tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5902857965429630827.post4982370136798781453..comments2023-06-05T04:26:27.437-07:00Comments on Forty Shades Of Grey: Dick PrivilegeForty Shades Of Greyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07070982468518425595noreply@blogger.comBlogger102125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5902857965429630827.post-65228187841024039912011-09-01T16:14:15.518-07:002011-09-01T16:14:15.518-07:00Please pardon the spelling and gramatical errors I...Please pardon the spelling and gramatical errors I made in the above post. I'm tired.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5902857965429630827.post-5289748288619557462011-09-01T16:09:30.677-07:002011-09-01T16:09:30.677-07:00I'm fairly new to "geek feminism" bl...I'm fairly new to "geek feminism" blogs, and I am still learning the lingo. One term I see is "silencing", which is a list of techniques used by jerks to dismiss valid arguments or points. What alarms me is that though feminists are being nothing but reasonible in complaining about being dismissed out of hand, I often see instances where they are just as quick to dismiss arguments themselves. In this case, "Dick" was making the perfectly valid (if acerbic) argument that there is such a thing as an over reaction and that Chick was over-reacting.<br /><br />This article responds by vociferously telling him that as he has always had the privilidge of being a man, he shouldn't ever make such argument. Accusing someone of being "over-sensitive" is a common and cruel method of derailing, but there is another, equally common (yet more sophisticated) derailing tactic that works in a similar way. This form of "silencing" is to pre-emtively call out anyone who dares suggest that it is ever possible to be "over-sensitive" about something. Rather than actually examine the specific case of whether "Chick" might have been over reacting, Dick gets quickly shot down. Apparently the answer is a resounding no: it is impossible for a person to over-react. It is not permitted for anyone (let alone a privelidged person) to suggest that it can happen. <br /><br />The feminism blogs are rife with these sophisticated acts of hypocrisy, and I think posters should be more aware of it. On one hand, we have a guy getting a barracking for having the gall to "tell women how they should feel", whilst defending "Chick's" original message in which she explicitly tells men what they can't say or do. I'll admit that this isn't a level playing field, and that women have had to put up with a lifetime of unsympathetic comments from the likes of Dick, but that in no way grants them the right to do the same thing in reverse.<br /><br />I might offended that a woman should tell me that I can't talk to her in certain circumstances. Or perhaps I am over reacting. One thing I know for certain is that it is against the rules of debating to point this out to me.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5902857965429630827.post-45382423785563794742011-07-11T10:11:07.469-07:002011-07-11T10:11:07.469-07:00er... I am not sure about that Alex. Because somet...er... I am not sure about that Alex. Because sometimes what people find 'repulsive' is to do with what they really find very very sexually alluring. <br /><br />eg. Homo-anxiety that men act out, sometimes using violence. Is actually to do with desire.<br /><br />I believe sex and power are intertwined and so to separate them is foolhardy.Ellyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01103667133412183125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5902857965429630827.post-36104971549749643782011-07-11T09:41:43.836-07:002011-07-11T09:41:43.836-07:00"Alex - as an aside, and i am fairly confiden..."<i>Alex - as an aside, and i am fairly confident this isn't what you meant, but when you say that someone might want to sexually assault a trans woman because they find her 'repulsive' rather than 'alluring' we need to be careful about language here so that it isn't confused with sexual assault being about desire rather than power. </i>"<br />No no no, that was <i>exactly</i> what I meant [waves hands excitedly] - sexual assault being about power, and actually being motivated by hatred rather than attraction. This is why I think the transphobia issues are so important anyway - they reveal that the intimidating aspect of the situation is not necessarily motivated by finding the person sexy.Alexhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08288284218700038061noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5902857965429630827.post-72503641271220970212011-07-11T05:49:36.484-07:002011-07-11T05:49:36.484-07:00P.p.s. OK JOnathan I am being called a troll and a...P.p.s. OK JOnathan I am being called a troll and am accused of derailing discussion, because you called me a 'below the line irritant' and I then refused to read the rest of