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

One eyed Jack · 19-06-2020 10:22am

Gruffalox wrote: »

They are specifically representing transgender people. Politics and sport. Oh I know they are embarrassingly nasty, but they are public reps. On trans issues.

JK Rowling is supported by huge numbers of people. Her book sales have increased. She is very popular with a LOT of women. And representative.

Representative of what, though? I agree they are representative of something, but they do not represent people who are transgender, nor are they representative of the vast majority of people who identify themselves as transgender or something other than male or female, or man or woman, or anything else in any one of thousands of other languages besides English.

I know that JK is supported by huge numbers of people, I know her book sales have increased, I know she is popular with lots of women. None of that actually addresses, let alone refutes the point, that she is not representative of the vast majority of women. It only reinforces the point.

She has by your own admission a huge following, and I would suggest an even greater audience, so any claims of her being oppressed, or any claims that she represents women who are oppressed, are nothing more than hyperbolic rhetoric. She has the right, the same as anyone else in a democratic society, to freedom of expression, everyone has that right. Any right only has any meaning when it is balanced with responsibility towards others. Nobody has the right to be as obnoxious as they please towards others for example -

Freedom of expression is recognized as a human right under article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and recognized in international human rights law in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Article 19 of the UDHR states that "everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference" and "everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice". The version of Article 19 in the ICCPR later amends this by stating that the exercise of these rights carries "special duties and responsibilities" and may "therefore be subject to certain restrictions" when necessary "[f]or respect of the rights or reputation of others" or "[f]or the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of public health or morals".

Freedom of speech

Dyr · 19-06-2020 10:29am

chopperbyrne wrote: »

Literally what Superman and his extended family have always represented.

Superman is about representing the current politics around immigration in the US?

Very prescient of Siegal, did he have a crystal ball ?:D

Gruffalux · 19-06-2020 10:39am

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Representative of what, though? I agree they are representative of something, but they do not represent people who are transgender, nor are they representative of the vast majority of people who identify themselves as transgender or something other than male or female, or man or woman, or anything else in any one of thousands of other languages besides English.

I know that JK is supported by huge numbers of people, I know her book sales have increased, I know she is popular with lots of women. None of that actually addresses, let alone refutes the point, that she is not representative of the vast majority of women. It only reinforces the point.

She has by your own admission a huge following, and I would suggest an even greater audience, so any claims of her being oppressed, or any claims that she represents women who are oppressed, are nothing more than hyperbolic rhetoric. She has the right, the same as anyone else in a democratic society, to freedom of expression, everyone has that right. Any right only has any meaning when it is balanced with responsibility towards others. Nobody has the right to be as obnoxious as they please towards others for example -

Freedom of expression is recognized as a human right under article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and recognized in international human rights law in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Article 19 of the UDHR states that "everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference" and "everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice". The version of Article 19 in the ICCPR later amends this by stating that the exercise of these rights carries "special duties and responsibilities" and may "therefore be subject to certain restrictions" when necessary "[f]or respect of the rights or reputation of others" or "[f]or the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of public health or morals".

Freedom of speech

Perhaps you have a future in writing metaphysical literature where nothing is what it apparently seems, reality is subjective, and speculation presented as fact is positively encouraged ? Anyway. I have stated my observation on representation and supported with real life examples, you have stated yours and readers can make their own determinations. We have made our cases. Let them stand or fall.

mohawk · 19-06-2020 10:42am

For many of us our first understanding of Trans was that they were people- mainly biological males who felt they had been born in the wrong body. Somewhere along the lines in the transgender movement gender became an identity. Transgender is less about being born in the wrong body and more about how you feel.

One definition on gender refers to the social and cultural differences rather then the biological differences (which are defined by biological sex). Many people have been pushing against the traditional gender roles. Many women no longer stay home to mind children for example. There is a push against seeing some jobs as for men and some for woman.

How is it unacceptable for a woman to say that biological sex is real? If you want to redefine what man and woman means then why can’t people give there opinion on it and talk about it. You can’t just attack people for being transphobic if you disagree.

