J. K. Rowling is cancelled because she is a T.E.R.F [ADMIN WARNING IN POST #1]

One eyed Jack

Silentcorner wrote: »

Sit back and enjoy the s##tshow is what I say!!!

These brave men who self identify as women may very well be the key to actual gender equality....of course, it will be women who lose out on all those hard earned privileges in healthcare, education, sport and justice...but we will just blame the patriarchy for that...

They don’t lose out on anything though, that’s the thing. Women still maintain all the rights they enjoyed before, men still enjoy all the rights they had before and now everyone has rights they didn’t have before. Individual cases where rights are competing or in conflict will still be able to be resolved by the Courts as they always have been.

TomSweeney

Has she grovelled and apologised yet ?

ceadaoin.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

They don’t lose out on anything though, that’s the thing. Women still maintain all the rights they enjoyed before, men still enjoy all the rights they had before and now everyone has rights they didn’t have before. Individual cases where rights are competing or in conflict will still be able to be resolved by the Courts as they always have been.

Well the women who missed out on the commonwealth games because of laurel hubbard lost out. Or the ones pushed out of a place in a race by rachel mckinnon. Or the girls in the US missing out on college scholarships because of male athletes. Or the women who would have been on all women shortlists or received and award for business instead of a male. I'm sure its happening on a much smaller less public scale all over the place and the courts aren't resolving them are they?

Dante7

TomSweeney wrote: »

Has she grovelled and apologised yet ?

No chance. She has been following this debate closely and she knew exactly what would happen. She decided to speak out. Fair play.
Her use of the hashtag #Thisisnotadrill confirms that she will never back down.

One eyed Jack

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Well the women who missed out on the commonwealth games because of laurel hubbard lost out. Or the ones pushed out of a place in a race by rachel mckinnon. Or the girls in the US missing out on college scholarships because of male athletes. Or the women who would have been on all women shortlists or received and award for business instead of a male. I'm sure its happening on a much smaller less public scale all over the place.

Totally agree, yeah, they did lose out, that’s part and parcel of their decision to compete in the sport in the first place, that they agree to abide by the conditions of the governing body, and as long as that body is operating within the laws of the jurisdiction in which they operate, participants in the sport who complain that they can’t win, as though they are entitled to a medal or sponsorship or any of the rest of it, aren’t being very sportswoman/sportsmanlike. Discrimination laws still include the caveat that any exclusion may only be considered justifiable if it can be demonstrated that it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

(That’s also the basis for positive discrimination favouring women over men btw)

EDIT: The Courts are of course resolving them.

TomSweeney

Dante7 wrote: »

No chance. She has been following this debate closely and she knew exactly what would happen. She decided to speak out. Fair play.
Her use of the hashtag #Thisisnotadrill confirms that she will never back down.

Good !

Silentcorner

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Well the women who missed out on the commonwealth games because of laurel hubbard lost out. Or the ones pushed out of a place in a race by rachel mckinnon. Or the girls in the US missing out on college scholarships because of male athletes. Or the women who would have been on all women shortlists or received and award for business instead of a male. I'm sure its happening on a much smaller less public scale all over the place and the courts aren't resolving them are they?

And this is all in it's infancy...give it 5 years or so, womens prisons, womens domestic abuse services, womens healthcare, the education/employment gender quotas, womens professional sport, women only networks...the list goes on and on!

If enough men who self identify as a woman feel the need, we could see the end of gender segregation in each and every walk of life!

All courtesy of the humanity departments of universities in the US/West!

One eyed Jack

Silentcorner wrote: »

And this is all in it's infancy...give it 5 years or so, womens prisons, womens domestic abuse services, womens healthcare, the education/employment gender quotas, womens professional sport, women only networks...the list goes on and on!

If enough men who self identify as a woman feel the need, we could see the end of gender segregation in each and every walk of life!

All courtesy of the humanity departments of universities in the US/West!

We won’t see any such thing as it will be easy for organisations to demonstrate that their policies have a legitimate aim.

Silentcorner

One eyed Jack wrote: »

We won’t see any such thing as it will be easy for organisations to demonstrate that their policies have a legitimate aim.

