2,955 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Jun 15, 2020 10:17:41 GMT
I believe that if society was in a place which accepted those women as 'real' women those deaths would not have happened. Because women never get killed by men? There are deeply ingrained, dangerous phobias in societies, especially in those that are very patriarchal, but blaming feminism or JKR (as I've seen a couple of people in my twitter feed do this week) is bizarre.
|
|
|
Post by juicy_but_terribly_drab on Jun 15, 2020 10:52:45 GMT
I believe that if society was in a place which accepted those women as 'real' women those deaths would not have happened. Because women never get killed by men? There are deeply ingrained, dangerous phobias in societies, especially in those that are very patriarchal, but blaming feminism or JKR (as I've seen a couple of people in my twitter feed do this week) is bizarre. Of course women get killed by men but transgender women get killed at a much higher rate.
|
|
4,038 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jun 15, 2020 11:06:44 GMT
They do. Unfortunately that appears to be linked to the overrepresentation of trans women among sex workers - sex work being an incredible high risk profession. Your example from Paris is Burning is one such case.
This is of course linked to being marginalised.
There is absolutely no question that trans women are among the most vulnerable to male violence due to the effects of marginalisation.
|
|
|
Post by juicy_but_terribly_drab on Jun 15, 2020 11:12:11 GMT
They do. Unfortunately that appears to be linked to the overrepresentation of trans women among sex workers - sex work being an incredible high risk profession. Your example from Paris is Burning is one such case. This is of course linked to being marginalised. There is absolutely no question that trans women are among the most vulnerable to male violence. One of the recent articles listing black trans murder victims also listed the perpetrators where they were known. None of them were radical feminists. They were almost all victims of male violence. Yes but in the Paris is Burning example she had been previously attacked once the person realised she was transgender. That to me suggests that the attacker feels like they were tricked into having sex with a man and so comments like JKR's which perpetuate the idea that trans men and women are not actually the gender they identify as (not that sex is real but suggestions that trans men are included in TERF because they're women or her support for Maya Forstater who refused to stop misgendering her co-worker) surely contribute to the continuance of this mentality?
|
|
4,038 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jun 15, 2020 11:44:10 GMT
Statistically trans sex workers are no more likely to be murdered than non-trans sex workers. Murder rates for all sex workers are extremely high. I just checked, and Statistically there’s no evidence that trans people have a higher murder rate than non-trans people in the U.K. (and I’ve seen similar breakdowns for the US). www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-how-many-trans-people-murdered-ukIt does seem that trans people experience a higher rate of domestic violence than non-trans. I really thought the rates were higher than that! It’s impossible to know what motivates any particular crime. But blaming a crime that happened in the 80s on JKR’s attitude is a bit much, isn’t it? I mean, there were all sorts of different factors at play in that time and place than there are now.
|
|
304 posts
|
Post by MrBraithwaite on Jun 15, 2020 12:04:14 GMT
Came back to the forum after a few days away and will not read this entire topic. Just amused by some things I read online about fans removing their HP tattoos and burning their books etc etc. (please feel free to do that!) and all the HP film kiddie cast chiming in on social media. The world has truly gone insane lately. Very amused...if JKR is the worst person ever (quote) and is the new enemy of the LGBT-community, then they don't seem to have any other problems.
