Pc non-pc cave names

Status
Not open for further replies.

thehungrytroglobite

Well-known member
I don't even know why this conversation is happening. There is nothing up for debate here. 'Gender' is a fluid and constantly evolving aspect of identity and self-expression, the diversity of which should be celebrated and embraced. 'Wokeism' is not the problem, people holding onto archaic beliefs that impinge on people's human right to exist authentically is the problem. Transphobes such as JK Rowling have not been 'demonised', they've been called out for their immoral actions. Yes, things change, new terms are brought into use, but it is not 'confusing' if you make the effort to understand people.
 

Speleofish

Active member
I've just been reading (some) of JK Rowing's comments and it seems to me her issue is with sex, not gender. Everything I've seen suggests she differentiates between the two and is not critical of or hostile to transgender people. She does seem to believe that biological or chromosomal sex is immutable but I'm not sure that of itself defines her (or anyone else with similar views) as transphobic.
 

Fjell

Well-known member
I've just been reading (some) of JK Rowing's comments and it seems to me her issue is with sex, not gender. Everything I've seen suggests she differentiates between the two and is not critical of or hostile to transgender people. She does seem to believe that biological or chromosomal sex is immutable but I'm not sure that of itself defines her (or anyone else with similar views) as transphobic.
Thinking that biological sex is generally immutable in mammals is not really a belief system, is it? But I accept that some people seem to have decided it is. I could say this is a result of Queer Theory leaking out all over the place, the deformed child of Third Wave Feminism, but some might think that harsh.

It’s a fascinating debate that pits Second Wavers against those who seem disinterested in preserving earlier gains for women. Rowling and the rest of her coven are without doubt the former. Trying to erase lesbians was also never likely to end well once they got their heads together (and Rowling funds them). Stonewall officially thinks lesbians should sleep with transwomen - what are they on? It’s always about women, the whole thing reeks of rampant misogyny - which I am pretty sure is Rowlings actual view and drives her on.

All good clean fun.
 

andrewmcleod

Well-known member
My wife likes Penyghent Pot's Better Dead than Welsh because she's (a) half Welsh and (b) has a sense of humour.
I'm fully Welsh and I also find that entertaining. Why? Because it's funny, and it's not really that offensive. I'm sure there's an entertaining story behind it; and *most importantly* it isn't slagging off an oppressed group for laughs.

[Obviously the Welsh can't be oppressed any more as we are inherently superior in every way...]

As for British comedy - it is alive and well, it just doesn't need to bully, stereotype and make fun of people and groups for laughs any more. Monty Python was fantastic and ahead of its time and progressive. The prospect of John Cleese, stuck decades in the past and whining about 'woke', producing anything that he might consider 'comedy' these days is horrific.
 

ZombieCake

Well-known member
When the lunatic censorship fascists get into full swing a lot of caves will have to be renamed or erased from existence. E.g. on Mendip: Aveline's Hole - sexist, White Pit - racist, Gough's Old Cave - ageist, Lamb Leer - anti-vegan, and so on.

If I want to read a book I want to read what the author actually wrote, not what some self appointed self righteous professionally offended at everything committee thinks I should or should not be reading.
 

andrewmcleod

Well-known member
Thinking that biological sex is generally immutable in mammals is not really a belief system, is it?
Biological sex has got nothing to do with anything in this thread (it is a lot more complex than most people think, of course). Whether someone expresses androgen or not, for example, is absolutely no basis for treating them any differently outside of a medical context. It's irrelevant to how 99% of people should live their lives. And it's irrelevant here.
But I accept that some people seem to have decided it is. I could say this is a result of Queer Theory leaking out all over the place, the deformed child of Third Wave Feminism, but some might think that harsh.
Because it's crap. How does a theory 'leak out'? How is a theory a deformed child? What's your point, or are you just being offensive for the sake of it?
It’s a fascinating debate that pits Second Wavers against those who seem disinterested in preserving earlier gains for women.
It's rather more nuanced than that, and feminists who want to exclude trans women are a minority of feminists overall. It's OK for there to be disagreements about these things, and you always will have a minority who argue against things if you don't live in a totalitarian state. But neither of these groups are 'disinterested in preserving earlier gains for women'; they argue about the definition of 'women'.
Rowling and the rest of her coven are without doubt the former.
Seriously? Coven? Did the 1950s ring? Or maybe the 30s? You are describing women as 'witches', and you think that's OK? Genuinely, in a debate like this, that sort of archaic rubbish is such bad faith offensiveness that I wonder if you are doing it deliberately rather than just ignorantly.
Trying to erase lesbians was also never likely to end well once they got their heads together (and Rowling funds them).
Citation needed.
Stonewall officially thinks lesbians should sleep with transwomen - what are they on?
Citation needed - there obviously won't be one, because this is obvious crap. Stonewall are the last organization who will be telling people who they should or should not be sleeping with.
It’s always about women, the whole thing reeks of rampant misogyny - which I am pretty sure is Rowlings actual view and drives her on.
I'm not even sure what you are trying to say here. Are you trying to say that people are trying to promote trans rights because they are actually sexist against women? Surely not, because that sounds crazy.
All good clean fun.
For you.

Not necessarily for everyone else. That's the point.
 

grahams

Well-known member
Jk Rowling has been “demonised” because she has spent her money on anti trans political campaigns and being vocally anti-trans, I’d hardly describe that as being mild mannered….
JKR has spent her money on supporting feminism by ensuring that fellas dressed as women don't invade female spaces for unsavoury purposes. I'd hardly call that anti-trans.
 

andrewmcleod

Well-known member
When the lunatic censorship fascists get into full swing a lot of caves will have to be renamed or erased from existence. E.g. on Mendip: Aveline's Hole - sexist, White Pit - racist, Gough's Old Cave - ageist, Lamb Leer - anti-vegan, and so on.
Most conversations seem to go like this.

group A): We'd quite like you to avoid using racist, sexist, hateful speech.
group B): mad bile anger 'snowflake! woke! it's 1984! censorship!'
group A): (exasperated sigh)

If I want to read a book I want to read what the author actually wrote, not what some self appointed self righteous professionally offended at everything committee thinks I should or should not be reading.
I completely agree.

And that's why I think the publishers should be free to put out whatever edited version of Roald Dahl's books they want, and you should continue to be able to access the original unedited version.

I'd hate for some self appointed self righteous professional offended at everything committee to decide what I should or should not be reading; to tell me I can't make a personal choice whether to buy a copy of the original or a slightly edited version. That would be wrong, right? That would be censorship, if 'someone' was deciding what I could or could not read, and what a publisher could or could not publish?
 

andrewmcleod

Well-known member
JKR has spent her money on supporting feminism by ensuring that fellas dressed as women don't invade female spaces for unsavoury purposes. I'd hardly call that anti-trans.
You can file that away under 'Things that basically never happen, statistically'.

Ignorance is permissible; being obnoxious based on it less so.

Firstly, 'fellas dressed as women' aren't allowed into female spaces. Trans women are women, and they _still_ aren't necessarily allowed into female spaces (it depends).

And pretending to be trans to access a female space is pretty much the worst and most stupid plan ever, which is of course why it basically never happens. If you are trans, you are massively more at risk of being assaulted etc. It's just a ridiculous idea. It's also pretty easy to distinguish between genuine trans people (because that's a massive life commitment with some significant social penalties still) and your hypothetical 'fellas dressing as women'.

JKR is definitely a problem. Any attempt to argue otherwise is facetious. Now I am perfectly willing to believe her heart is in the right place. I am happy to say that her general principle of feminism i.e. supporting women is good. But JKR is wrong, and through her wrongness is doing harm to a part of the community where plenty of things already suck.
 

cavetroll

Member
JKR has spent her money on supporting feminism by ensuring that fellas dressed as women don't invade female spaces for unsavoury purposes. I'd hardly call that anti-trans.
This is one of the most unpleasant things I've read on this forum. I really think you need to reconsider that post.

It's amazing how some people can be so scared of trans women in bathrooms when according to overwhelming evidence, cis/het men are responsible for the vast majority of violence against women - often their own partners. The abuse trans women receive on a daily basis, and you think they're doing it all just for the thrill of wandering into women's bathrooms? It's utter madness.

Denying trans women are women is transphobic. Can we avoid really offensive stereotypes of a significantly underrepresented group in caving? As if we need any more reason for persecuted groups to stay away? Clearly caving culture needs some significant work. This type of view needs to be challenged in caving huts, on club meets, and with friends, neighbours and work colleagues. This is not okay. You're entitled to say it, but you're not entitled to agreement.

 

Samouse1

Well-known member
JKR has spent her money on supporting feminism by ensuring that fellas dressed as women don't invade female spaces for unsavoury purposes. I'd hardly call that anti-trans.
You’ve said it in your comment there, its men invading womens spaces that are the issue, not trans women…..
 

Fjell

Well-known member
Biological sex has got nothing to do with anything in this thread (it is a lot more complex than most people think, of course). Whether someone expresses androgen or not, for example, is absolutely no basis for treating them any differently outside of a medical context. It's irrelevant to how 99% of people should live their lives. And it's irrelevant here.

Because it's crap. How does a theory 'leak out'? How is a theory a deformed child? What's your point, or are you just being offensive for the sake of it?

It's rather more nuanced than that, and feminists who want to exclude trans women are a minority of feminists overall. It's OK for there to be disagreements about these things, and you always will have a minority who argue against things if you don't live in a totalitarian state. But neither of these groups are 'disinterested in preserving earlier gains for women'; they argue about the definition of 'women'.

Seriously? Coven? Did the 1950s ring? Or maybe the 30s? You are describing women as 'witches', and you think that's OK? Genuinely, in a debate like this, that sort of archaic rubbish is such bad faith offensiveness that I wonder if you are doing it deliberately rather than just ignorantly.

Citation needed.

Citation needed - there obviously won't be one, because this is obvious crap. Stonewall are the last organization who will be telling people who they should or should not be sleeping with.

I'm not even sure what you are trying to say here. Are you trying to say that people are trying to promote trans rights because they are actually sexist against women? Surely not, because that sounds crazy.

For you.

Not necessarily for everyone else. That's the point.

She is besties with the woman who makes this stuff (there is a large range of it if you are interested). You will be unsurprised to learn it is all in the same vein.

Everything was fine until many women felt they were being impinged on. There is zero possibility of talking them into it, so significant compromise is required. Many (not actually trans) activists seem unwilling to accept this, but it will happen. It needs to happen because trans people are getting the shit for it. This is on top of the objectively bad situation with medicalisation of children (which is probably shortly going to end).

The only people who have lost their jobs are women. The only people going to court are women. The only people being pressured into sex are women. The only people losing opportunities are women. The only people being hounded are women. Can you name a man getting any stick? Yes, it’s sexist. And it is very often being done by men. To women.
 

Brown

New member
When the lunatic censorship fascists get into full swing a lot of caves will have to be renamed or erased from existence. E.g. on Mendip: Aveline's Hole - sexist, White Pit - racist, Gough's Old Cave - ageist, Lamb Leer - anti-vegan, and so on.

If I want to read a book I want to read what the author actually wrote, not what some self appointed self righteous professionally offended at everything committee thinks I should or should not be reading.
It's market economics you are arguing against. Most (typically younger) people buying for and reading books to children don't want to buy racist, misogynistic, dated fiction. Publishers look at this, and decide in the name of keeping the sales rolling in, to chop out all the pigmy negros etc.

You seem to be suggesting that the state gets involved in regulating the contents of books. No longer do rights owners get to use their property as they want. Publishing house owners will see the value of their interlectual property eroded, keen to run their business the way they know will make them the most money but prevented by the dead hand of state regulators interfering.

If you wanted to control the exact wording of the latest edition of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory you should have bought the literary rights.
 

PeteHall

Moderator
It's also pretty easy to distinguish between genuine trans people (because that's a massive life commitment with some significant social penalties still) and your hypothetical 'fellas dressing as women'.
Sorry, but haven't you rather given the game away there.

If all it takes to be a woman is to "feel like a woman", who are you to say who feels that way? Who are you to judge what counts as "genuine" and what does not? And why does the way someone dresses matter?

Is my wife any less of a woman because she doesn't wear heels or make-up? Was my grandmother any less of a woman because she wore trousers in the 1950's and went caving?

Surely you don't believe that the way someone dresses or behaves determines their sex or gender? Unless you are advocating re-introducing gender stereotypes, which we have spend decades trying to break down?
 

andrewmcleod

Well-known member
Sorry, but haven't you rather given the game away there.

If all it takes to be a woman is to "feel like a woman", who are you to say who feels that way? Who are you to judge what counts as "genuine" and what does not? And why does the way someone dresses matter?
I'm not, unlike some people, trying to tell people who they are or aren't. It's *their* choices, actions and decisions that matter. Why does how someone dresses matter? Well it doesn't to me, but it does to them.
Is my wife any less of a woman because she doesn't wear heels or make-up? Was my grandmother any less of a woman because she wore trousers in the 1950's and went caving?
That should be entirely up to your wife and grandmother to make their free decisions without societal pressure.
Surely you don't believe that the way someone dresses or behaves determines their sex or gender?
Gender, as generally used (see reputable sources earlier), is about social actions/choices. So yes, how someone dresses is exactly about gender, but there should be no pressure to dress a particular way due to their biological sex.
Unless you are advocating re-introducing gender stereotypes, which we have spend decades trying to break down?
Personally I think gender may be an unnecessary thing, but I'm not daft enough to think that I don't adopt one and live within unwritten rules of that gender - that's how societal expectations have formed me. I'm also not even remotely naive enough to not think that gender colours almost every aspect of our social lives, because it does. I'm also not stupid enough to think its something that's going to just disappear overnight and we'll all live in some sort of individualised utopia next week. I don't pretend to be able to know what the best solution for society is that creates maximum freedom and happiness, but I do know that telling people they can't express themselves in a particular way is probably not a good start.

The problem with gender stereotypes is that we treat people in different ways based on their gender. This is unfair, and therefore bad.
That's completely unrelated to people being free to express themselves in whatever way they choose.
You can break down harmful gender stereotypes at the same time that you let people choose to be 'themselves', whatever that
I might think a given person's choices are bloody silly. But that should be their choice - their _free_ choice, without cultural pressure and stigmatisation.
If someone wants to live their life as a 1950's stereotypical housewife, and that makes them happy, who am I to tell them they're wrong? But such choices should be truly free, informed, and open to everyone (regardless of such unimportant details such as biological sex).

Telling someone that _have_ to be a 50s housewife because they were born with a uterus - bad (gender stereotype)
Telling someone they _can_ be a 50s housewife if they want to be - freedom
Telling someone they _can't_ be a 50s housewife because they were born with testicles - also bad (also a gender stereotype, but reversed)

Basically just stop telling people how they should be living their lives when it doesn't impinge on anyone else!

PS I wasn't really happy using 50s housewife as a stereotype, but couldn't really think of a good male equivalent because of, you know, thousands and thousands of years of mostly one-sided sexism.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top