What do you think? You can have your say by posting below.
If you do not already have an account Click here to Register.

A significant new partner, third listed on website.

This is great. My fave crypto exchange. Good guys.

Great news provided they have proper hard cash not just fairy dust cash!

no detail about the $$$, can anyone guess how much?

They are solid. No scam here.

Quote:

Ozzy Osbone
This is great. My fave crypto exchange. Good guys.

It depends on what you mean by "good" I guess. I suspect that after their now former CEO shared his 'thoughts' about the relative intelligence of women, we can be pretty confident at least in the "guys" part of your assessment:

NY Times Article on Kraken's founder and former CEO.

I'm not totally opposed to decentralized, virtual currencies, and I am happy that the new owners of Williams are raising more funds the team badly needs (especially if the proposed adjustments to the spending cap goes through), but you'll be able to count me as surprised if the Kraken logo is still on the rear wing at the end of the season.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023:03:29:07:04:57 by shriekback.

Good to see new sponsors and we still have alot of space left.

The main problem atm is we have now 2 team fighting us for new technical staff.It was Sauber/Audi and now Mclaren has joined.
Motorsport reports upto 12 of highly positioned engineers have joined them from top3 teams.Some of them already started their job.
If Andretti gets a green light, things will be more difficult imo.
Hopefully Williams can speed up abit sooner.

NY Times is a paid for rag sponsored by the left and the money machine. They hate any idea of defi money or privacy coins.

Quote:

Ozzy Osbone
NY Times is a paid for rag sponsored by the left and the money machine. They hate any idea of defi money or privacy coins.

Are you suggesting that the Times (somehow leftist and capitalist all at once!) just made up the details in the story, including the quotes attributed to Powell?

I ask because that would be odd. First, of course, because you provide no grounds for such a claim. Second, because your response would easily lead one to suppose that you likely agree with what their founder is reported to have said and done.

In any case, if you believe that the Times did just make it all up, or somehow distorted the facts with their commie/capitalist verbal voodoo, I am sure you can find any number of right-minded sources who have provided a prominent business person like Powell with the opportunity to set the record straight. If he didn't say or do the things attributed to him in such a widely read paper, surely he would seek out opportunities to make that clear. I'm confident you'll want to look into it and will look forward to you getting back to us when you have.

Quote:

Ozzy Osbone
They are solid. No scam here.

I tried to buy some merch on the Williams site today, they only accepted Bitcoin!

LOL

I'm not very familiar with the ny times, but it is very possible to be both leftist and capitalist in the sense that many companies like to masquerade as leftist in order to culturally enhance/protect their economic viability.

it's this duality that allows surgeons working for, example, the Tavistock, to make a fortune by getting kids to commit to a lifetime of vastly expensive corrective surgeries on the premise that they are kind hearted and care about the wellbeing of distressed children and that they are socially leftist and liberal minded.

How about the BLM movement, based on kindness and compassion, accused of being Marxist yet many key individuals within that movement pocketing the crowd funding cash?

Or the Catholic Church? Creating a set of virtuous and unvirtuous values, then getting filthy rich out of everyone trying to feel less guilty.

Or green tax? Governments raising more money with clean air zones etc but not spending it on more renewables, just outsourcing the dirty stuff to 3rd world countries as a big virtue gesture money making exercise.

Theres a lot of money to be had in presenting leftist values. And a lot of money to be lost by being cast down as a heretic.

Whether Powell is a "good" guy, he seems a mixed bag in my opinion. A lot of what he says is simply asking the obvious question. Why is it ok to appropriate womens rights but not other ethnicities if you can genuinely be born in the wrong body? In that sense to me he's like the guy who asked why the emperor wasn't wearing any clothes.

I'm less happy with his comments regarding women but he does seem to tread lightly there so there's little to actually accuse him of. Women are in general less risk takers. It's why there are so few women on the world's rich list. I'm not sure how many studies are needed before it's proved women are just as intelligent as men but he wasn't quoted any further explaining why he feels it needs questioning or why it hadn't been fully proven. Context and tone is always missed when giving soundbites though. I hate it how social media is used to put people on trial with so little to go on. We could meet him and he could turn out to be a total douchebag. Or a really cool guy who, refreshingly in this day and age, doesn't march in lockstep with everyone else. I'm hoping hes more the latter. We are sliding down a path in western culture where we aren't allowed to ask tough questions and thats all that he seems to be doing. Theres far too much taboo and silencing and not enough engaging and answering. It's like dark age vs enlightenment.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2023:03:30:09:12:45 by crusty_bread.

the helll of capitalist!

Good post Crusty.

Quote:

bluewhite
the helll of capitalist!

Capitalism is flawed, mainly in it's execution but at the moment nobody has really come up with a better system for pulling people out of poverty. Socialism has been proven to fail many, many times although it occupies the moral high ground but often leads to authoritarianism. I don't consider my self right wing (or far right now as the narrative goes) or left wing but a realist who wants the best for everyone.

Quote:

crusty_bread
I'm not very familiar with the ny times, but it is very possible to be both leftist and capitalist in the sense that many companies like to masquerade as leftist in order to culturally enhance/protect their economic viability.

Ok, but Ozzy's claim was that the Times IS leftist and that this somehow conditions their reportage of facts in a way it would presumably like to hide, not that it pretends to be leftist in order to curry favor with some specific audience.

Your point--that one can pretend to be something they are not--hardly needs to be made. Sure, alright. Who ever denied that? Sadly, the preponderance of fraudulence is used by many to conclude that it is universal and no one really believes what they claim to believe--an idea typically promoted most aggressively by the most fraudulent among us (witness the accusations of "fake news" by the most mendacious politicians in order to deny the truth).

Quote:

crusty_bread
it's this duality that allows surgeons working for, example, the Tavistock, to make a fortune by getting kids to commit to a lifetime of vastly expensive corrective surgeries on the premise that they are kind hearted and care about the wellbeing of distressed children and that they are socially leftist and liberal minded.

Your claim that the real motives behind gender reassignment surgery is monetary is ludicrous. As if surgeons don't have enough very well-compensated work to do without ginning it up in such a gross way. And how exactly do you imagine they cultivate their clients? Have you seen any television ads lately for such surgeries, involving celebrity endorsers and so on?

This is just another version of the preposterous and hateful idea that Queer people as a whole have some organized program for "grooming" children to their "cause". I think you should be ashamed of yourself for having suggested anything like it.

You also completely ignore the perspective of those seeking this kind of surgery.

Quote:

crusty_bread
How about the BLM movement, based on kindness and compassion, accused of being Marxist yet many key individuals within that movement pocketing the crowd funding cash?

How about them? The accusation that anyone opposed to the deployment of state violence against Black people must be committed to Marxism is so much deliberate propaganda aimed at the ignorant. That some minority of people can misuse institutions promoting worthy causes to serve corrupt personal interests? That's an equal opportunity problem, and you know it. It no more serves to discredit the BLM movement than any other movement or institution where it occurs.

Quote:

crusty_bread
Or the Catholic Church? Creating a set of virtuous and unvirtuous values, then getting filthy rich out of everyone trying to feel less guilty.
Or green tax? Governments raising more money with clean air zones etc but not spending it on more renewables, just outsourcing the dirty stuff to 3rd world countries as a big virtue gesture money making exercise.

Theres a lot of money to be had in presenting leftist values. And a lot of money to be lost by being cast down as a heretic.

