Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
1…2223252728…207

Comments

  • Options
    #722
    LLMMLL
    Registered Users Posts: 4,588 ✭✭✭LLMMLL


    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »
    Go nuts:

    https://www.tusla.ie/uploads/content/Tusla_-_Child_Safeguarding_-_A_Guide_for_Policy,_Procedure_and_Practice.pdf

    All kinds of information there. As I'm not a social worker, I don't have it all memorised. Natch. I suspect that won't be good enough for you, LLMMLL, but nothing ever is. Nothing ever is.

    there is no mention in that document of segregated changing facilities. So I ask again: where are these "strictest guidelines" that you are advocating? You wouldn't try and avoid the question after accusing me of doing that would you?


  • Options
    #723
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 23,695 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    JL555 wrote: »
    Still wouldn't make someone who wasn't born female a female if they had one of these implanted though right?


    Of course not, but that’s an entirely separate point. The appeal to nature just doesn’t have any merit when one considers the point that science, medicine and technology are used to overcome nature every single day. My point is that the biology argument will only hold up for so long before it becomes irrelevant, and then what will those people fall back on? Something else perhaps, I just have no idea what that is when appeals to nature is bringing their A game.

    Developments in science, medicine and technology would suggest otherwise.


  • Options
    #724
    Gruffalux
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,023 ✭✭✭Gruffalux


    LLMMLL wrote: »
    there is no mention in that document of segregated changing facilities. So I ask again: where are these "strictest guidelines" that you are advocating? You wouldn't try and avoid the question after accusing me of doing that would you?


    Safety, Health and Welfare at Work
    Regulations 2007 (Ireland)

    Separate facilities required for men and women unless fully lockable enclosed unit.


  • Options
    #725
    LLMMLL
    Registered Users Posts: 4,588 ✭✭✭LLMMLL


    Gruffalox wrote: »
    Safety, Health and Welfare at Work
    Regulations 2007 (Ireland)

    Separate facilities required for men and women unless fully lockable enclosed unit.

    Quote:
    LLMMLL wrote:
    But firstly I'd like you to show me the guidelines that state that best safeguarding practices advise separate dressing rooms in department stores.


  • Options
    #726
    Smacruairi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,481 ✭✭✭Smacruairi


    Jesus talk about obdurate and not seeing wood from the trees.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #727
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    This **** is crazy.

    Woman who wrote Harry potter said only women bleed from their gees.

    That is true.

    Where is the fight?


  • Options
    #728
    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,474 ✭✭✭Obvious Desperate Breakfasts


    Gruffalox wrote: »
    Safety, Health and Welfare at Work
    Regulations 2007 (Ireland)

    Separate facilities required for men and women unless fully lockable enclosed unit.

    That still won’t be good enough. :D I mean it is good enough but there’ll be some (very transparent) dodge. At least the transparency will be obvious.


  • Options
    #729
    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,474 ✭✭✭Obvious Desperate Breakfasts


    Deleted User wrote: »
    This **** is crazy.

    Woman who wrote Harry potter said only women bleed from their gees.

    That is true.

    Where is the fight?

    I know. Acknowledging biological reality is bigoted apparently. The positive I take it from it though is that none of her tweets on the topic were ratioed, despite the backlash in the comments. This means she and her comments actually enjoy a lot of support. So that’s good.


  • Options
    #730
    LLMMLL
    Registered Users Posts: 4,588 ✭✭✭LLMMLL


    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »
    That still won’t be good enough. :D I mean it is good enough but there’ll be some (very transparent) dodge. At least the transparency will be obvious.

    So I ask for where it's says that safeguarding practices advise that clothes shop dressing rooms are single sex and in response I get:
    1. A 120 page document that contains no mention of dressing rooms, changing rooms or anything even close.
    2. Employment law that again has nothing to do with what I asked.

    And you're trying to say that I Dodge things? The mind boggles.....


  • Options
    #731
    FVP3
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,187 ✭✭✭FVP3


    LLMMLL wrote: »
    If you truly believe in the strictest safety guidelines would you fully support a complete segregation of cis men and cis women in all sectors of society?

    Or is it that you pick and choose when to be strict and when to be lax?