|
|
|
Post by juicy_but_terribly_drab on Jun 15, 2020 12:07:59 GMT
Statistically trans sex workers are no more likely to be murdered than non-trans sex workers. Murder rates for all sex workers are extremely high. I just checked, and Statistically there’s no evidence that trans people have a higher murder rate than non-trans people in the U.K. (and I’ve seen similar breakdowns for the US). www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-how-many-trans-people-murdered-ukIt does seem that trans people experience a higher rate of domestic violence than non-trans. I really thought the rates were higher than that! It’s impossible to know what motivates any particular crime. But blaming a crime that happened in the 80s on JKR’s attitude is a bit much, isn’t it? I mean, there were all sorts of different factors at play in that time and place than there are now. Maybe I'm wrong, it's just my perception that transgender people seem to often be killed because they're transgender and that's the only reason I could come up with that would motivate someone to do that. I still think though that JKR's views are transphobic. I don't think there's anything wrong with acknowledging that sex is real or that cis women face different struggles than trans women, especially prior to a trans person outwardly presenting as their gender or prior to transition, but to say that sex is the end all be all is wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2020 12:26:57 GMT
Came back to the forum after a few days away and will not read this entire topic. Just amused by some things I read online about fans removing their HP tattoos and burning their books etc etc. (please feel free to do that!) and all the HP film kiddie cast chiming in on social media. The world has truly gone insane lately. Very amused...if JKR is the worst person ever (quote) and is the new enemy of the LGBT-community, then they don't seem to have any other problems. Cancel culture at its finest. Though admittedly I dislike the fact she omitted Dumbledore’s sexuality in Harry Potter - particularly when Albus’ blind love ultimately resulted in the death of Ariana and facilitated Grindelwald’s rise to power (which is particularly poignant now that it transpires Grindewald deliberately killed Ariana for her Obscurus).
|
|
2,955 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Jun 15, 2020 13:03:32 GMT
Though admittedly I dislike the fact she omitted Dumbledore’s sexuality in Harry Potter - particularly when Albus’ blind love ultimately resulted in the death of Ariana and facilitated Grindelwald’s rise to power (which is particularly poignant now that it transpires Grindewald deliberately killed Ariana for her Obscurus). I'm old enough to remember when the books first came out and she was called Joanne in interviews but JK on book covers because many boys wouldn't read books by obviously female writers, and American Christians had book burnings and banned her books from libraries because they featured witchcraft. I doubt, in the 1990s, you could have launched a MG children's book with a major mentor character who was openly gay. Even today, TV series, books and films aimed at a global market, including many countries where homosexuality is illegal and in some punishable by death, the number of openly gay characters in fantasy and MG stories is vanishingly small: they are usually only coded, as in Star Wars Rogue One, which is very diverse in all other ways, and even then they're sidekicks or end up dead. I felt David Thewlis' character's storyline was code for 'gay teacher hounded out of job when discovered'.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2020 13:41:38 GMT
Though admittedly I dislike the fact she omitted Dumbledore’s sexuality in Harry Potter - particularly when Albus’ blind love ultimately resulted in the death of Ariana and facilitated Grindelwald’s rise to power (which is particularly poignant now that it transpires Grindewald deliberately killed Ariana for her Obscurus). I'm old enough to remember when the books first came out and she was called Joanne in interviews but JK on book covers because many boys wouldn't read books by obviously female writers, and American Christians had book burnings and banned her books from libraries because they featured witchcraft. I doubt, in the 1990s, you could have launched a MG children's book with a major mentor character who was openly gay. Even today, TV series, books and films aimed at a global market, including many countries where homosexuality is illegal and in some punishable by death, the number of openly gay characters in fantasy and MG stories is vanishingly small: they are usually only coded, as in Star Wars Rogue One, which is very diverse in all other ways, and even then they're sidekicks or end up dead. I felt David Thewlis' character's storyline was code for 'gay teacher hounded out of job when discovered'. The last book was released in 2007. Knowing Dumbledore’s history was only important to the storyline in the last book, and considering JKR announced Dumbledore’s sexuality almost immediately after release, I still see no reason why it should have been omitted. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not asking for Dumbledore to have been changed in the books - I don’t believe Harry needed to know the sexuality of any of his teachers (and from what I can remember, all his teachers were single anyway). But Aberforth talking about how Dumbledore was blinded by his love for Grindelwald would have made perfect sense in terms of the story (specifically during the scene in book seven where Harry gains access to Hogwarts via The Hogs Head).
|
|
4,038 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jun 15, 2020 14:20:20 GMT
Hmm. It could have been openly stated in book 7 - as I recall we were just starting to see openly gay characters in YA fiction at that point - but I am not sure that would have made much difference to the reaction. Still would have criticised as being a bit belated and as a distraction from the main story/ ‘PC pandering’.
