pm
17271 spacer
>>17270

Calling it now, poster IS Monroe and was recommended the site by ARE LAUIRE.
>> No. 17272 Anonymous
7th January 2019
Monday 12:34 am
17272 spacer
>>17271
Given that Taylor Swift posts on the other place it wouldn't be the strangest thing that's happened.
>> No. 17450 Anonymous
21st January 2019
Monday 6:01 pm
17450 spacer

MAIN-Martina-Big.jpg
174501745017450
Back to the transracialism...

>A white woman whose skin turned dark after tanning injections has claimed she's 'changed race' and will give birth to black children - leaving Holly Willoughby stunned.

>Martina Big, a white model from Germany, appeared on today's This Morning claiming her doctors have told her any children she conceives with her white husband Michael will be black.

>The model, who recently spent seven weeks in Kenya to learn about 'tribal culture', told Holly and her temporary co-star John Barrowman that she now identifies as a black woman after two years of melanin injections.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/white-model-martina-big-claims-13886666
>> No. 17451 Anonymous
21st January 2019
Monday 6:16 pm
17451 spacer

martina martinez.png
174511745117451
>>17450

So yous a buncha white boys, riiiight?
>> No. 17452 Anonymous
21st January 2019
Monday 6:47 pm
17452 spacer
>>17450
Let's get this out the way now: Shame - I would've treated her to 'spoons before all the work. Maybe even gone Harvester.

But she's always trotting herself out for attention and doesn't even recognise that Africa is a continent not a race. God help any children she has.
>> No. 17453 Anonymous
21st January 2019
Monday 7:13 pm
17453 spacer

0_This-Morning.jpg
174531745317453
>>17451
I'd say she looks more like Madge from Benidorm than Sweet Dee.
>> No. 17454 Anonymous
21st January 2019
Monday 7:43 pm
17454 spacer
>>17450

She looks like a right Geordie slag in the left picture.

Is that REALLY her in the right picture, or did she change bodies as well while she was at it?
>> No. 17455 Anonymous
21st January 2019
Monday 7:48 pm
17455 spacer
>>17454

Funny, my first thought was she looked very Wakey/Leeds slaglike.

If she'd just gotten the comical tits and the colour, I'd have still been interested. Her face is knackered, though.
>> No. 17456 Anonymous
21st January 2019
Monday 7:49 pm
17456 spacer

d0c7536a395581f20cbbf31cfe57a0f1.jpg
174561745617456
>>17454
She had the massive plastic tits before she did a reverse Michael Jackson.
>> No. 17457 Anonymous
21st January 2019
Monday 8:18 pm
17457 spacer
>>17456

Yeah, I'd smash that.

She must have right trouble with those things, mind, assuming silicone is as heavy as real boob. My missus only has double D's but she still has back problems from that.
>> No. 17458 Anonymous
21st January 2019
Monday 9:01 pm
17458 spacer
>>17453>>17456
Why do people do this to themselves. Ridiculous look.
>> No. 17459 Anonymous
21st January 2019
Monday 9:05 pm
17459 spacer
>>17458
This is a very interesting question and I'd like to see someone explore it, rather than tabloid media giving it exposure for exposure's sake.
>> No. 17460 Anonymous
21st January 2019
Monday 9:26 pm
17460 spacer
>>17458

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_dysmorphic_disorder
>> No. 17464 Anonymous
22nd January 2019
Tuesday 12:43 pm
17464 spacer

Bad Donatella Versace Before Plastic Surgery Pictu.jpg
174641746417464
>>17459

Agreed. I can understand when a woman has naturally very small breasts and is deeply unhappy about them. That's a valid reason for breast augmentation, within reason, i.e. maybe a B or C cup.

But I, for one, find nothing attractive or aesthetic about cartoonishly inflated breasts like the ones in >>17456. I know that there are some boobfetishlads who probably start dripping with precum at the mere thought of basketball sized knockers, but the reality of it is, not only will they be hugely cumbersome for the woman that has them, but they will also be in the way most of the time during sex. She could probably beat your head in with them while she is sitting on top of you.

Breasts aside though, her face is nothing to write home about either, as she bears the classic markings of excessive plastic surgery on it as well. And I don't mean the obvious silicone injected lips, but also the whole appearance. She's pretty much gone all Donatella Versace.
>> No. 17471 Anonymous
22nd January 2019
Tuesday 1:51 pm
17471 spacer
>>17464
Who do women think they are, not catering to a majority of men?
>> No. 17473 Anonymous
22nd January 2019
Tuesday 2:57 pm
17473 spacer
>>17471

You poor fool.
>> No. 17633 Anonymous
30th January 2019
Wednesday 11:19 pm
17633 spacer

essex-survey_640x345_acf_cropped.jpg
176331763317633
>A council has been accused of "institutionalised bigotry" after using a picture of a person removing a wig to depict transgender people.

>The image was published in an "easy read" online version of an Essex County Council consultation document on library cuts, but has now been removed.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-47064138
>> No. 17634 Anonymous
30th January 2019
Wednesday 11:41 pm
17634 spacer
>>17633
>Another said: "The depiction is not only awful but 'man, woman or transgender' is an extremely ignorant choice of genders."

I hate to say it but I agree with this lazily copied tweet on a non-story. Having a transgender option when the choices are man/woman is nonsensical because they're all about identification. Surely people with learning difficulties would still have a concept of male/female they could've used, like with animals and that?

It would make much more sense to just have an 'other' for all that gender-queer stuff pictured as a snowflake. Or possibly not asked because it's irrelevant in the vast majority of surveys that ask this question.
>> No. 17635 Anonymous
31st January 2019
Thursday 12:13 am
17635 spacer
>>17633

I'm laughing like a drain at the thought of a middle-aged council employee wracking their brains about how to illustrate transgenderism in a survey asking the semi-literate about library cuts. It's 2019 in a nutshell.

Also loving the two thumbs up from our "special" friends. It's like they're really enthusiastic about having a gender.
>> No. 17643 Anonymous
31st January 2019
Thursday 1:41 pm
17643 spacer
>>17634

>Surely people with learning difficulties would still have a concept of male/female they could've used, like with animals and that?

That is sex, that apparently has nothing to do with gender, for reasons that I don't pretend to understand that seem self contradictory to me.
>> No. 17646 Anonymous
31st January 2019
Thursday 3:49 pm
17646 spacer
>>17643

Sex is in the genitals, gender is in the brain
>> No. 17650 Anonymous
31st January 2019
Thursday 4:07 pm
17650 spacer
>>17646

Biological sex is still really complicated and confusing, with the obvious example being Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome; some people are born with a fanny, go through female puberty, but have a Y chromosome and no ovaries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complete_androgen_insensitivity_syndrome
>> No. 17655 Anonymous
31st January 2019
Thursday 5:06 pm
17655 spacer
>>17650
These are niche examples, not obvious ones, in the same way that smarties sometimes come out the wrong colour. They're defective, not new smarties.
>> No. 17660 Anonymous
31st January 2019
Thursday 5:23 pm
17660 spacer
>>17655

If one in fifty Smarties were white, would you say that there's no such thing as white Smarties?
>> No. 17661 Anonymous
31st January 2019
Thursday 5:27 pm
17661 spacer
>>17650
So you could smash her knowing there won't be a kid? Fantastic.
>> No. 17662 Anonymous
31st January 2019
Thursday 5:31 pm
17662 spacer
>>17650
I was born with one kidney a phenomenon more common than every form of intersex put together and entirely benign. I demand you change any representation of anatomy for teaching to mention it. I consider it offensive that we are being ignored and the standard representation of anatomy. If you mentioning us as just being a fluke or an exception I would find that normative language degrading, proper teaching must qualify, "that people are born with two kidney or one or lose some and gain some over their lifetime or are even born with no kidneys or half a kidney or one and a half or even 3 kidneys, therefore we must not presume people have two kidneys and that is the only natural and normal mode;" we must tear down the prejudice institution of the Human body diagrams. And not just for us, but for every other group who is marginalised by medical science in some capacity.

Society will not be fixed until the tail wags the dog on every possible subject, and it is impossible to make an abstract generalisation of anything.
>> No. 17664 Anonymous
31st January 2019
Thursday 5:46 pm
17664 spacer
There are two genders; tops and bottoms.
>> No. 17665 Anonymous
31st January 2019
Thursday 5:48 pm
17665 spacer
>>17664

what about power bottoms and switches?
>> No. 17666 Anonymous
31st January 2019
Thursday 5:58 pm
17666 spacer
>>17662
Do people with just one kidney often get murdered because of it?
>> No. 17667 Anonymous
31st January 2019
Thursday 6:15 pm
17667 spacer
>>17666

Why do you require human sacrifices to deem someone sufficiently marginalised?
>> No. 17668 Anonymous
31st January 2019
Thursday 6:16 pm
17668 spacer
>>17655
Transgenderism, or Gender Dysmorphia, is a physiological condition though. Lots of trannies have this diagnosis, but not the vast majority. I think the push to legitimise trannies who have no intention of living as a woman and instead identifies as trans is retarded. My missus has a cock and she ticks female on forms like these because she can, she has a GRC.
>> No. 17669 Anonymous
31st January 2019
Thursday 6:48 pm
17669 spacer
>>17665
If you insist on teaching this pseudo-scientific nonsense to my children I will be forced to remove them from this imageboard for the duration.
>> No. 17670 Anonymous
31st January 2019
Thursday 6:55 pm
17670 spacer
>>17667
It helps if you're actually marginalised to claim marginalisation.
>> No. 17671 Anonymous
31st January 2019
Thursday 7:05 pm
17671 spacer
>>17666

Well no one else can see my kidneys, If you keep walking around town with your micro penis hanging out for all to see there might be other motives.

People with more obvious variations from the typical get kicked to death and spat on all the time but every time we make mention of the human form we don't make a song and dance of qualify and respecting people with the infinite posible deviations from the norm no matter how unrepresentative they are at the risk of offending them.
>> No. 17672 Anonymous
31st January 2019
Thursday 7:06 pm
17672 spacer
>>17670

Trans women earn more than cis women.
>> No. 17673 Anonymous
31st January 2019
Thursday 9:03 pm
17673 spacer
>>17668
>My missus has a cock

hahahahahahaha
>> No. 17674 Anonymous
31st January 2019
Thursday 9:12 pm
17674 spacer
>>17673

Some blokes have all the luck. Strap on just isn't the same.
>> No. 17675 Anonymous
31st January 2019
Thursday 9:17 pm
17675 spacer
>>17668
>she
He's got a cock, he's a bloke. Sorry m7, youse a bumder.

(A good day to you Sir!)
>> No. 17676 Anonymous
31st January 2019
Thursday 9:59 pm
17676 spacer
>>17675
That's not how it works lad, it's a bit more sophisticated than what you learnt behind the sheds when you were five.
>> No. 17677 Anonymous
31st January 2019
Thursday 11:19 pm
17677 spacer
>>17675
>youse a bumder
Yes, I am.
>> No. 17678 Anonymous
1st February 2019
Friday 9:49 am
17678 spacer
>>17676 Yeah, but everything is more complicated than you first learn. Maths, physics, history, geography, languages, cooking. All are approximations, good-enough-to-start-with, correct enough in most cases to get on with life. In all those fields, it's seemingly acceptable to only pay attention to the edge cases when they're relevant, rather than them dominating the more common cases.
Not so for gender stuff, though. Why fight it?
>> No. 17679 Anonymous
1st February 2019
Friday 10:53 am
17679 spacer
>>17676

Weasel words.

You sound like a vicar when a child confronts them with 'if god is good and all powerful why are there starving and sick children'.
>> No. 17680 Anonymous
1st February 2019
Friday 11:19 am
17680 spacer
>>17679

Could say that about >>17678 too.
>> No. 17681 Anonymous
1st February 2019
Friday 12:28 pm
17681 spacer
I don't mean this post to sound like I'm saying "stop talking about things I don't care about", so I'll put that up front so there's no abiguity.

However, I already had these discussions and realisations about trans issues four or five years ago on different platforms, but now all you middle aged lot like Otherlad and Glinner are arriving late to the party and hammering it out all over again. For me it's like having another discussion about why Jeremy Clarkson got the sack or bringing up the Star Wars prequels and how rubbish they are, although of greater societal import, of course.
>> No. 17682 Anonymous
1st February 2019
Friday 1:34 pm
17682 spacer
>>17681

I think transgender rights have made progress though especially in the last five years or so, and that is something that is worth mentioning. Trans persons have become both more visible and more respected as members of society, at least that is my subjective opinion.


>For me it's like having another discussion about why Jeremy Clarkson got the sack

Nobody can want that.
>> No. 17683 Anonymous
1st February 2019
Friday 1:36 pm
17683 spacer
>>17681
We've discussed this to death before as well, but some tit always brings it up assuming because we aren't discussing it right now and calling them freaks, we never have and need educating.

We had an NHS lad explain how diagnosis works and what hoops people need to jump through before they even get medication, etc, as far back as 2014. We've got a gay lad who had their BF transition and explain what that was like (she hates other trannies, apparently the ones who pass hate the ones who don't) and we've had a lass rage about trans people in women's sport making women feel marginalised because trans people dominate.

We don't really have much more ground to cover on the subject. Even the NHS lad and the gay lad with the hung wife agree that people shouldn't get to self diagnose and that it's a physiological condition which requires treatment, but equally we have at least two lads who had their perspective changed by these accounts because, if I remember right, "Who the fuck would choose this if they had another option?" The answer being, idiots following a trend and legitimate Gender Dysmorphia patients who we largely agreed are fine as long as they identify as women and not trans.
>> No. 17684 Anonymous
1st February 2019
Friday 1:50 pm
17684 spacer
>>17683
So in conclusion, trans people are "idiots following a trend". Discussion is now closed.
>> No. 17685 Anonymous
1st February 2019
Friday 2:07 pm
17685 spacer
>>17682
>Nobody can want that.

IIRC, Clarkson getting the sack was the only time /v/ was active over the past five years.
>> No. 17686 Anonymous
1st February 2019
Friday 2:32 pm
17686 spacer
>>17683

>(she hates other trannies, apparently the ones who pass hate the ones who don't)

I've heard it the other way round. Especially now that teenagers as young as twelve get to take female hormones, you've got a generation of young trans women growing up who are virtually indistinguishable from genetic women as far as their outward appearance in daily life.

And if I am not entirely mistaken, I think there is a kind of vibe in the trans community of older trans women who didn't have the same opportunities for transition when they were young envying young trans kids of today. Because the latter get to avoid male puberty altogether, unlike older trans women who are in their 40s or 50s now, who more often than not only began physical transition when they were well into adulthood and thus had to reverse the effects of male puberty and virilisation of their body, often with somewhat limited success.
>> No. 17688 Anonymous
1st February 2019
Friday 3:09 pm
17688 spacer
>>17686
>often with somewhat limited success

THEY LOOK LIKE A BLOKE IN A WIG. THAT'S WHAT THEY LOOK LIKE. IT SHOULD BE OUTLAWED.
>> No. 17689 Anonymous
1st February 2019
Friday 3:25 pm
17689 spacer
>>17688
I know we link to the Daily Mail all too often, but when did they start linking here?
>> No. 17690 Anonymous
1st February 2019
Friday 3:48 pm
17690 spacer

0q9jvav_afdu.png
176901769017690
>>17688

>THEY LOOK LIKE A BLOKE IN A WIG.

It's still a matter of degree.
>> No. 17691 Anonymous
1st February 2019
Friday 4:12 pm
17691 spacer
>>17689
Is 'stating the obvious' now classed as being Daily Mail?

Middle aged man who transition always look like a bloke in a wig and a dress. It's as clear as day.
>> No. 17692 Anonymous
1st February 2019
Friday 5:10 pm
17692 spacer
>>17685
Excuse me but my Farscape thread was a bloody triumph.
>> No. 17693 Anonymous
1st February 2019
Friday 5:13 pm
17693 spacer
>>17690
BAN THIS SICK FILTH
>> No. 17701 Anonymous
1st February 2019
Friday 11:25 pm
17701 spacer
>>17693

Go on, touch the old chap's rubber tits.

You know you want to.
>> No. 17702 Anonymous
1st February 2019
Friday 11:44 pm
17702 spacer
>>17684
Don't strawman me, you cunt. Some undoubtedly are. A lot of people regret fully transitioning and they are overwhelmingly people who never got a formal diagnosis of Gender Dysmorphia. I've witnessed it twice, first hand, and there are thousands of other accounts which corroborate this.

In my experience one was a man, the other a woman, so both are susceptible. They're actually friends and they both think they should have "jumped through the hoops" the NHS has in place as they would have had to go to intensive psychotherapy and whatever psychological issue was causing the Gender Dysphoria (this is the symptom, not the condition; important distinction) would have neen identified and saved them years of heartache.

What I'm saying is some "trans" people are idiots chasing a trend, you'd have to be incredibly niave to assume high profile trans people in the media doesn't influence impressionable and vulnerable people. However, the people who play by the NHS's rules and get a diagnosis via a multi-discipline case review based on a year of intensive psychological and physiological assessment are not, as that tends to weed out the crazies. At that point, transition is the only thing that alleviates their symptoms and becomes medically necessary.

Now that anyone who is new to .gs and has missed the previous cunt offs has seen this, the topic can be closed.
>> No. 17703 Anonymous
2nd February 2019
Saturday 12:51 am
17703 spacer
>>17702

>What I'm saying is some "trans" people are idiots chasing a trend, you'd have to be incredibly niave to assume high profile trans people in the media doesn't influence impressionable and vulnerable people.

I'm not sure somebody would actually want to change their gender unless they are indeed unhappy about what they were born as. I don't think there are tourists in transsexuality, if that is what you are implying. I'm not counting drag queens or gender benders here who push the boundaries of gender identity either for laughs or because that is how they channel their feminine side. The question is why do people take on efforts to actually transition into a different gender than the one they were born as.

This has nothing to do with impressionability. You are very likely not going to get a young boy to wear a skirt just because he saw some "cool" trans people on TV. This will without exception only happen if that young boy already has transgender tendencies.

I'm sure you don't necessarily mean it that way, but you need to tread very carefully here, because what you are saying could be misconstrued as suggesting that well-known trans people turn our children trans. And from that it's not a big leap to what some moral and/or religious conservatives are saying about gays turning children gay.

Nobody doubts that you should get proper treatment for gender dysphoria. And the goal of such treatment isn't to have your knob cut off, but to find out what causes your dysphoria, and what is right for you in order to treat it. But again, some conservatives are using the fact that some people in fact do regret transitioning as proof that transsexuality as a medical or psychiatric condition is a figment of the imagination of those godless politically correct liberals. There are even web sites where so called transition regretters become mouthpieces of conservative anti-LGBT propaganda.

I would agree with you that proper thorough evaluation and treatment of gender dysphoria in accordance with NHS standards of care is always the right way to go. But don't dismiss people who for whatever reason don't go that route as "idiots following a trend".
>> No. 17704 Anonymous
2nd February 2019
Saturday 1:25 am
17704 spacer
>>17703
High profile gay people hasn't increased the amount of gay people, because it's a genetically corrolated phenomenon. It's literally in your DNA. Mental health is far and away more complex than who makes your pee pee hard.

Kids don't have any concept of what is girl clothes and what is boy clothes, we imprint that on them. A boy wearing a dress is, in and of itself, harmless. What is harmful is one or both of the parents reading too much into it when if the kid is trans, it'll already know. It isn't until puberty that Dysphoria as a symptom begins though, so they don't need influenced and if the symptoms don't present they don't need to transition; If they are trans, there will be signs.

High profile trans people, people who identify as trans and just don't live their life in their chosen gender, influence parents. They also ifluence mentally ill people suffering from Gender Dysphoria for unrelated mental health reasons and instead of going to the doctor, they buy hormones online because "No, I have what the women/man on TV has too." That's an issue I'm not going to walk on eggshells over because invariably they never get treatment for what was causing their mental health problems in the first place and start speed running Sonic games and get involved in Twitter activism (I jest, but why are so many speed runners trans?). Every single fucking committee in the land has someone on it advocating for the whims of people with undiagnosed mental health problems because they are the loudest and the people who are quitely living stealth and refuse to acknowledge they were ever anything else are lumped into the same bracket and by defending them we look mental by association. Self diagnosis is damaging trans equality more than it is helping it. If conservatives could meet stealth FTMs and MTFs and talk to them, they would be questioning (like me) if the people who identify as trans even have the same condition.
>> No. 17705 Anonymous
2nd February 2019
Saturday 4:02 am
17705 spacer
Probably not contributing much of value but I don't think high profile trans people turn people impressionable people without gender dysphoria "trans*", at least not in the traditional MtF/FtM way. Perhaps high profile gender-nonconforming people increase the number of people who consider themselves genderqueer, agender, etc, but surely if anything my impression is that if the high profile of anyone leads impressionable people to the idea of transitioning it's people of the opposite gender and the image of how those people live their lives. If a woman without GD wants to transition as living as a man, it's probably because being a man seems appealing rather than because being a trans* man seems appealing. It's just that you've got to go through being a trans* man to get to living as a man. And then in the social-media age, odds are you're going to broadcast that process as part of your life rather than try to keep it a secret.

I mean my sample size isn't great - some weird thoughts I had as a teenlad (before this was a widespread thing in the public imagination) about the role and perception of women in society versus the perception of men which were alleviated by overthinking how women are shown in movies, and some weirdos on the internet who tend to be furries - but i'm not making a generalised statement here. It's probably a vanishingly small and surprisingly overrepresented percentage. (I can't imagine this thought leads to any practical action. I'm definitely not saying everyone's like that, or that people not like that should be prevented from transitioning just in case. I'm not in any way qualified to speak.)
>> No. 17707 Anonymous
2nd February 2019
Saturday 8:39 am
17707 spacer
Are we just going around in circles?
>> No. 17708 Anonymous
2nd February 2019
Saturday 12:19 pm
17708 spacer
>>17704
>(I jest, but why are so many speed runners trans?)
"Why do I only see trans people on the Internet where there is no hierarchy of expectations to fulfill before being rewarded status and exposure"
>> No. 17709 Anonymous
2nd February 2019
Saturday 12:37 pm
17709 spacer
>>17708
Stop being a passive aggressive coward and explain what the fuck your problem is.
>> No. 17710 Anonymous
2nd February 2019
Saturday 12:50 pm
17710 spacer
>>17704
Except not every trans person can be stealth, either because they've already got an entire life that it would be preposterous to ask them to chuck away as if they'd been selected for witness protection, or they just don't look that good. And that guff about "high profile gays don't make people gay but transgender people make people trans" is so thin on logic and credibility and I'm flabbergasted you felt confident enough to post it.

>>17709
Ha! Did what he said confuse you so much you just went all "internet tough guy"? Sort yourself out, lad.
>> No. 17711 Anonymous
2nd February 2019
Saturday 1:14 pm
17711 spacer
>>17704

>High profile trans people, people who identify as trans and just don't live their life in their chosen gender, influence parents. They also ifluence mentally ill people suffering from Gender Dysphoria for unrelated mental health reasons and instead of going to the doctor, they buy hormones online because "No, I have what the women/man on TV has too."


Are you deliberately being thick as pig shit, lad?

First of all, at least here in the UK, I seriously doubt that many people get their hormones on the black market and import them illegally, which is pretty much the only way you will be able to obtain them outside of NHS approved treatment. Customs are also on their toes these days to intercept such shipments from abroad. Secondly, there is a very low threshold for people in this country to begin treatment in accordance with professionally approved NHS standards. Doctor's appointments, counselling as well as hormones and even surgery are almost entirely free of charge to anybody seeking treatment for gender dysphoria. Coupled with an increased openness in society about these issues, I am not sure how exactly somebody in the UK is going to transition today without proper medical and psychological help and assistance, even at a young age. Which then enables medical professionals with a great degree of certainty to tell you as somebody who may only have some sort of mild dysphoria from somebody who will really only be happy after full-on transition and surgery.

Also, gender dysphoria quite clearly describes being unhappy with one's birth gender and wanting to be the opposite gender. For your point to have any logic at all, gender dysphoria would have to be a condition where people would rather not have any gender at all instead of their birth gender, and then miraculously a famous trans person on TV would one day give them the wild idea that hey, maybe they'd rather be a woman.

Your point may have some scant validity in third world countries like Brasil or Thailand, where gender dysphoric kids are often abandoned by their parents or otherwise live in squalid economic conditions and therefore have to score estrogen on the black market with the money they earn turning tricks, without ever getting to see a doctor who would be able to evaluate professionally if that person really wants to be the opposite gender or if other factors are at play. But again, gender dysphoria by and large means not being happy with your gender and at least to some degree wanting to be the opposite gender.

But in general, I really don't know what you are on about here. Are you trying to "teach the controversy" or something?
>> No. 17713 Anonymous
2nd February 2019
Saturday 2:27 pm
17713 spacer
>>17711
>gender is just a social construct

>changing gender requires a lifetime of dedication, and if not physical alteration the intention to.

Pick one, you can't have both.
>> No. 17714 Anonymous
2nd February 2019
Saturday 2:49 pm
17714 spacer
>>17713
It can be pretty difficult to change social constructs.
>> No. 17715 Anonymous
2nd February 2019
Saturday 2:58 pm
17715 spacer
>>17713

While I agree with you that gender simply being a social construct is an idea that has been led ad absurdum by such things as gender studies, I'm not sure that your way of putting it that

>changing gender requires a lifetime of dedication, and if not physical alteration the intention to.

is a description that is fair and respectful to trans persons. This isn't some sport that you become good at after a "lifetime of dedication". There is no Transsexual Premier League. "Denise here started out small just taking weekly estrogen shots, and now look at her, after a trans career going on fifteen years, she's out-transing all the rest of them."

And it has nothing to do with dedication, but with the fact that you are more or less unhappy with your birth gender and would be happier in the opposite gender. You can't honestly call it being "dedicated", instead it is your persistent unhappiness with your gender that will lead you in that direction.

Also,

>if not physical alteration the intention to.

Says who? There are trans people who decide they are happy living as a woman, which they do in everyday life, but keep their male genitals because they feel no need to go that far with it in order to be happy.

Also, if you look at Eddie Izzard, he said he came out trans over 30 years ago, and to this day, apart from wearing tacky old woman clothing lately, seems to feel no need to transition physically.

Lad, I am honestly not sure where you are really coming from with all your nonsense. Have you actually spent time informing yourself about the condition and coming to a fair and unbiased conclusion about it, or are you just willfully parroting right-wing revisionist propaganda?
>> No. 17716 Anonymous
2nd February 2019
Saturday 3:31 pm
17716 spacer
>>17713
"the police" are a social construct
"poverty" is a social construct
"social construct" doesn't mean "not real"
>> No. 17717 Anonymous
2nd February 2019
Saturday 3:37 pm
17717 spacer
>>17716

Fuckssake lad, really.

>"the police" are a social construct

Just go on and tell the coppers that on the way to the station when they nick you.
>> No. 17718 Anonymous
2nd February 2019
Saturday 3:45 pm
17718 spacer
>>17713
Gender dysphoria wouldn't exist without gender.

Imagine if you will that humans are born and not classified according to their genitalia - that what is between your legs makes as much difference to your life as the colour of your eyes. A trans woman, then, would be indistinguishable from a cis man - they would just both be people who happen to have willies. And in not being treated any differently by society as a result, would mean there would be no need for the trans individual to be unhappy with their body.

This is just a thought experiment, and may not even be one hundred percent accurate as there is still a lot about gender we are still exploring, but it's generally where I come from with regards to the matter.
>> No. 17719 Anonymous
2nd February 2019
Saturday 3:46 pm
17719 spacer
>>17717
You're a moron.
>> No. 17720 Anonymous
2nd February 2019
Saturday 4:00 pm
17720 spacer
>>17718

You're still insinuating that trans persons transition in order to conform with whay may, or many not exist as social constructs. And that's just nonsense. You are not going to cure somebody of gender dysphoria and their transsexuality by abolishing gender.

Gender dysphoria and transsexuality do not mean you are unhappy with the social construct of the gender that you live in and were born as. It means you are unhappy about the physical and sexual characteristics of your body and that you feel deep within that would like to be a woman instead of a man, or vice versa.

Really, lads, do we really need to discuss over and over again things that have been firmly established?
>> No. 17721 Anonymous
2nd February 2019
Saturday 4:53 pm
17721 spacer
>>17720

If society didn't distinguish between genders as it does, if you still had people who felt like they had the wrong genitals, it wouldn't be seen the same way, would it? It would just be another flavour of body integrity dysphoria, and nobody encourages anyone to cut off their own arm because they feel like they were born as a one-armed person, do they?

Gender is everything to do with society. I don't think that means we shouldn't support trans people, in fact, the opposite.
>> No. 17722 Anonymous
2nd February 2019
Saturday 5:51 pm
17722 spacer
>>17721
I don't think we should support trans people. They're a fucking abomination we'd be better off without.

(A good day to you Sir!)
>> No. 17723 Anonymous
2nd February 2019
Saturday 6:02 pm
17723 spacer
>>17722


Any reason for your thinking other than that you're scared of stuff you don't understand?
>> No. 17724 Anonymous
2nd February 2019
Saturday 6:10 pm
17724 spacer

Elvis-impersonator.jpg
177241772417724
I hate it when people call me Trans Elvis, I really am an Elvis.
>> No. 17725 Anonymous
2nd February 2019
Saturday 11:46 pm
17725 spacer
>>17711
>I seriously doubt that many people get their hormones on the black market and import them illegally
They aren't. You can import them from Canada perfectly legally, you just need to pay a customs charge and I know this happens because I mingle with trans people and the reason they do it is because they don't want to wait a year before the NHS prescribes them as you need to undergo an assessment and live in your chosen gender for a year before they'll even consider giving you hormones.
>> No. 17729 Anonymous
3rd February 2019
Sunday 5:00 pm
17729 spacer
Can we at least agree that self-diagnosed trannies are mental cases that don't need their delusions enabling?
>> No. 17730 Anonymous
3rd February 2019
Sunday 5:04 pm
17730 spacer
>>17729
No.
>> No. 17731 Anonymous
3rd February 2019
Sunday 5:06 pm
17731 spacer
>>17730
Nobody asked you. Just everyone else.
>> No. 17732 Anonymous
3rd February 2019
Sunday 6:24 pm
17732 spacer
>>17729
Not all of them are, just some of them and it is unfortunately those people that encourage others to circumvent medical diagnosis because they're loud and proud about it and claim Doctors are biased gatekeepers.

It's not even a trans specific issue, entitlement without merit is endemic in Gen Z and being asked to justify yourself is tantamount to bigotry. It's exactly the same as the kind of anti-intellectualism and science hating which goes on in far-right circles.

I'd be willing to agree self-diagnosed trans people are irrational about medical diagnosis and unwilling to accept they might have Gender Dysphoria for another reason that isn't being transgender, but only if we can agree to stop calling them trannies and that legit trans people deserve to be supported and ultimately left alone to live their lives.
>> No. 17733 Anonymous
3rd February 2019
Sunday 6:41 pm
17733 spacer
>>17732
>entitlement without merit is endemic in Gen Z
I don't think it's unreasonable for them to expect the same things previous generations received without merit.
>> No. 17734 Anonymous
3rd February 2019
Sunday 6:43 pm
17734 spacer
>>17732
I had a headache the other day, so I took some ibuprofen I bought without prescription.