One could do exactly the same things with right-wing politicians, institutions, political programs, etc. Does anyone wish to still defend "Brexit" as the real income of your average British household is soon to fall behind that in Slovenia? Are you Brits feeling more in charge of yourselves since you backed out of the EU? Or were you sold a bill of goods by opportunistic and mendacious right-wing politicians and their self-interested sponsors?

Or, here in the States, all Trump's tax cuts did was widen the already extreme wealth gap in the country (further enriching the 1%) and drive up the national debt.

Quote:

crusty_bread
Whether Powell is a "good" guy, he seems a mixed bag in my opinion. A lot of what he says is simply asking the obvious question. Why is it ok to appropriate womens rights but not other ethnicities if you can genuinely be born in the wrong body? In that sense to me he's like the guy who asked why the emperor wasn't wearing any clothes.

The question you take to be obvious here is whether the distinction between sex and gender is homologous with the distinction between race and ethnicity.

Personally, since I have never struggled to recognize myself in the gender typically assigned to people with my sexual organs, I struggle a bit to understand what it would be to endure such struggles. I see no reason to doubt those who claim they do, however. How they would seek to cope with and to resolve that struggle--so long as it doesn't violate anyone else--would seem to me to be best left up to them. What stake do I, or anyone else who does not face that struggle personally, have in it? (The answer is cynical politicians who have long vilified minorities to distract from their basic purposes of increasing their power and control, and the people they have successfully manipulated.)

There are admittedly cases of people appropriating ethnic identities that have no basis in their race (typically White people masquerading as people of color), but I don't know of anyone who claims that they feel trapped in a White body.

In other words, the question is not obvious at all. I would suggest you reconsider what news sources and materials you have been exposing yourself to that makes it seem as though it is and to question what really motivates that question.

If Powell isn't just cynical himself, then I think he's as confused as you are and you could both stand to engage in a bit of careful reflection. There are people with WAY more at stake in this issue than either of you. For that alone, you should take care to thoroughly consider what you might have to say, and sincerely judge whether it is adequately informed, before voicing your opinions in public. Freedom of expression should not be taken as license to speak carelessly, especially if it may be harmful to others.

Quote:

crusty_bread
I'm less happy with his comments regarding women but he does seem to tread lightly there so there's little to actually accuse him of. Women are in general less risk takers. It's why there are so few women on the world's rich list.

This (bolding added) is the most irresponsibly ignorant thing thing you had to say in the whole of this post. Yep, sure, thousands of years of oppression is not responsible for the wealth gap between men and women, it's women's own essential nature that keeps them from being rich. I won't even bother with challenging the idea that a tolerance of risk is the key ingredient in male wealth. It's obvious twaddle.

Quote:

crusty_bread
I'm not sure how many studies are needed before it's proved women are just as intelligent as men but he wasn't quoted any further explaining why he feels it needs questioning or why it hadn't been fully proven. Context and tone is always missed when giving soundbites though. I hate it how social media is used to put people on trial with so little to go on.

Yes, you DO know how many such studies are needed, and so does Powell... None! Barring any evidence that Women (i.e. roughly half the species) are less intelligent as a whole than the other half, why would any studies be needed? What even raises the question? Answer: A shabby, cynical, destructive effort to justify oppression. Again, shame on you.

By the way, The New York Times is not social media. And how do you know Powell wasn't quoted in full? Do you genuinely suspect that he then went on with lengthy citations to the kinds of studies you imagine are done that demonstrate that women (as a category of people) are not as intelligent? Seriously?

Quote:

crusty_bread
We could meet him and he could turn out to be a total douchebag. Or a really cool guy who, refreshingly in this day and age, doesn't march in lockstep with everyone else. I'm hoping hes more the latter. We are sliding down a path in western culture where we aren't allowed to ask tough questions and thats all that he seems to be doing. Theres far too much taboo and silencing and not enough engaging and answering. It's like dark age vs enlightenment.

Let me just say that if the Times erred in how it presented the information in the article I cited, it was in distorting Powell's larger disposition by associating it with some kind of libertarianism: "And even in the male-dominated cryptocurrency industry, which is known for a libertarian philosophy that promotes freewheeling speech, Mr. Powell has taken that ethos to an extreme."

The things he is quoted as saying make it clear that he has done the exact opposite. And if you, crusty, believe what you say, that we aren't allowed to ask tough questions and that there's too much silencing, then how could you possibly hope that someone who said and did the following could be found to be a "really cool guy"?

Powell--“We have this ideological purity test..."

"It was time for Kraken to 'control the language,' he said on the video call."

Powell--“Back to dictatorship.”

"He shut down replies to the thread after it became contentious."

"Those who disagreed with the document were encouraged to depart."


Seriously, you think this is evidence that Powell and the company he founded are in favor of promoting the asking of tough questions? You think he's opposed to silencing and for a free exchange of ideas? He announces a return to "dictatorship" out of a love for liberty?

Here's a terrific example of the usual incoherence and self-contradiction of right-wing appeals to libertarianism:

“'We Don’t Forbid Offensiveness,' read one section. Another said employees should show 'tolerance for diverse thinking'; refrain from labeling comments as 'toxic, hateful, racist, x-phobic, unhelpful, etc.'; and 'avoid censoring others.'

In other words: We are opposed to censorship. Here's what we will not allow you to say...

By the way, Ozzy, still waiting for you to produce any evidence that the Times somehow lied or distorted what Powell said and did. Or you could just admit that you were mouthing off with no idea of what you were talking about, that instead of explaining how Powell is a "good guy," you groundlessly assailed those providing evidence that he may not be.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023:03:31:19:06:17 by shriekback.

I should add to the above that the New York Times is, by any reasonable measure, a pretty conservative newspaper. It is only branded left-wing by extreme right-wing propagandists who wish to make their own position appear more moderate and by corrupt politicians who cynically wish to discredit its reliable reportage and critical opinion page.

It does feature a few left-leaning columnists, but it combines them with just as many conservatives, including Nobel-prize winning economists (an award funded by a consortium of European banks and not at all known to reward leftist economic theory) like Paul Krugman. Others such as David Brooks, Ross Douthat, and Brett Stephens may not be fascists, but they are very far from being liberals (unless one means something like a 17th-Century version of that ideology), much less Marxists.

Its news coverage is generally pro-corporate and in accordance with what passes for moderate these days. As a leftist myself, I find plenty to be very dissatisfied with concerning its choices of how to prioritize and present the news. I do not think the claims that it simply makes up facts and amounts to "fake" news have any merit, however. They are naked appeals to authoritarianism and the fascist notion that the truth is whatever people like Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, Boris Johnson, Viktor Orbán, Tucker Carlson, etc. say it is (today).

All newspapers should be read with a critical eye to recognize bias and vested interests, and the subtle ways in which that may condition how facts are presented, no doubt. On the other hand, dismissing them as "fake" because one doesn't like the facts they are reporting is not liberatory. It only ultimately serves oppression.

You leftists claim anything you don't agree with as 'far right' so you are not to be taken seriously. You are the ones who want to impose your views on everybody else. You are the fascists. The end.

Gotta love Americans and their obsession with their own politics.

I for one am happy for you guys to continue the conversation... But can it go into it's own thread? This was started as a news article about Kraken becoming a sponsor for Williams Racing.

It would make for a more interesting read if it was obvious what the thread is about, instead of reading about a new sponsor and then by the end reading it's turned into an American political mud slinging contest.