I don't think you realise what is happening here.

We have never been in this place, as a society, neither of us know what will happen....but it only takes a tiny tiny percentage of men who self identify as a woman to take away an awful lot!!!

ILoveYourVibes

I respected her less when she started quoting the bible at someone on twitter nonstop for like 2 days.

One eyed Jack

Silentcorner wrote: »

I don't think you realise what is happening here.

We have never been in this place, as a society, neither of us know what will happen....but it only takes a tiny tiny percentage of men who self identify as a woman to take away an awful lot!!!

Of course I realise what’s happening here, it’s no different than any of the other grounds we have already in equality legislation which allow for proportionate measures as a means to achieve a legitimate aim. The same sort of “appalling vista” type stuff was maintained previously any time there were a group who were being discriminated against who were included in equality legislation, and the Chicken Licken type fearmongering and paranoia amounted to nothing, simply because any perceived threat was magnanimously overplayed.

Silentcorner

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Of course I realise what’s happening here, it’s no different than any of the other grounds we have already in equality legislation which allow for proportionate measures as a means to achieve a legitimate aim. The same sort of “appalling vista” type stuff was maintained previously any time there were a group who were being discriminated against who were included in equality legislation, and the Chicken Licken type fearmongering and paranoia amounted to nothing, simply because any perceived threat was magnanimously overplayed.

What is it going to take, when you see two men who self identify as women in the Wimbledon Womens Singles Final?

Or a man who self identifies as a women placed in a womens prison?

This is ongoing and will pick up steam as the years roll on!

It is not the genuine cases that are the problem...it is the men who will take advantage...it is already happening!!!

One eyed Jack

Silentcorner wrote: »

What is it going to take, when you see two men who self identify as women in the Wimbledon Womens Singles Final?

Or a man who self identifies as a women placed in a womens prison?

This is ongoing and will pick up steam as the years roll on!

It is not the genuine cases that are the problem...it is the men who will take advantage...it is already happening!!!

You’ll have to forgive me for not being willing to shoot myself in the face by throwing my own sex under the bus and implying what feminists have been saying all along about men. I think it’s a terrible way to legitimise their criticism of males presuming all men are guilty until they prove themselves innocent, or as you put it - genuine. I know I’m genuine already thanks, I don’t need validation from feminists. That’s teaching young boys to make a rod for their own backs.

The minority of people who cause issues for society are dealt with by the judicial systems we have in place already. It works well as far as I’m concerned. It’s not perfect by any means, but I’d sooner rather the judicial system as it is now, as opposed to a system where people are presumed guilty by virtue of any characteristic or trait. Historically speaking that has never worked out well in any society it’s been tried.


EDIT: This is the kind of paranoia and fearmongering your argument legitimises -

Dr Cliona Saidlear said young girls need to be made aware that young boys who sit with them in the classroom can also be a danger.


'A boy in class could be a danger' - girls warned of sex abuse


I don’t wish for any young girls or boys to be subjected to that kind of nonsense.

Silentcorner

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You’ll have to forgive me for not being willing to shoot myself in the face by throwing my own sex under the bus and implying what feminists have been saying all along about men. I think it’s a terrible way to legitimise their criticism of males presuming all men are guilty until they prove themselves innocent, or as you put it - genuine. I know I’m genuine already thanks, I don’t need validation from feminists. That’s teaching young boys to make a rod for their own backs.

The minority of people who cause issues for society are dealt with by the judicial systems we have in place already. It works well as far as I’m concerned. It’s not perfect by any means, but I’d sooner rather the judicial system as it is now, as opposed to a system where people are presumed guilty by virtue of any characteristic or trait. Historically speaking that has never worked out well in any society it’s been tried.


EDIT: This is the kind of paranoia and fearmongering your argument legitimises -

Dr Cliona Saidlear said young girls need to be made aware that young boys who sit with them in the classroom can also be a danger.


'A boy in class could be a danger' - girls warned of sex abuse


I don’t wish for any young girls or boys to be subjected to that kind of nonsense.

Oh come here, I'm with you on that, I don't think feminists should be let anywhere near young boys.

The reason there will be more males who self identify as women opportunists than women who self identify as men is just because of all those privileges women already receive...the ordinary man will not feel the impact of women who self identify as men...the ordinary woman will very much feel the impact of men who self identify as women.

It is not the genuine cases that will be the issue, people who are generally very honest individuals who find themselves struggling with their identities...

One eyed Jack

Silentcorner wrote: »

Oh come here, I'm with you on that, I don't think feminists should be let anywhere near young boys.

The reason there will be more males who self identify as women opportunists than women who self identify as men is just because of all those privileges women already receive...the ordinary man will not feel the impact of women who self identify as men...the ordinary woman will very much feel the impact of men who self identify as women.

It is not the genuine cases that will be the issue, people who are generally very honest individuals who find themselves struggling with their identities...

They’d be fcuking idiots in that case then, frankly, as there is nothing women are entitled to that men aren’t. The law cannot account for people being idiots, it can only adjudicate in cases where there has been an alleged wrongdoing committed and a complaint has been made, and the systems we have in place already do a pretty good job. It’s like I said - it’s not perfect, but it beats the alternative by a country mile.

I also don’t agree that the ordinary woman will actually feel the impact of men who self-identify as women any more than men will feel the impact of women who self-identify as men. I don’t agree that presumptions about individuals can actually be made like that as the amount of people in any given society who actually buy into identity politics in the first place aren’t nearly enough to present a credible threat to society. All this nonsense about bathroom access is just that, as though people haven’t been known to go into the opposite sex bathrooms before now - they have of course, when nature calls I’ve never given a tinkers whichever bathroom was closest done the job. There were times of course when I’d encounter a woman in the bathroom but I was often more embarrassed than they were bemused by my presence. This nonsense being purported that women have anything to fear from men just fuels paranoia and legitimises feminists claims about men. It’s precisely why women themselves are distancing themselves from feminist rhetoric - because they simply can’t relate to it in their daily lives as they have no wish to castigate men.

As for whether or not it will or won’t be the “genuine” cases which will be an issue, all cases are already an issue, and who gets to determine who is or isn’t a legitimate or genuine case? We already see the same type of arguments being made in cases of sexual assault and rape - ordinary people determining according to their own standards who are or aren’t “genuine” cases. I have no wish to support idiots who imagine they should have that kind of authority over other people. That’s a legitimate slippery slope to mob justice and vigilantism when people imagine they have the authority to mete out justice according to their own subjective standards. I don’t want to be on the giving or the receiving end of that particular form of injustice. I’m quite happy to maintain an objective judicial system in which all people are equal before the law.

Silentcorner

What about gender quotas...
What about health screening.
What about all the programs being run in corporations around the country for women only.
If you are a woman who has a child they cannot financially support are you treated the same as a man who has a child they cannot financially support?
The amount of taxpayers money that is directed into services benefiting women far exceeds the amount that males receive.
If you are a man who is being charged with battering your wife are you treated the same as a woman who is charged with battering your husband?

Open your eyes...if a man can self identify as a woman and receive some kind of leniency or benefit why wouldn't he self identify...as I said, it only take a small tiny number of men to a lot of damage to the ordinary woman.

If people can self identify, then legally speaking gender is fast becoming irrelevant.

Sheeps

Silentcorner wrote: »

What about gender quotas...
What about health screening.
What about all the programs being run in corporations around the country for women only.
If you are a woman who has a child they cannot financially support are you treated the same as a man who has a child they cannot financially support?
The amount of taxpayers money that is directed into services benefiting women far exceeds the amount that males receive.
If you are a man who is being charged with battering your wife are you treated the same as a woman who is charged with battering your husband?

Open your eyes...if a man can self identify as a woman and receive some kind of leniency or benefit why wouldn't he self identify...as I said, it only take a small tiny number of men to a lot of damage to the ordinary woman.

If people can self identify, then legally speaking gender is fast becoming irrelevant.

People aren't self identifying in order to gain benefits if that's what you're getting at. That's complete fiction, in your head.

Silentcorner

Sheeps wrote: »

People aren't self identifying in order to gain benefits if that's what you're getting at. That's complete fiction, in your head.

How do you know...we live in a culture where people pretend to be injured to win benefit, they abuse the system for personal gain....or do you think everyone who makes a claim is legitimately injured...wake up, people abuse systems!!!

One eyed Jack

Silentcorner wrote: »

What about gender quotas...
What about health screening.
What about all the programs being run in corporations around the country for women only.

What about them? What advantage do you imagine anyone choosing to identify themselves as their preferred gender would give them over anyone else? Bear in mind that this comes on the back of two high profile cases in the media where the claimants assertions that they were discriminated against were not upheld by the Courts.

Silentcorner wrote: »

If you are a woman who has a child they cannot financially support are you treated the same as a man who has a child they cannot financially support?

Yes.

Silentcorner wrote: »

The amount of taxpayers money that is directed into services benefiting women far exceeds the amount that males receive.

I’m ok with that as it qualifies as proportionate means of achieving legitimate aims.

Silentcorner wrote: »

If you are a man who is being charged with battering your wife are you treated the same as a woman who is charged with battering your husband?

The law treats them the same solely on the basis of their gender. Given their gender isn’t the only criteria which are taken into account and every case is judged on it’s individual merits, it stands to reason that outcomes will be different because the contributing factors are different. I hope you’re not attempting to argue for equality of outcomes, as that would be silly.

Silentcorner wrote: »

Open your eyes...if a man can self identify as a woman and receive some kind of leniency or benefit why wouldn't he self identify...as I said, it only take a small tiny number of men to a lot of damage to the ordinary woman.

Aye, Jessica Yanniv thought that too, and look how that turned out. Because the whole point of equality legislation and recognition of human rights are predicated upon people acting in good faith towards each other. Judges spotted Yanniv coming a mile off, but because of equality legislation they still have to investigate every case and go through the motions at least before they can tell idiots like Yanniv they simply don’t have a case.

As a result there has been no damage done to ordinary women, and similarly arguing that Yanniv has done any damage to the perception of people who are transgender are based upon prejudiced stereotypes which already exist in that persons mind - the type who think they are an authority on determining genuine and illegitimate cases, based upon nothing more than their own preconceived notions of how people who are transgender should behave.

Silentcorner wrote: »

If people can self identify, then legally speaking gender is fast becoming irrelevant.

No it’s not, sure it’s only just become relevant? It was because it wasn’t relevant in law before that people who are transgender were discriminated against and had no remedy in law, because gender was not previously recognised as a protected characteristic before 2015 in Irish law. It only took the Irish State 20 years to introduce the relevant legislation from the time when Lydia Foy first made their case to have their preferred gender recognised in Irish law -

Lydia Annice Foy is an Irish trans woman notable for leading legal challenges regarding gender recognition in Ireland. In 1992 Foy had sex reassignment surgery, and began a 20-year battle to have her birth certificate reflect her gender identity. In 2007 the Irish High Court ruled that the relevant portions of the law of the Republic of Ireland were incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, but by February 2013 the law had not been changed and she began new legal proceedings to enforce the 2007 decision. As of 15 July 2015, Ireland has passed the Gender Recognition Bill 2014.

Sheeps

Silentcorner wrote: »

How do you know...we live in a culture where people pretend to be injured to win benefit, they abuse the system for personal gain....or do you think everyone who makes a claim is legitimately injured...wake up, people abuse systems!!!

Counter Question: How do you know? You're the one making the rediculous claim. You are literally claiming people pretend to be the opposite gender to gain social benefits. That is compltely daft.

Silentcorner

Sheeps wrote: »

Counter Question: How do you know? You're the one making the rediculous claim. You are literally claiming people pretend to be the opposite gender to gain social benefits. That is compltely daft.

There is a convicted rapist in the UK who successfully managed to get transferred to a womans prison as a self identifying woman....you can probably guess what happened next!!!

In all of this, trust me, I am not the one who is completely daft!

Why do you think there is a split in the feminist and lgbt movement?

Gynoid

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s not at all, they’re still the same feminists who argue that men are their oppressors promoting the patriarchy and yakking about toxic masculinity and all the rest of it. They don’t suddenly become alright like the enemy of mine enemy is my friend kinda thing. Yer grand thanks, tbh.

I just wouldn’t support the idea of teaching young boys and girls they could ever emulate the opposite sex, nothing to do with feminism.

It is not only feminists who are arguing this issue.
I am not a feminist. The movement does not attract me at all in its present form, I espouse egalitarianism. I am equal, self sufficient. What energy I have for activism or thought in that area goes towards women who are in genuine states of submission outside the western sphere. So many things in feminism do not reflect my beliefs like feminist ideas about rape culture, metoo, toxic masculinity, pussy hats, gender quotas, pro decriminalisation of prostitution, porn affirmation, pro surrogacy, some generational contempt for mothers who stay home, ignoring the terrible issues for boys, and the broad strokes pro abortion cheering offends me deeply and is totally against my personal moral conscience position of very very limited access to abortion in strict circumstances of necessity. And guess what - all that loses me the support of the sisterhood and in fact brings severe criticism my way. There are people like me arguing against this ascientific gender theory.

coffee_cake

good on ricky gervais

Exactly. We need to protect the rights of women. Not erode them because some men have found a new cunning way to dominate and demonise an entire sex.

https://twitter.com/rickygervais/status/1208005552053374976?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1208005552053374976&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.louderwithcrowder.com%2Fricky-gervais-defends-women-j-k-rowling-against-hateful-transgender-allies%2F



and this is the guy at the cause of maya's getting fired - but he's not fired...


https://archive.ph/cvG9T

Gynoid

Gynoid wrote: »

.....pussy hats........

What? No, I don’t want to know. I must be leading a very sheltered life. Happily

Gynoid

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What? No, I don’t want to know. I must be leading a very sheltered life. Happily

they are as ridiculous as they sound.

This is part of a wider fightback against the Left.

We've seen it with Brexit, Trump, Johnson and a variety of other right-wing leaders; a rejection of Left-wing economics; a rejection of open borders; and a rejection of mad Left-wing identity politics, including Gender and Sex questions.

The Left has abandoned its critical faculties. It will continue to decline if it continues to pursue this path toward failure.

Thank goodness JK Rowling, Ricky Gervais etc. are speaking up. I hope many more follow suit and perhaps we can arrive at a destination where this gender claptrap is put away once and for all.

Boggles

Deleted User wrote: »

This is part of a wider fightback against the Left.

We've seen it with Brexit, Trump, Johnson and a variety of other right-wing leaders; a rejection of Left-wing economics; a rejection of open borders; and a rejection of mad Left-wing identity politics, including Gender and Sex questions.

The Left has abandoned its critical faculties. It will continue to decline if it continues to pursue this path toward failure.

Thank goodness JK Rowling, Ricky Gervais etc. are speaking up. I hope many more follow suit and perhaps we can arrive at a destination where this gender claptrap is put away once and for all.

What are you talking about lad?

It was a labour court issue.

She claimed she was a victim of indirect sexism in the workplace.

The judge fúcked it out and explained it through 26 pages.

Unless Ricky and Harry's Mother are labour court specialists they are talking out of their holes, correct?

Boggles

Boggles wrote: »

What are you talking about lad?

It was a labour court issue.

People have had enough of irrational nonsense being forced down our throats.

We're sick to death of being told there are 100 genders, when there are 2. We're sick to death of being told that a biological man is a woman; and we're sick to death of now being told that you can also switch racial identities and everything else that's coming down the path. We're sick to death of biological men winning women's sports. We're tired of the toilet issue; the changing room issue and so forth. It's complete and utter madness.

We've had enough.

Boggles

Deleted User wrote: »

People have had enough of irrational nonsense being forced down our throats.

We're sick to death of being told there are 100 genders, when there are 2. We're sick to death of being told that a biological man is a woman; and we're sick to death of now being told that you can also switch racial identities and everything else that's coming down the path.

We've had enough.

I'm sick to death of Listening to White Christmas on the radio.

So do you know what I do? I turn if off.

Still doesn't take from the ruling that no indirect sexism took place.

How could it have?

Boggles

Boggles wrote: »

I'm sick to death of Listening to White Christmas on the radio.

So do you know what I do? I turn if off.

This political music is being forced down our throats.

We have no means of turning it off.