ฟรีเครดิตทดลองเล่น สล็อต_รับรางวัลเกมยิงปลา_คาสิโนปอยเปต

314 posts / 0 new
Last post
Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

I saw a number of articles about it all -- here's one.? They seem to have been directed at someone named Lisa Kreut, and others at someone named Jonathan Yaniv.

quizzical

thanks for the link magoo.

really disappointed in the BC NDP vice president and may not vote NDP in the next election over this bs.

going to talk with mom about this later and what she thinks.

?

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Just out of curiousity, what's the connection to the BC NDP?

quizzical

Feminist Current is off line today. it was there yesterday.

the BC NDP vp is one of the people who have taken issue with Meghan.

my mom was already all over this and has signed some petition.

the BC NDP better watch it's alienation of BC feminists and their families and friends. it's voter margins are not high enough.

Misfit Misfit's picture

Unfortunately, I don't think that most feminists really care, quiz. I think that many would actually support her ban from twitter.

Germaine Greer is in the same boat as Meagan Murphy and both are considered pariah's.

i may be wrong but I don't think so.

Misfit Misfit's picture

Here is an interview with Germaine Greer regarding?transgender women.

video

And here is another one

video?Note: transgender discussion starts at 25:20.

?

quizzical

well i'm not a feminist nor are my friends but we're pissed. if you're right then no wonder we refuse the label.

mom considers herself a feminist but her friends don't and she says she can get them rolling against the NDP in Nanaimo and north Island and voting Green over this. i guess it would be nurses,?teachers, assorted red necks and the 60+ voting crowd she is going to target.

i wanna know where feminist currents went.

Misfit Misfit's picture

Here is a fresh article about the Vancouver Public Library getting pressure from transgender activists to cancel a Meghan Murphy speaking engagement in January.

Article...

it looks to me like there is a very extensive?campaign going on in Vancouver by a very small group of transgender activists to shut Meghan Murphy down and more than just her twitter account.

quizzical

thanks misfit for the article vote Green it is.

6079_Smith_W

From that article:

Already, simpson said they have faced attacks on Twitter for being critical of the VPL — which simpson said proved their point that trans people face public discrimination, spurred on by events such as Murphy’s.

Seems like a two-way street to me, and frankly, Murphy among the harshest voices in that department. If she got canned from twitter for saying personally insulting things about people, well that shouldn't be much of a surprise.

Murphy says in that article that there has been no public debate; she knows that is not true, not only because she made a submission herself to the senate on C-16, but because the allowance to discriminate in certain safe spaces was held up in court in the Vancouver Rape Relief case. What she means is that not everyone agrees with her particular take on the issue, and that allowance doesn't extend everywhere she wants it to.

I certainly don't lump her in with members of the far right who are also waving the? free speech foil, but that doesn't mean I buy the argument in this case either. Does she have the right to her opinions about gender, and the right to publish? Sure, and there is enough evidence in this thread that those opinions are readily available, including at the VPL.

This is really more about where she goes with that opinion when it comes to speaking to others. Frankly I don't support it any more than I support anyone else to using personally insulting language. She might be able to get away with it talking about Laverne Cox in an article, but it is a bit different speaking one on one. Twitter has house rules, just as there are house rules here.

?

quizzical

between Ms Oger attacking human rights and trying to take away a person's livelihood in a decidedly unfeminist way and the BC NDP pissing the?teachers off their hopes to win the next election is slim.

Misfit Misfit's picture

The Feminist Current is back up and running.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Already, simpson said they have faced attacks on Twitter for being critical of the VPL — which simpson said proved their point that trans people face public discrimination, spurred on by events such as Murphy’s.

Uh, were these "attacks" (whatever that's supposed to mean, in 280 characters or less) for being critical of the Library?

If so, that's not the same as "because you're one of those trans people Meghan Murphy talked about".

I love how this is already at the point of "hate speech".? Wait for arguments about "survival" -- they're next.? If "trans" teens are getting hassled at school, it's not because their peers hang on Murphy's every word.

Seems to me that trans activists aren't fighting for the right to be hired, or rent an apartment, or have their chosen name on their passport.? It really looks more like they're fighting for some kind of official proclamation that they're "real" women or men, not just in the legal sense, but in the social and biological sense too.

quizzical

thanks misfit been reading around it.

#FreeMeghan

patriarchy rearing its ugly head in transwomen's behaviour.

?

6079_Smith_W

That's quite the bit of mind reading there, Magoo. Maybe you should advertise your services.

