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

ProfessorPlum

derfderf wrote: »

I just asked for some information you snarky ****. I've read a few articles that said the opposite
https://www.hindawi.com/journals/jos/2011/240328/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC381474/

Ouch!
Ok, so it probably come off as a bit snarky. Apologies. Luckily for my feels, I’m not sure exactly which insult **** is.

Look. It’s not exactly rocket science. Men have higher bone density than women because testosterone. Women lose considerable bone density after menopause due to lack of estrogen for sure, but mostly because estrogen prevents bone resorption more than laying down mineral bone.
A basic biology text book will confirm, so I didn’t feel the need to cite sources.
Interestingly, the work that Word Rugby reviewed suggested that MtF lost some bone density due to androgen antagonists (not surprising) but if they were trained during transition, this loss in density was minimised and in some cases was negligible. Males, whether they transition or not, have higher bone density than females, whether they transition or not.

Gruffalux

One issue is that self ID does not require any hormones at all. Self identification is the requisite for changing gender legally, that is all. Gender theory then says that individual has now literally become the sex they identify themselves to be, with no exception brokered as that would allow for undermining of the theory.

Personally I agree people should not be obliged to take hormones to transition. They are incredibly hard on the body. Pubertal blockers are maybe more dangerous than cross sex hormones - they even lower IQ.

But then obvious contradictions arise between theory and reality.

Wibbs

political analyst wrote: »

This was on Newsnight earlier this year.

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-51806962



But I thought Britain had become a much better place for homosexual people, e.g. same-sex marriage.

That's long been something I've reckoned was the case alright.

Me; Earlier. wrote: »

In some they might simply be Gay and find that hard to come to terms with so look at the Trans viewpoint to explain that. I've reckoned that's in play in more conservative cultures like the US. Oh I'm not Gay, that's disgusting, I'm actually a girl/boy type thing.

Add in the current publicity around Trans and it's hardly surprising that some are coming out in that fashion.

ProfessorPlum

Gruffalux wrote: »

One issue is that self ID does not require any hormones at all. Self identification is the requisite for changing gender legally, that is all. Gender theory then says that individual has now literally become the sex they identify themselves to be, with no exception brokered as that would allow for undermining of the theory.

Personally I agree people should not be obliged to take hormones to transition. They are incredibly hard on the body. Pubertal blockers are maybe more dangerous than cross sex hormones - they even lower IQ.

But then obvious contradictions arise between theory and reality.

Gender theory in fact says not they they have now ‘changed’ gender, but they were always their ‘new’ gender, and so biological sex must be seen as a spectrum or range of possibilities rather than a binary set of two options. (From Judo Canada)

Also, according to CCES (who write transgender policy for many of Canada’s sporting bodies):
“(It) is recognized that transfemales are not males who become females. Rather these are people who have always been psychologically female.” Furthermore, these individuals must be allowed to participate in “the gender with which they feel most comfortable and safe, which may not be the same in each sport or consistent in subsequent seasons.”

So you can be male today, and compete in one sport, and later compete in another sport as a woman, and tomorrow decide again which sex class to compete in, in whichever sports.

It was the impact on sports that peaked my interest in trans issues. (Probably via Caster Semenya’s case iirc.) Women’s sports are finished if this unscientific thinking continues. It actually hurts my head to see otherwise intelligent people making these arguments for inclusion.

My take:
Safety first. Always.
Then fairness and inclusion. Fairness next when considering competitive sports, inclusion takes priority when considering non competitive/social sports.

political analyst

Wibbs wrote: »

That's long been something I've reckoned was the case alright.

Add in the current publicity around Trans and it's hardly surprising that some are coming out in that fashion.

In relation to what 'Me; Earlier' said, which you quoted, conservative cultures are also hostile towards the very idea of being transgender anyway. So why would homosexuals look at the idea of being transgender as making sense?

