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

lozenges

Delaney Nice Salesclerk wrote: »

It’s deeply personal and I haven’t felt the need to pry into their private lives.

Like imagine I don’t even know if they’ve had surgery, I don’t know if they are on hormones or anything.

I asked what your own opinion was. If you were to speculate. Of course you didn't answer.

In a general sense - not in relation to anyone you know - why do you think individuals experience gender dysphoria? What do you think is going on there?

Do you accept gender dysphoria exists?

CtevenSrowder

Delaney Nice Salesclerk wrote: »

It’s deeply personal and I haven’t felt the need to pry into their private lives.

Like imagine I don’t even know if they’ve had surgery, I don’t know if they are on hormones or anything.

Well maybe this is your problem. There is nothing wrong with respectively asking a trans-person about their life, why they transioned, why they wanted to, how they found the whole process. The ones I've talked to were actually quite happy to discuss.

You may find out why denying that biological sex exists, and that male and females are different, and your whole outlook on this topic does more damage to trans-people then you think.

Gruffalux

Delaney Nice Salesclerk wrote: »

And I think that’s why you are having the issues you are because life is about what’s going on upstairs not downstairs. Get the lift

How do you feel about lesbians who do not accept women's penises?
Homosexual men who refuse men's vaginas?
Are they phobic?

jam_mac_jam

Delaney Nice Salesclerk wrote: »

Because life isn’t about what’s in your pants it’s about your merits.

It is when what's in your pants influences your rights.

Like not being able to drive in some countries or not having a vote, or being killed for what's in your pants because you live in a country that values you as much as others. Like babies are in some countries. Or not getting an education because of what's in your pants.

For you what is in your pants may not matter and imagine we are all judged on merit. But for millions of women all over the world it is very much what is in their pants that matters.

CtevenSrowder

Delaney Nice Salesclerk wrote: »

You need to present a different definition of male or female then if it’s going to have to rely on things like facial hair or breast tissue.

I can’t take the point if the point is so easily invalidated by posting a picture of my Aunt Pearls handlebar moustache.

haha. So your issue really is with Science.

Anyway, it doesn't rely on facial hair and breast tissue exclusively like you are trying to apply. There is a part about chromosomes. Maybe you missed that part. So here is the definition again.:

"a person bearing two X chromosomes in the cell nuclei and normally having a vagina, a uterus and ovaries, and developing at puberty a relatively rounded body and enlarged breasts, and retaining a beardless face; a girl or woman".

I've even highlighted the important part about chromosomes for your benefit:).

Delaney Nice Salesclerk

Delaney Nice Salesclerk wrote: »

And I think that’s why you are having the issues you are because life is about what’s going on upstairs not downstairs. Get the lift

I'm sure you thought you were being funny, but sadly even if you identify as speaking sense, you didn't.

Can you try again?

Are you saying that genitals don't matter and the mind does?

0xzmro3n4y7lb5

[Deleted User] wrote: »

So you know absolutely nothing about the subject.

Great.

We can ascertain you believe men can be women and women can be men and you are scared to ask people about it because it has nothing to do with you yet you will defend the rights of people who you know nothing about passionately on a forum for no reason but to show how much you believe in the absence of sex and that sex is a thing otherwise why would someone transition.

Totally rational.

I love people and defend them despite knowing what they are packing. God some of the points here sound so weird.

0xzmro3n4y7lb5

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

It is when what's in your pants influences your rights.

Like not being able to drive in some countries or not having a vote, or being killed for what's in your pants because you live in a country that values you as much as others. Like babies are in some countries. Or not getting an education because of what's in your pants.

For you what is in your pants may not matter and imagine we are all judged on merit. But for millions of women all over the world it is very much what is in their pants that matters.

You’re wrong we are all protected by the ESA Gender Ground.

Unfortunately people discriminate in spite of this as posters here reveal.

CtevenSrowder

Delaney Nice Salesclerk wrote: »

I love people and defend them despite knowing what they are packing. God some of the points here sound so weird.

How do you defend the girls that lost scholarships because a biological male identified as female and thus beat them in track and field events to secure said scholarships?

Or how do you defend the women that were sexually assaulted by Karen White?

How do you defend the women that lost out on a weightlifting title because Laurel Hubbard, a biological male, won it instead?

Are these women not people too?

0xzmro3n4y7lb5

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I'm sure you thought you were being funny, but sadly even if you identify as speaking sense, you didn't.

Can you try again?

Are you saying that genitals don't matter and the mind does?

Quote from the dunne :

LIFE IS ABOUT WHAT’S IN YOUR PANTS.

No it’s not. Get out live a little: see people as more than their genitals.

Delaney Nice Salesclerk

Delaney Nice Salesclerk wrote: »

I love people and defend them despite knowing what they are packing. God some of the points here sound so weird.

Take a step back chief.