And actually C-16 - the law Murphy campaigned against - does concern discrimination when it comes to hiring, renting an apartment, or being turned away from businesses. Also, it concerns discrimination against gender identity and expression when it comes to being a victim of crime, like violent attack. Transgender day of remembrance was just a couple of days ago - November 21.

เกมออนไลน์https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/11/19/transgender-canadians-violence-...

So no, it isn't just about someone getting your name wrong, and people are still free to hold whatever? attitudes they want.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

That law passed, didn't it?

Quote:
So no, it isn't just about someone getting your name wrong.

* wasn't

So what's it about now?? Surely not about passing the same law again?

6079_Smith_W

Not sure what you mean, Magoo. People do still suffer discrimination based on gender when it comes to housing, work, and other things, contrary to your comment upthread. And many are also victims of violence because of it.

The fact that there is now a law concerning it (and in fact there already were provincial laws) doesn't end that.

And people still do deliberately refuse to recognize gender, so that isn't in the past either.

?

quizzical

what bunch of stats crap in the article. they admitted in the article there is no stats.

it appears the transactivists are ad hocing it.?

meanwhile, one transwomen was murdered in Canada last year and none this year and we don't even know if it's for her being a transwoman or a sex worker, but 57 women have been murdered this year so far for the crime of being a woman.

remembrance day lol. right.

if the transactivists were feminists and indeed women in sisterhood you'd think they be alarmed at the 57 murders. nope. they want Meghan to drink bleach or die.

and we have one of these radical transactivists as VP of the BC NDP.

makes me real comfortable and want to support them. hint. i wont be.

?

?

Misfit Misfit's picture

Smith wrote:

"And actually C-16 - the law Murphy campaigned against - does concern discrimination when it comes to hiring, renting an apartment, or being turned away from businesses. Also, it concerns discrimination against gender identity and expression when it comes to being a victim of crime, like violent attack."

you imply that Meghan Murphy is against transgender women having these rights and I don't think that this is what she was discussing at all in relation to Bill C-16

I am of the opinion that Meghan Murphy and Hilla Karvet were voicing their concern that?Bill C-16 does not properly differentiate between biological women and transgender women and that biological women have separate histories and issues that biological women need to have the right to refuse services which are designed for biological women if that is what the women want and that biological women should be able to have the right to organize as women and not have that necessarily include transwomen at all times. There were no clauses inserted into the bill which allowed the rights of biological women to turn transwomen away for any reason.

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.4110634

6079_Smith_W

Like I said, quizzical, it does seem to be a two way street for those who don't see this as an intersectional issue and want to go on the offensive about it. I'm just saying that Murphy is one of those voices.

Obviously someone took offense on Twitter, but I know a few people who say exactly the same thing on facebook, and elsewhere, and i have read it here. So it's hardly a forbidden thing to say.

6079_Smith_W

The rights under C-16 aren't specific to transgender people. They apply to everyone.

And the case I mentioned did in fact recognize that Vancouver Rape Relief was allowed to discriminate against someone based on gender because of the nature of work they do.

But arguing for the "right" to turn people away is actually a recipe for disaster, if you think it through. That's not how this is going to be solved, especially on ground zero issues like public bathrooms and change rooms.

Misfit Misfit's picture

Quiz,

57 murders is a lot and is totally unacceptable. However, women represent 52% of the population. I don't know what the population of transgender people is in Canada, but I am safe to assume that the transgender murder represents a much larger percentage of the total transgender population than the 57 out of say 19 million women.

it is disturbing and wrong that someone was murdered because that person was transgender. That is a hate crime and it is very serious and wrong. It does not need to be trivialized or belittled.

transgender people do not feel safe. This murder highlights why it is so important that we work hard to overcome our own biases and differences and try to seek common ground with those we perceive to be different from ourselves.

?

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Not sure what you mean, Magoo. People do still suffer discrimination based on gender when it comes to housing, work, and other things, contrary to your comment upthread. And many are also victims of violence because of it.

Do you think that's why trans-activists have it in for Murphy?? Because she's refusing them jobs or apartments?? Or committing violent crimes against them?

Or else what do you figure it's really about?

quizzical

misfit i can't?get a clear read on what you're saying.

there's no intersectionality smith. there's patriarchy rearing it's ugly head and nothing more with these radicals like ms Ogers.

i have watched every episode of "I am jazz" and there's no doubt in my mind she should have been born xx. her trauma at being xy is real. i considered myself an ally prior to this assault on Meghan.

now not so much.?

?

6079_Smith_W

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Do you think that's why trans-activists have it in for Murphy?? Because she's refusing them jobs or apartments?? Or committing violent crimes against them?

"have it in for"? A bit loaded, don't you think?? I don't know about "trans activists", but I know why I have a problem with some of her ideas.

For one thing she argued directly against protecting people from gender-based discrimination and violence:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLFHuE5uzrk

And like those who argue orientation is a choice, it may not be on the same order as bashing or killing, but it does feed into the same hatred.

Again, not to say she isn't an important voice in some things, but like Germain Greer, this is one area in which she is on the wrong side of history.

?

quizzical

no actually she's not Smith.?

those trying to take away women's? and girls voices and rights are.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
"have it in for"? A bit loaded, don't you think?

No, not really.? How should I say it?? Shall I go with "preoccupied with"?

Quote:
And like those who argue orientation is a choice, it may not be on the same order as bashing or killing, but it does feed into the same hatred.

I seem to recall that a few decades ago, when people thought that maybe Modern Science could find and isolate "the Gay gene", that some LGBT folk looked forward to that -- real genetic proof that they were born gay.

Others argued that we shouldn't be looking for some "Gay gene", because if we ever found one then homophobic states and individuals would probably refuse to recognize the legitimacy of someone who identified as gay but lacked that gene.? In other words, proving that being gay was "not a choice" would also mean that nobody could simply choose it.

The only real disagreement I have with trans-activism (or some trans theory) is that it seems necessarily underpinned by a belief in some sort of biological, hard-coded "femaleness".? I don't, personally, care if someone wants to live as a man or a woman, and I completely support their rights to work, rent, be promoted, adopt, and be safe.? But for now at least I have to draw the line at the idea that there's such a thing as a "woman's brain".? That sort of crap just brings us all right back to when women (ironically) couldn't get a job because of that "woman's brain".

?

6079_Smith_W

Actually I think you have it a bit backwards Magoo, at least when it comes to rights and protections.

Like sexism, homophobia and racism, this is isn't so much about what is going on in the minds of the person on the receiving end, it is about what is in the mind of the person doing the discriminating - refusing work or a place to live, or attacking someone just because of the way they look.

Though part of systemic discrimination is to put the blame on the victims, as if they did something to deserve it.

?

6079_Smith_W

And quizzical, so is it helping to protect my daughter by telling the people who challenge her going into bathrooms that they are in the right to stop her and question her?

(and at 13 she has been challenged many times just because of how she dresses and carries herself)

Is that where we are going? That she should have to prove to strangers that she is a woman just to go to the bathroom? It was the solution they came to in North Carolina, anyway.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Like sexism, homophobia and racism, this is isn't so much about what is going on in the minds of the person on the receiving end, it is about what is in the mind of the person doing the discriminating - refusing work or a place to live, or attacking someone just because of the way they look.

That really has nothing to do with Murphy, her tweets, Oger's tweets/lawsuits, or pretty much anything else in this thread.

Morgane Oger isn't being bashed by Murphy, or denied a job by Murphy, or discriminated against by Murphy.? So why do you feel it's somehow offside to speculate on Oger's motivations because somehow Oger is "the victim" of something (presumably done by Murphy, or else why the animus?)

A lot of feminists seem to believe that trans-activists want to undo some of their own hard gains.? But you somehow seem to believe that this is all just a one way street, with feminist oppressors and trans victims.

?

6079_Smith_W

Where did you get that idea?

Actually I said twice that it is a two-day-street, at least when it comes to those who don't recognize this as an intersectional issue. I have dealt with some on both sides of this.

Maybe go back and re-read this thread from the beginning if you don't believe me, though I just said it.

?

?

?

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Where did you get that idea?

Since you asked:? when you conflated my speculation about trans-activism and why they seem preoccupied with Murphy with "blaming the victim".

Misfit Misfit's picture

Post 226 Smith wrote in reference to Meghan Murphy:

"For one thing she argued directly against protecting people from gender-based discrimination and violence:"

Bull shit she did!!!

She argued against entrenching the terms gender identity and gender expression as the legally entrenched means?to define who is a male and who is a female in Canada. She also argued that a clause needs to be placed in the bill which allows biological women to differentiate themselves from trans women and allow women the right to exclude trans women from biological women's activities and right to organize.

No one is saying that trans people do not deserve human rights and protections. They were arguing that the bill was poorly worded and hastily written without proper consultation from women's organizations.

And I agree. If a group of lesbian women want to hold a women's only music festival camp out weekend and have female bands playing and a time and place for lesbian women to enjoy the company of other women they should be allowed to do so without being harassed by transwomen.

women should be allowed to organize as women and to be allowed to exclude transwomen if they so choose. There are times and places where transwomen do not belong.

quizzical

Smith you have it backwards and have changed the framework to suit what you believe could hurt your daughter.

and what misfit said

6079_Smith_W

???

