rachel on 9/7/2020 at 17:36
I think it's something we can both say ;)
SubJeff on 9/7/2020 at 17:46
Maybe.
You look at is as being exclusionary, I look at it as preserving the existing safe space for people who've traditionally needed them.
A third, unisex, changing room seems reasonable to me.
Sulphur on 9/7/2020 at 18:14
Quote Posted by catbarf
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.
If you're referring to James Gunn, it's pretty clear that that was something dug up by incensed alt-right people irritated with Gunn's criticism of Trump. It's also evident that Gunn did make those terrible shock humour jokes, but at the same time apologised for them, and Disney rehired him anyway.
Quote:
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.
It'd be useful if we have examples of unfounded campaigns to start with. Somehow I don't think the majority of these instances are people going half-cocked on an inkling of a suspicion. In any event, while public pressure is definitely a tool, a public campaign by incensed individuals to fire and/or blacklist someone doesn't guarantee a company doing so without first examining evidence and making a call on it. This is admittedly a secondary concern, but if a company gives in to public pressure in the absence of reasonable evidence, then that's surely also a failing of the company.
Quote:
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.
I think everyone can agree the very nature of online discourse and social media in itself makes this messy. It's easy to say the wrong word and be misunderstood in the relatively rare cases where a vehement reaction from a group is unfounded, but this has always been true throughout history. The internet and the way social media platforms propel messages just make this far more immediate, transparent, and visible.
Kolya on 9/7/2020 at 18:24
Quote Posted by Thirith
Except that's sophistry, and I think you know it. All the examples listed in that quote make it clear that the means used, and the power behind these means, differs, and that the effects differ too.
The (
https://i.imgur.com/wBJV7KW.jpg) first examples he gives are: music, video games and artists. And you think those have never ever been the target of left wing cancel culture? That simply isn't true and I think you know it.
Or were you actually only referring to murderous police actions and national guards massacres, which are a bit out of reach of left wing extremists?
Quote Posted by Thirith
If you're going to insist that the quote calls both 'cancel culture', therefore it's both identical, that says more about you than about the quote, namely that you're not particularly interested in the issues that are being discussed, just in scoring rhetorical points.
The quote explicitly draws that parallel, in fact that's his whole shtick: The right wing INVENTED cancel culture and now they shriek and plead when it's used on them.
If the fact that I have to point this out to you says anything about me, it's that I possess basic text comprehension.
SD on 9/7/2020 at 18:39
Quote Posted by Sulphur
Here's the root of the problem with this argument. What makes you think transwomen are 'acting' as women?
Well, hold on now one darn minute. I didn't introduce the term 'act', I was responding to heywood, who used it.
Truth be told, I had reservations about using his term in my response, but I figured the word 'act' has multiple definitions, and not all of them pertain to pretending to be something a person isn't.
Sulphur on 9/7/2020 at 18:41
I know. But let's go with the implication at least for clarity - do you figure transwomen are behaving as women, or in fact are women?
SD on 9/7/2020 at 18:45
Quote Posted by raph
1. Dicks do not define gender. Stop obsessing about them.
2. Trans women don't "act as" women. They don't "feel like" women. They don't "want to be" women. THEY ARE WOMEN. Same in reverse for trans men.
1. I never said dicks define gender. I've been arguing the opposite! That dicks have nothing to do with gender, and by corollary, transgender. So my bias against dicks cannot be anti-transgender.
2. English isn't your first language, I know. But actually, they do act, feel like, and want to be women. Which is why they say they are women. Whether a person accepts that is up to them. Regardless, it's utterly immaterial to any point I've been making.
SD on 9/7/2020 at 18:49
Quote Posted by Sulphur
I know. But let's go with the implication at least for clarity - do you figure transwomen are behaving as women, or in fact are women?
I think transwomen are transwomen.
Because I don't see why things have to be stuck into one of two pigeonholes.
SD on 9/7/2020 at 18:51
Getting back to the wider topic of cancel culture, I see Jodie Comer, darling of the LGBT community for playing one of the most fascinating LGBT characters on television, has been cancelled - for dating a man who is a registered Republican.
Sulphur on 9/7/2020 at 19:01
Quote Posted by SD
I think transwomen are transwomen.
Because I don't see why things have to be stuck into one of two pigeonholes.*
And that's why I think there's a pretty fundamental misunderstanding of the issue here. You seem well up on how they see themselves - but let's go over it: you've been born biologically male but know that that isn't who you are because it feels wrong; given enough time and self-discovery the only way to reconcile that is accepting that you are a woman. Now, not only have you had to deal with the fundamental disconnect around your own self-identity, but you have constantly had to deal with the rest of the planet invalidating the one conclusion that makes sense to you. So you fight for that, and for every inch you win, someone else takes a yard.
What does denying them entry to women's changing rooms have to do with this? It brings back the fact that introducing discrimination to protect 'women' safe spaces fundamentally contradicts the conclusion that a transwoman has had to fight for so far that they are
not different from women. It's yet another aggression, and it does in fact invalidate their identity at that level. You see it as a compromise, but it's still discriminatory on the basis of shoving aside the identities of trans people themselves.
I know you're not going to agree with this and respond with something involving GRS or putting the safety of women above transwomen, but the foundation of that argument means you don't really agree with trans identity to begin with.
*You have no idea how tempting it was to make a joke about how you've moved on from dicks and are now talking about orifices. But I'll spare everyone.