I have seen references to menstrators and people who menstruate in articles but I haven’t seen equivalent definitions for biological males in any newspaper or magazine article. For some reason woman see that as a double standard and shockingly don’t like it.

One eyed Jack · 19-06-2020 10:42am

Bambi wrote: »

Superman is about representing the current politics around immigration in the US?

Very prescient of Siegal, did he have a crystal ball ?:D

Ahh to be fair to chopper, he did misunderstand the point, but he’s correct about Superman, and Mutants, and all the other Superheroes as it were who had extraordinary abilities which humans didn’t have - the underlying theme was always one of an appreciation of diversity, and that on the most fundamental levels which mattered, they weren’t actually any different from ordinary humans.

Wonder Woman is the same if you look into the history of the development her character, or the Black Panther (as distinct from the BPP who are more like precursor equivalent of BLM today

), but what was awkward for me was I went to see the Wonder Woman movie for the women in skimpy outfits, and stayed for the action. I went to see the Black Panther movie for the action, and all I got were men writhing around in skintight leathers

Whatever you’re into, I guess :pac:

PreparationH · 19-06-2020 10:46am

Good lord it's a hard slog getting through this thread and good lord there is some bullsh*t written here too. One person in particular shines through as a laughable obscurantist. So even though it's been said before, here's my 2c...

The simple fact is that in order to believe something that is objectively untrue is that you have to believe lies. Stating that men can become women is a lie. Stating that women can become men is a lie. These statements are objectively untrue and all of the blowhard guffery in the world won't change that fact.

That's the wonderful thing about facts... no matter what you say against them, no matter how impressed you are with your TLDR responses to people, no matter how far you are willing to travel go get around reality, Facts Always come back to bite you. They Never go away.

suicide_circus · 19-06-2020 11:07am

^^^ but some people have made the conscious decision to go along with these untruths because they believe it to the kindest thing to do. I think most of it comes from a good and benevolent place. The issue is when they expect others to go along with it too and call them reprehensible human beings for not falling in line.

CtevenSrowder · 19-06-2020 11:14am

suicide_circus wrote: »

^^^ but some people have made the conscious decision to go along with these untruths because they believe it to the kindest thing to do. I think most of it comes from a good and benevolent place. The issue is when they expect others to go along with it too and call them reprehensible human beings for not falling in line.

'I think most of it comes from a good and benevolent place'.

I'm starting to even doubt this. I think a lot of these people are bullies who want to assert control, are authoritarian. I'm talking about the trans women are women crowd here in particular, not the ones who accept this isn't the case. You see this with a poster being reprehended for leaving out the s in trans. It gets hopped on and suddenly they are denying peoples existence.

One eyed Jack · 19-06-2020 11:45am

suicide_circus wrote: »

The issue is when they expect others to go along with it too and call them reprehensible human beings for not falling in line.

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

I think a lot of these people are bullies who want to assert control, are authoritarian.

Lads if one of yiz even could explain to me how your view of others is any different from their view of ye, I’d love to hear it.

You’ve both claimed (rightly!), that there are people who behave like authoritarian bullies who expect others to go along with their ideas, and they declare those who don’t are reprehensible human beings who want to assert control over other people.

Honestly like, beam in thine own eye much?

CtevenSrowder · 19-06-2020 11:48am

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Lads if one of yiz even could explain to me how your view of others is any different from their view of ye, I’d love to hear it.

You’ve both claimed (rightly!), that there are people who behave like authoritarian bullies who expect others to go along with their ideas, and they declare those who don’t are reprehensible human beings who want to assert control over other people.

Honestly like, beam in thine own eye much?

I'm talking of people insulting you for saying that men and woman are different, that a trans-woman isn't a woman etc. It is not authoritarian to say that is the case. It is objectively true. So no beams are near me thanks.

suicide_circus · 19-06-2020 11:58am

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Lads if one of yiz even could explain to me how your view of others is any different from their view of ye, I’d love to hear it.

