Cancel Culture ?

[PeterWilton]

Hi imploding turtle. Please back it up with some evidence. Like you used to.

[AndrewJB]

You've misunderstood the question. When I ask how many people killed themselves before this condition was discovered, what I was really asking was how many people killed themselves for this condition before it was discovered. Sorry if you misunderstood. I tried to make it simple.

Perhaps if I rephrase the question.

1. How many people are killing themselves now because they are not happy with their gender?
2. Before gender dysphoria was known about, how many people were killing themselves because they were not happy with their gender?

I don’t think many people kill themselves because they’re not happy with their gender. They’re more likely to do so because society has taught them that how they feel is wrong and immoral, or they’ve been bullied, or they don’t feel grounded, or feel conflicted inside. I think the reasons are many, but I doubt “not being happy with their gender” figures highly.

I don’t think it’s possible to answer your question, but if we think about it rationally if 90% of trans people have considered suicide, then being trans isn’t a lifestyle choice, and nor is it pleasant. If it’s not a choice, then it’s likely trans people existed long before the condition was better understood.

[PeterWilton]

I don’t think many people kill themselves because they’re not happy with their gender. They’re more likely to do so because society has taught them that how they feel is wrong and immoral, or they’ve been bullied, or they don’t feel grounded, or feel conflicted inside. I think the reasons are many, but I doubt “not being happy with their gender” figures highly.

I don’t think it’s possible to answer your question, but if we think about it rationally if 90% of trans people have considered suicide, then being trans isn’t a lifestyle choice, and nor is it pleasant. If it’s not a choice, then it’s likely trans people existed long before the condition was better understood.

Dsr is almost there. They've just got it wrong who it is who isn't happy with their gender. The reason these people kill themselves is in part because society is the one who is not happy with their gender.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

You've misunderstood the question. When I ask how many people killed themselves before this condition was discovered, what I was really asking was how many people killed themselves for this condition before it was discovered. Sorry if you misunderstood. I tried to make it simple.

Perhaps if I rephrase the question.

1. How many people are killing themselves now because they are not happy with their gender?
2. Before gender dysphoria was known about, how many people were killing themselves because they were not happy with their gender?

You'll never get an accurate number for 2 because in all liklihood its been around for hundreds, if not thousands, of years, like homosexuality.

[HahaYeah]

Interesting discussion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8ITHh5shWw

[Damo]

I'm not sure what study you're referring to but that wouldn't surprise me if 48 percent have tried to kill themselves.

Its such a serious issue that its upsetting to see people openly mocking transgender people by making the conscious decision to refer to trans women as "men" or "trans fellas" and going so far out of their way to deny the problem by instead of callignit what it is, "gender dysphoria" they call it "body dysphoria, presumably because they don't want to admit the" gender aspect of it.

But even worse than those people are those who actively lie and spread disinformation about how treatments occur. Notts claret has repeated some of the most vile and damaging lies about how people with gender dysphoria are treated by characterising it as if these people who are going thru this are only going through it because other people are telling them they are transgender. And bfcboyo has also repeated the lie that kids are being pumped with ideas that they are transgender when actually what is happening is these kids who, for years have had to struggle with gender dysphoria, seek help and after evaluation by medical professionals are sometimes they are offered puberty blockers, because a transgender person going through puberty can be extremely traumatising, so medication that delays puberty (it only delays it, not prevent it) to allow them more time to understand and come to terms with their level of dysphoria is vital in keeping the attempted suicide tate down to *only* 48%.

Incidentally,and closer to the topic, Graham Linehan, who I've seen people complain about being cancelled, was only cancelled *after* he organised a mass complaint against Mermaids, a charity that helps children with gender dysphoria not kill themselves, because Mermaids were due to receive a National Lottery grant and Linehan and his fellow transphobes tried to have that grant cancelled based on transphobic lies and propaganda, the same kind of lies and propaganda that has been repeated in this very thread.