Because I'm an irrational, anti-intellectual science-hater, I didn't bother to see a doctor about the cause, which could have been any number of conditions.
>> No. 17735 Anonymous
3rd February 2019
Sunday 6:44 pm
17735 spacer
>>17734

Did you just compare popping an ibuprofen with years of gender reassignment drugs and surgery?
>> No. 17736 Anonymous
3rd February 2019
Sunday 6:51 pm
17736 spacer
>>17734
You're not making a diagnosis. You're treating a symptom, using the means available to you without prescription. Hopefully you asked the pharmacist's advice and followed their instructions otherwise your stomach will be fucked.
>> No. 17737 Anonymous
3rd February 2019
Sunday 6:55 pm
17737 spacer
Can you just give it a rest? I've no truck in this fight, but it's really, really, really tedious.
>> No. 17738 Anonymous
3rd February 2019
Sunday 6:58 pm
17738 spacer
>>17734
Why didn't you by Diclofenac or Celebrex? Quit while your behind, m8.
>> No. 17739 Anonymous
3rd February 2019
Sunday 6:59 pm
17739 spacer
>>17737
We're making fun of a guy for comparing gender reassignment to a headache now. Keep up.
>> No. 17740 Anonymous
3rd February 2019
Sunday 7:00 pm
17740 spacer
>>17735
Yes. Come at me bro.

(A good day to you Sir!)
>> No. 17741 Anonymous
4th February 2019
Monday 10:34 am
17741 spacer
>>17740

Looks like somebody did.
>> No. 17993 Anonymous
9th February 2019
Saturday 10:24 pm
17993 spacer
>A leading British surgeon has called for transgender women to be entitled to womb transplants so they can have their own babies.

>Late late year doctors in Brazil celebrated the birth of the world’s first baby born using a womb transplanted from a deceased donor to a woman. The healthy girl, weighing 5.6lbs, is a major breakthrough in fertility medicine. It comes just four years after the world’s first womb transplant baby from a live donor was born in Sweden in 2014.

>Surgeon Christopher Inglefield, founder of the London Transgender Clinic , says a successful uterus implant into a trans-female is achievable today.

>Mr Inglefield, a specialist in gender confirmation surgery as well as facial and body feminisation, said: “This pioneering birth is extremely important for any trans female who would like to carry her own child. Because once the medical community accept this as a treatment for cis-women with uterine infertility, such as congenital absence of a womb, then it would be illegal to deny a trans-female who has completed her transition. There are clearly anatomical boundaries when it comes to trans women but these are problems that I believe can be surmounted and the transplant into a trans-female is essentially identical to that of a cis-female.”

>The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) confirm there are no regulations in place to prevent a trans woman who has received a uterus transplant from having IVF treatment.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/transgender-women-should-entitled-womb-13972102

I guess logical progression is MtF trannies getting womb implants and FtM trannies having fully functioning testes attached.
>> No. 17999 Anonymous
9th February 2019
Saturday 11:12 pm
17999 spacer
>>17993

>Because once the medical community accept this as a treatment for cis-women with uterine infertility, such as congenital absence of a womb, then it would be illegal to deny a trans-female who has completed her transition.


"Illegal" is quite a strong word here. A transgender woman does not morph into a genetic woman sans uterus as the result of transition. There would be a great many things to consider here, and a lot of unknowns would have to be found out by sheer experiment on the real thing, which could endanger the fetus's wellbeing, and lead to disfigurement and miscarriage. It's one thing to implant a uterus into a genetic woman who was born without one, but the abdominal cavity of a post-op male to female transsexual looks quite a bit different from that of a woman without a uterus.

Best to start off with a batch of embryos that didn't ask to be born, I would reckon.
>> No. 18000 Anonymous
10th February 2019
Sunday 1:53 am
18000 spacer
>>17999
In ten years it will be the norm. Welcome to the future.
>> No. 18001 Anonymous
10th February 2019
Sunday 1:33 pm
18001 spacer
>>18000

I'm all for transgender rights, but I think this is just kind of a step too far.
>> No. 18349 Anonymous
24th February 2019
Sunday 9:57 pm
18349 spacer
I've ended up down a bit of a rabbit hole after reading that the chief executive of Stonewall has resigned due to her alleged militant trans agenda and this article caught my eye...

Modern trans politics — and Stonewall’s trans policies — are centred on the concept of ‘gender identity’. Gender identity is the belief that we all have an innate sense of our own gender — that being a man or a woman is somehow deeply felt and part of our irreducible core. Trans people, according to this doctrine, have a gender identity which does not match their sex — a male who claims to have a female gender identity is a woman, and vice versa.

But there is a problem with this understanding of gender and many people (including me) reject it. To understand why, it’s helpful to remember that when we talk about gender we’re simply talking about sex stereotypes. Conventional binary gender divides us unto men and women, based on our biological sex. The categories ‘man’ and ‘woman’ are each attached to a series of social expectations, with ‘man’ hierarchically atop ‘woman’. ‘Masculinity’ and ‘femininity’ are the names we give to each collection of stereotypical characteristics. Men are aggressive, women submissive. Men build, women nurture. Men dress one way, women another. Gender’s strangulating tentacles get everywhere, restricting lives and twisting relationships. Gender, as it exists today, is not a good thing.

‘Gender identity’ takes these sex stereotypes and turns them inwards. Rather than seeing gender as something external to us, influencing and shaping us against our will, a gender identity is, its proponents argue, within us. What this means in practice is this: I’m a man not because of my biological sex, but because I identify with the sex stereotypes associated with being a man. A woman is a woman not because of her sex but because she identifies with the sex stereotypes associated with ‘woman’. It’s not hard to see why so many people (and not only feminists) refute the concept of gender identity as sexist and regressive.

Of course, those who believe in the concept of gender identity have a right to their view and to pursue a politics which arises from it. The problem with Stonewall’s trans policies is that they do not respect the freedom to reject belief in gender identity. In fact, modern transgenderism — as practiced by Stonewall — demands we all understand ourselves in line with trans ideology and pursues legislative change predicated on the existence of gender identity.

The root of Stonewall’s failure over the last five years is its endorsement of gender identity and its attempt to coerce society into accepting it. In order to see clearly the line that Stonewall has crossed, compare its definitions of homophobia and transphobia:

Homophobia is:

The fear or dislike of someone, based on prejudice or negative attitudes, beliefs or views about lesbian, gay or bi people.

Transphobia is:

The fear or dislike of someone based on the fact they are trans, including the denial/refusal to accept their gender identity.

Stonewall has written and promoted a definition of ‘transphobia’ which categorises anybody who resists belief in an idea as transphobic. Feminists who wish to uphold their understanding of gender as an oppressive, hierarchical system of sex stereotyping are labelled transphobic. At a stroke, every second wave feminist is a bigot — as Germaine Greer and Jenni Murray have both discovered. This is not a progressive or even a constructive politics.

Stonewall’s new found enthusiasm for gender is all-encompassing. The Stonewall glossary redefines homosexuality as:

…someone who has an emotional romantic and/or sexual orientation towards someone of the same gender.

Did you see what happened there? Same-sex attraction has become same-gender attraction.

This might seem academic, but take a moment to reflect on what it means in the context of Stonewall’s affirmation of gender identity. Stonewall is asserting that lesbians are attracted to anyone with a female gender identity, whether that person is biologically male or female.

This turns gay and lesbian desire into transphobia. I’m a gay man — I’m attracted to male bodies — not people performing male gender roles. And, yes, that means I like male genitalia. (I really like it). Trans activists argue that my sex-focused homosexuality is transphobic. I’ve seen trans activists compare non-trans inclusive gay desire to racism and describe gay sexuality as ‘genital hang-ups’.

If you’re a reasonable person who is at all new to this you’ll probably be thinking, ‘hang on — that all sounds a bit unlikely.’ Yes, it does. But it’s true. Many lesbians have found themselves under pressure to accept male-bodied trans women as sexual partners. If you doubt me, Google ‘cotton ceiling’ and prepare for a trip down the rabbit hole of gender madness…

I do not know whether the LGBT alliance can be saved. More and more people — especially lesbians — are giving up on it. But I do know that if it is to be saved, Stonewall’s role will be vital. The issues which complicate the relationships between lesbian and gay people and trans people need to be examined and discussed, free from accusations of transphobia. Stonewall’s trans inclusivity cannot be at the cost of delegitimising lesbian and gay sexualities or ignoring the safety and specific needs of women and girls. An LGBT alliance which demands ideological submission is not worth preserving.


https://medium.com/@JonnnyBest/whats-gone-wrong-with-stonewall-1be30cffba9f

I always thought TERFs were a load of stuck in the mud moonbats, but if their hang up is about this completely unscientific and absurd notion of gender identity then they've got a point.
>> No. 18350 Anonymous
24th February 2019
Sunday 10:12 pm
18350 spacer
>>18349

Anyone trying to force someone to hook up with someone they're not attracted to is obviously bonkers. The idea that someone might think they should do being used to undermine trans rights however is equally bonkers and smacks of the whole "I was born after the 80s so obviously I'm a feminist despite my otherwise utterly regressive opinions" thing.
>> No. 18351 Anonymous
24th February 2019
Sunday 11:41 pm
18351 spacer
>>18349

>I always thought TERFs were a load of stuck in the mud moonbats, but if their hang up is about this completely unscientific and absurd notion of gender identity then they've got a point.

If they're genuinely just concerned about the issue of gender identity, then they've picked the worst possible way to fight it.

There are a million different ways to fight against societal expectations of gender. There are any number of things that push us towards stereotypes and societal expectations of gender. Why choose to make your main enemy trans* people? Why choose to attack one of the most vulnerable and disadvantaged groups in society, instead of any number of other targets?

When I think about how the gender binary affects the people in my life, I worry about the vapid narcissists that my nieces watch on YouTube. I worry about the people who tell my nephews to "grow up and act like a man" whenever they express a real emotion. I worry about my female cousins who are getting breast implants and having their eyebrows tattooed on, I worry about my male cousins who are going on steroids. The very last thing I worry about is that some poor fucker who feels repulsed by their own genitalia might be reinforcing the patriarchal gender binary.

Frankly, I think that a bunch of old-school radical feminists have chosen this hill to die on, in the full knowledge that their views are massively offensive to most liberal-minded people. I think they see a generation of young feminists who don't see men as the enemy, but want to work with them to create a fairer society. I think they've built their identity around being valiant warriors, but they've run out of battles to fight; they've chosen this battle not because it's truly meaningful to them, but because it's the last thing they can think of that is a) vaguely compatible with a radical feminist agenda and b) still has the power to shock.

In 1967, Valerie Solanas caused a sensation by publishing the SCUM Manifesto, which argued that men are the root of all evil and the only logical response was to eradicate the male race. Throughout the 1970s, radical lesbians argued that all heterosexual sex was rape, that a woman couldn't truly call herself emancipated unless she was a lesbian and that the only path out of patriarchy was to separate entirely from male society and create women-only communities. Today, that kind of rhetoric is the punchline to a joke involving dungarees, Doc Martens and angry lesbians; an entire generation of young people wouldn't even get that joke.

