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

Overheal

iptba wrote: »

This is trending on Twitter in Ireland at the moment:
#WhyImATransAlly
https://twitter.com/search?q=%23WhyImATransAlly&src=trend_click

Trending Stateside too.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

iptba wrote: »

This is trending on Twitter in Ireland at the moment:
#WhyImATransAlly
https://twitter.com/search?q=%23WhyImATransAlly&src=trend_click

Not hugely surprising.

I’ll take heart that #onlyfemalesgetcervicalcancer trended last week. It helped disprove the claim that “nobody is conflating sex and gender!” when a great many people did exactly that. Some quite blatantly.

GreeBo

If you can ignore biology and can change/redefine your gender, can you also change/redefine your species?
If I act like a cat and get surgery to look like a cat, am I a cat? Should I be able to demand that people refer to me as "Kitten"?
Should I be allowed to clean myself in public and urinate on the streets?

If none of this is appropriate and is "obviously" wrong, where is the line? What makes species different than gender?

Also, why is the definition "non-binary" yet its males becoming females and females becoming males? surely if its non-binary they are, by definition something other than those two genders?
If not, and the argument is that they are a different versions of male or female due to their sex, doesnt that defeat the whole argument since even trans people are accepting that biological sex is involved in the definition?

suicide_circus

GreeBo wrote: »

If you can ignore biology and can change/redefine your gender, can you also change/redefine your species?
If I act like a cat and get surgery to look like a cat, am I a cat? Should I be able to demand that people refer to me as "Kitten"?
Should I be allowed to clean myself in public and urinate on the streets?

If none of this is appropriate and is "obviously" wrong, where is the line? What makes species different than gender?

The argument is that gender is some kind of amorphous wishy washy concept that exists only in the collective consciousness of society. Where as "species" is a solid categorisation of particular biological phenomena, like sex.

You'll notice that this reasoning is immediately problematic.

Different "species" are just as much a man-made concept as "gender" ie: a way for humans to categorise and differentiate.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning#:~:text=Circular%20reasoning%20(Latin%3A%20circulus%20in,the%20conclusion%20must%20be%20true.

GreeBo

suicide_circus wrote: »

The argument is that gender is some kind of amorphous wishy washy concept that exists only in the collective consciousness of society. Where as "species" is a solid categorisation of particular biological phenomena, like sex.

You'll notice that this reasoning is immediately problematic.

Different "species" are just as much a man-made concept as "gender" ie: a way for humans to categorise and differentiate.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning#:~:text=Circular%20reasoning%20(Latin%3A%20circulus%20in,the%20conclusion%20must%20be%20true.

Yeah, thats exactly where I was going with my argument, when you stay logical, the argument kinda fails.

Sittingpretty

suicide_circus wrote: »

https://mobile.twitter.com/nic_jameson/status/1284325475414761473

Happy Sunday!!

Positively vile. What kind of parents allowed their infant to be involved in such a horrible photo shoot.

2u2me

GreeBo wrote: »

If you can ignore biology and can change/redefine your gender, can you also change/redefine your species?
If I act like a cat and get surgery to look like a cat, am I a cat? Should I be able to demand that people refer to me as "Kitten"?
Should I be allowed to clean myself in public and urinate on the streets?

If none of this is appropriate and is "obviously" wrong, where is the line? What makes species different than gender?

Also, why is the definition "non-binary" yet its males becoming females and females becoming males? surely if its non-binary they are, by definition something other than those two genders?
If not, and the argument is that they are a different versions of male or female due to their sex, doesnt that defeat the whole argument since even trans people are accepting that biological sex is involved in the definition?

Logic is a tool of the oppressive patriarchy, TERFS, FARTS.

TERFs might

• Call themselves ‘gender critical’
• Attack trans folks or incite violence
• Deny violence
• Centre their own experience
• Not respect pronouns or names
• Not be held accountable
• Use ‘offence’ as a diversion
• Invade safe spaces or claim that transpeople
• make spaces unsafe
• Shut arguments down when they arecalled out

Ways to respond

• Demand evidence for TERF claims
• Disengage from toxic interactions
• Conserve your resources
• Call them what they are: FARTs
• Be an ally

In Reality

• Gender is far more than the binary and power dynamics are complex and not universal
• Trans people are also survivors of the patriarchy and significantly more likely to experience violence because of it (particularly if they are multiply marginalized)
• Equating bodies with gender (and character) is the same logic that misogynists use
• Some trans people do bad things, because they are people, not because they are trans
• Radical feminism has been historically trans-inclusive
• TERFs: ‘feminist’ branch of fascism

So shut up FART! :pac:

sydthebeat

Sittingpretty wrote: »

Positively vile. What kind of parents allowed their infant to be involved in such a horrible photo shoot.

that has to be a "bruno" type piss take .... hasnt it ???

Sittingpretty

sydthebeat wrote: »

that has to be a "bruno" type piss take .... hasnt it ???