what you said. <br /><br />How about we quit the name-calling? (I said a statement was 'transphobic' by the way I have not labelled a person as anything on this thread).Ellyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01103667133412183125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5902857965429630827.post-24241631617401928352011-07-11T05:41:31.029-07:002011-07-11T05:41:31.029-07:00P.s. nat- calling someone a 'troll' puts t...P.s. nat- calling someone a 'troll' puts their humanity into question, never mind their gender identity. Why don't you just consider not using that insulting term to describe someone who argues with you about issues she is passionate about? <br /><br />Thanks.Ellyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01103667133412183125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5902857965429630827.post-52890884088351970742011-07-11T05:39:37.050-07:002011-07-11T05:39:37.050-07:00My data on feminists is mounting up way way beyond...My data on feminists is mounting up way way beyond the 'anecdotal' and you know that.<br /><br />I was not saying all feminists call my gender identity into question, but that when I have challenged feminism, one of the common results has been to have my gender identity called into question by feminists.<br /><br />As for Dawkins/Watson I still don't agree. I think his problem with her was her 'analysis'of what happened in that now infamous elevator and her response to it. Which is not because she is a woman. Might be because she is a feminist though!Ellyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01103667133412183125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5902857965429630827.post-49764000617456441752011-07-11T03:47:50.596-07:002011-07-11T03:47:50.596-07:00Elly. The general consensus is that Dawkins doesn&...Elly. The general consensus is that Dawkins doesn't understand Watson for the reason I said. Note, however, I never said that all women will understand Watson, and no men understand Watson. Just Dawkins specifically didn't understand Watson specifically because of it.<br /><br />Also, Elly - I've never called your gender identity into question, nor would I ever do so. 'A feminist' =/= 'All feminists'. Or, to put it another way, the plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.Forty Shades Of Greyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07070982468518425595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5902857965429630827.post-9349770727460746562011-07-11T03:20:38.968-07:002011-07-11T03:20:38.968-07:00'Richard Dawkins is a white, rich, well educat...'Richard Dawkins is a white, rich, well educated, healthy, hetero, cis-gendered man. Rebecca Watson is a white, rich, well educated, healthy, hetero, cis-gendered woman. So if Dawkins didn't understand Watson's feelings on a certain issue that he had no experience of, it's going to be because of the fact that she's a woman and he's a man. '<br /><br />I don't agree. I think there are many reasons why Dawkins might not understand Watson's feelings or vice versa. I don't understand Watson's feelings and I AM a woman. But that's the thing, my status as 'woman' gets put into question all the time by feminists. It even got stolen from twitter by a feminist. Because the concept of 'woman' is very loaded, especially within feminist discourse.Ellyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01103667133412183125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5902857965429630827.post-86395247451605307012011-07-11T00:14:53.935-07:002011-07-11T00:14:53.935-07:00Sorry Miss.
For the record, there's a world o...Sorry Miss.<br /><br />For the record, there's a world of difference between using transphobic language and being a transphobe. I'm <a href="http://people.ucsc.edu/~pullum/MLA2004.pdf" rel="nofollow">not some sad little prescriptivist</a> who wants to judge what words are right and wrong. Language is instinctual and it's a perilous journey from brain to mouth, besides that, English grammar is just not compatible with the existence of trans-ANYTHING, so you can be forgiven if you accidentally miss a point. But it's the unnoticed, accidental, innocent slips that entrench things, so Elly was right to draw attention to it, even though her methods are as, er, problematic as ever.Alexhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08288284218700038061noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5902857965429630827.post-80155216834632196152011-07-11T00:11:08.272-07:002011-07-11T00:11:08.272-07:00deleted previous comment as Ropes kinds said what ...deleted previous comment as Ropes kinds said what i saying so no need to repeat! <br /><br />Anyway, back to the debate. I think one of the shockers here is that, just like when Pilger and Helena Kennedy sided with the Assange defenders, Dawkins has always spoken so well on sexism and religion. The bits about abortion are