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

Smacruairi

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Its really fascinating watching this if you ask me. Anti trans ideology wasnt particularly working very well so they looked around to who their allies were and decided to turn their allies against them. Thats what all this drivel about trans existence being homophobic is really about - trying to get lesbian gay and bi people to turn against our trans brothers and sisters and trying to get the general population to believe this insanely nonsensical idea that the existence of lgb trans people is homophobic, biphobic or lesbophobic.

Who is they? Who organised this? How was this organised?

One eyed Jack

LLMMLL wrote: »

Lol in a thread about trans people you Have an issue with someone saying "trans brothers and sisters"?

I think he is treating others as he wants to be treated.....with respect.

The thread isn’t just about people who are transgender though? The reason for the thread being started is because JK Rowling thinks she’s in a position to determine who does or doesn’t qualify as a woman from her perspective because someone was mean to her on Twitter and now she’s choosing to take it out on other people who have nothing to do with her while claiming it’s her rights are being suppressed.

I don’t have an issue at all with Joey using the term “trans brothers and sisters”, I just don’t remember ever referring to my brothers and sister that way. I do remember how I found out Santa Claus wasn’t real when I fought with my sister on Christmas morning over a doll I thought Santa left for me, and our parents had to intervene, but that’s a whole other story :pac:

I didn’t suggest either that Joey wasn’t treating people with respect, I know he always has done, I wouldn’t bother my arse engaging with someone who doesn’t. I was referring to people who don’t, like Panto Bliss demanding of women that they prove themselves to him, like Jessica Yanniv inquiring of adolescent children about their time of the month - it’s unfortunate that some young women would think they have to entertain these weirdos, but it’s because of their behaviour that I can understand why someone like JK is as popular among women as she is for standing up to them.

Gervais08

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Its really fascinating watching this if you ask me. Anti trans ideology wasnt particularly working very well so they looked around to who their allies were and decided to turn their allies against them. Thats what all this drivel about trans existence being homophobic is really about - trying to get lesbian gay and bi people to turn against our trans brothers and sisters and trying to get the general population to believe this insanely nonsensical idea that the existence of lgb trans people is homophobic, biphobic or lesbophobic.

That is absolute drivel.

There is no brotherhood - else there wouldn’t be creepy f**king men attending workshops on the “cotton ceiling”; the concept of “girldique” would die up its own arse where it belongs and gay people would not have to be told that their hardwired DNA level sexual orientation, as real as being left handed or black is an “identity” they chose.

Get away with the trans bull, it’s doing a disservice to gay people.

LLMMLL

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The thread isn’t just about people who are transgender though? The reason for the thread being started is because JK Rowling thinks she’s in a position to determine who does or doesn’t qualify as a woman from her perspective because someone was mean to her on Twitter and now she’s choosing to take it out on other people who have nothing to do with her while claiming it’s her rights are being suppressed.

I don’t have an issue at all with Joey using the term “trans brothers and sisters”, I just don’t remember ever referring to my brothers and sister that way. I do remember how I found out Santa Claus wasn’t real when I fought with my sister on Christmas morning over a doll I thought Santa left for me, and our parents had to intervene, but that’s a whole other story :pac:

I didn’t suggest either that Joey wasn’t treating people with respect, I know he always has done, I wouldn’t bother my arse engaging with someone who doesn’t. I was referring to people who don’t, like Panto Bliss demanding of women that they prove themselves to him, like Jessica Yanniv inquiring of adolescent children about their time of the month - it’s unfortunate that some young women would think they have to entertain these weirdos, but it’s because of their behaviour that I can understand why someone like JK is as popular among women as she is for standing up to them.

Ok so we will continue to refer to trans people in a thread that is (mostly) about trans people.......glad we cleared that rather odd left turn up.

ProfessorPlum

LLMMLL wrote: »

Lol in a thread about trans people you Have an issue with someone saying "trans brothers and sisters"?

I think he is treating others as he wants to be treated.....with respect.

Wow. Totally transphobic non inclusive language right there. ‘Trans brothers and sisters’. This is causing the deaths of non binary people who don’t identify with gendered concepts such as brother or sister. If you had used ‘trans siblings’, perhaps these people would not have been so terribly harmed.

How very dare you.

briangriffin

LLMMLL wrote: »

And this is because TERF ideology 100% centres around the idea that ciswomen need to be protected from transwomen or the bogey-cis-men who apparently will pretend to be trans to assault them.

It's really quite an insane PR Enterprise that TERFs centred the debate around transwomen, then complain that the debate tends to not mention transmen.

Christ almighty- thats some cognitive dissonance. What Wibbs was clearly stating there was the major issues with this entire ideology are coming from a select group of transwomen which would lead us to believe that there is a certain amount of misyogony at play.
You have linked previously to a post where it was said that lesbians who don't like dick are trans misyoginists? Do you believe that to be true? Do you believe a lesbian who refuses to date a transwoman is transphobic?
If a heterosexual man refuses to date a homosexual man does that make him homophobic?
Or are you saying that genitalia are not important that in a relationship a sexual relationship genitalia are an after thought. A "surprise" awaits every relationship. The ultimate goal appears to be to convince younger people today that lesbians can have a penis and to not accept that is transphobic and unenlightened, it is going to ultimately make life more difficult for actual gender dysphoric trans people who are just trying to live their lives. The live and let live mantra has gotten so far, push back started when trans women entered women only sports, and children were being told they could be born in the wrong bodies.

One eyed Jack

LLMMLL wrote: »

Ok so we will continue to refer to trans people in a thread that is (mostly) about trans people.......glad we cleared that rather odd left turn up.

You can continue to refer to people however you like L, you do you and all that, I’m not demanding that either yourself or Joey stop referring to people however you wish. The point I was making to Joey is that identity politics doesn’t help, these issues transcend identity politics as far as I’m concerned. I’ve already explained in the thread that I don’t use terms like “trans women” or “trans men”, I’ve never needed to because I’m not an advocate of identity politics.

That’s why I felt it was unnecessary to refer to “trans brothers and sisters” as opposed to just brothers and sisters, especially when Joey was trying to make the point about not fostering division and resentment, while at the same time singling out people who are transgender as a distinct group for special consideration.

It’s precisely because of identity politics that some people are so wrapped up in themselves, as opposed to the general population which just doesn’t buy into that identity politics nonsense, because they really are thinking of people other than themselves - they already know people aren’t so one-dimensional, they don’t need to be schooled in intersectional identity politics ideology.

LLMMLL

briangriffin wrote: »

Christ almighty- thats some cognitive dissonance. What Wibbs was clearly stating there was the major issues with this entire ideology are coming from a select group of transwomen which would lead us to believe that there is a certain amount of misyogony at play.

Eh wibbs never mentioned a select group of trans women. No idea where you're getting that. What he actually said was that the debate centres around transwomem and not transmen.

And this is clearly because of TERF ideology, not because of transwomen.

LLMMLL

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You can continue to refer to people however you like L, you do you and all that, I’m not demanding that either yourself or Joey stop referring to people however you wish. The point I was making to Joey is that identity politics doesn’t help, these issues transcend identity politics as far as I’m concerned. I’ve already explained in the thread that I don’t use terms like “trans women” or “trans men”, I’ve never needed to because I’m not an advocate of identity politics.

That’s why I felt it was unnecessary to refer to “trans brothers and sisters” as opposed to just brothers and sisters, especially when Joey was trying to make the point about not fostering division and resentment, while at the same time singling out people who are transgender as a distinct group for special consideration.

It’s precisely because of identity politics that some people are so wrapped up in themselves, as opposed to the general population which just doesn’t buy into that identity politics nonsense, because they really are thinking of people other than themselves - they already know people aren’t so one-dimensional, they don’t need to be schooled in intersectional identity politics ideology.

I'd actually love to delete the word trans from every post in this thread and see does it make any sense.

It would basically be like:

TRA: women should be allowed use women's bathrooms

TERF: No! Women are men. Nobody will get me to accept that WAW.

How on Earth would a debate on trans issues progress without mentioning trans people.

RWCNT

Gervais08 wrote: »

That is absolute drivel.

There is no brotherhood - else there wouldn’t be creepy f**king men attending workshops on the “cotton ceiling”; the concept of “girldique” would die up its own arse where it belongs and gay people would not have to be told that their hardwired DNA level sexual orientation, as real as being left handed or black is an “identity” they chose.

Get away with the trans bull, it’s doing a disservice to gay people.

I'd imagine the "brothers and sisters" comment is likely a reference to the fact trans people were leaders in fighting for gay rights from the very beginning.

Who says that "identity" is something that's chosen btw? I thought the idea that identity is innate and not something an individual chooses was pretty central to the whole concept of transgenderism?

Wibbs

LLMMLL wrote: »

And this is because TERF ideology 100% centres around the idea that ciswomen need to be protected from transwomen or the bogey-cis-men who apparently will pretend to be trans to assault them.

It's really quite an insane PR Enterprise that TERFs centred the debate around transwomen, then complain that the debate tends to not mention transmen.

Bollocks frankly. Where are the F-M Trans folks looking to be included in checking for testicular cancer? Where are F-M Trans folks looking to be included in male sports?(and there are a few already doing that sort of thing) Where are F-M Trans folks looking to have women regard their vulvas as mickeys? Nowhere pretty much. It's nearly all about M-F and it has been long before the so called "TERF" brigade got into it.

As an aside I've had my bloody fill of this "cis" nonsense at this stage. :rolleyes: Try to redefine language and biology and medical science all you like, but bugger all are buying into it any more. If they ever really did. Using US college campus makey uppy definitions will almost insure most people never will.

Gruffalux

briangriffin wrote: »

Christ almighty- thats some cognitive dissonance. What Wibbs was clearly stating there was the major issues with this entire ideology are coming from a select group of transwomen which would lead us to believe that there is a certain amount of misyogony at play.
You have linked previously to a post where it was said that lesbians who don't like dick are trans misyoginists? Do you believe that to be true? Do you believe a lesbian who refuses to date a transwoman is transphobic?
If a heterosexual man refuses to date a homosexual man does that make him homophobic?
Or are you saying that genitalia are not important that in a relationship a sexual relationship genitalia are an after thought. A "surprise" awaits every relationship. The ultimate goal appears to be to convince younger people today that lesbians can have a penis and to not accept that is transphobic and unenlightened, it is going to ultimately make life more difficult for actual gender dysphoric trans people who are just trying to live their lives. The live and let live mantra has gotten so far, push back started when trans women entered women only sports, and children were being told they could be born in the wrong bodies.

Yes we have arrived to the PC destination where to hope for certain genitalia on a prospective lover is bio-essentialist, cis-sexist, bigoted reduction of people to their genitals. Personally I can hardly wait to see to what further exotic destinations this magic bus will take us.

suicide_circus

This is why gay and trans can make uncomfortable bed fellows (wink) in terms of organisational groupings.

Gay people don't require the general public to validate their gayness. They know they're gay. Where as SOME vocal trans people require confirmation and validation of their perferred gender via pronouns, access to spaces etc.

One eyed Jack

LLMMLL wrote: »

Eh wibbs never mentioned a select group of trans women. No idea where you're getting that. What he actually said was that the debate centres around transwomem and not transmen.

And this is clearly because of TERF ideology, not because of transwomen.

There isn’t any “TERF ideology” though? There’s a branch of feminism which regards men as women, and any feminist who doesn’t share that ideology is dismissed as a “TERF”. The term itself comes from feminists being told that they must accept men as women, but the reason those women identified themselves as feminists in the first place is because they were advocating for women’s rights and women’s welfare, not men’s rights or men’s welfare.

Now along comes men who not alone do they claim to be women, but they also claim to be feminists, and suggest that if women don’t accept men are women, they’re to be condemned as “TERFS” and shamed and humiliated into silence.

It doesn’t take a genius to figure out why women who imagine they are men prefer not to put their heads above the parapet. Unfortunately that has the consequences of young girls using chest binders and injecting themselves with hormones they’re ordering off the internet until they can get what has been euphemistically called “top surgery”, the reality being that they are having their breasts removed, precisely because they develop gender dysphoria as a consequence of being uncomfortable with the idea of what it means to be a girl who will without intervention become a woman - womanhood is essentially being defined by men, who are still dominating women.

mohawk

LLMMLL wrote: »

And this is because TERF ideology 100% centres around the idea that ciswomen need to be protected from transwomen or the bogey-cis-men who apparently will pretend to be trans to assault them.

It's really quite an insane PR Enterprise that TERFs centred the debate around transwomen, then complain that the debate tends to not mention transmen.

If I read an article relating to men’s health. The article will always mention men in it. The same can’t be said when reading about women’s health. Just last week I saw some company raising awareness about PCOS and called the women who have it menstrators. Now one of the biggest symptoms of PCOS is not menstrating. Instead of using inclusive language in women’s health campaigns such as women and transmen. The language reduces us down to a body part or a bodily function. It’s not inclusive and it is demeaning. Women want to be referred to as women and not cervix havers or whatever. If you can’t see the issue here then that says a lot about how you view women.

LLMMLL

Wibbs wrote: »

Bollocks frankly. Where are the F-M Trans folks looking to be included in checking for testicular cancer? Where are F-M Trans folks looking to be included in male sports?(and there are a few already doing that sort of thing) Where are F-M Trans folks looking to have women regard their vulvas as mickeys? Nowhere pretty much. It's nearly all about M-F and it has been long before the so called "TERF" brigade got into it.

As an aside I've had my bloody fill of this "cis" nonsense at this stage. :rolleyes: Try to redefine language and biology and medical science all you like, but bugger all are buying into it any more. If they ever really did. Using US college campus makey uppy definitions will almost insure most people never will.

Eh there are.numerous examples of transmen in sport. A quick Google will enlighten you on this. The difference is that TERFs do not make a fuss about this as they do with transwomen. It is TERF ideology which centres the debate around trans and cis women.

One eyed Jack

LLMMLL wrote: »

I'd actually love to delete the word trans from every post in this thread and see does it make any sense.

It would basically be like:

TRA: women should be allowed use women's bathrooms

TERF: No! Women are men. Nobody will get me to accept that WAW.

How on Earth would a debate on trans issues progress without mentioning trans people.

Use your imagination. It’s what you expect everyone else to do.












I’m so going to hell for that one :pac:

suicide_circus

BOOOM!!

LLMMLL

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There isn’t any “TERF ideology” though? There’s a branch of feminism which regards men as women, and any feminist who doesn’t share that ideology is dismissed as a “TERF”. The term itself comes from feminists being told that they must accept men as women, but the reason those women identified themselves as feminists in the first place is because they were advocating for women’s rights and women’s welfare, not men’s rights or men’s welfare.

Now along comes men who not alone do they claim to be women, but they also claim to be feminists, and suggest that if women don’t accept men are women, they’re to be condemned as “TERFS” and shamed and humiliated into silence.

It doesn’t take a genius to figure out why women who imagine they are men prefer not to put their heads above the parapet. Unfortunately that has the consequences of young girls using chest binders and injecting themselves with hormones they’re ordering off the internet until they can get what has been euphemistically called “top surgery”, the reality being that they are having their breasts removed, precisely because they develop gender dysphoria as a consequence of being uncomfortable with the idea of what it means to be a girl who will without intervention become a woman - womanhood is essentially being defined by men, who are still dominating women.

I'm afraid you're incorrect. There is a clear TERF ideology. TERFs are a specific grouping of people with specific opinions about trans rights.

They quite cleverly tried to rebrand the word TERF that accurately sums up their views as an insult, and both surprisingly and unfortunately you seem to have fallen for it.

suicide_circus

LLMMLL wrote: »

I'm afraid you're incorrect. There is a clear TERF ideology. TERFs are a specific grouping of people with specific opinions about trans rights.

They quite cleverly tried to rebrand the word TERF that accurately sums up their views as an insult, and both surprisingly and unfortunately you seem to have fallen for it.

Would you accept that there is a Trans ideology? Or is TERF the only ideology at play?

LLMMLL

suicide_circus wrote: »

Would you accept that there is a Trans ideology? Or is TERF the only ideology at play?

No because one is a political group with basically identical opinions and goals (to restrict trans rights) and the other is a group of people with heterogeneous opinions and goals. I would.also say that there is no cis ideology.

Wibbs

LLMMLL wrote: »

Eh there are.numerous examples of transmen in sport. A quick Google will enlighten you on this. The difference is that TERFs do not make a fuss about this as they do with transwomen. It is TERF ideology which centres the debate around trans and cis women.

I'm already "enlightened" :rolleyes: on that thanks. Note I mentioned it in my post. And like I also noted the ranty M-F Trans were pushing the nonsense train out of the station before any "TERFs" got involved. The latter is a reaction to it.

mohawk

LLMMLL wrote: »

Eh there are.numerous examples of transmen in sport. A quick Google will enlighten you on this. The difference is that TERFs do not make a fuss about this as they do with transwomen. It is TERF ideology which centres the debate around trans and cis women.

The reason women don’t focus on Transmen in Men’s sport is because well firstly it’s up to men to decide on and secondly biological males have an advantage over transmen even when the transman is on testosterone. But go ahead and blame it all on the sinister TERF agenda.

LLMMLL

Wibbs wrote: »

I'm already "enlightened" :rolleyes: on that thanks. Note I mentioned it in my post. And like I also noted the ranty M-F Trans were pushing the nonsense train out of the station before any "TERFs" got involved. The latter is a reaction to it.

It's the other way around. Trans women have had to stand up for their rights as TERFs have centred the debate around them. I encourage to read a bit more on this topic Wibbs.

LLMMLL

mohawk wrote: »

The reason women don’t focus on Transmen in Men’s sport is because well firstly it’s up to men to decide on and secondly biological males have an advantage over transmen even when the transman is on testosterone. But go ahead and blame it all on the sinister TERF agenda.

Thankfully you are being honest that it is TERFs who have centred the debate around women. Other people on this thread are trying to pretend otherwise.

One eyed Jack

LLMMLL wrote: »

I'm afraid you're incorrect. There is a clear TERF ideology. TERFs are a specific grouping of people with specific opinions about trans rights.

They quite cleverly tried to rebrand the word TERF that accurately sums up their views as an insult, and both surprisingly and unfortunately you seem to have fallen for it.

They’re not though, and instead of suggesting that other people should read up on the use of the term, your opinion on the use of the term suggests that you haven’t. The term is nothing more than an insidious slur used in an effort to humiliate women into submitting to a male dominated perspective of transgender ideology which they are trying to portray as feminism. That’s how they see feminism, and any women who don’t share their opinions are dismissed and denigrated as TERFs. It’s as insidious a paradigm as making out that women who aren’t interested in having sex with men, that there is something wrong with them and they need to question why they aren’t interested in having sex with men and they are being discriminatory and transphobic.

Women who don’t accept that men are women haven’t tried to rebrand anything, and certainly they haven’t tried to rebrand themselves. They’re still feminists, and it is those people who disagree with them have tried to rebrand women as TERFs. It’s not particularly clever, nor is it surprising that you would use the term to humiliate and silence women who aren’t on board with the male dominated perspective of transgender ideology which they attempt to portray as new wave feminism.

What’s unfortunate is that how you view women is dependent upon whether or not they agree with you - if they agree that men are women, then you’ll support them, but if they don’t agree that men are women, you’ll attempt to humiliate them into submission by referring to them as TERFs.

Like I said earlier - with ‘allies’ like that...

speelunker22

The whole trans vs the world thing is simply crazy. I literally had never heard of all of this until a few months ago when JKR was getting all the negative press for her statement.

In a very naive move I attempted to ask some of those having the "Debate" on Twitter what exactly she had done that was so offensive. A real genuine, please enlighten me question. I was mediately called a TERF and blocked by multiple users. I had to go and then look up what the hell a TERF was!

Yes I know, my naievety was stunning - looking for honest opinion and information on Twitter!!!

mohawk

LLMMLL wrote: »

Thankfully you are being honest that it is TERFs who have centred the debate around women. Other people on this thread are trying to pretend otherwise.

I see my post went over your head. Women aren’t under any obligation to centre men. Women are speaking out regarding female sports because female sports directly impacts women.

Women were traditionally more likely to support Gay rights. Did you ever ask yourself why the group who were most likely to support equality for others all of a sudden started questioning Gender Ideology??

It appears that every woman that disagrees with you on this thread is automatically a TERF.

ingalway

Another poor trans woman, literally fighting for her life against evil TERF women.
LLMMLL you can donate to get rid of her beard on a GoFund me page. No doubt PantoBliss will make a large donation.

https://twitter.com/ThicketThorn/status/1319645229796986884?s=19

Sudden Valley

I'd say her whole fight with the trans activist is the least of Jk Rowlings worries at the moment given the results of the Depp. Given her own history with domestic abuse the pressure will be put on her again to dump Depp from the Harry Potter prequel series. She certainly has had a year to forget.