Author Topic: New dark age


The whole nine yards
« Reply #10 on: October 17, 2021 »
The Kathleen Stock case is about much more than trans rights

the trans debate is unavoidable because it is really a crossroads, and one that leads in all directions in our culture: to freedom, censorship, identity, truth, scientific reality, and Orwell’s “secret doctrine”. The whole nine yards, in other words.

As a random example of one of the directions, see Sex matters in the city

Re: New dark age
« Reply #11 on: October 20, 2021 »
If the trans debate is unavoidable now it is stymied by having been avoided, religiously, before today's right-on consensus was established.

I keep trying to write an article about the many missed opportunities for transcending this regressive polarisation between trans activist and gender critical feminist perspectives. There are too many rogue factors - feminism being subverted from within by the comfortable careerists, gay liberation allowing itself to get mixed up with a fetish fashion statement, the nasty nature of social media - lots of lifestyle-based perspectives being confused with more essential matters of universal reasoning.

Fighting for specific rather than general liberation is dangerous - a long list of particular hate crimes will point fingers but leave the hate festering - hey, let's hate people who don't agree with us instead, right? This is so like bad religion it hurts.

Interestingly, I find that the proposed gender definition table linked in - (for the FCA to address male domination in the financial industry) - leaves me out again. I find myself saying either 'none' or 'don't know' faced with the contemporary redefinition of gender. Neither of these options are available.

Unfortunately I am unlikely to be offered work at The Guardian as a sub-editor. Pity, looks like they could use some.


Repent, motherfuckers
« Reply #12 on: October 24, 2021 »

bump for Hitler

Twitter isn't the optimal medium to be hashing this out, but the only way through this with sanity intact is to grab onto humour wherever you find it.

Good luck with gender identity extremists, who specialise in the inadvertent variety. Netflix Protests presents: tamborine woman.

If you can't laugh (even if it's nervously) at the sheer unhinged brilliance of the double act of her and DARVOMAN, you're made of stronger stuff than I.

Yes "unhinged" comes up a lot, because that's what you see, over and over. And make no mistake, it's coming from one side.

Those who go on about the toxicity of this debate frequently paint a false equivalence. The gender critical crowd aren't the ones walking around with signs like this.

We're the ones dressing as dinosaurs. (I say "we", even though the only protesting I do is online to a gaggle of faithful bots.) Let's be careful out there.

. . .

From a Mumsnet thread about Judith Butler's latest bucket o' words:

Quote from: NecessaryScene
Has she completely misunderstood the gender-critical argument, or is she deliberately misrepresenting it? I honestly don't know.

Whatever it is, it just seems to be the case that she's an output-only device. There's no clear evidence that she in any way perceives the outside world or reality, or if she does it doesn't matter. She just produces words.

She's like Douglas Adams' Nutri-Matic machine:

The way it functioned was very interesting. When the Drink button was pressed it made an instant but highly detailed examination of the subject's taste buds, a spectroscopic examination of the subject's metabolism and then sent tiny experimental signals down the neural pathways to the taste centers of the subject's brain to see what was likely to go down well. However, no one knew quite why it did this because it invariably delivered a cupful of liquid that was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea.

As I recall, Arthur managed to nearly doom the ship by trying to get the machine to produce some actual tea. I wonder what happens if you try to get Butler to actually address some real arguments or actually tackle the rights conflict.

More from the naughty corner:

Any other scientists feel like you are in an alternate reality?
Quote from: AnyOldPrion
It’s one of the most amazing coincidences of our time that the biology of sex, which was straightforward enough to be taught to school children for many years, suddenly became too complicated to understand, right at the same time as men began to demand access to women’s spaces.

On a wider basis though, I do sometimes wonder if we are moving past the age of enlightenment and onto darker times. Religion often went hand in hand with science in the early days, and I wonder whether people are incapable of living without some kind of magical thinking, so that ironically, the “debunking of the existence of God” has left that segment of human nature wide open to other neo/pseudo-religious movements.

Irish women will be heard
Quote from: AnotherLass
I think that the entirety of gender ID ideology is playing on the ambiguity over whether they mean it or not. That’s basically the grift.

    “I literally mean that transwomen are female when I am demanding that they be in women’s prisons and sports. I don’t mean that transwomen are female, when they go to the doctor. Of course not, that would be silly!”

    I think that most people think that they mostly don’t mean it. That’s the “outer knowledge”. The “inner knowledge” is that they mean it to a much greater extent than those on the outside realise, although they still don’t fully mean it. Because you can’t really, fully mean that males are females.

    At the end of the day, it’s basically: "I mean words literally when I choose. And when I don’t, my words mean nothing and you can’t hold me to them." Because it’s quite simply about being able to exercise arbitrary power.

It was a very dark time
Quote from: Barracker
I'm pretty jaded now. There's little that would surprise me. Sports, prisons, refuges, schools. I expect no end of nonsense. But the one thing that never stops shocking me is that a law was created in the first place that took the word female, which provided recognition of the entire female sex, away from them and created a new, mixed sex, indefinable 'psyche' category that female would mean from that day on. I cannot fully comprehend the enormity of legally redefining all females so that men could be 'recognised' as females. That was the day we failed the female sex, comprehensively, utterly.