So if it is cancel culture to collectively boycott Graham Linehan, and anyone who funds him, for his transphobic actions then clearly its also cancel culture for Graham Linehan to organise collective action against a charity he doesn't like because of how much of a hateful bigot he is. And this only supports my argument that cancel culture doesn't exist. It is a term dreamed up by the far right to attack the left for something the left does far more effectively, and way more peacefully, that the far right. The term is far-right propaganda. Like "cultural Marxist" and "social justice warrior" and "virtual signalling". It's intended to shame the left into not collectively acting all while they attempt to collectively act in the exact same way they claim is "cancel culture". Just look at Trump's tweets to see how many times he's called for boycotts, and not he's whining about "cancel culture". It's pretty funny.

Interesting strawman you have there Charlie.
Just to address your comments...
Nobody has defended Linehan.
The comments you describe as transphobic are not transphobic.
Please address the points raised as opposed to your interpretation of them. Altering what's posted, to make you seem more virtuous than everybody else, is the reason you get called a virtue signaller

[HahaYeah]

'Spiked' article on 'Mermaids'.


"The most troubling aspect of Mermaids’ messaging is its use of suicide statistics. Mermaids claims that 48 per cent of transgender youth are reported to have attempted suicide at some point in the past. An investigation by Transgender Trend revealed that this finding is from a study of 27 self-selected young trans people, 13 of whom reported having attempted suicide at some point in the past. Nuno Nodin, the lead academic behind the research, explained that the findings had been ‘misinterpreted’ and that this was common ‘when research is used by non-scientists in the context of their own agendas’. Sadly, this nuance is lost during Mermaids’ presentations, where the statistic is trotted out to horrified audiences."

https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/07/0 ... rans-path/

[NottsClaret]

CAA8CCD6-6309-4C88-AC38-1ABAE1E94CED.jpeg (30.37 KiB) Viewed 2846 times

Mermaids promoted this. It’s one of the more backward, insulting, sexist, misogynistic things I’ve ever seen. But produced by the good guys, apparently.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Has number 5 got a baseball hat on backwards or looking to their right and that's a big nose?

[HahaYeah]

You would think WC Fields would be further to the right.

[Damo]

CAA8CCD6-6309-4C88-AC38-1ABAE1E94CED.jpeg

Mermaids promoted this. It’s one of the more backward, insulting, sexist, misogynistic things I’ve ever seen. But produced by the good guys, apparently.

Wtf

[dsr]

"not happy with their gender"

Again, and it's pretty disappointing that I have to point this out, but it's not the "gender" part of "gender dysphoria" that is causing the problem. It's the "dysphoria" bit.


Do you even want to understand this or would I be wasting my time trying to help you understand?

Yes, you'd be wasting your time. I haven't enough interest in all forms of mental health issues to get every tiny detail right. Save that for the medical professionals. No doubt the wording will change as time goes by anyway.

What I want to know is how the suicide rates compare between now, when gender dysphoria gets all sorts of attention, and then, when it was disregarded.

[PeterWilton]

Interesting strawman you have there Charlie.
Just to address your comments...
Nobody has defended Linehan.
The comments you describe as transphobic are not transphobic.
Please address the points raised as opposed to your interpretation of them. Altering what's posted, to make you seem more virtuous than everybody else, is the reason you get called a virtue signaller

What's with the nicknames?

"interesting strawman you have there"
"nobody has defended linehan"

What strawman is that? I deny any such strawman so please explain why you think I've made a strawman arguement by putting at least some effort into the accusation you're making.
And did I say linehan had been defended?

"Altering what's posted, to make you seem more virtuous than everybody else, is the reason you get called a virtue signaller"

Another accusation without any effort into pointing it out, likely designed to derail a conversation. That's the whole point of your post, I feel, because I've never experienced anyone attempt to have a discussion in good faith while throwing around accusations of "virtue signaller".


It looks to me like all you are is a troll attempting to detail discussion. I see this kind of trolling any time someone makes good points in a discussion on this subject on a public forum. They'll lie, make up accusations without attempting to explain why they're making those accusation purely in an attempt to muddy the discussion. Usually the forum moderation doesn't tolerate it given how toxic it is to their communities to allow that kind of behaviour in a discussion.

[PeterWilton]

CAA8CCD6-6309-4C88-AC38-1ABAE1E94CED.jpeg

Mermaids promoted this. It’s one of the more backward, insulting, sexist, misogynistic things I’ve ever seen. But produced by the good guys, apparently.

Is that not intended for children? Where was that promoted and in what context? Because if that was intended to allow children to better explain how they identify then it is perfectly fine.

Do you have a better way for children to communicate how they identify?

[Volvoclaret]

Hull, Bristol and Liverpool have have just announced that all their shipping is gender neutral and that all three ports will now be known as Trans-port depots.

[NottsClaret]

Is that not intended for children? Where was that promoted and in what context? Because if that was intended to allow children to better explain how they identify then it is perfectly fine.

Do you have a better way for children to communicate how they identify?

You’re sounding like a bit of a not-right here mate.

[dsr]

Is that not intended for children? Where was that promoted and in what context? Because if that was intended to allow children to better explain how they identify then it is perfectly fine.

Do you have a better way for children to communicate how they identify?

It's people with thoughts like that, that are frighteningly dangerous. Of course there is a better way for children to explain how they identify - in words, calmly and logically expressed. If they are too young to explain it in words, then they are too young for any sort of life-changing treatment, either mental or physical.

You know from all the "false memory" cases that were making the news a decade or two back, how possible it is for the unscrupulous, or perhaps even worse the well-meaning foolish meddlers, to persuade people to think what they didn't think before. Letting them loose on boys who don't like GI Joe or girls who don't like Barbie would be criminal.

[Damo]

What's with the nicknames?

"interesting strawman you have there"
"nobody has defended linehan"

What strawman is that? I deny any such strawman so please explain why you think I've made a strawman arguement by putting at least some effort into the accusation you're making.
And did I say linehan had been defended?

"Altering what's posted, to make you seem more virtuous than everybody else, is the reason you get called a virtue signaller"

Another accusation without any effort into pointing it out, likely designed to derail a conversation. That's the whole point of your post, I feel, because I've never experienced anyone attempt to have a discussion in good faith while throwing around accusations of "virtue signaller".


It looks to me like all you are is a troll attempting to detail discussion. I see this kind of trolling any time someone makes good points in a discussion on this subject on a public forum. They'll lie, make up accusations without attempting to explain why they're making those accusation purely in an attempt to muddy the discussion. Usually the forum moderation doesn't tolerate it given how toxic it is to their communities to allow that kind of behaviour in a discussion.

I've explained, several times my comments on this thread and you keep ignoring it. You have tried to twist my words several times, and now it seems you are asking for the moderators to ban me or whatever.
Its fairly obvious why you keep denying cancel culture exists. Yet you attempt to have me cancelled when you can't find a reasonable response.
Thanks for proving my point

[PeterWilton]

It seems some of you think that you know better than the professionals, and nothing is going to sway you away from your transphobic attitudes.at least nothing I'm capable of explaining.
It is nearly impossible to help someone understand something that they are determined not to understand.

You will continue contributing to the problem, and you will continue to share some of the blame when trans people kill themselves. I really hope that your attitudes change, because people are dying as a result of them.

[Bfcboyo]

It seems some of you think that you know better than the professionals, and nothing is going to sway you away from your transphobic attitudes.at least nothing I'm capable of explaining.
It is nearly impossible to help someone understand something that they are determined not to understand.

You will continue contributing to the problem, and you will continue to share some of the blame when trans people kill themselves. I really hope that your attitudes change, because people are dying as a result of them.

The ramblings of a hippy in a half shell ,turtle power.

[evensteadiereddie]

Classy.

[Bfcboyo]

Classy is suggesting people are contributing to suicides and are at fault for the troubled minds and souls of trans people, just because they disagree with him. Peter Wilton writes his posts just like Imp Turtle used to that was the ref. to the turtle.

It is a bit much accusing and saying the suicide blame lies with people who disagree with certain treatments or how young trans people are starting treatment .

Maybe the offensive post should be removed.

[evensteadiereddie]

It depends whether anybody else interprets the post in your particular way.

I wondered what your obsession with this turtle guy was.

[AndrewJB]

The ramblings of a hippy in a half shell ,turtle power.

When you can’t beat the argument, attack the person making it.

[PeterWilton]

Classy is suggesting people are contributing to suicides and are at fault for the troubled minds and souls of trans people, just because they disagree with him. Peter Wilton writes his posts just like Imp Turtle used to that was the ref. to the turtle.

It is a bit much accusing and saying the suicide blame lies with people who disagree with certain treatments or how young trans people are starting treatment .

Maybe the offensive post should be removed.

I'm not suggesting it, I'm outright stating it as my opinion. If you make it harder for suicidal people to receive treatment that will help them not commit suicide, and they then go on to kill themselves, then you have some of their blood on your hands. Was that clear enough?

"Maybe the offensive post should be removed"

My my. Haven't you come a long way since starting this thread?

[android]

Fox thinks the press coverage of Meghan Markle was not based on racism and that's a crime? Line me up against the wall next to Fox. It's ok to think it was based on racism and it's ok to think it wasn't. Come on Peter you know that (assuming you are Turtle...DA...) so let's not go there.

The cancel storm was based on Laurence Fox's opposition to people being characterised by their skin colour, whether it is black, white or whatever.

I accept that those insistent on preaching white privilege are, in the main, motivated by good intentions. But surely you can understand the counter argument that some people think that attaching importance to a person's skin colour is not a good thing? You are happy for people to suffer for thinking that? A lot of progress has been made against racism by people thinking exactly that - skin colour is not important.

Interesting that this got zero response. I assume it's a negative from Peter and a thumbs up to punishing a Fox (all the while remembering that cancel culture does not exist).

Would any of the left wing liberals on here be open minded enough to accept the counter argument? The one that says ignoring a person's skin colour is the way to go in defeating racism? Is that really unacceptable thought now? You can think there is a better way (white guilt, blm and so on) and I could accept your good intentions in many cases (most people not all) whilst disagreeing with you. But is my / Fox's position somehow deemed racist now? Is that really where we are? Anyone?

[Bfcboyo]

I'm not suggesting it, I'm outright stating it as my opinion. If you make it harder for suicidal people to receive treatment that will help them not commit suicide, and they then go on to kill themselves, then you have some of their blood on your hands. Was that clear enough?

"Maybe the offensive post should be removed"

My my. Haven't you come a long way since starting this thread?

What about those teenagers who go onto regret changing sex and go on to commit suicide later? Do they not matter as they go against your argument?

[Spijed]

Interesting that this got zero response. I assume it's a negative from Peter and a thumbs up to punishing a Fox (all the while remembering that cancel culture does not exist).

Would any of the left wing liberals on here be open minded enough to accept the counter argument? The one that says ignoring a person's skin colour is the way to go in defeating racism? Is that really unacceptable thought now? You can think there is a better way (white guilt, blm and so on) and I could accept your good intentions in many cases (most people not all) whilst disagreeing with you. But is my / Fox's position somehow deemed racist now? Is that really where we are? Anyone?

Why should the likes of Tyrone Mings or Raheem Stirling or Danny Rose feel guilty for making a big issue of the abuse they've been subjected to, especially whilst playing for England in certain countries?

[android]

Why should the likes of Tyrone Mings or Raheem Stirling or Danny Rose feel guilty for making a big issue of the abuse they've been subjected to, especially whilst playing for England in certain countries?

Of course they shouldn't feel guilty and of course they shouldn't be on the receiving end. But I don't know how you managed to link that to my post.

[AndrewJB]

Interesting that this got zero response. I assume it's a negative from Peter and a thumbs up to punishing a Fox (all the while remembering that cancel culture does not exist).

Would any of the left wing liberals on here be open minded enough to accept the counter argument? The one that says ignoring a person's skin colour is the way to go in defeating racism? Is that really unacceptable thought now? You can think there is a better way (white guilt, blm and so on) and I could accept your good intentions in many cases (most people not all) whilst disagreeing with you. But is my / Fox's position somehow deemed racist now? Is that really where we are? Anyone?

I found Fox preposterous because he told a black woman that racism was boring, and that Britain is the most tolerant country in the world, all during a current affairs program discussing racism. The mask slipped again when he complained about a Sikh soldier depicted in the film 1917. Fox seems more interested in ignoring racism than wanting to end it.

[KateR]

I'm kind of lost in the discussion between cancel culture and trans, sorry but I didn't see/understand the correlation.

[android]

I found Fox preposterous because he told a black woman that racism was boring, and that Britain is the most tolerant country in the world, all during a current affairs program discussing racism. The mask slipped again when he complained about a Sikh soldier depicted in the film 1917. Fox seems more interested in ignoring racism than wanting to end it.

Fox didn't say racism was boring he said calling everything racism was boring - about as different a point as could possibly be. The Sikh soldier point was similarly misunderstood and misrepresented (wilfully so by many no doubt). And imagine thinking Britain is a tolerant country - he should definitely be shot for that. I don't think Fox would have thought the colour of the skin the person he was having a discussion with was important. That's kind of the point. I suspect Fox would probably take an equally dim view of your way of tackling racism as you seem to take of his.

Still no straight answer from anyone. Is it really unacceptable (even if you disagree) to think that the best way to defeat racism is to treat skin colour as unimportant? Fascinating. I'm sure it used to be the prevailing view not so long ago.

[KateR]

I certainly don't think skin colour is important, and only those who do and those who wish to make heritage an important point, fall in the same category for me. It is a problem on all sides but even discussing this is not going to change anything anytime soon, there are so many, too many, and I do not see a solution.

[PeterWilton]

Interesting that this got zero response. I assume it's a negative from Peter and a thumbs up to punishing a Fox (all the while remembering that cancel culture does not exist).

Would any of the left wing liberals on here be open minded enough to accept the counter argument? The one that says ignoring a person's skin colour is the way to go in defeating racism? Is that really unacceptable thought now? You can think there is a better way (white guilt, blm and so on) and I could accept your good intentions in many cases (most people not all) whilst disagreeing with you. But is my / Fox's position somehow deemed racist now? Is that really where we are? Anyone?

You are wrong on a fundamental level about what "White privilege" is and I have already responded to someone who was wrong in the same way you were. I didn't realise that I had to directly reply and quote you, but OK. For those at the back of the class I'll say it again. White privilege is not characterising someone based on their skin colour. White privilege is a term that describes how society treats white people better than non-white people.

This has been explained to people so many times by now, over the years, that at this point the only people who fail to understand are likely the racists who simply don't want to understand.

Since I'm sure you're not racist, and simply misunderstood because somehow no one has corrected you, that this is the last time anyone has to explain it to you.

[aggi]

Interesting that this got zero response. I assume it's a negative from Peter and a thumbs up to punishing a Fox (all the while remembering that cancel culture does not exist).

Would any of the left wing liberals on here be open minded enough to accept the counter argument? The one that says ignoring a person's skin colour is the way to go in defeating racism? Is that really unacceptable thought now? You can think there is a better way (white guilt, blm and so on) and I could accept your good intentions in many cases (most people not all) whilst disagreeing with you. But is my / Fox's position somehow deemed racist now? Is that really where we are? Anyone?