You are arguing that men and women are interchangeable. That you can't call anyone a man or a woman unless you inspect their genitals.

I'm saying that men and women are different. They should be treated differently but also with respect.

You are telling me that women and men is a matter of opinion and no difference should be inferred onto them.

I love and respect people. Part of that respect comes from respecting who they are.

You have not defended anyone here. All you have done is say that biological facts are opinions.

You are wrong.

Delaney Nice Salesclerk

Delaney Nice Salesclerk wrote: »

Quote from the dunne :

LIFE IS ABOUT WHAT’S IN YOUR PANTS.

No it’s not. Get out live a little: see people as more than their genitals.

Well that is selective quoting.

Life is about males and females and without the biology there would be no life.

Life genuinely wouldn't continue if we didn't respect the difference between men and women.

Crazy you would frame it as if I was some sort of bizarre zealot.

Men and women need to **** to create new life.

That's kinda why it's important to be able to define men and women.

jam_mac_jam

Delaney Nice Salesclerk wrote: »

You’re wrong we are all protected by the ESA Gender Ground.

Unfortunately people discriminate in spite of this as posters here reveal.

Yes. I'm wrong none of those things happen and your genitals have no bearing on anything.

0xzmro3n4y7lb5

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

How do you defend the girls that lost scholarships because a biological male identified as female and thus beat them in track and field events to secure said scholarships?

Or how do you defend the women that were sexually assaulted by Karen White?

How do you defend the women that lost out on a weightlifting title because Laurel Hubbard, a biological male, won it instead?

Are these women not people too?

So we should base all our decisions on the hard cases as well as cases in other areas?

If you look, in the limerick case it looks like Ireland is doing things right by protecting both parties.

0xzmro3n4y7lb5

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Take a step back chief.

You are arguing that men and women are interchangeable. That you can't call anyone a man or a woman unless you inspect their genitals.

I'm saying that men and women are different. They should be treated differently but also with respect.

You are telling me that women and men is a matter of opinion and no difference should be inferred onto them.

I love and respect people. Part of that respect comes from respecting who they are.

You have not defended anyone here. All you have done is say that biological facts are opinions.

You are wrong.

I’m telling you a deep voice does not a man make.
I’m telling you a hip swagger does not a woman make.

CtevenSrowder

Delaney Nice Salesclerk wrote: »

I’m telling you a deep voice does not a man make.
I’m telling you a hip swagger does not a woman make.

And I'm telling you what does make a women:

A women is an 'adult human female'.

A female is:

a person bearing two X chromosomes in the cell nuclei and normally having a vagina, a uterus and ovaries, and developing at puberty a relatively rounded body and enlarged breasts, and retaining a beardless face; a girl or woman.

Now remember:

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

...One does not have to hit literally everything in the definition, the problem is one who hits none of them, they are not female. They are male (or intersex;) ) ...

If they are male and an adult they are a man. And again, I have highlighted the relevant part re chromosomes for your benefit, so none of this I know women with beards malarky

0xzmro3n4y7lb5

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

And I'm telling you what does make a women:

A women is an 'adult human female'.

A female is:



Now remember:



If they are male and an adult they are a man. And again, I have highlighted the relevant part re chromosomes for your benefit, so none of this I know women with beards malarky

Why do you want to erase women’s experiences of hair or polycystic ovaries?

All women deserved to be seen.

How typical.

CtevenSrowder

Delaney Nice Salesclerk wrote: »

Why do you want to erase women’s experiences of hair or polycystic ovaries?

All women deserved to be seen.

How typical.

Polycystic ovaries? What? More stuff that is totally irrelevant. Anyway, polycystic ovaries are still ovaries

The definition doesn't say 'normally functioning ovaries', it just says ovaries.

Here is the definition. I'll highlight the part about chromosomes and ovaries this time, just for your benefit:

a person bearing two X chromosomes in the cell nuclei and normally having a vagina, a uterus and ovaries, and developing at puberty a relatively rounded body and enlarged breasts, and retaining a beardless face; a girl or woman.

See, nothing about they have to function normally.

But sure go on, have another go.

0xzmro3n4y7lb5

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Polycystic ovaries? What? More stuff that is totally irrelevant. Anyway, polycystic ovaries are still ovaries

The definition doesn't say 'normally functioning ovaries', it just says ovaries.

Here is the definition. I'll highlight the part about chromosomes and ovaries this time, just for your benefit:



See, nothing about they have to function normally.

But sure go on, have another go.

I don’t know why you are obsessed with forcing women to conform to 20th century beauty standards.

Please let women decide for ourselves.

Delaney Nice Salesclerk

Delaney Nice Salesclerk wrote: »

I don’t know why you are obsessed with forcing women to conform to 20th century beauty standards.

Please let women decide for ourselves.

There is no ourselves if you allow anyone to be classed as a woman.

CtevenSrowder

Delaney Nice Salesclerk wrote: »

I don’t know why you are obsessed with forcing women to conform to 20th century beauty standards.

Please let women decide for ourselves.

Who is doing that? The definition says nothing about beauty standards. Here it is again:

a person bearing two X chromosomes in the cell nuclei and normally having a vagina, a uterus and ovaries, and developing at puberty a relatively rounded body and enlarged breasts, and retaining a beardless face; a girl or woman.

Now, it says nothing here of beauty standards. I think you may have confused the part were it talks about a 'beardless face'. But as I said previouslly:

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

...One does not have to hit literally everything in the definition, the problem is one who hits none of them, they are not female. They are male (or intersex;) ) ...

Now, the definition ofcourse, does use the word normally. Here is the definition again, this time I'll highlight the word normally, which is pertinent to this point, alongside the part about chromosomes and ovaries:

a person bearing two X chromosomes in the cell nuclei and normally having a vagina, a uterus and ovaries, and developing at puberty a relatively rounded body and enlarged breasts, and retaining a beardless face; a girl or woman.

Do you require anymore clarification?

0xzmro3n4y7lb5

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Who is doing that? The definition says nothing about beauty standards. Here it is again:



Now, it says nothing here of beauty standards. I think you may have confused the part were it talks about a 'beardless face'. But as I said previouslly:



Now, the definition ofcourse, does use the word normally. Here is the definition again, this time I'll highlight the word normally, which is pertinent to this point, alongside the part about chromosomes and ovaries:



Do you require anymore clarification?

Do you know what an action is?

How does one retain a beardless face?

By wishing it?

jam_mac_jam

Delaney Nice Salesclerk wrote: »

I don’t know why you are obsessed with forcing women to conform to 20th century beauty standards.

Please let women decide for ourselves.

Like having two x chromosomes?

Gruffalux

Delaney Nice Salesclerk wrote: »

I don’t know why you are obsessed with forcing women to conform to 20th century beauty standards.

Please let women decide for ourselves.

How about shaming women who would not like sex with girldick when they are lesbians?

CtevenSrowder

Delaney Nice Salesclerk wrote: »

Do you know what an action is?

How does one retain a beardless face?

By wishing it?

The average woman, or put another way if you would like, the majority of women, do not have beards. Some do I'm sure, but usually these women will have a medical condition, such as the one you previously mentioned. So how does one retain a beardless face you ask? Well for the majority of women, they retain a beardless face naturally (hence it's inclusion in the definition). Men tend to shave, using usually a razor and shaving cream.

A woman may have a beard ofcourse, but as I stated previously:

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

...One does not have to hit literally everything in the definition, the problem is one who hits none of them, they are not female. They are male (or intersex;) ) ...

Any other clarifications required?

0xzmro3n4y7lb5

Gruffalox wrote: »

How about shaming women who would not like sex with girldick when they are lesbians?

I don’t know anyone in the real world who doesn’t respect consent.

Have you come across this in your real life or just things you’ve read online?

Delaney Nice Salesclerk

Delaney Nice Salesclerk wrote: »

I don’t know anyone in the real world who doesn’t respect consent.

Have you come across this in your real life or just things you’ve read online?

I have.

People who don't respect consent exist

People who don't respect gender/biological sex exist.

It's not made up. It is important. You are part of a very real problem

Gruffalux

Delaney Nice Salesclerk wrote: »

I don’t know anyone in the real world who doesn’t respect consent.

Have you come across this in your real life or just things you’ve read online?

In real life a whole new LGB organisation was formed in the UK, a splinter group from Stonewall. It was founded late 2019 by among others Simon Fanshawe who had been a founding member of Stonewall. It has thousands of members and supporters. They argue for the implicit biological reality of sex based attraction at the foundation of homosexuality.

That is real life.


But you have not answered - do you think it is phobic if gay people ab initio exclude people with opposite sex genitalia from their dating pool? It is not about consent as that would apply in every scenario.

0xzmro3n4y7lb5

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

The average woman, or put another way if you would like, the majority of women, do not have beards. Some do I'm sure, but usually these women will have a medical condition, such as the one you previously mentioned. So how does one retain a beardless face you ask? Well for the majority of women, they retain a beardless face naturally (hence it's inclusion in the definition). Men tend to shave, using usually a razor and shaving cream.

A woman may have a beard ofcourse, but as I stated previously:



Any other clarifications required?

So typical put majority first oppress the minority, thanks for clarifying your position.

So have many branches of these trees do we have to hit to conform to your definition of a man or woman.

And are you 100% confident men and women even minorities don’t share some branches in common?

0xzmro3n4y7lb5

Deleted User wrote: »

I have.

People who don't respect consent exist

People who don't respect gender/biological sex exist.

It's not made up. It is important. You are part of a very real problem

I should have clarified, forgive me, I do not know of any issues in the real world, that I haven’t just read online regarding trans women and consent.