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…2425272930…207

Comments

  • Options
    #782
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


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

    Ooooh. I could retort using derogatory words for your inclinations but I'd get banned. Another privilege I suppose.

    On an unrelated note...

    What is your point?


  • Options
    #783
    LLMMLL
    Registered Users Posts: 4,588 ✭✭✭LLMMLL


    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.

    Well then you must believe that trans women are women if it's an exclusively female topic 😉


  • Options
    #784
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    LLMMLL wrote: »
    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.

    Well thankfully hyperbole can't kill anyone because you'd be worse than Ted Bundy.


  • Options
    #785
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 23,695 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    SouthWesterly wrote: »
    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.


    And by that same logic, someone else telling a person they’re something they’re not, doesn’t make them it. They don’t define themselves according to your definitions of men and women, mentally, physically, emotionally or genetically. I’m not shouting you down or calling you silly names, I’m simply pointing out the glaringly obvious flaw in your logic - other people don’t agree with your definitions.


  • Options
    #786
    LLMMLL
    Registered Users Posts: 4,588 ✭✭✭LLMMLL


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    Well thankfully hyperbole can't kill anyone because you'd be worse than Ted Bundy.

    Oh don't worry, that comment was in jest. Simply pointing out how nonsensical it is to associate people with the worst people who share their opinion.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #787
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    And by that same logic, someone else telling a person they’re something they’re not, doesn’t make them it. They don’t define themselves according to your definitions of men and women, mentally, physically, emotionally or genetically. I’m not shouting you down or calling you silly names, I’m simply pointing out the glaringly obvious flaw in your logic - other people don’t agree with your definitions.

    People don't need to agree or disagree. But someone will always be wrong.

    My mother with dementia may not believe I am her son, that doesn't stop me being her son. In her reality though, she sadly doesn't acknowledge it sometimes, but the truth is I am. Her reality, as real as it is to her, isn't right.


  • Options
    #788
    PoisonIvyBelle
    Registered Users Posts: 1,668 ✭✭✭PoisonIvyBelle


    i find it's all getting a bit confusing. Jordan Peterson spoke out on the whole 20 million pronouns thing a few years ago and was vilified for it, but I've always agreed with his logic on that score.

    I agree with J.K. Rowling also, but here's the thing: I'm not transphobic and I'm not homophobic. I'm just looking at the facts.

    A.If you're born biologically male, you're biologically male.
    B.If you're born biologically female, you're biologically female.

    If you identify as another gender, then you identify as another gender. And everyone should be able to do that, live as they want to live, and request to be called what they want to be called.

    HOWEVER, it doesn't change the fact that a male identifying as female is still biologically male and a female identifying as male is still biologically female. I don't understand how that's even debatable in anyone's mind.

    But apparently me saying that makes me transphobic. And that's ridiculous. I have absolutely no problem with and so much empathy for trans people and the difficulties they face. I would never want to make life harder for them. But I don't think that logic = hate. And I think it's really dangerous territory that we're getting into now if people can't voice their concerns (and/or opposition) about a group of people wanting to change a fundamental biological truth without getting nailed to the wall for it.


  • Options
    #789
    SouthWesterly
    Registered Users Posts: 6,547 ✭✭✭SouthWesterly


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    And by that same logic, someone else telling a person they’re something they’re not, doesn’t make them it. They don’t define themselves according to your definitions of men and women, mentally, physically, emotionally or genetically. I’m not shouting you down or calling you silly names, I’m simply pointing out the glaringly obvious flaw in your logic - other people don’t agree with your definitions.

    So having a female physique, female genes, female emotions and female mentality doesn't make a female, female.
    What does it make her?
    Is it a case of Cogito, ergo sum. I think therefore I am.
    So my question. I think I'm a brick, can I be recognized as one? Will you acquiese to my thinking I am one?


  • Options
    #790
    jaxxx
    Registered Users Posts: 3,230 ✭✭✭jaxxx


    PoisonIvyBelle wrote: »
    i find it's all getting a bit confusing. Jordan Peterson spoke out on the whole 20 million pronouns thing a few years ago and was vilified for it, but I've always agreed with his logic on that score.

