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

Gruffalux

iptba wrote: »

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?

Well the way a female would have facial hair is by taking testosterone. (I know PCOS will cause some hair in women and other conditions but I am not refering to that difficulty). The testosterone will also cause irreversibly deepened voice, irreversible male pattern baldness, and will cause atrophy of the vagina and womb which greatly increases pain, itching, soreness in sex, and urinary tract infections. Loss of sexual sensation is possible. A girl with anyway bigger breasts may use a binder to get the male outline even in baggy clothes and these cause breathing difficulties, pain and even deformity of the rib cage. I do not see why a girl should not be and remain healthy and strong with functional body parts and be as masculine in appearance, activity and social expression as she wants including being called he or a male name.

andekwarhola

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

Speaking as an underage sports coach, girls only effectively compete against boys (in my sport anyway) in pre-puberty or sometimes not long after.

Surely no matter what side of the debate you inhabit, we can accept that people that have undergone male puberty shouldn't be competing in women's sports, especially stuff like martial arts or field sports.

Having a third sporting category would surely be more equitable in these circumstances?

suicide_circus

andekwarhola wrote: »

Having a third sporting category would surely be more equitable in these circumstances?

There simply arent enough transgender people in the world to form proper functioning clubs, leagues, tournaments in any given sport.

andekwarhola

suicide_circus wrote: »

There simply arent enough transgender people in the world to form proper functioning clubs, leagues, tournaments in any given sport.

That's terrible but why should the integrity and safety of women's sports be compromised as a result?

suicide_circus

andekwarhola wrote: »

That's terrible but why should the integrity and safety of women's sports be compromised as a result?

Because transwomen are women; no ifs, no buts.

volchitsa

suicide_circus wrote: »

Because transwomen are women; no ifs, no buts.

Not sure if you're being sarcastic here or not. If you're not, could you explain what female characteristics they have please?

I just don't get this.

suicide_circus

volchitsa wrote: »

Not sure if you're being sarcastic here or not. If you're not, could you explain what female characteristics they have please?

I just don't get this.

I'm not being sarcastic.

Under Irish law any biological male can, entirely on their own say so, obtain a gender recognition certificate stating that they are female at which point, they are legally a woman with every right to play women's sports, access spaces, services etc.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

andekwarhola wrote: »

That's terrible but why should the integrity and safety of women's sports be compromised as a result?

And I can’t think that beating biological women would feel like much of an achievement.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

volchitsa wrote: »

Not sure if you're being sarcastic here or not. If you're not, could you explain what female characteristics they have please?

I just don't get this.

Suicide_circus is actually doing a very neat job of highlighting the absurdities that are actually legal in Ireland right now.

andekwarhola

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

And I can’t think that beating biological women would feel like much of an achievement.

I'd say we'd both be surprised, sadly.

ronano

Earthhorse wrote: »

It's funny, my brother says the same thing, but if Myers ever provoked a thought in anyone's mind I've yet to hear what it was. Controversy and argument? Sure! Thoughtful debate? Not to my recollection.

Myers was the master of making broad statements based on nothing more than his own bombast which he could easily back out of later by simply saying "Of course, that's not what I meant at all" even though the implication was clear.

Dissent alone does not contribute to the quality of our debates; it has to bring something of value in and of itself. If people are truly interested in raising the quality of debate we engage in today both on and offline (and I do think it needs to be drastically raised) they'd be well advised to steer clear of Myers. And Twitter too.

Myers was a great troubles journalist, for anything else there's more insight on the back of a Frosties box than his drivel

andekwarhola

ronano wrote: »

Myers was a great troubles journalist, for anything else there's more insight on the back of a Frosties box than his drivel

His memoir on his time as a young journalist in Belfast is actually very enjoyable, believe it or not. And surprisingly even-minded given how splenetic he got about the IRA in later years.

deaddonkey15

suicide_circus wrote: »

Under Irish law any biological male can, entirely on their own say so, obtain a gender recognition certificate stating that they are female at which point, they are legally a woman with every right to play women's sports, access spaces, services etc.

What an insult to the generations of feminists that fought for women’s rights.

Limpy

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/jul/23/childrens-news-website-apologises-jk-rowling-trans-tweet-day

LGBT cancel gang go home devastated, and outta pocket.

Annasopra

Limpy wrote: »

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/jul/23/childrens-news-website-apologises-jk-rowling-trans-tweet-day

LGBT cancel gang go home devastated, and outta pocket.

JK Rowling last week argued for free speech and an end to cancel culture. Now she wants to cancel her critics and uses her wealth to crush them legally. Hypocrite.

Quantum Erasure

I know you are but what am I?

Sir Oxman

Limpy wrote: »

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/jul/23/childrens-news-website-apologises-jk-rowling-trans-tweet-day

LGBT cancel gang go home devastated, and outta pocket.

I remember that one (amongst loads of other so called media taking the 'transphobe!' route with her essays)
That particular outlet is (was?) listed as a reference to nudge kids towards in the proposed st*newall led education programs for UK schools.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

JK Rowling last week argued for free speech and an end to cancel culture. Now she wants to cancel her critics and uses her wealth to crush them legally. Hypocrite.

How so? Libel laws exist in tandem with free speech. If a person's reputation is damaged, they have a right to object to that. And that objection would also be free speech. And note that Rowling hasn't attacked anyone personally, unlike what has been done to her.

Sir Oxman

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

JK Rowling last week argued for free speech and an end to cancel culture. Now she wants to cancel her critics and uses her wealth to crush them legally. Hypocrite.

The woods are just over there --> where the trees are.


She is defending her name which has been dragged through the gutter by a lot of 'media' who without proof branded her every kind of phobe under the sun.
So, probably better for that tyype of media not to go mouthing around about people with zero evidence.


This isn't an example of cancel culture.

Gruffalux

Sir Oxman wrote: »

I remember that one (amongst loads of other so called media taking the 'transphobe!' route with her essays)
That particular outlet is (was?) listed as a reference to nudge kids towards in the proposed st*newall led education programs for UK schools.

Is it? That's interesting. I took a quick look earlier at this online magazine that has somehow managed to be recommended by UK Dept of Ed and goes out to 1000s of UK students and the tagline questions under each Article heading are like The Beano meets Hollywood Reporter.
I am glad they are lighter of pocket. They did not merely criticise Rowling. They suggested children should boycott her in order to shame her for her opinions.

Invidious

Gruffalox wrote: »

Is it? That's interesting. I took a quick look earlier at this online magazine that has somehow managed to be recommended by UK Dept of Ed and goes out to 1000s of UK students and the tagline questions under each Article heading are like The Beano meets Hollywood Reporter.
I am glad they are lighter of pocket. They did not merely criticise Rowling. They suggested children should boycott her in order to shame her for her opinions.

They also openly compared her to Richard Wagner, known for his virulent anti-Semitism.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Sir Oxman wrote: »

The woods are just over there --> where the trees are.


She is defending her name which has been dragged through the gutter by a lot of 'media' who without proof branded her every kind of phobe under the sun.
So, probably better for that tyype of media not to go mouthing around about people with zero evidence.


This isn't an example of cancel culture.

Indeed.

I also find it amusing when people bitch about her wealth when she threatens legal action. Erm, if you don’t want the wealthy person contacting the formidable libel lawyers at their disposable, perhaps don’t libel the wealthy person? They are as entitled to defend their reputation as anyone else and have the means to comfortably do so.

Sittingpretty

Did anyone see the spectacular own goal the body shop scored with their jaw dropping tweet to JK Rowling?

I would link only in a techno dinosaur

Feisar

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Indeed.

I also find it amusing when people bitch about her wealth when she threatens legal action. Erm, if you don’t want the wealthy person contacting the formidable libel lawyers at their disposable, perhaps don’t libel the wealthy person? They are as entitled to defend their reputation as anyone else and have the means to comfortably do so.

Puppies shouldn't piss with the big dogs.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Sittingpretty wrote: »

Did anyone see the spectacular own goal the body shop scored with their jaw dropping tweet to JK Rowling?

I would link only in a techno dinosaur

I saw that. Muppets. What’s up with companies taking stances on things anyway? Just sell me things and shut the fuck up, thanks.

jam_mac_jam

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

JK Rowling last week argued for free speech and an end to cancel culture. Now she wants to cancel her critics and uses her wealth to crush them legally. Hypocrite.

They should have disagreed with her without libeling her so.

Sittingpretty

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I saw that. Muppets. What’s up with companies taking stances on things anyway? Just sell me things and shut the fuck up, thanks.

Exactly! I’ve rarely seen anything as tone deaf from what I always considered a reputable company.

Tired Gardener

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

JK Rowling last week argued for free speech and an end to cancel culture. Now she wants to cancel her critics and uses her wealth to crush them legally. Hypocrite.

Can you link me to the Twitter/blog/Social Media where JK Rowling calls (shouts/screams) for them to be cancelled? Or where she issues death and rape threats against them like the cancel culture mob have done towards here for having a different opinion...

They made a false acquisition, and compared her to Picasso and Wagner. They essentially got carried away with their emotions and the cancel culture. Libel laws are there to protect people against defamation, especially if their livelihood depends upon their reputation. It is decided by the courts.

Where as cancel culture is a reactionary knee jerk to shut down debate fueled by an idea of purity. It is usually mob rule.

They may seem similar on the surface, but they are very different, essentially one is legal, the other is petty.

Invidious

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

JK Rowling last week argued for free speech and an end to cancel culture. Now she wants to cancel her critics and uses her wealth to crush them legally. Hypocrite.

Rowling appreciates that many regular people worry about speaking out against organized activist movements on social media. Tweet the wrong thing and you could end up unemployed and a social pariah. Meanwhile, activist bullies delight in their power to "cancel" anyone who disagrees with them.

Being famous and independently wealthy means she doesn't have to tiptoe around mobs on social media. She can speak her mind — which she has done articulately and persuasively — and give voice to opinions that many others silently agree with but fear stating openly due to the potential for reprisal.

Rowling threatened legal action against a website that was encouraging children to boycott Harry Potter by spreading a baseless lie that she had harmed transgender people. Rowling hasn't harmed anyone, and was fully entitled to defend her reputation against malicious and damaging allegations.

In response, the website agreed to apologise and make a charitable donation to a charity of Rowling's choosing. Nobody has been "crushed."

keano_afc

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

JK Rowling last week argued for free speech and an end to cancel culture. Now she wants to cancel her critics and uses her wealth to crush them legally. Hypocrite.

This is such a bad take its almost tragic.