Charity stream hosted to spite transphobic tosser Graham Linehan [split topic]

[Indomitable Spirit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_feminism

[St_Eddie]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_feminism

Isn't radical feminism a bit 90's?

[idunnosomename]

Totally tubular feminism

[Indomitable Spirit]

Feminism - burn your bra
Radical Feminism - eat my shorts

[Zetetic]

Shorts actually comes from the latin 'jorta', meaning one half of a pair of shorts with the feel and appearance of jeans.

[big bottomed anarchist]

Does that create much confusion in today's society?

[Funcrusher]

Isn't radical feminism a bit 90's?

More 70's really.

[Zetetic]

Does that create much confusion in today's society?

I think people often don't realise that 'denim shorts' is actually effectively a tautology, and that if they don't want denim shorts that they need to specify another material (or at least 'not denim' or 'a-denim').

On a personal level, this has lead to some unhelpful post-hoc raised-voices discussions.

[big bottomed anarchist]

I'm sorry to hear that. Thanks for the tips though, now I won't be confused if I hear the word "shorts" used in a slightly different definition to the one I'm familiar with.

[Jumblegraws]

Just out of interest, does a feminist have to be a 'radical feminist' to be a 'proper feminist' these days? Do TEFs exist?

And don't link me to the tradenet funded accounts facebook page because I'm ahead of you there.

TEFs probably do exist, I think it's simply that the R is an artefact from when the term was coined and endures even when the subject isn't actually a radical feminist. That it gets used without regard for accuracy is probably part of why a lot of people consider it a slur.

More 70's really.

[Funcrusher]

Whatevs. The distinction is really between radical feminists, who are second wave, and third wave feminists, who embrace, and indeed developed current ideas around identity.

[idunnosomename]

are glinner is going to try and condense his bigotry against all trans-rights activists and harassment of trans individuals who dont conform to his (a MAN) ideology into a weekly WAR ON THE WOMEN!!! post now. Isnt that wonderful. also fat fucking chance

[St_Eddie]

Whatevs. The distinction is really between radical feminists, who are second wave, and third wave feminists, who embrace, and indeed developed current ideas around identity.

The word 'radical' was a popular slang word adopted in the 90's, as a means of saying that something was good.  The word became emblematic of the 90's, in much the same way that the word 'bad' came to mean 'good'.

Always remember, the best jokes are the ones which you have to explain, kids.

[Mister Six]

What? No. Radical feminism is a thing. Patriarchy, male privilege, sexual objectification, etc etc, these are all concepts from radical feminism. The radical part is that they want these things to change. They want society to change. Not all radical feminists are terfs. The TE part is to distinguish terfs from other RFs, who are not TE.

Eh? There are feminists who don't want things to change?

[marquis_de_sad]

Eh? There are feminists who don't want things to change?

Radical feminists usually think that the whole of society (more or less) needs to be reshaped. Liberal feminists are usually more reformist: they want to change things through laws and individual behaviour. Yes, these things are both "change", so perhaps I should have used the phrase "completely transform" instead. I had, probably naively, assumed that people could understand in context that the change I was referring to would be a radical one.

[Noonling]

I finally got around to watching ContraPoints' Gender Critical video and its pretty good, although I do think it glosses over a few things - in particular that her views aren't always in line with what many online TRAs believe, and thus some of what GC-types are complaining against is in response to discussions they've had with TRAs, not just seemingly apropos of nothing. I guess going into more detail would risk it being a ridiculously long video though, so fair enough.

The only thing I actively disagree with is "[some trans women] internalised society's messaging about women more than society's message about men" - they still would have had everyone around them treat them as male (even if they may be seen as a "sissy" etc), I don't think you can internalise society's message about a group that no one treats you like, even if you identify as part of that group. Also, childhood is your formative years, even after years of presenting as a woman you would be heavily influenced by your male childhood despite subsequently experiencing misogyny and problems around being a woman.

I think discussion of the gender-free utopia is interesting. She says "that is a utopian project requiring massive systemic change", but I don't think that means it shouldn't be the ultimate goal. Sometimes (not sure how to phrase this, so it may come out wrong) its just than trans people need the comfort of having people react to them as their chosen gender, as well as not be seen as a GNC weirdo (in one video ThisIsRya talks about how she considered referring to herself as a man to other people etc, despite being a passing trans woman, but very quickly found it super difficult) while some GC people will be GNC and not transition because they are fixed on the end goal, i.e. a gender-free utopia. In a way its kinda like the idea of lefty political change by increments, or demanding a socialist world as soon as possible.

Has Glinner ever expressed his views on ContraPoints' videos, or even seen them? I'd be curious what his response would be - blah blah her femininity, blah blah but TRAs are different from ordinary trans people, blah blah bathrooms.

[Enrico Palazzo]

Prick.

[king_tubby]

And further to that...

https://twitter.com/HywelRoberts2/status/1133048429200982016

[Enrico Palazzo]

Quite the vindictive cunt when a mate doesn't agree with him - https://twitter.com/Glinner/status/1133056974092931079

[Cuellar]

What sports team photo was this?

[keir]

He's done it again. No matter how many times he does it, I'm always surprised when he manages to get even worse. He's on top of his game, yet it seems likely that soon enough he will take it even further. What a shame for him that the thing he's really brilliant at is shit.

[St_Eddie]

That's some next level insanity.  He's actually lost his damn mind.

[canadagoose]

Seeing as Glinner's off on one again (is he ever not?), can someone please tell me: what the fuck is a "sex-based right", and why did it only seem to become a phrase from the end of 2018? Is it something which is enforceable, and if so, how?

[Cold Meat Platter]

Spot on by Ronson there.

"How dare you say that to me" ffs. After accusing Ronson of not caring about women's safety. An ego in free-fall. Clawing at the sides of the abyss.

[Dusty Substance]

Fucking hell. Just when you thought he couldn't get any more awful. What a bullying cunt.

[Jumblegraws]

And further to that...

https://twitter.com/HywelRoberts2/status/1133048429200982016

That is vile. His demented logic has extended to "if you don't support my transphobia, you're basically an antisemite!". I hope he chokes on his own feces.
P.S. i know that Charlie Brooker is an admirer of Ronson's. I've already said I reckon Charlton has tried to talk Glinner down from this nonsense, I'm now betting that he'll publicly criticise him in the next six months.

[JamesTC]

Do replies count towards his daily transphobic post limit?

Devious loophole if they don't.

[Zetetic]

Seeing as Glinner's off on one again (is he ever not?), can someone please tell me: what the fuck is a "sex-based right", and why did it only seem to become a phrase from the end of 2018? Is it something which is enforceable, and if so, how?

I would guess it's to do with 'sex' being a protected characteristic under the Equality Act, and that this confers various rights - not be harassed, not to be victimised, not be discriminated again - in relation to your sex.

The emphasis is clearly meant to be that the Act uses the term 'sex' (and not 'gender', say). But I think this misunderstands that 'sex' as a concept in legislation isn't particularly meant to be specificially physiological term.

Indeed the protected characteristic of 'gender reassignment' is defined as "the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex". (The last clause is doing a lot of work there...) Clearly the legislation isn't really very fussed about disentangling 'gender' and 'sex'.

[Zetetic]

Spot on by Ronson there.

Mmm. As someone who greatly dislikes Ronson's work, it's faintly irritating seeing him being so measured and gentle.

[Cold Meat Platter]

Mmm.

Sorry, what does this mean?