    Well, er yes. Society has made choices on when to be strict and when to be lax. Strict in changing rooms, dressing rooms, toilets and other "safe spaces", the latter generally campaigned for by women. And sports of course.

    Lax elsewhere.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #732
    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,474 ✭✭✭Obvious Desperate Breakfasts


    FVP3 wrote: »
    Well, er yes. Society has made choices on when to be strict and when to be lax. Strict in changing rooms, dressing rooms, toilets and other "safe spaces", the latter generally campaigned for by women. And sports of course.

    Lax elsewhere.

    Don’t bring common sense to the thread, FVP3! LLMMLL requires the exact parts of the law and each organisation and company’s individual policies or there’s no point to be had apparently. I gave much the same answer as you earlier and I believe some kind of ‘gotcha’ was or still is being attempted by LLMMLL. Who knows? Meanwhile, everyone else knows what I meant.


  • Options
    #733
    LLMMLL
    Registered Users Posts: 4,588 ✭✭✭LLMMLL


    FVP3 wrote: »
    Well, er yes. Society has made choices on when to be strict and when to be lax. Strict in changing rooms, dressing rooms, toilets and other "safe spaces", the latter generally campaigned for by women. And sports of course.

    Lax elsewhere.

    And if the areas where anti-trans campaigners wanted strict segregation was truly based on where women were in danger from sexual assadults then changing rooms wouldn't even be on their radar. House parties.... Maybe.


  • Options
    #734
    FVP3
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,187 ✭✭✭FVP3


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    Of course not, but that’s an entirely separate point. The appeal to nature just doesn’t have any merit when one considers the point that science, medicine and technology are used to overcome nature every single day. My point is that the biology argument will only hold up for so long before it becomes irrelevant, and then what will those people fall back on? Something else perhaps, I just have no idea what that is when appeals to nature is bringing their A game.

    This argument is both stupid in itself and irrelevant to the present day debate. You also presume to know what people will think in this mythical future. For me, even now, if you can pass as the gender you can enter.
    Developments in science, medicine and technology would suggest otherwise.

    We are nowhere near making biological men into biological women. But, once again, it doesnt matter to the discussion on self determination.


  • Options
    #735
    LLMMLL
    Registered Users Posts: 4,588 ✭✭✭LLMMLL


    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »
    Don’t bring common sense to the thread, FVP3! LLMMLL requires the exact parts of the law and each organisation and company’s individual policies or there’s no point to be had apparently.

    Yes I do require you to back up your statements. Which you have been unable to do apart from providing a 120 page document which you clearly haven't even read.


  • Options
    #736
    FVP3
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,187 ✭✭✭FVP3


    LLMMLL wrote: »
    And if the areas where anti-trans campaigners wanted strict segregation was truly based on where women were in danger from sexual assadults then changing rooms wouldn't even be on their radar. House parties.... Maybe.

    Oh I think changing rooms would be on the agenda:

    The vast majority of reported sexual assaults at public swimming pools in the UK take place in unisex changing rooms, new statistics reveal.

    https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/women/sexual-assault-unisex-changing-rooms-sunday-times-women-risk-a8519086.html

    You guys also talk about trans this, that and the other. However the easiest way to handle the situation with legal self identification is to go unisex, the alternative is to ask for the proof of the legal gender of every person who wants to go into a female or male space. Which leads us to the above.

    Also-- prisons, Women's Refuges, sports and on and on.


  • Options
    #737
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 23,695 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    This **** is crazy.

    Woman who wrote Harry potter said only women bleed from their gees.

    That is true.

    Where is the fight?


    The fight is over the fact that JK was purposely baiting people, not just men, not just women, but people, by using the headline of an article, leaving out the context in which it was written -


    An estimated 1.8 billion girls, women, and gender non-binary persons menstruate, and this has not stopped because of the pandemic. They still require menstrual materials, safe access to toilets, soap, water, and private spaces in the face of lockdown living conditions that have eliminated privacy for many populations.


    It’s not crazy at all, it’s just JK being an asshole. I’m not saying she’s an asshole for her opinions, she’s an asshole because of her behaviour.