for me some of the best bits of The God Delusion. To then fall so quickly into a male privilege position of deciding and defining a woman's experience for her is therefore disappointing. <br /><br />It is always important to look at intersectionality and where gender inequality overlaps with other inequalities. But as Nat says, this is a story about a cis straight white middle class able bodied woman and a cis staight white middle class able bodied man. the experience he has privilege over, the experience he cannot empathise with and doesn't understand is her experience as a cis woman. he is trying to silence and deny her experience as a woman, and trying to deny the harassment that women are subject to because they are women. <br /><br />Alex - as an aside, and i am fairly confident this isn't what you meant, but when you say that someone might want to sexually assault a trans woman because they find her 'repulsive' rather than 'alluring' we need to be careful about language here so that it isn't confused with sexual assault being about desire rather than power. <br /><br />It is just like when someone tells you that 'street harassment isn't that bad' because they have never harassed a woman on the street. Or that any kind of harassment or hate doesn't happen because they've never seen it. It isn't good enough and Dawkins should have known better than to ridicule and minimise someone else's lived experience.sianandcrookedribhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00959715300131969670noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5902857965429630827.post-61672357094539432692011-07-10T23:58:07.917-07:002011-07-10T23:58:07.917-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.sianandcrookedribhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00959715300131969670noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5902857965429630827.post-45705686345743833502011-07-10T18:23:06.602-07:002011-07-10T18:23:06.602-07:00*hangs head, looks ashamed, and apologises*
Sorry...<i>*hangs head, looks ashamed, and apologises*</i><br /><br />Sorry Nat.<br /><br />Also, Alex, If I appeared to get personal, well I'm sure we'd agree on many other issues…Dazhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07907025299657181744noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5902857965429630827.post-22120674708026986712011-07-10T18:17:15.506-07:002011-07-10T18:17:15.506-07:00Secondly, in my opinion, this whole "he could...Secondly, in my opinion, this whole "he could have been a rapist" thing is also derailing. Watson called him rude and said he made her uncomfortable. That was it. I mentioned that women are made uncomfortable by being harrassed because they're women in the post. Again, see above paragraph for why I didn't discuss other people who are abused and made to feel uncomfortable publicly for who they are. <br /><br />Calling me a 'transphobe' for this makes about as much sense as calling me a fundy for failing to point out that social conservatism is a major cause of bigotry in society. Or something like that. It's now 2.00 and I can't even quite believe I'm still having to write this, so it's a bit of a shit analogy, but you see what I'm getting at.<br /><br />The thing is, Elly accused me of transphobia on Friday on Twitter after I was doing a 'Feminist ABC' (don't ask) and I said "Y: Y-chromosome. Having a Y-chromosome should not mean you are treated specially". Elly then said "But some women have Y-chromosomes. Are you saying they are privileged?". Well, of course I fucking wasn't, because otherwise I'd have said "Everyone with a Y-chromosome is treated specially and this is wrong". Note the <i>subtle fucking difference</i>. If you need further proof, about 3 minutes earlier I'd said "T: Trans* people should be welcomed by EVERYONE in the feminist community, because we're fighting the same battles". Yes, there are utter fucking idiots like Bindel who don't support trans* rights, but they're idiots with loud voices, you find them in every movement. 99.9% of feminists support them. I AM PART OF THIS 99.9%. I actually take an active part in supporting trans* rights, and am as disgusted by transphobia as I am sexism. <br /><br />However, judging by her comments on the PD page, if Elly wasn't here making accusations about transphobia, she'd be calling me a misandrist like she usually does, because trolls gotta troll.<br /><br />Now can you all just stop being so fucking ridiculous? No one is going to 'win' this debate. You've descended into just quoting words and arguing definitions. GO TO BED.<br /><br />Sorry for anger and sweariness, but <i>really now</i>...Forty Shades Of Greyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07070982468518425595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5902857965429630827.post-14261437681183980612011-07-10T18:16:53.349-07:002011-07-10T18:16:53.349-07:00FOR FUCK'S SAKE.
