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

Child Item

Graham Linehan banned from twitter for questioning "trans ideology"

Kermit.de.frog

https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/tv-radio-web/twitter-closes-graham-linehan-account-after-trans-comment-1.4290547?mode=amp

Isn't this just censorship rather than protecting anyone?

That's what it looks like to me.

It's perfectly fine for someone like Trump to spew his hatred on the platform every day of the week but when it comes to debate on social issues action is taken.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

One eyed Jack

OscarMIlde wrote: »

When did I ignore the role of hormones in human development? When I discuss molecular underpinnings that of course involves hormones. But the fact that humans are a sexually dimorphic species is not going to change.

You were referring to chromosomes and made no mention of the influence of hormones, but crack on if you have a point to make about hormones being a determining factor of sex? We know that they fluctuate throughout a persons life, as opposed to remaining static from the time gametes are fused. We’re already agreed that humans are a sexually dimorphic species, that doesn’t tell us anything about how sexual dimorphism is defined. Sexual dimorphism is defined by identifying common traits and characteristics in biology and ascribing them to one sex or the other.

OscarMIlde wrote: »

You constantly twist and turn your arguments to keep this nonsense going, and there seems to be no consistency to your underlying theories. At this point I'm convinced your some kind of WUM.

Ehh, just to be clear here - you decided to pick up on a point I made. I certainly can’t compel you to participate in the discussion, nor do I have any desire to. I’ve been consistent in arguing that people who are transgender are entitled to freedom from discrimination the same as anyone else in a democratic society. You’re trying to come up with all sorts of reasons to deny people equal rights, and your arguments are founded on nothing more than prejudice and fearmongering, with a dash of biological insights as though that disguises your prejudice with a veneer of legitimacy.

That appears to be the only consistency in arguing that people should not have equal rights in law - consistently throwing everything but the kitchen sink into the mix and imagining you’re being clever. It’s actually not that clever at all tbh. It’s really, really simple to treat people equally - just imagine yourself in their position where you are discriminated against on the basis of other people’s behaviour. It’s probably easier to convince yourself you’re the real victim if other people gain equal rights though, particularly if you’re of a mindset that displays outward signs of a victim mentality.

LLMMLL

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Like I said, the article has been edited but has been widely noted and recorded, what with it being the BBC and all. I’m afraid the Beeb can’t feign innocence on this.

Oh and by the way people, including yourself, have insinuated that I’m homophobic. With no evidence. Damn straight I’m going to highlight actual homophobia from transgender people that is happening. This homophobia has been documented by gay people, mostly lesbians. Do they not count?

Really don't think you understand what homophobia is. Quite a bizarre interpretation.

CtevenSrowder

LLMMLL wrote: »

It's nice to hear from someone who has a basic understanding of the role of science and scientific concepts and scientific definitions for once.

Says the person who can't even define what a female or a woman is, because to do so would be 'exclusionary'. If there is anyone on this thread that is scientifically illiterate it's you.

Bannasidhe

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

They aren't 'real' women. A woman is an adult human female. This has already been pointed out to you.

Not 'real' just real is it?

LLMMLL

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Says the person who can't even define what a female or a woman is, because to do so would be 'exclusionary'. If there is anyone on this thread that is scientifically illiterate it's you.

Of course you completely misunderstand my position.

I have never said that these words cannot be defined.

Bannasidhe

Sittingpretty wrote: »

If you wish to please tell me how a trans woman is a “real” woman (your words).

According to JK Rawlings a 'real' woman is one who menstruates and she, apparently, is some sort of icon to those who believe they get to decide on these things.

Shall we go with that definition?

CtevenSrowder

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Not 'real' just real is it?

What? A biological male cannot become a female. Therefore they cannot become an adult human female. Therefore they cannot become a women. They are a trans-women. You cannot change your sex.

Smith152

Bannasidhe wrote: »

According to JK Rowling a 'real' woman is one who menstruates and she, apparently, is some sort of icon to those who believe they get to decide on these things.

Shall we go with that definition?

She didn't say that.

She just pointed out that using the phrase " person who menstruates" was stupid and saying woman would be far more sensible.

Bannasidhe

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

What? A biological male cannot become a female. Therefore they cannot become an adult human female. Therefore they cannot become a women. They are a trans-women. You cannot change your sex.

You keeping banging on about sex. Are we discussing transexual people?
Tell me, can a person change their gender?

CtevenSrowder

LLMMLL wrote: »

Of course you completely misunderstand my position.

I have never said that these words cannot be defined.

Then define them for us, since it's possible. Now remember, saying 'A woman is a trans-woman' is not a definition. And talking about tables of exemplars is not a definition either. So please, if you could define what a female is, and what a women is...

joeguevara

Has anyone mentioned Graham Linehan or anything to do with the purpose of the thread in recent history? Is it a relatively new thing that genetics, chromosomes, neurological change, effects, can’t say this, I’m a TER but not a TERF. If you deny this then ŷour that. I can see now why Graham Linehan can spend all day every day tweeting about it because you could spend 50 years typing and still be in the introduction by the way people talk.

If a person transitions successfully, then who would know that they are not a man or woman. I’d never go up to someone and say did you used to be a man. Who cares. If they want to express that they are transgender then by that action they are distinguishing themselves so no problem.

Constantly talking about things that are never going to fix anything takes all the fun or if not fun meaning as to why people do things in the first place.

If this thread is simply going to be the same stuff about the actual medical stuff, then why not start or continue on a different topic. But if it’s better here then maybe just say.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Good for you. Pity you had to get a dig in but at least you are owning your position.
Do you believe that transgender women should be considered women under the law? Avail of these SEX based rights that have yet to be defined but are apparently under threat.

Let's try it without a snide dig simply because it's a coming across as a bit petulant imho.

I don’t think it’s a pity at all. You’ve been no angel yourself so you don’t get to be pious now. You are the same person who was perplexed as to what to call a poster when you couldn’t call her a TERF, for gawd’s sake.

I think that it should be acknowledged that transgender men and women have challenges that need to be addressed. Healthcare issues, their safety etc. But those rights must not come at the expense of women or men. Pretending that transgender women are exactly the same as women (and yes, it’s pretending) is helping nobody.

Anyone who takes seriously the safety concerns of transgender women and men whilst handwaving away the concerns of women and girls is a hypocrite. Nothing less.

Bannasidhe

Smith152 wrote: »

She didn't say that.

She just pointed out that using the phrase " person who menstruates" was stupid and saying woman would be far more sensible.

So women aren't persons and only women menstruate therefore people who menstruate are women and people who don't are persons but not women.
QED.

CtevenSrowder

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You keeping banging on about sex. Are we discussing transexual people?
Tell me, can a person change their gender?

Yes, because their are people here claiming that you can. You've yet to state whether you belief this nonsense aswell, do you?

Trans-people exist. You can legally change your gender yes. You cannot change your sex.

Quantum Erasure

Sittingpretty wrote: »

If you wish to please tell me how a trans woman is a “real” woman (your words).

Bannasidhe wrote: »

So women aren't persons and only women menstruate therefore people who menstruate are women and people who don't are persons but not women.
QED.

you have no answer so?

Stark

smith152 wrote:

She just pointed out that using the phrase " person who menstruates" was stupid and saying woman would be far more sensible.

It was a total overreaction to an article writer whose only crime was wanting to be both precise and inclusive when describing the intended audience.

It's funny how conservatives always complain about liberals "policing" language and how "you're not allowed say anything anymore" but then lose their **** over such an innocuous use of language.

During the repeal the 8th referendum, the phrase "people who can get pregnant" was used a few times by people who didn't want to see transmen and their unique needs when it came to abortion services left out of the debate.

Smith152

Bannasidhe wrote: »

So women aren't persons and only women menstruate therefore people who menstruate are women and people who don't are persons but not women.
QED.

The phrase person who menstruates is stupid and was being used without it being necessary just to appease a bunch of loonies. I think that was the point JK Rowling was making by calling them out on their nonsense.

One eyed Jack

Smith152 wrote: »

She didn't say that.

She just pointed out that using the phrase " person who menstruates" was stupid and saying woman would be far more sensible.

It would be eminently more sensible to use the word women, if one were only referring to women. However the organisation in question were not only referring to women, and in the literature they clarified the headline, which JK would have to have read, because she would have to be pretty stupid to have taken the headline at face value, and one thing JK is not, apart from anything else she might be, is stupid. She would have read the same as anyone else who is capable of reading -

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.

Opinion: Creating a more equal post-COVID-19 world for people who menstruate

JK chose to miss the point of the article, to make a point of her own.

Smith152

Stark wrote: »

It was a total overreaction to an article writer who's only crime was wanting to be both precise and inclusive when describing the intended audience.

It's funny how conservatives always complain about liberals "policing" language and how "you're not allowed say anything anymore" but then lose their **** about such an innocuous use of language.

She didn't overreact though, she just pointed out the nonsensical unnecessary term that was being used.

The overreactions all came from the idiots who harassed her afterwards.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Bannasidhe wrote: »

So women aren't persons and only women menstruate therefore people who menstruate are women and people who don't are persons but not women.
QED.

This really mindnumbingly stupid point has been made numerous times. Rowling said that only females menstruate. She didn’t say all females do. I can’t believe how many people luxuriated in advertising their lack of reading comprehension skills on that point. It’s supposed to be a “gotcha!”. How embarrassing.

Sittingpretty

Bannasidhe wrote: »

According to JK Rawlings a 'real' woman is one who menstruates and she, apparently, is some sort of icon to those who believe they get to decide on these things.

Shall we go with that definition?

I’d rather get yours, do I take from this you go with hers?

If you’d rather not that’s cool with me.

joeguevara

When do transgenders ever get time to have s3x if could lose years just discussing the difference between biological v gender. Then another 5 years training in professional sport just to win medals and then advocate that they can go to the toilet because someone who has no clue that they are transgender might go on social media to discuss the topic but can’t give a real life example of it ever happening

OscarMIlde

LLMMLL wrote: »

It's nice to hear from someone who has a basic understanding of the role of science and scientific concepts and scientific definitions for once.

As opposed to me, the actual molecular biologist?

Smith152

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It would be eminently more sensible to use the word women, if one were only referring to women. However the organisation in question were not only referring to women, and in the literature they clarified the headline, which JK would have to have read, because she would have to be pretty stupid to have taken the headline at face value, and one thing JK is not, apart from anything else she might be, is stupid. She would have read the same as anyone else who is capable of reading -

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.

JK chose to miss the point of the article, to make a point of her own.

The phrase people who menstruate is stupid and unnecessary and clearly being used to appease a small minority of loony activists who get offended at everything.

It would be like Gillette advertising shaving foam and male razors as being for "people who have hairy faces".

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Stark wrote: »

It was a total overreaction to an article writer whose only crime was wanting to be both precise and inclusive when describing the intended audience.

It's funny how conservatives always complain about liberals "policing" language and how "you're not allowed say anything anymore" but then lose their **** over such an innocuous use of language.

Lots of people defending Rowling are liberals. Sorry if that means you can’t neatly categorise them. It’s only a branch of the left that seems hellbent on authoritarianism. The rest are looking on, perplexed.

CtevenSrowder

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

This really mindnumbingly stupid point has been made numerous times. Rowling said that only females menstruate. She didn’t say all females do. I can’t believe how many people luxuriated in advertising their lack of reading comprehension skills on that point. It’s supposed to be a “gotcha!”. How embarrassing.

I think they were being facetious to be fair.

Sittingpretty

Smith152 wrote: »

It would be like Gillette advertising shaving foam and male razors as being for "people who have hairy faces".

I don’t know why but this tickled my funny bone

Stark

Smith152 wrote: »

The phrase people who menstruate is stupid and unnecessary and clearly being used to appease a small minority of loony activists who get offended at everything.

It would be like Gillette advertising shaving foam and male razors as being for "people who have hairy faces".

The fact that we have "male razors" and "female razors" in the first place is worthy of a whole thread of its own.

Bannasidhe

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I don’t think it’s a pity at all. You’ve been no angel yourself so you don’t get to be pious now. You are the same person who was perplexed as to what to call a poster when you couldn’t call her a TERF, for gawd’s sake.

I think that it should be acknowledged that transgender men and women have challenges that need to be addressed. Healthcare issues, their safety etc. But those rights must not come at the expense of women or men. Pretending that transgender women are exactly the same as women (and yes, it’s pretending) is helping nobody.

Anyone who takes seriously the safety concerns of transgender women and men whilst handwaving away the concerns of women and girls is a hypocrite. Nothing less.

Still with the digs - claiming I called someone a TERF - I merely asked them to decide what short hand label they felt was applicable as TERF did not apply. But it's nice of you to go to bat to protect them.

What SEX rights exactly did YOU lose due to the Gender Recognition Act?

I don't recall saying transgender women are exactly the same as anyone. It's not something I would ever say as I don't think all women are the same.

My very existence has been one of not being the 'same' due to my being one of those butch lesbians who is apparently being erased by transgender men or is it women... it's unclear who is 'threatening' me exactly. But I am certain that I do not tick that box marked 'every woman' so I would never expect any other woman to conform to a ticked box interpretation of womanhood.

LLMMLL

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Then define them for us, since it's possible. Now remember, saying 'A woman is a trans-woman' is not a definition. And talking about tables of exemplars is not a definition either. So please, if you could define what a female is, and what a women is...

AGain completely missng the point. Anyone can give a definiton of male female man woman etc. Nobody else has to agree with that definition. If a certain branch of science tends to use the word female to describe individuals with XX chromosomes and that is helpful to communicate their research and is not just used to score political points against trans women then that's fine.

If a scientist tries to claim they have exclusive use of terms like male female man woman etc. Then they are mistaken and don't know much about the science they claim to practice.

The issue is not whether terms like male or female or male or woman can be defined or not (any word can be defined). It's whether anyone has to accept that another person has exclusive rights to define that word and enforce political situations based on nothing but their definition.

And the answer to that is no.