Dilbert comic dropped
Discussion
Silverage said:
I’ve got most of his collections from over the years. The ones from the past decade are not as good in my opinion, although that may just be him running out of ideas.
Also, and this is perhaps a limitation of his drawing style, but has there ever been a black character?
The security guard who steals office supplies from around 2006 was one of his few black characters Also, and this is perhaps a limitation of his drawing style, but has there ever been a black character?
8.4L 154 said:
vetrof said:
plenty said:
And there it is.
No answer then? At least Username checks out.As for the "deny trans kids even exist" comment, this seems a frequent call-to-arms by some people, usually in an attempt to shut down any sort of debate.
We seem to have rapidly moved to putting "rights" around gender issues, for ever-younger people. At 14, your parents can ban you from having a tattoo, but not - it seems - have a primary role in deciding whether gender transition is the right choice for you. Some studies have estimated that 60 to 90 per cent of children who identify as transgender no longer want to transition by the time they’re adults. It seems, from the studies, that while a majority of children displaying gender dysphoria (GD) desist, this is related to the intensity of the childhood GD itself. For some (most, according to many studies) it is a passing phase and for others, it's an indicator of their future sex/gender presentation.
As so often in life, however, we end up with rather "absolutist" positions. Whereas we should be seeing the individual person, instead there's a tendency to lump people together, not least amongst those with a vested interest in running pressure groups or who like (ironically or otherwise) to define their identity in terms of their support for a particular lobby. It is as wrong to deny all children treatment for GD (of whatever kind) as it is to assist all GD-displaying children in early transition.
It surely isn't a denial of the existence of trans children to state - based upon available evidence - that most children who think they might be trans ultimately desist from their belief, is it?
Murph7355 said:
Between pronouns, qualification statements, the latest charity wheeze and lengthy explanations that you don't really expect a reply when a mail is sent out of hours, the actual message just gets lost...
No links to where you can follow the organisation on Facebook and Twitter? 
skwdenyer said:
It surely isn't a denial of the existence of trans children to state - based upon available evidence - that most children who think they might be trans ultimately desist from their belief, is it?
No, but it would be propagating misinformation.Google a bit harder and you'll discover that these "studies" have long been debunked. But you're absolutely right: finding objective information on detransitioning is hard, not least because it's such a charged subject. Which is why patently false myths such as "60 to 90 per cent" continue to persist: because people have a vested interest in perputating them.
Returning to the question that sparked this little thread sidetrack: why does the topic attract so much attention? In 2019 suicide was the leading cause of death of people aged 5-34 in the UK. Where are the emotionally charged headlines and forum posts on this? Why does the fear of harm caused by young people transitioning gender, which is not actually proven to exist to any significant extent, attract so much rage when the irrefutably proven harm of young people killing themselves is mostly ignored?
Because ppl being killed or killing themselves is discussed in depth every day. If you somehow fail to see this in the various prime time media available to you, then that is on you, not the media.
Irrespective of the morality aspect, the media doesn’t ignore such red hot public interest topics as death, because simply put - it’s bad for business. I suspect that isn’t the point you thought you were trying to make though…
Irrespective of the morality aspect, the media doesn’t ignore such red hot public interest topics as death, because simply put - it’s bad for business. I suspect that isn’t the point you thought you were trying to make though…
DeejRC said:
Because ppl being killed or killing themselves is discussed in depth every day.
Is it? There is occasional coverage when a particularly photo-genic individual dies, but in depth and every day?DeejRC said:
If you somehow fail to see this in the various prime time media available to you, then that is on you, not the media.
I can't remember the last thread on PH discussing suicide, yet there's almost always a thread on Transgender issues of some sort for the morally outraged to display their lack of knowledge and understanding.tangerine_sedge said:
I can't remember the last thread on PH discussing suicide, yet there's almost always a thread on Transgender issues of some sort for the morally outraged to display their lack of knowledge and understanding.
Go look on the latest skip fire of a thread about trans stuff and you can see how much ignorance is on display and how for a group of people it always seems to come down to changing rooms and toilets.Other than punching down at others you'll almost never find them going out of their way to give a s
t about anyone else.OldGermanHeaps said:
Silverage said:
I’ve got most of his collections from over the years. The ones from the past decade are not as good in my opinion, although that may just be him running out of ideas.
