rachel on 9/7/2020 at 13:28
Quote Posted by SubJeff
Cis women express concern about trans women encroaching on their safe spaces. That's a fact. But in trying to discuss it here instead of dealing with the issues what we have is repeated false accusations. I could quote them all but I can't be bothered.
A minority of cis women, that are not representative of feminism as a whole, or to be more precise, of feminism as it has grown. There's a fairly clean generational split between older cis feminists (like Rowling, actually) and the new wave of intersectional feminists that is very aligned with LGBTQ issues.
The problem is not restrooms, it's men, and patriarchy in culture. Some cis women want to draw a wedge between their fight and LGBTQ fights, but in the end, it's all about changing society's male-centric dominance to something more inclusive and just for everyone, cis, trans, gay and straight alike. And there's always going to be a lot of resistance there, especially when these initiative drag everyone down perpetuating outdated concepts and ideas.
Quote Posted by SubJeff
One of them though, is that I've somehow based my opinion on who can and can't rape in law. I've never done that.
I never thought you did, and I apologize if any of my posts implied it. You did mention it to illustrate a point though.
Quote Posted by SubJeff
Another is I want to force trans women to use cis men's facilities. I've never done that. In fact I asked why there can't be trans facilities, more than once. Somehow that suggestion of compromise will be equated to further trans phobia. Watch. I'm saying it will happen, and the nam shub of wokeness will compel the woke to accuse me of such.
That could be a solution although I have my doubts as to the practicality of doing this, but until trans people are completely accepted by society, I can see it make them feel like they don't belong, and believe me, they have enough of that already. Unisex facilities could also serve this purpose and arguably would be easier to implement as well as more inclusive... but then I suppose the safe space aspect would be lost and that's a key to the whole argument, isn't it..?
I don't pretend I have a solution, mind. It's a hairy topic.
catbarf on 9/7/2020 at 14:20
Quote Posted by Nameless Voice
Also quoting this line out of context, because I think it summarises the whole question.
Is it okay to boycott a person or company based on their behaviour?
I'd argue not only yes, but that it's the entire point of a boycott, ever since the Irish tenants decided they no longer wanted to deal with Charles Boycott in the 1880s.
The only difference is that the internet and social media make it much easier to spread a boycott.
Is anyone up in arms about boycotting, say, convicted rapists? Framing it as 'is it okay to boycott a person/company based on their behavior?' seems so reductive it's borderline straw man.
The controversy is when it's behavior that happened ten years ago and the offender apologized for, or behavior that may not have happened at all, or it's unclear what actually did happen, or the behavior was in line with different societal norms at the time.
It's also clearly a lot more than 'people have the right to decide if they want to deal with a person'. Deciding not to buy a product or watch a show because you don't want to support the person/people responsible meets that definition, but starting an online campaign to get them fired from their job and/or blacklisted in their industry does not.
I don't think appealing to any simple, legalistic maxim of innocent-until-proven-guilty (as stated by others earlier in the thread) or individual rights (as the boycott question comes down to) provides a neat and tidy answer. Nobody is disputing that a company has the right to fire someone who is making the brand look bad, or that a consumer has the right to boycott products for political reasons, or that people have the right to freely express their grievances through the Internet. The debate is over what kind of transgression, and what standard of evidence, justify the exercise of those rights to inflict 'consequences'.
I mean, I agree with a lot of what you said, especially re: Kavanagh, and the difference between exercising public pressure as a means of repression versus exercising public pressure as a means of holding accountability to people who otherwise won't face justice. But it's a
really messy thing, and framing it as whether or not boycotts are okay in general is missing all the nuance.
Kolya on 9/7/2020 at 14:51
Quote Posted by Nameless Voice
...
You're going by a very tame version of cancel culture there, that consists of people trying to get all the facts available, making up their own minds about it and then deciding not to buy someone's stuff or watch their show. And that of course is fine, it's even great if people do that.
I'm referring to the way people are publicly defamed on social media with no way of recourse, and yeah, a lot of bandwagoning.
When you talk about the courts not dealing with these cases and therefore talk of creating a "consequence culture" to deal with them outside of court, your personal intentions may be benign and harmless. But it still sends shivers down my spine, because the exact same speech with only the target exchanged sounds like this:
"If the courts don't protect us from this flood of immigrants that rape our women and sell drugs in the park, we will create a consequence culture and let them feel the consequences of their actions!"I understand you don't mean that, but you're arguing the same points, by disparaging civilised institutions like democracy and courts.
Quote Posted by Nameless Voice
Are you referring to the person that I argued with so much that they rage-quit my Discord server in disgust?
The person recognized himself easily.
lowenz on 9/7/2020 at 14:54
Quote Posted by Kolya
You're going by a very tame version of cancel culture there, that consists of people trying to get all the facts available, making up their own minds about it and then deciding not to buy someone's stuff or watch their show. And that of course is fine, it's even great if people do that.
I'm referring to the way people are publicly defamed on social media with no way of recourse, and yeah, a lot of bandwagoning. When you talk about the courts not dealing with these cases and therefore talk of creating a "consequence culture" to deal with them outside of court, your personal intentions may be benign and harmless. But it still sends shivers down my spine, because the exact same speech with only the target exchanged sounds like this:
"If the courts don't protect us from this flood of immigrants that rape our women and sell drugs in the park, we will create a consequence culture and let them feel the consequences of their actions!"+1
Exactly.
Problem is: people loves vengeance (or the idea of the surgical-precision revenge without any "hate/violence spiral", but there's no such thing, the trainwreck is always around the corner)
heywood on 9/7/2020 at 14:54
Quote Posted by raph
Unisex facilities could also serve this purpose and arguably would be easier to implement as well as more inclusive... but then I suppose the safe space aspect would be lost and that's a key to the whole argument, isn't it..?
Here in the US, there's unisex changing rooms all over the place: beaches, swimming pools, sporting clubs, rec centers. They have stalls to protect people's modesty. I haven't seen any evidence that suggests these are less safe than comparable facilities with separate changing rooms. Meanwhile, there's plenty of peeping tom incidents occurring in women's bathrooms, and a fair number of stalkings too. Unisex rooms with locking stalls should be safer than women-only rooms with open changing areas, which is part of the reason why the trend is toward the former for new construction.
lowenz on 9/7/2020 at 15:00
Ah, "cancel culture" as a noun is of course a "meme" that simply mimics the feminist "rape culture" argument.
rachel on 9/7/2020 at 15:13
Quote Posted by heywood
Here in the US, there's unisex changing rooms all over the place: beaches, swimming pools, sporting clubs, rec centers. They have stalls to protect people's modesty. I haven't seen any evidence that suggests these are less safe than comparable facilities with separate changing rooms. Meanwhile, there's plenty of peeping tom incidents occurring in women's bathrooms, and a fair number of stalkings too. Unisex rooms with locking stalls should be safer than women-only rooms with open changing areas, which is part of the reason why the trend is toward the former for new construction.
I don't disagree, I was referring more specifically to the notion of "safe space" as an exclusive space reserved only for a certain category of people, which is what people with trans-excluding views usually claim they want to protect.
SubJeff on 9/7/2020 at 17:05
Yeah, those seem like pretty good examples of it.
I think the removal of certain TV shows and episodes is all mixed in with this. The episode of Community that's been removed for example, is out of fear of cancel culture criticism I'm sure.
SubJeff on 9/7/2020 at 17:08
Quote Posted by raph
I don't disagree, I was referring more specifically to the notion of "safe space" as an exclusive space reserved only for a certain category of people, which is what people with trans-excluding views usually claim they want to protect.
The problem is the way you look at it.