    I agree with J.K. Rowling also, but here's the thing: I'm not transphobic and I'm not homophobic. I'm just looking at the facts.

    A.If you're born biologically male, you're biologically male.
    B.If you're born biologically female, you're biologically female.

    If you identify as another gender, then you identify as another gender. And everyone should be able to do that, live as they want to live, and request to be called what they want to be called.

    HOWEVER, it doesn't change the fact that a male identifying as female is still biologically male and a female identifying as male is still biologically female. I don't understand how that's even debatable in anyone's mind.

    But apparently me saying that makes me transphobic. And that's ridiculous. I have absolutely no problem with and so much empathy for trans people and the difficulties they face. I would never want to make life harder for them. But I don't think that logic = hate. And I think it's really dangerous territory that we're getting into now if people can't voice their concerns (and/or opposition) about a group of people wanting to change a fundamental biological truth without getting nailed to the wall for it.


    This, this, 1000000000000x this. Disagreeing with something does not automatically make you a hater of said thing. It's this f*cking mentality that has caused the world to be in the f*cked up state that it is. It's modern fascism of the finest order!


  • Options
    #791
    CtevenSrowder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,909 ✭✭✭CtevenSrowder


    LLMMLL wrote: »
    Oh don't worry, that comment was in jest. Simply pointing out how nonsensical it is to associate people with the worst people who share their opinion.

    The stuff said to JK is hugely prevalent in the trans-activist movement. Just look at Joey, who always comes along to scream and shout about those who disagree with all this are transphobes and bigots. No arguments, no substance, just lazy slanders. At least you engage somewhat.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #792
    LLMMLL
    Registered Users Posts: 4,588 ✭✭✭LLMMLL


    CtevenSrowder wrote: »
    The stuff said to JK is hugely prevalent in the trans-activist movement. Just look at Joey, who always comes along to scream and shout about those who disagree with all this are transphobes and bigots. No arguments, no substance, just lazy slanders. At least you engage somewhat.

    TraNsphobe is very reasonable. You might have missed the other thread where a trans group were called paedophiles by some of the more active people on this thread. I myself was called a paedophile for defending them.

    Joeyparrot is nothing like the "suck my lady dick" people. Nor is anyone on this thread. It's nonsense to bring them up and try and force people to denounce them (implicitly suggesting they have something in common with them. A very old and tired tactic).


  • Options
    #793
    jaxxx
    Registered Users Posts: 3,230 ✭✭✭jaxxx


    LLMMLL wrote: »
    TraNsphobe is very reasonable. You might have missed the other thread where a trans group were called paedophiles by some of the more active people on this thread. I myself was called a paedophile for defending them.

    Joeyparrot is nothing like the "suck my lady dick" people. Nor is anyone on this thread. It's nonsense to bring them up and try and force people to denounce them (implicitly suggesting they have something in common with them. A very old and tired tactic).


    How is calling someone who disagrees with this notion of transexuality but has no hatred towards the people themselves reasonable?? Or am I reading it wrong? Probably am, I'm sort of high on chocolate right now.. .. ..


  • Options
    #794
    LLMMLL
    Registered Users Posts: 4,588 ✭✭✭LLMMLL


    jaxxx wrote: »
    How is calling someone who disagrees with this notion of transexuality but has no hatred towards the people themselves reasonable?? Or am I reading it wrong? Probably am, I'm sort of high on chocolate right now.. .. ..

    In a previous thread a trans swimming group was labelled paedophiles. To support this the group's ad was misquoted (meeting point was changed to drop off point) so it could be claimed that parents were forbidden from attending so the paedophiles would have easy access to the children.

    I am referring to these people as transphobic and they include the most frequent posters on this thread.


  • Options
    #795
    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,474 ✭✭✭Obvious Desperate Breakfasts


    jaxxx wrote: »
    How is calling someone who disagrees with this notion of transexuality but has no hatred towards the people themselves reasonable?? Or am I reading it wrong? Probably am, I'm sort of high on chocolate right now.. .. ..

    It’s perfectly reasonable to question aspects of gender ideology. Don’t be cowed.

    And I’d like to take this opportunity to clarify that I can safely say I called nobody a paedophile in the other thread. I believe some other posters did, but I merely pointed out some obvious red flags in a swimming club advertisement. (I realise you were not the person who alluded to that.) There seems to be an attempt to link people in this thread to the ‘paedophile’ commenters in that thread but I can personally say that if anyone checks my posting history, paedophilia accusations will not be found under my name in that thread. Or any thread.


  • Options
    #796
    LLMMLL
    Registered Users Posts: 4,588 ✭✭✭LLMMLL


    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »
    Ding ding ding!

    Yes, all of this. Like I said earlier, I reckon the people organising this are chancing their arm and hoping to find a few children who have less than vigilant parents. They are also probably trying to take advantage of parents who are tripping over themselves to be as inclusive as possible, so much so that their safeguarding instincts are disregarded.

    Oh I do apologise I must have interpreted this incorrectly.

    They are just looking to find children who do not have vigilant parents who do not have safeguarding instincts.

    I'm sure you would love if someone in your local community said that you were searching for kids with less than vigilant parents who do not have safeguarding instincts. That would be a perfectly neutral thing to say about you and not imply that you're a paedophile at all.


  • Options
    #797
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 23,695 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    People don't need to agree or disagree. But someone will always be wrong.

    My mother with dementia may not believe I am her son, that doesn't stop me being her son. In her reality though, she sadly doesn't acknowledge it sometimes, but the truth is I am. Her reality, as real as it is to her, isn't right.


    The conflict arises because people some people feel the need to have people agree with them. In your circumstances is it more important to you that she acknowledges you’re her son, or that she’s content?

    That’s how I approach these things - if someone is happy and content and they’re not bothering anyone, who am I to try and take that happiness from them? Obviously if they are bothering someone, like the many times when people have bothered me, the level of resistance they’re likely to be met with is proportionate to their persistence. They may well see themselves as being right, but I don’t care. Like having my spelling corrected - I’ll take it on the chin a lot of the time, but when someone is constantly at it, the likelihood of them being told IRDGAF increases depending upon how persistent they are :pac:

    I don’t support tearing someone down on the internet like the outright disproportionate level of abuse that JK is getting, I understand the point she was making, I don’t agree with how she made it, and I don’t agree with the backlash she’s getting for it. It doesn’t matter that she has an enormous amount of influence in many people’s lives and there will undoubtedly be some people who will be driven to the brink of suicide as a result of having their lives turned upside down by JKs latest musings. It was irresponsible. At the same time, I don’t agree with the way there are bandwagon jumping assholes trying to drive JK to the brink of suicide either (she has always been very open about her own mental health issues).

    That’s the funny thing about reality and objectivity and all this sort of stuff - I’ve never been ashamed of being Catholic for instance, yet there have been plenty of people who have told me I can’t be Catholic. I understand why they say it and why they feel they’re right, because I don’t adhere to their expectations or perceptions. Most people are fine with it, most people that I’ve encountered in my daily life at least, but even here on Boards, well, again there’s a lot I’ll take on the chin rather than be bothered explaining to people who I know care more about being right than they care about understanding people who don’t share their perspective of reality. If someone thinks they’re right, and they’re happy in themselves, and they’re not intentionally looking for offence or looking to cause offence, then why go after them and bait them? I know it’s easy to say they do it for the attention, but why? I’ve never been able to explain that one, and for the life of me I can’t wrap my head around it.

    One of the best things about living in a democratic society is that the law regards all people equally and fairly, and even though I don’t agree with particular ideologies, I’d rather live in a society which allows for those ideologies to exist, than one in which an ideology was imposed on everyone that everyone had to adhere to or be punished for their transgressions. I don’t agree with the rape culture nonsense, yet here we are suggesting that males are a danger to women and so the two sexes should be segregated to protect women from men? I genuinely can’t think of a lot more regressive an ideology than that tbh, it works to some extent in predominantly Islamic societies (for those who adhere to it of course), but why would anyone actually want to see that implemented in Ireland? I live in an area where there are plenty of my neighbours are Muslim and I can’t relate at all to the idea of them being anything other than some of the most pleasant and polite people I’ve ever met. They have a completely different culture and way of life to mine, I don’t agree with them on a whole lot, but I’m not concerned with who’s right and who’s wrong, and they don’t appear to be either, and at least we have that in common.


  • Options
    #798
    jaxxx
    Registered Users Posts: 3,230 ✭✭✭jaxxx


    LLMMLL wrote: »
    In a previous thread a trans swimming group was labelled paedophiles. To support this the group's ad was misquoted (meeting point was changed to drop off point) so it could be claimed that parents were forbidden from attending so the paedophiles would have easy access to the children.

    I am referring to these people as transphobic and they include the most frequent posters on this thread.


    And yet you failed to answer my question. My question was in general, as to the overall attitude (globally) that disagreeing with the idea of being able to change sex makes you a hater of said people suffering from said affliction. Which is exactly what it is.


  • Options
    #799
    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,474 ✭✭✭Obvious Desperate Breakfasts


    LLMMLL wrote: »
    Oh I do apologise I must have interpreted this incorrectly.

    They are just looking to find children who do not have vigilant parents who do not have safeguarding instincts.

    I'm sure you would love if someone in your local community said that you were searching for kids with less than vigilant parents who do not have safeguarding instincts. That would be a perfectly neutral thing to say about you and not imply that you're a paedophile at all.

    Yes, there were aspects of the wording that aroused my suspicions. And I wouldn’t prepare a troubling notice like that myself so it would never be an issue. If I DID prepare such an odd advertisement, I WOULD expect questions. But I wouldn’t create an advertisement like that so happy days, no questions for me. I would be suspicious of anyone who makes odd requests in a sports club notice, no matter their orientation, sex, gender. Like I said, I unashamedly stand by that. That is very far from calling any particular individual a paedophile. LLMMLL, I made no such accusations. Wind your neck in. That’s a very serious accusation to make.


  • Options
    #800
    CtevenSrowder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,909 ✭✭✭CtevenSrowder


    LLMMLL wrote: »
    TraNsphobe is very reasonable. You might have missed the other thread where a trans group were called paedophiles by some of the more active people on this thread. I myself was called a paedophile for defending them.

    Joeyparrot is nothing like the "suck my lady dick" people. Nor is anyone on this thread. It's nonsense to bring them up and try and force people to denounce them (implicitly suggesting they have something in common with them. A very old and tired tactic).

    Joey is very much like them. Slander people as bigots, transphobes, full of hatred yadda yadda, a very old and tired tactic.

    When asked any tough questions they swan off, don't engage, only to return to let us dissenters know just how transphobic we are for not going along with the trans-activist narrative. It's pathetic considering this is a discussion forum, yet they never want to have a discussion.


  • Options
    #801
    LLMMLL
    Registered Users Posts: 4,588 ✭✭✭LLMMLL


    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »
    Yes, there were aspects of the wording that aroused my suspicions. And I wouldn’t prepare a troubling notice like that myself so it would never be an issue. I would be suspicious of anyone who makes odd requests in a sports club notice, no matter their orientation, sex, gender. Like I said, I unashamedly stand by that. That is very far from calling any particular individual a paedophile. LLMMLL, I made no such accusations. Wind your neck in. That’s a very serious accusation to make.

    It was clearly an implication that they were paedophiles. You "reckon" they were looking for children with parents who are not vigilant? You need to wind your own neck in trying to pretend thats a neutral statement from a concerned citizen.

    Clearly you would be bothered if someone said that about you. You know exactly what you're implying about them.

    Anyway, anyone with an ounce of sense can read your comment and realise what the implication is no.matter your protests.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #802
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 23,695 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    SouthWesterly wrote: »
    So having a female physique, female genes, female emotions and female mentality doesn't make a female, female.
    What does it make her?
    Is it a case of Cogito, ergo sum. I think therefore I am.
    So my question. I think I'm a brick, can I be recognized as one? Will you acquiese to my thinking I am one?


    Sure, as long as I’m not expected to take you for walkies. You’re still a brick, just not one that I want to have any association with.


  • Options
    #803
    jaxxx
    Registered Users Posts: 3,230 ✭✭✭jaxxx


    LLMMLL wrote: »
    It was clearly an implication that they were paedophiles. You "reckon" they were looking for children with parents who are not vigilant? You need to wind your own neck in trying to pretend thats a neutral statement from a concerned citizen.

    Clearly you would be bothered if someone said that about you. You know exactly what you're implying about them.

    Anyway, anyone with an ounce of sense can read your comment and realise what the implication is no.matter your protests.


    Why not share said comment(s) with the rest of class then?


  • Options
    #804
    LLMMLL
    Registered Users Posts: 4,588 ✭✭✭LLMMLL


    jaxxx wrote: »
    And yet you failed to answer my question. My question was in general, as to the overall attitude (globally) that disagreeing with the idea of being able to change sex makes you a hater of said people suffering from said affliction. Which is exactly what it is.

    The "....phobia" words are rarely used to mean the old lyncher, gaybasher kind of prejudice.

    Lots of people will say terrible things about gay people for example but claim they actually have no issue with them. They are still homophobic.


  • Options
    #805
    LLMMLL
    Registered Users Posts: 4,588 ✭✭✭LLMMLL


    jaxxx wrote: »
    Why not share said comment(s) with the rest of class then?

    I shared it above ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


  • Options
    #806
    Woodsie1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 949 ✭✭✭Woodsie1


    LLMMLL wrote: »
    Oh I do apologise I must have interpreted this incorrectly.

    .

    Seems to be a bad habit of yours


  • Options
    #807
    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,474 ✭✭✭Obvious Desperate Breakfasts


    LLMMLL wrote: »
    It was clearly an implication that they were paedophiles. You "reckon" they were looking for children with parents who are not vigilant? You need to wind your own neck in trying to pretend thats a neutral statement from a concerned citizen.

    Clearly you would be bothered if someone said that about you. You know exactly what you're implying about them.

    Anyway, anyone with an ounce of sense can read your comment and realise what the implication is no.matter your protests.

    I got various thanks from sensible people for that post. It was clear what I was saying and clearly speculative.

    Like I said, if I wrote such an odd notice, I would expect questions. Lots of them. That notice should be questioned. But I wouldn’t write anything like that, so...

    I’m thinking if you don’t want to raise red flags, don’t write such a dodgy advertisement? Thank christ others aren’t as incurious as you appear to be.


  • Options
    #808
    LLMMLL
    Registered Users Posts: 4,588 ✭✭✭LLMMLL


    Woodsie1 wrote: »
    Seems to be a bad habit of yours

    Oh I'm sure you'd love if someone claimed you were looking for children with parents who are not vigilant. No implication there about paedophilia at all.....


  • Options
    #809
    Woodsie1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 949 ✭✭✭Woodsie1


    LLMMLL wrote: »
    Oh I'm sure you'd love if someone claimed you were looking for children with parents who are not vigilant. No implication there about paedophilia at all.....

    Maybe you should do some courses in child protection.
    Your naivety is dangerous.


  • Options
    #810
    LLMMLL
    Registered Users Posts: 4,588 ✭✭✭LLMMLL


    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »
    I got various thanks from sensible people for that post. It was clear I was saying and clearly speculative.

    Like I said, if I wrote such an odd notice, I would expect questions. Lots of them. That notice should be questioned. But I wouldn’t write anything like that, so...

    I’m thinking if you don’t want to raise red flags, don’t write such a dodgy advertisement?

    so if I say "I reckon obvious breakfast is looking for children with less than vigilant parents" I'm asking a question?

    Are you aware of what "I reckon..." Means?

    "I reckon" is the opposite of speculation.

    This is truly bizarre reasoning.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #811
    LLMMLL
    Registered Users Posts: 4,588 ✭✭✭LLMMLL


    Woodsie1 wrote: »
    Maybe you should do some courses in child protection.
    Your naivety is dangerous.

    I'm not naive at all. I actually researched the group and found that they provided a range of wetsuit tops for trans girls.

    Everything claimed about that group was a lie. If you continue to perpetuate the lies then there must be some reason you have an axe to grind with this group. Maybe because they're trans?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement