To reach out and educate
And another another one of these.
Oh those attempts to “reach out and educate” – by which they mean attempts to accuse and bully. For some reason despite all these attempts to accuse and bully, she continues to click “like” on some tweets, and “LGBT+ Labour Scotland,” or the people in control of its Twitter account, wants to force her to stop doing that and instead follow their orders. It is UNACCEPTABLE for her to have her own views; she must be forced to exchange her own views for those of LGBT+ Labour Scotland, and have the whip withdrawn as well.
Defying a three-line whip is very serious, and has occasionally resulted in the whip being withdrawn from an MP or Lord. This means that the Member is effectively expelled from their party (but keeps their seat) and must sit as an independent until the whip is restored.
These twerps want a woman MP expelled from Labour for liking tweets that they disapprove of; they want that and they’re trying to make it happen.
Open season on women innit.
You Brits make government sound so kinky.
Heh. Apparently it originates with hunting. Of course it does.
Not that it matters, ultimately, but I’m curious what that “transphobic content on Twitter” was, and what constitutes “mocking”, and what is said when people “raise concerns”. If a recent Facebook argument (or indeed any of the stupid conversations we’ve all been involved in) is any indication, mere disagreement is sufficient to cause outrage.
I just can’t get over the astonishing fact that disagreeing with a theory on an explanation for someone’s attributes is the same thing as hating that attribute and the person who has it.
If a Christian is fine with atheists both as equal fellow citizens and as good people — but believes atheists know God in their hearts yet are in rebellion against Him, I might think them ignorant but not phobic. Phobia involves irrational hatred,disgust, distrust. If they don’t want me fired or refused service, and are perfectly happy to be my friend, that’s not a phobia.
It’s not even a phobia if they try to reason with me, or to convert me to Christianity. It’s not a phobia if they believe I’m a sinner in need of repentance for my nonbelief — any more than I’m phobic for believing them self-deluded or naive. And it’s not just personal. Tthey’re not phobic for being against the Separation of Church and State. That’s dangerous to me, yes, but it doesn’t necessarily mean they find atheists or even atheism dangerous or disgusting. It means they consider God in government a better thing. I can, I think, tell the difference between “atheism is sad” and “atheists are dangerous, immoral, and if I had to sit next to one I’d try to move my seat.”
When I think of the word “transphobe” I think of someone who thinks transgender people are dangerous, immoral, and not anyone to sit next to. I think of some of the more outlandish conspiracy theories, or lumping all of them together as equally perverted, violent, or predatory. I think of an attitude and set of beliefs which require a psychological diagnosis.
Believing transgenderism is socially constructed and not due to a biologically-based, all-encompassing innate “gender identity” doesn’t qualify. The theory that “gender” itself is socially constructed , dangerous, immoral, and not anything to sit next to doesn’t qualify, either. Words matter. Hear “phobia” and you know that whatever is feared and hated is harmless and nice; a “phobic” is neither. Transphobia, Transphobe: not a disagreement about explanations or causes.
Let’s call it Argumentum ad Nomenclature. A fallacy — but effective.
It’s funny – yet predictable – that the claims are hyperbolic and venomous in proportion to how ludicrous the belief system is.
There are no great wacko claims involved in feminism or anti-racism or gay rights activism. Some people found the notion of same-sex marriage absurd (and doubtless still do), but absurd in a limited, dictionary way. “But marriage means between a woman and a man.” “Yes, it has meant that, but being a social thing, it can change its meaning.” “No it can’t!” “Yes it can.” That’s a different order of disagreement from “people who identify as women are women” “not if they’re men they’re not” “yes they are and we’ll ruin you if you keep denying it!”
The trans thing isn’t demanding just social change, it’s demanding ontological change combined with epistemological change. It’s an ENORMOUS ask, and a very unreasonable one, therefor the campaign for it has to be venomous in proportion.
All very depressing.
Your curiousity is suspect, and satisfying it by trying to find the original tweets would not be what they mean when they tell you to “educate yourself.” Unwillingness to take their word for it that the content in question was “transphobic” is also transphobic. It’s transphobia all the way down.
Well …
Total blank-slatism is kinda wacko. My first taste of that was at a NARAL meeting, when I got into a conversation with a woman who sincerely believed that the only reason men were stronger/faster/larger/etc. than women was socialization.
Denial of the law of noncontradiction/excluded middle is totally wacko. Ibram X Kendi and Robin DiAngelo are rather fond of that particular mode, quite explicitly saying that being not racist is being racist.
Can’t think of any wacko claims vis-a-vis gay rights at the moment, but I’m sure something will occur to me while I’m doing the dishes or whatnot.
Nullius in Verba #7 wrote:
Interesting. I was recently involved in a discussion with TRAs on the topic of TIMs in women’s sports and several people were making that argument. One reason there’s no problem if Transwomen get places on women’s teams is because males have no physical advantage over females anyway — that’s a sexist social construct. There was pushback from others in the group, though, which was reassuring. A bridge too far for some.
But I had assumed it was strictly a TRA talking point, for obvious reasons.
Sastra: Yeah, it seems that some people can’t get their minds around equal rights and moral worth without also presuming equality in all respects. To them, any counterexample to the latter would also render the former false, therefore all such counterexamples must be denied.
I was trying to post this in Miscellany Room 5, but I couldn’t get it through for some reason, and there may now be five or six versions of it in limbo there, so I’ll try here. Apologies for any duplication.
Etsy has banned JKR merchandise. Apparently only the “positive” kind, expressing love for JKR, is prohibited.
Spinster thread: https://spinster.xyz/notice/9zrfSTGnZGtvTttktU
Banned items include various “I Heart JK Rowling” items.
Not banned items include “Fuck JK Rowling” merchandise and “Punch TERFs” merchandise, according to examples on Spinster.
Etsy policy mentioned in the message: Question 4 on this page: https://www.etsy.com/legal/prohibited
I saw nothing indicating it was OK to threaten violence to members of hate groups. Saying “I Hate Nazis” is OK by example, and mocking Nazis is OK, but they say nothing specific about saying “Punch Nazis”. They do prohibit, in a different section, threatening violence.
They did go to spam; I let the first one out. I’ll delete this one if you want or leave it, either way. Thanks for the info!
Huh, I also found comments from someone else – a new commenter – which didn’t belong in spam, so I’m glad I was looking there. I hope that doesn’t happen often!