Ultimately that is the way to go. But it isn't happening and unless absolutely everybody is on board with it (and let's be honest, it's very obvious that isn't the case) then it isn't going to work.

It's a nice, utopian idea but when one group is starting from a position of inequality then just pretending everything is fine isn't really a solution.

The issue most people seemed to have with Fox's comments is that a white, middle class male isn't really ideally placed to be the arbiter of what is racist.

[NottsClaret]

White privilege is not characterising someone based on their skin colour. White privilege is a term that describes how society treats white people better than non-white people.

This has been explained to people so many times by now, over the years, that at this point the only people who fail to understand are likely the racists who simply don't want to understand.

Male privilege is not characterising someone based on their sex. Male privilege is a term that describes how society treats males better than females.

This has been explained to people so many times by now, over the years, that at this point the only people who fail to understand are likely the misogynists who simply don't want to understand.

__

Listen to some women, some feminists on what their issues are. You wouldn't only listen to white people about racism surely? So why not listen to women about their worries rather than screaming 'transphobe' at them?

[PeterWilton]

Male privilege is not characterising someone based on their sex. Male privilege is a term that describes how society treats males better than females.

This has been explained to people so many times by now, over the years, that at this point the only people who fail to understand are likely the misogynists who simply don't want to understand.

__

Listen to some women, some feminists on what their issues are. You wouldn't only listen to white people about racism surely? So why not listen to women about their worries rather than screaming 'transphobe' at them?

I'm not sure why you think I'm screaming anything, but OK.

And what point are you making here? What worries do you think I am not listening to? What is it about my posts that make you think I haven't listened to feminists? I have listened to terfs like Rowling. That's how I know they are transphobic. I wouldn't know they're transphobic without first listening to them and their transphobic views.

[KateR]

TERFS are a small minority and should not be listened to, they are a disgrace, just my opinion of course but I have had a little experience with them, so seeing it first hand rather than reading/listening to someone else helped to cement my views.

[PeterWilton]

Ultimately that is the way to go. But it isn't happening and unless absolutely everybody is on board with it (and let's be honest, it's very obvious that isn't the case) then it isn't going to work.

It's a nice, utopian idea but when one group is starting from a position of inequality then just pretending everything is fine isn't really a solution.

The issue most people seemed to have with Fox's comments is that a white, middle class male isn't really ideally placed to be the arbiter of what is racist.

There's nothing really wrong with questioning what is racist even from a position of privilege. That conversation, when participated in honestly, is a good one to constantly have.
The problem comes when you're the beneficiary of special privileges unconsciously given to you by society bacause if your race, and then you deny that those privileges exist.

[KateR]

You are wrong on a fundamental level about what "White privilege" is and I have already responded to someone who was wrong in the same way you were. I didn't realise that I had to directly reply and quote you, but OK. For those at the back of the class I'll say it again. White privilege is not characterising someone based on their skin colour. White privilege is a term that describes how society treats white people better than non-white people.

This has been explained to people so many times by now, over the years, that at this point the only people who fail to understand are likely the racists who simply don't want to understand.

Since I'm sure you're not racist, and simply misunderstood because somehow no one has corrected you, that this is the last time anyone has to explain it to you.

Probably the most patronizing post I have seen on this whole site, the fact that you are totally wrong with your assessment is just, well amazing to me.

White privilege (or white skin privilege) is the societal privilege that benefits white people over non-white people in some societies, particularly if they are otherwise under the same social, political, or economic circumstances. With roots in European colonialism,[1] the Atlantic slave trade, and the growth of the Second British Empire after 1783, white privilege has developed[2] in circumstances that have broadly sought to protect white racial privileges,[3] various national citizenships and other rights or special benefits.[4][5]

It is absolutely based on the skin colour without a shadow of a doubt, and as someone else pointed out, when you add male privileges to it over females and in this case let's add Trans in the mix, you get the worst of all characteristics.