Shriekback

If its so obvious to you that people can pretend to be something they are not, it seems terribly inconsistent that you can not entertain the idea that a proven sex offender would choose, upon sentencing, to claim that they were born in the wrong body and that they identified as a woman in order to be placed in a women's prison. This has happened, and with disastrous consequences. You however, state that you have no doubts that whoever claims to be a different gender to the sex of their body is entirely authentic in their position. This doesn't seem very open minded of you. I argue this point as I place half the world's rights to safety (women) higher than the feelings of an extreme minority. There is such a thing called autogynophilia too. It's common in the trans community. It can manifest itself frequently in heterosexuals who get turned on by themselves acting and dressing as the opposite sex. To get the world to indulge in this fantasy would be seemingly harmless until you see the impact it has in eroding women's rights, and therefore, is unbelievably selfish when you consider why it was necessary to give women their own spaces in the first place. I find it very difficult indeed to take on face value the claim that someone is a lesbian born in a man's body and has rights to women's spaces as a result. This blatantly opens itself up for abuse and one has to be in considerable denial to not appreciate the risk. I think though I'm going to have to caveat everything I say with the disclaimer that yes, I agree, not all x are x but the issue is, it's enough to put women's safety at much higher risk and that's my point.

In total contradiction to the thinly veiled assumption that I believe in a queering conspiracy in schools, I speak in defence of homosexual children, unable to change their sexual preferences but told they can change their sex by undergoing treatment. it's remarkable the number of children who go on to explain that their parents had displayed homophobic attitudes prior to treatment which was the driving reason for them to have sexual reassignment. A healthier attitude to same sex relationships through counceling would mean these individuals dont then go down a path they may later regret but were too young to appreciate at the time. As soon as puberty blockers are used and puberty has passed, fertility cannot be recovered and can lead to appalling health complications that could and in many cases should have been avoided. The Tavistock clinic was closed having been sued for malpractice from one of its growing number of detransitioners. The practice was not assessing patients properly before assigning surgery. If they had, many of these patients would not have transitioned but no proper councelling was offered or any alternative suggestions given beyond asking if they wanted to transition still. So no, it's not ludicrous to suggest that a few of these surgeons, who have to make a living, took this job working for a clinic ultimately closed for malpractice not out of the kindness of their heart but for the size of the paycheque and I have absolutely no shame in pointing this out. How ridiculous to assume that the only surgeons doing this work all care passionately about the cause and are not influenced in any way financially? As if the two are even mutually exclusive? Do all plastic surgeons care first and foremost about the long term happiness of their patients and not consider the financial rewards? Of course not, and I include those plastic surgeons who work for clinics not closed for malpractice. Anyone who earns money endorsing a philosophy that goes against the idea that you should love yourself as you are shouldn't be regarded by adults as innocently as a child would. And you do not come across as an innocent child which makes me wonder how much you believe in all of what you are posting. And no, I don't mean everything you post is disingenuous. Just sometimes buying a whole package of values and defending every one of them might lead one to get stuck in a few holes. For the record, I'm neither leftist, nor right. Just my own.

The final point I'll make on this subject is, I agree with Powell that noone has the right to choose pronouns in the sense that noone can dictate to the group how a word should be used in reference to them. Can I be called "book"? No. Words only mean something when the majority of the group draws a consensus on its meaning. When he no longer means biological male, and she no longer means biological female, the meaning gets lost entirely and we lose the use of language and the ability to reason or function effectively. The survival of the group or society depends on a consensus based on sound reasoning. We are now quagmired in a situation where to ask "what is a woman?" gets you sacked from work, banned from social media platforms and visited by the police for possible hate speech when you may simply be a mother wishing your daughter some level of protection growing up. This is a very serious problem.

The fact that noone has seriously made the claim they are a black person born in a white body or vice versa has everything to do with cultural norms and nothing to do with science and reason. This is not proof of anything. What is acceptable changes. We used to accept shamans could possess people and animals. Beliefs are fluid.

You get perilously close to dropping the ball on the brexit attack with your use of "you brits" then just "you". Did you even stop to think whether I personally was ever "sold" brexit? I wasn't. I voted remain. It was always, and obviously going to be ruinous financially. Nice try though. The point you make itself has some validity, I agree the use of Cambridge analytica data from Facebook gave the brexit campaign an unfair advantage and no doubt served a few agendas, I've absolutely no issue admitting that coruption and deceit is found pretty evenly on both sides of the political spectrum. Do you? But british politics is far more complex than you suggest. There were a lot of disenfranchised voters who just wanted to be heard, some, not all, voted brexit simply because they didn't adhere to leftist cultural values and felt they had no representation. Both tories and labour went to great pains to have "nice" policies at any cost and let's not forget labour had destroyed the unions and given all the tax from the workers to bail out the banks last time they were in power, leaving many voters disenfranchised and angry. Another one of those inconvenient inconsistencies...

Irresponsible? Seriously, relax. Firstly there is no gender pay gap. Women are paid the same for the same role for the same time otherwise the law is broken. If they choose to balance work and family better than men, and work fewer hours or take career breaks then so be it. I salute their priorities. That isn't oppression. Most, if not all my managers are women. They are good at their role managing people and in general, bring out other qualities in me than a male manager would, some better, some worse. There are many forms of intelligence, emotional, intellectual, I find it fascinating and I dont think that my curiosity should automatically give you the right to chastise me, or dress me up as some pantomime oppressor. This is childish and clear from everything I have said, an entirely mistaken accusation.

Nothing is stopping women from being rich. Many are. There is nothing stopping a woman doing a richard Branson nowadays, but when it gets to the very top of the rich list, where are they? Or does sexism only manifest itself when it's a female ceo competing against rivals? Do they gang up on her? Hold her back? The fact is there are far more men putting everything into their careers, nothing into their personal lives and seeking status more aggressively than women, otherwise more female names would be up there for founding social media platforms, computer tech companies etc etc. This is not sexist or critical of women. The true measure of value isn't wealth, though there may be a kernel of truth in the idea that culturally, a mans value is more influenced by wealth than a womens, at least in men's eyes. A rich woman can oddly, devalue her in many (admittedly weak) men's eyes as a partner. This is a cultural factor also with considering. Could it be that women take less risks because of oppressive male attitudes? Or is it just that they value family time more? Who knows, but if we act as the ny times wants or as you would like to shame me Into silence on the topic, such interesting lines of enquiry apparently cannot and should not be had.

To get back (finally) to Powell, my issue with the article is it didn't give any examples of why discussion was shut down by him. In a professional organisation when there's job to do, there is a point when open debate devolves into name calling and mud slinging and this is when the company cannot function any more. This is witnessed a lot, and very frequently from the left. (I know, not exclusively...) This shouldn't be allowed to hijack the running of his company and in a professional context there are limits as to what can be said to others. Open insults or dishonest use of trigger words are that limit. I take the point that this exposes him to inconsistencies but as we don't have any examples of what is permissable and what gets shut down, I'm less inclined than you are to cast judgement on him.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023:04:01:02:14:27 by crusty_bread.

Mr Brooksy, I wasn't being ignorant btw, I started that post well before yours! It is about krakens founder though. Were you here for the pdvsa debate? That was a blinder!

Quote:

crusty_bread
Mr Brooksy, I wasn't being ignorant btw, I started that post well before yours! It is about krakens founder though. Were you here for the pdvsa debate? That was a blinder!

Nah mate, I wasn't on this forum for the PDVSA debate. I was involved in one similar regarding Pastor joining Williams elsewhere though.

Also, I didn't say anyone was being ignorant, I simply suggested that the debate had gone so far from the topic that it best be started in it's own dedicated thread so we can enjoy reading it for what it is.

Some people with a lot of time on their hands to type. ⌨️

Quote:

Stu69
Some people with a lot of time on their hands to type. ⌨️

Yes agree 100% get tiresome and boing very quickly and spoils the forum.

We have had a load of this@#$%&before spoiling threads.

It needs to stop.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2023:04:01:09:32:16 by GPL.

Quote:

GPL

Quote:

Stu69
Some people with a lot of time on their hands to type. ⌨️

Yes agree 100% get tiresome and boing very quickly and spoils the forum.

We have had a load of this@#$%&before spoiling threads.

It needs to stop.

I'm not sure that's entirely fair either.

I don't have an issue with these guys having a good discussion. I think they have as much of a right as the rest of us to debate stuff. I just think a dedicated thread is the place to have it, that's all.

Agreed if that is what you likte doing take it to a seperate thread ,so the rest of us can discus matters
about our team,s personel and the performance of the car and racing.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023:04:01:09:48:27 by GPL.

Quote:

Ozzy Osbone
They are solid. No scam here.

Didn't Musk say something like that last year?

Now he has divested 75% of his bitcoin holding and you can't even buy a Tesla with it.

Quote:

crusty_bread
You however, state that you have no doubts that whoever claims to be a different gender to the sex of their body is entirely authentic in their position. This doesn't seem very open minded of you.

crusty, you either need to be more honest or to read more carefully, whatever your problem is. I didn't say that I have no doubts that whoever claims to be a different gender to the sex of their body is entirely authentic in their position. I said, precisely, that "I see no reason to to doubt those who claim they do..." There is a difference there and it's not that subtle. The latter refers not to the fact of my doubt but to the cause for having any. Your cherry-picked (one off, if not wholly fictional) anecdotes hardly provide such a cause and my unwillingness to cast a judgment upon a whole category of people and their experience based upon such anecdotes does not make me less than open-minded. It makes me not a stupid and arrogant bigot willing to gin up even the most dubious and exotic situation or engage in the most outlandish thought experiments in an obvious effort to justify my bigotry.

By the way, I agree that there are some tensions between some goals of the Trans-rights movement and those of traditional feminism. I prefer to leave it to those with the most at stake in those struggles--certainly not me or you--to work those out in the most just way possible.

Quote:

crusty_bread
The final point I'll make on this subject is, I agree with Powell that noone has the right to choose pronouns in the sense that noone can dictate to the group how a word should be used in reference to them. Can I be called "book"? No. Words only mean something when the majority of the group draws a consensus on its meaning. When he no longer means biological male, and she no longer means biological female, the meaning gets lost entirely and we lose the use of language and the ability to reason or function effectively.

Ugh, where to start with this? Well, I will start by pointing out, since you are concerned about words, that "no one" is two words, not one. More to what I think is your point, although I think identity (what you are really addressing here, even if you refuse to acknowledge it) is something that needs to be negotiated, since it involves both the form of recognition that one person receives and that of what another gives, I think everyone should have a say in how they are identified by others. I have both students and colleagues that identify themselves, and thus ask to be identified by others, as being "non-binary" (meaning that they do not identify within themselves as being either male or female). I find it entirely easy to refer to them in such a way that recognizes that identity. Such things are negotiated between people all the time and your suggestion that opening gender or even sex to that negotiation spells the end of all possible meaning is sheer fakery. No it wouldn't and a moment's genuine reflection would make that clear to you too.

Quote:

crusty_bread
Words only mean something when the majority of the group draws a consensus on its meaning. When he no longer means biological male, and she no longer means biological female, the meaning gets lost entirely and we lose the use of language and the ability to reason or function effectively. The survival of the group or society depends on a consensus based on sound reasoning. We are now quagmired in a situation where to ask "what is a woman?" gets you sacked from work, banned from social media platforms and visited by the police for possible hate speech when you may simply be a mother wishing your daughter some level of protection growing up. This is a very serious problem

This is, again, not a serious problem, it's complete nonsense. Whereas before you were speaking as though the distinction between race and ethnicity was homologous to that of the distinction between sex and gender, now you are ignoring both distinctions entirely. I'm not going to try to educate you further. If you actually care, however, I suggest you look into these distinctions and how they work. Here's a really basic start: https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/sex-vs-gender-how-they2019re-different or here: https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/difference-between-race-and-ethnicity

Quote:

crusty_bread
The fact that noone has seriously made the claim they are a black person born in a white body or vice versa has everything to do with cultural norms and nothing to do with science and reason. This is not proof of anything. What is acceptable changes. We used to accept shamans could possess people and animals. Beliefs are fluid.

I honestly don't know what your point is here. My point, anyway, was that the distinction between race and ethnicity is not perfectly homologous (corresponding or similar in position, value, structure, or function) to that between sex and gender. Here's a crucial difference: some people claim that they experience themselves as trapped in the wrong body, that they identify with one gender despite having the sex organs typically associated with the other. No one, so far as I know, claims to be a Black person trapped in a White body. The implications of this difference are such that the question you took Powell to be asking and to be "obvious"--"Why is it ok to appropriate womens rights but not other ethnicities if you can genuinely be born in the wrong body?"--is not obvious at all. No one, that is, appropriates another's ethnicity because they experience themselves as having been born in the wrong racialized body. Got it?

Quote:

crusty_bread
You get perilously close to dropping the ball on the brexit attack with your use of "you brits" then just "you". Did you even stop to think whether I personally was ever "sold" brexit? I wasn't.

Again, you either need to be more honest or to read more carefully. I did not assert anything about where individuals stood on Brexit either before it was undertaken, or since. When I asked "Are you Brits feeling more in charge of yourselves since you backed out of the EU?", I was asking a largely rhetorical question concerning the effects you are collectively experiencing as the result of a policy affected in accordance with the will of the majority of the British people and was addressing you, not as individuals, but as a political body. Some individuals in Britain no doubt are experiencing increased agency as a consequence of the UK having left the EU. I think the evidence is that it has largely proven disastrous for the majority of British people, however. This is not equivalent to dumb generalizations such as those Mr. Brooksy likes to make about Americans.

By the way, my point in addressing Brexit was to point out duplicity can occur across the political spectrum, to counter your having provided only examples of it on what you take to be the left (which does not include the Catholic Church, in my view). It was certainly not to celebrate or to taunt British people for the sad reality they are confronting due to the majority of them having allowed themselves to be led in a self-destructive direction by cynical politicians. I visit London every summer and absolutely love being there. I took a train ride on my last visit from there to Edinburgh, stopping in lots of places and meeting terrific people in all of them. I am planning a side trip to Leeds this coming summer and expect more of the same. I am only saddened by what many people there are suffering and wish them all the best. Hopefully more of you can start to think more effectively and will be less likely to be taken in by self-serving charlatans bent on distracting you by blaming immigrants (the least empowered group of people in your country) rather than politicians, captains of industry, etc. (i.e. people who actually have a larger say in public affairs)--for all of your problems. My hope would be that British people would wish the same for us Americans. We suffer a lot of similar nonsense here too, after all. Some of it worse. Do you realize that a large percentage of Americans think that their being able to own a gun designed for military use is the essential key to their freedom, such that we routinely experience mass shootings of school children and do nothing effective to stop it? Seriously!

