Can we get a list of who is a TERF and who is a trans ally? (1 Viewer)

Kate said:
View attachment 28611
Click to expand...

IMG_4629.jpeg


:D
 
So long as ZenGiraffe is the most left wing and enlightened by his own measure, then we should all just agree that we're all basically right wing loons.
 
Can we not all hysterically attack @VoR for trying to explain the balanced side of the argument please

I get that moopy is a lauded safe space for these conversations but understanding the complexity of the situation is not the enemy.

I get that everyone is frustrated but simple facts is that the vast, VAST majority of people right now are anti trans rights in sports because of this unfortunate singular boxing situation and trying to explain why it’s happening rather than cancelling anyone who doesn’t aggressively defend the trans argument is more productive.

You can’t help the trans movement if 10% of the people with the right information are dismissing 90% of the people with the wrong information.
 
It is not hysterical to expect politicians to try and change opinion, rather than just follow it. It's literally the job they signed up for.

Especially a politician who should know better, and seemed to in the past.
 
ZenGiraffe said:
It is not hysterical to expect politicians to try and change opinion, rather than just follow it. It's literally the job they signed up for.
Click to expand...

But they don’t just serve people on moopy. In fact people on moopy represent a minority of this country, rightly or wrongly.
 
funky said:
I get that everyone is frustrated but simple facts is that the vast, VAST majority of people right now are anti trans rights in sports because of this unfortunate singular boxing situation and trying to explain why it’s happening rather than cancelling anyone who doesn’t aggressively defend the trans argument is more productive.
Click to expand...

But the criticism of Nandy is that she's in a position to explain why it's happening and choosing not to.

I don't think we should cancel yer nan for seeing the clip and feeling uncomfortable, but I do think we should hold Lisa Nandy, who is paid very handsomely to represent issues around sports and culture in parliament, to a higher standard here!
 
funky said:
But they don’t just serve people on moopy. In fact people on moopy represent a minority of this country, rightly or wrongly.
Click to expand...
Minority opinions rarely become majority opinions without politicians intervening. Nandy chose not to intervene and instead sit on the fence. That is what I am criticising, as well as those that think she was right to do so.
 
ZenGiraffe said:
It is not hysterical to expect politicians to try and change opinion, rather than just follow it. It's literally the job they signed up for.

Especially a politician who should know better, and seemed to in the past.
Click to expand...
They’ve signed up to represent their constituents in parliament TBH, their views are meant to guide how they behave.

There is no way to turn people off listening to you faster than dismissing their viewpoint and telling them they’re wrong. Whether they ARE wrong or not is besides the point. You have to play the long game.
 
GNL said:
But the criticism of Nandy is that she's in a position to explain why it's happening and choosing not to.

I don't think we should cancel yer nan for seeing the clip and feeling uncomfortable, but I do think we should hold Lisa Nandy, who is paid very handsomely to represent issues around sports and culture in parliament, to a higher standard here!
Click to expand...

This I do agree with. The amount of misinformation on it is astounding.

I was shocked when I read that a “man was boxing a woman” and it took me literally 2 minutes online to find the right information. Unfortunately most people don’t seem to want to do that.

What SHOULD be said is that sports rules do need to be reviewed anyway, but that it should have nothing to do with the boxing situation because that’s a completely separate thing.
 
Evie said:
They’ve signed up to represent their constituents in parliament TBH, their views are meant to guide how they behave.

There is no way to turn people off listening to you faster than dismissing their viewpoint and telling them they’re wrong. Whether they ARE wrong or not is besides the point. You have to play the long game.
Click to expand...
That's a very limiting view of what an MP should be. Especially because they are representatives, not delegates, and as such there should be the understanding that they use their own judgement.

Also, this isn't a vote in parliament we're discussing, but a press statement from a minister on an emerging situation.
 
This is why Nandy was right to say it’s complex. Darts and Tennis for example are two completely different things when it comes to the reasons why men and women compete separately.
 
funky said:
This I do agree with. The amount of misinformation on it is astounding.

I was shocked when I read that a “man was boxing a woman”
Click to expand...
Oh come on! I don't believe that you'd fall for that, even for a split second.

But to not recognise that this is a very complex and sensitive situation is naïve if not a flippant stance to take (I'm not claiming that is your perspective, before you come for me funky).
 
ZenGiraffe said:
How else am I meant to read that middle paragraph, "I'm sad she used a dog whistle, but can you imagine if she'd done the right thing!?"
Click to expand...

I posted that I wanted to move away from gotcha discourse, and you immediately responded with an attempted gotcha.

First of all, she didn't say biology matters in the original interview I was defending. So I acknowledged that she'd said something worse in the Chiles interview, and that I was disappointed by that.

I still stand by my position that the original interview clip that circulated, which we were discussing, was a fairly measured response given the position Nandy is in, where any statement she makes can be jumped on, twisted and used as a stick to beat her for the rest of her career (from both sides!), which in turn makes it incredibly difficult for her to do her job effectively.

Would I be happier if she'd gone further and acknowledged that Imane Khelif is a CIS woman? Yes. Do I think she's a monstrous TERF because she didn't? No.
 
Last edited:
I guess I was CONFUSED more than shocked because the two media outlets I first read it on failed to mention that the boxer was a ciswoman and so I then had to go and read up on WHY it was a ‘scandal’ and why all the controversy etc. I did assume that there must be more to it and I was right, but people want to go to the default reaction.

What bothers me more is that this should have nothing to do with trans rights. Transgender women competing with ciswomen - not boxing just generally- is a complex issue but it has absolutely nothing to do with transgender people in every day life getting the support and help they need. JK Rowling using it for her agenda and other people kneejerking into comments like “when will this end” is setting back the whole cause.

Again I just don’t understand why most people can’t think in shades of grey. It’s okay that things are complicated. That’s not a reason or an excuse to have an ABSOLUTE view on something.
 
I'll say this: the past 24h have been very sobering in that certain people and groups are ready to jump at any opportunity to try and further their agenda - and other people and outlets are all too happy to form opinions before gathering context and facts.

The course of discussion in this case has been particularly foul.
 
Apoca said:
I'll say this: the past 24h have been very sobering in that certain people and groups are ready to jump at any opportunity to try and further their agenda - and other people and outlets are all too happy to form opinions before gathering context and facts.

The course of discussion in this case has been particularly foul.
Click to expand...
Add this to the fascists getting bussed in to Southport to make the appalling events there all about them and we have a microcosm of why things are so generally awful.
 
VoR said:
I still stand by my position that the original interview clip that circulated, which we were discussing, was a fairly measured response given the position Nandy is in, where any statement she makes can be jumped on, twisted and used as a stick to beat her for the rest of her career (from both sides!), which in turn makes it incredibly difficult for her to do her job effectively.
Click to expand...
So what do you think would be worse if she came down on one side or another? We'd know where we stood. It's all this witless niminy-piminying that's Labour's entire problem. Their continued appeasement of the centre-to-far right in the last couple of weeks of the election campaign is one of the core reasons why they went from 45-50%+ in the polls to 33.7% of the actual vote within 3 weeks. You think Starmer's delight in The Sun's very flimsy and reluctant backing didn't cost them on the night? Of course, our electoral system made much of this academic but they polled significantly under expectation and what Nandy has done today is a good indicator that they will be the same in government - appeasers.

They can't sit on the fence - we know that Starmer and Streeting are terfs and they shielded Rosie Duffield's murderous rhetoric whilst booting popular candidates out for liking a tweet. Nandy has chosen to fall into line. Trying to replace "the culture wars" by following Tory policy quietly won't work. She's an ignorant, spineless wretch.
 
Yeah, Judy has been on the TERF side for a while now together with Navratilova, the latter is even louder and more obnoxious about it.
 
She made a dodgy comment in 2018, but most recently she was on Celebs Go Dating with a trans woman.

With those being the most compelling pieces of evidence, I'm putting her up to Maybe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top Bottom