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

KiKi III

I think J K Rowling’s tweets are well worded and not hateful; she expresses real concerns shared by many.

I do wonder from her point of view if it’s worth tarnishing her legacy.

There’s a generation coming up who only know of Graham
Lineman as “the anti-trans guy” and not as the creator of one of Ireland’s best TV shows.

She’s entitled to her opinion, but is it worth it? Does she care that much about the issue?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

FVP3 wrote: »

No we shouldn't. Hard to police that anyhoo. However self identification allows all men access to all womens spaces. Not just transwomen, because people cant be expected to carry their passport around all the time.

I wonder about people like you. I assume a few years ago, as a feminist, you would have been opposed to men accessing protected female spaces. Now someone just changes the rhetoric a bit, and biological men are women if they think it, and thus the entire edifice of what you once believed is overthrown and you now believe the opposite. Men everywhere. Screw safety. Men in women's refuges, in women's prisons, on all female lists, in sports.

It must have been something like that when protestantism swept through northern europe, which had been prior to that the most pious and catholic part of Europe. I have often wondered how many people went with the flow, how many genuinely believed the opposite of what they once believed.

It seems genuine in your case, this isn't a forum where you need to be politically correct, as none of us are posting under our own names.

Indeed, because the feminists fighting for sex-based rights now are actually being completely consistent. They wanted sex-segregrated spaces then and they still want them now. It's the people who were all for women's rights and safety a few years ago and now extend those rights to men who say they are women that don't seem to be have been all that concerned with the the safety and comfort of women in the first place. It's almost like they were going with the fashion of the time, the most "progressive" topic. Flakes.

CtevenSrowder

KiKi III wrote: »

I think J K Rowling’s tweets are well worded and not hateful; she expresses real concerns shared by many.

I do wonder from her point of view if it’s worth tarnishing her legacy.

There’s a generation coming up who only know of Graham
Lineman as “the anti-trans guy” and not as the creator of one of Ireland’s best TV shows.

She’s entitled to her opinion, but is it worth it? Does she care that much about the issue?

She's not tarnishing her legacy. The only people who think she's tarnishing her legacy are those caught up in the whole trans hysteria. The sort of people who are simply incapable of separating the political from the personal.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

KiKi III wrote: »

I think J K Rowling’s tweets are well worded and not hateful; she expresses real concerns shared by many.

I do wonder from her point of view if it’s worth tarnishing her legacy.

There’s a generation coming up who only know of Graham
Lineman as “the anti-trans guy” and not as the creator of one of Ireland’s best TV shows.

She’s entitled to her opinion, but is it worth it? Does she care that much about the issue?

If you look at Rowling's or Linehan's tweets on the topic, they are rarely ratioed. Even with attracting significant opprobrium in the comments, they are rarely ratioed. That tells me that they enjoy significant support in reality.

We have to remember that away from social media, very few people care about this. They read her books, they laugh at his comedies, they are entertained. And personally I believe they both will eventually be vindicated anyway. Their legacies will be fine.

LLMMLL

FVP3 wrote: »

Its definitely a bias though, although I doubt you yourself are very young. As CtevenSrowder alluded to this is really an American imperialist ideology which controls younger minds hacked by US television, movies and culture wars. We have always had two of those, the latter is relatively new. All are linked, if the Kardashians didnt have a transitioned family member I think the spread of the ideology would have been more limited.

Which is maybe why the Harry Potter fans in the US are so upset with Rowling, and why she has taken a stance. By and large the cultural control by the Empire of English speaking countries is near absolute. Not always though. Rowling is British, and British ( and Australian) feminists have had the rug pulled out from under them, but are mounting some resistance. Rowling has some cultural power that pushes back against Empire, and boy are they mad.

Yes I actually think it's older feminists trying to cling to the relevancy they once had but is fast disappearing. It does explain the demographic issues somewhat.

I think the main problem is the expectation of tolerance only goes one way.

Most people have no problem with trans people living their "best life" as long as it doesn't include the presumption that people will buy into "their reality".

Anyone's "reality" which goes against science and common sense has no validity outside their own belief.

It's the same as religion. I have no issue with anyone believing in the deity of their choice and fully support them, once I am not expected to make concessions to accommodate them

LLMMLL

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Because it's offensive, full of hatred and bigoted. You have to stop doing it because of this. That's why.