Your ideas concerning gender inequity are so messed-up I hardly know where to begin. I'll just say that the division of wealth (and power, and privilege, etc.) between that held by men and that be women is, whether you wish to acknowledge it or not, still very substantial. You would prefer to justify that by asserting broad claims about the inherent nature of men and women in general--committing, I must point out, the very same sin that you falsely attributed to me in my supposedly having made claims about all British people--whereas I think it is much more accurate and useful (and less bigoted) to explain it by reference to social, economic, and cultural conditions (noting the persistence of what is commonly referred to as patriarchy). In short, you'd prefer to account for inequalities between men and women (taken generally) by unfounded speculations about the nature of women, or here upon your own narrow experiences, and I think that's ignorant, irresponsible and, given what is at stake in that issue, shameful.

Quote:

crusty_bread
To get back (finally) to Powell, my issue with the article is it didn't give any examples of why discussion was shut down by him. In a professional organisation when there's job to do, there is a point when open debate devolves into name calling and mud slinging and this is when the company cannot function any more. This is witnessed a lot, and very frequently from the left. (I know, not exclusively...) This shouldn't be allowed to hijack the running of his company and in a professional context there are limits as to what can be said to others. Open insults or dishonest use of trigger words are that limit. I take the point that this exposes him to inconsistencies but as we don't have any examples of what is permissable and what gets shut down, I'm less inclined than you are to cast judgement on him.

Ok, I'll go back to where I started. I think whether one judges Powell and his deputies to be "good guys" (quoting Ozzy) would depend on what one means by "good." I find him to be a reactionary fool, acting only to close off the expression of opinion and discussion--imposing on employees in the company he founded, to quote him, "an ideological purity test"--while professing rather preposterously to be an extreme libertarian. Ozzy, clearly a reactionary fool himself, thinks that's good (I guess, though he has never explained why--probably because he isn't capable--only making vague and unsubstantiated accusations against the NY Times instead) while you claim to be unwilling to make a judgment, despite your having worked pretty hard to defend him.

If I could return to the matter of Kraken's sponsorship of Williams. I first became a die-hard Williams supporter in 1980 ( I was 13) when the team was sponsored by the Saudi state-owned airline. I am thus long used to it partnering with problematic sponsors. I only hope that Kraken, if still run by reactionary fools, is at least not corrupt, that they meet their contractual obligations and don't bring embarrassment to the team, as FTX did to Mercedes. I will be extremely irritated, however, if anyone in the team starts asserting that the two companies share core values and whatnot. Kraken is buying advertising space on the car. Let's leave it at that.

Allow me to set out clearly what my position is, so there is less scope for misunderstanding, false accusations or further personal insults. This should hopefully shorten and begin to draw to a close this debate to the relief of everyone else here and allow both of us to share the space together in a less obnoxious manner.

1 I work with, and know trans people personally. I like these individuals collectively no more or less than anyone else. A few I regard as friends. I have no issue with anyone identifying or perceiving themselves as they wish. They can do as they please with regards to this provided it doesn't demand my active participation or negatively harm others. I feel no hostility towards such individuals. I draw the line at being told how I have to address them. If someone was born as a man and shows male physical and social characteristics, it is not bigoted to still perceive them as male and to find it difficult, if not uncomfortable to have to call them "she". It is authoritarian to tell me I must use language which isn't in line with my perception of reality. That is not a negotiation but a dictatorship. I'm not accusing you personally of doing this but this is where we find ourselves currently as a society. There is no negotiation going on. Providing a space to state preferred pronouns isn't opening up a negotiation. It is presented like it is, but it is enforced in a way that isn't. It is really telling employees how they must regard and speak to someone else hidden behind polite language but enforced through disciplinary processes dismissal and even unnecessary police intervention. To perceive such an individual as "he" is not hateful. This may seem like low stakes to us as men, but being forced to adopt someone else's beliefs is an unhealthy practice when we only have the word of the minority to base it on. We should not have to think one thing and say another and to have to participate in a belief we dont share sends out a false message to the rest of society, to the trans movement and to women that we have picked a side. This is genuine oppression against me personally and in turn, uses me as a tool to oppress women. At work, it was made clear in no uncertain terms that we would face disciplinary action if we did not respect the chosen preferred pronouns of someone who had, overnight, changed the way they wanted the entire office to regard them. This is disempowering. I am forced to choose between my job vs my own world view. In spite of this we are still friends.

2. As a male I am not offended by the fact that there are enough rapists, sex offenders and perverts amongst my sex to justify a seperate space for women. That is not a judgement on me individually or on the vast majority of men. It is a simple acknowledgement that there are enough individuals amongst us who behave badly to justify what is a pretty small degree of safeguarding. There is no evidence that trans "women" collectively, pose any less risk to biological women than biological men do. Therefore, the same safeguarding rules should apply. There is nothing bigoted about this. It has now become uk law that someone with male genitalia cannot be incarcerated in women's spaces based on evidence submitted and validated in a court of law that trans women with male genitalia were actually, statistically more likely to commit sex offences in prison and not less. This is neither hearsay, anecdotes, fiction or lies. It is the truth.

[www.telegraph.co.uk]

[www.bbc.com]


Therefore it is not bigoted to challenge the assumption that every trans person is what they claim they are and should automatically be afforded the same rights as who or what they claim to be. In my opinion I regard trans women with the same degree of suspicion as I'd regard another man with regards to the risk they may pose to women. Given the statistics ive provided the link to that is actually a pretty moderate position to take I'm sure you'll agree.

3.i do not believe that if someone claims to be something, that it is automatically true. Nor that we can ever be certain whether a claim is "genuine" or not when it comes to who is in which body. To do this you need proof and I have yet to see you provide any. Rachel Dolezal has written a book asserting her belief that she is born white to white parents and identifies as black. She has maintained her position for years. I do not believe we can in all seriousness assume that if a man calls himself a woman (or vice versa) he is genuine, or that if a white person calls themselves black, they are lying and pretend we are being fair, reasonable or consistent. To be inconsistent without any proof as to why you are allowed to be inconsistent is the purest form of bigotry as it sets arbitrary limits on who is lying and who isn't based on sex, race etc. You provided a distinction between ethnicity and race. What would have been more relevant would be to provide a distinction between the definition of a woman and ethicity or race. There is no consensus I can find amongst the trans community as to what that definition is. Therefore, it is impossible to rule any other scenario out without being bigoted.

In my view to believe that anyone can be born in the wrong body but then to attempt to start dictating what scenarios are and are not possible, who is genuine and who is lying is utterly preposterous. The moment you open that Pandoras box by allowing that it could be true, it becomes impossible to prove what is genuine and what is a lie. There is evidence of south american shamans believing they were possesed by animal spirits, such as a puma. They and their community believed it so much they were given a role in society which explicitly Indictated that they could be possessed by animals or possess animals. This wasn't an isolated case, but a cross tribal cultural tradition. These beliefs have been It's been found in Australia, north America, siberia. Im very interested to hear your thoughts on whether those claims have any more or less validity than men who claim they are women, or vise versa, and if so, I'd like to see you attempt to justify it.

Powell is absolutely justified in his question. I cannot prove that possessing the wrong body is impossible, any more than you can prove it can. The only difference between us is, at least I'm consistent on the subject.

I'll add to this another view, in case you suspect any lurking agenda here, that whilst biology is a real, incontrovertible fact based on millions of years of evolution, gender is clearly a social construct, nothing more, it is far more fluid and changeable and shouldn't be taken as of greater importance than biology. I have sympathy with those who do, but that doesn't mean thst if one, for instance, plays with dolls, likes make-up and own a penis they have to change anything. Men have worn make up throughout human history. Men have been attracted to men. Men have played with dolls. That doesnt make them a woman or entitle them to women's rights.. Nothing I say here is unkind. To detransitioners, not saying these things soon enough is most definitely unkind.

4. I do not believe women are any more or less intelligent than men. I do believe there are differences between the sexes and I do believe there are many different forms of intelligence. The attempt to define intelligence is actually of far more interest to me than the actual results. Ants collectively seem more sophisticated than humans yet individually seem incredibly basic. Trees are incredibly complex but have no brain. To open a debate about difference doesn't automatically lead down a path of assuming that I'm only saying this to justify a view that men are more Inteligent. This can be the only reason for your chastisement. This is an entirely false and unjustifiable asumption and you owe me an apology. There is nothing to say women can't come out "on top" of some contrived intelligence test as they do frequently in exams these days. My point is, that without being allowed to even consider differences we wouldn't be able to learn anything, or consider why there is a difference if any. I actually liked your point about social economic and cultural conditions which could affect gender pay gaps as its more sophisticated than simply biology, but your point would never have been made had Powell not deliberately reopened the debate without himself having actually passed any personal judgement. A pity you didn't return the favour to him or me. You really need to control youself because you can come across as very sanctimonious at times and with absolutely no basis for it. Nothing he or I said was shameful or bigoted. It was entirely you projecting an agenda upon us. Your position appears to be: all men and women are identical. This cannot be explored. Any attempt to do so is an attempt at patriarchal opresion. This is an incredibly prejudiced and unhealthy attitude. The only concession I'll grant you is that I should have also added, to be clearer to you where I stood, that more men are found at the most extreme ends of society, from the very richest to the homeless, and incarcerated. Risk taking isn't a hallmark of anything inherently positive or genetic, but sadly I didn't think I needed to caveat everything I said to avoid accusations for things I neither said nor intended. And if you think this is pure twaddle, try providing a reason or evidence rather than empty and rude dismissals.

So sit in judgement of powell and myself if you wish. Pick your views and opinions as you wish. I shall continue to pick mine.

I look forward to a more amicable exchange in future, preferably less personal and more centred on the team we both love.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2023:04:03:07:02:02 by crusty_bread.

I am just returning to F1-related sites like this one now that I have finally watched the (very disappointing) race on delay...

crusty,

It would take too long to respond to this point-by-point and I think I have more or less expressed my views on much of it already anyway. If my arguments didn't convince you before, I doubt that they will now.

I do wish to counter some of what you say in your first paragraph, partly because I think you distort what I have said before (by intention or inadequate precision, I still have not decided), the nature of the situations you are alluding to, and your motive for adopting the position you advance.

First of all, I don't think your feelings toward the trans people you happen to know are relevant. That is likely to be a small sample of people and I have not suggested that you are under any obligation, moral or otherwise, to like or befriend any of them. I do think it would be cause for some honest reflection should you find yourself disliking every trans person you ever encounter regardless of their other manifest differences, however. That indeed might indicate a form of bigotry on your part.

What I do think is relevant is your lack of respect and regard for those people as is evidenced by your refusal to recognize them in the manner they find consistent with who they are (which you apparently think should be up to you not them). You describe the demand for basic recognition of trans people as if it's some enormous ask, a huge burden that taxes your hold on reality and (in earlier posts) that challenges meaning itself. Well, what, I have to ask, has gone wrong with you that makes addressing someone as he, she or they as they would prefer so uncomfortable and difficult? Have you suffered a head injury or some form of dementia such that your memory doesn't work properly? Are you hopelessly confused at the prospect of any complexity or need to adjust your perceptions to accord with a shared reality? I admit that I occasionally screwup and mis-identify someone, but I find it less than difficult to welcome correction and to go on. It's just not that hard and I think you are being entirely disingenuous, and expose yourself to charges of a shameful bigotry, by casting yourself as victimized (note the irony!) by a requirement at work that you be respectful of your colleagues--respectful, I must add, in the very same way that I am sure you insist they be to you.

To illustrate, I am quite confident that you would find it very bothersome, and demand that your colleagues stop it, if they made a regular practice of referring to you in a way that was not consistent with your gendered identity, if they referred to you as she and her, for instance. I suspect, however, that this has never occurred to you as a possibility, and that you would never think to describe as "authoritarian" a company policy that directed them to not do so. That it hasn't occurred to you is, of course, only because your self-identification largely accords with convention, custom, and structures of power (which those customs enforce) that you take fully for granted and wish others will take for granted as well. In your refusal, you identify with that power and seek to maintain your ability to wield it--even to much greater damage to others than would befall you if you were subject to (this far less systematic) misidentification.

As I have noted, I struggle to fully understand what it would be like to experience myself as somehow trapped in a body that did not cohere with my self-identification. Again, I have no reason to doubt that others do, however. Some one could lie about this, of course. What evidence do you have that everyone who claims to experience this is doing so? By your own admission, none (you claim you are still "friends" with these coworkers, implying you do not think that they are lying). You nevertheless offer selectively-chosen anecdotes and overstated hand-wringing for the safety of women as support for your withholding your acceptance of anyone's claim.

The fuller truth is that you are not merely withholding recognition of others' identities, as bad as that would be, but are insisting on positively mis-recognizing them. Every time you insist on identifying a trans person in opposition to their own identity, you are working to re-impose an identity on them that they experience as debilitating and undermining.

You do this, you claim, because your "perceptions" demand it? So that you can hope to convince yourself that you have some reliable grasp on some self-defining and absolute reality? Well, suck it up, you don't. Your perceptions of a necessary connection between sex and gender is culturally informed (i.e. contingent and non-absolute). Because you perceive things to be a certain way is no guarantee that things are in fact that way. Your perceptions often reveal as much about you as the things perceived.

In truth, I think the matter is likely much uglier. I would suggest that you are justifying harming others in profound and significant ways (similar to the historical and ongoing damage inflicted on Black people via the use of racial slurs like the N-word, that operate to impose a denigrating and disabling identity onto them) on this slim and trumped-up basis to obscure the fact that your real motive is power. You wish to assert the absolute nature of social categories and identities ultimately neither because it is so taxing upon you to do otherwise, nor because you have been swayed by a few reports of trans people harming others, nor out of a passion for protecting women, but in order to claim the absolute nature of your own identity because it is invested with power.

You effectively announce this truth when you admit that you find the choice your situation has offered you between your job and your worldview "disempowering." You got that right! The difference between you and me is that I do not wish to lay claim to power at the expense of severe damage to others.

You can respond if you wish, but I think you've accurately represented your views already and I'm honestly done in any case.

Quote:

crusty_bread
At work, it was made clear in no uncertain terms that we would face disciplinary action if we did not respect the chosen preferred pronouns of someone who had, overnight, changed the way they wanted the entire office to regard them. This is disempowering. I am forced to choose between my job vs my own world view.

