Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
I do remember Trans World Sport and Trans-Am cars. Probably not connected though.
KABADDI KABADDI KABADDI KABADDI KABADDI KABADDI KABADDI KABADDI KABADDI KABADDI KABADDI KABADDI KABADDI KABADDI KABADDI KABADDI KABADDI KABADDI KABADDI KABADDI KABADDI KABADDI KABADDI KABADDI KABADDI KABADDI KABADDI KABADDI KABADDI KABADDI KABADDI KABADDI KABADDI KABADDI KABADDI KABADDI KABADDI KABADDI KABADDI KABADDI KABADDI KABADDI KABADDI KABADDI KABADDI KABADDI KABADDI KABADDI KABADDI KABADDI KABADDI KABADDI KABADDI KABADDI KABADDI KABADDI KABADDI KABADDI KABADDI KABADDI KABADDI KABADDI KABADDI KABADDI KABADDI KABADDI KABADDI KABADDI KABADDI KABADDI KABADDI KABADDI
Kabbaddi was a separate show on C4 (as was Sumo). Don't think Kabbaddi was ever shown on trans world sport.
but it had its own show.
It's a lot more logical, although I do find that article a little bit snide and pathetic and "oh, look at me, I'm so much more equal than you are". It's an unusual event. Of course people are going to be a bit surprised.
All there seems to be is a few people who don't know too much about trans-gender issues being quite reasonably surprised by the news story and the writer of the article scrabbling round for fringe Christian groups who are unhappy about it. And, let's face it, you can find people on the internet to get het up about any subject...
lots of condescending putting people's pronouns in scare quotes and other shite.
I think you're going out of your way to either a) be offended, or b) show how right on you are.
I found not even one example of it.
I'm sorry that the comments didn't live up to your prejudices, but these are the facts.
and/or explicitly say that trans men are not 'really' men and are mentally ill or 'confused'. that's not counting the various 'no really what about the children' ones. you're right, not many scare quotes, just outright bigotry
And crucially they're inverted commas and not scare quotes. They don't just imply fear or horror or sensationalism or whatever - more people who don't know too much about trans-gender issues and aren't quite sure what the correct thing is to say.
sorry you're right, transphobia isn't utterly horrible.
Given that I never said transphobia isn't utterly horrible, I have literally no idea what you're talking about.
If you want to get irrationally angry at people for things they haven't actually said, that's your business. But that's an issue for me, and not for me, so perhaps you should consider where you're directing your anger.
don't be a prick. it's not exactly a topic devoid of emotional involvement.
Just it was irrational to tell me to fuck off on the basis of something she'd randomly decided I'd said despite having absolutely no basis that I'd made that assertion.
All I'd said was that a lot of people are unfamiliar with trans-gender issues and so unsure how to react. That in no way deserves a "fuck off" reaction. I don't think I'm being a prick at all for pointing that out.
I'm sympathetic 'cos I once lost control of myself a bit on a discussion about eugenics and said a few things I later regretted but it doesn't change the fact there's no justification for being unreasonably abusive to people.
there's 3 or 4 comments on the first page (and some now deleted ones).
it's easy to tell when someone is trying to be respectful talking about issues like this, and those comments plainly aren't. trying to differentiate between scare quotes and inverted commas is pretty antagonistic.
I agree it's easy to tell when someone is trying to be respectful and when someone's being nasty. I just disagree that the use of inverted commas is a particular tell-tale sign. There were, as you say, 3 or 4 comments that were nasty and I didn't intend to challenge that. All I said was that there were nowhere near as many as I'd expected - given that this is the internet and there's a lot of people who are idiots, I actually think it's a measure of progress that most people managed a sensible debate.
And frankly, even if my post did sound a little bit more patronising than I intended, it's still absolutely no justification for someone getting abusive.
but i feel this kind of issue needs a bit more understanding and patience from people who aren't directly emotionally involved etc.
it's incredibly emotionally draining to be drawn into debating subjects like this and talking about the same distressing thing over and over again. i can't speak for Le_Shambles but 'only 3 or 4 bigoted comments is better than 50!' isn't really something to jump for joy about. one is enough to be triggering.
Although I do think the article itself was a bit over-confrontational (something the writer themselves apologies for in the comments) and maybe put people's backs up. That's obviously not to say there wouldn't have been abusive/stupid comments in any case, 'cos there obviously would have been, but I think it meant a few of the comments from people who weren't necessarily trans-phobic were nonetheless hostile to the article itself
The bottom line is the public isn't particularly knowledgable about trans-gender issues and that needs to change but it's much easier to change people's minds by saying "okay, you obviously don't understand about this so I'm going to give you more information" than the article's original tone of "you don't understand about this and don't share my view so I'm going to assume you're an idiot".
And, on a similar scale, it is important to distinguish between actual genuine transphobic hostility and ignorance that can be challenged in a way that enables people to change their minds. Not 'cos it's necessarily any less damaging in its initial forms but I do think a key goal in addressing bigotry has to be, where possible. to reach out to people whose minds can be changed and change them and starting from a confrontational perspective merely entrenches people's positions...
I think it is to some extent. Trans are such a tiny, tiny percentage of the population that - not to say they don't matter - but that they don't warrant any special attention. On a percentage of the population basis, more people probably suffer from prejudice for being 'emo' than for being trans-gender. So we should focus our attention on stopping bullying of My Chemical Romance fans, right? Or indeed, any other niche sector of society.
But obviously it's good for newspaper articles to giving people information they might not know about the specifics. The truth is that new stories like this will be of surprise/interest to a lot of people simply 'cos they don't know a lot about it and assume transgender people want to "be" the opposite sex in a conventional sense.
I think it's useful for people to know that's not necessarily the case if it helps trans-gender people have easier lives.
Seems like a valid point to me.
but if you're genuinely interested in not being an ignorant bigot i can try to dig up some statistics for you on trans murder, assault, sexual assault, employment discrimination, police harassment and various other tangible markers of oppression, if you don't think that having your identity routinely mocked as disgusting and sub-human is enough of a big deal. also, comparing oppressed minorities to 'emos' is definitely really clever and relevant, WELL DONE
transgender people faced double the general rate of unemployment, and 90% faced discrimination at work
i had quoted a bunch of the other stats but you can just look at the front-page summary there
doesn't go into great statistical depth, but suffice to say trans people are at MASSIVELY higher risk of murder/assault than the general population. you're welcome to spend your own time researching this stuff in greater cross-cultural detail.
so yeah, for a teeny tiny percentage of the population that's a whole fucking lot of murders
the burden on education shouldn't be on trans-people, or any other group fighting for rights etc
i'm not so interested in this particular article but i don't think you can expect people to not be confrontational about a subject that defines their lives.
But sadly if the interested groups don't do this, it's likely nobody else will.
but it's important to understand that for people who spend a lot of time talking about or campaigning against bigotry, it's a really tiringly common thing to come up against 'but it's not THAT bad, is it, you're just exaggerating the problem' derails. i realise that's not what you were trying to do, but there's a subtle difference between framing something as 'actually, i was pleasantly surprised at the number of positive responses to this issue' and framing it as 'nah, you're seeing bigotry that isn't there/isn't that big a deal' (especially with a bit of 'it's only a few internet crazies' thrown in)
Although there does seem to be a tacit assumption here that I lack experience of facing bigotry and people making stereotypical assumptions about certain things about me whereas this is something I've got far more more experience of than I'd like.
Not that that's particularly relevant to the thread or a point I especially enjoy making, and I certainly don't want to get into a "my reason for being different is more or less valid than someone else's" debate, just that it's important to state I'm not approaching this as someone with no experience of bigotry or what it's like to be different.
and i guess you possibly also are aware or have experience of the fact that people can be very invested in speaking out against certain bigotries while hurtfully minimising others - there are still some nasty strands of feminism that are very attached to their transphobia, for instance
considering that they are commenting on an article that seems to be a little hysterical and antagonistic in its tone already. Is it bigoted to point out that in a "man gives birth" story, the man in question is biologically a woman to the extent that they were able to get pregnant and give birth. The writer seems to be going overboard with "if this story interests you in any way, you are bigoted asshole" angle. It mentions that there is no difference with this situation to child being raised by a gay couple, and that being raised by a gay couple or single parent or whatever does not affect a child's development. But would it be outrageous and hateful to say that a child being confronted in the playground by "so your dad's got a vagina and he gave birth to you?" will never happen or affect the child at all? or maybe I am a hatemongering bigot.
Given the troll-worthy style the article was written in, I see no reason why a level-headed debate should follow it. The write didn't take the issue seriously, so why should the reader?
that is still constantly used against gay parenting, right?
It is sadly true that the parents will have to prepare the child for the consequences but, if you stopped anyone who was considered different from having children for fear of bullying, you'd end up with a dull and homogenous society.
I was trying to comment on this bit:
"Meanwhile, another Christian "expert", Trevor Stammers, pitches in: "You are hardly going to end up with a baby that's going to have a happy, productive and optimal childhood." He appears ignorant of copious evidence that parental geometry doesn't make any difference.
His comments also raise some speculation about what sort of parenting ethical Christians go in for. Because in my own experience, very few parents sit children down and force-feed them with all the gory details of their birth unless they ask and until they are ready for it. Unless, of course, this statement is really code for "trans folk should not be parents. Full stop". Which would place him in more or less the same boat as the old-style consultants and the Swedish government, recently condemned for its neo-eugenicist policy in this respect."
On some level who you're parents are is going to make a difference, that doesn't mean only certain types of people should be allowed to comment. If your dad is Nicolas Cage or Jon Snow that is bound to be a talking point at the playground, if he's gay or transsexual, probably as well. The point is not to castrate Nicolas Cage so that his kids won't have to discuss the merits of Wicker Man remake. Maybe he should explain to his kids what he does for a living. (this is probably even worse than before . . . it's 5 o'clock. So I am against eugenics, selective breeding, death camps etc and the idea that some family setups are better than others and against the idea that some of them should be encouraged).
But I think I get what you're saying. And, assuming so, I obviously agree it's naive for the article to imply that it won't have any bearing whatsoever on the child's relationships with their peers.
issue for you, and not for me
Didn't this happen AGES ago? This must be his second baby.
and how they differ from normal quotes?
They /can/ be innocently used, but they're often used to pour scorn on/discredit acceptance of/distance oneself from a word or phrase. E.g to come up with a leading news headline but pretend you're just innocently reporting using a(n unsourced) quote.
used to imply sarcasm and/or scepticism
in this context, using "he" instead of he to imply scepticism that he's REALLY a he
You can use them to make it clear that you're not trying to be literal about something but using a term that has a certain euphemism or that there isn't a 'right' (see how I used them there to make it clear that I wasn't using the word right in a moral sense) term but this one is close, with caveats.
Basically they have the same use as real quotes.
I can see the 'scare' notion now. It's a tricky one, though. What if someone doesn't mean them in that way but you interpret them that way? As ever, people seem to prefer to think the worst of everyone.
It could be someone is using "he" in quotes to be disparaging but it could be just someone not being quite sure what the correct pronoun to use is in transgender discussions.
The other looks like this "
one thing quite a few of the commentators have missed is that the author of the piece is transgendered herself.
I'd suspect a lot of the weariness/perceived antagonism in the article comes from having been a similar subject of speculation, although perhaps not to the same degree, for much of her life.
A nice late addition from the Daily Mail: