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

One eyed Jack

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Would you like to engage with any of the cogent points that have been put forth or offer some yourself? I always hear about supposed hatred in these dialogues but the hyperbole only ever seems to come from one side. Almost like there is a lack of substance there and the gap must be filled somehow.

That’s certainly not true, given the multiple times it has been suggested that our laws should be written with the protection of the most neurotic in society in mind.

Gruffalux

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Would you like to engage with any of the cogent points that have been put forth or offer some yourself? I always hear about supposed hatred in these dialogues but the hyperbole only ever seems to come from one side. Almost like there is a lack of substance there and the gap must be filled somehow.

Yes. There is never any engagement with serious arguments. I always notice that. There is baiting and lying in wait. There is cherry picking the occasional posts that are not substantive at all in the thread, then dump abuse and hyperbolic accusation and run away real fast.
Every serious person on this thread as on other similar threads have supported trans adults protections just not at the expense of sex based protections. Most express compassion and acceptance. Some express normal indifference. Ordinary people. Not the monsters some hysterically accuse them of being. There is a neurotic element that infiltrates this whole issue and makes discussion difficult.

Dyr

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Would you like to engage with any of the cogent points that have been put forth or offer some yourself? I always hear about supposed hatred in these dialogues but the hyperbole only ever seems to come from one side. Almost like there is a lack of substance there and the gap must be filled somehow.

Contradiction is hatred.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Bambi wrote: »

Contradiction is hatred.

I know, right? When did good old debate go out of fashion? I've said this before but my father voted No in the Eighth Amendment referendum whilst I voted Yes. In the lead up, we had a few debates about it that never got heated, because we're grown ups. I didn't call him a woman-hater, he didn't call me a murder-advocate. It's almost like we were both pretty sensible people who had thought about things and were confident in our positions. In my view, if you're sure of yourself and your stance, there's no need for hyperbole and dramatics.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Gruffalox wrote: »

Yes. There is never any engagement with serious arguments. I always notice that. There is baiting and lying in wait. There is cherry picking the occasional posts that are not substantive at all in the thread, then dump abuse and hyperbolic accusation and run away real fast.
Every serious person on this thread as on other similar threads have supported trans adults protections just not at the expense of sex based protections. Most express compassion and acceptance. Some express normal indifference. Ordinary people. Not the monsters some hysterically accuse them of being. There is a neurotic element that infiltrates this whole issue and makes discussion difficult.

Bingo.

I don't understand why there is a refusal to acknowledge that there are conflicts between certain sex-based rights and transgender rights and pointing those out is not hatred.

I've become more mouthy on this issue because I'm just fed up. I know I have good points to make and I will make them. I'm in an unenviable position in my life in that I cannot work but it has given me freedom in some ways. I have no job to lose. Ireland is a small country and somebody could well know who I am, as I have worked out people's identities from details they have mentioned about their lives here. But my livelihood can't be threatened because I don't have one so I feel emboldened. I know other people don't have the same security I have in that regard.

One eyed Jack

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

In my view, if you're sure of yourself and your stance, there's no need for hyperbole and dramatics.

I’d be of the same view, that’s why I don’t see why JK continues to imagine it was necessary to try and bait people with hyperbole and dramatics. Clearly her motives are more than just about informing the public about facts when she’s made her millions from peddling fantasy stories which appeal to children and adults for the last number of years.

TomTomTim

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

And so the hatefest continues :rolleyes:

Says the poster that accused people of inciting violence against children, yet disappeared when asked to provide evidence by another moderator.

Gradius

It's quite amazing to see how easily people can be duped into disbelieving their own eyes and ears, and to disregard the common sense of the brain.

At this point I wouldn't be the slightest bit surprised to see hordes of people defending the "truth" that pigeons are, indeed, humans.

When you can so easily ignore reality, sure why not?

One day reason and logic and sense shall return. If someone contended that a pigeon was human, would you engage? Would you waste your time? Would you validate the opinion by giving it credence?

Might as well laugh at all of it while its still festering around the place

LLMMLL

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

When it comes to safeguarding, the strictest possible guidelines are the ones that should be in place. The vast majority of men will not harm anyone. But we need to plan for the worst case scenario, not the best. And transgender women are biologically male and therefore there is no reason to believe that they shouldn't be categorised under male patterns of criminality unless somebody can tell me at what point in the transition process the change to female pattern criminality occurs.

I notice many men are very vocal about this supposed bigotry because they have the least to lose. There is a reason that sex-segregated spaces were fought for. And little boys are recognised as vulnerable too and are brought into those sex-segregated spaces by their mothers with the blessing of society because we recognise too their vulnerability and need for protection.

I'm also puzzled as to why the safety fears of transgender women are taken deadly seriously but the safety fears of women are shrugged off as bigotry.

If you truly believe in the strictest safety guidelines would you fully support a complete segregation of cis men and cis women in all sectors of society?

Or is it that you pick and choose when to be strict and when to be lax?

suicide_circus

This is the problem with getting lost in the weeds around this issue. You indirectly make the error of accepting the foundational premise.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

LLMMLL wrote: »

If you truly believe in the strictest safety guidelines would you fully support a complete segregation of cis men and cis women in all sectors of society?

Or is it that you pick and choose when to be strict and when to be lax?

You mean men and women?

Anywhere that the differences between the biological sexes lends vulnerability is where there should be segregation. What we had in place pre-self ID, basically.

Why would you think that means full segregation of the sexes? Do the strictest safeguarding guidelines advocate that?

Gruffalux

LLMMLL wrote: »

If you truly believe in the strictest safety guidelines would you fully support a complete segregation of cis men and cis women in all sectors of society?

Or is it that you pick and choose when to be strict and when to be lax?

The "appeal to extremes" fallacy.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Gruffalox wrote: »

The "appeal to extremes" fallacy.

Indeedio. But sure I’ll humour LLMMLL for a bit.

LLMMLL

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

You mean men and women?

Anywhere that the differences between the biological sexes lends vulnerability is where there should be segregation. What we had in place pre-self ID, basically.

Why would you think that means full segregation of the sexes? Do the strictest safeguarding guidelines advocate that?

I was unaware that most or even many attacks on women occur in dressing rooms for example. Where are the general safety guidelines that advise separate dressing rooms for men and women in deparTmenent store dressing rooms?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

LLMMLL wrote: »

I was unaware that most or even many attacks on women occur in dressing rooms for example. Where are the general safety guidelines that advise separate dressing rooms for men and women in deparTmenent store dressing rooms?

You quickly walked back from "If you truly believe in the strictest safety guidelines would you fully support a complete segregation of cis men and cis women in all sectors of society?", I see.

Gruffalux

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Indeedio. But sure I’ll humour LLMMLL for a bit.

You're going in - good luck!
Let your plans be dark and impenetrable as night, and when you move, fall like a thunderbolt. - Sun Tzu.

( Heres one - https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/life-style/women/sexual-assault-unisex-changing-rooms-sunday-times-women-risk-a8519086.html%3famp
90% of all attacks on women take place in unisex facilities in UK. )

LLMMLL

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

You quickly walked back from "If you truly believe in the strictest safety guidelines would you fully support a complete segregation of cis men and cis women in all sectors of society?", I see.

Absolutely not. I'm showing how your "strictest guidelines" is a cover for the fact that you don't approve of the strictest guidelines at all. You approve of the strictest guidelines that suit your point. I will get back to the idea of complete segregation of the sexes. But firstly I'd like you to show me the guidelines that state that best safeguarding practices advise separate dressing rooms in department stores. Can you please provide?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

LLMMLL wrote: »

Absolutely not. I'm showing how your "strictest guidelines" is a cover for the fact that you don't approve of the strictest guidelines at all. You approve of the strictest guidelines that suit your point. I will get back to the idea of complete segregation of the sexes. But firstly I'd like you to show me the guidelines that state that best safeguarding practices advise separate dressing rooms in department stores. Can you please provide?

No, no, off you go. Might as well jump in now. If you have a point to make, don't hold back.

the purple tin

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

No, no, off you go. Might as well jump in now. If you have a point to make, don't hold back.

I think we'd be well advised to bail out of this thread, poste haste
Byeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

the purple tin wrote: »

I think we'd be well advised to bail out of this thread, poste haste
Byeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

Oh sure, look, I know I won't get a straight answer here, from somebody (LLMMLL) who is demanding it of others. The usual.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Gruffalox wrote: »

You're going in - good luck!
Let your plans be dark and impenetrable as night, and when you move, fall like a thunderbolt. - Sun Tzu.

( Heres one - https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/life-style/women/sexual-assault-unisex-changing-rooms-sunday-times-women-risk-a8519086.html%3famp
90% of all attacks on women take place in unisex facilities in UK. )

Thanks for that one. I've read a lot on the topic but I just know that anything I provide will be ignored.

One eyed Jack

Gruffalox wrote: »

The "appeal to extremes" fallacy.

Gruffalox wrote: »

You're going in - good luck!
Let your plans be dark and impenetrable as night, and when you move, fall like a thunderbolt. - Sun Tzu.

( Heres one - https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/life-style/women/sexual-assault-unisex-changing-rooms-sunday-times-women-risk-a8519086.html%3famp
90% of all attacks on women take place in unisex facilities in UK. )

As appeals to extremes go, that’s a cracker! You’d have me beat in the long jump anyway

That’s not what the article says though. It says -


Just under 90 per cent of complaints regarding changing room sexual assaults, voyeurism and harassment are about incidents in unisex facilities.


The article doesn’t give a breakdown of the figures by sex either. I’m sure you’re aware of the fact that there are men who imagine even the single sex dressing rooms are their domain, waving their staffs about willy nilly with gay abandon. I have it on good authority that there are women who engage in the same sort of intimidatory behaviour in their own single sex dressing rooms.