Quote:

Gunk

Quote:

Ozzy Osbone
They are solid. No scam here.

Didn't Musk say something like that last year?

Now he has divested 75% of his bitcoin holding and you can't even buy a Tesla with it.

Yes he did and I don't know what his motivations are or what he actually holds as with crypto in can be tricky. I think we can be pretty sure that Bitcoin is not a scam. I personally do not and have no plans to hold any of it but it's a real thing.

Mate, I'm born and bred in Devon UK. I eat pasties and set fire to caravans for a living.

Let me get this right. You take a statement I made regarding my goodwill towards known trans individuals, disregard my actual present feelings as irrelevant, imagine a scenario in future where I've changed my opinion to dislike all trans individuals as a rule, and use this to question my imagined future bigotry? Your ability to cast judgement beyond the realms of stated reality knows no limits. I'd like to think this was a piece of misjudged and unnecessary but well intentioned advice over my feared development and not simply a very creative attempt at defamation. At this stage, I'm pretty sure our audience is 0. Recastimg one another as villains is wholly unnecessary. Perhaps you were simply illustrating your definitions? Let's go with that and ignore the pattern.

The biggest fallacy in your reasoning is the mistaken assumption that I am gendering anyone or applying any set of social values on them above and beyond their sex. The fact is I don't buy into gender identity beyond recognising biological reality. That trans people can identify as a gender different to biological sex demonstrates that identity and sex is disconnected in their opinion. The biggest fallacy here is to then assume that someone can only mean gender when they use pronouns and not biological sex. So the word he or she has now been entirely recast to mean something non factual, non scientific non bigoted, into something stereotypical, prejudicial and potentially bigoted. I prefer to limit he or she pronouns to sex as its factual and therefore impersonal.

Have you never considered that sticking to convention can actually protect society and culture from damaging changes in attitude? You assume my motive is power not ethics. You are way off the mark here. Say the recipient of language is a biological man and still demands "she" to be used because they believe "she" to mean someone who likes cooking, makeup and desires men sexually. They associate men with toxic opression and homophobia, and wish to distance themselves from that personally whilst at the same time not realising that by denying "he" he is on a subconscious level, being homophobic. He then demands the literal minded speaker to use "she" disregarding the literal minded speakers confusion that she means biological female and they are evidently male. The literal minded person is then labelled a transphobic bigot and oppressor. The literal minded person is pressured into actively participating in a set of homophobic and misogynistic prejudices held by that specific individual.

Do you honestly consider anyone who doesn't wholly buy into gender identity as morally deficient? Or that furthermore this movement has the right to police everyone else's speech? You don't even seem to endorse a democratic approach to social negotiations. The most common individuals who believe themselves above society or democracy are usually either young children, very immature spolied teenagers, criminals or despots.

Is it such a hardship for such individuals to instead reflect on why they have such an issue with society referring to them based on their biology and why they attach such gender based significance to these word? . There is no consensus on the meaning of woman anymore so one cannot assume any intended offence without being entirely self absorbed in ones own world view.

In the gay community what "he" denotes with regards to sexual psychology and behavioural conduct is extremely flexible beyond simply having a male body. I keep an open mind when it comes to ignoring gender stereotypes, as "he" can allow for the term to be used regardless of sexual "roles" without then having to presume, impose, or adopt contrived "masculine" or "feminine" conduct or demand others to conform to any fictitious constructs associated with these gendered stereotypical roles. Those that do I find offputting. Describing oneself as "acting fem"? Or worse "masc" Why can't they just be themselves?. If I assumed masculine or feminine roles myself, it would feel very inauthentic of me, yet I have to endorse whoever wishes to buy into these identities? Please.

If "she" is used towards me it would completely disregard my male biology. Therefore it can only be taken as an imposed stereotype and judgement on my personality and, dare I say, goes as far as threatening my validity as a male to procreate and my biological imperative by disregarding the scientific fact in front of everyone's eyes that I am physicaly a male. This would be irritating true but its is incomparably ruder as it overrides biology to enforce gender stereotypes. The same cannot be said by merely recognising biology and it presumes no gender stereotype beyond scientific fact. So your example holds no weight for me.

Not wishing to participate in gender stereotypes is a valid stance to take. Some of these contrivances are so misogynistic it's unbearable. "I like to wear lipstick and tights and I was a fan of the spice girls. That's what a "woman means to me. Now you must use this meaning. To hell with women's rights they are my rights now" .Or one that really challenges my views: I felt dominated by my ex so I prefer to identify as a lesbian because a real man should be more dominant socially than I am. Ergo I am not a man. But lesbian women who won't have sex with me are bigots for not validating me. Or the obvious one, you cannot be a man if you are attracted to a man. Ergo, you must be a woman. How comfortable are you endorsing shared views with that of extreme muslim faith? Do they have a monopoly on virtue too? Some still buy into sexual stereotypes to the extent the choice for all homosexuals is clear, death or sterilisation through transitioning because they act in a "womanly" manner. There is clearly no monopoly of virtue to be found by buying into gender identity.

Children are asked now from a very young age in schools to start considering their gender identity. This unhelpfully gives credence to the perception that he or she carries with it social prejudices, before asking them to actively invent their own personalised gender prejudices. This is deeply isolating for everyone and not in any way a virtuous or healthy path to walk down.

For the record, I don't insist on "misgendering" even though I don't believe such a thing is possible as I don't buy into gender identity full stop. I have the good grace and sufficient vocabulary to find a way of avoiding using pronouns entirely around individuals who I struggle to perceive the way I know they want me to by asking me to use specific words. I find this to be the best compromise.

The person I refer to is a person not a gender identity. This is why we are friends. I do not base my friendship or goodwill on whether I think they are "lying" about their gender identity. I have a degree of acceptance and sympathy that in general, they believe what they believe, and a larger degree of difficulty understanding or appreciating their need to adopt an identity that is so strong and rigid that it necessitates disowning their own body.

Your allegation that I am not actually concerned with womens rights is offensive. I'm speechless that you would regard 7 entirely preventable sexual assaults on women which were caused as a direct consequence of ignoring sexual difference as "overstated handwringing". As if the feelings of anyone regarding their perceived gender identity (read self constructed stereotype) takes precedent over women's protection from violent physical sexual assault? Just consider the implications of your view. Where is your sense of perspective here? This is about as sickening an argument as those who attacked a newspaper for not respecting the right to call a man "she" and ignored the fact entirely that HE had just raped and murdered his own mother. Do these activists really think by this point they are acting out of compassion respect, kindness and love or are they really simply on a social crusade designed to demonstrate as publically as possible their virtue and without realising it, exposing criminally high levels of misogyny through their callous disregard for the victim. This tragically. un-self aware attitude throws women's rights under the bus. This crusade now means Police are obliged to apply female profiling to men who identify as women or stand accused of bigotry. . You seriously need to reflect on this. There is a strong, distastefully misogynistic sense of male entitlement within the trans rights movement. Not to mention deeply entrenched homophobia,, all born out from prejudicial over rationalisation of meaning. You'd be well advised to demonstrate more caution and restraint before describing the threat posed to women and their rights as overstated handwringing. I'll leave it there.

The greatest inconsistently of your argument that I sense a deep unwillingness for you to answer is: how can it be offensive to willfully, deliberately "misrepresent" someone's chosen identity regarding gender but no such pitfalls are even possible regarding "racial" identity because it cannot be genuine (I refer to their use of the word black) ? How can it be fine for you to willfully dismiss their claimed identity offhand as "not genuine" simply because they identify with a set of cultural values and behaviours they associate with a different race as opposed to different sex? How can you make this distinction without explaining why? The problem is this is currently undermining your defence of one, and your criticism of the other. Why can't a person genuinely identify as black if they mean black to mean liking for instance certain music wearing certain clothes and feeling discriminated against? Maybe by doing so, they would demonstrate unhelpfully distracting stereotypes insensitivity, and hijack the language and functioning of an entire rights moment? Can you see where I'm going with this? You need a more cohesive argument.

It's bizzare that you then go on to bring up questions of race and abuse of power using words like "n" as if implying some people, maybe me, are racist and obsessed with power for imposing an identity on others. Let's take stock here. I don't buy into any gender or racial identity stereotypes. How many people have died because of their religious identities? Their political identities? It's very dangerous territory to buy into such concepts that ignore the fact that we are all simply humans.

So no, I am not trying to oppress anyone by any alleged imposition of disabling social identities. I cannot because I dont believe in them. They are all hogwash. The only person who believes in them is apparently you. Therefore the only person who could ever be guilty of imposing disabling social identities is unfortunately you for wanting to force everyone into accepting gender ideology and then policing and judging anyone who doesn't conform, to hell with female rape victims. Evidently women's rights are so last century. Far more virtue points to be found in the trans rights and black rights movement. Hence why it's OK to impose on women's rights but not black rights I presume? How fashionable.

Quote:

crusty_bread
The fact is I don't buy into gender identity beyond recognising biological reality.

You could have stopped there.

My point, clearly lost on you, was that your insistence on an absolute linkage of sex and gender (or denial of the reality gender entirely, which is what you do here) serves your interest in power, as you (perhaps inadvertently) admitted.

You won't own that, I am sure, but it's true nonetheless.

What exactly do you mean by power.?

The power to defend my right to my own body when I open my mouth to transmit my values?

The power to ignore cultural stereotypes that imply I aught to assume a contrived gender identity and that my sexuality in any way influences this?

The power to be under no obligation to endorse or buy into other people's social biases and stereotypes?

The power to criticise social policy which demands I endorse everyone else's subjective truth on threat of sacking whenever I wish to speak?

Anyone finding this oppressive really aught to reexamine their own views, namely that use of the word "he" or "she" must in all cases be assumed automatically to enforce patriarchal oppression. I am not so naive as to assume there are not a considerable number if men and women who believe in and hold patriarchal views. I am not one of them. Nor are millions others. To assume that I am, and to then force me to change my use of language under the assumption that I can only mean he it she oppressively is forcing me to buy back into patriarchal biases.

If we are describing a man who identifies as a woman then perhaps we are simply talking about questioning a man's right to ignore women's rights?

If we are describing a woman's right to deny her biological reality as a "she", this is not oppressive unless you believe "she" carries with it any cultural connotation at all that could be considered offensive. To agree with her and to call her he" implies that you agree with her that "she" does carry negative social connotations and reinforces your biases regarding the patriarchy and men and women in general. Calling herself he doesn't offer her any physical protection (sadly) all it does is endorse her own unhealthy biases and quite likely her own internalised misogyny. The number of healthy women now undergoing surgery presumably in your eyes, under the assumption that to pass socially as "he" is to join the patriarchy and empower themselves is rising astronomically. Would you tell someone anorexic who was perfectly healthy that they are right to believe they were overweight and give them a gastric band to make them feel better about themselves? To refuse to facilitate self harm is not oppressive. To endorse self harm or unhealthy gender stereotypes which lead down this path is plain irresponsible. What you are doing here is simultaneously throwing women's rights under the bus whilst at the same time endorsing self shame, and encouraging women to deny their bodies which can lead down a path whereby they end up doing major irreparable harm to themselves. Surely endorsing a stronger more positive attitude towards women embracing their sex and adopting more empowering values, something people like j k Rowling or Kelly Jay keen do, is far healthier than encouraging them to opt out all together. Adopting "he" is not empowering to any biological woman. It is simply entrenching an attitude that "he" is socially more empowered when viewed through your prism of rationale and when you do this publically you are validating this assumption and consequently undermining she aa an enpowered identity.

You need to reflect properly on what you are endorsing here. By ignoring biological reality you are granting more powers to biological men to abuse safeguarding and hijack the women's rights movement whilst also indulging in women's self loathing. If you believe in the existence still of a patriarchy, then surely you of all people can see that there has only be one winner throughout all of this and that by endorsing this movement you are unintentionally endorsing the very patriarchy you are trying to condemn. That you cannot see this and can still be able to dismiss sexual assault as overwrought handwringing says it all really.

We are a sexually dimorphic species. Regardless of "identity" culture or history, biological men have always, and will always abuse their physical advantages. Closing your eyes to this is not progressive. It's allowing men to take advantage. If you want to talk about power speak to j k rowling who in spite of having said nothing violent, threatening or even rude, can in her words wallpaper her entire house with all the death threats she's received. So don't speak to me about power whilst at the same time granting men the right to do whatever the hell they like, something you have been blinded from seeing. The fact that men continue to abuse their physical powers despite identifying as women show just how empty and hollow words such as he or she truly are above and beyond biology. You don't eliminate the patriarchy by buying into it's biases or trying to join it. You eliminate the patriarchy by stripping its biases away.



Edited 17 time(s). Last edit at 2023:04:07:12:30:40 by crusty_bread.

And to add to this, how can you in all seriousness accuse me of abusing my power and of endorsing the patriarchy when it is I who openly and actively endorse women's rights? If you genuinely were on the side of women and not the patriarchy, you wouldn't want to leave women and trans rights campaigners to it, whilst actively defending to the hilt everything trans rights stands for regardless of all the damage this movement is doing. You'd be defending women's rights. You don't you dismiss avoidable sexual assault as overwrought hand wringing. The most patriarchal comment made during this entire exhange. If there is a patriarchy, you should be actively helping women defend their rights. You don't. Case closed.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2023:04:07:13:20:40 by crusty_bread.

And people moan about Peter Debel posts! This thread has gone bad. Bring back Peter Debel posts about Red Bull!

I'm happy to turn to private messages if shriekback is too, unless anyone else is actually interested in, and is still following this exchange. I've found it very stimulating but it could run for ever. It's a very charged subject.

Lost the will to live.

I will leave it with you Crusty, but me i would knock it on the head and come back to us and lets
get back on track talking about our team and car.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023:04:08:09:30:15 by GPL.

Loud and clear, if shriekback wishes to respond here or via private/direct message, I shall only respond via private message and I'm glad to come back to you all to focus on williams. We've got a fun season ahead of us I expect! And hopefully not in a 2012 manner of fun which is how it's felt so with crashes and politics. I know rights activism debates aren't the reason most people come on to a williams forum fan site.

Ultimately, williams evidently do not see any reason not to do business with Powell and kraken. Concerns have been voiced about his opinions. That it their right. His comments have also been defended. That is the right of myself and I believe Ozzy too. I'm happy leaving it there.

Saw the picture of the kraken guy. Read the article, then ploughed through this
entire thread. Which made my brain hurt, and still no explanation how the lead singer of wheatus went from teenage dirtbag to millionaire scumbag!!

Did somebody say PDVSA?

Lol. Salt of the earth them.