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

LLMMLL

mohawk wrote: »

The poster has said she doesn’t identify as cis. Therefore, she is not cis.

Just like you or I don’t decide who is trans. It is the individual person who identifies as Trans. Therefore only people who identify as Cis should be called cis.

Nope cis describes people who identify as the sex they were assigned at birth

LLMMLL

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Have to admit, I got some awful mental imagery there :pac:

I’m reminded of the kind of idiots who try to claim it’s “transphobia” when they’re on the receiving end of rejection on dating apps, as if their own reasons for using them are any different to anyone else’s who uses these apps -


Transphobia in Tinderland: Online dating must be more inclusive

Did you actually read that article?

The author does not even vaguely come close to claiming that rejection equals transphobia.

They say that they put that they are trans on their profile so find it irritating that when they match with someone and repeat that they are trans the person tells them they are really just a man or makes a comment around their genitalia.

They ask for kindness from the people who reject them. They do NOT say anyone has to sleep with them or go on a date with them who doesn't want to.

Really awful misinformation

Gervais08

LLMMLL wrote: »

Nope cis describes people who identify as the sex they were assigned at birth

Oh give it a rest with the “assigned” horse****. To quote the Manics I was born a girl.

Sittingpretty

Wibbs wrote: »

Intersectionality is the ultimate pseudointellectual fence sitting bullshite G. It leaves the believer free to make no judgements whatsoever. No judgement means it relieves the individual of having to think and of course it relieves the individual of taking the responsibility of making a judgement. It is the refuge of the dithering, the indecisive and the cowardly.

If I could thank this one hundred fold I would.

Sittingpretty

Gervais08 wrote: »

I imagine you run workshops in how to “overcome the cotton ceiling”.

Or coercive rape as we call it usually.

I’d never ask naturally but Am genuinely curious if llmmll male or female or trans.

Gervais08

Sittingpretty wrote: »

I’d never ask naturally but Am genuinely curious if llmmll male or female or trans.

Not a clue tbh - probably one of the 103 other not made up at all ... genders available.

LLMMLL

Oh dear. So I point out that a poster has misrepresented an article where someone has asked that people be kind when rejecting them and you try to twist it into a "cotton ceiling" issue? Neither the article nor what I said have anything to with that.

Edit - the post I was quoting seems to have disappeared. No idea what happened there.

mohawk

LLMMLL wrote: »

Nope cis describes people who identify as the sex they were assigned at birth

That isn’t the definition used by Stonewall. The definition of Cis as per Stonewall is “ Cis or cisgender people: Individuals who identify with the gender that was assigned to them at birth (i.e., people who are not transgender).”

The stonewall definition refers to gender not sex. Gender and sex aren’t the same thing.

Also most people’s sex isn’t assigned at birth it’s observed. Sometimes due an intersex condition the sex is assigned.

LLMMLL

mohawk wrote: »

That isn’t the definition used by Stonewall. The definition of Cis as per Stonewall is “ Cis or cisgender people: Individuals who identify with the gender that was assigned to them at birth (i.e., people who are not transgender).”

The stonewall definition refers to gender not sex. Gender and sex aren’t the same thing.

Also most people’s sex isn’t assigned at birth it’s observed. Sometimes due an intersex condition the sex is assigned.

I'm not particularly down with the gender/sex distinction. I've no issue with people using it if they find it a handy way to describe their thoughts, and I understand what they mean by it, but I'm not aligned with it and whether Stonewall use it or not has no impact on my thoughts and arguments.

46 Long

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Have to admit, I got some awful mental imagery there :pac:

I’m reminded of the kind of idiots who try to claim it’s “transphobia” when they’re on the receiving end of rejection on dating apps, as if their own reasons for using them are any different to anyone else’s who uses these apps -


Transphobia in Tinderland: Online dating must be more inclusive

Never fails to amaze just how authoritarian these types get.

The app must change. Not, 'I'd like it if this was changed' or 'maybe could we look at improving xyz', or 'in my opinion this would be better if xyz'.

No, the app must change because reasons and because I said so, bigot.

OscarMIlde

LLMMLL wrote: »

Nope. That just proves that the individual in question does not have the chromosomes, bone density etc. Of cis women. The only group that TERFs consider to be women.

