Son of Triggering

[Pale Rider]

Everything that needs to be said has already been said. But since no one was listening, everything must be said again.

Gender again.

Waiting to see if classic33 (or anybody) actually watches that video from Paradox Institute he linked to. They've also done a lot on DSDs, and helpfully provide transcripts. If you're up for a bit more reading, try Quackometer.

AndyRM: The only people I've ever encountered who have a problem with the term "cisgender" is uh, people who are cisgender. Not a term I care for, or use, but it's funny watching people like you get their panties in a bunch about it. Along with everything else which doesn't fit your Hetty Spaghetti view of the world.
AuroraSaab: It makes women a subset of their own sex. They aren't. Quite rightly, nobody would accept the idea of cisblack and transblack people.
Newfhouse: Tall women and short women are two subsets of women. Sometimes it is useful to be descriptive and sometimes it doesn’t matter.
Monkers: Oh is this another of your immutable binaries? There are black people and non-black people? Or is it that black people are a subset of the human species where whites are dominant because you say so. Another fail.

Why monkers acts so monkers:
- As monkers specialises in the antifactual, logical fallacies are on brand.
- The targets spend time rebutting; no matter how well they do it, this still gives strawmen and other shambolic constructs more time on the floor. With TRAs it's always a race to the bottom.
- If someone is attacked enough, enough people will begin to believe they deserve it, ipso facto.

The best way to deal with the gawdawful, aggressively wrong monkers (and 'tools) of the world is to make as much fun of them as humanly possible. Here's a fine example of poking someone else who deserves it – in this case a museum curator:





As humour won't work on those whose sense of humour has been circumscribed by ideological considerations, the next best approach is exactly Aurora's: patiently explaining as if you would to a moderately intelligent child.

Were I to speculate on the state of AndyRM's panties, I'd guess permanent twist.

As for newfhouse, once more into the Venn:

[Pale Rider]

Gender again.

More monkers? Very well. First, old business:

Lady: a polite or formal way of referring to a woman.

Mostly condescending rather than polite.

Such gallantry.

That's it. That's the extent of my commentary on that.

Dead people tend not to mind what people say about them.

How nice to be prescient in my choice of meme yesterday.

Why is it that you never bother to read, but start bashing the keyboard like a drunken crazed chimp?

And so the craziness of the bigots here goes on ... ad nauseum.

Monkers has yet to realise that 'bigot' is going the way of 'transphobe' in this debate: the more you use it,* particularly against people who clearly don't deserve it, the less it means anything intelligible.

* ad nauseam, if you will. At the risk of triggering Ian.

If you tell me you have a faith, I'll respect it, up until the point that you say that your faith means that you can impose your beliefs such as the eradication of the rights of others - then I'll likely be annoyed and possibly rude (which is a legitimate way of challenging absolutists since resolution by discussion is pretty impossible).

Hallelujah! Transgenderism very nearly being a religion, monkers finally gets it.

The counterclaim/projection is that we're a cult. I've posted some good links about all this, wherever they are. Google has thrown up* this one, which is tainted by the source, naturally.

* Not literally, though you definitely get the idea the search engine gods don't like disgorging gender critical links

Note that Unkraut is no threat to monkers; hence a long post with no coproprojectiles. This is not to say there's nothing objectionable, e.g.,

The Israel/Palestine could not illustrate the point more - people on both sides of the argument are vocal in wishing the eradication of the other, and the signs are they are intent on it, precisely because of their absolutism and refusal to accommodate the other.

Testerical analogising of the very real eradication that happens in actual wars aside, TRAs are the ones who tend to violence, when not in deed, in imagery, to get their points across. Those still convinced the "extremists" are equally extreme are committed to a weird kind of fairness.

Accommodation (AuroraSaab is forever suggesting third spaces, but never mind) has meant one side budging up whilst the other takes more and more territory that doesn't belong to them. To anyone not steeped in gallantry misogyny, it's not difficult to ascertain who the bullies are.

If a trans child states their pronouns are she/her then the there is a duty on the teacher to conform. They are not losing their faith as a result; there is no need to vent their objection due to their faith, it is unnecessary yet damaging.

See Hilary Cass on the dangers of socially transitioning children.

Vygotsky made some useful points about the role of language in thinking

Once you're done with your homework, remember:

WTAF?

Newfhouse's first WTAF on this thread and he saves it for icowden. Was it a worthy F to give?

But we should also not be trying to impress modern moral viewpoints on history. It's a bit like saying everyone in the 18th century was racist if they had a slave.

Can I just say that I'd love to have a slave. It would be a bit awkward if they were black. Any other colour peeps are welcome to apply for the position. Unpaid, obviously. Perhaps think of it as an internship.

Bobzmyunkle handled this well enough (I may consider deputising him), including his reply to newfhouse, whose willingness to cede the rights of women to men is insult enough.

Who* have I insulted?

* Like I know if who or whom is correct here. My actual stance can be summed up with another video:

Spoiler

My slave can diagram sentences if need be.

[close]

[Pale Rider]

F*ck the Tories: a Thread Dedicated to Suella Braverman

There are practical ways to accommodate ["trans kids" in wrong sex changing rooms] without recourse to bigotry.*

That sentence really ought to be the start and end of this thread.

Let's all prove we're not bigots. You first. Bear in mind that hugging a trans person is not a get-out-of-bigotry-free card.

asterisk

Link not in the original quote, in case you haven't figured that out. These days I usually add a + to the attribution when I do this. (CycleChat throws in links all the time, and gets paid to do so. I work for free.)

It's a Mumsnet thread where Robin Moira White made an appearance. ← That's a link to an archived page of an earlier post here where I wonder aloud if monkers has ever been seen in the same room as Robin (or multitool for that matter). Don't try to click on the video there, go here if you want to watch it. Or here and scroll down where it's embedded, to avoid YouTube ads. Anyway, I've linked it to show I'm on the case when it comes to monkers.

do kindly remember my background

The thing to remember about monkers is, though monkers can seem to talk a good game at times, monkers comes from a place of utter fallibility.

[close]

When my OH announced to her then academic research Chemistry colleagues she was going to train as a Secondary School teacher the response of one of them, an American, was "Ahh Liz, the walking gonads".

As you certainly know, most of the girls hit puberty before [year 9], but many of the boys you knew at the end of year 8 are suddenly hairy, with lower voices and reeking of testosterone.

My bold. Nice to see two of our resident realityphobes acknowledging, if only indirectly, that it might not be a good idea to give boys greater access to girls in states of undress. Yes, even the ones with trans immunity.

In future it would be helpful to lump all the nonsense into the gender thread, to avoid me having to search it out.

Starmer's Vision Quest

Rosie Duffield is this century's Kate Hoey

What did I just say.

Where were we? Oh right, F*ck the Tories:

all part of your intention to whip up moral panic.

I was careful not to pull a classic33, thinking it best to actually that before posting it. Well, the first few minutes at least (some made it further), which so reeked of hypocrisy that I was confident I'd chosen a good one to represent the other side.

From a thread about another fucked Tory...

once you have agreed that some male people should be able to use women's spaces, you have made your peace with the fact that many vulnerable women must accept having no access at all to the women's space or any space, so that males can have more comfort, choice and understanding of their complex situation.

It is a sex based, binary decision rooted in male supremacism. You believe that male people's needs and complexities matter - and that women's don't. And that it's ok to take everything from some women so that some men can have more.

It's morally indefensible.

[Pale Rider]

Across the other road to YACF:

It's open season on trans people

New shoes prompted a shop at stonewall for new laces.  Went with a mix of rainbow, trans and non binary.  New shoes are rainbow right, trans flag left (because I use power grips on my right pedal and they would foul the whiter laces).
#1 son (14) asked about them, so I talked about his godmothers and showing support and explained a bit about the "T" in LGBTQ+. He said something along the lines of "I support them and all if that's what they want to do, but I don't really get it", which is the right default point to start from.

Support without knowing what you're supporting as a default is kind of why we're in the mess we're in. I'd say put a sock in it if that would help.

That is brilliant!

Hold on, we're not done with #1 son:

In less than two decades ‘transgender’ has gone from a term representing individuals and little used outside of specialist communities, to signifying a powerful political ideology driving significant social change. At the level of the individual, this shift has occurred through the separation of gender from sex, before bringing biology back in via a brain-based sense of ‘gender-identity’. This return to biology allows for the formation of a distinct identity group, one that can stake a claim to being persecuted, and depends upon continual validation and confirmation from an external audience. All critical discussion is a threat to this public validation and it is often effectively curtailed.

That transgenderism has moved from niche to mainstream tells us more about the rest of society than it does about transgender individuals. People in positions of power within the realms of media, education, academia, police, social work, medicine, law, and local and national government have been prepared to coalesce behind the demands of a tiny transgender community. Previously authoritative institutions now lack confidence in their own ability to lead and look to the transgender community as a victimised group that can act as a source of moral authority. However, this, in turn, erodes sex-based rights and undermines child protection.

The expansion of transgender rights has gone hand in hand with an expansion of state and institutional (both public and private) regulation of speech and behaviour. This highlights a significant difference between today’s transgender activists and the gay rights movement of a previous era. Whereas the gay rights movement was about demanding more freedom from the state for people to determine their sex lives unconstrained by the law, the transgender movement demands the opposite: it calls for recognition and protection from the state in the form of intervention to regulate the behaviour of those outside of the identity group.

Those of us without the special shoelaces?

I differentiate much the same way, but with an extra twist in that I speak of intellectual understanding as separate from 'empathy', in a loose sense.

I'm a little lost here. Are we still on shoelaces, in a loose sense?

I am female. Always understood that, always knew it. I can't define what that means, because identity is a personal internal feeling for everyone, in their own individual experience of it.

If #1 son were to meet Steph in person – maybe he has already – I'm confident he'd know Steph is male, no matter how much the grownups are attempting to make him distrust his senses.

I intellectually understand non-binary ID, but as I am not of that type, I don't grok it. I have no experiential link.

Steph's in good company. Nobody has a non-binary experiential link.

I don't get men either,

I think he knows himself quite well. He is, after all, his favourite subject.

even though I had to learn how to play one, often through severely violent 'lessons'. Just like non-binary folk; I watch things like male dominance contests, and just go "Why? What's the point?"

That said, I wish them as groups no harm. Equality/equity etc. "I don't really get it but..."

He doesn't get women, that's for sure.

Some of us non-women go the extra mile and see the bigger picture, whereas trans rights/men's rights (#KeepItUp indeed) activists are trapped in a bubble of narcissistic rage

Why not just say why you don't like trans women and to a lesser extent, trans men?

and bewilderment. They cannot process anything outside their own frame of reference or the "progressive" narrative. And with that we're back at CycleChat.

Starmer's vision quest

Any chance we could refrain from feeding CXRAndy's obsession with The Transes in at least one thread?

Better have a word with yourself.

More where that came from

It's bordering on the obsessive to be honest.

"Why do you lot think so much about other people's genitals?!"

At the risk of making it sound as if CXRAndy has a STD, he has barely scratched the surface of all the issues gender ideology presents. Being confronted with their own limited knowledge and awareness doubtless makes people like AndyRM and classic33 uncomfortable.

If you're obsessed about the truth and called out for it, take the compliment.

Gender again. S'alright.

Oh do stop inventing more stuff...

You try hard to make much out of nothing.

I have a sex identity, a gender identity, and yet another for sexuality. I'm a female, a gay woman. You haven't figured out who you are; that's not everyone else's problem.

As monkers is just as unreliable a narrator as Steph, there's no way of knowing what monkers means by 'female', 'gay', or 'woman'.*

being a lesbian that doesn't have genitalia preference
If they want to say we aren’t lesbians or invalidate trans identities then they need their own term, because I’m tired of them being in our community and making it unsafe. They can’t have lesbian because lesbianism has always included trans women regardless of genitalia. We fought for this community, we died for it, we own lesbian as much as cis women do. I refuse to cede it to anyone consumed by hate. They can have their own little community of hateful people.

Just throwing this in here for fun. I'd be willing to bet monkers cut monkers's teeth in the testosterone everglades of reddit {shudder}.

* Correction. Well that clears that up.

Thanks for the heads up on Prof Jenny Gamble.

You're welcome.

Jenny Gamble ... Gender identity is important. Stereotypes are important

FTFY.

Anyone just stumbling into all this might start by separating the TQ+ from the LGB (perhaps this could be done using shoelaces) and examining the issues of the separate cohorts. That seems to help most people 'get it.'

How can [gender identity] be innate in some nationalities but not in others? You're either born with a gender identity (that may or may not match your sex, you've claimed), or you're not. Spoiler alert: you're not, nobody is.

Spoiler alert; you don't know what you are talking about because you are a self-centred bigot who doesn't give a flying fark about the harm they cause to others.

The sheer repetition of the characterisation of Aurora as heartless monster will be enough to make it stick for some, despite its absurdity. This is straight out of the TRA playbook.

F*ck the Tories: a Thread Dedicated to Suella Braverman

We are all entitled to our own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts.

 
A favourite of both sides for the benefit of our scrutiny. If you've been following monkers and AS, you'll have long since made up your mind about them.

I was going to call the following standalone piece 'The 9 Circles of Hell (And So It Goes)', but it looks more like a maze. Better yet:

[Pale Rider]

spoiler

Women attacked by blind cannibals in the bowels of the earth.

[close]

AAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!

[Pale Rider]

Having only so many hours in the day to devote to being triggered by the gang at CycleChat's thunderdome, I ended up specialising in matters gender related. Where has multitool gone? I began wondering. It's been weeks since he handed off to monkers. Turns out he's here, talking to himself*:

Cardiff electric bike incident

Update: Nearly rid of him... yadda yadda...shouting through people's letter boxes... yadda yadda yadda...resident forum vermin like Rusty and Fozy...

Scrolled up and spotted this:

The creatures outside looked from bronco to tool, from tool to bronco, and from bronco to tool again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.

Wasn't bothered enough to trace the beginning of this particular thread arc much beyond

I hunt alone.*

* I can so relate!

[Pale Rider]

Well that couldn't last.

But, I also don't think that the conversation should be suppressed or that concerns should be swept under the carpet.

The conversation isn't being suppressed, except when it is, which all non-ridiculous people like me agree is necessary. This isn't damaging to free speech at all when when you think about it, as your "concerns" are clearly in air quotes and not deserving of airing in the grand scheme of things.

He didn't say that. What he said was

The conversation isn't being suppressed. What is being suppressed are ridiculous arguments that are highly damaging to a minority group, and those "concerns" are hypothetical in the grand scheme of things.

@3.12 biology... (if only we could FF through the Buffalo Wild Wings bit)

Perhaps later I'll get into Bromptonaut's irony meter, monkers's sock puppets (if there's one thing monkers is probably an expert on, it's sock puppets), and icowden as he works on his redemption, but right now there are other fish to fry.

on edit: Fried.

[Pale Rider]

The NACA Music, Art & General Creativity Thread
Nice to put a face to the name, AndyRM.



I'd like to say this collage, 'Et tu, radicchio?',* is a work in progress, as it would be great to include a lot more NACAns in a way that is artistically pleasing, but there comes a point when you have to step back and say: "Yeah, it's done."

*The title in the auction catalogue, 'Smell my radiccio', is a printing error.

[Pale Rider]

The gunpowder plot

If brains were actually gunpowder you'd even fail to manage to blow your own hat off.

If brains were gunpowder, you'd not manage to blow your hat off.

I've fact-checked this, and if brains were gunpowder you couldn't blow your nose. It's only if brains were dynamite that hats are involved. It's mistakes like this that can fatally undermine credibility.

Do you mean "Why did the war start?"

CXRAndy: Yeah.

Poster 1: The war started because of the vile Hun and his villainous empire-building.

Poster 2: The British Empire at present covers a quarter of the globe, while the German Empire consists of a small sausage factory in Tanganyika. I hardly think that we can be entirely absolved of blame on the imperialistic front.

Poster 1: Oh, no, sir, absolutely not. [aside, to CXRAndy] Mad as a bicycle!

CXRAndy: I heard that it started when a bloke called Archie Duke shot an ostrich 'cause he was hungry.

Poster 2: I think you mean it started when the Archduke of Austro-Hungary got shot.

CXRAndy: Nah, there was definitely an ostrich involved

I actually didn't know monkers was cribbing Blackadder until I googled one of the phrases, thinking the quality of humour out of character but prepared to award a Post Of The Day. How embarrassing for me.

AuroraSaab to monkers: I'm not inclined to answer the every whim of someone like you. Nobody owes you anything, I'm afraid, especially when it's someone as relentlessly rude to other posters as you are.

Bromptonaut: That's nonsense. Monkers speaks her mind and if people want to clutch their pearls

Hold that thought.

This will all make sense shortly

I've had enough of you insulting my family. When I said 'fark off' that wasn't a heat of the moment thing. I think your heart is cold - just like a fascist.

Anything else, Google?



That gives me an idea…



Yeah, I got the clutching part wrong - too literal. And I appear to have some razor burn.

Pray continue:

and petticoats then it might seem over direct. Somebody here, @CXRAndy, is just in it to play games. If we were moderated they'd have been seen off months ago.

CXRAndy: The arguments go round and round and round. I told you I would take the piss, because it's comical arguing

CXRAndy doubles down on what AndyRM amusingly calls "not even a well animated gif". Bobzmyunkle then throws Bromptonaut's words back at him. I guess you had to be there.

I suffer from rather chronic tinnitus, have done for about 40 years, it can be quite debilitating.

Must be all the explosions.

I have a lot of sympathy for people with actual tinnitus. What monkers has sounds like the rhetorical variety.

Note to Aurora. I know that you willfully will not understand, so please spare the screen ink, I'm no longer interested in anything you have to say.

[Pale Rider]

Starmer's vision quest

Are your on stage attempts at comedy are better that what you post here?

You're the expert in everything, apparently, so I'll let you be the judge when I post the video.

Still waiting, Andy! As long as you don't go on about

Gender again.

I'm non binary

that particular aspect of your personality in an unamusing way, I promise not to heckle; it takes guts to take the stage.

I know you don't understand what that means or how it works, and you've made it abundantly clear that you don't want to engage in any sort of meaningful discussion about anything which challenges your views so I'll not bother explaining.

No please, do.

Non-binary: What do you understand it to mean?

I'm not a guy, despite how I look. There are days when I feel like one, but there are also days when I feel very feminine, so I dress and behave according to how I feel.

my most aggressive gig happened when I was in a feminine frame of mind, broke my drums that night.

Listen, I'm happy for him (apparently I'm no longer addressing Andy directly) to call himself whatever he likes, as long as

I have "male parts", I'm 6"1', have a beard and I'm covered in tattoos and scars. And a penis.

he's not waltzing into women's spaces (he isn't) or expecting anybody to tailor their vocabulary to suit his conception of himself. We're all 'non binary' or none of us are.

. . .

Speaking of the imaginary, were I a Dr Who fan I probably would've enjoyed the recent storyline, despite the reported ham-handedness, if only it hadn't already jumped the shark into the non-fiction we're now living.