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

LLMMLL

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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...

This is extreme hyperbole. You seem to have been convinced by the PR campaign. Nobody said that TERFs weren't feminists. It's right there in the term. The F.

But guess what? Groups have subgroups. And these subgroups are often named for convenience. Why would I refer to them as feminists? Most feminists dojt share their opinion so saying something like "I disagree with feminists" doesn't make any sense. However "I disagree with TERFs" tells you exactly who I disagree with. The subgroup of feminists who share trans exclusionary ideas.

You seem to have a problem with naming subgroups at all which doesn't seem to make any sense. You don't want "trans" people to be mentioned. You don't want subgroups of feminism to be referred to even though you seem quite happy to refer to "feminists" instead of "humans". I don't think your logic has any internal coherence to be honest.

LLMMLL

mohawk wrote: »

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.

No only the people (not women) who display TERF ideas. For example, Graham linehan is a TERF. Oneeyedjack is not. He may disagree with me but does not put forth TERF ideas. Both are male.

It doesn't matter (for the purpose of this point) why women (and men) are critical of transwomen in womens sports. Because my point is that it is they who have centred the debate around ciswomen and transwomen. They claim it is a misogynistic Enterprise of TRAs when it is clearly they who have done it.

I'm not saying they have to centre the debate around men. I'm saying their accusations are hypocritical in the extreme. They are responsible for the issues they accuse TRAs of.

One eyed Jack

LLMMLL wrote: »

I don't think your logic has any internal coherence to be honest.

I’m not surprised you think I’m being logically inconsistent when your own beliefs can be summed up as you’ll support people who wish to refer to themselves however they wish, but you’ll condemn people who disagree with the idea that people can refer to themselves as they wish.

You’ll happily refer to feminists who don’t share your beliefs as TERFs, which is you imposing your terms on other people, because they don’t share your belief that men are women.

I don’t have any issues with subgroups at all, there’s just no PR campaign would ever make me believe that men are women or women are men, or that anyone who holds such beliefs is a feminist.

speelunker22

LLMMLL wrote: »

No only the people (not women) who display TERF ideas. For example, Graham linehan is a TERF. Oneeyedjack is not. He may disagree with me but does not put forth TERF ideas. Both are male.

Can I ask, genuinely, what constitutes a TERF idea?

suicide_circus

LLMMLL wrote: »

I don't think your logic has any internal coherence to be honest.

Logical coherence? You're in absolutely no position to play that card.

LLMMLL

suicide_circus wrote: »

Logical coherence? You're in absolutely no position to play that card.

BOOOOM!!!


As you would say

suicide_circus

LLMMLL wrote: »

BOOOOM!!!


As you would say

You set em up...

LLMMLL

suicide_circus wrote: »

You set em up...

It's not really hard to set up such zingers as "you're one to talk".

John Frank Wilson

speelunker22 wrote: »

Can I ask, genuinely, what constitutes a TERF idea?

I don't know if I know exactly what I'm talking about - but if I'm reading your question correctly, and I'm understanding the term TERF correctly - I'm going to take a stab - and say:

Only women can menstruate. Men can not have periods, because they do not have a womb.

Somebody please correct me if I am wrong... is this considered a TERF idea?

CtevenSrowder

LLMMLL wrote: »

This is extreme hyperbole. You seem to have been convinced by the PR campaign. Nobody said that TERFs weren't feminists. It's right there in the term. The F.

But guess what? Groups have subgroups. And these subgroups are often named for convenience. Why would I refer to them as feminists? Most feminists dojt share their opinion so saying something like "I disagree with feminists" doesn't make any sense. However "I disagree with TERFs" tells you exactly who I disagree with. The subgroup of feminists who share trans exclusionary ideas.

You seem to have a problem with naming subgroups at all which doesn't seem to make any sense. You don't want "trans" people to be mentioned. You don't want subgroups of feminism to be referred to even though you seem quite happy to refer to "feminists" instead of "humans". I don't think your logic has any internal coherence to be honest.

What is that assertion based on? Or is yet more personal belief masquerading as actual fact?

LLMMLL

speelunker22 wrote: »

Can I ask, genuinely, what constitutes a TERF idea?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/TERF

John Frank Wilson

John Frank Wilson wrote: »

I don't know if I know exactly what I'm talking about - but if I'm reading your question correctly, and I'm understanding the term TERF correctly - I'm going to take a stab - and say:

Only women can menstruate. Men can not have periods, because they do not have a womb.

Somebody please correct me if I am wrong... is this considered a TERF idea?

I should add, I personally wouldn't consider this to be 'an idea', I would consider this to be a biological fact.

jam_mac_jam

John Frank Wilson wrote: »

I don't know if I know exactly what I'm talking about - but if I'm reading your question correctly, and I'm understanding the term TERF correctly - I'm going to take a stab - and say:

Only women can menstruate. Men can not have periods, because they do not have a womb.

Somebody please correct me if I am wrong... is this considered a TERF idea?

Yes.

speelunker22

LLMMLL wrote: »

So from the last paragraph of that article:

Feminist philosopher Talia Mae Bettcher argues that, regardless of whether the term is accurately classified as a slur, it "has at least become offensive to those designated by the term", which suggests it might be best to avoid "in case one wants to have a conversation across deep difference".

So while the term has had quite a journey in it's short history it's now reduced to being a derogatory term that really does not have any place in a reasoned discussion.

LLMMLL

speelunker22 wrote: »

So from the last paragraph of that article:

Feminist philosopher Talia Mae Bettcher argues that, regardless of whether the term is accurately classified as a slur, it "has at least become offensive to those designated by the term", which suggests it might be best to avoid "in case one wants to have a conversation across deep difference".

So while the term has had quite a journey in it's short history it's now reduced to being a derogatory term that really does not have any place in a reasoned discussion.

I disagree. I won't give in to the PR campaign they have launched. It's an accurate word that describes their views. If we got rid of TERF and had another word to describe the group they would begin a campaign against that. They don't want to be referrable to as a group who share similar ideas. It's a tactic to shut down discussion of their dodgy ideology. They need to be honest an own the opinions they espouse.

Sittingpretty

John Frank Wilson wrote: »

I should add, I personally wouldn't consider this to be 'an idea', I would consider this to be a biological fact.

Get off LLMMLL’s lawn with your science and FACTS! They have no place there!

speelunker22

LLMMLL wrote: »

I disagree. I won't give in to the PR campaign they have launched. It's an accurate word that describes their views. If we got rid of TERF and had another word to describe the group they would begin a campaign against that. They don't want to be referrable to as a group who share similar ideas. It's a tactic to shut down discussion of their dodgy ideology. They need to be honest an own the opinions they espouse.

What PR campaign launched by who?

Sittingpretty

LLMMLL wrote: »

I disagree. I won't give in to the PR campaign they have launched. It's an accurate word that describes their views. If we got rid of TERF and had another word to describe the group they would begin a campaign against that. They don't want to be referrable to as a group who share similar ideas. It's a tactic to shut down discussion of their dodgy ideology. They need to be honest an own the opinions they espouse.

Dodgy ideology that men aren’t women?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

John Frank Wilson wrote: »

I don't know if I know exactly what I'm talking about - but if I'm reading your question correctly, and I'm understanding the term TERF correctly - I'm going to take a stab - and say:

Only women can menstruate. Men can not have periods, because they do not have a womb.

Somebody please correct me if I am wrong... is this considered a TERF idea?

Yes. I’ve heard it described as a “TERF talking point”. Because the mantra is ‘transwomen are women’. When you say that transgender women are male, not female, the response tends to be “Yeah but they’re women. We’re not talking about biological sex”. That invites the question of how ‘woman’ and indeed ‘man’ are defined. This is where the woolly reasoning comes in. Usually something about feelz or having a ladybrain. Or no response at all.

Sir Oxman

The continual strategy by extreme gender/queer theory ideologists in appropriating the arguments against their nonsense is well noted.
The core component of critical theorists is to bend, twist and change the meaning of words to suit their end goal which is political.
Genuinely dysphoric persons are simply useful tools as were homosexual and bisexual people.

LLMMLL

speelunker22 wrote: »

What PR campaign launched by who?

Pretty much every TERF on this thread. Some are more vocal against the term than others though.

Sittingpretty

LLMMLL wrote: »

Pretty much every TERF on this thread. Some are more vocal against the term than others though.

There isn’t a woman alive who requires a PR campaign to assert that men are not women.

Women aren’t having it and men don’t like that one little bit.

LLMMLL

Sittingpretty wrote: »

There isn’t a woman alive who requires a PR campaign to assert that men are not women.

Women aren’t having it and men don’t like that one little bit.

TERFs are a tiny percentage of women. Don't fall for their tricks that they are representative of women in general at all.

speelunker22

LLMMLL wrote: »

Pretty much every TERF on this thread. Some are more vocal against the term than others though.

I honestly don't understand! Thanks for answering my questions though.

LLMMLL

speelunker22 wrote: »

I honestly don't understand! Thanks for answering my questions though.

Well basically there is no head TERF who organized the campaign and is funding it.

What happens is that one TERF claims it is an insult to shut down and derail discussion. Other TERFs see that it's marginally effective and start to do the same. The result is a marginally effective PR campaign against the term.

suicide_circus

LLMMLL wrote: »

TERFs are a tiny percentage of women. Don't fall for their tricks that they are representative of women in general at all.

What percentage of the population do you think agree with idea that transwomen are real and actual women in the same way that biological females are women?

LLMMLL

suicide_circus wrote: »

What percentage of the population do you think agree with idea that transwomen are real and actual women in the same way that biological females are women?

>99%

Sittingpretty

suicide_circus wrote: »

What percentage of the population do you think agree with idea that transwomen are real and actual women in the same way that biological females are women?

About the same amount as the amount of angels you could fit on The top of a pin I’d say.

Gruffalux

LLMMLL wrote: »

>99%

I feel like I am taking crazy pills

Gervais08

LLMMLL wrote: »

TERFs are a tiny percentage of women. Don't fall for their tricks that they are representative of women in general at all.

Are you even a tiny bit aware of how bat **** delusional your posts are ?

There is no shadowy cabal against you or an orchestrated “PR campaign”.

There are just women who are sick of men wanting to invade our safe spaces; sick of being told that we aren’t women - we are “cervix holders” and “menstruators” and heartily sick of seeing you people tell us that science and biology are not real and the bloke in the dress is a woman.

It’s pathetic and devious.