You seem to struggle with the concept of biological sex differences, and the huge effect that biological sex differences have on every aspect of the growth and development of our bodies. This is a really nice, very clear article which discusses the huge differences between men and women. I'd recommend you read it, think about it, and then reconsider your (very strange) beliefs.

https://theconversation.com/not-just-about-sex-throughout-our-bodies-thousands-of-genes-act-differently-in-men-and-women-86613

One eyed Jack

LLMMLL wrote: »

Well I never would have called Wibbs a TERF or as.ive said one eyed Jack even though I disagree with them both. Which just goes to show it's not an insult and I use it consistently.

From what I've seen suicide circus seems quite TERFy and im afraid ive never really noticed sir oxman as a poster so couldn't possibly comment.

You’re well aware it’s an attempt to insult feminists who don’t agree with the nonsense notion that men are included in feminism. There’s nothing radical about how feminism has been traditionally defined as being women’s emancipation from men, or women’s equality with men in areas where they are not equal to men. Feminism by it’s own definition excludes men, and certainly wouldn’t grant them positions of power over other women within the women’s movement.

LLMMLL wrote: »

Nope cis describes people who identify as the sex they were assigned at birth

It’s a description used only by people who subscribe to the cisgender/transgender binary paradigm. Outside of it’s subscribers it has no meaning, other than to be deployed as an insult. It’s no different to religious types trying to claim that everyone belongs to their religion - they’re equally wrong as you are.

Sex is not assigned at birth either, it’s determined by biology long before then and holds throughout a person’s life. It’s not simply observed at birth either, it’s observed throughout a person’s life and does not change, even by means of artificial intervention, and certainly is not subject to the whims of linguistics.

LLMMLL

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You’re well aware it’s an attempt to insult feminists who don’t agree with the nonsense notion that men are included in feminism. There’s nothing radical about how feminism has been traditionally defined as being women’s emancipation from men, or women’s equality with men in areas where they are not equal to men. Feminism by it’s own definition excludes men, and certainly wouldn’t grant them positions of power over other women within the women’s movement.





It’s a description used only by people who subscribe to the cisgender/transgender binary paradigm. Outside of it’s subscribers it has no meaning, other than to be deployed as an insult. It’s no different to religious types trying to claim that everyone belongs to their religion - they’re equally wrong as you are.

Sex is not assigned at birth either, it’s determined by biology long before then and holds throughout a person’s life. It’s not simply observed at birth either, it’s observed throughout a person’s life and does not change, even by means of artificial intervention, and certainly is not subject to the whims of linguistics.

Why would I use cis as an insult when I like the vast vast majority of cis people I know? It's really a strange argument that cis is derogatory.

LLMMLL

OscarMIlde wrote: »

You seem to struggle with the concept of biological sex differences, and the huge effect that biological sex differences have on every aspect of the growth and development of our bodies. This is a really nice, very clear article which discusses the huge differences between men and women. I'd recommend you read it, think about it, and then reconsider your (very strange) beliefs.

https://theconversation.com/not-just-about-sex-throughout-our-bodies-thousands-of-genes-act-differently-in-men-and-women-86613

I've just read it and it makes no difference to my views. It does not prove what you think it proves.

Sittingpretty

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You’re well aware it’s an attempt to insult feminists who don’t agree with the nonsense notion that men are included in feminism. There’s nothing radical about how feminism has been traditionally defined as being women’s emancipation from men, or women’s equality with men in areas where they are not equal to men. Feminism by it’s own definition excludes men, and certainly wouldn’t grant them positions of power over other women within the women’s movement.





It’s a description used only by people who subscribe to the cisgender/transgender binary paradigm. Outside of it’s subscribers it has no meaning, other than to be deployed as an insult. It’s no different to religious types trying to claim that everyone belongs to their religion - they’re equally wrong as you are.

Sex is not assigned at birth either, it’s determined by biology long before then and holds throughout a person’s life. It’s not simply observed at birth either, it’s observed throughout a person’s life and does not change, even by means of artificial intervention, and certainly is not subject to the whims of linguistics.

Well knock me down with a feather I didn’t think existed, I agree with OEJ!

46 Long

LLMMLL wrote: »

Why would I use cis as an insult when I like the vast vast majority of cis people I know? It's really a strange argument that cis is derogatory.

I like the vast majority of vagina havers and people with a cervix I know. That doesn't make those terms any less reductive and absurd.

LLMMLL

46 Long wrote: »

I like the vast majority of vagina havers and people with a cervix I know. That doesn't make those terms any less reductive and absurd.

That's nice but has nothing to do with what we are talking about. This post would only make sense if someone was claiming that you use the term "people with a cervix" as an insult.

OscarMIlde

LLMMLL wrote: »

I've just read it and it makes no difference to my views. It does not prove what you think it proves.

So you don't think there are vast differences between men and women?

One eyed Jack

LLMMLL wrote: »

Why would I use cis as an insult when I like the vast vast majority of cis people I know? It's really a strange argument that cis is derogatory.

Because you use it to insult the people you don’t know.

LLMMLL

OscarMIlde wrote: »

So you don't think there are vast differences between men and women?

Well the word vast adds a bit too much subjectivity here.

I would say there are a group of people that TERFs consider to be the only group describable as women or female and there are a group of people TERFs consider to be the only group describable as men or male and there are clear differences between these two groups.

And your article describes some of these differences but has no impact on trans issues.

LLMMLL

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Because you use it to insult the people you don’t know.

No I would use it for any cis person.

Example: my mother is a cis woman. My father is a cis man.

vojiwox

Wibbs wrote: »

Beyond pushing for makey uppy pronouns.

Ah sure we made them all up!

One eyed Jack

LLMMLL wrote: »

No I would use it for any cis person.

Example: my mother is a cis woman. My father is a cis man.

I said you use it to insult people you don’t know.

Your example only reinforces the point.

OscarMIlde

LLMMLL wrote: »

Well the word vast adds a bit too much subjectivity here.

I would say there are a group of people that TERFs consider to be the only group describable as women or female and there are a group of people TERFs consider to be the only group describable as men or male and there are clear differences between these two groups.

And your article describes some of these differences but has no impact on trans issues.

Except that trans women are biologically the same as men, and trans men are biologically the same as women. There are a huge number of differences between men and women at a molecular level which effect every aspect of our lives and you think this is irrelevant to Trans issues?

LLMMLL

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I said you use it to insult people you don’t know.

Your example only reinforces the point.

How can I use it one way with people I like and another with people I don't like? Sorry jack but this really makes no sense.

One eyed Jack

LLMMLL wrote: »

Well the word vast adds a bit too much subjectivity here.

...

And your article describes some of these differences but has no impact on trans issues.

The research suggests that a third of the human genome is behaving very differently in men and women. The discovery has significant implications for policies related to people who identify themselves as transgender.

To say that the discovery has “no impact” on policies related to people who identify themselves as transgender is displaying just how anchored you are to your own ideology that you don’t even consider the implications of new research in science and medicine and the potential impact it could have for people who identify themselves as transgender.

LLMMLL

OscarMIlde wrote: »

Except that trans women are biologically the same as men, and trans men are biologically the same as women. There are a huge number of differences between men and women at a molecular level which effect every aspect of our lives and you think this is irrelevant to Trans issues?

Until we understand the brain we cannot make the claim that trans women are biolocally the same as cis men.

I completely agree that trans men and cis women (and trans women and cis men) have certain biological features in common.

LLMMLL

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The research suggests that a third of the human genome is behaving very differently in men and women. The discovery has significant implications for policies related to people who identify themselves as transgender.

To say that the discovery has “no impact” on policies related to people who identify themselves as transgender is displaying just how anchored you are to your own ideology that you don’t even consider the implications of new research in science and medicine and the potential impact it could have for people who identify themselves as transgender.

The "third of the human genome" is meaningless as a fact. Can you explain how a third of the genome behaving differently impacts versus a sixth? Versus two thirds? Versus 1%? Reminds me of that old "humans share 98% of their DNA with chimps" fact that used to be trotted out a lot. Ok... Now tell me why I should care about this number.

One eyed Jack

LLMMLL wrote: »

How can I use it one way with people I like and another with people I don't like? Sorry jack but this really makes no sense.

The context in which you use the term is an indication of your intent.

LLMMLL

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The context in which you use the term is an indication of your intent.

Can you quote an instance of me using the word cis where the context indicates it was intended as a slur?