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

I note that not one advocate of the transgender/gender identity supporters on here has touched the challenge I laid bare 3x now.

cloudatlas

If one good thing has come out of it it's that I've discovered this twitter account Titania McGrath

https://twitter.com/TitaniaMcGrath?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

Pissed myself laughing last night.

nthclare

There's a lot to be said about working in a hostile environment, hostility to some is just a bit of banter, and to others its highly offensive.

Im working with a guy who's a strident Christian, he feels sorry for me because im a heathen and bisexual and he won't be meeting me in heaven, more than likely ill be down below in hell.
We work well together and get along really well, I accept he's against my so called wicked ways and he's a devout Christian.
Now i could be absolutely offended by his views and be all dramatic and make a big deal out of it, ruin his life and his future because im deeply offended and feeling vulnerable in work.

But not the slightest, were able to get along despite our differences and we go fly fishing together in the summer time and debate paganism and Christianity now and again.
. We're both fairly alpha and sometimes like two bulls around the trough.

That's the difference, we're not sensitive and both respect each other.

Now and again he calls me a fag or sodom, but I tell him don't knock it till you try it.

I think its not about being offended, more like people are just too sensitive and drawn to drama and they don't think that.

A really good psychotherapist can sort people out with their lack of emotional strength and I've seen people get help for their sensitivity and come on heaps and bounds and no longer have those issues of getting triggered over silly things.

My sexuality doesn't define me as a man, that's just a very small part of the big picture, im a father, friend, son, colleague, worker, nephew, grandson, surfer, botanist, gardener, hillwalker, painter and a lot of other things.

And the one thing im not is someone who's easily offended.

Wibbs

cloudatlas wrote: »

If one good thing has come out of it it's that I've discovered this twitter account Titania McGrath

https://twitter.com/TitaniaMcGrath?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

Pissed myself laughing last night.

My local salon has just refused to wax my balls on the grounds that I don’t actually have balls.

Time to lawyer up.
:pac::D:D

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I note that not one advocate of the transgender/gender identity supporters on here has touched the challenge I laid bare 3x now.

Well that’s just straight up untrue. Your ‘challenge’ isn’t a challenge because there are no laws which prohibit unlawful discrimination on the basis of a person’s weight. Weight isn’t a protected characteristic. You really don’t have a point as dysphoria and dysmorphia are treated as medically recognised disorders and every attempt is made to treat the person experiencing dysmorphia or dysphoria.

I’m not an advocate of transgender politics either btw, I find the whole concept as detestable as any other form of identity politics, but for you that has often identified yourself as a member of “the LGBT community”, what did you think the T stood for, Tokenism? The whole formation of the LGBT community cams about as a result of the discrimination they experienced in society in common. There just wasn’t so much about the T because they were rare, and still are rare, and are outnumbered by lesbians, gays and people who are bisexual already, never mind being greatly outnumbered by heterosexual women and men who outnumber all of the above!

I have however always been an advocate of human rights and the right of every human being to be treated equally in law as opposed to being discriminated against on any of the grounds that are protected characteristics. What individuals do or do not accept is entirely their own business, but equality legislation and human rights is concerned with the law, prohibiting people from being unlawfully discriminated against in employment, education, family law, healthcare and the provision of goods and services. Those laws are not determined by celebrities such as either JK Rowling, Ricky Gervais or anyone else with a piss poor grasp of human rights law like Ms. Forstater.

_Godot_

The Knacker wrote: »

Why does the left need to punish people? Even if It was factually incorrect to say you can't change your sex, why the need to fire that person?

Where does the desire to punish come from?

She wasn't fired, her contract was finished and just not renewed.

One eyed Jack

The Knacker wrote: »

Yeah not renewed for thoughtcrime.

No, not renewed on the basis that she didn’t want to keep her thoughts to herself, she preferred to create a hostile working environment for everyone else there.

The concept of a thought crime is not the expression of a thought, it’s that the thought itself is criminal. That’s not what happened in this case as people were made all too aware of Ms. Forstater’s thoughts, by Ms. Forstater. It’s as I said earlier - nobody has to put up with that, and people cannot be obligated to put up with it either, as to force anyone to do so would constitute cruel and unusual punishment.

One eyed Jack

Lets Talk Now wrote: »

Saying you can't change your sex is creating a 'hostile working environment'?

Good God...

Not necessarily, but in the particular case involving Ms. Forstater, it did, and it was on the basis of her contract not being renewed that she decided to file a complaint with the Employment Tribunal against her former employer on the basis that she had been discriminated against because of her beliefs. Those are her own words -

I lost my job over tweeting and writing about sex and gender identity, and sharing campaign material about the negative impacts of the proposed policy of ‘gender self-ID’ on women and girls. I am now taking the organisation I worked for to the Employment Tribunal for discriminating against me because of my beliefs.


I lost my job for speaking up about women’s rights


The Employment Tribunal Judge didn’t see it the way she sees it.

One eyed Jack

Lets Talk Now wrote: »

Imagine actually being ok with the fact that a woman was punished for saying you can't change your sex...

Imagine being that much of a bootlicker...

Imagine if employers had no choice but to renew the contract of a person who chooses to behave like an asshole, creating a hostile working environment for other employees? No employer can be forced to do that, which I see as a good thing. I would say the same in any case regardless of the persons gender, sex or their beliefs.

suicide_circus

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Imagine if employers had no choice but to renew the contract of a person who chooses to behave like an asshole, creating a hostile working environment for other employees? No employer can be forced to do that, which I see as a good thing. I would say the same in any case regardless of the persons gender, sex or their beliefs.

can people change their biological sex?

ceadaoin.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Imagine if employers had no choice but to renew the contract of a person who chooses to behave like an asshole, creating a hostile working environment for other employees? No employer can be forced to do that, which I see as a good thing. I would say the same in any case regardless of the persons gender, sex or their beliefs.

Talking about how gender self id affects women is behaving like an asshole? It's not really though. Unless you think women should shut up and be nice of course.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

_Godot_ wrote: »

She wasn't fired, her contract was finished and just not renewed.

That doesn’t make it much more palatable.

Ready4Boarding

One eyed Jack wrote: »

She was fairly dismissed from her employment because of her conduct which amounted to creating a hostile working environment for other employees.

It was the Judges determination that she had the right to freedom of expression, but that right did not extend to allowing her to ignore the rights of other people...

She is clearly prejudiced against transgenderism, a view I don't share, but her claim is that she ought to be allowed hold her view regardless of whether it is found offensive; your analysis doesn't engage with that.

To some people it is offensive to be told that God doesn't exist, yet we sensibly think blasphemy an archaic law. In such cases, we protect the right of the person inadvertently to offend. Free speech cannot be conditional on not causing offence.

I happen to be on board with trans acceptance, but it's premised on a reconception of the relationship between sex and gender, which overturns one of the most fundamental human truths and is not yet universally accepted. We're in dangerous territory when someone who expresses their belief in something taken implicitly to be true by almost all people, and directed at no one in particular, can lose their job.

Should also be said that it's quite a stretch to claim that sending a Tweet creates a hostile working environment.

One eyed Jack

suicide_circus wrote: »

can people change their biological sex?

No, of course they can’t.

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Talking about how gender self id affects women is behaving like an asshole? It's not really though. Unless you think women should shut up and be nice of course.

No, behaving like an asshole is behaving like an asshole. Nobody is entitled to create a hostile working environment for other employees, and employers are lawfully permitted to take measures up to and including dismissal of an employee who constantly breaches their lawful code of conduct. Anyone is entitled to talk about how gender self ID affects women, and the Tribunal Judge made that explicitly clear. You know this because you read the same transcript I did. That wasn’t the issue. The issue was whether or not her employers were guilty of discriminating against Ms. Forstater on the basis of her beliefs, and the Judge ruled in those particular circumstances that her employers were not in breach of equality legislation as her beliefs did not meet the criteria to be regarded as a philosophical belief worthy of protection in law.

I don’t think at all that women should ‘shut up and be nice’, you seem intent on pushing that narrative even though I have clarified a number of times now that I would say the same of anyone I considered to be behaving like an asshole, regardless of their sex, gender, religion or philosophical beliefs, sexual orientation, ethnicity and so on. I don’t imagine you think other people who disagree with Ms. Forstater should just shut up and play nice and go along with her beliefs either, and I don’t imagine you think people deserve to be harassed on social media by people either known or completely unknown to them who are encouraged to do so by someone else. Everyone is entitled to equal protection from unlawful discrimination and what constitutes or justifies lawful discrimination is if it can be demonstrated that the discrimination is necessary and proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

ceadaoin.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No, of course they can’t.





No, behaving like an asshole is behaving like an asshole. Nobody is entitled to create a hostile working environment for other employees, and employers are lawfully permitted to take measures up to and including dismissal of an employee who constantly breaches their lawful code of conduct. Anyone is entitled to talk about how gender self ID affects women, and the Tribunal Judge made that explicitly clear. You know this because you read the same transcript I did. That wasn’t the issue. The issue was whether or not her employers were guilty of discriminating against Ms. Forstater on the basis of her beliefs, and the Judge ruled in those particular circumstances that her employers were not in breach of equality legislation as her beliefs did not meet the criteria to be regarded as a philosophical belief worthy of protection in law.

I don’t think at all that women should ‘shut up and be nice’, you seem intent on pushing that narrative even though I have clarified a number of times now that I would say the same of anyone I considered to be behaving like an asshole, regardless of their sex, gender, religion or philosophical beliefs, sexual orientation, ethnicity and so on. I don’t imagine you think other people who disagree with Ms. Forstater should just shut up and play nice and go along with her beliefs either, and I don’t imagine you think people deserve to be harassed on social media by people completely either people known or unknown to them who are encouraged to do so by someone else. Everyone is entitled to equal protection from unlawful discrimination and what constitutes or justifies lawful discrimination is if it can be demonstrated that the discrimination is necessary and proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

She wasn't harassing anyone on social media though. She discussed a person who has given multiple interviews about their cross dressing and who was named publicly for receiving an award for women in business. It seems you do think women should shut up because you think that the fact that this woman was discussing it in public at all is why she is an arsehole.

So, in your opinion, how could she have gone about discussing and raising awareness of what's going on without "being an arsehole"?

One eyed Jack

ceadaoin. wrote: »

She wasn't harassing anyone on social media though. She discussed a person who has given multiple interviews about their cross dressing and who was named publicly for receiving an award for women in business. It seems you do think women should shut up because you think that the fact that this woman was discussing it in public at all is why she is an arsehole.

So, in your opinion, how could she have gone about discussing and raising awareness of what's going on without "being an arsehole"?

Aren’t we discussing it in public now, and not once have I ever regarded you as an asshole. I agree with you on some things, I don’t agree with you on other things. Same way I agree with Ms. Forstater on some things, I disagree with her on other things. Only this morning I was reading of the APA’s decision to suggest that what they call toxic masculinity is harmful to men and boys -

APA issues first-ever guidelines for practice with men and boys

The implication being that men and boys should be raised as though they too are ‘victims of oppression’. I can understand how if an organisation as influential as the APA were to encourage that idea be taught in schools in the same way as they suggest affirming children’s beliefs that they are of the opposite sex -

Transgender People, Gender Identity and Gender Expression

It would be a policy decision which would by virtue of their numbers affect young boys disproportionately in comparison to the effects such beliefs have on young girls who are subject to similar beliefs about how they too are expected to behave and what behaviours are considered healthy or unhealthy.

Those are the kinds of things she could be talking about, and none of that is based upon the fact that she is a woman as you consistently wish to portray it. I have disagreed with far more men on the issues involved, but you’re either choosing to ignore that aspect, or it just doesn’t register with you. I’d sooner give you the benefit of the doubt that it’s unintentional as opposed to imagining there’s any malice intended on your part.

She simply couldn’t have continued to express her opinions and expect that she shouldn’t be sanctioned by her employer for expressing her opinions, that just wasn’t possible, and so she chose to continue to express her opinions, leaving her employers with little choice but to decide not to renew her contract of employment when she had already been given multiple opportunities to cease from creating a hostile working environment for other employees who made complaints about her behaviour. It was her own actions which led to her losing her employment, not the actions of her employer who gave her every opportunity before she left them no choice. She is not entitled to compel anyone to employ her any more than anyone can be compelled to adhere to her beliefs.

biko

Trans woman Debbie Hayton faces ban for transphobia
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/trans-woman-debbie-hayton-faces-ban-for-transphobia-96tfkl5gc

Debbie Hayton, 51, a physics teacher in the Midlands, who transitioned from male to female in 2012, is facing expulsion from the LGBT committee of the Trades Union Congress (TUC) for the slogan: “Trans women are men. Get over it!”

biko

cloudatlas wrote: »

If one good thing has come out of it it's that I've discovered this twitter account Titania McGrath

https://twitter.com/TitaniaMcGrath?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

Pissed myself laughing last night.

Sheeps

Sheeps wrote: »

The tolerant left.

First post, full of keywords used to wind up a particular cohort.

I wouldn't consider it legitimate.

mzungu

donaghs wrote: »

I think post-modern ideas in general have helped create an environment where it becomes chilling to publicly express a belief that there are two biological sexes in humanity (with the caveat of up to 1.7% intersex conditions also).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodernism
“... Consequently, common targets of postmodern critique include universalist notions of objective reality, morality, truth, human nature, reason, science, language, and social progres”

The chilling effect does not come from postmodernism, but from the individuals and/or organisations involved. As postmodernism allows for multiple truths, then it would not have skin in this particular game. Look at it this way, there was a chilling effect in operation when people spoke up for LGB rights in the 70s, or when people spoke about various abuses of power both in this country and others back in the not so distant past. That was not because of postmodernism, but down to various individuals and organisations that had enough clout (be it social or political) to make it happen.

Shutting down debate of subjects has existed nearly as long as humans have been communicating with one another.

mzungu

mzungu wrote: »

Shutting down debate of subjects has existed nearly as long as humans have been communicating with one another.

Perhaps, but censorship has always existed in various forms -- the "woke" / hypersensitivity version being quite prevalent today. And even if censorship has existed in various guises, it doesn't make it any less legitimate to combat it. What irks me, as a practicing member of the LGBT community, is that trans- rights are often equated with how gay people were treated in the 1970s or so.

It's COMPLETELY different.

Gay people are attracted to -- and engage in -- sexual acts with members of the same sex. It's an objective reality. It's happening, all the time, in every country, in every city, in every community. Trans- is about a person claiming an identity for themselves which does not align with biological reality.

It's frustrating, too -- because we often only focus on the gender question, which is often quite an opaque and less tangible example.

• When it comes to racial identity, we know that a white man is not an inner black man; and yes, transracialism exists.
• When it comes to physical ability, we know that an able-bodied person does not have an inner disabled person waiting to get out; and yes, transable people exist.
• When it comes to anorexia, we know that a very thin girl does not have a hidden obese person within them; and yes, anorexic people exist.
• But with sex, the claim that a biological man is a woman, we give this a free pass.

It's complete and utter inconsistent, abject nonsense that we must consign to the intellectual, cultural and societal bin of history.

donaghs

Deleted User wrote: »

Gay people are attracted to -- and engage in -- sexual acts with members of the same sex. It's an objective reality. It's happening, all the time, in every country, in every city, in every community. Trans- is about a person claiming an identity for themselves which does not align with biological reality.

Sensible maybe, but careful now, you're heading for potential hate speech territory...

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

biko wrote: »

That guy had a satire bypass.

Taking potshots at the insufferable Jamil though - always good.

Paddy Cow

cloudatlas wrote: »

If one good thing has come out of it it's that I've discovered this twitter account Titania McGrath

https://twitter.com/TitaniaMcGrath?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

Pissed myself laughing last night.

Oh my God thank you. That is gold

All males begin their lives within the bodies of their mothers. They are literally inside a woman without her verbal consent. I cannot put this explicitly enough. The very first thing a male does in his life is to rape his own mother.

Sir Oxman

This is long but worth the read.
https://ilikewords.blog/2019/12/22/its-time-to-talk-about-sex/

The whole gender ideology censorship has echoes of this dystopian disaster from the time of the rotten totalitarian Soviet Union.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism

Widdershins

ceadaoin. wrote: »

What are some of these opinions? I hadn't heard of any controversy in the past? Just rumblings of her being a big evil terf because of her daring to like some tweets standing up for women.

I'd say the extremists are delighted now they actually have a legitimate (to them) reason to bully and threaten her. I wonder if she'll get the standard "get raped/burn in a fire terf" treatment that is reserved for women given that she is so high profile? I'd say she's well able for it and hope she doesn't back down.

Choke on my lady c**k is a favourite, from experience

And threats of immolation...some people have a big thing about burning natal women...theres a witch hunter living on in many trans activists.

Gynoid

Child and Adolescent Gender Center at UCSF. Founded in 2012


"The type of services being requested has also changed. Clinicians say they are no longer taken aback by youths seeking some kind of boutique treatment — often "just a touch of testosterone" for an androgynous, nonbinary identity.

'I'm a rainbow kid, I'm boy-girl'
"It's the children who are now leading us," said Diane Ehrensaft, the director of mental health for the clinic. "They're coming in and telling us, 'I'm no gender.' Or they're saying, 'I identify as gender nonbinary.' Or 'I'm a little bit of this and a little bit of that. I'm a unique gender, I'm transgender. I'm a rainbow kid, I'm boy-girl, I'm everything.' "

This is a brief extract from an article published in the Washington Post, 2018. Diane Ehrensaft, Ph.D. is an associate professor of Pediatrics at the University of California San Francisco and a developmental and clinical psychologist in the San Francisco Bay Area, with a private practice in Oakland, California. She is Director of Mental Health of the Child and Adolescent Gender Center and chief psychologist at the Child and Adolescent Gender Center Clinic at UCSF Benioff Children’s Hospital. She is 73 years old. She says one can tell if a baby boy is really a girl if they open their babygro to make it shaped like a skirt, or vice versa if a baby girl pulls out her hair ties she might be a boy. As a psychologist she has been a major force behind "listen and act" as opposed to "wait and see". Many of her patients have other disorders like autism.

How can someone with such a Mengele-like approach have become such a guiding force on this issue - I think the great mystery of how the barbarity of the treatments on very young people and children has come to be so readily acceptable to so many so called modern and civilised minds will have to be investigated at some point.

Paddy Cow

Gynoid wrote: »

She says one can tell if a baby boy is really a girl if they open their babygro to make it shaped like a skirt, or vice versa if a baby girl pulls out her hair ties she might be a boy. As a psychologist she has been a major force behind "listen and act" as opposed to "wait and see". Many of her patients have other disorders like autism.

I wonder how many lived she has ruined by convincing people to transition who later regret it. Her reason is madness.

Paddy Cow

Paddy Cow wrote: »

I wonder how many lived she has ruined by convincing people to transition who later regret it. Her reason is madness.

Kinda reminded me a bit of this scandal

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_child_abuse_scandal

Dante7

J.K. Rowling has attracted a lot attention tonight by tweeting that women menstruate and that biological sex is real. She further tweeted that she has studies the trans issue extensively for three years and that she is well informed on the topic. The pronoun brigade have lost their shít and several blue ticks are saying they are unfollowing her.

It's wonderful to see J.K. come out so staunchly in support of women and standing up to the delusional twitter hate mob. Hopefully this is the beginning of the end of this gender bolloxology.

https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1269389298664701952?s=20