Also we need to bear in mind that there has been a huge sea-change in attitudes since even 2007 (13 years ago - where did the time go?!). Gay marriage really does seem to have been a tipping point. Publishing can be a bit behind the curve just because it takes so long to write and produce a book, and children’s publishing tends towards the conservative because of who is actually buying the books. (Middle-aged adults! Harry Potter did so well in part because it hit the nostalgia nerve of everyone who grew up with Enid Blyton and Chalet School books. It’s just a mash-up of those boarding school shenanigans/kids solve mysteries books with a bit of basic good vs evil fantasy template grafted on. JK Rowling is a better mystery writer than fantasy world-builder, which is why you shouldn’t think to hard about her mythology - it starts to fall apart when you poke at the joins.)
|
|
2,955 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Jun 15, 2020 15:00:29 GMT
Hmm. It could have been openly stated in book 7 - as I recall we were just starting to see openly gay characters in YA fiction at that point - but I am not sure that would have made much difference to the reaction. Still would have criticised as being a bit belated and as a distraction from the main story/ ‘PC pandering’. Would right-wing parents have let their children read the books if she had made Dumbledore openly gay? Her books have a very strong social message wrapped up in a fantasy, boarding school larks setting. In that form, the message was able to reach those who (assuming you're on the liberal-left) most need to hear it, rather than just Guardianistas.
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Jun 15, 2020 15:08:44 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2020 15:25:35 GMT
Hmm. It could have been openly stated in book 7 - as I recall we were just starting to see openly gay characters in YA fiction at that point - but I am not sure that would have made much difference to the reaction. Still would have criticised as being a bit belated and as a distraction from the main story/ ‘PC pandering’. Also we need to bear in mind that there has been a huge sea-change in attitudes since even 2007 (13 years ago - where did the time go?!). Gay marriage really does seem to have been a tipping point. Publishing can be a bit behind the curve just because it takes so long to write and produce a book, and children’s publishing tends towards the conservative because of who is actually buying the books. (Middle-aged adults! Harry Potter did so well in part because it hit the nostalgia nerve of everyone who grew up with Enid Blyton and Chalet School books. It’s just a mash-up of those boarding school shenanigans/kids solve mysteries books with a bit of basic good vs evil fantasy template grafted on. JK Rowling is a better mystery writer than fantasy world-builder, which is why you shouldn’t think to hard about her mythology - it starts to fall apart when you poke at the joins.) I grew up loving Enid Blyton - I literally went from primary school being obsessed with The Famous Five and The Secret Seven to Harry Potter in secondary school. In fact I remember our primary school librarian (who coincidentally was a family friend) calling me out every single week for picking up yet another Enid Blyton book... “There’s other books by other people in this library you know!”. I wonder what Enid Blyton would make of all this. Obviously it wasn’t even possible when her books were written, but any modern audience must surely interpret ‘Master George’ as possibly trans.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2020 15:35:00 GMT
Hmm. It could have been openly stated in book 7 - as I recall we were just starting to see openly gay characters in YA fiction at that point - but I am not sure that would have made much difference to the reaction. Still would have criticised as being a bit belated and as a distraction from the main story/ ‘PC pandering’. Would right-wing parents have let their children read the books if she had made Dumbledore openly gay? Her books have a very strong social message wrapped up in a fantasy, boarding school larks setting. In that form, the message was able to reach those who (assuming you're on the liberal-left) most need to hear it, rather than just Guardianistas. I don’t think Dumbledore should have been openly gay to students, but I see no reason why the information couldn’t have been provided in book seven - the books were no longer children’s books, her audience had grown up, the movies were already being made and Dumbledore’s sexuality only becomes relevant to the story in book seven anyway once the character is dead. As JKR always points out, the entire series opens with a double murder in chapter one, with book one ending with a teacher trying to murder a student. So if you’re okay with letting your kids read this I can’t imagine eventually knowing a character is gay is going to negatively impact the experience of the book or series as a whole. The whole mudblood storyline was about LGBTQ+ rights anyway, so there is allegories in the books anyway.
|
|
4,038 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jun 15, 2020 15:51:46 GMT
The whole mudblood storyline was about LGBTQ+ rights anyway, so there is allegories in the books anyway. I always interpreted that as a racism allegory. But as you say, there's lot of potential allegories and metaphors in the series, and they're generally flexible enough to be read in several different ways.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2020 16:02:02 GMT
The whole mudblood storyline was about LGBTQ+ rights anyway, so there is allegories in the books anyway. I always interpreted that as a racism allegory. But as you say, there's lot of potential allegories and metaphors in the series, and they're generally flexible enough to be read in several different ways. It’s probably both, but the fact you can’t visually tell who is mudblood or not sways it for me. I believe JKR has said werewolves - so Lupin - was a commentary on AIDS (and why Lupin has issues with having children, in case he passed on the genes etc).
|
|
177 posts
|
Post by sweets7 on Jun 15, 2020 16:32:41 GMT
I always interpreted that as a racism allegory. But as you say, there's lot of potential allegories and metaphors in the series, and they're generally flexible enough to be read in several different ways. It’s probably both, but the fact you can’t visually tell who is mudblood or not sways it for me. I believe JKR has said werewolves - so Lupin - was a commentary on AIDS (and why Lupin has issues with having children, in case he passed on the genes etc). I thought it was depression/bipolar. But AIDS works too. I find it heartening to read so many opinions here and that people shared such personal stories. I worry about the world at the moment. I worry about the increasing narcissism and teenage behaviour of many including our leaders. More than anything it is the desire for the unitary story that upsets me. We must all be the same. Speak the same. Have the same opinions. Never open our mouths. But we all know in our heart of hearts that tolerance is about understaning the multi identities within us all and the diversity of stories between us. Intolerance, prejudice and racism can be understood too. In many cases they boil down to fear of change. Frar of acceptance. People in the USA talk about the loneliness of the immigrant. As a child on holidays in Cornwall I remember meeting two Irish women on a restaurant who started chatting to my parents. They were soon crying. Longing for a place they left and unable to go back. Of course the reality is they couldn't go back, the place no longer existed. And it is a living experience in communities and cultures around the world as we diversify and yes change. But to accept anything without question amd reflection also leads to prejudice, to fear and to authorianism. If we listen and try to see the view form a different stand point. But that isn't the way at the moment and we will be worse for it. We are the worse for it.
|
|
4,038 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jun 15, 2020 16:36:39 GMT
I looked the Lupin one up as it was being used as evidence of homophobia (because there’s a werewolf who attacks children) and it’s a partial misquote. www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/jk-rowling-harry-potter-theory-debunked-remus-lupin-aids-david-thewlis-a7235751.htmlAs I say, there’s quite a bit of stretching going on to make some of the metaphorical readings of HP fit. They can be fun intellectual exercises for kids just discovering the concepts of allegory and metaphor, but they do tend to unravel if you look too closely at them. Jo Rowling was adopted by a generation as some sort of Yoda figure, the fount of all moral wisdom, rather than as quite a good writer of entertaining kids’ stories with basic moral messages. That’s part of why the howling is so extreme when she disagrees with them, and the need to brand her as actually bad all along.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2020 16:58:21 GMT
I looked the Lupin one up as it was being used as evidence of homophobia (because there’s a werewolf who attacks children) and it’s a partial misquote. www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/jk-rowling-harry-potter-theory-debunked-remus-lupin-aids-david-thewlis-a7235751.htmlAs I say, there’s quite a bit of stretching going on to make some of the metaphorical readings of HP fit. They can be fun intellectual exercises for kids just discovering the concepts of allegory and metaphor, but they do tend to unravel if you look too closely at them. Jo Rowling was adopted by a generation as some sort of Yoda figure, the fount of all moral wisdom, rather than as quite a good writer of entertaining kids’ stories with basic moral messages. That’s part of why the howling is so extreme when she disagrees with them, and the need to brand her as actually bad all along. I’ve actually met JKR and she’s lovely and can’t believe she’d intentionally want to hurt anyone (that wasn’t a Tory). The hype around Harry Potter was intense and she navigated it’s all rather well upon reflection. I don’t know what it was about the stories that got everyone worked up, but it still remains one of those rare occasions when something so ridiculously hyped still manages to deliver (I’m looking at you Star Wars and Game of Thrones). But as a teenager I grew up on those books and the wait for each subsequent book was torture - but it was so exciting going to buy the books at midnight and racing through them in 24 hours in efforts to avoid all spoilers (my best friend and I would turn off our phones and had strict instructions only to text each other to say when we had finished). I believe I read it first when I was 12 and a month shy of 20 when the last book was published. I suppose the books really are about coming to terms with the wider world and you’d place within it, before having to go off out into it. I doubt we’ll ever see anything quite like that again to be honest.
|
|
177 posts
|
Post by sweets7 on Jun 15, 2020 17:17:36 GMT
I looked the Lupin one up as it was being used as evidence of homophobia (because there’s a werewolf who attacks children) and it’s a partial misquote. www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/jk-rowling-harry-potter-theory-debunked-remus-lupin-aids-david-thewlis-a7235751.htmlAs I say, there’s quite a bit of stretching going on to make some of the metaphorical readings of HP fit. They can be fun intellectual exercises for kids just discovering the concepts of allegory and metaphor, but they do tend to unravel if you look too closely at them. Jo Rowling was adopted by a generation as some sort of Yoda figure, the fount of all moral wisdom, rather than as quite a good writer of entertaining kids’ stories with basic moral messages. That’s part of why the howling is so extreme when she disagrees with them, and the need to brand her as actually bad all along. I’ve actually met JKR and she’s lovely and can’t believe she’d intentionally want to hurt anyone (that wasn’t a Tory). The hype around Harry Potter was intense and she navigated it’s all rather well upon reflection. I don’t know what it was about the stories that got everyone worked up, but it still remains one of those rare occasions when something so ridiculously hyped still manages to deliver (I’m looking at you Star Wars and Game of Thrones). But as a teenager I grew up on those books and the wait for each subsequent book was torture - but it was so exciting going to buy the books at midnight and racing through them in 24 hours in efforts to avoid all spoilers (my best friend and I would turn off our phones and had strict instructions only to text each other to say when we had finished). I believe I read it first when I was 12 and a month shy of 20 when the last book was published. I suppose the books really are about coming to terms with the wider world and you’d place within it, before having to go off out into it. I doubt we’ll ever see anything quite like that again to be honest. She weaves a good yarn that leaves you wanting more. I equate it to high quality fast food. You just want your next hit. I feel about like that about her Strike books to fair. I cannot wait for the next one.
|
|
214 posts
|
Post by paulbrownsey on Jun 18, 2020 21:05:30 GMT
And now she has posted an article about the toxicity within the LGBTQI Community. Nice that she has found an article to support how she feels. Shame she isn’t LGBTQI. it’s easy to bash minorities Some of us think it is very odd to glue gay people and trans people together as "LGBT" people. It makes as much sense as saying that all single parents and all sex workers are to be referred to as "SPSW people". Gay men do not think they're women. Lesbians do not identify as men. So why are they always lumped together with people who identify as belonging to the sex other than that constituted by their biology? When EastEnders first acquired a gay couple, The Sunmj printed a cartoon of Dirty Den in suspender belt and black stockings: gay men used to be seen as wanting to be women. I thought we'd got beyond that, but now it's back again, with "LGBT" implying that being gay and being trans are fundamentally the same.
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Jun 18, 2020 21:21:32 GMT
And now she has posted an article about the toxicity within the LGBTQI Community. Nice that she has found an article to support how she feels. Shame she isn’t LGBTQI. it’s easy to bash minorities Some of us think it is very odd to glue gay people and trans people together as "LGBT" people. It makes as much sense as saying that all single parents and all sex workers are to be referred to as "SPSW people". Gay men do not think they're women. Lesbians do not identify as men. So why are they always lumped together with people who identify as belonging to the sex other than that constituted by their biology? When EastEnders first acquired a gay couple, The Sunmj printed a cartoon of Dirty Den in suspender belt and black stockings: gay men used to be seen as wanting to be women. I thought we'd got beyond that, but now it's back again, with "LGBT" implying that being gay and being trans are fundamentally the same. The conflation of sexuality/sexual identity with gender/gender identity has always been problematic to my mind. They are very separate issues - and whilst there will be times when coming together to campaign makes great sense, it is not appropriate to permanently link the two things. We should all seek to support one another as much as possible - but it should be on a case by case basis and allowing for differences between various groups rather some sort of artificial universality of approach. But you aren't allowed to articulate such thinking - because you are excluding someone/being *phobic. We have seen an explosion in gender reassignment surgery in Iran being held up by a few as a wonderful example of enlightened thinking about gender - whereas the reality is that gay men are transitioning rather than face prosecution/persecution for being gay. That is not a choice any human being should be asked to consider. The risk of fusing the issues surrounding sexuality with those of gender identity is that we create confusion where we should be seeking to highlight the individual and their needs rather than rushing to uniformity.
|
|
2,955 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Jun 19, 2020 8:08:47 GMT
We have seen an explosion in gender reassignment surgery in Iran being held up by a few as a wonderful example of enlightened thinking about gender - whereas the reality is that gay men are transitioning rather than face prosecution/persecution for being gay. That is not a choice any human being should be asked to consider. There was a report on Newsnight last night about the Tavistock clinic and it looks very like the same thing is happening here, with multiple voices coming out and saying children were being transitioned because of homophobia from their parents and school bullies - parents preferring a 'straight' transed child to a gay one. What was also chilling was that no-one was prepared to speak on camera and even the actor voicing the words had their face outline blurred - I wondered why and then realised: given the rabid climate about this in the Arts too they probably think if they're recognised they won't get work! I do wonder if the loss of so many to AIDS also means we have lost a generation of wise voices here, elder statespeople in the LGBT community who could pour some oil on troubled waters: some prominent survivors of Britain's 'gender bender' pop era have spoken out (and got the now-inevitable sh*tstorm in return) but what we seem to have imported is a movement from the USA, a far more Christian-conservative, homophobic country that never had the mainstream pop cultures with flamboyant, openly bisexual/gay stars. And of course Big Pharma and a multi-billion-dollar plastic surgery industry to feed...
|
|
4,038 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jun 19, 2020 11:17:42 GMT
Hmm, yes. Everything is now viewed through the lens of gender identity. Witness the Bohemian Rhapsody film having Freddie Mercury trying on clothes from the ladies’ section and wearing his mum’s dress to perform as if he was somehow playing around with his gender identity on stage, rather than Queen deliberately chasing the glam rock trend because it was hugely popular when they first started out, and then dropping it with great relief as soon as it went out of fashion. (His friends report him saying ‘yes, I know I looked ridiculous in those leotards, darling, but we wanted the attention and it worked, didn’t it!’)
But having said that, Elton John was always more popular in the USA than the U.K., and he is plenty flamboyant.
Even the likes of Sam Smith doesn’t seem to know his gay and pop history - remember when he thought he was the first gay man to win an Oscar?! And he actually personally knows previous gay Oscar winners...
Maybe it’s just the tendency of the young to think that they are inventing everything rather then realising that they’re not the first to do it!
|
|
2,955 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Jun 19, 2020 12:14:42 GMT
Maybe it’s just the tendency of the young to think that they are inventing everything rather then realising that they’re not the first to do it! I think many of us go through that stage as teenagers where we think we know everything but we know sod all, but the problem now is that those voices are amplified through social media as never before, and drown out those with knowledge and lived experience ("ok Boomer"). In 5 years' time I think a lot of these shouty voices will be thinking bloody hell, what was that all about? But by then some people will have been hounded out of careers and worse, some young people will have made mistakes that they'll have to live with for the rest of their lives.
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Jun 19, 2020 12:35:51 GMT
We have seen an explosion in gender reassignment surgery in Iran being held up by a few as a wonderful example of enlightened thinking about gender - whereas the reality is that gay men are transitioning rather than face prosecution/persecution for being gay. That is not a choice any human being should be asked to consider. There was a report on Newsnight last night about the Tavistock clinic and it looks very like the same thing is happening here, with multiple voices coming out and saying children were being transitioned because of homophobia from their parents and school bullies - parents preferring a 'straight' transed child to a gay one. What was also chilling was that no-one was prepared to speak on camera and even the actor voicing the words had their face outline blurred - I wondered why and then realised: given the rabid climate about this in the Arts too they probably think if they're recognised they won't get work! I do wonder if the loss of so many to AIDS also means we have lost a generation of wise voices here, elder statespeople in the LGBT community who could pour some oil on troubled waters: some prominent survivors of Britain's 'gender bender' pop era have spoken out (and got the now-inevitable sh*tstorm in return) but what we seem to have imported is a movement from the USA, a far more Christian-conservative, homophobic country that never had the mainstream pop cultures with flamboyant, openly bisexual/gay stars. And of course Big Pharma and a multi-billion-dollar plastic surgery industry to feed... The Tavistock report is horrifying. Young lives are being altered by a dogma - a dogma being applied by doctors who should know better. But trying to challenge that is almost impossible without being attacked. Of course young people with gender dysphoria should be treated with care, consideration and real concern for their well being. But that does not mean automatically reaching for hormones and scheduling surgery. We need to pause, understand and then proceed.
|
|
4,799 posts
|
Post by The Matthew on Jun 19, 2020 13:20:31 GMT
I think many of us go through that stage as teenagers where we think we know everything but we know sod all You misspelt "all". I think it's intrinsic to the way society works. Parents protect children from all the complications of the world so they have no idea how little they know about how things really work and how complicated things really are.
|
|
214 posts
|
Post by paulbrownsey on Jun 20, 2020 12:15:49 GMT
Some of us think it is very odd to glue gay people and trans people together as "LGBT" people. It makes as much sense as saying that all single parents and all sex workers are to be referred to as "SPSW people". Gay men do not think they're women. Lesbians do not identify as men. So why are they always lumped together with people who identify as belonging to the sex other than that constituted by their biology? When EastEnders first acquired a gay couple, The Sunmj printed a cartoon of Dirty Den in suspender belt and black stockings: gay men used to be seen as wanting to be women. I thought we'd got beyond that, but now it's back again, with "LGBT" implying that being gay and being trans are fundamentally the same. The conflation of sexuality/sexual identity with gender/gender identity has always been problematic to my mind. They are very separate issues - and whilst there will be times when coming together to campaign makes great sense, it is not appropriate to permanently link the two things. We should all seek to support one another as much as possible - but it should be on a case by case basis and allowing for differences between various groups rather some sort of artificial universality of approach. But you aren't allowed to articulate such thinking - because you are excluding someone/being *phobic. We have seen an explosion in gender reassignment surgery in Iran being held up by a few as a wonderful example of enlightened thinking about gender - whereas the reality is that gay men are transitioning rather than face prosecution/persecution for being gay. That is not a choice any human being should be asked to consider. The risk of fusing the issues surrounding sexuality with those of gender identity is that we create confusion where we should be seeking to highlight the individual and their needs rather than rushing to uniformity. What you say in your last sentence struck home with me. I have seen and heard many things said outwith the bubble which suggests that mambers of the general public are getting the idea that being gay and being trans are basically the same, and I suspect that the relentless promotion of the "LGBT" initialism is to blame. Example: a journalist on the Scottish Sunday Herald, purporting to explain current controversies, said that self-declaration was coming out about your sexuality. (No, no, no.) I heard an old man ranting in the lounge of a country house hotel near Keswick: "D'you see they've got a bisexual on Last Night of the Proms?...(mutter, mutter)...Can't tell if they're a man or a woman." That sounded as if he was confusing bisexual with trans. And if you look below the line on sites like Conservative Woman or Charisma News, you'll find plenty of posters who, if it's a trans matter, start saying things about God disloiking homosexuality, and, if it's about gays, will start in about men in dresses. There was a time when gay men were routinely looked upon as women manque. Mae West claimed to have stopped the police beating up gay men by telling the police that in reality they were hitting women. When I first started going about the Glasgow gay scene in the 1970s, the tradition still lingered of referring to gay men by women's names. ("Are you going to Nellie and Alice's party?" I was asked, re a party given by Neil and Allan.) I thought we'd got beyond that in the last couple of decades, but it seems to be creeping back again via the perpetual glueing together of gay and trans as "LGBT people". What was probably once just a matter of gay groups giving a bit of shelter to a different minority has now become something a lot more problematic.
|
|
214 posts
|
Post by paulbrownsey on Jun 20, 2020 13:16:40 GMT
The conflation of sexuality/sexual identity with gender/gender identity has always been problematic to my mind. They are very separate issues - and whilst there will be times when coming together to campaign makes great sense, it is not appropriate to permanently link the two things. We should all seek to support one another as much as possible - but it should be on a case by case basis and allowing for differences between various groups rather some sort of artificial universality of approach. But you aren't allowed to articulate such thinking - because you are excluding someone/being *phobic. We have seen an explosion in gender reassignment surgery in Iran being held up by a few as a wonderful example of enlightened thinking about gender - whereas the reality is that gay men are transitioning rather than face prosecution/persecution for being gay. That is not a choice any human being should be asked to consider. The risk of fusing the issues surrounding sexuality with those of gender identity is that we create confusion where we should be seeking to highlight the individual and their needs rather than rushing to uniformity. What you say in your last sentence struck home with me. I have seen and heard many things said outwith the bubble which suggest that members of the general public are getting the idea that being gay and being trans are basically the same, and I suspect that the relentless promotion of the "LGBT" initialism at least partly is to blame. Example: a journalist on the Scottish Sunday Herald, purporting to explain current controversies, said that self-declaration was coming out about your sexuality. (No, no, no.) I heard an old man ranting in the lounge of a country house hotel near Keswick: "D'you see they've got a bisexual on Last Night of the Proms?...(mutter, mutter)...Can't tell if they're a man or a woman." That sounded as if he was confusing bisexual with trans. And if you look below the line on sites like Conservative Woman or Charisma News, you'll find plenty of posters who, if it's a trans matter, start saying things about God disliking homosexuality, and, if it's about gays, will start in about men in dresses. There was a time when gay men were routinely looked upon as women manque. Mae West claimed to have stopped the police beating up gay men by telling the police that in reality they were hitting women. When I first started going about the Glasgow gay scene in the 1970s, the tradition still lingered of referring to gay men by women's names. ("Are you going to Nellie and Alice's party?" I was asked, re a party given by Neil and Allan.) I thought we'd got beyond that in the last couple of decades, but it seems to be creeping back again via the perpetual glueing together of gay and trans as "LGBT people". What was probably once just a matter of gay groups giving a bit of shelter to a different minority has now become something a lot more problematic.
|
|