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
12324262829207

Comments

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


    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.


    If you menstruate, you need menstrual healthcare because you menstruate, that’s their point. Their audience is made up of women and men, as the aim of their organisation is to educate societies in underdeveloped countries about the necessity of adequate menstrual healthcare. Whether a person who menstruates identifies themselves as a man, woman or non-binary is missing the point.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,034 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    If you menstruate, you need menstrual healthcare because you menstruate, that’s their point. Their audience is made up of women and men, as the aim of their organisation is to educate societies in underdeveloped countries about the necessity of adequate menstrual healthcare. Whether a person who menstruates identifies themselves as a man, woman or non-binary is missing the point.

    But what if you think it's mensurate, and you don't think it concerns you? ;)


    Those are terms that many people, especially women, from poorer countries are uncomfortable with - as you show yourself mind you, with your repeated difficulty in spelling it: how do you expect a woman with very little education and possibly very little English, to work out what's being said? Whereas man and woman are among the basic vocabulary that people learn in a new country, and are also easy to spell for someone who has poor literacy skills.

    And that matters, when you're trying to bring women in for cervical PAP smears. If you start saying it's for people with a cervix, and that the cervix is a thing in the vagina that she may not even know about, you're going to miss out on reaching a very vulnerable group of women.

    It's crucial to be able to use simple clear languge, not start messing around with complex paraphrases that you yourself can't spell with any accuracy.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,127 ✭✭✭ceadaoin.


    If you menstruate, you need menstrual healthcare because you menstruate, that’s their point. Their audience is made up of women and men, as the aim of their organisation is to educate societies in underdeveloped countries about the necessity of adequate menstrual healthcare. Whether a person who menstruates identifies themselves as a man, woman or non-binary is missing the point.



    I'm sure the girls who are sent off to menstrual huts or the women ostracized from their villages due to birth injuries are asked how they identify before such actions are taken against them. Oh wait no, they arent. Their treatment is solely based on their biology and the fact that they are female aka (or previously known as?) women and girls. Erasing that language and replacing it with "people" is denying that its misogyny driving these behaviors.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,034 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    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.

    Er, not during pregnancy they don't. That's the point. Lots of drugs are completely banned during pregnancy.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,023 ✭✭✭Gruffalux


    Funny how it is exclusively men on here who are trying to use mental gymnastics and bullying to force the women on here to admit they are monsters and to agree that transwomen are women and are entitled to enter all female spaces aka freedom as per one poster. Like what the fcuk business is it of yours if women are defending their sex?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 6,547 ✭✭✭SouthWesterly


    You’re missing the point. The poster I quoted was suggesting that not only do vaginas have periods as though a vagina is a prerequisite for menstruation, but also that biological men can’t have periods because they’re not biological women. That’s not the reason biological men can’t have periods either. It applies to anyone who does not have a uterus, which is the fundamental prerequisite organ required in order to menstruate. Without it, there is simply no way to menstruate. With it, then the other prerequisites you point out are of secondary concern.





    Transplanting all sorts of organs were once the stuff of science fiction too, until they weren’t. Scientists aren’t that far away from developing an artificial uterus either, no female biology required,

    So, will you then tell us that an artificial uterus makes makes a Trans woman more a woman or something.


    To the poster who asked if we said pigeons were human would they be...don't be daft. Thats the prerogative of chickens :D


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,127 ✭✭✭ceadaoin.


    volchitsa wrote: »
    Er, not during pregnancy they don't. That's the point. Lots of drugs are completely banned during pregnancy.

    yes I'm amused by the fact that women can't even so much as look at a paracetamol during pregnancy without causing outrage and judgement but a male requiring probably dozens of drugs and hormones to sustain a pregnancy which would basically be an experiment using a foetus is something to aim for.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,023 ✭✭✭Gruffalux


    And defending their sex from these kind of people.
    https://twitter.com/NotSoOldChattox/status/1270252764912914432?s=19


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,023 ✭✭✭Gruffalux


    ^^^^I mean these are the sh1theads on your team lads.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Gruffalox wrote: »
    Funny how it is exclusively men on here who are trying to use mental gymnastics and bullying to force the women on here to admit they are monsters and to agree that transwomen are women and are entitled to enter all female spaces aka freedom as per one poster. Like what the fcuk business is it of yours if women are defending their sex?

    I agree with your stance on people talking ****e about women and men to be interchangeable, but your post does sound a little like a ****ty feminist


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


    volchitsa wrote: »
    But what if you think it's mensurate, and you don't think it concerns you? ;)


    Those are terms that many people, especially women, from poorer countries are uncomfortable with - as you show yourself mind you, with your repeated difficulty in spelling it: how do you expect a woman with very little education and possibly very little English, to work out what's being said? Whereas man and woman are among the basic vocabulary that people learn in a new country, and are also easy to spell for someone who has poor literacy skills.

    And that matters, when you're trying to bring women in for cervical PAP smears. If you start saying it's for people with a cervix, and that the cervix is a thing in the vagina that she may not even know about, you're going to miss out on reaching a very vulnerable group of women.

    It's crucial to be able to use simple clear languge, not start messing around with complex paraphrases that you yourself can't spell with any accuracy.


    I imagine it would be similar to the way activists have managed to educate the poorest illiterates in India about their rights -


    A Brief History Of Hijra, India’s Third Gender


    If I were to use my native language which I’m more comfortable with, I imagine you would understand even less, but you might still understand enough to correct my spelling and grammar. I don’t imagine it’s any different for people who don’t speak the local language to be understood by the locals, and to understand the locals. It’s more crucial IMO to promote understanding and use whatever means of communication is most effective, than getting hung up on spelling and grammar.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,023 ✭✭✭Gruffalux


    I agree with your stance on people talking ****e about women and men to be interchangeable, but your post does sound a little like a ****ty feminist

    Haha yeah I know. I am fed up with the bullying. Imagine if women went onto a male centric topic on here and started hectoring men on how they should or are allowed to think and act and calling them names. Are you telling me you wouldnt feel like saying shag off? I am sure it has happened. And I would not blame a man for saying shag off in such circumstances.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Gruffalox wrote: »
    Haha yeah I know. I am fed up with the bullying. Imagine if women went onto a male centric topic on here and started hectoring men on how they should or are allowed to think and act and calling them names. Are you telling me you wouldnt feel like saying shag off? I am sure it has happened. And I would not blame a man for saying shag off in such circumstances.

    I know the period malarkey is a woman issue (the very definition of one) but the main issue is that the virtuous wankbags know that most people don't believe in their ****e and we all know men are men and women are women.

    Please don't make it a woman Vs man thing. These ****ers wouldn't know what side to take. It's confusing enough for them.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,034 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    I imagine it would be similar to the way activists have managed to educate the poorest illiterates in India about their rights -


    A Brief History Of Hijra, India’s Third Gender


    If I were to use my native language which I’m more comfortable with, I imagine you wouldn’t understand even less, but you might still understand enough to correct my spelling and grammar. I don’t imagine it’s any different for people who don’t speak the local language to be understood by the locals, and to understand the locals. It’s more crucial IMO to promote understanding and use whatever means of communication is most effective, than getting hung up on spelling and grammar.
    I explained why that wasn't just a dig at you. It really really matters if a woman from, say, Bangladesh who will recognise the word woman (and you could easily use pictograms if necessary) does not know that she is just the sort of person being targeted by a HSE campaign for a smear test.

    If they say it's "for women from age 25 to 50", she knows that's her.

    If she sees that it's "for people with a cervix" (that's literally what the HSE campaign says) or for "people who menstruate" (and can you imagine the pictograms that would require!) she may well not know it's about her, or even if she thinks it's for everyone of that age, may not dare go because she thinks it's a mixed group.


    (I've no idea what your point about Hijra is. You don't think they hang about with the local village fete committee or something do you? They're mostly prostitutes and I'd guess that a lot of women in India wouldn't even have heard of them.)


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


    volchitsa wrote: »
    Er, not during pregnancy they don't. That's the point. Lots of drugs are completely banned during pregnancy.


    Again, it’s as though you imagine these things aren’t risks that people have thought of already? Introducing hormones which inhibit development in children isn’t a great idea either, with numerous risks involved. That hasn’t stopped the practice.


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


    Gruffalox wrote: »
    ^^^^I mean these are the sh1theads on your team lads.

    “The right side of history”. :D


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


    I agree with your stance on people talking ****e about women and men to be interchangeable, but your post does sound a little like a ****ty feminist

    Well, it’s hard to refute, isn’t it? On this thread, at least.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,023 ✭✭✭Gruffalux


    I know the period malarkey is a woman issue (the very definition of one) but the main issue is that the virtuous wankbags know that most people don't believe in their ****e and we all know men are men and women are women.

    Please don't make it a woman Vs man thing. These ****ers wouldn't know what side to take. It's confusing enough for them.

    I'm sorry, really did not mean to make it a woman vs man thing, my sons, brothers, husband and male friends all feel the same as I do - it is just the usual cohort come out here to abuse women on this issue. Call you bigot, misandrist, terf, hater, all already used on this thread. I could name those posters and they are all men and it is like wtf it isn't even affecting you personally. It gets very annoying. I know most men do not agree with the bs gender ideology.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,034 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    Again, it’s as though you imagine these things aren’t risks that people have thought of already? Introducing hormones which inhibit development in children isn’t a great idea either, with numerous risks involved. That hasn’t stopped the practice.

    I don't think giving hormones to children is a good idea either - except for the most serious of reasons, particularly saving lives.

    Thinking about them isn't the issue - the problem is suggesting that giving a combination of dangerous immunosuppressants to a fetus as some sort of experiment, just because you can, is anything like women with life threatening conditions that require dangerous drugs and who want to have a baby despite that. And even then I've heard plenty of criticism of women for "being so selfish" as to want to have a child in that situation - but you think it's grand for a man to do it for the heck of it?

    And then there's the effect of the combination of the immunosuppressants and the articifical hormone injections (you seem to think a patch would do, like HRT, but it won't.,IVF requires injections at the same time every day - and that's just for a single monthly cycle. A whole pregnancy is a complete other matter.


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


    volchitsa wrote: »
    I explained why that wasn't just a dig at you. It really really matters if a woman from, say, Bangladesh who will recognise the word woman (and you could easily use pictograms if necessary) does not know that she is just the sort of person being targeted by a HSE campaign for a smear test.

    If they say it's "for women from age 25 to 50", she knows that's her.

    If she sees that it's "for people with a cervix" (that's literally what the HSE campaign says) or for "people who menstruate" (and can you imagine the pictograms that would require!) she may well not know it's about her, or even if she thinks it's for everyone of that age, may not dare go because she thinks it's a mixed group.


    Just as it’s equally as likely, if not more so than your scenario of a woman who’s first language is not English reading the HSE entry on their website about cervical cancer, and not making the connection that it refers to her, is the possibility that a woman who’s first language is English, and reject the idea of having a smear test done because she does not identify with the word woman! As it happens I can imagine the pictures it would require given that it’s taught in primary school SPHE class to children (who would likely be better able to spell than I can :D).

    volchitsa wrote: »
    (I've no idea what your point about Hijra is. You don't think they hang about with the local village fete committee or something do you? They're mostly prostitutes and I'd guess that a lot of women in India wouldn't even have heard of them.)


    You did a JK, didn’t you? Didn’t bother to read the article? The Hijra are an example of the ill-educated, impoverished illiterates you made reference to in your post, and my point was that they were able to communicate their opinions and argue for their rights using the same terminology from a Western perspective. Before then they wouldn’t have any concept of transgender or transsexual, or any idea of equal rights, but they didn’t need to be able to spell these words properly in English to communicate their ideas. Funnily enough, at village fetes is exactly where they are likely to be hanging out, but that wasn’t really the point of the example.


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


    volchitsa wrote: »
    I don't think giving hormones to children is a good idea either - except for the most serious of reasons, particularly saving lives.

    Thinking about them isn't the issue - the problem is suggesting that giving a combination of dangerous immunosuppressants to a fetus as some sort of experiment, just because you can, is anything like women with life threatening conditions that require dangerous drugs and who want to have a baby despite that. And even then I've heard plenty of criticism of women for "being so selfish" as to want to have a child in that situation - but you think it's grand for a man to do it for the heck of it?

    And then there's the effect of the combination of the immunosuppressants and the articifical hormone injections (you seem to think a patch would do, like HRT, but it won't.,IVF requires injections at the same time every day - and that's just for a single monthly cycle. A whole pregnancy is a complete other matter.


    I apologise if you got the impression I was ok with the idea, I’m not. I’m saying that it’s possible, and at some point in the future it will likely become a reality if social progress up to this point is anything to go by. You raise plenty of legitimate concerns of course, far more than I think most people would be aware of or are ever made aware of, and I fully expect that trend to continue too with the media’s ability and now social media where individuals can steer the narrative whichever way they choose and only present the positive aspects of any phenomenon, while hiding the negative aspects from view.


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


    volchitsa wrote: »
    I don't think giving hormones to children is a good idea either - except for the most serious of reasons, particularly saving lives.

    It’s so unethical in the context of transgender children. I’m not a particularly political person and what actually got me delving into this whole issue was my interest in bioethics. The political side never interested me that much and still doesn’t. I stood back shocked as health bodies claimed that puberty blockers were “fully reversible”, knowing full well that there were no long-term studies done and just having a hunch that pausing puberty at a crucial time would be really stupid (and a few tentative studies related to girls treated for precocious puberty seem to back this up. I’m sure getting funding for further studies is difficult in the current climate. :rolleyes:). The NHS has quietly changed it from “fully reversible” to “we don’t know what the long term effects are.” Why did they ever claim that they were fully reversible if they didn’t know that for sure? How many families were assured by that guidance and took the plunge based on it? It was so irresponsible.

    Here is the thing: there is no ethical way to trial puberty blockers. The children would be guinea pigs. Their health could be destroyed.

    People are naive if they think unethical experiments can never happen again. We are only a few decades out from a baboon heart being implanted into a neonate whose mother had no health insurance. Other new procedures that had a shot at working were being developed at the time but this mother was never told about them. They wanted to do this experiment.

    We must always remain vigilant when it comes to bioethics and not just assume that the right thing is being done. Scepticism is a crucial part of scientific discovery. We must not stop questioning things.


  • Registered Users Posts: 40,934 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    Gruffalox wrote: »
    And defending their sex from these kind of people.
    https://twitter.com/NotSoOldChattox/status/1270252764912914432?s=19

    Its funny though I dont see any concern from you for all the extreme hate trans people get. Happy enough for your "team" to dish out the abusive hate.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,547 ✭✭✭SouthWesterly


    Gruffalox wrote: »
    ^^^^I mean these are the sh1theads on your team lads.

    Don't be so harsh. They are only expressing themselves. :D


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Its funny though I dont see any concern from you for all the extreme hate trans people get. Happy enough for your team to dish out the abusive hate.

    Do we now have to balance every side of the argument rather than put forward our own position?

    I assume any time you speak about homophobia and show abuse, you will also put up horrible things gay people say too?

    Or is that just inconvenient...


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,547 ✭✭✭SouthWesterly


    Its funny though I dont see any concern from you for all the extreme hate trans people get. Happy enough for your team to dish out the abusive hate.

    I think it's the trans etc team dishing out the hate in that link.

    Those of us born male and female just see the absolute nonsense that trans is.

    There are certain things that define men and women, mentally, physically, emotionally and genetically.
    Saying your something other than what you are doesn't make you it, no matter how hard you want to shout us down and call us homophobic, terfs etc.

    I want to be known and treated as a brick and demand you acquiese to my desire. Is that ok with you?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,909 ✭✭✭CtevenSrowder


    Yeah only that gets conveniently forgotten around here.

    As has been said to you before, just because it's not led to anything bad happening yet doesn't mean it won't happen in the future. There are instances from other countries were it's led to very negative consequences. For example, we've had a biological male imprisoned with women who 'she' has gone on to assault. This putting men in with women who are in a highly vulnerable environment is a policy you fully support.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,588 ✭✭✭LLMMLL


    Gruffalox wrote: »
    Funny how it is exclusively men on here who are trying to use mental gymnastics and bullying to force the women on here to admit they are monsters and to agree that transwomen are women and are entitled to enter all female spaces aka freedom as per one poster. Like what the fcuk business is it of yours if women are defending their sex?

    Ah there are loads of women who are trans allies. I just think boards appeals more to the spinstery TERF demographic.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,588 ✭✭✭LLMMLL


    Gruffalox wrote: »
    ^^^^I mean these are the sh1theads on your team lads.

    And there are people on your team who have murdered trans people for being trans.

    I mean, at least those Twitter people haven't killed anyone.


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


    Its funny though I dont see any concern from you for all the extreme hate trans people get. Happy enough for your "team" to dish out the abusive hate.

    Are you okay with this aggressive tweet directed at Rowling from a former employee of Elizabeth Warren? I’ve seen people banned from Twitter for far, far less.

    https://twitter.com/benjaminokeefe/status/1269407681611280386?s=21

    That tweet is in response to this tweet by Rowling:

    https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1269389298664701952?s=21


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement