nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Author John Boyne receives abuse from strangers on Twitter

Dante7

John Boyne has written a book about a trans kid transitioning and he has been forced to leave Twitter because of the abuse he has received. His crime is apparently misgendering and also saying that he objects to being forced to use the word cis.

The silver lining here is that a lot of mainstream Irish authors are now realising that the trans cult are lunatics.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Penn

punisher5112 wrote: »

I don't give a fcuk who you are but if you are actually a male and you are in women's toilets then you should be done.

I don't care if you wake up today and say ah sure I'm female today or tomorrow ah sure I'm an it or whatever you want to call yourself.

Simple you were born with a penis or a vagina....

So if you want to dress differently nock yourself out I couldn't give a rat's a#s....

I think the world is going to actually end up completely backwards if things keep going the way they are.

So if a woman transitions into a male, they should use the women's toilets because they were born with a vagina?

So girls should be okay with people who clearly look like males (short hair, facial hair, no obvious breasts, dressed like a man) coming into the women's toilets after them?

See that's the issue when it comes to the trans-toilet argument. It's always the fear of a man dressing up as a woman in order to follow girls/women into the toilets, so therefore transwomen should use the mens toilets because they were born with a penis. People don't consider the flip-side of that which is that by the same logic transmen would have to use the womens toilets. Meaning any pervert wouldn't even have to try dress themselves up as a woman and claim they're a transwoman in order to go into the women's toilets. They could just claim they're a transman. And young girls would then have to accept that people who very obviously look like men are allowed to go into the toilets with them because they might be a transman, therefore possibly not recognising they may be in a danger before it's too late.

valoren

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

He wasn't "forced" to leave Twitter, he chose not to stand up for his beliefs and to run away from the debate. I have no time for people who claim to be "forced" to leave a platform because of words written by strangers on the internet - grow a f*cking pair* and stand your ground.

*I realise that this particular remark may, in the context of the trans issue, be taken as either an appalling or an incredible pun, depending on one's viewpoint

The only way to deal with toxic people (in real life) is to not deal with them. The only way to deal with toxic people (on line) is to not deal with them i.e. closing social media accounts/blocking people. It was the only way these cowards could abuse him, I'm sure they would not be so abusive in a real life environment.

He was cyberbullied, insulted and threatened by anonymous bullies, cowards and chose to remove himself from getting abuse. That's not running away, it's choosing not to deal with abuse. None of the messages or replies were constructive so it is the smart thing to do and serves to highlight that nobody or no subject or issue can be precluded from people offering opinions without being bullied or lambasted. The people who were abusive are doing a disservice to the transgender topic.

JohnnyFlash

Who are all those internet people in a permanent state of aggrieved outrage, and what went so fundamentally wrong in their lives to make it that way? Mentally ill weirdos.

Cienciano

punisher5112 wrote: »

I don't give a fcuk who you are but if you are actually a male and you are in women's toilets then you should be done.

I don't care if you wake up today and say ah sure I'm female today or tomorrow ah sure I'm an it or whatever you want to call yourself.

Simple you were born with a penis or a vagina....

So if you want to dress differently nock yourself out I couldn't give a rat's a#s....

I think the world is going to actually end up completely backwards if things keep going the way they are.

Why are people so obsessed what toilet people use?

Cee-Jay-Cee

Dante7 wrote: »

John Boyne has written a book about a trans kid transitioning and he has been forced to leave Twitter because of the abuse he has received. His crime is apparently misgendering and also saying that he objects to being forced to use the word cis.

The silver lining here is that a lot of mainstream Irish authors are now realising that the trans cult are lunatics.

Its a blessing in disguise, he no longer has to suffer the idiots that use twitter. He should be thankful for small mercies.

[Deleted User]

Cienciano wrote: »

Why are people so obsessed what toilet people use?

I think some women are 'obsessed' about the issue because they feel vulnerable with males in previously female only spaces.

They might be victims of abuse in the past or something illogical like that.

They might be nervous about the data suggesting sexual assault is more common in unisex toilets than sex-segregated toilets.

Silly old women and their funny ideas!

Mrs OBumble

Penn wrote: »

So if a woman transitions into a male, they should use the women's toilets because they were born with a vagina?

People with other disorders use accessible toilets without any concern. I'm not sure why gender disorders are any different.

mcmoustache

Interesting topic but the OP failed to provide any context in his rush to post about trans activists acting the bollix.

In any case, here is the link to the article. After having a read, I'm not sure what the problem was with the article but I'm guessing that it's the following paragraph as the rest of the article wasn't controversial.

And while I wholeheartedly support the rights of trans men and women and consider them courageous pioneers, it will probably make some unhappy to know that I reject the word “cis”, the term given by transgender people to their nontransgender brethren. I don’t consider myself a cis man; I consider myself a man. For while I will happily employ any term that a person feels best defines them, whether that be transgender, non-binary or gender fluid to name but a few, I reject the notion that someone can force an unwanted term onto another.

