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

JoannaJag · 09-06-2020 10:00am

This is an example of how difficult it is to have a conversation when the meaning of words is diluted. For clarity, yes, biological sex is immutable and people’s sexes are real - regardless of their presentation and whether or not they pass as the opposite sex.

y0ssar1an22 · 09-06-2020 10:06am

so is there a difference between trans women and women? if no, then they should just be referred to as women, and fully live their life as such.

if yes, you acknowledge there is a difference; and with that we need to find on how those differences should be reflected in the real world such as bathrooms/dressing rooms and the like.

i dont think you can have it both ways

Gruffalux · 09-06-2020 10:16am

Dante7 wrote: »

Ah ok. Apologies to JoannaLag.

Easy mistake to make.
People often think those opposing this ideology are regressive uptight curtain twitchers when in fact they are often the more radical, non conforming people who do not bat an eye at variable gender expression. It is nothing new.
What is new is the very square, pigeon hole, neurotic approach of activists and their allies to gender ideology whereby boys and girls are supposed to have defining characteristics. Very odd conservative attitudes.

These uptight people are in allyship service with not only extremely violent abusive elements but also the radical autogynophiliac element for who balloon tits and bloated lips, hyper sexual performativity and a caricature-based aping of what it is to be a female is quite dominant. Woman-face, in fact. In the way blackface was once a thing. Heels, lippy, minis, big hair, permanently sexually libidinous. That is why there is the drag crossover and what is weird is that the squares see nothing amiss in a small tomboy girl being refered to on Netflix by a drag artist in a mainstream show as "a top" . Cults are everywhere.
But I know you know all this stuff Dante. Just explaining for others.

randomchild · 09-06-2020 10:24am

‘Transwomen are women. Any statement to the contrary erases the identity and dignity of transgender people and goes against all advice given by professional health care associations’. - Daniel Radcliffe in the guardian today.

This is blatant speech coercion: it is now apprently against medical advice to even ask questions about transgender ideology. The notion that the right to free speech must be suprrssed for the medical treatment of others is insane.

It also says so much that the guardian only carries this story once a man has weighed in on the issue and has the temerity to put a woman expressing her opinion back in her place.

CtevenSrowder · 09-06-2020 10:32am

randomchild wrote: »

‘Transwomen are women. Any statement to the contrary erases the identity and dignity of transgender people and goes against all advice given by professional health care associations’. - Daniel Radcliffe in the guardian today.

This is blatant speech coercion: it is now apprently against medical advice to even ask questions about transgender ideology. The notion that the right to free speech must be suprrssed for the medical treatment of others is insane.

It also says so much that the guardian only carries this story once a man has weighed in on the issue and has the temerity to put a woman expressing her opinion back in her place.

I'll never understand why what some actor says gets reported in the media. Who ****ing cares what Daniel Radcliffe has to say. It's not as if actors are known for being deep thinkers.

Kermit.de.frog · 09-06-2020 10:38am

Just had a read of the twitter thread posted in the OP.

Bloody hell. Hard to know where to start with many of the responses to it but it's upsetting that an increasing number of people seem to ignore unaltorable facts and science for feelings.

It gets to the stage where nothing you could say adequately sums up the debasement and ignorance of fact in favour of feeling.

09-06-2020 10:47am

Isn"t it perfectly normal and understandable to be a bit trans phobic? Personally I dont care what people do with themselves or their sexuality or how they live their lives, but when you think of a person who has been born a woman but is in a mans body and has Male chromosomes and hormones and genetalia and has to be surgically altered it is hard not to be a bit uneasy especially when a lot of them still appear masculine. I feel sorry for them and they absolutely should be allowed to function as the sex their brains identify with, but I also fully understand why people would be uneasy.

It's also normal to feel uneasy over the normalization of sex changes, to the point someone can do it without having been born identifying as a different sex.

MoonUnit75 · 09-06-2020 10:54am

The Catholic church should have patented transubstantiation when they could have. Imagine having to licence magic from the church.

MoonUnit75 · 09-06-2020 10:57am

Deleted User wrote: »

Isn"t it perfectly normal and understandable to be a bit trans phobic? Personally I dont care what people do with themselves or their sexuality or how they live their lives, but when you think of a person who has been born a woman but is in a mans body and has Male chromosomes and hormones and genetalia and has to be surgically altered it is hard not to be a bit uneasy especially when a lot of them still appear masculine. I feel sorry for them and they absolutely should be allowed to function as the sex their brains identify with, but I also fully understand why people would be uneasy.

It's also normal to feel uneasy over the normalization of sex changes, to the point someone can do it without having been born identifying as a different sex.

I'd say it's normal to be uncomfortable with it but being transphobic would probably involve some element of discrimination and intolerance. You can be tolerant while at the same time being uncomfortable.

09-06-2020 10:59am

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

I'd say it's normal to be uncomfortable with it but being transphobic would probably involve some element of discrimination and intolerance. You can be tolerant while at the same time being uncomfortable.

You'd think so. But apparently not. Tolerance also includes full acceptance that the person is whatever they say they are. Anything else is transphobic

hetuzozaho · 09-06-2020 11:00am

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

I'll never understand why what some actor says gets reported in the media. Who ****ing cares what Daniel Radcliffe has to say. It's not as if actors are known for being deep thinkers.

I think if prominent people agree with our view point we enjoy it.

People enjoyed what JK Rowling said, some will enjoy what Radcliffe says.

(not the same but i find "here's a good article" = this article agrees with my opinion)

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 09-06-2020 11:32am

randomchild wrote: »

’Transwomen are women. Any statement to the contrary erases the identity and dignity of transgender people and goes against all advice given by professional health care associations’. - Daniel Radcliffe in the guardian today.

This is blatant speech coercion: it is now apprently against medical advice to even ask questions about transgender ideology. The notion that the right to free speech must be suprrssed for the medical treatment of others is insane.

It also says so much that the guardian only carries this story once a man has weighed in on the issue and has the temerity to put a woman expressing her opinion back in her place.

Also, why does he focus on transwomen? Especially as that is then tied in his statement to “transgender people”. Why are transmen rarely in the conversation? Why it women who are singled out as needing to make allowances?

Eric Cartman · 09-06-2020 11:34am

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Also, why does he focus on transwomen? Why are transmen rarely in the conversation? Why is it women who are singled out as needing to make allowances?

The focus is usually there as the loudest voices in the debate are ‘transwomen’ trying to gain access to spaces where women and girls are in a state of undress or sports. i have yet to hear of a single large case of a transman looking for the same

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 09-06-2020 11:37am

Eric Cartman wrote: »

The focus is usually there as the loudest voices in the debate are ‘transwomen’ trying to gain access to spaces where women and girls are in a state of undress or sports. i have yet to hear of a single large case of a transman looking for the same

True. But even though women are more physically vulnerable, men deserve privacy in their sex-segregated spaces too. But there just seems to be less hullabaloo about it.

OMM 0000 · 09-06-2020 11:43am

Periods come out of vaginas.

Transgender women don't have real vaginas.

Therefore transgender women can't have periods.

Admitting this isn't bigotry.

Can we please stop listening to stupid people who can't think.

Eric Cartman · 09-06-2020 11:45am

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

True. But even though women are more physically vulnerable, men deserve privacy in their sex-segregated spaces too. But there just seems to be less hullabaloo about it.

Thats true, its why my previous post suggested the same, changing spaces, sports and other areas based on the two biological sexes only. Keep everything as it should be

One eyed Jack · 09-06-2020 11:47am

carolmon wrote: »

Other people.... do you mean men?
Talk about obfuscation of language ðŸ˜

Yes I mean men, and I mean women. There was no obfuscation of language there. You’re doing the same as JK in trying to make the point that because I referred to people, I wasn’t also referring to women. You’re looking for offence where there was none intended.

One eyed Jack · 09-06-2020 11:49am

Eric Cartman wrote: »

The focus is usually there as the loudest voices in the debate are ‘transwomen’ trying to gain access to spaces where women and girls are in a state of undress or sports. i have yet to hear of a single large case of a transman looking for the same

Just one example off the top of my head -

Chris Mosier is the First Openly Trans Man to Compete in Men's Olympic Trials

Gruffalux · 09-06-2020 12:12pm

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Periods come out of vaginas.

Transgender women don't have real vaginas.

Therefore transgender women can't have periods.

Admitting this isn't bigotry.

Can we please stop listening to stupid people who can't think.

Just to be factually accurate transmen can have periods. It is a function of their female biology. I would hope no transman imagines or is led to believe they are having a male menses. They are experiencing a female menses. The usual facts of normal biology for women apply in any campaigns. It is not male menstruation.

Any transman who takes testosterone will usually experience cessation of menses in a short few months. This is the norm. There will also be atrophy of vagina and womb. This can be very painful. It can be somewhat treated by local oestrogen medications but the testosterone is powerful and often over rides the local applicatioñ. Dry, ithcy, inflamed membranes are common complaints and increased UTIs. Rather than all this torment some will have hysterectomies.

OMM 0000 · 09-06-2020 12:15pm

Gruffalox wrote: »

Just to be factually accurate transmen can have periods. It is a function of their female biology. I would hope no transman imagines or is led to believe they are having a male menses. They are experiencing a female menses. The usual facts of normal biology for women apply in any campaigns. It is not male menstruation.

