Graham Linetransexclusionary

[madhair60]

People are disingenuous fuckers, see

I would be very interested in discussing this without the snideness, snark, etc. I understand that it must seem tiresome though.

Speaking for myself alone, I think the North Carolina bathroom thing is insane, I think people should be able to identify as whatever they want. It doesn't matter at all. But it wouldn't be rational of me to just dismiss the biology of the situation, would it? To just agree with someone saying something incorrect, to be polite. I'd like to know the best approach to all this. I have trans friends, I don't want to inadvertantly upset them, you know?

[Cuellar]

I suppose it's hard to reconcile the view that transwomen are women in a binary sort of way and also that gender is societally constructed/performative, which seems to be the point the woman in the pinned tweet is saying.

[madhair60]

I have two main issues with the whole... um... spectrum... of this issue... that I'd be interested in explaining and being advised on without being called transphobic or other such nastiness, but I'm not convinced it's possible to discuss them on here. Poor me, eh?

[phantom_power]

I've always had a problem with that episode of 'IT Crowd' because of the absolute fucking lameness of portraying a trans woman as still being into lager & football & all that blokey stuff, because it's basically humour on the level of, 'Because she's still a bloke underneath it all, geddit?'

I don't want to defend this too much as it is clearly problematic but isn't that the joke? The reductiveness of saying that because someone used to be a man they hold on to stereotypically masculine tastes. The joke is how puerile and stupid it is.

[Kelvin]

I have two main issues with the whole... um... spectrum... of this issue... that I'd be interested in explaining and being advised on without being called transphobic or other such nastiness, but I'm not convinced it's possible to discuss them on here. Poor me, eh?

Nah, there's plenty of people here who will answer a genuine question reasonably.

[Cuellar]

I quite like that episode, problematic as it may be, but only because of Matt Berry's delivery of "I don't care" and "Doesn't bother me" when she tells him she used to be a man.

[ieXush2i]

I have two main issues with the whole... um... spectrum... of this issue... that I'd be interested in explaining and being advised on without being called transphobic or other such nastiness, but I'm not convinced it's possible to discuss them on here. Poor me, eh?

There are trans members here on CaB who could give you insight. You could also ask your trans friends I guess

There's that other ep of the IT Crowd where Roy is "I'm not homophobic but I hate them rubbing their gayness in my face"? Because the writing is shit its never clear if Roy is supposed to be the audience surrogate we are on board with.

[Serge]

I don't want to defend this too much as it is clearly problematic but isn't that the joke? The reductiveness of saying that because someone used to be a man they hold on to stereotypically masculine tastes. The joke is how puerile and stupid it is.

But that's what I'm saying, that is the joke and that's all the joke is. Linehan didn't seem to give it any deeper thought than that set of outdated attitudes and thought, "that'll do." A better writer could have turned it into something much better, and I'm saying that he's letting cheap, obvious and nasty humour pass because he can't be bothered to come up with anything better.

[Bhazor]

which links to this, an Open Letter from TERF Dr. Heather Brunskell-Evans, who lost her elected position within the Women's Equality Party for her views.

It is becoming clear that sections of liberal society are persuaded by reductive binary logic: either you accept that men who identify as women, including those with unmodified male bodies, are not only transwomen but are women and have been sexed female since birth, or you are a transphobe (and worse).

In conclusion, I utterly disagree that I promote transphobia, and I have found it shocking that the WEP has chosen to adopt this stance. The importance of this debacle goes far beyond the local, internal wrangles of a small Party. The issues upon which these events shed light are societal, and illustrate a deep belief system at the heart of transgender identity politics whose consequences are wide-ranging: Men who identify as women are women and this belief has to be accepted not only as rational and but as the irrefutable truth.

In anchoring transgender identity as inherent, outside of the social forces that have shaped it, and in describing any dissent as illiberal, free thought as well as free speech can be erased. Whilst the WEP and the Labour Party leave unremarked the chilling comments such as the ones made above, they discipline and expel women party members for any dissent from what has become an article of faith.

The significance of the WEP debacle is the larger terrible irony that a Party which had set out to be revolutionary for women has highlighted the very weakness of its own approach. The result of aligning itself with transgender identity politics is to obfuscate, drown out and suppress the very voices the WEP set out to listen to and to promote, namely the voices of women.

The more 'the progressive left' enshrines in its constitutions and policies its belief that transwomen are women, and that boys who do not conform to gender stereotypes are girls, and compels its party members and officials to faithfully adhere, the greater the need for women to resist such authoritarianism and to continue their historical struggles for bodily, intellectual and political freedoms.

It's amazing she doesn't believe trans people exist because she seamlessly transitions from a feminist to an angry antifeminist youtuber in the space of three paragraphs. "Not being allowed to demean trannies is a violation of my rights, it's like living in Nazi Germany."

[Kelvin]

I don't want to defend this too much as it is clearly problematic but isn't that the joke? The reductiveness of saying that because someone used to be a man they hold on to stereotypically masculine tastes. The joke is how puerile and stupid it is.

But that's why it's problematic. It's saying, at a time when attitudes towards trans people still have far to come, that trans people are really just faking it and that, underneath it all, their birth sex (I don't the the correct phrase, I'm sorry) is more relevent. 

[Quote]

Bernard Manning and Roy Chubby Brown's jokes on race, women, immigration and the like are merely jokes, I see now. It is all so clear.

Trans people with experience of assault (an alarmingly high amount of them), shut up and laugh!

It was a comedy show, are writers supposed to censor every single joke they write on the off chance that they might offend or upset someone, somewhere about something?

And a half-arsed scene in a half-arsed comedy show written a decade ago, which is definitely analogous with two comics who made a career out of deliberately offending everyone and baiting people (and probably quite enjoyed it when they bit).

But by all means go back through history and edit every single comedy show to remove anything that might offend anyone. If you were assaulted, then I'm very sorry and I'm sure Linehan had no intention of upsetting you. And neither did I. It's entirely possible to feel humility for a marginalized subgroup whilst still thinking that the people looking to be offended on their behalf are humourless dicks.

[phantom_power]

But that's what I'm saying, that is the joke and that's all the joke is. Linehan didn't seem to give it any deeper thought than that set of outdated attitudes and thought, "that'll do." A better writer could have turned it into something much better, and I'm saying that he's letting cheap, obvious and nasty humour pass because he can't be bothered to come up with anything better.

Going deeper isn't really his style though is it. He is all about surface and silliness. You may like that style of humour or not but that's really what he should be judged on

[ieXush2i]

I don't want to defend this too much as it is clearly problematic but isn't that the joke? The reductiveness of saying that because someone used to be a man they hold on to stereotypically masculine tastes. The joke is how puerile and stupid it is.

It's not helped by the violence and Linehan doubling down IRL on trans erasure.

[phantom_power]

But that's why it's problematic. It's saying, at a time when attitudes towards trans people still have far to come, that trans people are really just faking it and that, underneath it all, their birth sex (I don't the the correct phrase, I'm sorry) is more relevent. 

Yeah as I said I don't want to go too far in defending it because it is problematic and not acceptable. I was just talking about the basic mechanics of the joke, not the ethics

[madhair60]

Love this thread's title by the way.

[ieXush2i]

It was a comedy show, are writers supposed to censor every single joke they write on the off chance that they might offend or upset someone, somewhere about something?

And a half-arsed scene in a half-arsed comedy show written a decade ago, which is definitely analogous with two comics who made a career out of deliberately offending everyone and baiting people (and probably quite enjoyed it when they bit).

But by all means go back through history and edit every single comedy show to remove anything that might offend anyone. If you were assaulted, then I'm very sorry and I'm sure Linehan had no intention of upsetting you. And neither did I. It's entirely possible to feel humility for a marginalized subgroup whilst still thinking that the people looking to be offended on their behalf are humourless dicks.

Oh good, another person who thinks highlighting and criticising dodgy stuff in fiction means I want to somehow censor everything.

"offended on their behalf" - it's Little Britain all over again.

[Bhazor]

But by all means go back through history and edit every single comedy show to remove anything that might offend anyone. If you were assaulted, then I'm very sorry and I'm sure Linehan had no intention of upsetting you. And neither did I. It's entirely possible to feel humility for a marginalized subgroup whilst still thinking that the people looking to be offended on their behalf are humourless dicks.

I do enjoy this hyperbole. Brings me back to gamergate.

A woman writes an article saying she thinks female characters should dress more believably response-> FEMINAZIS WANT TO DESTROY ALL VIDEOGAMES AND TRAVEL BACK IN TIME AND DESTROY ALL PAST VIDEOGAMES AND HAVE THE CREATORS SHOT AT DAWN AND SALT THEIR LANDS AND PURGE THE CURSED MEN FROM EARTH.

Heaven forfend a comedian is publicly criticised for his publicly stated political stances.

[dontrunyoullfall]

I don't think I've seen this episode, was it controversial/received badly when it first aired?

[Funcrusher]

Hey guys, a comedy writer has expressed an opinion about trans people and if you don't condemn it in the strongest terms in exactly the correct manner then you're a transphobe. 'Sanctimonious bag of piss' indeed.

[ieXush2i]

Hey guys, a comedy writer has expressed an opinion about trans people and if you don't condemn it in the strongest terms in exactly the correct manner then you're a transphobe. 'Sanctimonious bag of piss' indeed.

hot take

[ajsmith2]

That IT Crowd episode actually works much better as hopeless tragedy than comedy. It's really heartbreaking the way that character works up the courage to comes out and has her hopes raised only to have them destroyed, especially when she's pathetically pleading at the end. It's all the more affecting for being taking place in a world of one dimensional cardboard cut out comedy.

Screw any 'going out your way to be offended on other folks behalves' take on the above btw; that's the gut reaction the episode brought out in me. Doesn't make me a better person that that's what happened.

[ieXush2i]

The real issue with the open letter - which is, to be fair, well worded and not particularly hateful - is the suggested idea that trans women who are physically pre-op shouldn't yet class as women.

Except to qualify for transition surgery you have to identify and live in your non-birth gender for at least two years prior. Clever way to ensure no people ever transition, there.

[Bhazor]

That IT Crowd episode actually works much better as hopeless tragedy than comedy. It's really heartbreaking the way that character works up the courage to comes out and has her hopes raised only to have them destroyed, especially when she's pathetically pleading at the end. It's all the more affecting for being taking place in a world of one dimensional cardboard cut out comedy.

Yeah that was my takeaway from the episode. Transexual or not the way she was treated was horribly mean and really felt out of place in what was otherwise a knock about lol randum comedy series. But you know that's just what a PC thought police would say. Kill all men burn the libraries and so forth.

[Petey Pate]

Not seen the full episode but the clip in the medium article smacked of an attempt to emulate Family Guy's drawn out graphically violent fight scenes in live action.

[Kelvin]

Except to qualify for transition surgery you have to identify and live in your non-birth gender for at least two years prior. Clever way to ensure no people ever transition, there.

I think it's much more likely that the writer of the letter (Heather Brunskell-Evans) just doesn't realise that trans people have to live and identify that way before they can transition. I very much doubt she's so extreme in her views that she doesn't want people to transition at all.

And no, I don't agree with Brunskell-Evans' position. 

[madhair60]

What is you disagree with? I reckon I'm too stupid to have understood it in the first place.

[ieXush2i]

I think it's much more likely that the writer of the letter (Heather Brunskell-Evans) just doesn't realise that trans people have to live and identify that way before they can transition. I very much doubt she's so extreme in her views that she doesn't want people to transition at all.

And no, I don't agree with Brunskell-Evans' position.

Sorry, I made it look like I was attributing the "cleverness" solely to her. It speaks volumes that as an academic voicing her opinions on trans issues, she hasn't looked into what it actually entails.

There's even a wiki entry on it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real-life_experience_(transgender)

[Bhazor]

I would be very interested in discussing this without the snideness, snark, etc. I understand that it must seem tiresome though.

Speaking for myself alone, I think the North Carolina bathroom thing is insane, I think people should be able to identify as whatever they want. It doesn't matter at all. But it wouldn't be rational of me to just dismiss the biology of the situation, would it?

Let me put it like this would you support banning gays from locker rooms? I mean the point of gendered toilets and changing rooms is to prevent perverts getting stimulated, right? Its certainly not biological, women don't need special tools to remove their clothes.

[Kelvin]

What is you disagree with? I reckon I'm too stupid to have understood it in the first place.

Sorry, I should have clarified which specific part:

I don't agree with her that trans people are not the gender they identify as, and that, by extention, they should not appear on all women shortlists (for example). In every meaningful way, a person who identifes as a certain gender should be treated as that gender in every respect they choose.

I disagree with this statement, specifically:

It is becoming clear that sections of liberal society are persuaded by reductive binary logic: either you accept that men who identify as women, including those with unmodified male bodies, are not only transwomen but are women and have been sexed female since birth, or you are a transphobe (and worse).

I would also add that I don't think she comes across as a hateful bigot in that letter, even if I disagree with her views. Again, I think it's important to avoid that kind of hyperbole or righteous anger when talking about people who seem decent and mostly progressive, despite our disagreements. 

[madhair60]

Let me put it like this would you support banning gays from locker rooms? I mean the point of gendered toilets and changing rooms is to prevent perverts getting stimulated, right? Its certainly not biological, women don't need special tools to remove their clothes.

Sorry, I meant that the argument is insane to me. Like it shouldn't even be an issue which bathrooms they use.