Now you're just being ridiculous & transphobic.

Kids being targeted by sickos online is nothing new & has nothing to do with transgender rights.

Let's scrap the gender recognition act so this can never happen again!?!

That's a bit of a nansy pansy thing to say. Or maybe it's sissy, certainly not an alpha stud. Unless you're a woman, then it might be a bit butch, ok maybe just tomboy. Definitely not ladylike.



Disclaimer: Not directed at you in any way, just showing fluid notions of masculinity and femininity very much exist today in our society and have done for some time, and if anyone doesn't think so, they can just man up..

And the people who do it are almost always men.

Please ensure you use appropriate language on NZG. Here are some guidelines.

https://s.wsj.net/public/resources/d...rdlanguage.pdf

What a great list. I actually learned some history in there - "basket case"? I had no idea. "No can do" - racist! "hip hip hooray" - was used by Germans as a rallying cry to hunt down Jews hahah. Everyone has been anti-semitic at every birthday party they ever intended.

God the modern world sucks, and more surprising than how crazy these ideas are, is that there are people [including here] who actually defend them.

Oh my - I (until 10 minutes ago) previously had elevated respect for the outputs of the Standford University Network, predominantly (*checks* - can I use a word derived from domination??) in the area of data processing and integrated (*nervous shiver*) circuit design, resulting in some rather good (*errr*) UNIX (*Ok, clearly now I've stepped over the mark and trivialised persons who prefer castration*) computers. ::facepalm::

Facinating list.

I saw that instead of "disabled person" that "person with a disability" should be used due to the fact that "Disabled person" implies that the disability defines a person, whereas "Person with a disability" gives the ownership of the disability to the person."

A lot of people with disabilities had issue with New Zealand's new Ministry of Disabled People for exactly this reason.

Hmm - similar to abusive relationship - except, perhaps, there is a subset of the BDSM community that would prefer to be identified as having abuse be the defining factor?

I appear to be having an increased level of engorgement in my cranial blood vessels - just an observation.

I see that trigger warnings are themselves so triggering that they require trigger warnings.

I totally understand the word I am about to use is extremely loaded - but -
This is like societal/lingual eugenics.

If you take language and society as entities that display an evolutionary pattern, then that's what this sort of shit is.

I mean, I'm not gonna disagree with the kernel of spirit that clearly goes behind the thinking of this sort of thing - but going this far with it . . .

Oh no - just saw the diagram indicating the NZ sign language representation for "Fucktard". I fear there may be an interpretive issue with the second syllable if it accentuates a large forehead?

Anger as Police Scotland begin referring to “minor-attracted people” instead of “paedophiles”

https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co....olice-28841534

Man sues to force admission to women-only dating network because he identifies as a woman:

https://www.theguardian.com/media/20...discrimination

^^ i wish these parasites would neck themselves.

Checkmate atheists

https://twitter.com/agedysphoria/sta...00052630556673

Male inequality
(Not really PCGM, but as juxtaposition to some of the more PCGM stuff)

And commentators point at symptoms like Andrew Tate and clutch their pearls crying “how could such a thing happen”.

It fits the sub, I don't really see the need to gender inequality. The expert's solution is the obvious one "invest resources". Sorting that investment by gender is just the ongoing juggle of resources that occurs in lieu of actually addressing inequality.

The slice of the cake most of us enjoy continues to diminish, what remains going to those able to present themselves as amongst those deemed most worthy.

Understandably people have gotten quite wound up about identity.

If you ignore male athletes dominating women’s sports, you’re a bigot committing trans erasure

https://www.outsports.com/trans/2022...al-world-title

Dear Simon,
I saw this and I thought of you:

https://www.vice.com/en/article/m7gd...-are-concerned

Yours always,
Indigo1

Gooooold

Art history professor displays historical art in art history class, is fired of course

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/08/u...-muhammad.html

Brit Awards move to gender-neutral categories results in almost total exclusion of women

Who could possibly have foreseen, etc

Foreseen what as a result of what?

When the protection of “female only” is removed from a place, it becomes a male place.

Which bit's the madness?

It's PC gone MAD, as in the mutually assured destruction type.

Best Female and Best male categories exist: Too sexist.
Creates a single gender neutral category instead: Winners are exclusively male.


"At the time, critics warned that the move could be detrimental to women."

Explain why, without tanking your entire career.