Sadly no, it isn’t.

It was apparently shot for a magazine, I don’t know which one.

jam_mac_jam

Rugby looking at the safety implications of allowing trans women to play. Maybe they are Terfs too.

https://amp.theguardian.com/sport/2020/jul/19/transwomen-face-potential-womens-rugby-ban-over-safety-concerns?__twitter_impression=true

Tired Gardener

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

Rugby looking at the safety implications of allowing trans women to play. Maybe they are Terfs too.

https://amp.theguardian.com/sport/2020/jul/19/transwomen-face-potential-womens-rugby-ban-over-safety-concerns?__twitter_impression=true

Finally! Quite brave of them to admit this in today's climate. No doubt they have been called TERFs and other such things, odd, as all they are trying to do is not put people in danger.

Gruffalux

Going to be some difficult ideological navigation ahead when the line Transwomen are Women must be unquestioningly accepted everywhere else but this exception based on biological reality carves a deeply undermining notch in that load-bearing tenet.

Tired Gardener

Gruffalox wrote: »

Going to be some difficult ideological navigation ahead when the line Transwomen are Women must be unquestioningly accepted everywhere else but this exception based on biological reality carves a deeply undermining notch in that load-bearing tenet.

Especially with Fallon Fox, MtF MMA fighter who once gloated about smashing in awoman's skull.
So Rugby says no to Transgender athletes, but MMA says ok? Both are very physical sports (I'm being kind in calling MMA a sport... it is just thuggery dressed up well).

https://bjj-world.com/transgender-mma-fighter-fallon-fox-breaks-skull-of-her-female-opponent/

jam_mac_jam

Whatever argument about athletics or cycling, women are "only" losing their position for example a medal, in sports where you are putting women in danger it will have to be examined by the sporting bodies.

Sports such as martial arts or rugby could have serious consequences for the women involved.

GreeBo

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

Rugby looking at the safety implications of allowing trans women to play. Maybe they are Terfs too.

https://amp.theguardian.com/sport/2020/jul/19/transwomen-face-potential-womens-rugby-ban-over-safety-concerns?__twitter_impression=true

Strange that they are ok with trans men playing against men but not trans women playing against women!
Surely the risks are the same?

Gruffalux

GreeBo wrote: »

Strange that they are ok with trans men playing against men but not trans women playing against women!
Surely the risks are the same?

The transman playing against men must sign a waiver acknowledging the danger and waiving right to sue if hurt. At least the transman gets to choose if they should risk it in with the men. The women facing off against the huge Hannah Mouncey in Australian rules football did not get to choose.

Invidious

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

Rugby looking at the safety implications of allowing trans women to play. Maybe they are Terfs too.

https://amp.theguardian.com/sport/2020/jul/19/transwomen-face-potential-womens-rugby-ban-over-safety-concerns?__twitter_impression=true

"While there is overlap in variables such as mass, strength, speed and the resultant kinetic and kinematic forces we have modelled to explore the risk factors, the situation where a typical player with male characteristics tackles a typical player with female characteristics creates a minimum of 20% to 30% greater risk for those female players. In the event of smaller female players being exposed to that risk, or of larger male players acting as opponents, the risk increases significantly, and may reach levels twice as large, at the extremes."

Are we actually on the verge of recognising the safety of actual women as more important than the rights of biological males who identify as female to be treated as women in every circumstance?

GreeBo

Gruffalox wrote: »

The transman playing against men must sign a waiver acknowledging the danger and waiving right to sue if hurt. At least the transman gets to choose if they should risk it in with the men. The women facing off against the huge Hannah Mouncey in Australian rules football did not get to choose.

Yeah I get that, it just seems bizarre to me.
We wouldnt let a 12 year old play against leinster, regardless of what they signed.

Tired Gardener

Invidious wrote: »

"While there is overlap in variables such as mass, strength, speed and the resultant kinetic and kinematic forces we have modelled to explore the risk factors, the situation where a typical player with male characteristics tackles a typical player with female characteristics creates a minimum of 20% to 30% greater risk for those female players. In the event of smaller female players being exposed to that risk, or of larger male players acting as opponents, the risk increases significantly, and may reach levels twice as large, at the extremes."

Are we actually on the verge of recognising the safety of actual women as more important than the rights of biological males who identify as female to be treated as women in every circumstance?

Hopefully! Had a quick look on Twitter to look at the reaction. It was very reassuring to see a lot of people in support of this decision. There were a few vocal opponents, but it just seems that to them the feelings of the few Transgender Athletes are more important than the health and safety of Women Athletes... so essentially they come across as misogynists.

Invidious

Tired Gardener wrote: »

Hopefully! Had a quick look on Twitter to look at the reaction. It was very reassuring to see a lot of people in support of this decision. There were a few vocal opponents, but it just seems that to them the feelings of the few Transgender Athletes are more important than the health and safety of Women Athletes... so essentially they come across as misogynists.

That's good to know.