Trans-exclusionary radical feminism isn't an ideology, it's the last gasp of a dying culture. It's a desperate attempt to be noticed by a society that has simply lost interest in what they have to say. It's the kid who gets their tongue split or their eyeballs tattooed, because that's the only thing left that has any chance of genuinely shocking their parents.
>> No. 18352 Anonymous
24th February 2019
Sunday 11:54 pm
18352 spacer
>>18349
>reading that the chief executive of Stonewall has resigned due to her alleged militant trans agenda
Literally the only place you will read this is The Times, which for some reason of late has been trying to drive an anti-trans moral panic. To them it seems everything is about trans people.
>> No. 18357 Anonymous
25th February 2019
Monday 6:49 am
18357 spacer
>>18350>>18351
Thanks, lads. If we ignore the whole crazy feminist side of thing and whether they've got ulterior motives, is gender identity objectively a crock of shite?
>> No. 18358 Anonymous
25th February 2019
Monday 7:47 am
18358 spacer
>>18357
"Objectively"?
>> No. 18359 Anonymous
25th February 2019
Monday 7:50 am
18359 spacer
>>18358
Yes, objectively. What is the scientific consensus on gender identity?
>> No. 18361 Anonymous
25th February 2019
Monday 1:43 pm
18361 spacer
>>18357
It's a social construct. It's both a crock of shite in that it's not really forced by any physical laws, and utterly real in the sense that it's a big part of our society and social lives which changes over time. A lot of people seem to think a social construct is just a fancy way of saying something isn't real. It's not that. It's like debt, the law, or countries. Take away human society and those things disappear, but that doesn't mean they aren't real. They're something we made up and now enforce.
(but let's not start an argument about social construction please, if anyone disagrees just accept that's a contextual definition for the purpose of illustrating this post.)
>> No. 18362 Anonymous
25th February 2019
Monday 2:07 pm
18362 spacer
>>18361

>It's a social construct.

But it's a social construct, if we accept that it is, that the overwhelming majority have no problem considering valid and never quite question because it works for them. What we've got nowadays is a very vocal minority, who are very well entitled to their opinion, but who attempt to push their monirity views onto the majority.

I really do not care what you "identify" as in terms of gender. Whatever floats your boat. Suit yourself, I have no problem with it. What do I take issue with, however, is the fact that gender diversity has turned into a dogma noawadays, according to which you are almost not allowed anymore to be an ordinary, average, mainstream man, or even a woman of that description.

The ideas about gender that are being put forward, in that respect, cannot deny their roots in hardcore feminism, which (still) seeks to destroy patriarchy by declaring masculinity an invalid concept. Or declaring it toxic, or whatever words and labels are hip that week.
>> No. 18363 Anonymous
25th February 2019
Monday 2:17 pm
18363 spacer
>>18362
Calm down, Milo.
>> No. 18368 Anonymous
25th February 2019
Monday 5:13 pm
18368 spacer
>>18362

>according to which you are almost not allowed anymore to be an ordinary, average, mainstream man, or even a woman of that description.

I know what you mean m8. Just the other week I got an £80 fine from the Social Justice Police for wearing gender-conforming clothing in a safe space. I thought I might get away with it because I had a rainbow flag badge on my lapel, but they spotted that my blazer buttons left-over-right and stung me with a Notice of phlegmatic Behaviour.

I might contest the fine at the Court of Public Opinion, but I've got previous - I did community service last year for a whole string of microaggressions, which the Nonjudgemental Adjudicator of Wokeness won't look kindly upon. I can't afford to push my luck and get called out again, because I'm already close to being cancelled. My dad got cancelled a couple of years ago and he hasn't been seen since, but I'm not sure if that makes me more or less privileged.
>> No. 18369 Anonymous
25th February 2019
Monday 5:19 pm
18369 spacer
>>18368

>Just the other week I got an £80 fine from the Social Justice Police for wearing gender-conforming clothing in a safe space.

You got off light, no doubt. They could have deplatformed you altogether.
>> No. 18372 Anonymous
25th February 2019
Monday 5:56 pm
18372 spacer
>>18362

>What we've got nowadays is a very vocal minority, who are very fucking annoying and that's about the end of it.

Fixed that for you mate. Let's be honest, nobody is forcing all this nonsense on you are they? It can grate but you don't have to lose your rage over it.

Stuff like "toxic masculinity" and what have you is a perfectly valid concept when you look at it, but I think it's pretty fair to say it's pretty much just a back-bending way of absorbing all that "but what about (example of male-exclusive sexism)" counter opinion, and re-dressing it in a context of "yeah we already thought about that, that's your fault too, and we already thought of the solution for you" in order to maintain the feminist perspective as the most important one.

It's essentially the equivalent of how when you argued with someone in primary school and you tried to trick them out by switching sides to argue their point and getting them to accidentally disagree with themselves.
>> No. 18373 Anonymous
25th February 2019
Monday 6:02 pm
18373 spacer
>>18372
>toxic masculinity

Is there an actual consensus on what toxic masculinity is? Perhaps I read too much Grauniad, but the definition of it seems to vary wildly depending on the point someone is trying to make.
>> No. 18375 Anonymous
25th February 2019
Monday 6:17 pm
18375 spacer
>>18372

>Stuff like "toxic masculinity" and what have you is a perfectly valid concept when you look at it


I think it's mainly bullshit, front to back.

But oh, don't mind me.
>> No. 18376 Anonymous
25th February 2019
Monday 7:49 pm
18376 spacer
>>18373
>>18375

It's the argument that a lot of the negative things affecting men is mainly because masculinity itself is defined by traits that are harmful to men's wellbeing. Men are tough, don't show emotion, all that stuff, and men are disparaged if they don't live up to that idea of manliness.

Which is fair enough, you can see how there might be some merit to de-stigmatising men showing their feelings and suchlike. it's just funny how we don't call the things feminists moan about holding women back toxic femininity. To me, that betrays the bias of most people who use that kind of terminology; that femininity is good and masculinity is bad.

The reassuring part is that most people in real life are sane enough to realise that men and women are equally capable of being cunts, for varying different reasons, but cunts nonetheless. We only hear so much about this kind of shit nowadays because of the twitter hate mob.
>> No. 18377 Anonymous
25th February 2019
Monday 8:28 pm
18377 spacer
>>18373
I always thought it was a subset of traits considered "masculine" that make you a cunt. i.e. going fishing with your dad is typical masculinity - but trying to start fights to prove you're hard is toxic masculinity. that would generally seem to fit with the list of examples given here: http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Toxic_masculinity (though it doesn't actually give a definition of masculinity itself.)
>> No. 18378 Anonymous
25th February 2019
Monday 8:45 pm
18378 spacer
>>18376
>it's just funny how we don't call the things feminists moan about holding women back toxic femininity

Not really, a perfectly serviceable term for this already exists in "misogyny", which is perpetuated by women in the same way men chastising little boys for crying is perpetuating toxic masculinity.
>> No. 18379 Anonymous
25th February 2019
Monday 8:59 pm
18379 spacer
>>18376
>Men are tough, don't show emotion, all that stuff, and men are disparaged if they don't live up to that idea of manliness.

Isn't that just stoicism? I mean I've got my bones to pick with the philosophy but I've not heard any coherent argument about that out of people using 'toxic masculinity'. To me it seems like a stereotype of intimidating rugby lads projected by people who hate fun and can't just say "those people are dickheads" because that would be all too rational.
>> No. 18380 Anonymous
25th February 2019
Monday 9:05 pm
18380 spacer
>>18376

I think what is also being missed is that no matter how you look at it, life is one big competition. You compete for jobs, careers, money, status, influence, appreciation, the opposite sex's interest and affection, you name it. And in every competitive environment, people get left behind. The unfortunate thing about competition is that not everybody is competitive enough to be a winnner. People who show too much weakness don't get a piece of the pie and are left to live off the crumbs.

It would be all too easy to just call it "toxic masculinity", but what you are really branding as undesirable is competition itself. Although I still maintain that toxic masculinity as a concept is a big, steaming crock of bullshit, women really are no better. Anybody who has ever worked together with a bunch of women in close proximity can attest to the fact that that is an environment that can be many times more toxic than some make male competition out to be.

What's so disingenuous about the strand of feminism that has brought about the non-concept of toxic masculinity is that it's really just yet another way that these feminists manage to channel their hatred against men in general. As I said earlier, it's another permutation of the old feminist dogma that patriarchy must be destroyed. This time around, they are going about it by declaring men as a whole to be latently toxic, and masculinity as an entirely arbitrary concept. While at the same time not even remotely acknowledging that there might be such a thing as toxic femininity. Worse even, I've read about some feminists who say fierce competition among women is just another facet of toxic masculinity.


>>18377

>but trying to start fights to prove you're hard is toxic masculinity

To a certain extent, this has always been accepted boyish behaviour. Schoolboy fights in the school playground were always frowned upon even when I was a younglad in the 80s and 90s, at least if they got out of hand, but in the end, the implicit understanding was always that it is just something that boys do to establish hierarchies and order among themselves. Nowadays, a lad who even so much as shoves another lad lightly can very likely have the entire school and social workers on his arse. Typical boyish behaviour is declared toxic, and modern-day school environments are leaving boys behind because boys are effectively expected to act like girls who will just sit still and pay attention. Feminine social skills and social behaviour are not only fostered but declared the desired standard. But this is just not something that boys are genetically programmed to do at that age.

And I'm not talking about the antisocial 20something lout who gets off his tits and then starts picking random fights. That is a whole different problem because it simply isn't accepted adult behaviour, and rightly so and with good reason, as you should expect adults to have learned enough self restraint to not smash another person's head in.
>> No. 18381 Anonymous
25th February 2019
Monday 9:05 pm
18381 spacer
>>18378

That's not what misogyny means though. It certainly isn't an equivalent term to toxic masculinity.

Part of the problem is not the concept itself, but how loaded equivalent terms like misandry are and how you'll instantly be assumed to be an MGTOW incel Reddit shitposter if you use it instead. You have to accept the feminist dogma, use their terminology, or else you'll be dismissed entirely because you're clearly a shitlord.

Something something George Orwell.
>> No. 18382 Anonymous
25th February 2019
Monday 9:23 pm
18382 spacer
>>18380

Fundamentally, in order to understand their perspective, you need to be the sort of person who looks at the sociological principle of nature vs nurture and comfortably accept that nurture is the only part that matters. You need to view people as blank slates upon whom only received knowledge is imprinted- Completely ignore hormones, puberty, instincts, all of it.

From that viewpoint, expecting "boys to act like girls" simply isn't the case- You're merely expecting children to behave well. You are striving for an ideal society in which there simply is no difference between men and women beyond the dangly bits on each of your body. It follows logically that boys are only being left behind because of things like toxic masculinity- Social constructs that only exist because we keep perpetuating them and are slowly phasing out. Once the symmetrical, grey, amorphous ideal of unisex morality and behaviour has become the norm, boys and girls will perform the same. They will effectively be the same.

It's hard to argue from the position that you are entirely comfortable with distinct genders being a thing, that you believe they are a very real and biological fact of life, and all the implications that may or not come with that, because it's essentially the same thing as arguing with a zealous Christian about why you're an atheist.

Personally, I am all in favour of helping women achieve equitable pay, respectful treatment and everything. It's not a popular opinion, but I feel the modern feminist worldview is misguided, and sometimes actively unhelpful in that aim- It is more often interested in propagating a moral ideology than achieving meaningful equality.
>> No. 18383 Anonymous
25th February 2019
Monday 9:24 pm
18383 spacer
>>18381

>You have to accept the feminist dogma, use their terminology,

The first step towards negating it should therefore be to both refuse to use their terminology, and to show how absurd that terminology is in the first place.

"You're an incel shitlord because you are using words not approved by feminists, and only incel shitlords do that" is not a valid argument. Ideally, your vocabulary should be more eloquent than that of actual incels, if just to avoid being called one. Well, and also because incels are complete fucking idiots. But that's beside the point. The real issue is, if somebody assumes they can both define the desired terminology and denunciate those who don't use it, then they are effectively attempting to control and manipulate any discourse in their favour, without the possibility of actual open debate that might even rightly debunk certain terminology as invalid.

Example: to many feminists, women can very well be sexist. But sexist behaviour in women is held by them to be sexist against other women, meaning that sexist women as it were only make themselves accessories to sexism originating from men and directed against women. The idea that women can be genuinely sexist against men is rejected by these feminists as non-existent. So if you then argue with them over female sexism, it will lead nowhere because their implied meaning, which you are expected to adhere to as well, will always be that female sexism cannot be directed against men, but only against other women and is merely a result of male sexism.
>> No. 18384 Anonymous
25th February 2019
Monday 9:30 pm
18384 spacer
>>18383
From my experience, a lot of them don't even understand their own terminology. At uni I went to a presentation by the feminist society, who started with a long diatribe criticising the patriarchy. Someone in the audience asked what the patriarchy was, a reasonable question as they'd just listened to someone criticising it for 10 minutes. The feminist society presenter looked fucking baffled, and ended up describing it as "a secret group of white straight men who control everything behind the scenes".
>> No. 18385 Anonymous
25th February 2019
Monday 9:35 pm
18385 spacer
>>18383

That was, indeed, largely my point. That is how the discourse is controlled.

But I mean that's how women always win arguments, innit. Twisting it and deflecting everything until you just can't be arsed any more. Typical.
>> No. 18386 Anonymous
25th February 2019
Monday 9:42 pm
18386 spacer
For people who think feminists and social justice warriors are a load of whingers, Christ you lot love to whinge about them don't you.
>> No. 18387 Anonymous
25th February 2019
Monday 9:46 pm
18387 spacer
>>18384

Good on you. A good way to throw people off their game, and really not just feminists ranting on about patriarchy but anybody, is to throw them a curve ball by asking them definitions of some very basic things. Like, things that are both central to their argument that they are on about the whole time, and seldom really explained in depth by providing a definition.

Also, a lot of social science at uni works that way. They are true masters of throwing around fancy abstract vocabulary, but when you quiz them on it, they all too often draw a blank. I am an economist and economics is often lumped together with social sciences, but the difference is that in economics, you learn hard facts and definitions that you then have to take exams on where you are quizzed about them. In social sciences as such, you have much fewer actual exams where that kind of knowlege is tested.
>> No. 18388 Anonymous
25th February 2019
Monday 9:52 pm
18388 spacer
>>18386
Careful, lad. People get their knickers in a twist when you point out the unlicensed trawlers of the alt-right on this site.
>> No. 18390 Anonymous
25th February 2019
Monday 10:15 pm
18390 spacer
>>18386

That's another one ticked of my .gs bingo this week.

People get annoyed by annoying things, more at 11.
>> No. 18391 Anonymous
25th February 2019
Monday 10:17 pm
18391 spacer
>>18390

>People get annoyed by annoying things


You're right.

And it annoys me to no end.
>> No. 18392 Anonymous
25th February 2019
Monday 11:19 pm
18392 spacer
>>18387
>you learn hard facts and definitions that you then have to take exams on where you are quizzed about them
That's the easy part, the hard part is when you have to explain why the things you've learned don't align with the real world. *Ba Dum Tss*
>> No. 18393 Anonymous
25th February 2019
Monday 11:22 pm
18393 spacer
>>18386
>Christ you lot love to whinge

Who could possibly say no to a good moan? Where would I even begin. For starters we can talk about old Mr Sunshine strutting across the sky like he owns the place. I mean it's February for fucks sake, give me freezing rain and a bit of thunder to shut that bright gobshite out. World's gone mad.
>> No. 18394 Anonymous
25th February 2019
Monday 11:36 pm
18394 spacer
>>18392

> the hard part is when you have to explain why the things you've learned don't align with the real world.


In most economics exams, you have to do that as well. There will be questions as to what the standard criticism of a particular model or definition is.
>> No. 18395 Anonymous
25th February 2019
Monday 11:38 pm
18395 spacer
>>18393

>For starters we can talk about old Mr Sunshine strutting across the sky like he owns the place.

For us here in the Heliosphere, it is actually pretty much astronomically correct to say that he does own the place.
>> No. 18396 Anonymous
25th February 2019
Monday 11:41 pm
18396 spacer
>>18381

Indeed the point of the terms misogyny and toxic masculinity is to shift the burden of blame onto men through the very language it self. I'd go as far as to call it a deliberate attempt to engineer the paradigm of any debate through newspeak.

Talking about for example grown women choosing to read fashion magazines that lower their self esteem is really no one's fault but their own if it makes them feel bad and they keep doing it. I'd call that toxic femininity.

But if you call it misogyny it becomes the fault of the advertisers and publishers promoting those values rather than the fault of the reader for choosing to buy it each week

I've heard it argued that feminism seeks to remove womens responsibility for their own actions. And I think their is a truth to that. As long as feminism is built up from social Marxist theory it will by definition treat women as incapable of being empowered and having agency. It is inherent in the thought pattern that they are always oppressed.
>> No. 18397 Anonymous
26th February 2019
Tuesday 7:15 am
18397 spacer
>>18396
Alright Sargon.
>> No. 18398 Anonymous
26th February 2019
Tuesday 10:21 am
18398 spacer
>>18397

Okay Tahani, we get it you can name drop famous people. The question is, what point if any does it make, and what does it do to advance discussion.

Sage because of the completely derailed nature of this comment.
>> No. 18399 Anonymous
26th February 2019
Tuesday 11:27 am
18399 spacer
>>18396

>Talking about for example grown women choosing to read fashion magazines that lower their self esteem is really no one's fault but their own if it makes them feel bad and they keep doing it.

In days of old, staff at women's magazines used to be predominantly male. And although it borders on conspiracy theory, you could say that maybe the men who created those magazines for women used it as a way of showing women their place in society, i.e. as obedient wives and mothers and domestic goddesses, who only needed to know about such things as cooking a decent meal for their husband or how to mend their children's clothes. But at least since the earliest beginnings of 1970s feminism, women's magazines have been quite firmly in the hands of female journalists. And quite rightly so, because who better to write about things that interest women than women themselves.

But therein now lies the problem. If we take modern women's magazines to mirror what women want, then that means a great many of women indeed still mostly care about clothing, fashion, makeup, beauty, home decoration, relationships, parenting advice, and horoscopes. Modern-day feminism has long given women the opportunity to pursue quite different goals and interests in life, and yet, women's magazines that follow the mentioned formula still seem to be going as strong as ever. So then when women now complain about pressure to conform to ideals and images of physical attractiveness that women's magazines still propagate, this is something that you cannot pin on patriarchy or masculinity, toxic or not, anymore. Many highly educated, liberated women at the helm of those women's magazines would have real power to take a lot of the pressure off women, and yet, they choose not to, and just regurgitate the same old beauty and fashion advice over and over.


>I've heard it argued that feminism seeks to remove womens responsibility for their own actions

I think they tend to twist it as it suits them in a given situation. When it comes to patriarchy, women are portrayed as powerless, defenceless little flowers that need protection from anything and everybody. And then at the other end when it comes to female empowerment, they make women out to be actually much more capable of fending for themselves and going their own way in life than men.

I think one fundamental problem that feminism has today is that most of its battles have been fought and won. Women are completely equal before the law in most civilised countries, certainly in the UK, women have the same rights as men, and you can argue that in some areas, they actually have more support than men. A movement which has always defined itself as an entity fighting for women's rights and against male oppression therefore now struggles to overcome its identity crisis. And a small, yet very vocal minority of feminists now set their sights on the old enemy all over again, which is masculinity itself. Just to stay relevant and to not lose its purpose. And it has nothing more to do with equal rights for women, which has never ceased to be a laudable cause, but it has everything to do with hating men as such.
>> No. 18400 Anonymous
26th February 2019
Tuesday 12:13 pm
18400 spacer
>>18399
>So then when women now complain about pressure to conform to ideals and images of physical attractiveness that women's magazines still propagate, this is something that you cannot pin on patriarchy or masculinity, toxic or not, anymore.
This isn't really true. If women are expected to conform to a social ideal - which they are, as are men - then even if you give women control of the magazine, it's still going to tell women how to conform to that ideal because it's in their interest even if they don't like it. This isn't a question about individuals, but about social norms. The source of those social norms is not primarily from women's interest magazines, so the minor role they play in propagating them is irrelevant, while the marketplace pressures them to continue to provide that advice because women are anxious to have it due to outside pressure.

In general you seem to want to individualise (or otherwise lower the scope to a single magazine, company, etc.) this rather than look at society as a whole, which is an ineffective way of analysing the situation. I'm not even a raving feminist, I'm drawing most of this from inference from the way nearly every other social norm works. There's definitely an element of cynical social climbing at play as usually happens with something that can be moralised about, but that doesn't invalidate the analysis itself. Indeed I'd say the big problem internet feminism has is that it, too, individualises rather than going for serious structural analysis. There's a lot of levying the charge of promoting patriarchy against powerless twitter weirdos rather than looking again at the gigantic monster that is modern society, looking at all the competing and conflicting pressures at play and figuring out a way to cut out the bad parts.
>> No. 18401 Anonymous
26th February 2019
Tuesday 12:23 pm
18401 spacer
>>18400

>The source of those social norms is not primarily from women's interest magazines, so the minor role they play in propagating them is irrelevant

Clearly, they aren't the source. But their role also isn't irrelevant. Editors of women's magazines would still be able to play a key role in putting a stop to this kind of pressure. It's no use complaining about society as a whole, when you don't provide ideas and solutions concerning the part that certain institutions of society would be able to play in eliminating the pressure to conform to beauty ideals. The things women's magazines write about are read by large audiences, and therefore those magazines would be in a unique position to contribute to changing society for the better. And yet, they choose not to.

You can't just shrug your shoulders at this kind of chicken and egg problem and say that it's the fault of society at large. And even if it is, as I said, the key to change is to target specific areas of society where you can hope to break the cycle.
>> No. 18403 Anonymous
26th February 2019
Tuesday 1:53 pm
18403 spacer
>>18400

>In general you seem to want to individualise (or otherwise lower the scope to a single magazine, company, etc.) this rather than look at society as a whole, which is an ineffective way of analysing the situation.
not them but (>>18396)
I do believe that, but why would it be ineffectual? If I have an insecurity about anything at all it is much easier for me to adapt to treat it as a non issue rather than try change the world. I've always treated the politicising of the personal with caution as I think it becomes an exercise in narcissism and externalising responsibility.

And let’s be honest there are no strict mechanism for power of these things it is only the individual themselves caring that makes them relevant, if your validation comes from within such forces stop having power over you. No one cares what Madam Curie looked like they admire her anyway. It is only people own vanity and lack of self-assurance that gives any of these things relevance.
>> No. 18404 Anonymous
26th February 2019
Tuesday 2:42 pm
18404 spacer
>>18401
Editors can do very little. If you believe women's magazines as a whole have power, you need a mechanism to ensure all women's magazines play by the rules and not publish that content. You don't have to change literally everything, but you have to go above and beyond the individual. That could be through a government regulation, or some kind of publishing arrangement or private regulator, or a temporary conspiracy amongst all the editors - but it can't just be one editor or magazine team playing holier-than-thou with individual morality, because all that's going to do is cause a drop-off in sales for their magazine as market forces do their thing and the others move to conform to one another.
>> No. 18405 Anonymous
26th February 2019
Tuesday 2:50 pm
18405 spacer
>>18404

Correct me if you think I am mischaracterized your statement. But isn't that an argument that the reason women's magazines are like that is because the audience wants them to be like that. If women did not want them to be like that they would not buy them. So the responsibility at the moment is with the individual who buys them not with the editor.

Would not banning or regulating would be a declaration that women don't know what is best for them and need someone to decide on their behalf.
>> No. 18406 Anonymous
26th February 2019
Tuesday 2:50 pm
18406 spacer
>>18403

> If I have an insecurity about anything at all it is much easier for me to adapt to treat it as a non issue rather than try change the world.

That is true. In the end, a large part of overcoming unrealistic images of physical beauty is to condition people to ignore them. And that starts with yourself, with your own thinking. So the focus must not be on banning idealised depictions of physical attractiveness, but on recipients of these messages being able to put them in a healthy kind of perspective.

Kind of a bit like (adult consensual) pornography, really. There is no point in banning it, and it has so far withstood every attempt that has ever been to ban or outlaw it. And naturally in today's world, an abundance of it is freely accessible online for anybody. So there is consensus now that youngsters in particular need to be educated not to avoid pornography altogether, which few will from a certain age onward, but to be able to put in perspective what they see and understand that it is a distorted image of human sexuality as such. And if we take that kind of approach seriously, as we seem to, then there is no reason that the same approach could not be applied to depictions of physical beauty.
>> No. 18407 Anonymous
26th February 2019
Tuesday 3:07 pm
18407 spacer
>>18405

> But isn't that an argument that the reason women's magazines are like that is because the audience wants them to be like that. If women did not want them to be like that they would not buy them.

It's a bit similar to some feminists getting in a huff about the fact that girls' toys tend to be in pink or pastel colours. To the point that they have even started their own protest movement called Pink Stinks. And of course it comes with the usual rhethoric that pink toys are used to condition girls from when they are toddlers to conform to society's norms of femininity and womanhood. The problem with that approach is that a great majority of girls just really seem to be naturally drawn to pastel colours like pink, peach, aqua, or mint. Even from the youngest age of 12 to 24 months when they can't possibly have been conditioned yet to fall into traditional gender roles, they just really seem to have a fondness for those colours. And this fondness then seems to persist throughout their childhood and youth.

So when feminists then say that "pink stinks", they are placing poorly corroborated ideology above tendencies and preferences that a lot of female young children just really seem to have naturally.

One of my friends has a little girl, I think she's about three or four years old now, and he told me that she gets really upset when it's nice weather outside and she isn't allowed to wear a dress, often because my friend and his wife might think that she'll catch a cold. Even at that tender age, she absolutely loves dresses - and Barbie dolls - and says she wants to be "as pretty as mommy" when she grows up. Now I ask you, is this the result of patriarchy claiming another oppressed young victim, or could it be that she is just simply a "girly girl" who likes doing girly things including wearing dresses?
>> No. 18408 Anonymous
26th February 2019
Tuesday 3:13 pm
18408 spacer
>>18407

Ah yes, the theory that of all cultures throughout history, ours just happened to be the one where children just do exactly what's natural. Did you know the Japanese used to force their young boys to wear kimonos? How disgusting of them to force such backwards ways of dressing when those boys would have been far happier if they were allowed to wear nothing but blue and camouflage to play army men in the woods as is natural.
>> No. 18409 Anonymous
26th February 2019
Tuesday 3:21 pm
18409 spacer
>>18407
>The problem with that approach is <insert pseudoscience here>
How very original of you, m7.
>> No. 18410 Anonymous
26th February 2019
Tuesday 3:25 pm
18410 spacer
>>18409

More original than your post just now.
>> No. 18411 Anonymous
26th February 2019
Tuesday 3:43 pm
18411 spacer
>>18407
>the problem with that approach is that a great majority of girls just really seem to be naturally drawn to pastel colours like pink, peach, aqua, or mint
As recently as 100 years ago in Britain, Pink was considered a bold, attention-drawing, boy's colour while blue was considered more placid and feminine. It's only really since the 1950s that Pink = Female, Blue = Male was solidified as the norm.
>she wants to be "as pretty as mommy" when she grows up. Now I ask you, is this the result of patriarchy claiming another oppressed young victim, or could it be that she is just simply a "girly girl" who likes doing girly things including wearing dresses?
Your own post contains a possible answer if you'd think about it: she wants to be like mommy. The question is, if mommy went about with short hair and army fatigues, what would she want to wear then?
>> No. 18412 Anonymous
26th February 2019
Tuesday 4:15 pm
18412 spacer
>>18410
n2 m7
>> No. 18413 Anonymous
26th February 2019
Tuesday 4:39 pm
18413 spacer
>>18411
This is sort of but not quite true. The trend was to dress children in white, but young girls in blue. Pink was considered a bold colour, but was commonly worn by both sides. One of the big factors behind the movement to reclaim pink is that the move in the 1950s for women to wear pink was led by strong female figures. Jayne Mansfield famously declared that she wanted everything in pink, and she was no wallflower.
>> No. 18414 Anonymous
26th February 2019
Tuesday 4:50 pm
18414 spacer
>>18413

So what you are saying is women made the choice to wear pink as a form of empowerment, but now they shoulldn't because it turns out men tricked them into liking it as a form of oppression.
>> No. 18415 Anonymous
26th February 2019
Tuesday 5:29 pm
18415 spacer
>>18414

>So what you are saying is women made the choice to wear pink as a form of empowerment, but now they shoulldn't because it turns out men tricked them into liking it as a form of oppression.

Not him, but in a nutshell, that would appear to be his argument.

So then the consequence would be that girls must not choose whatever colours symbolise femininity in the culture that they grow up in, because if they do, that culture will declare them to be girls.

Compelling logic. Unassailable.
>> No. 18416 Anonymous
26th February 2019
Tuesday 5:47 pm
18416 spacer
>>18414
Whatever it is you're on, can you hook me up?
>> No. 18418 Anonymous
26th February 2019
Tuesday 6:16 pm
18418 spacer
>>18400

>There's a lot of levying the charge of promoting patriarchy against powerless twitter weirdos rather than looking again at the gigantic monster that is modern society, looking at all the competing and conflicting pressures at play and figuring out a way to cut out the bad parts.

This is the argument I've been making for a good few years now. Weirdly enough I've still never managed to win any friends with it; because again, for a lot of these people it doesn't actually matter who's right or wrong. It doesn't even matter whether you broadly support their goals. It's more like an indoctrination cult than genuine ethical belief system, and they're not happy unless you conform.

But I digress.

The way I see it is that the problems are not because of the white cisgendered patriarchal bogeyman, but fundamentally the system of free market, neo-liberal capitalism. Of course, I would say that as a dyed in the wool red-blooded Northern socialist, but in my eyes I think it would do far more to tackle the underlying, fundamental economic inequalities between the rich and the poor than it will ever do to sit there moaning in the opinion columns about how we don't have enough female CEOs or how there aren't enough female protagonists in videogames or whatever shite they think matters this week.

I feel like most feminists are under the same spell of manufactured consent as your most hardcore conservatives and right wingers- So long as nobody recognises the real enemy, which is economic inequality and class divide, we will keep bickering about gender equality, race equality, and all these issues that can not be solved. And that's exactly what the bourgeoisie oppressor really wants.
>> No. 18419 Anonymous
26th February 2019
Tuesday 7:09 pm
18419 spacer
>>18418

The intersectionalists know the rhetoric well enough of the left yet they choose to ignore the greatest defining factor of power, wealth. The answer is simple; This is not empowerment for the masses but for the elite, the most telling factor is the obsession with CEOs a group so niche and powerful anyway that the idea I should weep for the female CEO that she isn't paid as much as the male should be laughably insulting, and yet this is the obsession. I dont know how everyone became brainwashed to take up their mantle, yet here we are.
>> No. 18420 Anonymous
26th February 2019
Tuesday 8:03 pm
18420 spacer
>>18419

A female CEO who earns £10 million a year while a man in a similar position gets £15m is hardly below the poverty line. It's all a mater of perspective, as I think we are agreeing upon here.

Also, we have to ask ourselves whether it is really such a fundamental mark of equality of society that there exists such a thing as gender parity in boardrooms. What is true enough is that women should have the same opportunities as men. A woman who wants to assume a leadership role within a company should get to do so if she is qualified and puts in enough hard work to get there. Just as any man. But in the end, when you look at surveys, being at the top of a company or corporation just isn't a career goal that is as widespread among women as it is among men. A lot of women say they will be just as happy with a career that either doesn't demand quite as much of them, or where they have more time to spend with their family and all that kind of thing. So in essence the problem then isn't that there are too few women in top executive positions, but that it just isn't what as many women want for themselves as men tend to do.

The Norwegians were among the first countries to mandate gender parity in top executive positions, but the problem is that there just aren't enough qualified and ambitious women to fill all those positions, at least not up to actual parity. So the Norwegians have now coined the term "golden skirts", which means that women get to go to the top simply because otherwise there just wouldn't be enough women to fill the required quota.

But that's a problem you see on a lot of social political issues. The idea of equal opportunity gets confused with the idea of equal results. And having gender parity in boardrooms is not the same as equal opportunity. You've got equal results, but that doesn't mean everything's peachy. And if I remember correctly, the actual economic performance as a company or corporation has proved to not really be significantly better just because there are more women at the helm. At least there is no strong correlation indicating that companies with boardroom gender parity are doing better than others.
>> No. 18421 Anonymous
26th February 2019
Tuesday 11:09 pm
18421 spacer
>>18420

You've made three paragraphs trying to discredit an idea that really should be simpler to tackle to that. After all, when was the last time you heard of an executive, male or female, who wasn't a sleazy weasel bastard who back-stabbed and arse-licked their way to the top? These are the same people who drive companies bankrupt and run off with the pensions, it's hardly a laudable ideal in life.

Modern feminism isn't about equality at all. It's not even about feminism. It's just another tool of division and manufactured consent.
>> No. 18422 Anonymous
27th February 2019
Wednesday 12:58 am
18422 spacer
>>18421
Yes! And the solution to this problem is to continue discouraging women from corporate careers whilst doing nothing to tackle corporate dominance in society. That'll show em.
>> No. 18423 Anonymous
27th February 2019
Wednesday 10:11 am
18423 spacer
>>18422

>And the solution to this problem is to continue discouraging women from corporate careers whilst doing nothing to tackle corporate dominance in society.

Are you deliberately being thick?
>> No. 18815 Anonymous
1st April 2019
Monday 7:59 pm
18815 spacer
Can someone please explain to me how Ace Ventura is transphobic? I was watching it the other day and I don't see what the issue is. Is it because the villain is trans?
>> No. 18816 Anonymous
1st April 2019
Monday 8:36 pm
18816 spacer
>>18815

>> No. 18817 Anonymous
1st April 2019
Monday 8:48 pm
18817 spacer
>>18816
So it's transphobic because of this scene:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4j8m8L8B7pM

I always assumed that the main joke is that everyone is spitting and trying to clean their mouths because they've all made out with her. Is it really transphobic for a man to feel grossed out upon realising they've kissed a transperson rather than a woman?
>> No. 18818 Anonymous
1st April 2019
Monday 8:59 pm
18818 spacer
>>18817
>Is it really transphobic for a man to feel grossed out upon realising they've kissed a transperson rather than a woman?
Erm, yes, obviously.
>> No. 18819 Anonymous
1st April 2019
Monday 9:02 pm
18819 spacer
>>18817
Haha this is weird, this was on TV the other day and there's twice it's referenced. To be fair I did think it's a bit over the top by todays standard.
>> No. 18820 Anonymous
1st April 2019
Monday 9:07 pm
18820 spacer
>>18818
Why? People cannot help who they are and aren't attracted to. I'm far from racist, but I generally find white women more attractive than black women. I'm bisexual and I'd be quite happy if it turned out a woman had a massive cock between her legs but I can understand why that would not be a pleasant surprise for everyone.
>> No. 18821 Anonymous
1st April 2019
Monday 9:13 pm
18821 spacer
>>18820

It implies that there's something repulsive or dirty about trans* women. Imagine a scene where a woman is "revealed" to be half-Asian and everyone starts spitting and retching; such a scene would obviously be horrifyingly racist. We're all entitled to our preferences, but being repelled by an entire category of person veers dangerously close to bigotry. "I prefer white women" is a bit iffy, but "I would never date a black woman under any circumstances, even if she was beautiful and charming" is fairly obviously racist.
>> No. 18822 Anonymous
1st April 2019
Monday 9:16 pm
18822 spacer
>>18820

People can't help who they're attracted to, but what you can help is filming an extended scene in which a crowd of people vomit violently and profusely at the thought of kissing a trans person. Surely you can see the difference. They're taking the piss out of women with cocks, which is not the same as merely highlighting the sexual preferences of the characters in the scene.
>> No. 18824 Anonymous
1st April 2019
Monday 9:51 pm
18824 spacer
>>18821
Childish 'because it is yucky' arguments you want people to be secretly making aside.

Imagine being blindfolded by your lover only to have a stand in appear and perform the rest of the act. Is it rape if you found out later and you were disgusted? after all you seemed quite happy to go along with it at the time.

Concealing being trans from someone gives them a sense they were violated because they were deceived. Whether you like it or not people don't see them the same as a cis person. And it is one thing to identify someone as transphobic because they are provocatively target and being hostile to them. It is another when you violate that persons personal trust by withholding information from them because you know it would change their decision and claim they are just bigoted. It is a lie by omission and a violation of their personal space and autonomy.
>> No. 18825 Anonymous
1st April 2019
Monday 10:05 pm
18825 spacer
>>18821
It's because they thought they'd kissed a woman when actually they'd kissed a bloke. Remember that episode of Red Dwarf where Rimmer uses Kochansky's hologram to seduce Lister away from his chef's exam? And Lister exclaims 'But it's you in there! Ugh!'?

Well, it's like that. Because under the thin, cosmetic veneer of female resemblance, there lies a biological male. And to be presented with that fact during or after intimacy would be an unpleasant surprise for most heterosexual men.
>> No. 18826 Anonymous
1st April 2019
Monday 10:08 pm
18826 spacer
>>18824
>Childish 'because it is yucky' arguments you want people to be secretly making aside.
But the scene is saying exactly that, explicitly and not secretly.
>> No. 18827 Anonymous
1st April 2019
Monday 10:19 pm
18827 spacer
>>18825
Now that's being transphobic and homophobic.
>> No. 18828 Anonymous
1st April 2019
Monday 10:22 pm
18828 spacer
>>18824>>18825

You do still understand that while it's fine to acknowledge or portray that a straight man would not be happy being tranny tricked, that acknowledging it by having thirty odd people (and a dolphin) be physically ill at the prospect of it is offensive, right?
>> No. 18829 Anonymous
1st April 2019
Monday 10:23 pm
18829 spacer
>>18827
It's homophobic for a heterosexual man to find the prospect of kissing a man unpleasant?
>> No. 18830 Anonymous
1st April 2019
Monday 10:27 pm
18830 spacer
>>18825

I think that's more to do with it being Rimmer than it being a bloke.
>> No. 18831 Anonymous
1st April 2019
Monday 10:29 pm
18831 spacer
>>18828
It's an over-the-top gesture certainly, but it's an Ace Ventura film. Subtlety is not the watchword here. I wouldn't feel offended if some lesbian comedy featured a scene where they all vomited because they realised they'd all kissed a bloke, I'd just think I was watching a crap film. Which is what Ace Ventura is anyway.
>> No. 18833 Anonymous
1st April 2019
Monday 10:39 pm
18833 spacer
>>18829
Why shouldn't it be neutral rather than unpleasant or pleasant? Would you be repulsed by kissing a rock?
>> No. 18834 Anonymous
1st April 2019
Monday 10:51 pm
18834 spacer
>>18833
Kissing a human being you don't find attractive is unpleasant for presumably neurological reasons that are beyond my expertise. If Rachel Riley blindfolded you and snogged you, only to inform you afterwards that Fat Bastard from Austin Powers had administered the kiss, I'd expect a heterosexual man's reaction to be one of disgust, not neutrality. And for reasons beyond the act of deception itself. I wasn't aware we'd reached a point where we are held accountable for our instinctive emotions.
>> No. 18835 Anonymous
1st April 2019
Monday 10:55 pm
18835 spacer
>>18834

I think you doth protest too much, mate. Get out the closet, it's 2019.
>> No. 18836 Anonymous
1st April 2019
Monday 11:02 pm
18836 spacer
>>18834
>Kissing a human being you don't find attractive is unpleasant
Do you find your mother attractive? Your kids?
>Rachel Riley ... Fat Bastard from Austin Powers
Now there's a reasonable comparison.
The whole "being deceived into kissing someone with a penis" thing sort of goes out the window when you bring up the fact that you're okay with kissing someone who's attractive to you. You'd only be kissing them because they were attractive to you. If you have a problem with people wearing make-up then that applies to nigh all women.
You wouldn't be acting the same if you found out they were like a Barbie doll down there, and you'd be hurt if you took someone home who then vomited at the sight of your genitals.
>for presumably neurological reasons that are beyond my expertise
Seems pretty obvious that revulsion over neutrality in this context is something learned. In your case learned in part through watching Red Dwarf as a child.
>> No. 18837 Anonymous
1st April 2019
Monday 11:37 pm
18837 spacer
>>18836
I was very obviously referring to passionate kissing, not friendly or familial kissing. You know this and are deliberately trying to create diversionary lines of argument. Are you a child, or perhaps a barrister?

I'll concede the Riley/Fat Bastard comparison isn't particularly apt since one of them is designed specifically to be repulsive. Replace him with Christian Bale. It would still be unfair to criticise a completely heterosexual man for finding the situation unpleasant.

My biological prerogative is to seek intimacy with the opposite sex. Being deceived into intimacy by someone that is superficially female, but biologically male, would instill negative emotions in me, as it would in most men. If you want to assume this is entirely a learned behaviour then by all means do, but know you're wrong on the Red Dwarf front. Even 9 year-old me, blissfully ignorant of sexual matters, knew the joke was that nasty old Rimmer was in there, not just any bloke. Though I doubt Lister would have reacted much differently if Peterson had been pulling the same schtick.
>> No. 18838 Anonymous
1st April 2019
Monday 11:40 pm
18838 spacer
>>18837

>Being deceived into intimacy by someone that is superficially female, but biologically male, would instill negative emotions in me

How much vomit do you reckon you'd produce?
>> No. 18839 Anonymous
2nd April 2019
Tuesday 6:54 am
18839 spacer
>>18838
Are any of them actually vomiting? It looks more like spitting to clear their mouths, you know, after realising there's been tranny tongue inside it.
>> No. 18841 Anonymous
2nd April 2019
Tuesday 12:40 pm
18841 spacer
>>18836

>The whole "being deceived into kissing someone with a penis" thing sort of goes out the window when you bring up the fact that you're okay with kissing someone who's attractive to you. You'd only be kissing them because they were attractive to you.


I would really love to see how you'd react in the actual situation of finding out during an intense passionate snog that the woman you are doing the snogging with has a big juicy cock and two hairy dangly testicles between her (or his) legs.

The world is full of soap box utopians like you. Most of them, when put to the test, won't practice what they preach.
>> No. 18842 Anonymous
2nd April 2019
Tuesday 12:49 pm
18842 spacer
>>18841

I'd probably question why they didn't tell me beforehand and be a bit annoyed by that, but I'd still suck their cock. Get over yourself, if a woman's attractive to you she shouldn't suddenly become unattractive just because she has a juicy cock.
>> No. 18843 Anonymous
2nd April 2019
Tuesday 1:04 pm
18843 spacer