I'll never get over it, even when it's repealed, and I'm telling my great grandchildren about the insanity of the early 21st century.

"They literally stopped recognising every actual single woman and girl, every female person. And they told us that we were now all an identity instead of a sex, a psychology instead of a physiology. That was what female now meant. So that men could say they were women. And they did, hundreds of thousands of them did. There was no single word for actual females. We weren't allowed one. Our word was reallocated to men. We had to talk about ourselves as people with cervixes, or menstruators, and we had to agree that biology wasn't the real difference between the sexes, identity was. One by one, every reference to biological sex was replaced in every law with references to identity, until the law had erased any connection with female biology from pregnancy, childbirth, motherhood. Everything became something that applied to both men and women because it was forbidden to have real references to sex.

Stating that only females were women was enough to lose your job, or even be charged with a crime. Failing to agree with a man that he was a woman was enough to be ostracised, censored or threatened with legal action. Men took over women's sports, institutions, groups. Men represented us in every level of society, calling themselves women. There were no words to distinguish ourselves from these men. Everyone could see the female sex were becoming unspeakable people, unspoken of. You weren't allowed to acknowledge our separate existence from male people. Men committed crimes and society said women did it. You could never escape a man because he could follow you into any public space by identifying as female. People were very, very afraid to tell the truth.

Many hundreds of children lost their reproductive organs trying to become the other sex. It was a very dark time."

Margaret Atwood

Quote from: LobsterNapkin
OMG, Jordan Peterson radicalized Margaret Atwood in the produce isle.
Quote from: EmbarrassingHadrosaurus
Is this a cross between Cluedo and The Crucible?

"Trans Criminals are not Women" says Priti Patel
Quote from: EmbarrassingHadrosaurus again
We are such Morlocks to their Eloi.

. . .

This just in:


Not so funny
« Reply #13 on: October 25, 2021 »

Re: New dark age
« Reply #14 on: October 25, 2021 »
Comedy notwithstanding, this -
is the article I would have wished to have written. (It is one of the many links en passant, darned if I remember which.)

It mentions the Yogyakarta principles, enshrining "each person's deeply felt internal and individual experience of gender...''

Since I do not have this, my responding to equal opportunity type gender monitoring questions with 'none' is correct, according to current practice. So thanks for clearing that up. I'll add the quote for clarification if ever I'm applying for a job.

I'm off to find or draw a cartoon that sufficiently approximates my reality.


Re: New dark age
« Reply #15 on: October 27, 2021 » is the article I would have wished to have written. (It is one of the many links en passant, darned if I remember which.)

Yes, that's one of the roughly 50,000 links I posted on the other thread. Excellent breakdown of 'cis', too.

I'm off to find or draw a cartoon that sufficiently approximates my reality.

I look forward to it. This has always been a personal favourite:

(I identify as both Charlie Brown and Lucy at the same time)

. . .

One wonders how much tea got spat out yesterday after Auntie served this. I've been following the discussion at the usual place [here and here and here and here and - well, you get the idea].

Quote from: OvaHere
I was massively shocked (in a good way) to see the BBC put this out today. It's about 5 years worth of journalistic suppression in one article. About time they played catch up.

Quote from: CompleteGinasaur
I know I will not be, by a long shot, the only woman on this board who remembers Stonewall's beginnings; we thought it a bit middle class and mandarin at times perhaps, but recognized the desirability of having an organization that could speak to the establishment in the establishment's own language. It did a fantastic job. We fundraised for it and marched with it and it delivered everything it was created to deliver. 

But the moment it changed its mission to include and then prioritise the "T" it destroyed its own foundational ethos. I'm afraid this latest spewing of incoherent word salad homophobia -lesbophobia, actually, because they're not the same thing at all - is just the final squawk of the Oozlum bird before it disappears up its own grotesque imitation vagina.

Quote from: Datun
The problem with the few bad apples is that trans ideology has set itself up to contradict itself.

 If a man is a woman, but he is heterosexual (i.e. sexually oriented towards women), he has no choice but to target lesbians as partners. 

Straight women do not validate him as a woman, because straight women only like men. 

His sexual orientation is alive and kicking, of course. And must be accommodated. 

So you only have to look at the cohort of men who say they are women, and are also attracted to women, to see the extent of the issue.

Quote from: EmbarrassingHadrosaurus
There is a discussion both here and on the Atwood thread about why people who are in closed communities that are engaged in thought reform do not wish to read primary sources that might challenge their views or they are deterred from reading them ("I read it so you don't have to"). 

People in those communities are encouraged to dispense pre-dispensed views from their thought leaders in the form of thought terminating clichés and stock answers, they are never to allow themselves to enter into a discussion that is based on a primary text that lies outside their own set of preferred beliefs. The penalty for going against the expectation of their community is a withdrawal of social support, a social network, and ostracism that can have far reaching consequences. The pile-ons to Margaret Atwood et al are to keep them in line.

 People who won't read the primary sources because of the challenge to their thinking will probably, at some point, experience cognitive dissonance about their reluctance to perform such a simple and everyday action. And then they might find themselves in the situations described here.

Quote from: allmywhat
But if you find that when dating, you are writing off entire groups of people, like people of colour, fat people, disabled people or trans people, then it's worth considering how societal prejudices may have shaped your attractions.

Why though? It’s not in any way in my interest to “include” more people in my sex life. My preferences currently exclude the entire population of Earth, minus one, and that works great. Obviously if you’re having trouble finding a date, then “examining your preferences” or whatever is a sensible thing to do. Or if you keep ending up in bad relationships. But if that’s not the case then why not keep doing what works? 

Clearly Stonewall are confused on this point because they think women are sexual resources to be distributed to men, and not people.

Video cringe factor 11, via Reddit.

Quote from: The_Cynical_Ploys
I'm always impressed with their uncanny ability to mix in a threat of violence when scolding you for traumatizing them by not indulging in their own fantasy.

. . .

Those Wonderful Women
Bravo, OutsideContextProblem. On a somewhat less erudite note...


What a fool believes
« Reply #16 on: October 28, 2021 »
Confession: The Shame You Desire of Trans Women
Informed consent as acquired taste.

Played The Fool
My confession: there's no way I'm reading book length Judith Butler, and I don't feel bad about that.

(I didn't know Alex Drummond could sing.) (OK, they don't look that much alike, but it was my first thought.)

Nothing to do with the above, probably. I just like the song.

Re: New dark age
« Reply #17 on: October 29, 2021 »
Well I searched for my cartoon without satisfaction, until today! (I was almost a Peanuts fan. Having already fallen for the Pink Panther it was a case of not quite my bag.)

The refusal to investigate sources is really the nub of the problem. I being older than a new brigade of activists means they will never get 'where I am coming from' without this intellectual concession. Ironically, I dare say, a taste for intellectual rigor seemed to be seen as a 'masculine' trait when I was a nipper. Nowadays you can bash anyone with anything expedient.

We are a decadent species.

I'll be right back, after this s-word.


Recognition and Ambivalence
« Reply #18 on: October 29, 2021 »
Any excuse to post this:

Nowadays you can bash anyone with anything expedient.


I should read at least one of Butler's books. Then again I should also read Moby Dick, which sounds as if it could be germane.

A tweet from a few years ago stuck in my head. It was a professor I follow, complaining about Stanley Fish. She was thanking someone for reading his latest article, so she wouldn't have to. Perhaps a joke, but in this case I think she meant it. As she often uses social media in a way that suggests she expects that students will be looking, I was actually a little shocked at the message this conveyed.

Like most, I frequently outsource my critical faculties. On Mumsnet you can tell who has done their homework.

. . .

Definitely have a soft spot for Charlie Brown & co, having spent my entire growing up years with the comics (where they were right on top) spread out on the breakfast table. And the holidays weren't complete without the specials.

Re: New dark age
« Reply #19 on: October 30, 2021 »
Perhaps one day I will come to accept and even embrace Brian Ferry as an artist, as I have with Elton John, Kenny Rogers and even perhaps Andy Warhol, but don't hold your breath.

Pepita Carpena, long active in the CNT and Juventudes in Barcelona, told this story about one of her experiences with a compañero from the Juventudes:

I’ll tell you a story–because, for me, what has always been my saving grace is that I’m very outgoing, and I’m not bashful about responding to people who give me a hard time…

One time, a compañero from the Juventudes came over to me and said, “You, who say you’re so liberated. You’re not so liberated”–I’m telling you this so you’ll see the mentality of these, these men– “because if I would ask you to give me a kiss, you wouldn’t.”

I just stood there staring at him, and thinking to myself, “How am I going to get out of this one?” And then I said to him, “Listen: when I want to go to bed with a guy, I’m the one that has to choose him. I don’t go to bed with just anyone,” I said. “You don’t interest me, as a man. I don’t feel anything for you…Why should you want me to ‘liberate myself,’ as you put it, by going to bed with you? That’s no liberation for me. That’s just making love simply for the sake of making love.”

“No,” I said to him, “love is something that has to be like eating: if you’re hungry, you eat; and if you want to go to bed with a guy, then…”

“Besides, I’m going to tell you something else. Perhaps you’ll get angry at me–(this I did just to get at him, no?)–your mouth doesn’t appeal to me…And, I don’t like to make love with a guy without kissing him.”

He was left speechless! But I did it with a dual purpose in mind…because I wanted to show him that that’s not the way to educate compañeras…That’s what the struggle of women was like in Spain–even with men from our own group–and I’m not even talking about what it was like with other guys.”

Lessons from Spain’s Mujeres Libres
Anarchism & the Struggle for the Emancipation of Women
by Martha Ackelsberg
extract -

The term 'intersectionality' later arose to address marginalisation of all kinds of people. Viewed as a mathematical progression, the typing of successive varieties of oppression is a Xenoic non-finisher, but this is not a popular view.