Adventure Gamers - Forums

I have no words for this kind of misogyny in Canada. Of course the definition of the word “man” does not need to be updated and modernized.

I think Employment Equity programs aren’t applicable to men as a demographic.

I can imagine this task force considering systematic barriers or prejudice faced by trans men, so the definition of man will probably get an update in a way.

What I get from it is mostly keeping the legal and bureaucratic groundwork for a liberal policy workable with broader concepts of gender identity. If someone applies to for something, do they get the stamp of approval or not? Based on what? Will this person have a case when suing the government?

Vegetable Party - 23 April 2022 09:26 PM

I think Employment Equity programs aren’t applicable to men as a demographic.

That’s right. Can you think of any reason why they’re not?

I can imagine this task force considering systematic barriers or prejudice faced by trans men, so the definition of man will probably get an update in a way.

I have no idea why you’re assuming that. Men and women who identify as men are not mentioned anywhere. Could be because “Employment Equity programs aren’t applicable to men as a demographic”.

What I get from it is mostly keeping the legal and bureaucratic groundwork for a liberal policy workable with broader concepts of gender identity. If someone applies to something, do they get the stamp of approval or not? Based on what? Will this person have a case when suing the government?

If the government want to include transgenders all they have to do is add a new category to the 4 equity groups. But instead they’re prepared to change the definition of woman from adult female human being to the absurd and circular definition anyone who identifies as a woman. It started with conflating biological sex and gender, it ends with replacing sex by gender, which is exactly what trans ideologues want. Unheard of. It’s already happening. Men beating records in women’s sports. Men being put in women’s prisons. Men in women’s dressing rooms. Men filling women’s quota. Men winning women’s awards. And women’s rights will officially be meaningless if the trans activists have their way.

BTW, I find their mention of “the LGBTQ2+ stakeholders” disingenious. LGB have nothing to do with anything. It’s all about T and Q.

Karlok - 24 April 2022 03:19 AM

Vegetable Party - 23 April 2022 09:26 PM

I think Employment Equity programs aren’t applicable to men as a demographic.

That’s right. Can you think of any reason why they’re not?

Because the policy is about increasing equity for minority groups.

I can imagine this task force considering systematic barriers or prejudice faced by trans men, so the definition of man will probably get an update in a way.

I have no idea why you’re assuming that. Men and women who identify as men are not mentioned anywhere.

I’m not assuming, I said I can imagine it. I’m not sure what you mean by women identifying as men.

If the government want to include transgenders all they have to do is add a new category to the 4 equity groups. But instead they’re prepared to change the definition of woman from adult female human being to the absurd and circular definition anyone who identifies as a woman.

I think it’s more complicated than that. The policy is not changing definitions, (social) science precedes it.

It started with conflating biological sex and gender, it ends with replacing sex by gender, which is exactly what trans ideologues want.

There is no trans ideology. There are ideologies that support inclusion or do the exact opposite, there are political movements that are more or less stripped of (traditional) ideology that do the same, but it’s not an ideological issue at its core. It’s an understanding of the complexity of human nature and identity.

Unheard of. It’s already happening. Men beating records in women’s sports. Men being put in women’s prisons. Men in women’s dressing rooms. Men filling women’s quota. Men winning women’s awards. And women’s rights will officially be meaningless if the trans activists have their way.

I think you know what you’re doing here and I think you know the response.

BTW, I find their mention of “the LGBTQ2+ stakeholders” disingenious. LGB have nothing to do with anything. It’s all about T and Q.

There is a complicated discussion here and perhaps this is the one thing we can sort of agree on. Emancipation rests on the division into demographics as the basis of politics, creating policies based on statistics and bureaucracy. Because it relies on creating a framework out of a huge amount of societal and material factors, intersectionality will get divvied up and certain demographics get grouped together based on overlapping or adjacent interests. To some extent, this is always going to be arbitrary. It has its downsides and advantages, but it lies at the core of most Western political structures.

It’s fine to address any problems you see with that, but you’re not talking about the superstructure, you’re targeting “transgender activists”, which is one step removed from hate speech. I don’t mean that in a moralist or threatening way, but I would urge you to reconsider if that’s a path you want to take.

Vegetable Party - 24 April 2022 08:30 AM

Karlok - 24 April 2022 03:19 AM

Vegetable Party - 23 April 2022 09:26 PM

I think Employment Equity programs aren’t applicable to men as a demographic.

That’s right. Can you think of any reason why they’re not?

Because the policy is about increasing equity for minority groups.

Actually men are the minority in Canada, not women.

I’m not sure what you mean by women identifying as men.

I can’t think of another way to say what I mean. Women who identify as men are not necessarily trans men. Men who identify as women are not necessarily trans women. That’s the problem with self-id: ANY man with bad intentions can get access to women-only spaces.  Example: In the UK and US female prisoners have been raped and even murdered by convicted men who only identified as women during or after their trial in order to be sent to a women’s prison.