Right. Yay, comments, discus...FOR FUCK'S SAKE.<br /><br />Right. Yay, comments, discussion blah blah fucking blah. I tell you what I fucking love, coming home at 1.30 to find thirty-pissing-three comments debating what I meant when I said one sentence without one cunt waiting to actually hear what I meant. This has descended into a farcical and facile debate about the use of language and has... OH WOW LOOK. BEEN COMPLETELY FUCKING DERAILED. <br /><br />NO ONE on this thread is a fucking transphobe. No one on this thread is dismissing people because of their gender. No one on this bastarding thread is thinking whether any of this matters a shit. I will tell you now, it doesn't, because I could just delete the whole fucking thing so you wouldn't have a way of picking out individual words and phrases from each other's posts and critiquing them for how bloody inclusive they are and twisting their meaning.<br /><br />SO.<br /><br />As everyone who has been involved in this discussion knows, I was <i>asked</i> to write this piece for the Pod Delusion. I was told that Pete Hague would be writing a pro-Dawkins piece, and could I please provide a five minute piece to rebut his. Due to a technical fuck-up on my friend's part, this post didn't go out this week. Instead, there will be a different rebuttal next week from me.<br /><br />(Just to say, if anyone starts discussing Pete's piece here - I will delete your comments so fast you might not have even finished typing them when I do. I KNOW that NSTB, Daz & Alex oppose it and Elly supports it. Her reasons are on the PD comments, go argue with her there if you absolutely must.)<br /><br />OK, so five minutes isn't a lot of time to say things. It's certainly not enough time to explain the relative fears that any or all minorities have in relation to men, proximities, rape and assault. So I stuck to <i>the specific incident</i>. By this, I mean that I talk about Watson, Watson's feelings, Dawkins, Dawkins' feelings and what commenters have been saying. And the piece still ran to 8 minutes. Also, if I've been asked to write something, I find it polite to stick to the topic asked about and not use it as a platform for other things I vocally support (like... uhm... trans* rights, for instance).<br /><br />Richard Dawkins is a white, rich, well educated, healthy, hetero, cis-gendered man. Rebecca Watson is a white, rich, well educated, healthy, hetero, cis-gendered woman. So if Dawkins didn't understand Watson's feelings on a certain issue that he had no experience of, it's going to be because of the fact that she's a woman and he's a man. So in relation to <i>this specific incident</i>, all the other things do not need to be addressed in a five minute piece about the issue. <br /><br />TO BE CONTINUED...Forty Shades Of Greyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07070982468518425595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5902857965429630827.post-78667181200399540022011-07-10T18:08:48.076-07:002011-07-10T18:08:48.076-07:00""Pedantically", "pick fights&...""Pedantically", "pick fights", "one of your most precious rhetorical devices when you can't find anything else to kick off a ruckus about, I just think in this case it was misplaced" - these are all a bit dismissive, don't you think?"<br /><br />But I was talking about a widely held perception of Elly's method of online engagement. Elly regularly complains of being dismissed as a troll online. Things like this are why. For what it's worth, I explained why I didn't agree with what she was actually saying in my second reply to her, but that wasn't really my point. <br /><br />Just as you're concerned about people using allegedly transphobic language, I'm concerned about debates not ending up in these kind of tedious slanging matches where everyone gets defensive of their positions. I'm now arguing with you, a person I like, because you implied an element of misogyny in my posts that I find personally insulting. I'm happy for people to have a mature, adult debate about the use of language. But one isn't going to happen when it starts off with antagonistic critiques about how "ridiculous" and "fucking stupid" someone's language is. I'm absolutely as guilty as anyone else of allowing myself to be riled into posting things that are unhelpful and argumentative, but it was the way the argument was conducted that drew me into this argument in the first place, and it's that that's turned the thread into...this mess.No Sleep 'Til Brooklandshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03326756018822759152noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5902857965429630827.post-42577860397734266492011-07-10T18:02:37.042-07:002011-07-10T18:02:37.042-07:00I used the word 'normal' referring to word...I used the word 'normal' referring to words: 'normal usage'. I was not referring to 'normal people'. Context, ain't it grand?<br /><br />And again, we're drifting off the subject, which involves a sexual approach by a cisnormative male human being to a cisnormative female human being at an inappropriate time and place.<br /><br />The particular community within which this happened would apply this context to any subgroups to whom it would also apply. Many of the commenters who spent three fucking days (I got something like 4 hours sleep over the period. I'm not alone in this.) arguing with MRA trolls during the discussion Dawkins tried to derail, are in fact LGB (I can't guarantee T). None of them felt the need to discuss it in any but general, cis-normative terms. It's widely accepted by such communities that women's rights, LGBT rights, race-related rights etc are all part and parcel of the same thing: human rights. If discrimination based on A is the same as discrimination based on B, the discussion of one is implicitly discussion of the other, and will generally—especially during train-wrecks such as the one in question—focus on the most generalised aspect. The fine-detail, if you will, comes later.Dazhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07907025299657181744noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5902857965429630827.post-40854611182843958072011-07-10T17:39:02.972-07:002011-07-10T17:39:02.972-07:00Ropes:
