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

One eyed Jack

Gruffalox wrote: »

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.

If protective hygiene protocols in place in hospitals were found to be ineffective, then yes, I would expect them to be disbanded. That issue would have nothing to do with hygiene in domestic houses just like people committing abuse against others has nothing to do with self ID legislation.

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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

Wrong. They don't protect everyone from abuse.

There's no reason to think they aren't effective at protecting many, many women from abuse though. Just not all.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

This is just a weird form of whataboutery.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

Your argument here is completely irrelevant and worse, it is incoherent.

How would the removal of sex based protections (especially in countries where it is already non existent?) help against any of that?

Because of course it doesn't - the very places where women are not only left without any protections are often those where women who become the victims of any form of abuse are then fiercely attacked by the rest of society for having been careless or indeed for "wanting it".

volchitsa

Overheal wrote: »

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

“Transphobes everywhere should shudder a little”

“Thankfully I’m not shuddering.”

What you're missing is that the definition of transphobe is a movable feast. Women (and it is mostly women) are being called transphobes merely for expressing concerns about the possible safety of women and children.

And why is it always women? It seems to be men who are responsible for violence against trans people, yet the fury always seems to be targeted against women. Why is that?

Do you think J K Rowling is a transphobe? If so, why exactly? What is wrong with what she wrote?

volchitsa

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?

Whatabout, eh? They lived in Ireland - how would safer toilets in Peshawar help them? You seem to be saying that safer toilets in Peshawar are a waste of time because women in Ireland still get attacked by their own father.

Gruffalux

Overheal wrote: »

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

“Transphobes everywhere should shudder a little”

“Thankfully I’m not shuddering.”

Your big gotcha is a bit floppy. Sorry. Maybe next time

Sir Oxman

https://wildwomanwritingclub.wordpress.com/2020/06/10/what-it-costs-women_speak-out/

Authoritarianism writ large.
Sunlight is good.

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

Whatabout, eh? They lived in Ireland - how would safer toilets in Peshawar help them? You seem to be saying that safer toilets in Peshawar are a waste of time because women in Ireland still get attacked by their own father.

The whataboutery was introducing the example of organisations trying to introduce initiatives which would mean that fathers and brothers wouldn’t have to accompany women and girls to protect them from voyeurs.

What have initiatives in Peshawar got to do with these so-called sex based rights that are claimed to protect women here? They’re not protecting women and girls from being abused by members of their own families, any more than they would protect women and girls from being abused by anyone who was of a mind to commit abuse against them.

Women and girls were being abused and will continue to be abused regardless of the absence or existence of self ID legislation. One has nothing to do with the other.

Gruffalux

2u2me wrote: »

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

I do find some interesting articles there. But it is a bit smug sometimes. Like they are inventing the wheel. Still it has a function. I was quite well disposed to Claire Lehmann and then during the lockdown she was such an attention seeker on Twitter. She was regularly posting thirst traps, as I learned they are called. She came across as really shallow and vain - in my opinion if you want to be told you are beautiful maybe address the real people in your life instead of providing masturbation fodder for your Twitter followers. Anyways, slight diversion, but suffice it to say I am a bit pffft about her now.

CtevenSrowder

Gruffalox wrote: »

I do find some interesting articles there. But it is a bit smug sometimes. Like they are inventing the wheel. Still it has a function. I was quite well disposed to Claire Lehmann and then during the lockdown she was such an attention seeker on Twitter. She was regularly posting thirst traps, as I learned they are called. She came across as really shallow and vain - in my opinion if you want to be told you are beautiful maybe address the real people in your life instead of providing masturbation fodder for your Twitter followers. Anyways, slight diversion, but suffice it to say I am a bit pffft about her now.

Was she? Happy Days, I'm off to re-download twitter so.

Gruffalux

Sir Oxman wrote: »

https://wildwomanwritingclub.wordpress.com/2020/06/10/what-it-costs-women_speak-out/

Authoritarianism writ large.
Sunlight is good.

I saved that earlier today to read later.

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The whataboutery was introducing the example of organisations trying to introduce initiatives which would mean that fathers and brothers wouldn’t have to accompany women and girls to protect them from voyeurs.

What have initiatives in Peshawar got to do with these so-called sex based rights that are claimed to protect women here? They’re not protecting women and girls from being abused by members of their own families, any more than they would protect women and girls from being abused by anyone who was of a mind to commit abuse against them.

Women and girls were being abused and will continue to be abused regardless of the absence or existence of self ID legislation. One has nothing to do with the other.