C-16 has nothing to do with defining who is male and female. It added protections for all Canadians based on gender identity and expression.

And if you watched her testimony she denied the existence of gender as anything other than a stereotype; she called it a trend, and a bandwagon. And she called the legislation a step backwards.

If you heard anything in there recognizing gender as grounds for human rights protection, please tell me where.

And I didn't change anything, quizzical. The question of neutral bathrooms is one of the most pressing of? gender issues. It isn't just that it affects a number of people I know. Sorry, but everyone needs to go to the bathroom.

https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/vbz5qd/trans-americans-are-so-afraid...

?

?

Misfit Misfit's picture

Smith,

You did not identify anything where she claimed that trans people did not deserve human rights.

Bill c-16 could have simply said that trans people deserve to be included into the human rights code as a special group of people in need of protection from discrimination. The law went beyond that. It defined gender identity and gender expression as the legal parameters for defining who is a man or a woman in Canada. It also failed to distinguish biologically born women as being a Unique group of people who are separate and distinct from men who identify as being women. This is a very serious flaw in the bill as far as I am concerned. It also does not mean that I wish for trans people to be discriminated against at work or to lose their housing because of who they are.

?

Misfit Misfit's picture

Smith wrote:

"And if you watched her testimony she denied the existence of gender as anything other than a stereotype; she called it a trend, and a bandwagon. And she called the legislation a step backwards.

If you heard anything in there recognizing gender as grounds for human rights protection, please tell me where."

You still did not show one iota of evidence where she wishes for the denial of human rights protection for transgender people.

You claim that she denied the existence of gender as anything other than a stereotype. Well ?femininity?is based on stereotypes. In fact, a lot of stupid stereotypes which were used by men to keep women from seeking many jobs. The women's movement has been about fighting many of these very same stereotypes that you are criticizing Meghan Murphy for elaborating on at the Senate hearings into gender identity and gender expression. No one can draw a link between claiming that transgender women base their idea of femaleness on cliche stereotypes of women and having that mean that transgender people need to be excluded from human rights altogether.

You say that she called it a trend and a bandwagon. Well, it is not grounded?by any sound science. ?If she calls it a trend then that is her opinion and it too means that one cannot conclude?that she wants transgender people to have no human rights.

You say that she called this legislation a step backwards. Well for biologically born women, i agree that the bill c-16 is a step backwards. Because it fails to make a clear distinction between men who feel that they are women and true women. Women and transgender women have two very different histories and needs. They are two very distinct categories of people who need human rights protections. Bill c-16 fails to make that distinction which is a very serious flaw in the legislation. It is an issue which still needs to be addressed and amended. Until that amendment is made and this is corrected, for biologically born women it is a step backwards. There is no link between expressing her concerns on this matter to?her somehow?denying that transpeople need human rights protection.

quizzical

Smith i'm talking about Meghan's human rights and the rest of biologically born women's rights to speak for our rights and our rights not to have our livelihoods threatened by transactivists. nor our lives.

?

?

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

(self-delete.? Didn't realize which forum this was).

Misfit Misfit's picture

And I would like to be clear about this. While yes I agree that gender identity is based on stereotypes the reality is that transgender people do feel that they are trapped inside the wrong bodies and that they do suffer discrimination based on those stereotypes that they believe makes them of the opposite gender. They do need human rights legislation and for that part bill c-16 was necessary and long overdue. My objection is the lack of clauses which would allow for a clear distinction between transgender people and biologically born women whenever biologically born women feel the need to make that distinction.

6079_Smith_W

Oh FFS, quizzical. I have defended her being able to speak and to publish. Again, go back and read this thread; I think my response was one of the first.

But someone getting canned from? twitter for delibertately misgendering is something else entirely. That's not about standing up for rights; it is about being a jerk. Someone here doesn't want to be called a "cis-woman"? The decent thing to do is to respect that, and it is no different with trans people.

For that matter, claiming that twitter's new rule is about defending predators is just fearmongering, and playing into hateful stereotypes about transpeople:

So when we're talking about policy and legislation change that trumps women's rights and women's safety, these things like Twitter's new rules in their terms of service against "misgendering" and "dead-naming," what that means is that male predators are allowed to change their sex, change their name, erase their history. So if a man is violent, a pedophile, if he is a danger to people, to women and girls or kids in general, he's fully allowed to erase that history from the Internet and move on with his life and continue to predate.

https://www.christianpost.com/news/feminist-journalist-banned-from-twitt...

