Watch out, whitey faggots -- you're next in the SJW crosshairs.

[krypton iodine sulfur]

You've asked all of them, have you?

Irrelevant; I'm talking about a general effect of contributing to the prejudices and belittlement of transgender people, which is also what the 'gem' of a rule referenced in the original post was talking about.

Do you really think anyone came to be critical of transrights because they don't like the aesthetic of a large man in a flower print dress?

No, I think people came to entrench bigotry and biases on the basis of gender-variant people and actual cross-dressers being persistently portrayed as a total fucking joke. I think people who have had little to no exposure to transgender people have very cartoonish ideas stuck in their minds based off of a poor understanding of what it means to be transgender coupled what little they've seen of men acting like women in popular media.

When it comes to something like passing legislation protecting transgender people when using the bathroom of their gender identity, the rhetoric opposing such legislation draws on that same sort of cartoonish impression.

What makes you think the alternative is better?

Who said I think the alternative is better?

Banning cross-dressing for people who are not trans sends the message that there is something harmful about cross-dressing.

When did I advocate banning crossdressing? The rule in the op itself doesn't ban crossdressing if you are a crossdresser, or what might appear to be crossdressing for a gender variant person.

Abridging people's rights to dress how they want because other people's feelings might be hurt is never understandable.

Who said it was? I said the basic considerations were understandable.

It is literally the same impulse that drives the religious police to punish women who they deem to be dressed immodestly.

It really isn't.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

Would you say the same about any sort of dressing-up for fun?

No. Dressing up for fun is not the issue being contested.

A few years ago there was this silly campaign at a college called "We are a culture not a costume" which was rightly ridiculed.
So what's the solution to spare fragile fee-fees of the easily offended? Ban Halloween?

Why would I have commentary on that? I don't know that campaign, but I assume it's a cultural appropriation thing? I get why it seems relevant to you, but it's not really. Or rather it is relevant to the OP, but less so to what I wrote.

 

[Metaphor]

Irrelevant; I'm talking about a general effect of contributing to the prejudices and belittlement of transgender people, which is also what the 'gem' of a rule referenced in the original post was talking about.

In what way does cross-dressing belittle transgender people?

When it comes to something like passing legislation protecting transgender people when using the bathroom of their gender identity, the rhetoric opposing such legislation draws on that same sort of cartoonish impression.

Someone who thinks that a transgender person who wants to use a bathroom concordant with their gender identity is really a cis-gender person who wants to perve on women is not someone whose mind is going to be changed by the cessation of university students cross-dressing at parties. Such a person cannot imagine transgederism in the fist place.

When did I advocate banning crossdressing? The rule in the op itself doesn't ban crossdressing if you are a crossdresser, or what might appear to be crossdressing for a gender variant person.

The NUS passed a motion that said it should ban clubs and societies that permit or encourage cross-dressing as fancy dress. I don't know what power the NUS has, but if it could de-register an otherwise valid club or society on campus because that club or society had a cross-dressing fancy dress party, then it is literally a fascist dictator.

It really isn't.

It really is. It is exactly the same sentiment. "We know what is morally right, you do not, so we are going to ban, by force, your right to do with your own body as you please".

 

[bigfield]

The NUS passed a motion that said it should ban clubs and societies that permit or encourage cross-dressing as fancy dress. I don't know what power the NUS has, but if it could de-register an otherwise valid club or society on campus because that club or society had a cross-dressing fancy dress party, then it is literally a fascist dictator.

Yay for liberalism!

 

[Will Wiley]

Among other gems: cross-dressing is oppressive:

It's not really a gem. Cross-dressing as a joke has negative repercussions on transgender and genderqueer people, and people who actually do crossdress for reasons other than personal amusement. .

What if I wear a tutu on Tuesday at Black Rock City the week after next?

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

In what way does cross-dressing belittle transgender people?

If you aren't going to read my post, what's the point? It doesn't. That's not in my post. Treating crossdressing or identifying female as a joke does. Are you being deliberately obtuse. Treating it like a joke is the issue. And not just as an isolated incident, but as a common schtick. What's so hard about that to understand? Let's set aside agreement and get tot he point where you understood what I am saying.

Someone who thinks that a transgender person who wants to use a bathroom concordant with their gender identity is really a cis-gender person who wants to perve on women is not someone whose mind is going to be changed by the cessation of university students cross-dressing at parties. Such a person cannot imagine transgederism in the fist place.

Again, not what is being said. It's not about convincing that person of anything; it's about not perpetuating the deprecation of cross-dressing as a joke. When crossdress is the entire punchline what is the takeaway for a person who is a crossdresser or is transitioning and is concerned about passing? That their very behaviour is considered a joke.

But it's not just that. It doesn't matter if Joe Blow doesn't know jack shit about transgender identities, if, when the call to effect policy on transgender issues arises in public offices and he shuts the fuck up and stays out of it. But not only is he encouraged by transphobic parties to be upset, his limited understanding of what being transgender is is a warped, diminutive thing skewed by reference points which paint crossdressing and transgender identities in very unflattering ways.

The NUS passed...

You were addressing me at the time. I never stated I agreed wholeheartedly with them. That was unambiguous in my post. So maybe try answering the question you are asked, yeah?

Let's be honest here; you're making no attempt to understand what they're actually trying to address. Despite no personal experience with this issue or any apparent background understanding, your first post is rather dismissive.

What makes it mind boggling is in your thread about the senior female exec, you seemed to be asking for the exact same understanding on and issue which was absolutely nothing on the surface, yet you refuse to do the same here. I could easily turn and say 'Aw boohoo; she pointed out factually that your team was all male. What a joke.' I could, but you wanted people to understand the 'veiled' issue at hand.

So now when you have the chance to do the same and entertain that maybe, just fucking maybe the negative impacts of crossdressing in a jocular fashion do exist. And keep in mind, not once have I advocated banning the activity. Not a single time. I merely want you to show some consideration for the problem they are seeking to address instead of being a dismissive, hypocritical asshole.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

What if I wear a tutu on Tuesday at Black Rock City the week after next?

I dunno. What if you read the whole post? Maybe you'd see that it wasn't about isolated events or you wearing a tutu.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

That's my last post. It's nothing to do with this thread, but my limited posts were a brief distraction from a rather grim life event. Sorry to hit and run... well, not really sorry. Just saying, anyone who wants the last word on me: it's now yours for the taking.

 

[Metaphor]

If you aren't going to read my post, what's the point? It doesn't. That's not in my post. Treating crossdressing or identifying female as a joke does.

What's your evidence of that? Drag-as-comedy has been a heavy feature of gay culture for a long time. The deliberate use of misgendering pronouns by gay men about other gay men as a joke is also a heavy feature. Do you think these and other acts belittle transgender persons? How?

Are you being deliberately obtuse. Treating it like a joke is the issue. And not just as an isolated incident, but as a common schtick. What's so hard about that to understand? Let's set aside agreement and get tot he point where you understood what I am saying.

Cross-dressing for fun is not treating transgender issues as a joke.

Again, not what is being said. It's not about convincing that person of anything; it's about not perpetuating the deprecation of cross-dressing as a joke. When crossdress is the entire punchline what is the takeaway for a person who is a crossdresser or is transitioning and is concerned about passing? That their very behaviour is considered a joke.

Even if I agreed that a world where no cis-gendered person cross-dressed for fun would be more hospitable to transgenders (I don't), I still would not ban cross-dressing, nor would I assume the rights of the transgender person to not be offended is a utilitarian good greater than the right of anyone to dress as she pleases.

Let's be honest here; you're making no attempt to understand what they're actually trying to address. Despite no personal experience with this issue or any apparent background understanding, your first post is rather dismissive.

What makes it mind boggling is in your thread about the senior female exec, you seemed to be asking for the exact same understanding on and issue which was absolutely nothing on the surface, yet you refuse to do the same here. I could easily turn and say 'Aw boohoo; she pointed out factually that your team was all male. What a joke.' I could, but you wanted people to understand the 'veiled' issue at hand.

There was nothing 'veiled' about the issue.

So now when you have the chance to do the same and entertain that maybe, just fucking maybe the negative impacts of crossdressing in a jocular fashion do exist. And keep in mind, not once have I advocated banning the activity. Not a single time. I merely want you to show some consideration for the problem they are seeking to address instead of being a dismissive, hypocritical asshole.

Consistently believing that people ought to be able to do as they please when they don't harm anybody (offense can never count as harm) doesn't make me a hypocrite.

 

[fast]

Treating it like a joke is the issue. And not just as an isolated incident, but as a common schtick.

Cross-dressing for fun is not treating transgender issues as a joke.

Y'all aint talkin' 'bout the same thing. You're talking about the physical act of cross dressing. He's talking about how it's portrayed (by oh say, the media).

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Personally, I think black women do a damn good job of impersonating Richard Simmons and other gay white dudes.

 

[laughing dog]

Consistently believing that people ought to be able to do as they please when they don't harm anybody (offense can never count as harm) doesn't make me a hypocrite.

Well, it does raise an interesting point about the OP. The OP goes on about 2 motions or requests by the NUS. No one has to comply with those requests. So, applying your standard to those requests, what exactly is your beef?

BTW, I think both are examples of extreme silliness.

 

[fromderinside]

That's my last post. It's nothing to do with this thread, but my limited posts were a brief distraction from a rather grim life event. Sorry to hit and run... well, not really sorry. Just saying, anyone who wants the last word on me: it's now yours for the taking.

bye. good luck.