metaldinosaur wrote:Noodle wrote:It certainly does no harm whatsoever to respect a human's gender choice. I don't really understand anyone's refusal to do so. "This person identifies as a woman. What do I gain or lose by calling her a man?"
You potentially lose a lot. There are some very good reasons to question this 'respect' imo. (The deconstruction of certainty and its social consequence would be my main approach). But as ever, when the societal perception has shifted so far in the direction of openness/'acceptance', it has to be meticulously unpicking to uncover it. The self evidenced of 'doing the tight thing' is tanted by mass conformity, so scrutiny and rigor must be applied to the opposing view to reveal justification. In short: the (mean average) social power behind trans identity is crazy powerful - too powerful... and that's not good.
It doesn't mean there aren't reasons to be kind to the individual, there are, which is why I do it, but its appears that any other way of thinking is not allowed at the moment. If Vicky had stood her ground, it could well have been the end of bloodstock... that level of power is crazy. And that doesn't feel right to me.
I'll address the latter point first. No explanation was offered as to the reasons behind her outburst, so it's not unreasonable for trans or those who sympathise with them to assume it's simple prejudice and discrimination against them. That's reason enough to put people off attending, it's reason enough to avoid dealing with Vicky on a professional level, it doesn't need any social movement influence for individuals to make that decision.
At any rate, the bands will always be the deciding factor over the success of this festival. There will always be loyalty to the team as a whole and not just a single person. I don't think Vicky's presence or blunder will cause Bloodstock to fail.
With regards to your other point, I'm cynical towards social media in general so it might cloud my own view, but I think you might be giving a bit too much credit to the more vocal, militant (an admittedly broad description given the differing levels) parts of any social movement you'll find on faceblog tweetville who will taint any reasonable debate with insults, big sounding terms and a tendency to exaggerate and sensationalise in the hope of scoring the big points. Unless there's a change to law forcing society to metaphorically lay the red carpet for only trans people (unlikely and of course dangerous in its own right) I don't think there's much danger of your worries coming to fruition.
As for:
north sea storm wrote:gender choice ? This debate is getting dafter .Noodle wrote:It certainly does no harm whatsoever to respect a human's gender choice. I don't really understand anyone's refusal to do so. "This person identifies as a woman. What do I gain or lose by calling her a man?"
Alright, disregard the way I worded my initial statement. So what would your answer to my question be?