A potential scenario that might happen
Ok it appears it’s going to be wall-to-wall tribunal here for a bit, because what’s coming out is too astounding to miss.
At this point they’re talking about whether Kirrin Medcalf [KM] consulted with other people before emailing Garden Court. KM is head of trans inclusion at Stonewall, and was a new hire at the time.
“people might be in a space with someone who wanted to physically harm them” – meaning, I take it, Allison. This is where this imbecilic ideology takes people. KM utters variations on that over and over again.
Oh it’s a potential scenario that might happen. Definitely more than enough reason to tell Allison’s chambers to bully her or get rid of her.
Why this ideology is so grotesque. Women worry about their safety around men in some circumstances, and Stonewall waves a magic wand and turns that into women being a danger to men who call themselves women.
Jaws are dropping everywhere.
I can understand people having different levels of anxiety about the risks of violence. But I can’t imagine how anyone can in good faith simultaneously assert that:
(1) it is reasonable to fear that someone who says “a woman is an adult human female” will commit physical violence against trans people; and
(2) it is not reasonable to fear that someone who says “suck my girl dick and die terf” will commit physical violence against gender critical people.
It’s hard to come to any conclusion other than that these people are playing a cynical game. Especially when they also like to exploit the ambiguity of phrases like “causes harm,” by conflating “said something that hurts my feelings” with “physically assaulted me.”
Lolol bodies are not inherently make or female lolwut?
The sad thing is that people, rather than admit what utter rot that statement is, will search for ways to make it true. Like if I said that Trump/Pelosi claims the sky is blue, half of the Democratic/Republican base would say something about the sky not being blue all around the world, or that it’s actually a shade of cyan, or that it’s actually not the sky that’s blue but instead differentially refracted light based on angle to the sun.
If bodies are not inherently male or female then WTF is trans?
What is CIS?
>bodies are not inherently male or female
This is downright Trumpian in the manner of ‘say something everyone knows is wrong, fire abuse at anyone who contradicts it, stick to your guns no matter what, turn agreement into a test of loyalty’
Well, actually I will say that…but only to my Earth Science students in the context of class as I explain why the sky is blue. Anyone else says it, I’m like, sure, blue. Except when it’s gray, but that’s a special case.
Mike Haubrich #3
That’s where the whole “gender assigned at birth” nonsense comes in.
@3
Indeed. That’s why your father can be a transwomen and your mother can’t. Without sexed bodies the categories ‘trans’ and ‘cis’ are literally incomprehensible.
@Nullius, iknklast,
A former roommate of mine who is now a brilliant physicist but was at the time an MIT grad student told me that the first question he got in his orals was “Why is the sky blue?” I don’t think that “differentially refracted light based on angle to the sun” would have been specific enough for him to pass.
There are an infinite number of “potential scenarios that might happen.” There are at least several hundred billion that would be higher probability events than Alison Bailey harming anyone. Some of these include giant, invisible hedgehogs, asteroids, and anti-matter clown cars. Is Stonewall equally concerned about them? If not why not? WHO WILL SAVE US FROM THE GIANT INVISIBLE HEDGHOGS?!!!
Djolaman #7
Again, I suspect a TA would say that the only reason anyone is considered “man” or “woman”, “male” or “female” in the first place is that they were arbitrarily “assigned” that “gender” at birth. If your “mother” (i.e. parental figure who identifies as female whether or not “she” is also your “birthing parent”) had been assigned “male” at birth that would indeed make “her” trans. I mean it’s stupid, but I’m pretty sure that’s basically what they’d say.
Bjarte: Additionally, this is where they often deploy the tactic of reducing all language and labels to “made up” and “socially constructed”. That is, there is no necessary connection between “dogs” and dogs, as in some other possible world, “dogs” might refer to cats. Then they say that all such constructions are equally arbitrary, and thus equally groundless.
Those sort of language games make it very difficult to pin down what anyone means, which is obviously part of the point. If your mother can be either parent provided only that they identify as a woman, my point about your mother necessarily not being a transwoman is invalidated. Assuming that all the words that we use to discuss sex and gender; mother, father, man, woman, male, female – can be pulled into the constantly shifting terrain of ‘inclusive’ language, meaningful discussion can be derailed as it becomes impossible to express yourself clearly or be confident that you’ve understood what’s been said to you. Very useful if you’re talking rubbish.
My terrier! He (and his predecessor) are very good at spotting invisible giant hedgehogs – or any other invisible thing I thought for years the invisible man lived on our street, necessitating barking at something neither I nor my husband could see. I now realize the reason we haven’t been attacked by giant invisible hedgehogs is that my dogs scare them off.
Nullius, I’ve heard that argument so many times! In English, we call them dogs. In Spanish, they call them perra or perro. In Russia, they call them sobaka. So that means the creature itself is a social construct, and there is no such thing as a dog, only that which we term a dog.
I hate this argument. Yes, we call them different things because we are speaking different languages But using “dog” to mean “cat” on another planet doesn’t change the animal itself, only how we refer to it. Any animal with the characteristics common to felines would be a cat if transplanted here; any animal with the characteristics common to canids would be a dog if transplanted here.
This is where the trans argument falls down. Calling a dog a dog, a perro, a sobaka, or just plain Rover or Spot, doesn’t change the reality of the animal’s characteristics. It will still have the characteristics of a dog, and we can communicate because we’ve assigned them a name. An apple will taste the same no matter what you call it, or as one celebrated playwright put it “a rose by any other name would smell as sweet”. If you called Romeo Tybalt, he would still be Romeo, and still be doomed to drink poison.
Whew! Thanks, I feel safer already!