And Misfit, she argued against the very idea of gender as anything but a stereotype, and called C-16 a step backwards. How is that supporting gender protection?

As for the science, and the history, maybe you should read up a bit on that. It doesn't wash here any better than it does with climate denial:

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

quizzical

offs backatcha smith.

much much worse things against and towards WOMEN are said on twitter.?no bans.

then we have Ms Oger trying to shut down Meghans talk at VPL.

equality and human rights ya know. or do they only go one way?

57 women have been murdered this year so far so when trans activists start advocating violence against a woman it's hate speech imv and it certainly isn't feminism or even simply being good person.

acts of violence are increasing against women. asking us to put ourselves in harm's way and to tolerate activities which could is bs.?

?

Misfit Misfit's picture

Smith,

You still miss my point. What she said at the Senate Commuttee has nothing to do with denying transgender people human rights. She was critiquing her objections to the wording of the bill as it was presented for discussion and debate.

?

6079_Smith_W

I think you missed what I said at 226, which was that she argued against protection on the basis of gender. Because that is exactly what she did.

(edit)

Again, the amendments in C-16 don't just protect transgender people; they are there for everyone who is discriminated against because they fall outside some people's messed up gender stereotypes. Ironically, this is something Murphy pointed out herself in her testimony.

quizzical

Misfit wrote:

And I would like to be clear about this. While yes I agree that gender identity is based on stereotypes the reality is that transgender people do feel that they are trapped inside the wrong bodies and that they do suffer discrimination based on those stereotypes that they believe makes them of the opposite gender. They do need human rights legislation and for that part bill c-16 was necessary and long overdue. My objection is the lack of clauses which would allow for a clear distinction between transgender people and biologically born women whenever biologically born women feel the need to make that distinction.

yup.

biological women's reality? is different than transgendered women period.

trying to shame us into disavowing who we are when 57 women have died this year alone for the crime of being a women.

will not be bullied into submission by patriarchy at play here.?

?

quizzical

Omfg read the article in the other Murphy thread.

what a bunch of fucking lies in the linked rant. i?see they, and those who approve of the lies, are lying liars.

and for people who have a hairy about labels and names they sure do a lot of it themselves. patriarchy showing yet again.

wtf is this bs labeling phrase "gender critical"?

i see bullying and lying and not much more.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

quizzical wrote:

Misfit wrote:

And I would like to be clear about this. While yes I agree that gender identity is based on stereotypes the reality is that transgender people do feel that they are trapped inside the wrong bodies and that they do suffer discrimination based on those stereotypes that they believe makes them of the opposite gender. They do need human rights legislation and for that part bill c-16 was necessary and long overdue. My objection is the lack of clauses which would allow for a clear distinction between transgender people and biologically born women whenever biologically born women feel the need to make that distinction.

yup.

biological women's reality? is different than transgendered women period.

trying to shame us into disavowing who we are when 57 women have died this year alone for the crime of being a women.

will not be bullied into submission by patriarchy at play here.?

?

Fine.? But trans/non-binary people are NOT part of the patriarchy, and they are not your enemy.

quizzical

wtf my post went missing.?

said: ya they are patriarchal we women having been living the experience and we can recognize it when it rears it's head.

we can also recognize man splaining. please don't.?

the lying lies in the linked article in the other thread scream patriarchy and indicate?no allied position they're too busy lying.

and i?don't think all transgender women are my enemies. hell i know some who are terrified of transactivists and have been bullied into silence. Owning a beauty and nail business in Victoria for over a decade had me involved with many fabulous transgendered women who were just "women" to me.

my experiences back in the day lead me to become a fan of Jazz Jennings. i have watched her transition and have no doubt she was born in the wrong gender body.?

?

?

quizzical

oh in this post i?forgot to say search Blaire White.?

not a fan of her politics but she's interesting to watch a learn from re transgender realities.

6079_Smith_W

Sounds like we aren't actually too far apart on this issue, quizzical. I also don't think it is helpful that where there should be mutual respect the dominant voices are fear and hatred from both sides. Yes, there are lots of decent and well-meaning people caught in the middle of this; I know a number of them on both sides.

Which is why I find it unfortunate that someone getting booted from twitter for rudeness turns into a bunch of doubling down on the worst of the stereotypes.

And now there have been two new threads started that fan the flames and do nothing to address those fears and reach understanding. I agree with you it isn't helpful. It seems some are more interested in a fight.

Pages