This is crazy. Women still get raped - does that mean we should get rid of the laws against rape? Clearly not. So why would you think that because countries which do have sex based spaces for women have fewer, but still not zero, crimes against women, that somehow makes an argument that sex-based space play no role in protecting any women at all? They do.

Gruffalux

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Was she? Happy Days, I'm off to re-download twitter so.

She has fetching off the shoulder outfits and come to bed eyes looking out suggestively over goblets of wine.

CtevenSrowder

Gruffalox wrote: »

She has fetching off the shoulder outfits and come to bed eyes looking out suggestively over goblets of wine.

Ah sounds ****e I'll give it a miss so.

Gruffalux

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Ah sounds ****e I'll give it a miss so.

Oh sorry you were hoping for her actual boobs

CtevenSrowder

Gruffalox wrote: »

Oh sorry you were hoping for her actual boobs

Yep, you got my hopes up:D I was thinking she'd gone down the Brigette Phetasy root!

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

This is crazy. Women still get raped - does that mean we should get rid of the laws against rape? Clearly not. So why would you think that because countries which do have sex based spaces for women have fewer, but still not zero, crimes against women, that somehow makes an argument that sex-based space play no role in protecting any women at all? They do.

Who is trying to argue that we should get rid of laws against rape?

The argument against self ID is that its introduction would lead to an increase in women being subjected to abuse by men who simply declare themselves to be women. The argument is simply without foundation for a number of reasons, the most obvious one being that were anyone to attempt to do so in the first place, they would immediately come under suspicion and be even more closely monitored.

The only role that sex based spaces play in protecting anyone is simply giving them the false impression that they are protected from being abused in that space. I’ve already used the example of women’s prisons as they currently exist, to demonstrate that belief is not based upon reality.

Overheal

Gruffalox wrote: »

Your big gotcha is a bit floppy. Sorry. Maybe next time

Wasn’t much of a gotcha when I asked for clarification in the subsequent post

2u2me

Gruffalox wrote: »

I do find some interesting articles there. But it is a bit smug sometimes. Like they are inventing the wheel. Still it has a function. I was quite well disposed to Claire Lehmann and then during the lockdown she was such an attention seeker on Twitter. She was regularly posting thirst traps, as I learned they are called. She came across as really shallow and vain - in my opinion if you want to be told you are beautiful maybe address the real people in your life instead of providing masturbation fodder for your Twitter followers. Anyways, slight diversion, but suffice it to say I am a bit pffft about her now.

Well there's another reason I'm glad I'm not on twitter! Sounds like more suitable behaviour for instagram. They're not wrong when they say narcissism is at epidemic levels.

I just like their bravery and standing up to SJW culture; with all the hate it brings upon themselves.

Gruffalux

2u2me wrote: »

Well there's another reason I'm glad I'm not on twitter! Sounds like more suitable behaviour for instagram. They're not wrong when they say narcissism is at epidemic levels.

I just like their bravery and standing up to SJW culture; with all the hate it brings upon themselves.

Ah I was a bit harsh. Quillette is generally grand and Claire was just wanting people to tell her she is pretty. One could do worse!

biko

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/

I agree with all this, in fact I thought it was already done.

But there must be a risk that employers will now refrain from hiring trans people, so there won't be problems in case they need to fire them later, for any issue.

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Who is trying to argue that we should get rid of laws against rape?

The argument against self ID is that its introduction would lead to an increase in women being subjected to abuse by men who simply declare themselves to be women. The argument is simply without foundation for a number of reasons, the most obvious one being that were anyone to attempt to do so in the first place, they would immediately come under suspicion and be even more closely monitored.

The only role that sex based spaces play in protecting anyone is simply giving them the false impression that they are protected from being abused in that space. I’ve already used the example of women’s prisons as they currently exist, to demonstrate that belief is not based upon reality.

Well you might need to actually make that argument, then. Because your "evidence" for the claim that no women are protected by single sex spaces because women in Ireland can still get raped is frankly bonkers.

paddar

Sir Oxman wrote: »

https://wildwomanwritingclub.wordpress.com/2020/06/10/what-it-costs-women_speak-out/

Authoritarianism writ large.
Sunlight is good.

Thanks for posting, those stories are frightening. Just the suspicion of being a ''TERF'' is enough to be cast out and lose everything. I wish people would read and stop throwing the word TERF around like confetti at a witch trial.

Annasopra

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.

What on earth is "a tran"? Did you mean a trans person?

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

Well you might need to actually make that argument, then. Because your "evidence" for the claim that no women are protected by single sex spaces because women in Ireland can still get raped is frankly bonkers.

I never claimed that no women are protected by single sex spaces, nor did I even insinuate any such thing. That was never any part of any claim I made.

I provided plenty of evidence to refute the claim that single sex spaces are for women’s and girls sex based protections. They’re clearly not protecting women from being abused.

They’re not protecting women and girls from being abused by men.

They’re not protecting women and girls from being abused by women and girls.

They’re absolutely and most definitely not protecting women and girls from being abused by men and boys in dresses.

And they are absolutely and most definitely not protecting anyone from being abused by someone they trust, whom society would never suspect would abuse their own, which is the point that seems to be misunderstood by so many.

I understand why people misunderstand the point - because it doesn’t occur to them that they would ever be in the company of, or associated with, someone who is of a mind to abuse them, which is why it comes as a shock when that person does abuse them. They can’t rationalise it to themselves why a person they thought they knew and trusted would do such a thing to anyone, especially not to them.

CtevenSrowder

volchitsa wrote: »

What you're missing is that the definition of transphobe is a movable feast. Women (and it is mostly women) are being called transphobes merely for expressing concerns about the possible safety of women and children.

And why is it always women? It seems to be men who are responsible for violence against trans people, yet the fury always seems to be targeted against women. Why is that?

Do you think J K Rowling is a transphobe? If so, why exactly? What is wrong with what she wrote?

Precisely. Poor aul Carerhomeless only found this out yesterday to their detriment yesterday. A hardcore trans ally, but they just weren't hardcore enough.

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

What you're missing is that the definition of transphobe is a movable feast. Women (and it is mostly women) are being called transphobes merely for expressing concerns about the possible safety of women and children.

And why is it always women? It seems to be men who are responsible for violence against trans people, yet the fury always seems to be targeted against women. Why is that?

Do you think J K Rowling is a transphobe? If so, why exactly? What is wrong with what she wrote?

People getting pissed off because they’re being accused of being “transphobes” for “merely” insinuating that people who are transgender present a risk to women and children?

What would people who are transgender have to be pissed off about I wonder? Sure isn’t insinuating people are more likely to abuse women and children on the basis of their inherent and immutable traits the very basis of rational argument?



No, no it’s not.

Overheal

biko wrote: »

I agree with all this, in fact I thought it was already done.

But there must be a risk that employers will now refrain from hiring trans people, so there won't be problems in case they need to fire them later, for any issue.

Well, then it's a good thing that practice is clearly illegal.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

What on earth is "a tran"? Did you mean a trans person?

Hi Joeytheparrot, as you are clearly reading this thread, how do you feel about the fact that the NHS is now advising that puberty blockers have an unknown effect when given to children on the cusp of puberty, due to there being no long-term studies done, even though they before claimed that they were “fully reversible”? Do you think it’s ethical to prescribe puberty blockers? You are quick to dismiss that children are seriously tampered with pre-18 (you’re not quite right that surgery doesn’t happen to children as young as 12, by the way. Maybe not in Ireland, but in other Western countries). There is tentative evidence to suggest that puberty blockers cause health issues later on and no long-term studies to show that they don’t. So, what do you think?

I’m not really political and my entry point into all this was my interest in bioethics. I was shocked that children were being given these drugs. And I believe they shouldn’t ever be trialled on children. It’s not ethical. In a cost/benefit analysis, it makes no sense. It’s different from trialling on drugs on children where death is certain otherwise eg. childhood leukaemia, which used to be a death sentence but now is not for most children.

Gruffalux

"We are proud to publish JK Rowling’s children’s fairy tale The Ickabog. Freedom of speech is the cornerstone of publishing. We fundamentally believe that everyone has the right to express their own thoughts and beliefs. That’s why we never comment on our authors’ personal views and we respect our employees’ right to hold a different view.

‘We will never make our employees work on a book whose content they find upsetting for personal reasons, but we draw a distinction between that and refusing to work on a book because they disagree with an author’s views outside their writing, which runs contrary to our belief in free speech.’"


Above is a statement issued yesterday evening by Hachette. Because a cohort of workers in Hachette have refused to continue working on JK Rowlings upcoming book The Ickabog, a children's book, the proceeds of which are all going to Covid charities.

Imagine how such workers would deal today with Ernest Hemingway? I would love to watch that showdown.

chopperbyrne

One eyed Jack wrote: »

People getting pissed off because they’re being accused of being “transphobes” for “merely” insinuating that people who are transgender present a risk to women and children?

You again miss the point completely, probably intentionally, given how often you do.

Nobody has said that transgender people present a risk to women and children.

What has been said is that allowing self gendering to be legally binding in law is open to abuse by people who are not transgendered, but actually just want easy access to same sex spaces that women and girls use.

Much in the same way for generations, people used the priesthood to gain access to young boys and girls, and not because they were devout Catholics.