The bit in bold might be what got him into trouble. He identifies as a man and he doesn't want a different label imposed on him by others. That seems reasonable enough to me but to a vocal bunch on twitter, he went too far.

Or it might be that he rejected the idea that Martina Navratilova was transphobic for voicing her concerns about biological males in women's sport and dared to suggest that some trans activists might be a bit quick to turn on anyone who doesn't wholeheartedly agree with everything.

However, it would be inaccurate to suggest that one side of this debate is populated by a bunch of sexually-insecure bigots while the other is filled with kind, good-tempered free spirits. Following the debate online, I’ve been surprised by the aggression of some and their rush to condemn. Martina Navratilova has been labelled transphobic for questioning where trans women should compete in professional sports. Navratilova is a heroine, a fearless advocate for gay rights over many decades. For anyone to suggest that a person of her courage is phobic about anything is to deliberately ignore her history and also suggests that there is no safe place for people to debate these topics without being branded an enemy. Quite frankly, Martina Navratilova is to bigotry as Donald Trump is to literacy.

It does look like there is a fringe minority of trans activists out there who are a bit nutty. For him to get that abuse for a reasonable enough article demonstrates that.

seamus

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

People with other disorders use accessible toilets without any concern. I'm not sure why gender disorders are any different.

Accessible toilets are for people with physical disabilities that make a traditional cubicle practically difficult/impossible or people with mental disabilities who require assistance.

Men and women don't use different-shaped toilets. If someone doesn't need assistance to take a sh1t, they don't need to use the accessible toilets. To suggest that "people with disorders" need to use accessible toilets is nonsense, since the vast majority of "disorders" do not impede the person's ability to use a private cubicle.

RWCNT

[Deleted User] wrote: »

They might be nervous about the data suggesting sexual assault is more common in unisex toilets than sex-segregated toilets

Care to link to said data?

I had a look and all I could find was some research from the UK about changing rooms rather than toilets.

I also found this study which concludes that there's no link between trans inclusive policies increase safer risks:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs13178-018-0335-z

[Deleted User]

seamus wrote: »

She refuses to go into the men's

Why?

Has she got a problem being around men she doesn't know in a bathroom?

Franz Von Peppercorn

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

How do you 'force "someone off Twitter?

The thread title and this claim is factually incorrect.

Pretend it was a harassed minority person who got lots of abuse and left twitter. Would the woke reaction be different?

John is right. The online mob only works if you are online.

seamus

Deleted User wrote: »

Why?

Has she got a problem being around men she doesn't know in a bathroom?

She thinks she'll be arrested

But nice trying to turn this into a "men are monsters" discussion. Take your misandry elsewhere please.

Franz Von Peppercorn

RWCNT wrote: »

Care to link to said data?

I had a look and all I could find was some research from the UK about changing rooms rather than toilets.

I also found this study which concludes that there's no link between trans inclusive policies increase safer risks:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs13178-018-0335-z

Yes. It’s changing rooms. Because toilets are either not unisex or are single usage if they are.

[Deleted User]

seamus wrote: »

She thinks she'll be arrested

But nice trying to turn this into a "men are monsters" discussion. Take your misandry elsewhere please.

I'm a man Seamus, just not one who dismisses the opinions and concerns of women out of hand. Try it some time.

Mrs OBumble

seamus wrote: »

Accessible toilets are for people with physical disabilities that make a traditional cubicle practically difficult/impossible

Are you saying that a gender disorder is not a physical condition? Ie that it's all in the person's head?

Or that it doesn't make using shared-space cubicles difficult?

seamus

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm a man Seamus, just not one who dismisses the opinions and concerns of women out of hand. Try it some time.

I believe the kids these days call that "white knighting" or "virtue signalling".

I don't dismiss the concerns of women out of hand, but I don't buy into baseless fear either. If something is being done to make people "feel" safe without actually making them safer, then it's pointless.

In this regard we have talk of criminalising people for using the "wrong" bathroom, even though there's no evidence to suggest that this will solve anything.

That's dangerous.

If a white person said they feel less safe when a black person enters an otherwise empty toilet, am I "dismissing their concerns out of hand" by telling them to cop on?

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Or that it doesn't make using shared-space cubicles difficult?

It doesn't. Because, you know, cubicles. I can guarantee you that virtually everyone has "shared" a public bathroom with a transgender person and experienced no difficulty whatsoever. In fact, they won't even have known they were doing it.

This is not rocket science. Do you look twice at anyone who comes into the bathroom? No.

krankykitty

Deleted User wrote: »

what other groups get to dictate what novelists can write

He had already written it, so nobody got to dictate anything to him. He was given feedback that perhaps, to be more accurate in his portrayal, he could have actually talked to the people he was portraying, if he actually cared about being an "ally" to them (which he stated he was in his Irish Times opinion piece). Especially when he is using stereotypes of a group which already faces discrimination and hatred, as you only have to read this thread to see.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Deleted User wrote: »

Why?