  • Options
    #738
    LLMMLL
    Registered Users Posts: 4,588 ✭✭✭LLMMLL


    FVP3 wrote: »
    Oh I think changing rooms would be on the agenda:

    The vast majority of reported sexual assaults at public swimming pools in the UK take place in unisex changing rooms, new statistics reveal.

    https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/women/sexual-assault-unisex-changing-rooms-sunday-times-women-risk-a8519086.html

    You guys also talk about trans this, that and the other. However the easiest way to handle the situation with legal self identification is to go unisex, the alternative is to ask for the proof of the legal gender of every person who wants to go into a female or male space. Which leads us to the above.

    Also-- prisons, Women's Refuges, sports and on and on.

    So about 150 complaints but about 510,000 sexual assaults per year according to the UK rape crisis centre.

    If obvious breakfast truly believed segregation should happen anywhere women are at danger from men it just seems there must be many many places which are far more dangerous than changing rooms.

    But of course her concern is mostly with keeping trans women out of changing rooms. Not protecting cis women.


  • Options
    #739
    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,474 ✭✭✭Obvious Desperate Breakfasts


    FVP3 wrote: »
    Oh I think changing rooms would be on the agenda:

    The vast majority of reported sexual assaults at public swimming pools in the UK take place in unisex changing rooms, new statistics reveal.

    https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/women/sexual-assault-unisex-changing-rooms-sunday-times-women-risk-a8519086.html

    You guys also talk about trans this, that and the other. However the easiest way to handle the situation with legal self identification is to go unisex, the alternative is to ask for the proof of the legal gender of every person who wants to go into a female or male space. Which leads us to the above.

    Also-- prisons, Women's Refuges, sports and on and on.

    Not every building is set up to have self-contained units. For unisex facilities, that is an absolute must, especially facilities that minors would be using.

    In the event that self-contained units can’t be provided, sex-segregated facilities need to be maintained.


  • Options
    #740
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    The fight is over the fact that JK was purposely baiting people, not just men, not just women, but people, by using the headline of an article, leaving out the context in which it was written -


    An estimated 1.8 billion girls, women, and gender non-binary persons menstruate, and this has not stopped because of the pandemic. They still require menstrual materials, safe access to toilets, soap, water, and private spaces in the face of lockdown living conditions that have eliminated privacy for many populations.


    It’s not crazy at all, it’s just JK being an asshole. I’m not saying she’s an asshole for her opinions, she’s an asshole because of her behaviour.

    Why is she an asshole for eventually snapping at the stupidity of denying biological fact?

    Is Daniel Radcliffe an asshole for saying that women and men are interchangeable?

    The fact is, men are men, women are women. A lot of people would have you believe that's not the truth. This woman who writes ****ing fantasy thinks this is a bridge too far?

    I hate her ****ing books but I admire her grasp of reality.

    The fact that you think she is an asshole for saying any article which even HINTS that anyone other than women can have periods is telling.

    Gender non binary people is interchangable. Because it's all mental. Women menstruate. Women. Not all women (due to certain conditions) but ONLY women menstruate.

    The article is panderous clickbait like-whoring bull****


  • Options
    #741
    FVP3
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,187 ✭✭✭FVP3


    LLMMLL wrote: »
    So about 150 complaints but about 510,000 sexual assaults per year according to the UK rape crisis centre.

    Lots of assaults happen behind closed doors of course. However its no kind of argument to admit that unisex changing rooms are worse for women, but there are also other worse places. Fix what you can.
    If obvious breakfast truly believed segregation should happen anywhere women are at danger from men it just seems there must be many many places which are far more dangerous than changing rooms.

    But of course her concern is mostly with keeping trans women out of changing rooms. Not protecting cis women.

    I dont think that is obvious at all, its verging on an ad hominem.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #742
    FVP3
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,187 ✭✭✭FVP3


    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »
    Not every building is set up to have self-contained units. For unisex facilities, that is an absolute must, especially facilities that minors would be using.

    In the event that self-contained units can’t be provided, sex-segregated facilities need to be maintained.

    Yes, well my point is that legal self identification makes it impossible to tell legal genders apart so economically these places will probably just go unisex. I am not in favour of it, but there it is.


  • Options
    #743
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    FVP3 wrote: »
    Yes, well my point is that legal self identification makes it impossible to tell legal genders apart so economically these places will probably just go unisex. I am not in favour of it, but there it is.