[dsr]

TERFS are a small minority and should not be listened to, they are a disgrace, just my opinion of course but I have had a little experience with them, so seeing it first hand rather than reading/listening to someone else helped to cement my views.

Do you think that it is radical to want to exclude biological men from ladies' changing rooms?

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Terf is a acronym I haven't seen before.

Is it classed as a slur or is it still just derogatory?

[PeterWilton]

Probably the most patronizing post I have seen on this whole site, the fact that you are totally wrong with your assessment is just, well amazing to me.

White privilege (or white skin privilege) is the societal privilege that benefits white people over non-white people in some societies, particularly if they are otherwise under the same social, political, or economic circumstances. With roots in European colonialism,[1] the Atlantic slave trade, and the growth of the Second British Empire after 1783, white privilege has developed[2] in circumstances that have broadly sought to protect white racial privileges,[3] various national citizenships and other rights or special benefits.[4][5]

It is absolutely based on the skin colour without a shadow of a doubt, and as someone else pointed out, when you add male privileges to it over females and in this case let's add Trans in the mix, you get the worst of all characteristics.

I don't think it makes much sense to tell me I'm wrong, and then prove that I was right.
I never said it wasn't based on skin colour, I said that saying someone has benefited from white privilege is not characterising that person based on their skin colour. You have either misread or misinterpreted what I posted. If you would kindly quote the part of my post you misunderstood I will see if I can try to reword it so that others don't make the same mistake you made.

[KateR]

Do you think that it is radical to want to exclude biological men from ladies' changing rooms?

you will have to explain things much better or clearer, for me, to get an answer. Who are these biological men, you?

[PeterWilton]

Terf is a acronym I haven't seen before.

Is it classed as a slur or is it still just derogatory?

If it's coming from me it's a slur, but I think terfs might be quite accepting of the term. It means Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist.

[dsr]

you will have to explain things much better or clearer, for me, to get an answer. Who are these biological men, you?

A person with a penis.

[KateR]

Terf is a acronym I haven't seen before.

Is it classed as a slur or is it still just derogatory?

TERF (/ˈtɜːrf/, also written terf) is an acronym for trans-exclusionary radical feminist. Coined in 2008,[1] the term was originally applied to a minority of feminists espousing sentiments that other feminists consider transphobic, such as the rejection of the assertion that trans women are women, the exclusion of trans women from women's spaces, and opposition to transgender rights legislation. The meaning has since expanded to refer more broadly to people with trans-exclusive views who may have no involvement with radical feminism.[2][3]

The way I meant it is in the original form, not the expanded form

[KateR]

A person with a penis.

again that means every man, including trans men, of course no one (I don't think) is saying that, that would be multisex toilets, of which is not uncommon in some places and work quite well. So can you try again and be more specific, in fact state exactly what you are you are asking

[PeterWilton]

Do you think that it is radical to want to exclude biological men from ladies' changing rooms?

Does this make sense to you?

[AndrewJB]

Fox didn't say racism was boring he said calling everything racism was boring - about as different a point as could possibly be. The Sikh soldier point was similarly misunderstood and misrepresented (wilfully so by many no doubt). And imagine thinking Britain is a tolerant country - he should definitely be shot for that. I don't think Fox would have thought the colour of the skin the person he was having a discussion with was important. That's kind of the point. I suspect Fox would probably take an equally dim view of your way of tackling racism as you seem to take of his.

Still no straight answer from anyone. Is it really unacceptable (even if you disagree) to think that the best way to defeat racism is to treat skin colour as unimportant? Fascinating. I'm sure it used to be the prevailing view not so long ago.

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-ente ... 96476.html

His views seem rather incoherent. It’s boring to “call everyone racist” (nobody is doing that), and then accuse the woman in the audience of being racist. “Everyone should be free to say what we think” (we already are), but “diversity shouldn’t be forced down our throats.” (it’s not).

A well off white man effectively telling brown people that they’re over exaggerating their experiences of racism doesn’t further debate on the subject.