Mail vs Transgender

Althea · **Posted:** Sat May 12, 2012 10:25 pm

What? I don't see how her comment is "encouraging", and it's hardly like the Daily Mail's comments system is rife with potential for educating the ignorant masses.

Malcolm Armsteen · **Posted:** Sat May 12, 2012 10:27 pm

OK. Put it this way - never meet the bastards half-way. Is that better?

Althea · **Posted:** Sat May 12, 2012 10:30 pm

No, because I'm not sure what you're getting at.

If you're trying to imply we should be trying to educate these people, then - well - that's a big task. There are hundreds of people blogging about transgender (and when one extrapolates to QUILTBAG issues as a whole, you're talking thousands at minimum) issues at any one time. There are organisations out there dedicated to educating, supporting and helping. It's the same with discussions about Islamaphobia, race, immigrants and so forth. There's only so much you can do as many remain wilfully ignorant.

Malcolm Armsteen · **Posted:** Sat May 12, 2012 10:32 pm

I'm suggesting you could lighten up just a little and not immediately assume that everyone who doesn't understand is ignorant.

Althea · **Posted:** Sat May 12, 2012 10:34 pm

Lighten up? Sorry, Malc, on this topic I can't.

And I don't assume everyone is ignorant. This woman, though? Whether wilfully so or naively so, her comments were ignorant.

ACG · **Posted:** Sat May 12, 2012 10:38 pm

if you want to talk about understanding and making things better, perhaps try understanding althea's position, rather than that of a random mail commenter who isn't here? she's explained very articulately why this is such a problematic attitude, why it rubs the wrong way and what it's symtomatic of.

we can only judge the comment on what was there, and we have, and you don't like it. fine, but you're not going to undo what althea and others have already felt about it. no one is going to turn around and say "you know, i don't feel too bad about that now you've explained what this woman may possibly have meant if we're being generous", perhaps you need to "lighten up" and accept that?

Malcolm Armsteen · **Posted:** Sat May 12, 2012 10:40 pm

How about you try to understand my position? Or doesn't it work like that?

I do understand her position. I just don't agree with the way she's expressing it.

It all sounds a bit like people who tell you you're not listening, when actually you are listening, you're just not agreeing.

ACG · **Posted:** Sat May 12, 2012 10:41 pm

Malcolm Armsteen wrote:

It all sounds a bit like people who tell you you're not listening, when actually you are listening, you're just not agreeing.

this is exactly how you're sounding.

i believe we're at am impass. move on perhaps?

Malcolm Armsteen · **Posted:** Sat May 12, 2012 10:44 pm

It's not an impasse, it's a disagreement. People have them.

storygirl · **Posted:** Sat May 12, 2012 10:44 pm

I sort of feel as if i have just walked in on my parents having a "discussion" in the kitchen.

I think this goes to the heart of what we do about the Mail readers, and commentors. Do we attempt to engage and debate, or ignore, rant or troll? Now I am guilty most of the time of simply ignoring, I am far more likely to try to engage with someone on Cif if I believe they are particularly wrongheaded on a subject. Which speaks volumes about my prejudices of course.

Could any difference be made if we attempted to lift the veil of ignorance, that is I suppose the million dollar question.

Althea · **Posted:** Sat May 12, 2012 10:48 pm

storygirl wrote:

Could any difference be made if we attempted to lift the veil of ignorance, that is I suppose the million dollar question.

If we could, I'm sure some of us would. But as it stands, we can't, or at least not in an effective manner.

What do I gain if I get into an argument on the Mail's site? Nothing at all. It's not an effective platform, both in terms of function and audience, to make a case.

ezinra · **Posted:** Sat May 12, 2012 10:50 pm

I doubt it. In any case, I firmly believe it's up to Jo to read up about transgender before she makes that kind of comment about it on a public website. As far as I can tell, transgender people spend a lot of time explaining themselves. Cis-gendered people like (presumably) Jo don't seem to spend any time asking, listening or thinking; rather, they rush to their keyboard to speak their brains. The Mail now publishes a 'wowee look at the weirdo transgender person' dogwhistle article pretty much every other day at the moment. The comments are always very similar. As Althea says, there's a terrific amount of fear and ignorance to wade through, and I know from the hours I've spent trying to explain my sexuality that few people are genuinely interested in understanding (in the sense of empathising, putting themselves in my position); most simply want to build a box to fit me into. If someone doesn't have the basic facilities for understanding alternative sexualities, I can't be arsed filling them in, I'd never do anything else.

Also, I agree with Althea about the tone. Jo's reeks of privilege.

Malcolm Armsteen · **Posted:** Sat May 12, 2012 10:53 pm

storygirl wrote:

I sort of feel as if i have just walked in on my parents having a "discussion" in the kitchen.

I think this goes to the heart of what we do about the Mail readers, and commentors. Do we attempt to engage and debate, or ignore, rant or troll? Now I am guilty most of the time of simply ignoring, I am far more likely to try to engage with someone on Cif if I believe they are particularly wrongheaded on a subject. Which speaks volumes about my prejudices of course.

Could any difference be made if we attempted to lift the veil of ignorance, that is I suppose the million dollar question.

Probably not, it isn't in Mail Online's interests to allow that to happen.
That doesn't mean we have to have a monolithic response to comments. They are on a spectrum, like any other set of opinions. Some show wilful misunderstanding, some show simply that an idea is unfamiliar, and that the person would not construct a discourse as we might. Some are actually quite enlightened. An awful lot more than we recognise are ironic, I suspect. The action we take is to learn from them.

Some you condemn, some you praise and some you say 'meh'.

Malcolm Armsteen · **Posted:** Sat May 12, 2012 10:54 pm

ezinra wrote:

I doubt it. In any case, I firmly believe it's up to Jo to read up about transgender before she makes that kind of comment about it on a public website. As far as I can tell, transgender people spend a lot of time explaining themselves. Cis-gendered people like (presumably) Jo don't seem to spend any time asking, listening or thinking; rather, they rush to their keyboard to speak their brains. The Mail now publishes a 'wowee look at the weirdo transgender person' dogwhistle article pretty much every other day at the moment. The comments are always very similar. As Althea says, there's a terrific amount of fear and ignorance to wade through, and I know from the hours I've spent trying to explain my sexuality that few people are genuinely interested in understanding (in the sense of empathising, putting themselves in my position); most simply want to build a box to fit me into. If someone doesn't have the basic facilities for understanding alternative sexualities, I can't be arsed filling them in, I'd never do anything else.

Also, I agree with Althea about the tone. Jo's reeks of privilege.

We have absolutely no right to expect anyone else to research or learn anything simply because it's important to us.

ACG · **Posted:** Sat May 12, 2012 10:56 pm

Althea wrote:

storygirl wrote:

Could any difference be made if we attempted to lift the veil of ignorance, that is I suppose the million dollar question.

If we could, I'm sure some of us would. But as it stands, we can't, or at least not in an effective manner.

What do I gain if I get into an argument on the Mail's site? Nothing at all. It's not an effective platform, both in terms of function and audience, to make a case.

the non-threaded nature of the mails comment section is something which bothers me. it make's it clear it is not a place for converstaions and learning (cif, shittily formatted as that also it, does at least have a "reply" function of sorts). that's partly what makes comments like jo's ignorant, because they are just statements, even if they did contain questions they do not even have the capacity, on the mails comments thread, to be such.

Mail vs Transgender

Who is online