Also, and this is perhaps a limitation of his drawing style, but has there ever been a black character?
The security guard who steals office supplies from around 2006 was one of his few black characters Also, and this is perhaps a limitation of his drawing style, but has there ever been a black character?
Edited by Nimby on Sunday 19th March 17:01
plenty said:
skwdenyer said:
It surely isn't a denial of the existence of trans children to state - based upon available evidence - that most children who think they might be trans ultimately desist from their belief, is it?
No, but it would be propagating misinformation.Google a bit harder and you'll discover that these "studies" have long been debunked. But you're absolutely right: finding objective information on detransitioning is hard, not least because it's such a charged subject. Which is why patently false myths such as "60 to 90 per cent" continue to persist: because people have a vested interest in perputating them.
I'm a former academic scientist; I actually consider studies to understand their methodology. I also know and acknowledge how very hard it is to pin down enough variables to get really strong data.
I don't think all of those studies have been "debunked" - more that there are important questions still remaining. But it doesn't matter: my central point is that each person presenting should be treated as an individual. There's too much heat and dogma on both sides determined to push one side or another; both should desist, IMHO. If the process of diagnosing GD has been done correctly, if the individual has been properly understood, there looks to be a much smaller risk of later remorse. That's good.
plenty said:
Returning to the question that sparked this little thread sidetrack: why does the topic attract so much attention? In 2019 suicide was the leading cause of death of people aged 5-34 in the UK. Where are the emotionally charged headlines and forum posts on this?
It seems to me rather chicken and egg. This topic gets so much attention precisely because some people on both sides are determined to duke it out without compromise. The language is deliberately polarising ("transphobia" to describe the views of people who don't agree with a particular dogma as to how equal rights should be implemented, for instance, is ridiculous - it simply hijacks the previously-well-defined word "phobia" to describe something that for a great many - if not most - people isn't a phobia).For reasons I'm not going to go into on a public forum, I'm afraid I'm *extremely* well aware of the prevalence - and impact - of suicide, self-harm, suicidal thoughts / ideation, depression, and so on. But that rather takes us back to the polarised point: when a trans person commits suicide, it is often presented as being related to their experiences of being a trans person; but what of all the others? Suicide is the number 1 cause of death amongst under-45 males in the UK. There's a big difference between being suicidal, and finding a reason to try to explain that feeling.
It is certainly true that LGBTQ+ people (taken together; I'm not convinced it is all that happy a grouping) are more susceptible to these issues. But why? It is overly-simplistic to say it just because of being uncomfortable in their skin. According to some research, for a lot of people, the pressure that comes from being expected to conform to "new gender norms" around LGBTQ+ identities is just as bad - there isn't a stereotypical heterosexual identity, so why should there be such a strong set of stereotypes - and pressures to conform - associated with non-gender-conforming people?; the whole process of "coming out" is enormously stressful to many who would rather just be allowed to get on with their lives.
Which brings me back, again, to my central point - we need to stop treating people as if they're part of "an identity" and instead treat them as individuals. That means people on all sides of the debate need to stop trying to tell others what the "one true way" is.
plenty said:
Why does the fear of harm caused by young people transitioning gender, which is not actually proven to exist to any significant extent, attract so much rage when the irrefutably proven harm of young people killing themselves is mostly ignored?
In terms of "fear of harm" I have not expressed any specific fear of harm caused *by* young people transitioning, and I don't believe I hear this widely. It is a basic human instinct to be concerned at the prospect of harm *to* young people (wherever it might come from). In most aspects of life, we empower adults to make decisions for children, and tend to leave irrevocable choices until later so that - as adults - the children may then decide. This topic stirs up emotions in part because it turns upon its head so much of how our society has historically functioned. That doesn't mean it should not happen; but it does mean that just branding people who are uncertain or cautious about such things as unreasonable or 'transphobic' is really not terribly helpful.As for proof, one must also be careful - because most medical "proof" is paid-for by people with a vested interest. Here's a simple example. Since the 1950s, epidural steroid injections have been pretty widely used to help those with back pain. My own wife used to receive them, and they were transformative for her. They're now not available on the NHS. Why? There's no "evidence" they work. Now that's plainly not true; there are millions of people who can attest to their efficacy. But there's no economic imperative in funding major studies. Steroids are just commodities. No drug company is going to spend the money; nor is the NHS. So now safe, cheap, effective relief is no longer available to a great many people, whose lives are immeasurably the poorer as a result.
