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

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

EDIT: is this about strengthening employment rights? Fair enough so. Obvs nobody should be fired because of their identity or orientation. I don’t see why “transphobes” would shudder though. Sure, aren’t the most vocal critics the same to point out that people should be able to act in gender non-confirming ways? That liking “girly” things doesn’t make you less of a man and vice versa. That would be my view.

First draft below was based on me skimming the text:

It’s not surprising. America has been well and truly captured. And Canada too. Actually, Canada is worse.

I don’t understand the bemusement at the resistance of England to the relinquishment of hard-won sex-based rights. I looked on in envy at the UK in my teens, with their freely available contraception and stronger women’s rights. The resistance now is entirely consistent with that.

Gruffalux

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s actually the opposite - most posters have tried to argue that things should remain the same (or be reverted) claiming women’s safety will be in danger if there is social change. After seeing these women on the news just now, social change can’t come fast enough IMO -

Man jailed for rape and sexual abuse of seven daughters and sister

I do not understand your point.
That is an absolutely horrific story and those brave fine women speaking would break your heart.
What on earth does it have to do with gender self ID and this whole debate? It looks like a low tactic. Tag on this horrific story and imply that social changes from sex based protection would have saved these poor women.

FVP3

Overheal wrote: »

Transphobes everywhere should shudder a little.

Sure they are sh1tting bricks in Nigeria and Afghanistan. Interesting choice of words though, the American supremacist idea that anything that happens in the US will be followed worldwide eventually. The US supreme court is not the world supreme court. Ireland already has self determination.

It's largely true of the vassalised states of western Europe, although the UK is producing some surprising resistance to this colonialism, I can't see it lasting a generation.

As for what might happen in practice with this ruling, I don't read anything much about sports or other safe spaces from the ruling, it's just employment practice. Don't fire a tran if you would not fire a non-tran in the same position.

Given most US States have at will employment laws, all they have to do is fire both.

2u2me

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s actually the opposite - most posters have tried to argue that things should remain the same (or be reverted) claiming women’s safety will be in danger if there is social change. After seeing these women on the news just now, social change can’t come fast enough IMO -

Man jailed for rape and sexual abuse of seven daughters and sister

Well I guess it comes down to who are the radicals and what we perceive as legitimate safety concerns.

I see a legitimate concern for women only spaces in sports, changing rooms, prisons etc..

The less legitimate safety concerns I see are along these lines.
https://twitter.com/SerAnzoategui/status/1271799405041995782

Gruffalux

Overheal wrote: »

Transphobes everywhere should shudder a little.

The Supreme Court of the United States in a 6-3 decision rules that discrimination because of gender identity or sexual orientation is a violation of civil rights.

https://lawandcrime.com/supreme-court/liberal-and-conservative-justices-in-6-3-decision-agree-that-sexual-orientation-and-gender-identity-are-protected-by-civil-rights-act/

The court affirmed at length that it is impossible to discriminate against someone’s orientation or gender identity without necessarily discriminating against that persons sex, which is already illegal under Title VII of the civil rights act.

In such examples they gave: two employees of equal status identify as female, but the employer only fires the one who is genetically male because of behavior he accepts in the genetic female (identifying as female), the employer is inherently tolerating behavior of one and not the other on the basis of sex, and is therefore inexorably discriminating on the basis of sex:

“ [A]n employer who fires a woman, Hannah, because she is insufficiently feminine and also fires a man, Bob, for being insufficiently masculine may treat men and women as groups more or less equally. But in both cases the employer fires an individual in part because of sex. Instead of avoiding Title VII exposure, this employer doubles it.”

“ Consider, for example, an employer with two employees, both of whom are attracted to men. The two individuals are, to the employer’s mind, materially identical in all respects, except that one is a man and the other a woman. If the employer fires the male employee for no reason other than the fact he is attracted to men, the employer discriminates against him for traits or actions it tolerates in his female colleague. Put differently, the employer intentionally singles out an employee to fire based in part on the employee’s sex, and the affected employee’s sex is a but-for cause of his discharge. Or take an employer who fires a transgender person who was identified as a male at birth but who now identifies as a female. If the employer retains an otherwise identical employee who was identified as female at birth, the employer intentionally penalizes a person identified as male at birth for traits or actions that it tolerates in an employee identified as female at birth. Again, the individual employee’s sex plays an unmistakable and impermissible role in the discharge decision.”

“From the ordinary public meaning of the statute’s language at the time of the law’s adoption, a straightforward rule emerges: An employer violates Title VII when it intentionally fires an individual employee based in part on sex. It doesn’t matter if other factors besides the plaintiff ’s sex contributed to the decision. And it doesn’t matter if the employer treated women as a group the same when compared to men as a group. If the employer intentionally relies in part on an individual employee’s sex when deciding to discharge the employee—put differently, if changing the employee’s sex would have yielded a different choice by the employer—a statutory violation has occurred. Title VII’s message is “simple but momentous”: An individual employee’s sex is “not relevant to the selection, evaluation, or compensation of employees.”