I think it’s more complicated than that. The policy is not changing definitions, (social) science precedes it.

What science? I don’t know what you mean. And changing definitions is undeniably the policy or self-id would not exist.

There is no trans ideology. There are ideologies that support inclusion or do the exact opposite, there are political movements that are more or less stripped of (traditional) ideology that do the same, but it’s not an ideological issue at its core. It’s an understanding of the complexity of human nature and identity.

We’ll have to agree to disagree. You mentioned intersectionality, so I take it you’re familiar with Judith Butler and gender performativity. IMO those and other beliefs or ideas about gender meet the criteria of an ideology because they provide the foundation of programs of social and political action.

Unheard of. It’s already happening. Men beating records in women’s sports. Men being put in women’s prisons. Men in women’s dressing rooms. Men filling women’s quota. Men winning women’s awards. And women’s rights will officially be meaningless if the trans activists have their way.

I think you know what you’re doing here and I think you know the response.

No, I don’t know what response you have in mind unless you tell me. I suport trans rights as long as they don’t come into conflict with women’s rights. We have women-only spaces and quota *for very good reasons*. Again: we want to keep out ALL men and self-id laws, redefining the word “woman” make that impossible. Yes, some of them are trans women, for instance in women’s sport where their biological sex gives them unfair advantages.

It’s fine to address any problems you see with that, but you’re not talking about the superstructure, you’re targeting “transgender activists”, which is one step removed from hate speech.

Having opinions diametrically opposed to yours, defending women’s rights and criticizing transactivism/trans activists is not bordering on hate speech. Every social or political movement should be able to accept and handle criticism.

I don’t mean that in a moralist or threatening way, but I would urge you to reconsider if that’s a path you want to take.

Good to know you’re not threatening me but please don’t be mysterious. Why should I reconsider?

First of all, thanks for the mostly measured response.

Minority in this case refers to power relations, not to a quantity. I am familiar with Judith Butler. She is They are a vocal opponent of the anti-gender movement, the source of the phrase “trans ideology”, and identifies as non-binary.

Science precedes law and policy (in this case and in general) because gender dysphoria and transgender identities are scientifically researched phenomena.

There are problems with the way you address women who you feel should not be considered part of that demographic, which is the reason I did not engage with it but rather told you I assumed you knew the response. I think you kind of upped the ante by going straight to violent crime. I’m not sure what your sources are, but this is the type of stuff that definitely gets into the territory of hate speech.

Which leads me to your final two points.

Of course you can express opinions about any kind of activism. But like any other action, voicing an opinion can have consequences. Freedom of opinion does not mean freedom from legal ramifications: libel, defamation and hate speech are prosecutable offences in many countries that generally value freedom of speech. Opinions are not high and above other forms of behavior, nor are they completely relative.

Which is why I urge you to reconsider. You may have a bit of an argumentative streak, but you don’t strike me as someone who is hateful or wants to be part of a moral panic movement, or spread harmful misinformation. I’m not the type of person who wants to tell you that this is what you’re doing, but I feel I have to, for reasons that go beyond my or your personal interests in this case. That is why I said it and I stand by it.

Vegetable Party - 25 April 2022 05:53 AM

Minority in this case refers to power relations, not to a quantity.

Yes, for some reason you choose to speak in sociological jargon that might be misunderstood, where the EEA Task Force avoids the word minority altogether and uses designated group or equity group instead. 

Science precedes law and policy (in this case and in general) because gender dysphoria and transgender identities are scientifically researched phenomena.

I asked “what science”. No reply.

There are problems with the way you address women who you feel should not be considered part of that demographic, which is the reason I did not engage with it but rather told you I assumed you knew the response.

What does that mean, “there are problems”? Did I break any AG rules, have there been complaints about my very careful formulation? Are you posting as a mod or are you the one having problems with it? The phrase “men who identify as women” is factual and not offensive (unless of course people choose to be offended). Believe me, compelled speech does not work.

I think you kind of upped the ante by going straight to violent crime. I’m not sure what your sources are, but this is the type of stuff that definitely gets into the territory of hate speech.

Facts can NEVER be hate speech. In your zeal to protect a specific community you’re now moving into preposterous territory. Go to the British MoJ site or the US equivalent and check the figures and statistics yourself. You might discover some facts you don’t like, but that can’t be helped.

And yes, of course violent crime. I repeat: Women have single-sex spaces because we need protection against predatory, violent men. I find it very strange that you don’t acknowledge that. 

Of course you can express opinions about any kind of activism. But like any other action, voicing an opinion can have consequences. Freedom of opinion does not mean freedom from legal ramifications: libel, defamation and hate speech are prosecutable offences in many countries that generally value freedom of speech. Opinions are not high and above other forms of behavior, nor are they completely relative.

I’d love to see you in court over this alleged “hate speech”. I’ll be your Maya Forstater!

Which is why I urge you to reconsider. You may have a bit of an argumentative streak, but you don’t strike me as someone who is hateful or wants to be part of a moral panic movement, or spread harmful misinformation. I’m not the type of person who wants to tell you that this is what you’re doing, but I feel I have to, for reasons that go beyond my or your personal interests in this case. That is why I said it and I stand by it.

Sigh. I am NOT spreading “harmful misinformation” and I haven’t offended anyone. Your opinon of me as a person is hardly relevant. Either I have broken the AG rules or my posts and opinions in this thread are acceptable.

EDIT: Men who identify as women - Karlok - allegedly “hate speech”
Judith Butler identifies as non-binary - VegetableParty - ??
See you in court!

Karlok - 25 April 2022 09:16 AM

Sigh. I am NOT spreading “harmful misinformation” and I haven’t offended anyone. Your opinon of me as a person is hardly relevant. Either I have broken the AG rules or my posts and opinions in this thread are acceptable.

EDIT: Men who identify as women - Karlok - allegedly “hate speech”
Judith Butler identifies as non-binary - VegetableParty - ??
See you in court!

- this a confused mess, I can’t really respond to it.

I tried to engage with you out of respect, but you seem very invested in trans exclusionary rhetoric and getting some sort of diatribe going.

You got the response you wanted. It may not have been the type of polymic exchange you were looking for, but it’s respectful and if you are at all open to a better understanding of these matters, I think it’s a fair starting point.

If you were mostly using a divisive opinion to test if you could break AG rules, we can evaluate that for you and the board in general.

Vegetable Party - 25 April 2022 02:00 PM

if you are at all open to a better understanding of these matters, I think it’s a fair starting point.

I’m (probably) going to be keeping out of this although I have (do) known two transsexuals - one post surgery and one pre (I’m just putting this in so that you know that I have at least a little personal experience of the subject) however VP I can’t let the above remark pass without comment.

What you’ve written there is saying that you definitely know more than Karlok and that she has to come round to your way of thinking. Have you not considered that you could be wrong and need to come round to her way of thinking?

I’m not saying right or wrong for either of you but you appear to have taken a position of intransigence and that doesn’t allow for considered, friendly, debate.

One small piece of advice I’ll pass on to yourselves, and anyone else that chooses to join in, is that you shouldn’t let emotion cloud logical thinking although I acknowledge the difficulty given the subject matter.

Thanks Jabod. I was about to post more or less the same thing in my very Karloky way, but you put it much better than I could. (BTW, I know one transsexual woman who had surgery in the 90s and supports women’s rights all the way.)

@VegetableParty: I find the exchange frustrating and your posts confusing, evasive and somewhat condescending. I feel like I should be able to read between the lines or get something that I’m not getting. You don’t answer my questions, you ignore everything I’ve said about my position and I get the impression you only want to stop me from saying things you don’t like. If you want to continue this conversation on an equal basis without explicitly educating me about “these matters”, let’s do it in Dutch and in PM. If you don’t want to, just post NO. It will have to wait till Wednesday or Thursday anyway.

SoccerDude - 27 April 2022 03:29 AM

We live in crazy times Karlok. My wife’s company has two choices for females in their internal forms: “cis-gender female” and “female”. So my wife asked what’s the difference? Aren’t cis-gender females basically just females? She was told that females is for trans people who identify as female, and cis-gender female is for biological females who identify as females. So females who represent half the world population have to add some extra description to their gender while trans women who represent a negligible percentage get to use the word female? They have twisted the definition of females that we have known for 10000 years.

Awful. So much misogyny! That’s one of the worst I’ve come across, If not the worst. I hope your wife has the support of coworkers who also object to this misogyny.

It’s happening everywhere in organisations and companies: Natal females, cervix-havers, bodies with vaginas (the Lancet), menstruators, bleeders ( I’d like to meet the person who came up with that one), birthing people, postnatal people (Royal College of Midwives). A noteworthy one is the collective term non-men (the Green Party), which lumps women together with people who identify as non-binary and with men who identify as women. Neatly feeds into current attempts to replace same-sex with same-gender orientation.

Men are still men of course.

A medical form: Well man versus well person.

@Jofog: Interesting and rather telling that you assume I don’t know what I’m talking about.

I don’t do Facebook.

It should be obvious that I have visited the Canadian government website. In one of my replies I referred to its use of the terms “designated groups” and “equity groups”.

Ten minutes of Google can indeed change opinions, just like Facebook, but with its algorithms determining what you’ll see Google should never be anybody’s only source of information. I read books and (scientific) articles, watch documentaries, pay attention to what’s going in organisations, schools, companies, listen to people’s real life experiences.

Two-spirits (or hijra etcetera in other cultures) has nothing to do with women being erased.

You don’t know my opinion on transgender people.

If you believe people discussing women’s rights goes against trans rights, then the inevitable conclusion is that trans rights are an infringement on women’s rights.