    Dicks and gees. Let's see how that works out


  • Options
    #744
    LLMMLL
    Registered Users Posts: 4,588 ✭✭✭LLMMLL


    FVP3 wrote: »
    Lots of assaults happen behind closed doors of course. However its no kind of argument to admit that unisex changing rooms are worse for women, but there are also other worse places. Fix what you can.



    I dont think that is obvious at all, its verging on an ad hominem.

    Fix what they can, and coincidentally all the sexual assaults dangers they think they can fix revolve around trans women having greater freedom.


  • Options
    #745
    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,474 ✭✭✭Obvious Desperate Breakfasts


    FVP3 wrote: »
    Yes, well my point is that legal self identification makes it impossible to tell legal genders apart so economically these places will probably just go unisex. I am not in favour of it, but there it is.

    Yeah, exactly. Nobody can demand a gender recognition cert of anyone else so there’s erosion of rights and safeguarding, right there.

    I will say that I do think most people mean well when they say they support everyone’s rights. I just think people haven’t really thought it through fully. Especially anyone who has very little to lose.


  • Options
    #746
    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,474 ✭✭✭Obvious Desperate Breakfasts


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Why is she an asshole for eventually snapping at the stupidity of denying biological fact?

    Is Daniel Radcliffe an asshole for saying that women and men are interchangeable?

    I was mostly concerned by Radcliffe’s authoritarian language. I mean, he can believe whatever he wants but his phrasing was quite totalitarian.
    Transgender women 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 who have far more expertise on this subject matter than either Jo or I.


  • Options
    #747
    volchitsa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,090 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    I was correct in suggesting that the presence or absence of a uterus is a prerequisite for mensuration then. Grand.

    Well no. What you actually said was this :
    It’s simply because they have a uterus that they mensurate,
    which is incorrect. It's not "simply" because of that at all. As I explained, and you ignored.

    And it's "menstruate". As has already been pointed out to you.

    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    There’s plenty can go wrong with it, just as there is plenty can go wrong in any organ transplantation, which medicine tries to mitigate against. It hasn’t stopped us from performing all sorts of organ and tissue transplants, so yes, the only obstacle is the ethics of it.
    Eh no, it's much more of a problem than just the transplanted organ itself. One word: Thalidomide.

    Or more fully: choosing to implant a uterus in order to host a fetus is a very different matter, ethically and scientifically, from choosing to become pregnant despite having an organ which has been transplanted for life saving reasons. And even then, many women either don't or can't give birth due to their health as a result of the organ translant.

    For instance: https://transplantliving.org/children/pregnancy-after-transplant/risks/
    However, pregnancy can put the mother, baby and transplanted organ at risk.....

    Hypertension
    Transplant recipients have a high risk of hypertension (HTN) during pregnancy. This condition, also known as uncontrolled high blood pressure, can affect the amount of blood and nutrients the fetus receives or lead to premature delivery, pre-eclampsia or toxemia.

    Infection
    ...risk of infection is high for all transplant recipients,...

    Organ rejection
    A major concern for transplant recipients is whether pregnancy will lead to loss of the organ (graft).

    Risks to the baby
    One of the biggest risks to an unborn baby is related to immunosuppressive therapy. Studies vary on the effect of individual medications on an unborn baby during pregnancy, so it is important to discuss your medications with your doctor when you are planning your pregnancy. Medication adjustments are frequently needed.

    Prematurity and complications of prematurity are also major risks for babies born to transplant patients. The severity of this risk may depend on the mother’s renal (kidney) function and control of blood pressure. In many cases, however, early delivery is common when risks to the mother outweigh premature delivery.

    Now that site is for women who have had organ transplants necessary for their survival, often in childhood, so first, the transplant situation pre-pregnancy is well-controlled and the woman has a lot of experience in dealing with the issues that do arise. Someone having a transplant in order to get pregnant would be in a completely different and far more unstable situation, with far more danger to her and the baby.

    Second, the idea that this might be a biological male, who would also require daily hormone injections to mimic the physiological environment needed to produce and maintain a pregnancy, changes the risk level completely. So the notion that this is merely a matter of people feeling a bit odd about it, or indeed that it is scientifically just around the corner becomes laughable. Or delusional.