Control of our language you say; you want us to call biological men women, that is absolutely trying to control language. A trans-women is a biological male, or put another way, they are not:



because a female is:


or if you'd prefer:



so by calling people bigots, transphobes, hateful or whatever for not calling trans-women woman, you are absolutely trying to control language and by default people by trying to shame and humiliate them into calling something something it isn't.

* https://www.google.com/search?q=female+definition&oq=female+def&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0l7.3725j1j9&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

** https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/female

Pure nonsense there is nothing hateful about the word cis. I'll continue to use it.

One eyed Jack

OscarMIlde wrote: »

I'd say if those statistics were corrected to account for predisposing factors such as drug use/abuse, educational background, and household income, there wouldn't be such a disparity in white and black offending rates. I doubt such corrections would alter the violent crime ratio of me to women much however.

One could present statistics to support whatever their chosen position, but arguing that there are any predisposing factors which indicate a predisposition in men to be violent towards women is easily countered by the number of men who contradict that assertion and present quite the opposite point of view - that men are predisposed to protecting women. Feminist groups have tried that argument for years, and they get nowhere with it -


RAINN (Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network) is America’s largest and most influential anti-sexual-violence organization. It’s the leading voice for sexual-assault victim advocacy. Indeed, rape-culture activists routinely cite the authority of RAINN to make their case. But in RAINN’s recent recommendations to the White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault, it repudiates the rhetoric of the anti–“rape culture” movement:

In the last few years, there has been an unfortunate trend towards blaming “rape culture” for the extensive problem of sexual violence on campus. While it is helpful to point out the systemic barriers to addressing the problem, it is important not to lose sight of a simple fact: Rape is caused not by cultural factors but by the conscious decisions, of a small percentage of the community, to commit a violent crime.


It's Time to End 'Rape Culture' Hysteria


Arguing that people who are transgender inherently pose a threat to women’s safety is based upon prejudice. Presenting statistics as though they support the idea that people who are transgender are predisposed to violence against women (which is the claim being made), is based upon prejudice. Expecting that prejudice to be protected by law is what Maya Forstater tried to argue, unsuccessfully.

CtevenSrowder

LLMMLL wrote: »

Pure nonsense there is nothing hateful about the word cis. I'll continue to use it.

Ok bigot.

Btw, there is nothing hateful about acknowledging biological reality either, that is, by saying trans-woman aren't women. I love how you didn't respond to that element of my post.

<modsnip>

OscarMIlde

LLMMLL wrote: »

Yes I actually think it's older feminists trying to cling to the relevancy they once had but is fast disappearing. It does explain the demographic issues somewhat.

Or maybe they feel strongly about this issue, and aren't about to let hard won protections be lost for fear of disfavour. Feminists have always faced a certain amount of opprobrium from society. It didn't stop them campaigning before, and it certainly won't stop them now.

JimmyVik

Id love to delete all social media overnight.
Just delete everything. Facebook, instagram, twitter.
Cancel the whole fcing lot.
Its nothing but gangs bullying people.

randomchild

LLMMLL wrote: »

Yes I actually think it's older feminists trying to cling to the relevancy they once had but is fast disappearing. It does explain the demographic issues somewhat.

Careful your misogyny is showing.

JimmyVik

JimmyVik wrote: »

Id love to delete all social media overnight.
Just delete everything. Facebook, instagram, twitter.
Cancel the whole fcing lot.
Its nothing but gangs bullying people.

You can.

One eyed Jack

FVP3 wrote: »

Honestly your post indicate you have little or no understanding of basic statistics. The number of men incarcerated vs those that aren’t isnt relevant. It is the number men incarcerated vs women.

It is relevant when the claim being made is that men are dangerous to women, and using criminal statistics to support that argument. Nobody is making any claim about women so it’s the comparison to women is irrelevant.

FVP3 wrote: »

How they identify has little effect on the biological reality. A non transitioned transwoman who has testicular cancer has to be treated as a biological male. Reality intrudes.

The reality is that for people who are transgender, the idea of them being treated as something they don’t identify with means they aren’t likely to seek treatment which they associate with a gender they don’t identify with. The reality is that the practice of medicine isn’t so devoid of compassion for human dignity as it appears to be to you.

Dave0301

LLMMLL wrote: »

Pure nonsense there is nothing hateful about the word cis. I'll continue to use it.

It is not up to you to decide if a word is offensive to a particular group or not though.

If the group it refers to finds it offensive, or feel that it has negative connotations then it shouldn't be used.

That can be applied to any words used in a pejorative context.

Gruffalux

LLMMLL wrote: »

Yes I actually think it's older feminists trying to cling to the relevancy they once had but is fast disappearing. It does explain the demographic issues somewhat.

Sorry. I mistook you earlier on. You meant to call women opposing gender ideology IRRELEVANT dried up old hags. Apologies.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It is relevant when the claim being made is that men are dangerous to women, and using criminal statistics to support that argument. Nobody is making any claim about women so it’s the comparison to women is irrelevant.





The reality is that for people who are transgender, the idea of them being treated as something they don’t identify with means they aren’t likely to seek treatment which they associate with a gender they don’t identify with. The reality is that the practice of medicine isn’t so devoid of compassion for human dignity as it appears to be to you.

"Ok madam, can I please examine your testicles?"

"Ok sir, let me insert this into your vagina in order to get a better understanding"

Ffs

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I think the main problem is the expectation of tolerance only goes one way.

Most people have no problem with trans people living their "best life" as long as it doesn't include the presumption that people will buy into "their reality".

Anyone's "reality" which goes against science and common sense has no validity outside their own belief.

It's the same as religion. I have no issue with anyone believing in the deity of their choice and fully support them, once I am not expected to make concessions to accommodate them.

Isn’t that an expectation of tolerance only going one way?

Your reality is based upon science, their reality is based upon religion. Irish law accommodates both perspectives.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

OscarMIlde wrote: »

Or maybe they feel strongly about this issue, and aren't about to let hard won protections be lost for fear of disfavour. Feminists have always faced a certain amount of opprobrium from society. It didn't stop them campaigning before, and it certainly won't stop them now.

I think many really young women just don't realise the tussles that were required for what they even consider basic, everyday rights. All that the suffragettes went through over a century ago. That many places didn't even have women's WCs until well into the 20th century.

They are, I believe, mostly coming from a good place. But it's twinkly eyed idealism. They haven't thought it through. People haven't thought it through. And men supporting the cause simply have less to lose.

Here's a thought experiment. Now, I must stress, I DON'T THINK THIS SHOULD ACTUALLY HAPPEN. It's just a thought experiment:

On the changing rooms and restrooms issue, because space in buildings is often at a premium, how about women's changing rooms/WCs and unisex changing rooms/WCs? If the argument is that unisex facilities are safe, why not have that unisex facility and a separate one for women and girls (and for mothers to bring their little boys into also) in recognition of the physical strength differential? Any woman who doesn't feel there's any issue can use the unisex facilities. Any transgender women worried about her safety should feel more assured in a unisex facility than a men's facility. Transgender men may also feel safer in the unisex option.

Now, in reality, I think men deserve their sex-segregated space too. There might be a strength difference but men I'm sure want to preserve their dignity and privacy too and shouldn't have to be naked around women.

I just bring up the thought experiment because the argument is that transgender women are in grave danger in male facilities so a unisex facility and a women's facility should solve that as some women and transgender men might use the unisex one too and might perhaps make it safer for transgender women. If there's an objection to this by transgender women and transgender men, then why?

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

"Ok madam, can I please examine your testicles?"

"Ok sir, let me insert this into your vagina in order to get a better understanding"

Ffs

Depends upon whether a medical professional cares more about their own being right than they do about preventing or treating cancer. In my experience at least, more medical professionals care more about treating their patients with dignity and respect than they do about correcting what they see as their patients wrongful beliefs. That’s why I suggested to the poster earlier that whether they wanted to call themselves a brick or Superman makes no odds to me, I’ll still treat them the same as I would anyone else.

Madeleine Birchfield

LLMMLL wrote: »

Pure nonsense there is nothing hateful about the word cis. I'll continue to use it.

Plenty of American white supremecists would say there is nothing hateful about the n-word. That doesn't make the n-word appropriate to use.

Dyr

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Well if you’re going to use criminal statistics in support of your argument that men should be perceived as a threat to women, then there are a greater percentage of black men incarcerated than there are men of any skin colour in dresses incarcerated. On that basis it would it would be entirely justifiable to treat black men as though they are a greater threat to women than men in dresses. It’s not an argument I could see gaining much support, but have at it if you like.

It's a statement of fact, Men pose a far greater risk to women than women do to men. if you dont like it that's your problem but you dont get to replace facts with whatever fantasy you wish for, which may come as a suprise to some given the accomodations they've been afforded

LLMMLL

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Indeed, because the feminists fighting for sex-based rights now are actually being completely consistent. They wanted sex-segregrated spaces then and they still want them now. It's the people who were all for women's rights and safety a few years ago and now extend those rights to men who say they are women that don't seem to be have been all that concerned with the the safety and comfort of women in the first place. It's almost like they were going with the fashion of the time, the most "progressive" topic. Flakes.

Are you all living in some fantasy world where in the 70s there were communal changing rooms and.men and women all showered together and feminists had to fight for their own changing rooms? There was no feminist fight for segregated changing rooms.

FVP3

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It is relevant when the claim being made is that men are dangerous to women, and using criminal statistics to support that argument. Nobody is making any claim about women so it’s the comparison to women is irrelevant.

No it is not. . The statistics that matter are how violent men are compared to women, not how many men in the total male population are violent. Clearly.

The reality is that for people who are transgender, the idea of them being treated as something they don’t identify with means they aren’t likely to seek treatment which they associate with a gender they don’t identify with. The reality is that the practice of medicine isn’t so devoid of compassion for human dignity as it appears to be to you.

Easy on the ad hominins there. What I am saying quite clearly is that someone with testicular cancer is going to be treated for that disease whether they are identify as male or identify as female. This means the non transitioned transwoman will have to be "treated as something they don’t identify with" because of, you know, the underlying biolgical realities.

Maybe you mean some pretense should go on, maybe not. Hard to know what you mean.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Isn’t that an expectation of tolerance only going one way?

Your reality is based upon science, their reality is based upon religion. Irish law accommodates both perspectives.

Not even a bit. People are free to believe what they want.

If someone says to me they believe in God, I have no issue with that.

If someone says I believe in God so now you must acknowledge that my belief is true and anything less is hate speak, I will tell them to **** off.

Believe what you want, but I will not be forced into accepting your delusion and will not deny actual reality to suit your feelings.

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

Are you all living in some fantasy world where in the 70s there were communal changing rooms and.men and women all showered together and feminists had to fight for their own changing rooms? There was no feminist fight for segregated changing rooms.

Haha. Accusing someone of living in a fantasy world while claiming men can be women by virtue of wanting it to be so.

Pot...meet the racist kettle.

One eyed Jack

Bambi wrote: »

It's a statement of fact, Men pose a far greater risk to women than women do to men. if you dont like it that's your problem but you dont get to replace facts with whatever fantasy you wish for, which may come as a suprise to some given the accomodations they've been afforded

It’s not a statement of fact? It’s your interpretation of evidence you’ve chosen to present which suits your argument. Easily contradicted by the evidence which suggests quite the opposite - that men are incredibly protective of women. It’s not that I don’t like it, it’s that I think the argument that men pose a threat to women simply has no merit whatsoever.

It’s an argument that’s used to justify prejudice and paranoia, founded on neuroticism, and that’s why it just doesn’t have any influence on our laws, because the law does not presume guilt by suggesting that solely by virtue of their sex, men present any danger to women whatsoever.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Depends upon whether a medical professional cares more about their own being right than they do about preventing or treating cancer. In my experience at least, more medical professionals care more about treating their patients with dignity and respect than they do about correcting what they see as their patients wrongful beliefs. That’s why I suggested to the poster earlier that whether they wanted to call themselves a brick or Superman makes no odds to me, I’ll still treat them the same as I would anyone else.

If I met someone who wanted to call themselves a brick I surely wouldn't treat them as I would others.

Because it's absolutely insane.

LLMMLL

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Ok bigot.

Btw, there is nothing hateful about acknowledging biological reality either, that is, by saying trans-woman aren't women. I love how you didn't respond to that element of my post. Very JoeytheParrot of you.

You are really obsessed with him haha. So you are not actually offended by cis you are just pretending to as another anti-trans stick to beat people with. Ok then.

Baggly

Mod

ODB, you have made several leaps when you are not privy to what actually happened here. That is your misstep, but regardless, stop backseat modding.