Thankfully I am not shuddering. Is shuddering at this some sort of new witches ducking chair test for transphobes? No one should be fired for their gender identity.

FVP3

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s actually the opposite - most posters have tried to argue that things should remain the same (or be reverted) claiming women’s safety will be in danger if there is social change. After seeing these women on the news just now, social change can’t come fast enough IMO -

Man jailed for rape and sexual abuse of seven daughters and sister

What has that got to so with anything on this thread, except perhaps to emphasise how much women have to fear men? How do you think it makes your point at all?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

FVP3 wrote: »

Sure they are sh1tting bricks in Nigeria and Afghanistan. Interesting choice of words though, the American supremacist idea that anything that happens in the US will be followed worldwide eventually. The US supreme court is not the world supreme court. Ireland already has self determination.

It's largely true of the vassalised states of western Europe, although the UK is producing some surprising resistance to this colonialism, I can't see it lasting a generation.

As for what might happen in practice with this ruling, I don't read anything much about sports or other safe spaces from the ruling, it's just employment practice. Don't fire a tran if you would not fire a non-tran in the same position.

Given most US States have at will employment laws, all they have to do is fire both.

I don’t understand the bemusement and surprise at the resistance of England (I specify England because certain other nations of the union aren’t so hot) to the relinquishment of hard-won sex-based rights. I looked on in envy at the UK in my teens, with their freely available contraception and stronger women’s rights. The resistance now is entirely consistent with that.

It’s funny though, I’ve noticed an unsavoury anti-Brit slant to some of the Irish transgender rights activism whereas for decades, women here strived to gain the same rights that they enjoyed. Now Irish people who speak out in favour of the English resistance are sometimes portrayed as unpatriotic or, sigh, “West Brits”.

Overheal

Gruffalox wrote: »

Thankfully I am not shuddering. Is shuddering at this some sort of new witches ducking chair test for transphobes? No one should be fired for their gender identity.

you’re a transphobe?

suicide_circus

Gruffalux

Overheal wrote: »

you’re a transphobe?

No.

Gruffalux

suicide_circus wrote: »

Hahaha that picture made me really laugh out loud.

Overheal

Gruffalox wrote: »

No.

Then why would you even be pondering the thought of shuddering or not?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Overheal wrote: »

Then why would you even be pondering the thought of shuddering or not?

Probably because people who aren’t transphobic routinely get called transphobic. Like JK Rowling, for example.

Gruffalux

16th century. Somewhere in Europe. Woman idly passing a group constructing wooden artefact by village stream. "Oooo-arghhh This'll make them witches shudder!" says one of the carpenters. "What will make them shudder? Is it a new ducking chair for witches?" "What did you say! Are you a witch!? She's a witch I tells ya. Grab the witch!"

Gruffalux

Overheal wrote: »

Then why would you even be pondering the thought of shuddering or not?

No I was pondering the thought of whether shuddering or not at the article determined the presence of transphobes.

Gruffalux

suicide_circus wrote: »

Just need this picture on this page too.

JimmyVik

Gruffalox wrote: »

No I was pondering the thought of whether shuddering or not at the article determined the presence of transphobes.

Shuddering is not approved on twitter. Stop it immediately. Or twitter will knock the shuddering out of you.

Gruffalux

JimmyVik wrote: »

Shuddering is not approved on twitter. Stop it immediately. Or twitter will knock the shuddering out of you.

*shudders*

One eyed Jack

Gruffalox wrote: »

I do not understand your point.
That is an absolutely horrific story and those brave fine women speaking would break your heart.
What on earth does it have to do with gender self ID and this whole debate? It looks like a low tactic. Tag on this horrific story and imply that social changes from sex based protection would have saved these poor women.

It has nothing to do with self ID, just like your bogeymen examples have nothing to do with self ID.

It is indeed a low tactic, arguing in bad faith, and perpetuating ignorance of the reality of perpetrators of abuse by suggesting that discrimination against any social group is justifiable and reasonable on the basis of the attitudes and behaviours of a tiny minority of that particular social group towards other people.

The whole point is that those “sex based protections” you refer to? They do nothing to protect people from abuse committed against them by anyone who is of a mind to commit abuse and violence. All they actually do, in reality, is ensure that people who have been the victim of abuse committed against them by perpetrators, will remain silent about their abuse, and their abusers will continue to evade justice because everyone’s attention is focussed on looking out for the bogeymen that you’ve set up, in this case people who are transgender, based upon festering prejudice against, and whipping up suspicion and anxiety of people who are transgender.

I fully expect you to miss the point again and post two dozen examples of people who are transgender who have been convicted of committing abuse, and five dozen more examples of just plain out and out weirdos in order to refute my point.

My point is that any amount of examples of anything are merely a curated perspective of the reality of abuse, a curated perspective which is used to justify and perpetuate discrimination against any social group on the basis of the behaviours and attitudes minority of its members towards other people, completely ignoring the reality that the vast majority of people belonging to that social group, do not engage in that sort of behaviour and do not hold those attitudes towards other people.

Gruffalux

https://quillette.com/2020/06/12/from-south-american-anthropology-to-gender-crit-cancel-culture-my-strange-feminist-journey/

I enjoyed this article written a couple of days ago. It mentions Rowljng briefly. Posting in case others might find it interesting.

Gruffalux

Sex based protections that do nothing to protect against abuse?
There are whole UN funded organisations from Peshawar to Guinea-Bissau striving to provide safe private toilet facilities for women and girls so that they can go to school or their sons and husbands do not have to follow them to the fields and shield them from voyeurs and protect them from sexual abuse. Look it up.

One eyed Jack

Gruffalox wrote: »

Sex based protections that do nothing to protect against abuse?
There are whole UN funded organisations from Peshawar to Guinea-Bissau striving to provide safe private toilet facilities for women and girls so that they can go to school or their sons and husbands do not have to follow them to the fields and shield them from voyeurs and protect them from sexual abuse. Look it up.

I’m well aware of it. Meanwhile here in Ireland a 75 year old father who society generally expects to protect their children, was just convicted of abusing all seven of his own daughters over the course of 23 years from 1977 to 2000 and they felt they couldn’t speak up about it.

What did any “sex based protections” do to protect any of them, from their own father?

paddar

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’m well aware of it. Meanwhile here in Ireland a 75 year old father who society generally expects to protect their children, was just convicted of abusing all seven of his own daughters over the course of 23 years from 1977 to 2000 and they felt they couldn’t speak up about it.

What did any “sex based protections” do to protect any of them, from their own father?

Jesus Jack I am really struggling to understand what you mean by this. Can you please clarify the connection and the need to put “sex based protections” in inverted commas?

Gruffalux

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’m well aware of it. Meanwhile here in Ireland a 75 year old father who society generally expects to protect their children, was just convicted of abusing all seven of his own daughters over the course of 23 years from 1977 to 2000 and they felt they couldn’t speak up about it.

What did any “sex based protections” do to protect any of them, from their own father?

What the actual fcuk like? Should public hospitals disband all protective hygiene protocols because they cannot prevent infection in domestic houses?
I do sometimes really wonder at your arguments.

CtevenSrowder

Overheal wrote: »

Then why would you even be pondering the thought of shuddering or not?

Oh wow, such a good gotchya there. You must be delighted:rolleyes:

Sir Oxman

Overheal wrote: »

Transphobes everywhere should shudder a little.

And homophobes. You forgot homophobes

Actual -phobes of both types, not thinking human beings with WOW, a differing opinion

One eyed Jack

paddar wrote: »

Jesus Jack I am really struggling to understand what you mean by this. Can you please clarify the connection and the need to put “sex based protections” in inverted commas?

My point is that these so-called “sex-based protections” don’t actually protect anyone at all from abuse.

You’re not the only one that struggles to get their head around that point tbh, the unfortunate reality is that so many, many people struggle to get their heads around the point, even Gruffalox who is someone I consider to be extremely well educated and well read, demonstrated missing the point in using the example of how fathers and brothers in developing countries accompany their wives, sisters and daughters to protect them from voyeurs.

She overlooked the reality that the vast majority of abuse against these women and children is committed by members of their own families, which these sex based protections she refers to, simply do nothing to prevent or protect against.

All they do in reality is perpetuate fear, anxiety and suspicion of others, while the victims remain silent either due to embarrassment from blaming themselves for being abused, or carrying the shame of being abused, or knowing how society will regard them if they dare speak up and point their finger squarely at their abuser.

Society will lean towards finding any reason to accuse them of lying and discredit them, because people who are respected in society would never do something like that.

2u2me

Gruffalox wrote: »

https://quillette.com/2020/06/12/from-south-american-anthropology-to-gender-crit-cancel-culture-my-strange-feminist-journey/

I enjoyed this article written a couple of days ago. It mentions Rowljng briefly. Posting in case others might find it interesting.

I like Quillette and Claire Lehmann. Unfortunately they often get the same treatment as Rowling; for similar reasons. Standing up to absurdity.

Overheal

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Probably because people who aren’t transphobic routinely get called transphobic. Like JK Rowling, for example.

I wasn’t attacking anyone in particular as being transphobic though. Just pointing out something about transphobes.

Overheal

Gruffalox wrote: »

16th century. Somewhere in Europe. Woman idly passing a group constructing wooden artefact by village stream. "Oooo-arghhh This'll make them witches shudder!" says one of the carpenters. "What will make them me shudder? Is it a new ducking chair for witches?" "What did you say! Are you a witch!? She's a witch I tells ya. Grab the witch!"

Fixed your post. You directly spoke of yourself. Whoops.

“Transphobes everywhere should shudder a little”

“Thankfully I’m not shuddering.”