|
|
Post by đ on Oct 29, 2021 20:54:03 GMT
It works both ways. What I'm not ok with is accounts of these people being weaponized and extrapolated into rhetoric from a hostile media that has been proven to inflict harm and damage lives.
I get where the spirit of what you're saying is coming from, load, but with all due respect, you're backing the wrong horse here.
|
|
|
|
Post by Danno on Oct 29, 2021 20:56:00 GMT
It's the use of "Trans people" which would be the entire community as opposed to say "minority of" or "some" It's deliberate. Again you really, fucking really should look into Get the L Out. The link is right up there. And I've seen less extreme Al-Qaida websites |
|
|
|
Post by grizzly on Oct 29, 2021 20:57:24 GMT
What I am not Ok with is rather than the accounts of these people being taken onboard and listened to instead the energy is being used to investigate and discredit. Lets say that one of those victims did post stickers had an anti trans leaning, Does that mean she is a liar and her claims are irrelevant? Except again, that's not what is happening here. There's "Posting a sticker that has an anti trans leaning".
There is also "Posting an absurdly 'pro-trans' sticker that advocates for a position that isn't being argued in sincirity, and then claim that you are being attacked by people who believe that". There's a difference between "disliking a group" and "fabricating the existence of a group in order to rile up people", and the latter is definitely lying.
Similarily, if you write a BBC article where you spend a significant amount of time interviewing someone who has a significant amount of rape accusations levelled against her and yet never mention this in any way in your article about coerced sex, you clearly have some bias issues on your hands.
|
|
|
|
Post by GigaChad Sigma. on Oct 29, 2021 21:05:39 GMT
Admittedly it's getting more difficult to maintain my position. My core argument comes down to people stating they were the victims of certain behaviour. That behaviour was reported on by someone whose previous article was about sexual consent so there's a clear continuation of theme.
In my opinion the articles purpose isn't to attack the Trans community. The inclusion of get The L Out is a mistake but and I can't speak to the editing or how many lines the various sources provided but there are a variety of voices in the article.
The rebuttal focuses entirely on labelling the article and now it's victims as transphobic.
|
|
|
|
Post by Resident Knievel on Oct 29, 2021 21:18:14 GMT
It feels like an attack, it feels like they started with the premise 'trans women are sexual predators' then built a poorly sourced, one-sided article around that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Danno on Oct 29, 2021 21:23:02 GMT
It feels like an attack, it feels like they started with the premise 'trans women are sexual predators' then built a poorly sourced, one-sided article around that. Pretty much, and we've seen this before and therefore ought to know better. The victims in the article deserve both justice and support, but it tries to tar an entire group of people with the same shitty brush. Nevermind the fact that one of the cited victims appears to have her own rules around sexual assault |
|
|
|
Post by Danno on Oct 29, 2021 21:23:37 GMT
Just to make sure
|
|
|
|
Post by Sarfrin on Oct 29, 2021 21:59:26 GMT
Admittedly it's getting more difficult to maintain my position. My core argument comes down to people stating they were the victims of certain behaviour. That behaviour was reported on by someone whose previous article was about sexual consent so there's a clear continuation of theme. In my opinion the articles purpose isn't to attack the Trans community. The inclusion of get The L Out is a mistake but and I can't speak to the editing or how many lines the various sources provided but there are a variety of voices in the article. The rebuttal focuses entirely on labelling the article and now it's victims as transphobic. If it's getting increasingly difficult to maintain your position then maybe your position is untenable. The LGB Alliance are also an anti-trans group funded by right wing Christian fundamentalists. Having read the article, it's a hot mess of bullshit. It doesn't have a variety of voices because most of the trans people the author contacted wouldn't speak to her. I wonder why. Also, who's marching around loudly proclaiming they won't date someone or have a threesome with someone because they're trans? You'd just say you don't fancy them or you don't want to have a threesome unless you're trying to make a point. Not taking no for an answer isn't a trans issue anyway, it's shitty person issue so why not mention that one of the cis women you have quoted as saying they've been forced into non consensual sex has been accused of forcing people into non consensual sex herself multiple times? The whole thing is obviously a hatchet job written to make a particular point.
|
|
geefe
Full Member
Short for Zangief
Posts: 8,323
|
Post by geefe on Oct 29, 2021 23:21:31 GMT
Completely topic adjacent - seen in that twitter stuff one of the women from the article is a rapist.
I thought women couldn't be done for rape?
|
|
|
|
Post by Matt A on Oct 29, 2021 23:23:25 GMT
Selective attention bias I think
|
|
|
|
Post by MolarAmđ” on Oct 29, 2021 23:46:02 GMT
What do you mean they "can't be done for rape"? It's far less common than the male variant, but it's still absolutely a thing, and prosecutions have happened.
(depending on what country you live in, I guess)
|
|
|
|
Post by Danno on Oct 29, 2021 23:49:50 GMT
Completely topic adjacent - seen in that twitter stuff one of the women from the article is a rapist. I thought women couldn't be done for rape? Couldn't get done for ownership of another human being until the law was invented. Apparently rape, in the legal sense, requires a penis to be the aggressor |
|
|
|
Post by đ on Oct 30, 2021 0:01:25 GMT
UK law defines it as penetration by a penis, but US law doesnât make that distinction.
|
|
|
|
Post by Danno on Oct 30, 2021 0:03:00 GMT
Yet another UK law in desperate need of an update then
|
|
|
|
Post by MolarAmđ” on Oct 30, 2021 0:45:05 GMT
Yeah, that's pretty outdated.
|
|
|
|
Post by skalpadda on Oct 30, 2021 5:56:04 GMT
From the article. "However, those affected have told me the pressure comes from a minority of trans women, as well as activists who are not necessarily trans themselves." "While acknowledging the sample may not be representative of the wider lesbian community, she believes it was important to capture their "points of view and stories"." There is input from a range of people yet it's being framed as anti trans propaganda.
Went through the last couple of pages and read the article and I think this is the most problematic thing about it. It paints this as a significant problem, or at least common enough to be noteworthy, but there's no effort at all to establish the scope. None. Just a bunch of anecdotes and a lot of hedging to cover the writer's behind.
What does "some" mean? What does "a minority" mean? Is it 0,1% of trans women doing this sort of thing? If so they're on average angels and much better than the rest of the population. Is it 49%? If that's the case it would be remarkably high and certainly worth talking about. But we can't know that because all we have are scattered anecdotes.
The article only presents one number, being the survey that's not worthy of being printed at all. It hedges this as well by talking about sample size (that's not even the biggest problem) but it's not just unreliable, it's completely useless. Then it's called "research" in an image caption just below. It is not research, neither academic nor journalistic.
It's fine writing about the individual stories, but putting them in this overall narrative of this being a big problem for lesbian women without trying to ascertain if that's actually true is really problematic. You could also frame it as "this is a thing that's happened to some people, let's talk about how people think about sex, gender and genitalia" and that might even be somewhat useful and constructive, but that's not what the author did.
|
|
geefe
Full Member
Short for Zangief
Posts: 8,323
|
Post by geefe on Oct 30, 2021 8:16:18 GMT
UK law defines it as penetration by a penis, but US law doesnât make that distinction. That's what I was thinking of |
|
Bongo Heracles
Junior Member
Technically illegal to ride on public land
Posts: 4,654
Member is Online
|
Post by Bongo Heracles on Oct 30, 2021 8:29:54 GMT
I think, ultimately, this issue is now in the same ballpark as Brexit and a few other things.
If you are unsure of where you stand on the whole âgender criticalâ argument just look at the people on each side of the debate and you quickly see the GC side is almost exclusively populated by cunts.
I know this is isnât the most scientific thing in the world but I have always found that if someone is telling you something look at who else is saying the same thing and why they are saying it.
|
|
|
|
Post by suicida on Oct 30, 2021 8:48:33 GMT
What saddens me about this debate is that the whole "trans issue" is absolutely being pushed and promoted by rich fundamentalist American right wing arseholes as a "wedge issue" in order to divide and fracture the progressive left. Right wingers always vote with the party regardless, because being in power is all that matters in the end. The left is obsessed with purity tests and splinter groups. Looking at the last few pages here I'd say the tactic is working. Especially when you have the UK's most progressive newspaper, The Guardian, frequently post anti-trans opinion pieces, and now the BBC joining in. I get it. I followed Glinner on Twitter for years. During Gamergate he was one of the most prominent anti GG voices in the UK, and I continued to follow him after. When he became obviously obsessed with hating trans people I nearly followed him down that rabbit hole until I had a "what the fuck am I doing" moment and realised I was totally being radicalised into hating a group of people who just want to live their lives in peace. If you are unsure of where you stand on the whole âgender criticalâ argument just look at the people on each side of the debate and you quickly see the GC side is almost exclusively populated by cunts. This was pretty much exactly the "what the fuck am I doing" moment I mentioned above, and I think the particular cunt in question was Tommy Robinson, who of course is GC and cares deeply about the rights of lesbians |
|
|
|
Post by Dougs on Oct 30, 2021 8:53:37 GMT
The language being used is exactly the same as the gay bashing of yesteryear. Gays assaulting people in toilets, gays pressuring other dudes into sex⊠itâs just another pathetic moral panic, no different to the shit our parents came out with. Yep, exactly. |
|
|
|
Post by mothercruncher on Oct 30, 2021 9:10:43 GMT
Tommy Robinson needs to get his paedo critical house in order before he moves on to his gender one.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jambowayoh on Oct 30, 2021 13:22:19 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Matt A on Oct 30, 2021 13:25:26 GMT
Even if she does want money, morally; fuck him.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sarfrin on Oct 30, 2021 14:12:09 GMT
I mean 'She already made a deal with my now dead paedo friend to keep me from being sued over being a paedo, which I'm totally not' isn't the best argument for an innocent man to be making, is it?
|
|
|
|
Post by Jambowayoh on Oct 30, 2021 14:14:10 GMT
An innocent man who LOST the ability to sweat!
|
|
Rich
Junior Member
Posts: 1,989 
|
Post by Rich on Oct 30, 2021 14:26:46 GMT
Yet another UK law in desperate need of an update then I'm not sure it does. Rape in UK law is very specific to penetration with a penis. Other sexual assaults still carry the same sentencing guidelines. |
|
|
|
Post by Sarfrin on Oct 30, 2021 15:23:51 GMT
An innocent man who LOST the ability to sweat! Yeah, I shouldn't mock a man who's suffering from PTDS*. *Post Traumatic Dryness Syndrome |
|
Bongo Heracles
Junior Member
Technically illegal to ride on public land
Posts: 4,654
Member is Online
|
Post by Bongo Heracles on Oct 30, 2021 15:25:48 GMT
Even if she does want money, morally; fuck him. She does want money, thatâs pretty much the point of the exercise. I mean; âPrince Andrew said his accuser, Virginia Giuffre, was seeking a âpaydayâ at his expenseâ. Congrats, Andy. Youâre not as brainless as people say. You understand the point of taking someone to court. |
|
|
|
Post by Matt A on Oct 30, 2021 15:31:08 GMT
Yeah, it's quite clever at achieving accountability for a crime with no evidence though. Because it doesn't require evidence in order to force him to represent himself and deny the allegations. It's such a cunts trick to smear the woman's morality in public.
|
|
anephric
Junior Member
The first 6 I took out with a whirlwind kick
Posts: 1,511
|
Post by anephric on Oct 30, 2021 15:44:05 GMT
He's going to have to sell his Swiss ski chalet, poor mite.
I mean, where can he take his apres ski now, huh? Has she even thought about that?
|
|