Has she got a problem being around men she doesn't know in a bathroom?

His argument is a bit circular alright.

krankykitty

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm a man Seamus, just not one who dismisses the opinions and concerns of women out of hand. Try it some time.

Lots of women don't actually have these opinions and concerns and we don't need someone doing a Glinner on us either.

The reality is, we've all been in the bathroom with trans people. They aren't going to announce themselves. They're just trying to have a piss in peace without someone causing a scene about it, or worse.

[Deleted User]

I'm no white knight, trust me. Also as I am anonymous what good would it do me?

It would be nice if we could all use the same jacks (and some places in Dublin have had them and I haven't noticed any issue) but on the other hand male violence and sexual violence is a thing. No, that doesn't mean all men are violent or even most men are violent or even many men at all are violent, but it's a thing in a way that female violence isn't. It only takes one man.

I accept that women might want to have spaces away from men and if that includes the jacks (which is after all often a place a woman can go to get away from a pest or worse) then we should listen, that's all.

Cienciano

Deleted User wrote: »

I think some women are 'obsessed' about the issue because they feel vulnerable with males in previously female only spaces.

They might be victims of abuse in the past or something illogical like that.

They might be nervous about the data suggesting sexual assault is more common in unisex toilets than sex-segregated toilets.

Silly old women and their funny ideas!

When you're passive aggressive about sexual assault, it comes across as creepy.
Any links to back up any of your claims? I'm a man and I've used ladies toilets on lots of occasions as I've a young daughter.

Mrs OBumble

seamus wrote: »

I don't dismiss the concerns of women out of hand, but I don't buy into baseless fear either. If something is being done to make people "feel" safe without actually making them safer, then it's pointless.

....

This is not rocket science. Do you look twice at anyone who comes into the bathroom? No.

So emotional safety is pointless? Thanks for sharing that opinion, but many people disagree.

And I can assure you that more women than you think do look twice at anyone who comes into a confined space, like the area outside a set of cubicles, that they're in.

kowloon

It's a novel, not a piece of peer-reviewed research in The Lancet, I'm sure people who don't like it will manage to not buy it.

jimgoose

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

So emotional safety is pointless? Thanks for sharing that opinion, but many people disagree.

And I can assure you that more women than you think do look twice at anyone who comes into a confined space, like the area outside a set of cubicles, that they're in.

There's a restaurant here in Cork with one of the restrooms configured like that, i.e. two cubicles, His'n'Hers, with a common wash-basin area. The facility is quite small, and I get the impression a lot of women aren't quite comfortable with it. I can see their point.

Regarding Mr. Boyne, well - the Internet is the Internet, isn't it, and a small percentage of the Trans community are properly mental and will kill you over the word "cis" and all the usual carry-on. I wouldn't say he was tarred and feathered and run off of Twitter on a rail, mind. :pac:

seamus

Deleted User wrote: »

I accept that women might want to have spaces away from men and if that includes the jacks (which is after all often a place a woman can go to get away from a pest or worse) then we should listen, that's all.

I don't disagree that we should listen, but I question the value of any women-only spaces when the purpose of them is safety. Safety is often very counter-intuitive. People think by locking their bike or parking their car in a quiet secluded location, it's less likely to be stolen. When in fact the opposite is true.

In one context women are frequently told that for safety reasons they should avoid being alone in public spaces, but then people argue that the public location where women are at their most vulnerable should be a very quiet place with as few people as possible.

You often hear women say they go to the bathroom in groups partially as a safety measure. But if a woman is on her own, that's not an option. Surely a unisex bathroom provides more foot traffic, and therefore less opportunity for an attacker?

Tikki Wang Wang

super_furry wrote: »

Who?

What?

Assetbacked

Trans etc. gets far more coverage than it deserves. The percentage of the population it impacts, directly and indirectly is negligible.

jimgoose

Assetbacked wrote: »

Trans etc. gets far more coverage than it deserves. The percentage of the population it impacts, directly and indirectly is negligible.

Whatever about that, I would say that the loony element of that demograph might want to look at the current policy of publicly garroting ordinary folk who make one of these modern social faux pas that we seem to have invented for ourselves by mistake, in all good-humour. That has to be counter-productive.

Penn

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Are you saying that a gender disorder is not a physical condition? Ie that it's all in the person's head?

Or that it doesn't make using shared-space cubicles difficult?

Disabled Accessibility Toilets are for those who have physical conditions which makes it difficult for them to use standard toilets. Many people who have disabilities can still use standard toilets (eg. an amputee with a fake leg would still count as being disabled, but could still likely use a standard toilet without issue).

Disabled Access toilets aren't for those who have any disabilities, but for those who have disabilities which means they need special facilities not provided in a standard toilet.