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

keano_afc · 13-11-2020 4:24pm

excludedbin wrote: »

Said on a thread that's now nearly four hundred pages long of constant, petulant outrage from terfs. Truly the largest collection of 'self-aware wolves' on the entire site.

And still hard at it, repackaging old homophobic insults for use on the new target. This thread is like a microcosm of the long-playing record that is the modern rise in terfs simply changing homophobic arguments and insults for the next most socially acceptable target.

Still, I must admit to being curious as to what they'll move onto once trans people become more accepted. They seem to be largely weaponised by the far-right, screaming about 'degeneracy', these days so probably immigrants (get some new material!) or Jews (boring! old hat!). Watch this space!

I still get a good laugh out of this. How long have you worked at the Journal?

jam_mac_jam · 13-11-2020 4:28pm

It's not a lifestyle choice though. That's fairly insulting.

The White Wolf · 13-11-2020 4:33pm

I don't think anyone has been weaponised by the far right in this debacle featuring JK and trans people. Just the usual unfortunate reality of the left imploding upon each other.

Both sides of the debate were united for example when the *** had that abhorrent headline about her ex.

mohawk · 13-11-2020 4:36pm

excludedbin wrote: »

Said on a thread that's now nearly four hundred pages long of constant, petulant outrage from terfs. Truly the largest collection of 'self-aware wolves' on the entire site.

Are you okay? This posts reads very angry.

First of all not everyone on this thread is a feminist and the F in TERF stands for feminist.
As for you saying the thread is full of outrage well I admit I am outraged when people who underwent male puberty take part in women’s sports, I am also similarly outraged when the word woman is replaced with things like vulva people, or birthing body or similar ****e that reduces us down to just a body part or bodily function. I don’t see the word man being replaced with sperm producer or anything else as ludicrous. Which makes me think the change in language isn’t really about inclusion.
I find is disconcerting that when it comes to children that under watchful waiting which was the traditional approach 80% came to accept their biological body. An affirmative approach is now implemented because of pressure from lobby groups even though it’s not backed by science. The affirmative approach can mean a lifetime of requiring medical care, removal of healthy organs or infertility and who knows what unknown side effects there will be. Majority of trans adults never transition and yet most children/teenagers go down the transition route.
I also question why there is such a dramatic increase in teenage girls identifying as trans and why can’t we study this to see what’s causing it without being called transphobic.

Annasopra · 13-11-2020 5:26pm

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

It's not a lifestyle choice though. That's fairly insulting.

Yep. One of many insults on this thread.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 13-11-2020 5:43pm

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Yep. One of many insults on this thread.

Indeed. Most of the insults have come from yourself, excludedbin et al. You’re right, the thread is brimming with insults.

Gruffalux · 13-11-2020 5:52pm

Someone recently made a point elsewhere that the affirmation approach goes out of the way to enable (for example) a boy child to become a girl via pharmaceuticals and surgery instead of going out of the way and enabling that boy child to become comfortable in their given natural body.
Almost as if a transitioned body or transgender state is somehow considered superior, more favourable or more desirable to the natal state.

There is a lot to think about in that. The transitioned body suffers terribly and hardly any mental health improvement is recorded. The sexual function of the body is thwarted. Potency and fertility reduced or eliminated. Brain, bone development impeded. A lifetime of pain, drugs, morbidity

Why does this clinical goal supercede the goal of effortful accommodation to natal reality?

Wibbs · 13-11-2020 5:56pm

mohawk wrote: »

First of all not everyone on this thread is a feminist

*Sticks hand up*

I don’t see the word man being replaced with sperm producer or anything else as ludicrous.

Oh no doubt someone somewhere is coming out with that nonsense alright, but the main reason is it's almost exclusively M-F Transexuals that are the mouthpieces coming out with this guff and the more likely to be angry and frankly bloody weird about it. You almost never hear from F-M Trans folks at all.

I find is disconcerting that when it comes to children that under watchful waiting which was the traditional approach 80% came to accept their biological body. An affirmative approach is now implemented because of pressure from lobby groups even though it’s not backed by science.

Science has largely gone out the window with this stuff M and sadly that includes too many within medicine too.

I also question why there is such a dramatic increase in teenage girls identifying as trans and why can’t we study this to see what’s causing it without being called transphobic.

There have been dramatic increases in self harm and eating disorders with teenage girls over the last 30 years. One hypothesis given is the rise in the influence of social media and working out one's identity and needing to fit into a community as adolescents do, doubly so if they feel like they're "odd". Social bullying doesn't help, which has gone up with social media. Although similar can affect young boys, young girls appear to be much more prone to this peer driven stuff. EG If one girl in a group comes out as Trans more come out within that group compared to background. That isn't seen to nearly the same degree with boys. Trans is a "new" and quite public trend at the moment so it stands to reason it would figure more.

A few years back many if not most of the same researchers and doctors held it was a body dysmorphia condition, then that shifted. It will almost certainly shift again as more research is brought to bear. And if that research shows that in many cases it's a side condition of say autism that often passes, or indeed an adolescent "phase", that won't be much help to those buggered up by years of hormones or surgery.

Wibbs · 13-11-2020 5:58pm

Gruffalux wrote: »

Why does this clinical goal supercede the goal of effortful accommodation to natal reality?

Because that doesn't fit the recently established credo, even when said credo is all over the place in contradiction. On the one hand gender is seen as a social construct, on the other it's inborn. Make your mind up.

Gruffalux · 13-11-2020 6:07pm

Regarding the lifestyle choice remark I think there is no need to be cruel. There do seem to be people who have terrible gender dysphoria just as there are other body dysphorias. The breadth of human experience is vast. Raymond Blanchard and Kenneth Zucker who have worked compassionately for decades with people who have dysphoria recognise there is a portion of people who genuinely benefit from transition to cope with their dreadful dysphoria. I believe them. It should be a decision taken in mature adulthood as it has huge health implications.

But there is also a lifestyle element for a certain portion of people who call themselves transgender. The umbrella is large. Fetishism is included. Autogynophelia. Various queer identities which can be very fluid, changing, fashion conscious, whimsical, etc. Transgenderism is not always some urgent existential drive - not at all as it is understood nowadays.

I am going to link to an article by Graham Linegan again. Written yesterday. https://grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/ashton-challenor-the-boy-who-disappeared

I have mentioned Aimee Challenor before. You might think what has this one strange example got to do with anything? But Aimee was a very vocal public figure fighting for self ID as a reasonably senior figure in the UK Green Party. That is relevant. Other people mentioned in the article have influential roles in organisations. There is a huge element of lifestyle choice among the characters in that article. It is absolutely not the case for many with gender dysphoria but we cannot ignore these prominent vocal and highly disruptive examples and say again and again "that never happens".

suicide_circus · 13-11-2020 6:12pm

Non-binary feels quite "lifestyley"

Gervais08 · 13-11-2020 6:52pm

suicide_circus wrote: »

Not look for you to answer that Gervais08!

I'm looking for someone to openly agree to the statement that a woman is anyone who says they are a women.

Apols!!!

derfderf · 14-11-2020 12:02am

suicide_circus wrote: »

Non-binary feels quite "lifestyley"

Should they compete in men's or women's sports? Which prison do they go to?

CtevenSrowder · 14-11-2020 12:08am

derfderf wrote: »

Should they compete in men's or women's sports? Which prison do they go to?

Non binary is a load of attention seeking nonsense. It should not be confused with transsexualism which is an actual real issue.

LLMMLL · 14-11-2020 12:42am

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

It’s not up to you to buy it or not. If somebody doesn’t want to be called ‘cis’, the decent thing to do is to not call them by it, like with any unwanted moniker.

Not when getting rid of the "unwanted moniker" is part of a PR campaign to prevent discussion.

It's not that cis people have a problem with the word cis. TERFs have a problem with any word that describes them as a group. It's been repeatedly stated on this thread by TERFs that their issue with the word cis is that there shouldn't be a word to describe them as a subgroup of.women as they believe themselves to be the only group describable by the word "woman".

In this case no.word would be acceptable to them if we replaced cis with it.

In the case of genuinely offensive words to describe groups of people such as racist or homophobic slurs, the people who are targets of these actually offensive words will be happy to be referred to as a group and there are acceptable words to describe them. Also, they didn't just randomly take a dislike to these words. The words have been used as part of a loooong history of oppression.

But if someone who is trying to curb the right of trans people doesn't like a word I use to describe them...tough. If they were an opressed group and the word had genuinely been used as a slur, then I wouldn't use it. But I'm not capitulating to their PR efforts to play the victim.

LLMMLL · 14-11-2020 12:48am

excludedbin wrote: »

Said on a thread that's now nearly four hundred pages long of constant, petulant outrage from terfs. Truly the largest collection of 'self-aware wolves' on the entire site.

And still hard at it, repackaging old homophobic insults for use on the new target. This thread is like a microcosm of the long-playing record that is the modern rise in terfs simply changing homophobic arguments and insults for the next most socially acceptable target.

Still, I must admit to being curious as to what they'll move onto once trans people become more accepted. They seem to be largely weaponised by the far-right, screaming about 'degeneracy', these days so probably immigrants (get some new material!) or Jews (boring! old hat!). Watch this space!

I'm not sure they'll move onto another group. I think they'll become more mired in conspiracy theory. Maybe move on to something like anti-vaccinations.

If you don't post in this thread and let TERFs talk to each other it really descends into some quite paranoid bizarre stuff. Take a look at the mumsnet anti trans forum and there's people who have not been affected by trans people at all saying they are suicidal over the "Erasure of women". Unhappiness has to find a target, and it's not always hate. Sometimes it's just plain old paranoia.

Rothko · 14-11-2020 1:20am

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Non binary is a load of attention seeking nonsense.

Completely and utterly agree.

Smacruairi · 14-11-2020 1:33am

LLMMLL wrote: »

I'm not sure they'll move onto another group.

Wow. Talk about projection, inferiority complex, victim complex and more.

y0ssar1an22 · 14-11-2020 3:42am

what are the criteria these days? in all seriousness, can i ID as an attack helicopter? and if not, why not?

suicide_circus · 14-11-2020 6:45am

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

what are the criteria these days? in all seriousness, can i ID as an attack helicopter? and if not, why not?

No because an attack helicopter has defined parameters. 'Man' or 'Woman' are just amorphous interchangable blobs with no particular characteristics.

Gruffalux · 14-11-2020 8:30am

LLMMLL wrote: »

their issue with the word cis is that there shouldn't be a word to describe them as a subgroup of.women as they believe themselves to be the only group describable by the word "woman".

In this case no.word would be acceptable to them if we replaced cis with it.

Adult human females are not a subset of woman. They are the set. Cis cannot qualify or sub divide the indivisible ontological category of women. Or men. Or girls. Etc.

If you are desperately looking for a denoter word to attach to me to politically signify me to others, logical will do, thanks. Put me on the list.

Sittingpretty · 14-11-2020 9:08am

LLMMLL wrote: »

I'm not sure they'll move onto another group. I think they'll become more mired in conspiracy theory. Maybe move on to something like anti-vaccinations.

If you don't post in this thread and let TERFs talk to each other it really descends into some quite paranoid bizarre stuff. Take a look at the mumsnet anti trans forum and there's people who have not been affected by trans people at all saying they are suicidal over the "Erasure of women". Unhappiness has to find a target, and it's not always hate. Sometimes it's just plain old paranoia.

And........delusion is back in the room!

CtevenSrowder · 14-11-2020 9:26am

LLMMLL wrote: »

Not when getting rid of the "unwanted moniker" is part of a PR campaign to prevent discussion.

It's not that cis people have a problem with the word cis. TERFs have a problem with any word that describes them as a group. It's been repeatedly stated on this thread by TERFs that their issue with the word cis is that there shouldn't be a word to describe them as a subgroup of.women as they believe themselves to be the only group describable by the word "woman".

In this case no.word would be acceptable to them if we replaced cis with it.

In the case of genuinely offensive words to describe groups of people such as racist or homophobic slurs, the people who are targets of these actually offensive words will be happy to be referred to as a group and there are acceptable words to describe them. Also, they didn't just randomly take a dislike to these words. The words have been used as part of a loooong history of oppression.

But if someone who is trying to curb the right of trans people doesn't like a word I use to describe them...tough. If they were an opressed group and the word had genuinely been used as a slur, then I wouldn't use it. But I'm not capitulating to their PR efforts to play the victim.

The word cis is not required because you have, for example, men and trans-men. See, distinction made without needing the word cis. It is an unnecessary prefix that many don't like being labeled with. You could also say trans and non-trans but for some reason refuse to. Again, cis is not required.

As I said, you'll bang on about respect until the cows come home but expect it to go in one direction only, and won't be respectful of others wishes, instead you engage in mental gymsnastics to try and paint over your double standard.

Again, and this is the take home message, the word cis is not required. And if you still believe a distinction other that woman/transwomen is required - which you do as you are willfully ignorant of what makes someone a women-- you can use trans and non-trans. No need for cis.

But let's be honest, you'll still use it as you know people don't like it, along with TERF, but sure isn't that the point.

Effects · 14-11-2020 9:58am

suicide_circus wrote: »

No because an attack helicopter has defined parameters. 'Man' or 'Woman' are just amorphous interchangable blobs with no particular characteristics.

Why are you so quick to define parameters for an attack helicopter?
Not too long ago having a knob was a particular characteristic of being a man.

Wibbs · 14-11-2020 10:32am

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Non binary is a load of attention seeking nonsense. It should not be confused with transsexualism which is an actual real issue.

It's another one of those labels that society seems to be looking for in a largely post old certainties western world, though TBH I can kinda see the non binary thing. Someone who feels like the label of man/woman/gay/straight doesn't quite fit them(though who fits them 100%), so feel better with a label and self explanation and like minded people with the same label out there. And that's fine such as it is. Yes it can be argued it's yet another quasi adolescent navel gazing self indulgence, but most of us are err to that at one time or another and humans have always done similar along personal, societal and tribal lines. I'm not aware of any pushing any particular agenda onto wider society. Beyond pushing for makey uppy pronouns.

Gervais08 · 14-11-2020 10:38am

Wibbs wrote: »

It's another one of those labels that society seems to be looking for in a largely post old certainties western world, though TBH I can kinda see the non binary thing. Someone who feels like the label of man/woman/gay/straight doesn't quite fit them(though who fits them 100%), so feel better with a label and self explanation and like minded people with the same label out there. And that's fine such as it is. Yes it can be argued it's yet another quasi adolescent navel gazing self indulgence, but most of us are err to that at one time or another and humans have always done similar along personal, societal and tribal lines. I'm not aware of any pushing any particular agenda onto wider society. Beyond pushing for makey uppy pronouns.

I wouldn’t consider myself stereotypically a girly girl - loads of typically “boys” interests. Hate kids, not nurturing, vocabulary of a sailor etc.

But I’m a woman, an adult human female - and the stereotypes are wrong. I’m not non-binary (that’s made up nonsense) - I’m just a girl who isn’t afraid to stick two fingers up to stereotypes and be myself.

It’s the annoying ones that piss me off - one sort said “you old people judge me because you’ve never seen anyone like me”.

No just Bowie, Marc Bolan, The Sweet, Steve Strange, Leigh Bowery, Adam Ant, the New Romantics etc etc etc - give it a rest you pointless attention seekers!!!!

suicide_circus · 14-11-2020 10:47am

Effects wrote: »

Why are you so quick to define parameters for an attack helicopter?
Not too long ago having a knob was a particular characteristic of being a man.

Many a woman has a knob now

Wibbs · 14-11-2020 10:49am

Gervais08 wrote: »

But I’m a woman, an adult human female - and the stereotypes are wrong. I’m not non-binary (that’s made up nonsense) - I’m just a girl who isn’t afraid to stick two fingers up to stereotypes and be myself.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHzOOQfhPFg

But yeah that's the joke about labels like "non binary", they actually reinforce stereotypes, yet I'm quite sure most who would use that label are in oblivious if not aggressive denial about that, because it makes them feel like they fit in. That said the 20th century has been described as the "Century of the Self"*, but because of the old certainties waning and the rise of social media and the interwebs I would see the 21st century better described as the "Century of the Self Involved"

*from a purely western view of course. The rest of the world has stayed much the same as far as old certainties go.

Wibbs · 14-11-2020 10:59am

Gervais08 wrote: »

It’s the annoying ones that piss me off - one sort said “you old people judge me because you’ve never seen anyone like me”.

No just Bowie, Marc Bolan, The Sweet, Steve Strange, Leigh Bowery, Adam Ant, the New Romantics etc etc etc - give it a rest you pointless attention seekers!!!!

Actually I see another aspect to this G. Those you list were jumped on and followed by a majority adolescent fanbase, just like the hippies and beatniks who also shocked the adult world before them. Again for obvious reasons as adolescents have always looked for a way to navigate their course into an adult identity(and did so long before the word "Teenager" was invented).

However the vast majority navigated that course and left that behind in happy nostalgia. Today more and more adolescence is extended and clung onto. I recall another thread ages ago discussing a woman writer and after reading her stuff it kinda floored me to find out she wasn't a teenager, but a woman in her thirties. Maybe because those old adult certainties are mostly missing and so growth can be stunted for many. Add in a world of communities that will enable and encourage staying in that extended adolescence and here we are where adult men and women will speak in self involved adolescent terms still looking for an identity. Someone saying they're non binary two spirits at 18 is one thing and fine and even expected, the same person saying that at 38? Not so much.

Gruffalux · 14-11-2020 12:47pm

It is one thing, though, people identifying as something that supposedly makes them unique - goth, pagan, queer, punk, femme, non-binary, crustie, yogi - whatever, knock yourself out! and I don't even mind what age people are still clinging to their "special" identity, because it does not affect anyone else, but it is quite another thing when laws, regulations, language, medical ethics, biological facts are being ideologically manipulated to reflect utter falsehoods.
The rubber hits the road, as a prime current example, when a young violent male who expresses uncontrollable desires to rape and murder women is installed into a locked institution from which imprisoned women cannot escape because of how the first person identifies. This is craziness. This is gone way beyond casual anthropological observation.

Gervais08 · 14-11-2020 12:56pm

Gruffalux wrote: »

It is one thing, though, people identifying as something that supposedly makes them unique - goth, pagan, queer, punk, femme, non-binary, crustie, yogi - whatever, knock yourself out! and I don't even mind what age people are still clinging to their "special" identity, because it does not affect anyone else, but it is quite another thing when laws, regulations, language, medical ethics, biological facts are being ideologically manipulated to reflect utter falsehoods.
The rubber hits the road, as a prime current example, when a young violent male who expresses uncontrollable desires to rape and murder women is installed into a locked institution from which imprisoned women cannot escape because of how the first person identifies. This is craziness. This is gone way beyond casual anthropological observation.

Men’s “rights” to be violent to women clearly trump women’s right to be safe.

Gruffalux · 14-11-2020 1:16pm

Gervais08 wrote: »

Men’s “rights” to be violent to women clearly trump women’s right to be safe.

I honestly don't think it helps to make this a battle of the sexes issue. Men vs women. It is not a "feminist" issue. I actually hate that in my own pursuit of this issue I end up reading so much animus towards men from so many gender critical feminists. Really puts me off.

It is in fact an issue regarding the subversion of reason. Which affects all people.

After all one could equally say that along with some narcissistic misogynistic males there are some downright insane women who are ruining their boy children by subjecting them to social conditioning and later medical atrocities in pursuit of their own attention seeking neurosis or munchausens by proxy.

But it is better not to concentrate on the people who stupidly swarm to embrace the ideology but rather to concentrate on the contradictions within the subversive ideology itself.

Gervais08 · 14-11-2020 1:29pm

Gruffalux wrote: »

I honestly don't think it helps to make this a battle of the sexes issue. Men vs women. It is not a "feminist" issue. I actually hate that in my own pursuit of this issue I end up reading so much animus towards men from so many gender critical feminists. Really puts me off.

It is in fact an issue regarding the subversion of reason. Which affects all people.

After all one could equally say that along with some narcissistic misogynistic males there are some downright insane women who are ruining their boy children by subjecting them to social conditioning and later medical atrocities in pursuit of their own attention seeking neurosis or munchausens by proxy.

But it is better not to concentrate on the people who stupidly swarm to embrace the ideology but rather to concentrate on the contradictions within the subversive ideology itself.

I never used to consider myself an out and out feminist but TRAs have started the war on women .

Wibbs · 14-11-2020 1:46pm

Gervais08 wrote: »

Men’s “rights” to be violent to women clearly trump women’s right to be safe.

Well that's the thing G. In that case they're no longer a man. No way in hell would a male offender who had expressed uncontrollable desires to rape and kill women be let anywhere within an asses roar of a women's prison. He'd even be segregated in a men's prison because rapists and child abusers are considered the lowest of the low and the attitude of many male inmates towards a man like that would likely lead to threats and attacks. However, claim you're actually a woman and not a dangerously violent mentally ill man and...

Wibbs · 14-11-2020 1:53pm

Gruffalux wrote: »

I honestly don't think it helps to make this a battle of the sexes issue. Men vs women. It is not a "feminist" issue. I actually hate that in my own pursuit of this issue I end up reading so much animus towards men from so many gender critical feminists. Really puts me off.

This. It's best to leave the nuttier end of so called "feminism" to work on its own internal contradictions and divisive nonsense.

After all one could equally say that along with some narcissistic misogynistic males there are some downright insane women who are ruining their boy children by subjecting them to social conditioning and later medical atrocities in pursuit of their own attention seeking neurosis or munchausens by proxy.

Indeed. In too many cases it seems that those mothers you speak of are at the vanguard of this.

But it is better not to concentrate on the people who stupidly swarm to embrace the ideology but rather to concentrate on the contradictions within the subversive ideology itself.

It is in fact an issue regarding the subversion of reason. Which affects all people.

So much this and it's even hijacked medicine, science and the law. That is not good at all. When someone can point at the law or medical science that defies reason on the altar of identity politics then that's bad science and bad law. There are enough truly stupid and truly dangerous outings in human history that did just that. We're not immune.

suicide_circus · 14-11-2020 2:24pm

Gruffalux wrote: »

It is in fact an issue regarding the subversion of reason.

This is it for me.

Everything else from sports to lesbian fellatio is a sideshow.

To quote Ronald Reagan; 'If you're explaining, you're losing.' - if you're lost in the mire of single sex spaces, you're already on the ropes. The whole thing is an absurdity long long before that.

Gatling · 14-11-2020 2:52pm

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

what are the criteria these days? in all seriousness, can i ID as an attack helicopter? and if not, why not?

Yes you can but bear in mind attack helicopters ,tanks and aircraft tend to get called she by its pilots , commanders unless you identify as a battleship which are sole called men /He (Men O War) Which could get you into trouble with the wrong crowd .

Got to love an attack helicopter

Eric Cartman · 14-11-2020 3:05pm

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Non binary is a load of attention seeking nonsense. It should not be confused with transsexualism which is an actual real issue.

Its the modern equivalent of those girls in the early 00s who said they were bi sexual to get attention and outrage their conservative parents. Had no interest in women, just love attention.

LLMMLL · 14-11-2020 3:09pm

Gruffalux wrote: »

Adult human females are not a subset of woman. They are the set. Cis cannot qualify or sub divide the indivisible ontological category of women. Or men. Or girls. Etc.

If you are desperately looking for a denoter word to attach to me to politically signify me to others, logical will do, thanks. Put me on the list.

No they are not the set as it excludes trans women.

I wouldn’t use the word logical as you are displaying an opinion not logic.

Gervais08 · 14-11-2020 3:09pm

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Its the modern equivalent of those girls in the early 00s who said they were bi sexual to get attention and outrage their conservative parents. Had no interest in women, just love attention.

I know someone who described themselves as pansexual - because Miley Cyrus did.

Wasn't happy when I pointed out that label was applied to Captain Jack from Doctor Who cos he’d **** men, women, aliens, fish, daleks - it wasn’t real!!!

Completely attention seeking crap.

Btw her “lesbian experience” was slow dancing on a hen do to that God awful Katy Perry drivel!!!

Effects · 14-11-2020 3:14pm

suicide_circus wrote: »

Many a woman has a knob now

And someday, maybe people can be attack helicopters, even if they don't have rotors or guns.

speelunker22 · 14-11-2020 3:28pm

LLMMLL wrote: »

Not when getting rid of the "unwanted moniker" is part of a PR campaign to prevent discussion.

It's not that cis people have a problem with the word cis. TERFs have a problem with any word that describes them as a group. It's been repeatedly stated on this thread by TERFs that their issue with the word cis is that there shouldn't be a word to describe them as a subgroup of.women as they believe themselves to be the only group describable by the word "woman".

....
But I'm not capitulating to their PR efforts to play the victim.

Firstly, this "PR Campaign" - please do tell me who is organising, co-ordinating and paying for this supposed campaign. If you are going to bleat on about the paranoia of those who question your stance this surely is a fine example of a paranoid delusion - the idea that there is an organised campaign against trans-people. That's some real tinfoil hat stuff right there.

Secondly - if the spectrum of human gender identity and sexuality is so broad and diverse why do you assume that those you describe as TERFS are a homogenous group with a defined and fixed ideology? Again it's just a highly simplistic method of divisive and juvenile name-calling that does little to advance understanding or dialogue.

Ad finally you mention this anti-trans campaign that aims to prevent discussion but then you bandy about the word TERF in order to shut down discussion. Pot, kettle, black maybe?

14-11-2020 3:39pm

LLMMLL wrote: »

No they are not the set as it excludes trans women.

I wouldn’t use the word logical as you are displaying an opinion not logic.

Trans woman are a subset of men.

LLMMLL · 14-11-2020 3:42pm

speelunker22 wrote: »

Firstly, this "PR Campaign" - please do tell me who is organising, co-ordinating and paying for this supposed campaign. If you are going to bleat on about the paranoia of those who question your stance this surely is a fine example of a paranoid delusion - the idea that there is an organised campaign against trans-people. That's some real tinfoil hat stuff right there.

Secondly - if the spectrum of human gender identity and sexuality is so broad and diverse why do you assume that those you describe as TERFS are a homogenous group with a defined and fixed ideology? Again it's just a highly simplistic method of divisive and juvenile name-calling that does little to advance understanding or dialogue.

Ad finally you mention this anti-trans campaign that aims to prevent discussion but then you bandy about the word TERF in order to shut down discussion. Pot, kettle, black maybe?

I never said it was organised. In fact a few pages ago I specifically said it wasn’t an organised campaign. Generally a few TERFs come up with a new tactic like claiming misogyny, pretending they are concerned about vulnerable young people, or in this case claim that every new piece of language used by TRAs are a slur. Other TERFs see the advantages of these nonsense claims and start making the claims themselves.

Bit strange to compare TERFism to the spectrum of sexuality. Just because sexuality is diverse doesn’t mean that any ideology is diverse. Like all ideologies, there is a little diversity with TERFism. But it’s clear you all pretty much share the same core opinions.

Obviously part of the TERF campaign is to project the “I’m just a concerned citizen” image as part of a PR tactic. They know the more they appear as an ideological group, the more it will harm assessment of their “concerns”. Pure PR.

The word TERF doesn’t shut down discussion. It assists and promotes discussion. It describes someone who holds a set of opinions and allows me to refer to them without having to say “a pers on who believes .....” and list a bunch of opinions which frankly would be quite dull to write or read.

LLMMLL · 14-11-2020 3:43pm

MikeOxsgreen wrote: »

Trans woman are a subset of men.

No they are a subset of women.

Gervais08 · 14-11-2020 3:45pm

MikeOxsgreen wrote: »

Trans woman are a subset of men.

And if they want to dress up and wear make up - grand, ask me to call them “she” and a girls name - again fine, that’s just respectful.

Believe they are actually women and “lesbians” - **** right off.

14-11-2020 3:53pm

LLMMLL wrote: »

No they are a subset of women.

Not all trans women are the same.
There will be sub sets within the group of individuals, distributed along the 'trans woman spectrum' , from early stage self-ID, to fully transitioned, and even individuals de-transitioning back.

All men, of the set of men.

Similarly, trans men are in the set of women.

Gatling · 14-11-2020 3:59pm

LLMMLL wrote: »

No they are a subset of women.

No not true at all ..

This had been done to death to be a subset of women they have to be women in the first place ,
They are men in men's body wearing womens clothing in some cases they don't but they are men "self identifying" to be women

LLMMLL · 14-11-2020 4:01pm

Gatling wrote: »

No not true at all ..

This had been done to death to be a subset of women they have to be women in the first place ,
They are men in men's body wearing womens clothing in some cases they don't but they are men "self identifying" to be women

They are women in the first place. Any kind of transitioning doesn’t change that.

Gervais08 · 14-11-2020 4:04pm

LLMMLL wrote: »

They are women in the first place. Any kind of transitioning doesn’t change that.

Please open a biology test book - something for three year olds should be fine.

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

Comments