Going back to the Newsnight story that I referenced, how could there be still so much homophobia in Britain that some young lesbians would still be unwilling to embrace their sexuality instead of identifying as trans? It's not as if those biological females who have been attending the Tavistock clinic come from DUP constituencies!

political analyst

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Gender theory in fact says not they they have now ‘changed’ gender, but they were always their ‘new’ gender, and so biological sex must be seen as a spectrum or range of possibilities rather than a binary set of two options. (From Judo Canada)

Also, according to CCES (who write transgender policy for many of Canada’s sporting bodies):
“(It) is recognized that transfemales are not males who become females. Rather these are people who have always been psychologically female.” Furthermore, these individuals must be allowed to participate in “the gender with which they feel most comfortable and safe, which may not be the same in each sport or consistent in subsequent seasons.”

So you can be male today, and compete in one sport, and later compete in another sport as a woman, and tomorrow decide again which sex class to compete in, in whichever sports.

It was the impact on sports that peaked my interest in trans issues. (Probably via Caster Semenya’s case iirc.) Women’s sports are finished if this unscientific thinking continues. It actually hurts my head to see otherwise intelligent people making these arguments for inclusion.

My take:
Safety first. Always.
Then fairness and inclusion. Fairness next when considering competitive sports, inclusion takes priority when considering non competitive/social sports.

The obvious irony being, of course, that Caster is not trans.

ProfessorPlum

political analyst wrote: »

The obvious irony being, of course, that Caster is not trans.

Yes, absolutely - it was a stepping stone for me. (I was going to include that fact in my above post for those not familiar)
The other irony is that so many people, including TRAs conflate intersex issues with trans.

Varik

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Yes, absolutely - it was a stepping stone for me. (I was going to include that fact in my above post for those not familiar)
The other irony is that so many people, including TRAs conflate intersex issues with trans.

Conflating the two entirely separate issues allows them to cast aside any mention of chromosomes.

Wibbs

political analyst wrote: »

In relation to what 'Me; Earlier' said, which you quoted, conservative cultures are also hostile towards the very idea of being transgender anyway. So why would homosexuals look at the idea of being transgender as making sense?

Because while conservative cultures tend to look at homosexuality as a "choice" and/or a sign of "moral decay", being Trans as you say is not exactly viewed well, but can be framed as a medical issue and not a choice and nobody's fault, so coming out as Trans could be seen as the lesser of two "evils" for many. Add in the current focus on the subject and it wouldn't surprise me one little bit that a Gay teenager, or younger that has always felt different could drift towards the Trans side. Maybe even with tacit encouragement from parents and the wider world(particularly in online groups) that feel the same.

Earlier in the thread there were links to studies that found in young teenage girls if one in a group came out as Trans the likelihood of others in that group to identify the same way was notably higher than background. Naturally enough as people, particularly people heading into the confusion of adolescence and identity formation and those who already feel different seek out those most like them to get a sense of belonging and tend to ape the group culture of identity and where it leads. In positive and negative ways.

One eyed Jack

deBeauvoir wrote: »

There is a PR effort to delegitimize trans people and their rights. Both from the conservatives and TERFs (or as they now like to call themselves "gender critical" a euphemism akin to white supremacists calling themselves “race realists.”)

"TERF ideology has become the de facto face of feminism in the UK, helped along by media leadership from Rupert Murdoch and the Times of London"
Vox article

I'm sure J.K. Rowling and Graham Linehan are also throwing some money into the pot in their campaign against transgender people.

Most of the media on YouTube is also pushing this anti-transgender activism.

In just the same way, there’s a concerted effort by some people to use feminism to legitimise transgender ideology. You suggest getting some perspective on what’s really important, but you ignore the fact that what may be important to you, differs from what other people consider is really important to them, like fighting against the nonsense idea that lesbians are discriminating against men because they refuse to have sex with them.

Contrary to your belief btw, Youtube and other social media platforms are pushing the same narrative which seeks to undermine women by pushing transgender ideology into the mainstream arena, quite the opposite of your claim that they are pushing an anti-transgender agenda when there are plenty of high profile examples of people being condemned because they refuse to go along with the transgender ideology narrative that tries to claim men are women.

deBeauvoir wrote: »

It seems to me that these TERF feminists were more than happy to use the LGBTQ community's oppression to garner more sympathy for the coalition that they were part of and in turn gain more rights and benefits for themselves. But now that the attention has shifted to the trans community and we are trying to help them progress, these feminists then turn on us. They need to use the woman construct to keep the attention on them. Feminism was supposed to be about equality for ALL.

Not surprisingly, you have that arseways mate. It was the “LGBTQIA++ community” who chose to ape feminism in order to promote their political and social cause. Until then, feminism was an ideology concerned with campaigning for women’s rights and equality in areas where women were not treated equal to men. It wasn’t about equality for all, it was specifically about equality for women in areas where they weren’t equal to men.

The attention hasn’t shifted to the “trans community” at all, I don’t even know how you’re determining who is part of that “community” as your perspective is entirely focussed on identity politics. For example you don’t seem to be aware of the many differences of opinion among people who are transgender themselves in terms of who qualifies as transgender and who doesn’t - transmedicalists are of the opinion that being transgender is contingent upon experiencing gender dysphoria, other people argue that a diagnosis of gender dysphoria is not necessary to be regarded as transgender. They don’t need anyone’s help to turn on themselves when they’re already fighting among themselves, so how are you determining who needs your help to progress?

The only people who need “the woman construct” to focus any attention on themselves are people who argue that men are women. Only a small minority of women are feminists, as opposed to the vast majority of women who are aware that men are not women, no matter how much they are artificially constructed to resemble an artificial construct of womanhood.

deBeauvoir wrote: »

Just like the conservatives, they're turning on trans people as the next slippery slope which apparently is destroying our social norms and western civilization, where have I heard that before?

You’ve heard it in your own argument below when you suggest that in the future transhumanists and robots will be beating everyone so it’s not important what trivial records and useless trophies anyone wins -

deBeauvoir wrote: »

Btw, trans lives matter more than segregated sports for your amusement. Sports are for physical exercise and entertainment and it should not be taken so seriously to be more important than allowing transgendered people to take part in them. It's not important what trivial records you set and what useless trophies you win. What use are these things when in the future transhumanists and robots will be beating them all.

Get some perspective of what's really important here!

As I said from the beginning, what’s really important to you simply isn’t as important to other people. It’s not other people who are lacking perspective, it’s you, that you think just because “trans lives” are important to you, they should be as important to everyone else. You never explain WHY though. Instead you simply seek to undermine women, undermine the importance of sports and sporting achievements, and place what is important to you above everything and everyone else, and simply ignore the fact that other people have greater priorities which are more important to them. They’re really not any different to you in that regard.

One eyed Jack

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

It was the impact on sports that peaked my interest in trans issues. (Probably via Caster Semenya’s case iirc.) Women’s sports are finished if this unscientific thinking continues. It actually hurts my head to see otherwise intelligent people making these arguments for inclusion.

My take:
Safety first. Always.
Then fairness and inclusion. Fairness next when considering competitive sports, inclusion takes priority when considering non competitive/social sports.

Honestly I don’t think they are. Women’s sports are only becoming even more scientific with recent developments in science (article is from 2010 but it gives a good history of sex testing in women’s sports) -


Testing sex and gender in sports; reinventing, reimagining and reconstructing histories


Undoubtedly new methods of testing and new measures being introduced will inevitably lead to increased accusations of fraud or doping with banned substances to gain a performance advantage. The IOC is at the same time grappling with the science behind what’s known as RED-S and the impact that has on athletes health.

So while there is an argument to be made as regards the safety of the participants, I’d hate to see sports go the same way as the Special Olympics (it’s their photocopier ) where athletes are cosseted and patronised like children. Injuries are part and parcel of sports and are almost as common in women’s sports as they are in men’s sports. Nobody wants to see anyone getting beaten around the head so badly that they suffer a concussion, or having their head stamped on in a scrum, but that goes for both male and female athletes. Better training is the answer, as opposed to blanket bans on the idea of women competing against men, or vice versa. We’re all aware of Fallon Fox causing their opponent to suffer a concussion, but the fight should never have been allowed to get to that point, and honestly I still have an inkling the whole thing was a set-up. It’s not as though Fox hasn’t been beaten by a woman before -


On October 12, 2013, Evans-Smith made it to the finals of the CFA 12 tournament, entering as a heavy underdog, reaching +425 in the bookmakers' odds. After a back-and-forth first round, she started taking over in the second round. The round ended in controversy because while Evans-Smith was applying punches from the top position, the referee failed to hear the signal announcing the end of the round, so she continued to beat on Fallon Fox. The referee called the fight a TKO in her favor when the round should have already been over. As Ashlee, her corner and the crowd celebrated, the referee informed her that he had made a mistake, and the fight would go to a third round. In the 3rd, Ashlee was able to get the top position again and managed to hit a wave of punches, until the referee intervened and stopped the fight, giving her the win by TKO in the third round.


As for fairness, well in the world of elite sports where there are mind-boggling sums of money and politics involved, fairness is difficult to define. Renee Richards for example (Martina Navratilova’s former coach, no, not the one who was convicted of sexually abusing children, the other one), when they were told they could not compete in the women’s tournaments unless they underwent the test to determine whether they were eligible, won their case against the USTA in the Supreme Court -


On August 16, 1977, Judge Alfred M. Ascione found in Richards' favor. He ruled: "This person is now a female" and that requiring Richards to pass the Barr body test was "grossly unfair, discriminatory and inequitable, and a violation of her rights." He further ruled that the USTA intentionally discriminated against Richards, and granted Richards an injunction against the USTA and the USOC, allowing her to play in the US Open. Richards lost to Virginia Wade in the first round of the singles competition, but made it to the finals in doubles.


Of course both Renee and Martina have since changed their tune.

I get where you’re coming from of course with the whole “safety, fairness, inclusion” idea, but it just doesn’t map very well to reality in sports where we know safety of the athletes is not a primary concern, fairness depends upon who’s paying for it, and inclusion means exclusion of anyone who threatens the nonsense notion that sports are above politics :pac:

ProfessorPlum

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Honestly I don’t think they are. Women’s sports are only becoming even more scientific with recent developments in science (article is from 2010 but it gives a good history of sex testing in women’s sports) -

.........etc etc

Sorry Jack, I can’t agree with anything you’ve said there, except that the Special Olympics are an inclusion Olympics and not a competitive one in the main.

You seem to be of the ‘Wonen just need to try harder, train harder’ school of thought.

Let’s go back to first principals. Women’s sports catagories cane about because in a ‘less enlightened’ world, every body realised, and was not afraid to say, that men had a competitive advantage against women in the vast majority of sports.
‘Being a woman’ was known to be a result of a person possessing two X chromosomes. Hence the ‘Barr body’ test. Of course that fell into disrepute because of conditions like Turners (XO, female phenotype) and so was relegated to history.
Now we’re asked to believe that being a woman has nothing to do with chromosomes, and those chromosomes confer no advantage on those who get a Y one during development. That XY individuals are just another kind of women to be celebrated.

One eyed Jack

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

.........etc etc

Sorry Jack, I can’t agree with anything you’ve said there, except that the Special Olympics are an inclusion Olympics and not a competitive one in the main.

I used the example of the Special Olympics to say that women don’t need to be cosseted, infantilised and protected like they’re children. Injuries in sports are an inevitable part of participation. I’m not suggesting that anyone should put up with head concussions as part of participation in sports, merely that the idea that women need to be protected is likely to do more damage to women’s sports than the idea of permitting men to participate in women’s sports.

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

You seem to be of the ‘Wonen just need to try harder, train harder’ school of thought.

I don’t say that just because they’re women though. I’d say that to anyone who thought it was unfair that they had to compete in a competition they can’t imagine themselves winning unless the field of competitors they’re competing against is skewed in their favour - ie, they will only compete against anyone if they can win. If anyone were to argue that someone should be excluded from a sport or they won’t compete, I’d happily tell that person to jog on, there are plenty more athletes who want to win no matter who their competition is.

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Let’s go back to first principals. Women’s sports catagories cane about because in a ‘less enlightened’ world, every body realised, and was not afraid to say, that men had a competitive advantage against women in the vast majority of sports.

Women’s categories came about because women were regarded as being inferior to men, because they were seen as being unable to compete in sports devised and developed by men. Sports as a whole are changing now and it’s not just on the field that things are changing, the politics of sports is changing too with women demanding equal pay as their male counterparts. Unfortunately women’s sports just doesn’t bring in the same level of sponsorship as men’s sports do because nobody wants to watch a sport where women attempt to imitate men, badly. I’m of the opinion that there are different sports for different folks regardless of their sex, and there should be opportunities for the sports to be a mixed field. There’s absolutely no compelling reason why team sports at least can’t or shouldn’t be mixed.

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

‘Being a woman’ was known to be a result of a person possessing two X chromosomes. Hence the ‘Barr body’ test. Of course that fell into disrepute because of conditions like Turners (XO, female phenotype) and so was relegated to history.

It fell into disrepute because it was considered as invasive and unethical as many of the previous attempts to fish out impostors from women’s sports, like the visual inspection test and many that had gone before it. It fell into disrepute because it was causing more problems than it solved when it was discovered by science that female athletes had higher levels of testosterone than women among the general population anyway, and of course when an athlete who was raised as female all her life, it was argued that her hyperandrogenism gave her a significant biological advantage over her competitors from wealthier countries so she had to be stopped. It didn’t matter that it would hinder the development of athletics in her own country. It’s not surprising that athletes like Dutee Chand and Caster Sememya are showing up in women’s athletics, and there’s inevitably going to be more of them as long as it is assumed that they have a biological advantage over their competitors. It’s not shocking that women with hyperandrogynism are compared to men who claim to be transgender because their eligibility to compete in sports is determined by a measure of the hormone levels in their bodies. That has feckall to do with either being a woman or a man, but is based purely upon the hormone levels in their body, regardless of their sex.

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Now we’re asked to believe that being a woman has nothing to do with chromosomes, and those chromosomes confer no advantage on those who get a Y one during development. That XY individuals are just another kind of women to be celebrated.

Yeah that tends to happen whenever there are large sponsorship deals at stake. The real winners in all this are the likes of Nike who are famous for how they treat their athletes - if they’re a woman, they’re treated like shìt, and if they’re a woman who thinks they’re a man, they are indeed celebrated.

Gervais08

God not more multiquote waffly s**te!!!!

I’m not having a man argue with such forceful garbage about how it’s ok a six foot plus man with solid bone and muscle mass can hurt a smaller woman on a sports field - and all we have to do is train harder.

Just stop for God’s sake.

excludedbin

Gotta love the irony of "waffly ****e" from the "everyone who doesn't hate the transes is a TRANS RADICAL ACTIVIST" types. Just stop. You're embarrassing yourselves.

Gervais08

excludedbin wrote: »

Gotta love the irony of "waffly ****e" from the "everyone who doesn't hate the transes is a TRANS RADICAL ACTIVIST" types. Just stop. You're embarrassing yourselves.

Yeah I neither hate “the transes” (stupid phrase btw) nor have I ever says the above.

And that’s not what TRA stands for.

One eyed Jack

Gervais08 wrote: »

God not more multiquote waffly s**te!!!!

I’m not having a man argue with such forceful garbage about how it’s ok a six foot plus man with solid bone and muscle mass can hurt a smaller woman on a sports field - and all we have to do is train harder.

Just stop for God’s sake.

Point out EVEN ONCE, where I said, or even so much as implied any such thing. I’ll save you the trouble there too - you can’t.

Before anyone accuses me again of arguing against things nobody ever said, yours is a perfect example of doing just that, and you can be damn sure if I’m going to tolerate the opinions of world renowned biologists like JK Rowling, Martina Navratilova, Maya Forstater rambling treatises on why they above anyone else should get to determine who has the right to self-determination and freedom of expression, then that right applies to everyone in society, it’s not just a right that they should get to enjoy and demand that everyone else should comply with their standards or face persecution.

It’s one of the downsides of living in a democratic society - nobody is obliged to tolerate your shìt, and if you don’t want to tolerate other people’s shìt, feel free to use the Ignore button.

Gervais08

Yeah not for the first time I wish the phone site had ignore but I’ll settle for doing it manually.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

excludedbin wrote: »

Gotta love the irony of "waffly ****e" from the "everyone who doesn't hate the transes is a TRANS RADICAL ACTIVIST" types. Just stop. You're embarrassing yourselves.

Hmmm. I don’t hate transgender people and I’ve been criticising TRAs and their ideology in this thread. Lots of other people on this thread have been doing the same. Where do we fit into your simplistic classification system? Pointing out the conflicts between women’s rights and transgender rights does not denote a hatred of transgender people.

The only waffling has been coming from people who either can’t define ‘man’ and ‘woman’ or else define them as some sort of nebulous feeling and expect women to give away their hard-won rights on that basis.

One eyed Jack

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

The only waffling has been coming from people who either can’t define ‘man’ and ‘woman’ or else define them as some sort of nebulous feeling and expect women to give away their hard-won rights on that basis.

It’s interesting that you put it like that, as though people who are transgender haven’t fought for their rights throughout history. We know that’s not true because in at least one case, the person tried to define themselves as a “congenitally disabled woman” as though being born male was a disability and it was on that basis they were being discriminated against. It was a novel approach to try and redefine men, didn’t fly at the time either, but the Judge at the time did express concern about the rights of people who are transsexual and called on the Government to urgently review the matter. That was in Ireland in 2002. It only took the Irish Government 13 years to fulfil their human rights obligations.

The idea that anyone expects women to give up their rights is nonsense, they never had the right to determine other people’s rights in the first place, and any arguments against recognising that other people have rights are based upon nothing more than that person’s own personal feelings as to how they imagine women and men should be defined - entirely based upon ignoring the reality that nobody else is obligated to be bound by their life limiting definitions.

suicide_circus

"If you see any issues with Self ID you hate trans people and you want them to die!!!!!1"

If your discourse resembles the tantrum of a hormonal teenager, have a word with yourself.

Gervais08

suicide_circus wrote: »

"If you see any issues with Self ID you hate trans people and you want them to die!!!!!1"

If your discourse resembles the tantrum of a hormonal teenager, have a word with yourself.

This! A million times this!

One eyed Jack

suicide_circus wrote: »

If your discourse resembles the tantrum of a hormonal teenager, have a word with yourself.

This kind of discourse resembles the tantrum of a hormonal teenager, but it’s probably not what you had in mind -


https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1269382518362509313

suicide_circus

Dont agree tbh

One eyed Jack

suicide_circus wrote: »

Dont agree tbh

I didn’t expect you would SC, nor do I expect you should. That’s the difference between adult discourse and a person whom one assumes would be educated enough to be able to articulate their point of view without resorting to sneering like a petulant child and playing the victim because someone doesn’t conform to their world view.

Gervais08

The misogyny is so very very strong in so many posters in his thread.

Gervais08

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I didn’t expect you would SC, nor do I expect you should. That’s the difference between adult discourse and a person whom one assumes would be educated enough to be able to articulate their point of view without resorting to sneering like a petulant child and playing the victim because someone doesn’t conform to their world view.

It’s everyones “world view” - save a few ****ing nuts and their achingly woke supporters - that only women menstruate.

Quit trying to make out like you represent the majority. You never have and never will.

DeadHand

Gervais08 wrote: »

The misogyny is so very very strong in so many posters in his thread.

Misogyny is the dark, unspoken heartbeat of political Transgenderism.

CtevenSrowder

DeadHand wrote: »

Misogyny is the dark, unspoken heartbeat of Transgenderism.

Add in the word activism at the end and I'd fully agree.

One eyed Jack

Gervais08 wrote: »

It’s everyones “world view” - save a few ****ing nuts and their achingly woke supporters - that only women menstruate.

Quit trying to make out like you represent the majority. You never have and never will.

Not sure how you got that from my post but I’ve never made out like I represent any majority? I was referring to people like the organisation that JK chose to mock because they used language that JK objected to, in referring to the same thing. They weren’t claiming to represent the majority either, they were being inclusive of women who don’t refer to themselves as women, the aim of the organisation being to educate as many people in developing countries as possible about menstrual health.

There are a few women who are nuts like that, but I wouldn’t choose to mock them for it any more than I wouldn’t choose to mock JK for the fact that no amount of plastic surgery and makeup could disguise the sheer misery so evident in her unfortunate visage.