Of course, if the safety of women matters on a rugby pitch, it should also matter in prisons, domestic violence shelters, and other spaces to which biological males want access.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Tired Gardener wrote: »

Hopefully! Had a quick look on Twitter to look at the reaction. It was very reassuring to see a lot of people in support of this decision. There were a few vocal opponents, but it just seems that to them the feelings of the few Transgender Athletes are more important than the health and safety of Women Athletes... so essentially they come across as misogynists.

I’ve generally been very encouraged by the commentary I’ve seen on this topic both above and below the line. The feeling I get is that most people recognise how unfair it is. I think it hits home because it provides a highly visual example of the huge disparity between males and females.

I’ve posted this before but it’s worth a repost. Absolutely ridiculous. Really highlights the two tiers very well.

https://twitter.com/savewomenssport/status/1119378068441837568?s=21

conorhal

Invidious wrote: »

She was 15 when she went to the Tavistock Centre in London, saying that she identified as a boy. After 3 sessions, she started receiving hormone blockers.

She now believes that the clinicians rushed to affirm the gender identity she was claiming to have at the time, and steered her prematurely towards medical intervention.

There will be an absolute torrent of lawsuits about this kind of thing in years to come, especially given the skyrocketing numbers of adolescent girls claiming to identify as boys and being rushed into irreversible medical treatment by irresponsible doctors.

And the Irish government have sent well over a 100 children to the Tavistock Centre.... and no sign of a re-think on the governments part about this, instead they seem intent on doubling down. The Tavistock has been sending clinicians to Dublin to run out-patient clinics at a children’s hospital there, the CHC.

The Tavistock Centre is the new Magdeline laundry that our government is quietly shipping children to and I have no doubt there will be tribunals in the next 20yrs expensively asking questions about how the hell this was allowed to happen.

GreeBo

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I’ve generally been very encouraged by the commentary I’ve seen on this topic both above and below the line. The feeling I get is that most people recognise how unfair it is. I think it hits home because it provides a highly visual example of the huge disparity between males and females in sports.

I’ve posted this before but it’s worth a repost. Absolutely ridiculous. Really highlights the two tiers very well.

https://twitter.com/savewomenssport/status/1119378068441837568?s=21

Which ones are they, camera was too far away to make it out.






:pac:

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Gruffalox wrote: »

Going to be some difficult ideological navigation ahead when the line Transwomen are Women must be unquestioningly accepted everywhere else but this exception based on biological reality carves a deeply undermining notch in that load-bearing tenet.

Well said.

keano_afc

That we even have to have a conversation about letting biological men compete in contact sports against women shows how out of control this whole situation is.

Invidious

Gruffalox wrote: »

Going to be some difficult ideological navigation ahead when the line Transwomen are Women must be unquestioningly accepted everywhere else but this exception based on biological reality carves a deeply undermining notch in that load-bearing tenet.

Agreed. The "transwomen are women" advocates promote the idea that no meaningful distinction can be made between a natal woman and a man who decided at some point in his life to identify as female.

If the rugby authorities have the courage to ban biological males from playing a dangerous contact sport against natal women half their size, on the basis that the former are putting the latter at unacceptable risk of serious injury, good for them. But essentially it does also say, "transwomen aren't really women." And that creates a big problem for the ideological reality distortion field that has come to dominate the whole trans debate.

ceadaoin.

Invidious wrote: »

Agreed. The "transwomen are women" advocates promote the idea that no meaningful distinction can be made between a natal woman and a man who decided at some point in his life to identify as female.

Those posters seem to be strangely absent from the sports thread. I wonder why that is?

Invidious

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Those posters seem to be strangely absent from the sports thread. I wonder why that is?

The spectacle of natal women trying to compete against the six-foot-two, 220-pound Australian rules footballer Hannah Mouncey is so painfully unfair that most of the normally vocal trans activists have decided to give the subject a wide berth. It's hard to look at images like this and believe that it depicts two women wrestling over a ball.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/sep/03/afls-trans-participation-policy-sets-a-dangerous-precedent-for-women#img-1

y0ssar1an22

A woman who was treated with hormone blockers to reassign her gender as a teenager is taking the NHS to court, saying she "should have been told to wait".

She believes that during treatment, priority needs to be given to a person's "biological sex as much as their gender identity".

"I should have been told to wait and not affirmed in my gender identity I was claiming to have and given intensive therapy basically to make sure that I was on the right track for things and investigate the feelings I was having to figure out how I got to that stage."


no matter where you stand on this debate, it should not happen to minors. they have since re-transitioned back to female.

https://news.sky.com/story/i-should-have-been-told-to-wait-woman-treated-with-hormone-blockers-to-reassign-gender-as-a-teenager-takes-nhs-to-court-12031191

iptba

It’s not a topic I know much about but I once read an article which said transmen interviewed had little difficultly being seen as men by the public (things like facial hair and baggy clothes helped). So perhaps there is less need for a rush to make biological changes as minors in such individuals?