"Pedantically", "pick fights...<b>Ropes</b>:<br />"Pedantically", "pick fights", "one of your most precious rhetorical devices when you can't find anything else to kick off a ruckus about, I just think in this case it was misplaced" - these are all a bit dismissive, don't you think?<br /><br />As for the rudeness - it's not exactly the politest blog in the first place, and you're just focusing on her extremely poor grasp of etiquette to - again - dismiss the actual content of her post.<br /><br /><b>Daz</b>:<br />"<i>A female human being <b>is</b> a woman, as long as we take the <b>normal</b> usage, as applied to ninety-whatever-point-whatever percent of the human race. This is in no way meant to alienate the few <b>exceptions</b> to that <b>rule</b>. I am merely using <b>everyday</b> language.</i>"<br />I took the liberty of highlighting all the cis- and heteronormative words in your ideal trans-friendly quote. You also said "normal", straight-faced, twice in the next paragraph, to refer to conversations not with or about transpeople.<br /><br />Perhaps being "implicitly included" isn't enough. Perhaps they're worried people will skip over the implication and, I dunno, use "female human being" and "woman" as synonyms.<br /><br />Perhaps those uppity T's would like awareness of their issues to be an essential and integrated part of "normal" conversations too?Alexhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08288284218700038061noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5902857965429630827.post-25041086263624194732011-07-10T17:23:41.723-07:002011-07-10T17:23:41.723-07:00I know the difference between sex and gender thank...I know the difference between sex and gender thank you. I <i>could</i> have said something along the lines of "A female human being is a woman, as long as we take the normal usage, as applied to ninety-whatever-point-whatever percent of the human race. This is in no way meant to alienate the few exceptions to that rule. I am merely using everyday language." Instead I assumed that you would take most of that sentence as read.<br /><br />My radar works fine, in that I see comments by, and talk to, many atheist LGBT people (who, by the way, in normal conversation, also use the words 'man' and 'woman' in their normal, everyday usage, without feeling the need to add a string of qualifiers), and discriminatory conduct that they speak of is almost exclusively from people outside the atheist community. I'll admit that Ts are a small minority of that group, yes, but given the nature of the community, instances of discrimination and abuse would be discussed widely.<br /><br />I got the sarcasm. What I didn't get was how you could apply that sarcasm to the words you quoted.<br /><br />I mentioned what we could call the chilling of debate by having to list every group and sub-group that it applies to, rather than taking a generalised definition, and assuming that everybody will take it as read that other groups and sub-groups with similar problems are implicitly included, before we even get started on the debate.<br /><br />You then seem to have me saying that because a problem exists for the generalised group, we shouldn't address the problems involving the implicitly included groups.<br /><br />Either your sarcasm misfired or you misread my meaning.Dazhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07907025299657181744noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5902857965429630827.post-75554302943371527972011-07-10T17:18:46.069-07:002011-07-10T17:18:46.069-07:00Dismissive, no. Patronising, heck yes. I use an am...Dismissive, no. Patronising, heck yes. I use an amount of ridicule in my responses to Elly in particular because of the tone she takes with people she argues with. I like to prick (if you'll excuse such a heavily loaded word) her pomposity a little.<br /><br />I simply don't think Elly comes across very well as being someone concerned with helping people. I'd explain how to correctly go about constructive criticism on someone's blog, but I fear I may end up patronising again. Suffice to say it doesn't involve calling people's arguments "ridiculous" and "fucking stupid".<br /><br />Sorry, of course, Elly didn't actually say "ridiculous" or "fucking stupid", did she? Apparently she just came in and politely said "wait, what about the threat of violence to transwomen, which you may have missed and may be an interesting way to get to the bottom of this power structure?". Perhaps you could make her sound even better in your next attempt at paraphrasing? You could imply she offered everyone drinks first, and we all called her a whore.No Sleep 'Til Brooklandshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03326756018822759152noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5902857965429630827.post-53750618433772200082011-07-10T17:06:23.108-07:002011-07-10T17:06:23.108-07:00But you've got to admit, it was a little bit p...But you've got to admit, it was a <i>little</i> bit patronising and dismissive though, wasn't it?Alexhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08288284218700038061noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5902857965429630827.post-58316101387641791792011-07-10T17:04:01.173-07:002011-07-10T17:04:01.173-07:00"Ropes:
Boys meet girl. Girl points out trans..."Ropes:<br />Boys meet girl. Girl points out trans angle of feminist issue to boys. Boys patronise fuck out of girl and call trans angle irrelevant to feminist issues. Does that seem a fair summary?"<br /><br />No, it doesn't. The stuff I actually said is a fair summary of what I said, and it certainly didn't include anything about Elly being a "silly little girl". I resent the implication that my reaction to Elly was anything to do with her being a woman.No Sleep 'Til Brooklandshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03326756018822759152noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5902857965429630827.post-58896767708421262222011-07-10T16:50:54.259-07:002011-07-10T16:50:54.259-07:00Ropes:
Boys meet girl. Girl points out trans angle...<b>Ropes</b>:<br />Boys meet girl. Girl points out trans angle of feminist issue to boys. Boys patronise fuck out of girl and call trans angle irrelevant to feminist issues. Does that seem a fair summary?<br /><br />Also if you want polite, I suggest you don't read the original post as you wouldn't appreciate its beauty.<br /><br /><b>Daz</b><br />"<i>A female (adjective) human being is a woman (noun). The correct adjective is 'female'</i>"<br />Maybe if you ask Nat nicely she'll sit down and explain "sex" and "gender" to you. They're not <i>quite</i> the same, even though you might think they are! As for "correct", who died and made you Samuel Johnson? It is categorically <i>not</i> the "correct" adjective for "woman" and I'm not sure how you ended up on a feminist blog if you think that.<br /><br />"<i>There is, as far as I know, little-or-no discrimination or mistreatment of LGBTs within that community.</i>"<br />Considering that "as far as you know" doesn't extend to the distinction between "female" and "woman", one of the <i>basic fucking distinctions of feminism</i>, your radar might not be particularly tuned, especially not to the Ts.<br /><br />"<i>Did you really just quote my own words as meaning the exact opposite of what I meant by them?</i>"<br />Sarcasm kitten. It happens sometimes in both speech and writing. Perhaps if you learned the language...Alexhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08288284218700038061noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5902857965429630827.post-5898566515959170612011-07-10T16:36:39.645-07:002011-07-10T16:36:39.645-07:00Oh, gawd. Why can I not just walk away?
A female ...Oh, gawd. Why can I not just walk away?<br /><br />A female (adjective) human being is a woman (noun). The correct adjective is 'female'. Would you rather I said 'womanly'? I did not say "being <i>a</i> female (noun)." Don't you think that learning the language would leave you better equipped for criticising others' use of it?<br /><br />We can also take it as read that Ms Watson would also be against objectifying or threatening trans people. (Indeed, most large atheist groups have a very healthy representation of LGBT people—they tend to be better received there than by, say, their local church.) However the discussion in hand was the matter of encouraging women to attend atheist conferences. If sexual and/or violent mistreatment of LGBTs a were problem within the atheist community, I am quite certain that Ms Watson, along with many others including myself, would be speaking about that problem as well.<br /><br />I'll stress this: <i>The discussion was as concerns sexism within the atheist community, not the general population. There is, as far as I know, little-or-no discrimination or mistreatment of LGBTs within that community.</i><br /><br />I've already stated that the 'being in possession of a vagina' quote was an obvious use of irony, and a simile for 'being female' or, if you prefer, 'being a woman'.<br /><br />"Sounds familiar. Tell you what, why don't we sort things out for Muslim women before we worry about all you poor oppressed atheists?"<br /><br />Pardon? Did you really just quote my own words as meaning the exact opposite of what I meant by them?Dazhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07907025299657181744noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5902857965429630827.post-43072730825101777192011-07-10T16:31:34.357-07:002011-07-10T16:31:34.357-07:00"I'd say the opposite actually. Elly come..."I'd say the opposite actually. Elly comes along and says "wait, what about the threat of violence to transwomen, which you may have missed and may be an interesting way to get to the bottom of this power structure?"<br /><br />You all say "shut up little girl, there are bigger issues at stake, it's NOT ABOUT your pet issue now STOP CALLING US NAMES". I'm afraid she's the Rebecca Watson in this exchange."<br /><br />If either of those were remotely accurate representations of what was said, I'd agree with you entirely.No Sleep 'Til Brooklandshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03326756018822759152noreply@blogger.com