Most people in my experience are keen to ignore such behaviour, but there are a minority who view any minor social transgression as a gross violation of their dignity. How do they cope?

LLMMLL

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Oh sure, look, I know I won't get a straight answer here, from somebody (LLMMLL) who is demanding it of others. The usual.

I'm perfectly willing to give you a straight answer. You have presented the idea that your opposition to trans women sharing changing rooms with cis women is based on the strictest guidelines. I presented an even stricter set of guidelines to you which you clearly did not approve of and you went on to say this:

"Anywhere that the differences between the biological sexes lends vulnerability is where there should be segregation. What we had in place pre-self ID, basically.
Why would you think that means full segregation of the sexes? Do the strictest safeguarding guidelines advocate that?"

Which implies you are basing your opinion on safeguarding guidelines.

I am asking you to provide me with these guidelines.

Is this not direct enough for you?

ceadaoin.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I was correct in suggesting that the presence or absence of a uterus is a prerequisite for mensuration then. Grand.





There’s plenty can go wrong with it, just as there is plenty can go wrong in any organ transplantation, which medicine tries to mitigate against. It hasn’t stopped us from performing all sorts of organ and tissue transplants, so yes, the only obstacle is the ethics of it.

Thats really not the only obstacle. A male body is just not designed for a uterus. Its not like its just a case of sticking a uterus into an empty slot and it will somehow work. There is a lot more to it. Things that are dependent on female biology. At the moment its science fiction that this will ever be a possibility.

Also, again, its menstruation.

Chris_Heilong

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

cis men and cis

Please dont use this term as it is very offensive.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

LLMMLL wrote: »

I'm perfectly willing to give you a straight answer. You have presented the idea that your opposition to trans women sharing changing rooms with cis women is based on the strictest guidelines. I presented an even stricter set of guidelines to you which you clearly did not approve of and you went on to say this:

"Anywhere that the differences between the biological sexes lends vulnerability is where there should be segregation. What we had in place pre-self ID, basically.
Why would you think that means full segregation of the sexes? Do the strictest safeguarding guidelines advocate that?"

Which implies you are basing your opinion on safeguarding guidelines.

I am asking you to provide me with these guidelines.

Is this not direct enough for you?

Go nuts:

https://www.tusla.ie/uploads/content/Tusla_-_Child_Safeguarding_-_A_Guide_for_Policy,_Procedure_and_Practice.pdf

All kinds of information there. As I'm not a social worker, I don't have it all memorised. Natch. I suspect that won't be good enough for you, LLMMLL, but nothing ever is. Nothing ever is.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Chris_Heilong wrote: »

Please dont use this term as it is very offensive.

Erm, I never used those terms, you've misquoted me. I quoted somebody else who used them. It's very clear that I'm quoting somebody else in the post.

JL555

Chris_Heilong wrote: »

Please dont use this term as it is very offensive.

cissy

One eyed Jack

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Thats really not the only obstacle. A male body is just not designed for a uterus. Its not like its just a case of sticking a uterus into an empty slot and it will somehow work. There is a lot more to it. Things that are dependent on female biology. At the moment its science fiction that this will ever be a possibility.

Also, again, its menstruation.

You’re missing the point. The poster I quoted was suggesting that not only do vaginas have periods as though a vagina is a prerequisite for menstruation, but also that biological men can’t have periods because they’re not biological women. That’s not the reason biological men can’t have periods either. It applies to anyone who does not have a uterus, which is the fundamental prerequisite organ required in order to menstruate. Without it, there is simply no way to menstruate. With it, then the other prerequisites you point out are of secondary concern.

OMM 0000 wrote: »

As I said, vaginas have periods.

A person who is biologically male cannot have a period.

A person who is biologically female can have a period, although as you point out taking male hormones is going to change things a bit.

We need to stop pretending and just be clear - a biological man who is living as a woman can't have periods because biological men aren't biological women.

The fact this is controversial just shows we've allowed actual idiots control the narrative on too many things.

Transplanting all sorts of organs were once the stuff of science fiction too, until they weren’t. Scientists aren’t that far away from developing an artificial uterus either, no female biology required,

JL555

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You’re missing the point. The poster I quoted was suggesting that not only do vaginas have periods as though a vagina is a prerequisite for menstruation, but also that biological men can’t have periods because they’re not biological women. That’s not the reason biological men can’t have periods either. It applies to anyone who does not have a uterus, which is the fundamental prerequisite organ required in order to menstruate. Without it, there is simply no way to menstruate. With it, then the other prerequisites you point out are of secondary concern.





Transplanting all sorts of organs were once the stuff of science fiction too, until they weren’t. Scientists aren’t that far away from developing an artificial uterus either, no female biology required,

Still wouldn't make someone who wasn't born female a female if they had one of these implanted though right?