  • Options
    #748
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 23,695 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    Why is she an asshole for eventually snapping at the stupidity of denying biological fact?

    Is Daniel Radcliffe an asshole for saying that women and men are interchangeable?

    The fact is, men are men, women are women. A lot of people would have you believe that's not the truth. This woman who writes ****ing fantasy thinks this is a bridge too far?

    I hate her ****ing books but I admire her grasp of reality.

    The fact that you think she is an asshole for saying any article which even HINTS that anyone other than women can have periods is telling.

    Gender non binary people is interchangable. Because it's all mental. Women menstruate. Women. Not all women (due to certain conditions) but ONLY women menstruate.

    The article is panderous clickbait like-whoring bull****


    That’s exactly what I was thinking of JK’s effort tbh.

    I already explained why she’s an asshole - because of her behaviour, not because she snapped. I understand exactly why she snapped, that doesn’t make her behaviour excusable.

    Is Daniel Radcliffe an asshole for saying men and women are interchangeable? No, on that basis alone I’d say he was a gobshìte.

    One would imagine that for such a prolific writer she would at least have a decent grasp of English. She had to have understood that the article was referring to people who do menstruate, not people who can or can’t menstruate. It points specifically to women, girls and non-binary people (understood to be non-binary people who menstruate, not those who don’t, because they wouldn’t have any need for menstrual healthcare, which was the point of the article - people who need menstrual healthcare, not those who don’t).

    And somehow, I suspect it could only have been deliberate because she is an intelligent woman, she put the cart before the horse and portrayed the the headline as somehow making a reference to people who don’t menstruate! A cursory reading of the article would have cleared up any confusion.

    The point isn’t that only women menstruate, the point is that people who do not identify themselves as women, still menstruate, and still need access to menstrual healthcare and hygiene.


  • Options
    #749
    LLMMLL
    Registered Users Posts: 4,588 ✭✭✭LLMMLL


    Rowling's tweet is quite authoritarian:
    "If sex isn't real, the lived reality of women globally is erased.

    I know many women who would disagree with her.


  • Options
    #750
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    That’s exactly what I was thinking of JK’s effort tbh.

    I already explained why she’s an asshole - because of her behaviour, not because she snapped. I understand exactly why she snapped, that doesn’t make her behaviour excusable.

    Is Daniel Radcliffe an asshole for saying men and women are interchangeable? No, on that basis alone I’d say he was a gobshìte.

    One would imagine that for such a prolific writer she would at least have a decent grasp of English. She had to have understood that the article was referring to people who do menstruate, not people who can or can’t menstruate. It points specifically to women, girls and non-binary people (understood to be non-binary people who menstruate, not those who don’t, because they wouldn’t have any need for menstrual healthcare, which was the point of the article - people who need menstrual healthcare, not those who don’t).

    And somehow, I suspect it could only have been deliberate because she is an intelligent woman, she put the cart before the horse and portrayed the the headline as somehow making a reference to people who don’t menstruate! A cursory reading of the article would have cleared up any confusion.

    The point isn’t that only women menstruate, the point is that people who do not identify themselves as women, still menstruate, and still need access to menstrual healthcare and hygiene.

    No. It doesn't change any fact. And that is the point.

    If you menstruate... You need menstrual healthcare because you are a woman. You are not a man who happens to menstruate.

    It couldn't be simpler.

    Menstrual cycles are tied to biological facts. Non binary genders are opinions.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #751
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 23,695 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    volchitsa wrote: »
    Second, the idea that this might be a biological male, who would also require daily hormone injections to mimic the physiological environment needed to produce and maintain a pregnancy, changes the risk level completely. So the notion that this is merely a matter of people feeling a bit odd about it, or indeed that it is scientifically just around the corner becomes laughable. Or delusional.


    Biological males and females already require daily hormone injections to maintain their physiology, there’s a patch too, but it’s not as effective a delivery system. Nobody is arguing that there aren’t risks involved, the point is that the risk of negative outcomes can be overcome by science, medicine and technology. The notion of IVF was odd too, and no doubt many people maintained it was delusional to even think it was possible, until science, medicine and technology made it a reality. The technology exists already, however current ethics prevent it from being tested on humans.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement