Jump to content

The 'Trans' Issue.


quilp

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, HeliX said:

It doesn't need to be for trans people to feel uncomfortable attending an in-person event where anti-trans whoppers could watch them come and go.

As I said they could have got round those issues easily and another poster above says that it was possible to attend virtually. They could have done it all over Teams if they wanted. But perhaps there isn’t really an audience here as the affected group is maybe so small on an already small island? It could be viewed that its a bit counter intuitive for government to be claiming to want to give a voice to people who either don’t seem to want one or who maybe exist in so few numbers to make the issue they want discussing really largely a non issue. Or like a lot of this empty virtue signaling nobody really cares? 

Edited by offshoremanxman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, offshoremanxman said:

As I said they could have got round those issues easily and another poster above says that it was possible to attend virtually. They could have done it all over Teams if they wanted. But perhaps there isn’t really an audience here as the affected group is maybe so small on an already small island? It could be viewed that its a bit counter intuitive for government to be claiming to want to give a voice to people who either don’t seem to want one or who maybe exist in so few numbers to make the issue they want discussing really largely a non issue. Or like a lot of this empty virtue signaling nobody really cares? 

Presuming the numbers are similar to elsewhere, so a conservative estimate of half a percent, that'd be ~400 people or so. Seems like a fair amount?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, HeliX said:

Presuming the numbers are similar to elsewhere, so a conservative estimate of half a percent, that'd be ~400 people or so. Seems like a fair amount?

So on that basis you’re saying 400 people were “too scared” to support this initiative because they felt “unsafe” attending a government run event? Unlikely isn’t it. Maybe there’s only about 10 people in the IOM this is relevant to? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, offshoremanxman said:

So on that basis you’re saying 400 people were “too scared” to support this initiative because they felt “unsafe” attending a government run event? Unlikely isn’t it. Maybe there’s only about 10 people in the IOM this is relevant to? 

No, I didn't say that at all. There are a multitude of reasons a person can't make an in-person event on a particular day.

There's definitely more than 10 people this is relevant to, because I know more than 10 people this is relevant to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, HeliX said:

No, I didn't say that at all. There are a multitude of reasons a person can't make an in-person event on a particular day.

Ok but it’s still hard to buy that people are simply “too scared” to attend a government run event which would clearly have prioritized people’s safety and not put them in any form of danger and which was clearly designed to give them a voice to help government help them. Surely Teams and other platforms etc would have been utilized if people wanted to attend from a “safe” placed? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, offshoremanxman said:

Ok but it’s still hard to buy that people are simply “too scared” to attend a government run event which would clearly have prioritized people’s safety and not put them in any form of danger and which was clearly designed to give them a voice to help government help them. Surely Teams and other platforms etc would have been utilized if people wanted to attend from a “safe” placed? 

Presenting in a public space is already not entirely safe for many trans people.

Not everyone owns devices that they can attend teams calls on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, offshoremanxman said:

So now you’re saying that none of them own a smart phone either? 

No, which is why I didn't say that. You suggested the explanation was that there are no people it's relevant to here, I was giving alternative explanations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, HeliX said:

No, which is why I didn't say that. You suggested the explanation was that there are no people it's relevant to here, I was giving alternative explanations.

Yes but implied in that statement is that a meaningful number of people might not have the means to make a Teams call which you can do via an App on pretty much any smart phone which I’d guess 80% of such an audience would have. So that wouldn’t really be a valid excuse for someone not wanting to participate remotely even with the camera off to feel “safe”. Which leaves you to wonder if there aren’t really enough people here who are bothered about government wanting to get guidance from them on how it might make their lives better. 

Edited by offshoremanxman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, offshoremanxman said:

Yes but implied in that statement is that a meaningful number of people might not have the means to make a Teams call which you can do via an App on pretty much any smart phone which I’d guess 80% of such an audience would have. So that wouldn’t really be a valid excuse for someone not wanting to participate remotely even with the camera off to feel “safe”. Which leaves you to wonder if there aren’t really enough people here who are bothered about government wanting to get guidance from them on how it might make their lives better. 

But it's not just one thing is it. If you start with 400 people who might be interested in any particular event, by the time you've gotten through those who are unable to attend due to time clash/illness/being away, adding those who feel unsafe, or who can't join via Teams (not that it was an option in this case anyway) it's perhaps unsurprising that the take-up is low.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, HeliX said:

But it's not just one thing is it. If you start with 400 people who might be interested in any particular event, by the time you've gotten through those who are unable to attend due to time clash/illness/being away, adding those who feel unsafe, or who can't join via Teams (not that it was an option in this case anyway) it's perhaps unsurprising that the take-up is low.

Or alternatively it isn’t really an issue at all and people just can’t be bothered. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...