How does that relate to this discussion? Because when you say "no proof" it means absence of evidence; not evidence of absence. The very best we can say is we have conflicting data as to whether childhood transitioning is (a) beneficial to the patient, and/or (b) regretted later. That's also not a reason not to support those with genuine GD for whom starting to transition in childhood would be beneficial. But it also isn't an evidential base to shout down those who believe something different. Don't forget, it is within living memory that ice pick lobotomies were carried out to "help" those with mental health issues.
If we could just dial down the rhetoric; stop creating pressure on people at a confusing time in their lives to conform to *any* gender norms or archetypes; stop using deliberately-inflammatory language; and stop taking an all-or-nothing approach to life; if we could do all of those things, and just focus on individuals and their needs, I think we'd have a much better society.
And, yes, that hopefully means we deliver proper resources to all mental health issues. Because, as you rightly say, it is a major problem. But we wouldn't get very far if we started calling people "depressive-phobic" for instance, would we?
skwdenyer said:
It is certainly true that LGBTQ+ people (taken together; I'm not convinced it is all that happy a grouping) are more susceptible to these issues. But why? It is overly-simplistic to say it just because of being uncomfortable in their skin. According to some research, for a lot of people, the pressure that comes from being expected to conform to "new gender norms" around LGBTQ+ identities is just as bad - there isn't a stereotypical heterosexual identity, so why should there be such a strong set of stereotypes - and pressures to conform - associated with non-gender-conforming people?; the whole process of "coming out" is enormously stressful to many who would rather just be allowed to get on with their lives.
A couple of points on this paragraph:There definitely are stereotypical heterosexual identities. Loads of them. There are loads within the LGBT community as well. I am not convinced there is any more pressure to conform than in heterosexual life. Of course a lot of the shame gay men experience is because they know they will never live up to the stereotypes of any heterosexual man. A lot of gay men spend their life trying to do it anyway.
Coming out is only necessary because people assume that everyone is straight. Getting on with your life means constantly coming out because of that assumption, it’s really for broader society to change how it operates. The LGBT community is not in control of why people have to constantly come out.
skwdenyer said:
I'm aware of the controversy. Some of the earlier studies seem not to have considered whether all those studied were exhibiting GD, as opposed to simply being non-conforming as it were. But my understanding was that the later studies are rather more nuanced.
In terms of children there is a lot of discussion about how "Trans" has become the new anorexia for teenage girls going through puberty. This is not helped of course by what is being taught and the attitudes of those in authority. So percentages are going to be affected by thousands of confused teenagers who eventually get back to at least some sort of normality. Most of whom will not have started any sort of medical treatments.
JagLover said:
skwdenyer said:
I'm aware of the controversy. Some of the earlier studies seem not to have considered whether all those studied were exhibiting GD, as opposed to simply being non-conforming as it were. But my understanding was that the later studies are rather more nuanced.
In terms of children there is a lot of discussion about how "Trans" has become the new anorexia for teenage girls going through puberty. This is not helped of course by what is being taught and the attitudes of those in authority. So percentages are going to be affected by thousands of confused teenagers who eventually get back to at least some sort of normality. Most of whom will not have started any sort of medical treatments.
skwdenyer said:
there's too much heat and dogma on both sides determined to push one side or another
Thank you for a well-written and thoughtful post. I completely agree that any sort of meaningful discussion seems to be impossible. That's the way of modern discourse sadly, but this particular discussion is particularly vicious.Having said that, I have a problem with applying 'bothsideism' to this topic. The so-called 'trans activism' which is so often framed as pushing a dangerous agenda, is fundamentally defending trans people's right to exist, pushing back against ignorance and seeking to educate. Does it sometimes descend into counter-productive hysteria and have some of its proponents become so polarised that their words and actions become deplorable? Yes and yes, but underneath the noise is a push for progress and a need to prevent genuine, demonstrable harms.
The concerns of the 'gender critical' need to be listened to and discussed. We can't move forward without doing so. But any objective examination of said concerns fails to yield anything tangible. There is no rational basis for the 'gender critical' perspective, but we all know that emotion is far more effective than reason for mobilising people and shaping opinion. There is a very strong resemblance to religious conservatism, in which intolerance is espoused in the name of 'safeguarding'.
Slurs, name calling and binary worldviews are damaging. But so is a baseless moral panic fuelled by fear and tribalism.
plenty said:
skwdenyer said:
there's too much heat and dogma on both sides determined to push one side or another
Thank you for a well-written and thoughtful post. I completely agree that any sort of meaningful discussion seems to be impossible. That's the way of modern discourse sadly, but this particular discussion is particularly vicious.plenty said:
Having said that, I have a problem with applying 'bothsideism' to this topic. The so-called 'trans activism' which is so often framed as pushing a dangerous agenda
No, that's not what I said. At all. I said that activism is pushing a very absolutist agenda. Very different things.plenty said:
, is fundamentally defending trans people's right to exist,
This is said so often, but where's the evidence of so many people in the mainstream (as it were) trying to stop trans people existing? Not being able to do everything one wants is not being denied the right to exist.plenty said:
pushing back against ignorance and seeking to educate. Does it sometimes descend into counter-productive hysteria and have some of its proponents become so polarised that their words and actions become deplorable? Yes and yes, but underneath the noise is a push for progress and a need to prevent genuine, demonstrable harms.
What I deplore is the absolutism. It forces polarisation. Until trans activism became so widespread and so heated, public sentiment towards trans people appears to have been far *greater* than it is today. We were well on the way towards most - if not all - of the goals of most activists. Adopting an absolutist approach has done far more harm than good, forcing people to take polarised positions.plenty said:
The concerns of the 'gender critical' need to be listened to and discussed. We can't move forward without doing so. But any objective examination of said concerns fails to yield anything tangible. There is no rational basis for the 'gender critical' perspective, but we all know that emotion is far more effective than reason for mobilising people and shaping opinion. There is a very strong resemblance to religious conservatism, in which intolerance is espoused in the name of 'safeguarding'.
In a democracy, how people feel is everything, I'm afraid. If the experience of trans people is mainly of a hectoring absolutist nature, how are people going to react, do you think?bhstewie said:
hstewie said:donkmeister said:
Exactly.
He had an anti-trans bullseye stuck on his back after that hilarious IT Crowd episode where Reynholm misheard "I was born a man" as "I was born in Iran". The portrayal of a post-op transperson as a pint-swilling fist-fighting bloke who just happened to look like a woman was clearly absurd, it wasn't meant as a sensitive documentary on gender dysphoria, any more than Father Ted was a documentary about the Catholic church.
Now what has he said since then... I'm not his biographer, I don't know, so if you tell me he's been... I dunno... calling for violence against transfolk then sure, that's transphobic. However the original thing that got him labelled as transphobic was not transphobic, it was hilarious.
Why do you think he did this?He had an anti-trans bullseye stuck on his back after that hilarious IT Crowd episode where Reynholm misheard "I was born a man" as "I was born in Iran". The portrayal of a post-op transperson as a pint-swilling fist-fighting bloke who just happened to look like a woman was clearly absurd, it wasn't meant as a sensitive documentary on gender dysphoria, any more than Father Ted was a documentary about the Catholic church.
Now what has he said since then... I'm not his biographer, I don't know, so if you tell me he's been... I dunno... calling for violence against transfolk then sure, that's transphobic. However the original thing that got him labelled as transphobic was not transphobic, it was hilarious.
https://www.thepinknews.com/2021/02/21/graham-line...
Hectoring and haranguing someone over something they didn't do will have a profound impact on them. Innocent people have taken their own lives in similar circumstances, in Lineham's case it seems to have turned him from a comedy writer in gainful employment into someone who has no livelihood and an axe to grind.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff