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

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 10-06-2020 10:28am

seamus wrote: »

That's fine. I just wanted you to clarify that indeed it's not about "the strictest possible guidelines" at all, it's about keeping men, specifically, away from vulnerable groups.

Do you feel that this segregation should be expanded? Perhaps men shouldn't be permitted in schools with female students? What about residential carers? Or tutors? Or nurses?

Should child protection regulations be different for men and for women?

Wow, people got really fixated in that wording, didn’t they? Talk about missing the point by a country mile. Which... fair enough. Knock yourself out.

Of course it’s about keeping vulnerable groups safe from the group that contains the people most likely to harm others. Most males (again, never changes) will never harm anyone, but if violence is going to happen, it will almost always come from this group. I can’t believe you thought I was going to dodge that and try to prevaricate. That’s been my point all along.

As for the second bolded bit, I think figure out what the best safeguarding rules should be and apply them to both men and women. Nobody would really have an issue with that, I should think. That works cover “violence comes mostly from males, but females can be violent too”.

I’m happy to say I don’t have all the answers here. I’m not a social worker. But at least I’m not working under some kind is naïve optimism bias that everything will be okay and we’re all just nice and kind to each other.

Oh, and the middle paragraph of your post is just silly. And you know it. I mean, knock yourself out standing by it which I have no doubt you will. But it just makes you look daft. I’m happy to not respond to it and anyone with a half a brain will realise why. You’ll probably take that as a “gotcha!”.

One eyed Jack · 10-06-2020 10:37am

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Of course women pose a risk. However, men pose far more of a risk. We know this from male and female patterns of criminality. There is also the physical differences in strength to consider. That’s why women fought for same sex spaces. Note: male and female, something that never changes. From my experience, communal changing facilities - certainly where children will be - DO have self-contained units. And communal changing places are few and far between.

But, no, come at me, Seamus. Let’s see you catch me out. This will be fun. Can’t wait to see the same few handful of users - at best - thank your reply.

Men pose no more of a danger to women than women pose to men or vice versa. By your suggestion you would have society perceive fathers, brothers and sons as a danger to women, and most people just don’t think like that, most women don’t think like that, most men don’t think like that.

Women didn’t fight for single sex spaces either, the fact is they fought against them, so that they would be treated equal to men. Single sex schools are not as popular as they once were and many people both men and women, parents, prefer that their children attend mixed sex schools, because they see them as better for their children’s personal and social development.

What you’re trying to argue for has nothing to do with protecting anyone from harm, it doesn’t and it won’t, because people who want to inflict harm on others don’t care for social graces, let alone laws that prohibit their behaviour. No matter what social structures you argue for, it wouldn’t matter, because anyone who is determined to inflict harm on others will find a way to do so regardless of what the law says.

The idea of encouraging people to perceive anyone as a threat to their safety won’t be codified in law any time soon. Quite the opposite - some campaigners are trying to encourage more men to become stay at home fathers and childcare providers in the pursuit of women’s equality. I can’t see it gaining any real traction myself, but I don’t see any good reason why I should perceive my son as a threat to society either. I wouldn’t encourage him to become so neurotic as to perceive women as a threat to his safety like a tiny minority of neurotic men would have people believe and institute laws on that basis either, because that would be encouraging prejudice and bigotry based upon paranoia and neuroticism, really not something i would be keen to encourage in society.

OscarMIlde · 10-06-2020 10:43am

LLMMLL wrote: »

It's kind of assuming men can't be feminists.

It is interesting that most terfy types are women of a certain age though. I do wonder what the underlying psychology is.

Not being afraid to speak their mind most likely.

OscarMIlde · 10-06-2020 10:45am

Gruffalox wrote: »

https://twitter.com/faintlyfalling/status/1270410188714098688?s=19

This chap, who seems like a lovely charming sort just stating the obvious, is getting no hysterical narcisstic rage over on Twitter. And yet he is flat out denying transmen are men. The actual factual biological reality of the male penis and its sexy activities seems to be important to him as a gay man. Mysterious.

It only seems to be (biological) women who need to put up and shut up.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 10-06-2020 10:51am

Gruffalox wrote: »

https://twitter.com/faintlyfalling/status/1270410188714098688?s=19

This chap, who seems like a lovely charming sort just stating the obvious, is getting no hysterical narcisstic rage over on Twitter. And yet he is flat out denying transmen are men. The actual factual biological reality of the male penis and its sexy activities seems to be important to him as a gay man. Mysterious.

LOL, I read through that thread and chuckled at the guy saying he has no interest in a “tube of forearm”. :pac:

One eyed Jack · 10-06-2020 10:52am

SouthWesterly wrote: »

And such is the stupidity of the idea. If I don't have all the qualities of a brick, I'm not a brick even if I want to be one.

It's no different to saying I'm Superman. I can't fly, see through walls or jump over tall buildings but hey let's tell SW he's Superman even though the evidence doesn't support it.

Ok so now you don’t want to be called a brick? Fair enough. You can call yourself a brick or Superman or whatever else you like, you’re not interfering in my life simply by seeking to be called Superman, so what if you can’t fly? Plenty of people have all sorts of disabilities and it doesn’t mean they’re any less human? If you want to call yourself Superman, you go right ahead. If you want Irish law to recognise you as Superman, then you have a 20 year fight on your hands -

Lydia Foy

Good luck with that.

Eric Cartman · 10-06-2020 10:52am

OscarMIlde wrote: »

It only seems to be (biological) women who need to put up and shut up.

+1 , even in the lesbian section of the 'LGBT' community, the shaming of people using terms like 'gold star lesbian' for never having had sex with a man / trans woman ,

it just seems like the entire 'woke' movement all has just boiled down to everyone of every gender being forced to accept a penis inside them at some point and if they don't they're a bigot.

Dyr · 10-06-2020 10:59am

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Men pose no more of a danger to women than women pose to men or vice versa.

Maybe in the looking glass universe you live in, but every criminal statistic in this universe says otherwise.

Dyr · 10-06-2020 11:03am

OscarMIlde wrote: »

Not being afraid to speak their mind most likely.

In Fairness most of them (like JKR) were on board until they saw that the logical conclusion of the premise was screwing them

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 10-06-2020 11:11am

Bambi wrote: »

Maybe in the looking glass universe you live in, but every criminal statistic in this universe says otherwise.

It’s unbelievable the faux-naif denial of reality by some. Even a cursory glance at the prison populations of different countries will tell that men pose more of a risk. Of course some of that is down to women getting more lenient sentences but that doesn’t account for all of the disparity.

There are other issues outside of violence or criminality as well. So many other issues. Just plain comfort even. For example, it doesn’t bother me personally if my doctor is male or female. But some women only want gynaecological checks done by women and some men only want their prostate checked by men. And as people will always be male or female, how they identify personally probably doesn’t matter to the person who wants a particular doctor.

One eyed Jack · 10-06-2020 11:12am

Bambi wrote: »

Maybe in the looking glass universe you live in, but every criminal statistic in this universe says otherwise.

Well if you’re going to use criminal statistics in support of your argument that men should be perceived as a threat to women, then there are a greater percentage of black men incarcerated than there are men of any skin colour in dresses incarcerated. On that basis it would it would be entirely justifiable to treat black men as though they are a greater threat to women than men in dresses. It’s not an argument I could see gaining much support, but have at it if you like.

LLMMLL · 10-06-2020 11:15am

seamus wrote: »

Then communal changing rooms should be removed.

Because women present a risk to other women, sexual and physical violence against women is not the sole preserve of men.

So going by your logic, the "strictest possible guidelines" would ensure that everyone, male or female, child or adult, is provided with a private cubicle in vulnerable spaces such as changing rooms and toilets.

Yup and men are definitely at risk from other men. Multiple cases of secret cameras in men's changing rooms. Multiple cases of sexual harassment. We don't ban gay men from men's changing rooms (not should we) because of the actions of an extreme minority.

OscarMIlde · 10-06-2020 11:17am

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Well if you’re going to use criminal statistics in support of your argument that men should be perceived as a threat to women, then there are a greater percentage of black men incarcerated than there are men of any skin colour in dresses incarcerated. On that basis it would it would be entirely justifiable to treat black men as though they are a greater threat to women than men in dresses. It’s not an argument I could see gaining much support, but have at it if you like.

I'd say if those statistics were corrected to account for predisposing factors such as drug use/abuse, educational background, and household income, there wouldn't be such a disparity in white and black offending rates. I doubt such corrections would alter the violent crime ratio of me to women much however.

Homelander · 10-06-2020 11:18am

The mental gymnastics on display in this thread to defeat or deflect common sense and logic is breath taking.

LLMMLL · 10-06-2020 11:18am

Bambi wrote: »

I remember a time when a sniff mysogyny would have certain mods white knighting all over it. Guess the biological ladies are no longer top of the weirdo hierarchy of opression

Except I never called anyone a dried up old hag. Just pointing out that a certain viewpoint is more common amongst a certain age range of women. It's an interesting phenomenon.

Of course if ye think think this is some sort of hate speech you are far more sensitive than the Twitter activists that bother you so much.

Woke Hogan · 10-06-2020 11:20am

The obvious solution to the changing room issue, surely, is to install a third gender-neutral changing room for people who don't identify as a cis-male or female.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 10-06-2020 11:20am

OscarMIlde wrote: »

I'd say if those statistics were corrected to account for predisposing factors such as drug use/abuse, educational background, and household income, there wouldn't be such a disparity in white and black offending rates. I doubt such corrections would alter the violent crime ratio of me to women much however.

With men on women, the strength differential is a huge part of it too. Even if women received violence 50/50 from men and women (which they don’t), male on female violence will almost always cause more damage.

LLMMLL · 10-06-2020 11:21am

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Oh look, more lazy insults. Par the course really. And stop using the term cis.

Why would I stop using the term cis? It's a perfectly valid way of describing people. I love.how anti-trans people are so upset over What they see as others trying to control their language but can't help doing it themselves.

LLMMLL · 10-06-2020 11:22am

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

With men on women, the strength differential is a huge part of it too. Even if women received violence 50/50 from men and women (which they don’t), male on female violence will almost always cause more damage.

So let's just forget about male victims I suppose. And a lot of what both men and women face isn't actual violence but peeping and harassment. Men have no more defense against that than women.

Should we ban gay men and women from single sex spaces?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 10-06-2020 11:22am

Woke Hogan wrote: »

The obvious solution to the changing room issue, surely, is to install a third gender-neutral changing room for people who don't identify as a cis-male or female.

Yes, this is a good solution. However, not all buildings are able to provide this. Some barely have room for male and female facilities.

LLMMLL · 10-06-2020 11:25am

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Wow, people got really fixated in that wording, didn’t they? Talk about missing the point by a country mile. Which... fair enough. Knock yourself out.

Of course it’s about keeping vulnerable groups safe from the group that contains the people most likely to harm others. Most males (again, never changes) will never harm anyone, but if violence is going to happen, it will almost always come from this group. I can’t believe you thought I was going to dodge that and try to prevaricate. That’s been my point all along.

As for the second bolded bit, I think figure out what the best safeguarding rules should be and apply them to both men and women. Nobody would really have an issue with that, I should think. That works cover “violence comes mostly from males, but females can be violent too”.

I’m happy to say I don’t have all the answers here. I’m not a social worker. But at least I’m not working under some kind is naïve optimism bias that everything will be okay and we’re all just nice and kind to each other.

Oh, and the middle paragraph of your post is just silly. And you know it. I mean, knock yourself out standing by it which I have no doubt you will. But it just makes you look daft. I’m happy to not respond to it and anyone with a half a brain will realise why. You’ll probably take that as a “gotcha!”.

It's not silly at all. It's pointing out that your "strictest possible guidelines" stuff was completely made up. There are no guidelines. It's all about what YOU internally feel is acceptable. Who YOU feel is at most risk.

Which is absolutely fine. You can have an opinion on who's at risk. Just don't pretend you're following child safety guidelines.

Woke Hogan · 10-06-2020 11:26am

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Yes, this is a good solution. However, not all buildings are able to provide this. Some barely have room for male and female facilities.

It seems apparent to me then that whatever the requirements are regarding changing room facilities for men/women should be updated then, similarly to when disabled toilets were brought in.

CtevenSrowder · 10-06-2020 11:29am

LLMMLL wrote: »

Except I never called anyone a dried up old hag. Just pointing out that a certain viewpoint is more common amongst a certain age range of women. It's an interesting phenomenon.

Of course if ye think think this is some sort of hate speech you are far more sensitive than the Twitter activists that bother you so much.

You could say the very same about your ultra progressive ideology. It predominates amongst young, university educated women most of whom take their political cues from America (or are American themselves) who love to tell others of their privilege without ever acknowledging their own. The minority of the older demographic are usually academics, work in the media or arts.

FVP3 · 10-06-2020 11:29am

LLMMLL wrote: »

Yup and men are definitely at risk from other men. Multiple cases of secret cameras in men's changing rooms. Multiple cases of sexual harassment. We don't ban gay men from men's changing rooms (not should we) because of the actions of an extreme minority.

No we shouldn't. Hard to police that anyhoo. However self identification allows all men access to all womens spaces. Not just transwomen, because people cant be expected to carry their passport around all the time.

I wonder about people like you. I assume a few years ago, as a feminist, you would have been opposed to men accessing protected female spaces. Now someone just changes the rhetoric a bit, and biological men are women if they think it, and thus the entire edifice of what you once believed is overthrown and you now believe the opposite. Men everywhere. Screw safety. Men in women's refuges, in women's prisons, on all female lists, in sports.

It must have been something like that when protestantism swept through northern europe, which had been prior to that the most pious and catholic part of Europe. I have often wondered how many people went with the flow, how many genuinely believed the opposite of what they once believed.

It seems genuine in your case, this isn't a forum where you need to be politically correct, as none of us are posting under our own names.

One eyed Jack · 10-06-2020 11:33am

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

It’s unbelievable the faux-naif denial of reality by some. Even a cursory glance at the prison populations of different countries will tell that men pose more of a risk. Of course some of that is down to women getting more lenient sentences but that doesn’t account for all of the disparity.

All it will actually tell you is that men are incarcerated, it won’t tell you anything about the threat posed by anyone in the general population. You claimed some sort of scientific credentials earlier, so I have to consider the fact that you are blatantly misrepresenting statistics in order to support your argument. As a percentage of the whole population, how many men are incarcerated vs those that aren’t?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

There are other issues outside of violence or criminality as well. So many other issues. Just plain comfort even. For example, it doesn’t bother me personally if my doctor is male or female. But some women only want gynaecological checks done by women and some men only want their prostate checked by men. And as people will always be male or female, how they identify personally probably doesn’t matter to the person who wants a particular doctor.

People could always choose their doctors, that hasn’t changed. You’re arguing as though people who are transgender don’t require healthcare when how they identify personally matters a great deal to them, and that’s why many of them are reluctant to seek treatment when they’re ill, or participate in screening programmes, and seeking a medical professional who understands them is more important to them than a lot of the considerations people who aren’t transgender take for granted.

FVP3 · 10-06-2020 11:37am

LLMMLL wrote: »

Except I never called anyone a dried up old hag. Just pointing out that a certain viewpoint is more common amongst a certain age range of women. It's an interesting phenomenon.
.

Its definitely a bias though, although I doubt you yourself are very young. As CtevenSrowder alluded to this is really an American imperialist ideology which controls younger minds hacked by US television, movies and culture wars. We have always had two of those, the latter is relatively new. All are linked, if the Kardashians didnt have a transitioned family member I think the spread of the ideology would have been more limited.

Which is maybe why the Harry Potter fans in the US are so upset with Rowling, and why she has taken a stance. By and large the cultural control by the Empire of English speaking countries is near absolute. Not always though. Rowling is British, and British ( and Australian) feminists have had the rug pulled out from under them, but are mounting some resistance. Rowling has some cultural power that pushes back against Empire, and boy are they mad.

carolmon · 10-06-2020 11:40am

LLMMLL wrote: »

Except I never called anyone a dried up old hag. Just pointing out that a certain viewpoint is more common amongst a certain age range of women. It's an interesting phenomenon.

No you never called anybody a dried-up old hag you just implied the women on boards are likely to be from the " spinstery TERF demographic"

Please enlighten me... in this Brave New World of obfuscated language is that a compliment?

JoannaJag · 10-06-2020 11:41am

LLMMLL wrote: »

Except I never called anyone a dried up old hag. Just pointing out that a certain viewpoint is more common amongst a certain age range of women.

What do you mean by women, you old terf?

FVP3 · 10-06-2020 11:41am

One eyed Jack wrote: »

All it will actually tell you is that men are incarcerated, it won’t tell you anything about the threat posed by anyone in the general population. You claimed some sort of scientific credentials earlier, so I have to consider the fact that you are blatantly misrepresenting statistics in order to support your argument. As a percentage of the whole population, how many men are incarcerated vs those that aren’t?

Honestly your post indicate you have little or no understanding of basic statistics. The number of men incarcerated vs those that aren’t isnt relevant. It is the number men incarcerated vs women.

People could always choose their doctors, that hasn’t changed. You’re arguing as though people who are transgender don’t require healthcare when how they identify personally matters a great deal to them, and that’s why many of them are reluctant to seek treatment when they’re ill, or participate in screening programmes, and seeking a medical professional who understands them is more important to them than a lot of the considerations people who aren’t transgender take for granted.

How they identify has little effect on the biological reality. A non transitioned transwoman who has testicular cancer has to be treated as a biological male. Reality intrudes.

CtevenSrowder · 10-06-2020 11:42am

LLMMLL wrote: »

Why would I stop using the term cis? It's a perfectly valid way of describing people. I love.how anti-trans people are so upset over What they see as others trying to control their language but can't help doing it themselves.

Because it's offensive, full of hatred and bigoted. You have to stop doing it because of this. That's why.

Control of our language you say; you want us to call biological men women, that is absolutely trying to control language. A trans-women is a biological male, or put another way, they are not:

An adult human female

because a female is:

of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes.

or if you'd prefer:

an individual of the sex that is typically capable of bearing young or producing eggs

so by calling people bigots, transphobes, hateful or whatever for not calling trans-women woman, you are absolutely trying to control language and by default people by trying to shame and humiliate them into calling something something it isn't.

* https://www.google.com/search?q=female+definition&oq=female+def&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0l7.3725j1j9&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

** https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/female

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

Comments