You’ve both claimed (rightly!), that there are people who behave like authoritarian bullies who expect others to go along with their ideas, and they declare those who don’t are reprehensible human beings who want to assert control over other people.

Honestly like, beam in thine own eye much?

I think people who believe this stuff are wrong but I dont think they're evil. I won't look to cancel them or get them sacked. I won't threaten them. Not accusing you personally of this Jack btw.

Annasopra · 19-06-2020 12:17pm

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

'I think most of it comes from a good and benevolent place'.

I'm starting to even doubt this. I think a lot of these people are bullies who want to assert control, are authoritarian. I'm talking about the trans women are women crowd here in particular, not the ones who accept this isn't the case. You see this with a poster being reprehended for leaving out the s in trans. It gets hopped on and suddenly they are denying peoples existence.

No

Thats not the case; it wasn't about leaving the s out. It was referring to a person as "a tran"/"a trans" and not a "a trans person" - that is like "a disabled" - It's dehumanising language that doesn't acknowledge that we are talking about people. It's really odd that you think it is bullying to ask for respect in how people are addressed/referred to to be honest.

Gruffalux · 19-06-2020 12:23pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTRnrp9pXHY

Last night BBC Newsnight. Re Tavistock. Note very early in video homophobia among some parents is witnessed by medical consultants as motivation for pushing their children to transition. Concerns by staff in general are ignored. 40 staff have resigned in past 3 years.

CtevenSrowder · 19-06-2020 12:29pm

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

No

Thats not the case; it wasn't about leaving the s out. It was referring to a person as "a tran"/"a trans" and not a "a trans person" - that is like "a disabled" - It's dehumanising language that doesn't acknowledge that we are talking about people. It's really odd that you think it is bullying to ask for respect in how people are addressed/referred to to be honest.

So are the words cis and terf. Doesn't stop you using them, or hopping in to threads to accuse people of transphobia before disappearing again, and refusing to engage.

You still haven't given a definition for what a woman and female are? Why is it OK to dehumanise women and deny their existence?

Annasopra · 19-06-2020 12:35pm

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

So are the words cis and terf. Doesn't stop you using them, or hopping in to threads to accuse people of transphobia before disappearing again, and refusing to engage.

You still haven't given a definition for what a woman and female are? Why is it OK to dehumanise women and deny their existence?

We're getting there. You acknowledge the dehumanisation going on...

One eyed Jack · 19-06-2020 12:37pm

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

I'm talking of people insulting you for saying that men and woman are different, that a trans-woman isn't a woman etc. It is not authoritarian to say that is the case. It is objectively true. So no beams are near me thanks.

That’s the point I’m asking about - from their perspective (that is the people who don’t share your ideas), you’re insulting them by describing them in a way they don’t agree with. It’s the very definition of authoritarian to suggest that your ideas are objectively true and their ideas are wrong or false or any of the rest of it. It’s even more authoritarian when anyone pulls the Ben Shapiro quote while failing to spot the irony. It’s very simple really - there are people who exist who do not describe themselves as women. Biology hasn’t changed. Language has changed. Language, as JK undoubtedly is aware, changes all the time. I can think of about fifty odd names for my John Thomas as an example. The biology hasn’t changed, the names for it have undoubtedly changed, and become widespread over time in the same way any ideas are spread.

Nobody is compelled, nor can be compelled to agree with those definitions, and trying to compel people to do so only makes others perceive the person who tries to compel others to fall into line, as an authoritarian asshole unworthy of their respect. I was recently invited to an occasion where the organisers were fundraising for a persons treatment. I declined the invitation and they knew why already - because they knew I disagree with the idea in principle. They figured I might be sympathetic, they were wrong, and it was insulting to ask me to support something they were aware I fundamentally disagree with. I know there was no ill intent on their part, it was just thoughtless, or as suicide circus says - coming from a good place.

I don’t think what JK did was coming from a good place, I think she could have just as easily argued her point on principle without referring to the literature of an organisation which was coming from a good place. Even if she disagreed with it, she didn’t have to be so obnoxious in highlighting it to be ridiculed and encourage other people to join in the ridicule and mocking. She doesn’t deserve to be piled on, but that is a natural consequence of what happens when thousands of people disagree with someone who has such a prominent platform in society. The women she was mocking for their ideas didn’t have nearly as big a platform, and their reach and power to be able to spread their ideas was considerably more limited. If JK had even considered that for a moment, she may not have considered their ideas so immediately unworthy and subjected them to ridicule. But she didn’t, because JK knows what power she has, and determined that granted her the authority to encourage her followers to pile on someone else while she got to play the victim as though the organisation in question which JK highlighted herself, had come after her to tell her that she no longer exists, or was ‘cancelled’ or any of the rest of that insidious language of playing the victim.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 19-06-2020 12:38pm

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Its still not appropriate to call PEOPLE a trans. They are not objects. They are people. Its dehumanising language.

No problem with TERF though? Hypocrite.

CtevenSrowder · 19-06-2020 12:44pm

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

We're getting there. You acknowledge the dehumanisation going on...

So you admit to doing it yourself. Good.

As you say, we're getting there. Next step, acknowledging that biological males cannot be women. First up, can you bring yourself to define what a woman is? Or a female?

PreparationH · 19-06-2020 12:50pm

suicide_circus wrote: »

^^^ but some people have made the conscious decision to go along with these untruths because they believe it to the kindest thing to do. I think most of it comes from a good and benevolent place. The issue is when they expect others to go along with it too and call them reprehensible human beings for not falling in line.

If they believe the kindest thing to do is enable a mental disorder rather than treat it, well that is their own affair. They have clearly come to peace with lying to themselves and, as you say, to others too.

I will not fall in line with their lies, nor will their reprehensible bullying change my view. A lie is a lie regardless of what "Emperors Clothes" they dress it in.

PreparationH · 19-06-2020 12:53pm

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

'I think most of it comes from a good and benevolent place'.

I'm starting to even doubt this. I think a lot of these people are bullies who want to assert control, are authoritarian.

Trust me, as someone who has come late to this thread. You don't have to read very far in this thread to reach those doubts.

CtevenSrowder · 19-06-2020 12:58pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That’s the point I’m asking about - from their perspective (that is the people who don’t share your ideas), you’re insulting them by describing them in a way they don’t agree with. It’s the very definition of authoritarian to suggest that your ideas are objectively true and their ideas are wrong or false or any of the rest of it

My 'ideas', that a man is not a woman, and that you cannot change your sex, are objectively true. As I said to you earlier:

We've reached a stage were the definition can be rigid. It's rigid now, that's the point. If someone finds something so brilliant that it usurps the biological definition of male and female to the extent where one can become the other then they will no doubt win the Nobel Prize in Medicine and Physiology and we will all have to accept and adapt to this new biological reality. I won't hedge my bets though.

It doesn't matter if they agree or not. It is what they are. Maybe that makes Mother Nature an authoritative bitch, but what can you do, that's the Universe we exist in.

suicide_circus · 19-06-2020 1:09pm

PreparationH wrote: »

If they believe the kindest thing to do is enable a mental disorder rather than treat it, well that is their own affair. They have clearly come to peace with lying to themselves and, as you say, to others too.

I will not fall in line with their lies, nor will their reprehensible bullying change my view. A lie is a lie regardless of what "Emperors Clothes" they dress it in.

i'm afraid youre not allowed to describe it as a mental disorder. Even though its diagnosed by people who deal with mental disorders and various mental health issues.

PreparationH · 19-06-2020 1:21pm

suicide_circus wrote: »

i'm afraid youre not allowed to describe it as a mental disorder. Even though its diagnosed by people who deal with mental disorders and various mental health issues.

It is precisely when we are told we "cannot say it" that we must. It doesn't matter what it is, we Must say it. That is the essence of free speech and the foundation of all that is demonstrably, factually true.

Otherwise we're just farting in the breeze.

One eyed Jack · 19-06-2020 1:25pm

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

My 'ideas', that a man is not a woman, and that you cannot change your sex, are objectively true. As I said to you earlier:

It doesn't matter if they agree or not. It is what they are. Maybe that makes Mother Nature an authoritative bitch, but what can you do, that's the Universe we exist in.

You’re doing a JK on it now and passing off responsibility for your attitude towards others who disagree with you as being someone else’s fault. Mother Nature is as good as any other intangible figure of authority I suppose in absolving you of any responsibility for your opinions. I wouldn’t perceive it as any indication you bear any animosity towards women though, I know what you mean

The Universe we exist in is one where there are people whose opinions I don’t share, it doesn’t mean I have the capacity to will them out of existence simply by saying I’m right because biology and objective truth and all the rest of it, and they’re wrong. That’s as much a denial of reality as you’re accusing other people of being guilty of.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 19-06-2020 1:32pm

PreparationH wrote: »

It is precisely when we are told we "cannot say it" that we must. It doesn't matter what it is, we Must say it. That is the essence of free speech and the foundation of all that is demonstrably, factually true.

Otherwise we're just farting in the breeze.

What suicide circus means is I think that it’s a bannable/infractable offence on boards.ie. I’m pretty sure I’ve seen people actioned for calling it a mental disorder before. And there’s no free speech on boards unfortunately.

CtevenSrowder · 19-06-2020 1:33pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You’re doing a JK on it now and passing off responsibility for your attitude towards others who disagree with you as being someone else’s fault. Mother Nature is as good as any other intangible figure of authority I suppose in absolving you of any responsibility for your opinions. I wouldn’t perceive it as any indication you bear any animosity towards women though, I know what you mean

The Universe we exist in is one where there are people whose opinions I don’t share, it doesn’t mean I have the capacity to will them out of existence simply by saying I’m right because biology and objective truth and all the rest of it, and they’re wrong. That’s as much a denial of reality as you’re accusing other people of being guilty of.

It is not an opinion. This is the point. It's not opinion. It is a fact. Just because some people don't like those facts does not mean they are not true. They can have an opinion that those facts are wrong, but they have to provide some kind of evidence as to why that is the case.

In my opinion I'm the actor Brad Pitt. I'm not though am I! That is an opinion that is demonstratively false. So is the opinion that a trans-women is a women. They are not though. It is demonstratively false.

PreparationH · 19-06-2020 1:36pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The Universe we exist in is one where there are people whose opinions I don’t share, it doesn’t mean I have the capacity to will them out of existence simply.

That's not what he said at all. That's what you said because it suits your narrative. Those are the words that the radical left professors coined to fight this argument but it is deeply disingenuous and a tired diversion from the truth.

These people exist. How they feel is none of my business. If they want to perceive themselves as a cherry topped jelly it is none of my business. However, the moment that they want to impose their wants onto me and tell me that not only am I wrong, that I also must believe the obvious lies they hold to be true... Well then that's when they go too far. That is tyranny and it is WRONG.

Painting it as "willing them out of existence"... you really are going to have to do better than that.

PreparationH · 19-06-2020 1:38pm

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

What suicide circus means is I think that it’s a bannable/infractable offence on boards.ie. I’m pretty sure I’ve seen people actioned for calling it a mental disorder before. And there’s no free speech on boards unfortunately.

I would rather be in hell with the truth than in heaven with liars.

CtevenSrowder · 19-06-2020 1:39pm

PreparationH wrote: »

That's not what he said at all. That's what you said because it suits your narrative. Those are the words that the radical left professors coined to fight this argument but it is deeply disingenuous and a tired diversion from the truth.

These people exist. How they feel is none of my business. If they want to perceive themselves as a cherry topped jelly it is none of my business. However, the moment that they want to impose their wants onto me and tell me that not only am I wrong, that I also must believe the obvious lies they hold to be true... Well then that's when they go too far. That is tyranny and it is WRONG.

Painting it as "willing them out of existence"... you really are going to have to do better than that.

I believe his willing them out point was willing out opinions as opposed to people.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 19-06-2020 1:43pm

PreparationH wrote: »

I would rather be in hell with the truth than in heaven with liars.

With this sentiment, I agree.

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

Comments