It looks to me like the world is still very much for a handful of rich men and their families, but we're trying to find ways to keep that, but without the consequences.

If we really were concerned about the role of vulnerable people in our communities, we'd transform our tax systems.

But why would those few rich men sit by and let that happen? Hey, how about making it about men and women instead of the ongoing gross accumulation of wealth that's occurring?

I'm reminded in the Haitian revolution. The complaints from the artisans that they weren't enjoying the same benefits as the landowners. "It's not fair!" And then the slaves revolted, lolz.

40% of my tax breakdown already goes towards welfare and benefits....I'm not sure me paying more tax is the real problem.

Why you paying more tax? You super rich? Naw, that can't be right, you're paying tax.

Isn't that a strawman argument in the context of this particular issue?

"The gendered awards were working, but gender is a hot topic now, and as a result of the woke reaction the gender neutral awards have their old problems back."

"Therefore rejig the tax system!"

I'm not saying the tax system is ideal - or wealth distribution, which I think is your issue - but it's quite a leap to imply that the simplest solution to this particular issue is to reconfigure the entire world, while retaining the gender neutral awards.

It’s interesting because we’re talking about categorising gender in areas where someone's physical makeup has no bearing on the outcome. Which by the way is quite common with arts/entertainment i.e., MTV, Grammys, Arias, Booker prize, Turner Prize. So if there is bias then the problem is structural sexism.

Which is where it gets a bit lol because these same people outraged have forever actively justified the gender pay gap and lower women participation in the stem fields for example. It's just meritocracy in action. Women aren’t interested in these things. Men just happen to be better.

Because let’s be honest here. Lightspeed is right, you guys don’t really give a shit about social justice and are happy to ignore most inequality in society unless your social media algorithm tells you to. The huge financial investment and social change required to turn this around, you’re not interested in. That late stage capitalism works for you but not them is their fault once again justified by faith based concepts like personal responsibility, individualism and biological determinism.

The people pushing for the best tree climbing awards to be open to fish are the same people surprised when no fish win.

This is one of the best summations I've read in a long time.

^That's the perfect example of a hysterical idiotic argument.

In the context of a non biological based competition you're making it about biological advantage.

Disagree - music /as an industry/ has come to be about the music video - which requires attractive people. Not many people want to watch ugly people sing about love (except country music fans). It doesn't stir the emotions in quite the same way as Britney Spears in a red jumpsuit. Britney was successful. Did Britney even write her own music for which she was winning the award? I don't think so. There are winning formulas with music, and the target audience of most successful groups is "teenage/early 20s girls". Music is largely about emotions. Beatle-mania? Teenage girls. Elvis? Teenage girls. There is of course more than one market: hip hop requires a certain "physical makeup" - black thug. Eminem is the exception rather than a rule, but he's still known as "a white rapper". Is it race based? Yes. Does anyone really care? No. Country music is quite a different genre where they will sing about a pickup truck and getting too drunk, and they have their own awards as a result.

Being a great musician/producer is NOT the same as being a commercially successful, award-winning artist. Anyone can be a musician or sing - but how shocked we were when Susan Boyle had a great voice, and they immediately rushed to make her less ugly. Physical makeup plays a part. The music video is likely far more expensive to make than the actual song, and because it's a visual medium, physical makeup really matters.

It also extends to movies/film: actors and actresses are chosen /specifically for how they look on screen/. Portfolios have photos attached so that movie makers can choose the physical makeup they have in mind. Does he look like a villain? We need an old woman to play the part of a grandmother, etc. If it was about acting skills alone, the same best actor/actress could play every role. But that's just weird. Physical makeup plays a part.

But beyond your point about how music /should be/ a meritocracy (but isn't), what is the actual problem with having male and female categories?

But you are right about one thing: I don't give a shit about social justice, because there are bigger problems in the world than whether some trans gendered person gets their own toilet or can enter a competition where they will dominate unfairly and it hurts their feelings.

According to the OCEAN model (Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism) men score more highly on extraversion while women score more highly on agreeableness and neuroticism. Men will compete for things, and not worry about other people's feelings or their own shortcomings, more aggressively than women. Especially for things like individual awards which are status markers.

Does that tells us about men or our society and what it values, how people grow up adapted to that?

Can we think critically about the whole award system in the first place? People chasing after tokens, for what? Oh right, to assure themselves access to resources, of which we have in abundance, but keep only for the most deserving. Or something.