Any transman who takes testosterone will usually experience cessation of menses in a short few months. This is the norm. There will also be atrophy of vagina and womb. This can be very painful. It can be somewhat treated by local oestrogen medications but the testosterone is powerful and often over rides the local applicatioñ. Dry, ithcy, inflamed membranes are common complaints and increased UTIs. Rather than all this torment some will have hysterectomies.

As I said, vaginas have periods.

A person who is biologically male cannot have a period.

A person who is biologically female can have a period, although as you point out taking male hormones is going to change things a bit.

We need to stop pretending and just be clear - a biological man who is living as a woman can't have periods because biological men aren't biological women.

The fact this is controversial just shows we've allowed actual idiots control the narrative on too many things.

Gruffalux · 09-06-2020 12:22pm

https://www.gaystarnews.com/article/buck-angel-gives-advice-to-trans-men-at-the-gynecologist/

An account by Buck Angel, the famous tranpa as he humourously calls himself, on testosterone's effects on his body.
Buck is anti TRA extremism.

the purple tin · 09-06-2020 12:24pm

randomchild wrote: »

‘Transwomen are women. Any statement to the contrary erases the identity and dignity of transgender people and goes against all advice given by professional health care associations’. - Daniel Radcliffe in the guardian today.

This is blatant speech coercion: it is now apprently against medical advice to even ask questions about transgender ideology. The notion that the right to free speech must be suprrssed for the medical treatment of others is insane.

It also says so much that the guardian only carries this story once a man has weighed in on the issue and has the temerity to put a woman expressing her opinion back in her place.

Rowling is being attacked by her own creation :eek:

One eyed Jack · 09-06-2020 12:30pm

OMM 0000 wrote: »

As I said, vaginas have periods.

A person who is biologically male cannot have a period.

A person who is biologically female can have a period, although as you point out taking male hormones is going to change things a bit.

We need to stop pretending and just be clear - a biological man who is living as a woman can't have periods because biological men aren't biological women.

The fact this is controversial just shows we've allowed actual idiots control the narrative on too many things.

It’s not controversial, it’s just factually inaccurate if what you’re striving for is accuracy from a biological, medical and scientific perspective. It’s simply because they have a uterus that they mensurate, without it they do not.

In the future, given advances in medicine, science and technology, it’s entirely plausible that this limitation of biology that so many here are hanging their hats on, will be overcome -

Uterus transplantation

As noted in the article, the greatest impediment to research is currently the ethics of uterine transplantation or rather to put it another way - objections aren’t based upon science, medicine or technology, but rather on feelings, which again so many people here appear to be of the opinion are irrelevant, except when it comes to their own.

y0ssar1an22 · 09-06-2020 12:37pm

Gruffalox wrote: »

https://www.gaystarnews.com/article/buck-angel-gives-advice-to-trans-men-at-the-gynecologist/

An account by Buck Angel, the famous tranpa as he humourously calls himself, on testosterone's effects on his body.
Buck is anti TRA extremism.

sounds horrific:

‘As it turned out, the testosterone had atrophied my reproductive system—a condition that could have been prevented by the use of estrogen cream. The atrophy fused my uterus and my cervix together, along with my ovaries and everything else, creating an infection that burst and became septic.

one the one hand he says: The gynecologists who kept sending me home and telling me nothing was wrong could have prevented this from happening if they knew anything about trans men and testosterone.

while also saying: ‘At the time, however (this was the early 1990s), even my own doctor told me I was basically a guinea pig. The medical community had no idea what the long-term use of testosterone would do to my genetically female body—especially my reproductive system. When my doctor presented me with paperwork that would absolve him of responsibility should anything go wrong, I signed it. For me, this has always been a matter of life or death.’

i hope he's happy and healthy wherever he is

OMM 0000 · 09-06-2020 12:37pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s not controversial

But it is. Have you seen how J K Rowling is being attacked?

Gruffalux · 09-06-2020 12:38pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s not controversial, it’s just factually inaccurate if what you’re striving for is accuracy from a biological, medical and scientific perspective. It’s simply because they have a uterus that they mensurate, without it they do not.

In the future, given advances in medicine, science and technology, it’s entirely plausible that this limitation of biology that so many here are hanging their hats on, will be overcome -

Uterus transplantation

As noted in the article, the greatest impediment to research is currently the ethics of uterine transplantation or rather to put it another way - objections aren’t based upon science, medicine or technology, but rather on feelings, which again so many people here appear to be of the opinion are irrelevant, except when it comes to their own.

Regarding uterine transplant possibility for transwomen in the future the only way a foetus could be sustained would be with huge doses of synthetic chemicals, hormones and medical supports and interventions. Given that the foetus would be swimming in that synthetic cocktail I believe there would be more than enough scope for people to make a valid argument against it based wholly on science, with zero feelings needed.
As for transwomen who might get wombs just for the cramps and the blood flow, well alrighty then, they are welcome to the joys.

JoannaJag · 09-06-2020 12:43pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s not controversial, it’s just factually inaccurate if what you’re striving for is accuracy from a biological, medical and scientific perspective. It’s simply because they have a uterus that they mensurate, without it they do not.

And if I get a tail surgically sewn onto my ass, am I now a donkey?

FVP3 · 09-06-2020 12:43pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s not controversial, it’s just factually inaccurate if what you’re striving for is accuracy from a biological, medical and scientific perspective.

You write entirely incomprensible sentences. I mean that looks like it is attacking transgender ideologies but apparently you believe a man who thinks he is a woman is "accurate" from a biological, medical and scientific perspective.

In the future, given advances in medicine, science and technology, it’s entirely plausible that this limitation of biology that so many here are hanging their hats on, will be overcome -

But then you undermine your point with reference to the future and a potential biological change that might happen. Hence the biology of transwomen needs a change, hence the "biological, medical and scientific perspective." isn't what you said.

But even if uterus transplants were true in the future it:

1) Isnt now. So it undermines your original original statement about biological realities now.
2) Has no use as an argument to self determination. Most trans people dont transition.

As noted in the article, the greatest impediment to research is currently the ethics of uterine transplantation or rather to put it another way - objections aren’t based upon science, medicine or technology, but rather on feelings, which again so many people here appear to be of the opinion are irrelevant, except when it comes to their own.

And now you have introduced a straw man of your own, confused ethics with emotion, and claimed that the other side to you is emotional based on this post you just linked to which mentions transgender in passing. And the post itself is hardly emotional, it's about transplants to women who don't have a uterus. It's highly dispassionate.

In fact most people are ok with fully transitioned transwomen having the rights of women, this was the case in fact until recently. It is the rise of the self determination movement which claims no difference between a biological man who has under gone no transition that is clearly problematic, not just in practice but in theory. It erases biological women as a sex category.

volchitsa · 09-06-2020 12:44pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s not controversial, it’s just factually inaccurate if what you’re striving for is accuracy from a biological, medical and scientific perspective. It’s simply because they have a uterus that they mensurate, without it they do not.

If you're going to make a fuss about factual inaccuracy in others, maybe get your own facts right too?

Having a uterus is a necessary but not sufficient condition for menstruation - there also needs to be a balanced menstrual cycle of hormone-production or, failing that, administration of the required hormones, varying according to the period within the cycle. And ovaries are also required for actual egg production.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

In the future, given advances in medicine, science and technology, it’s entirely plausible that this limitation of biology that so many here are hanging their hats on, will be overcome -

Uterus transplantation

As noted in the article, the greatest impediment to research is currently the ethics of uterine transplantation or rather to put it another way - objections aren’t based upon science, medicine or technology, but rather on feelings, which again so many people here appear to be of the opinion are irrelevant, except when it comes to their own.

So after the uterus is implanted, the recipient ill not only need to take the same strong immunosuppressants that all organ transplants require, but also a daily (at least) regimen of hormones that will closely mimic all the stages of the menstrual cycle and then of pregnancy.

What could possibly go wrong with that?
Yeah, the only obstacle I can see there is just a matter of feelings really.

One eyed Jack · 09-06-2020 1:04pm

OMM 0000 wrote: »

But it is. Have you seen how J K Rowling is being attacked?

I have, but the statement itself isn’t controversial. If one sets out to stir up controversy though, then it’s inevitable that they will court controversy.

Gruffalox wrote: »

Regarding uterine transplant possibility for transwomen in the future the only way a foetus could be sustained would be with huge doses of synthetic chemicals, hormones and medical supports and interventions. Given that the foetus would be swimming in that synthetic cocktail I believe there would be more than enough scope for people to make a valid argument against it based wholly on science, with zero feelings needed.
As for transwomen who might get wombs just for the cramps and the blood flow, well alrighty then, they are welcome to the joys.

We do that already though, so I don’t imagine such an argument against it being successful, unless one wished to set medicine, science and technology back to the Dark Age by banning procedures which are regarded as commonplace medical treatments and procedures.

As for the idea itself, obviously there are a whole host of downsides, but for many people they aren’t enough to outweigh what they imagine are the benefits. In much the same way as I’m sure JK thought it was a good idea to court controversy, I’m sure she is acutely aware of how it was likely to go on Twitter.

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

Comments