Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
12467…207

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    LineOfBeauty
    Registered Users Posts: 2,211 ✭✭✭LineOfBeauty


    Deleted User wrote: »
    They can be choose to live their life how they want. I draw the line where they demand that people accept their reality in spite of biological fact.

    Trangender people have the exact same rights as the people who are the same sex as themselves.

    They shouldn't have the same rights as the sex they want to be. Women and men have different.

    So basically you don't accept the rights of transgender people. That's not a stretch of a statement, that's literally exactly what you are saying in that comment.


  • Options
    #93
    jimgoose
    Registered Users Posts: 20,174 ✭✭✭✭jimgoose


    LineOfBeauty wrote: »
    So basically you don't accept the rights of transgender people. That's not a stretch of a statement, that's literally exactly what you are saying in that comment.

    I don't believe a male-to-female transgender individual should have the right to wave his/her/whatever mickey around in a women's restroom. Am I wrong, in these enlightened times?


  • Options
    #94
    Winning_Stroke
    Closed Accounts Posts: 224 ✭✭Winning_Stroke


    LineOfBeauty wrote: »
    So basically you don't accept the rights of transgender people. That's not a stretch of a statement, that's literally exactly what you are saying in that comment.

    What rights?


  • Options
    #95
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    jimgoose wrote: »
    I don't believe a male-to-female transgender individual should have the right to wave his/her/whatever mickey around in a women's restroom. Am I wrong, in these enlightened times?
    WTF do you get up to in a toilet that involves waving your mickey around the place? Tbh, I don't want anyone having that right in any toilet.


  • Options
    #96
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,075 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    LineOfBeauty wrote: »
    So basically you don't accept the rights of transgender people. That's not a stretch of a statement, that's literally exactly what you are saying in that comment.
    I support the rights of anyone to be who they want to be and how they want to live their lives, right up to the moment where their rights impinge on other's rights. The obvious if extreme example is the Canadian wierdo(and that's being kind) who has a fetish for menstruation, insisting salons wax his "lady balls" and wanting to hang out in women and girl's changing rooms. GTFO.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    LineOfBeauty wrote: »
    So basically you don't accept the rights of transgender people. That's not a stretch of a statement, that's literally exactly what you are saying in that comment.

    I don't accept that men should be able to claim to be physical women (and vice versa) and gain access to places or have the same rights that are exclusively for women.

    That is literally what I am saying.

    I have to ask you, where do YOU draw the line when it comes to accepting other peoples reality?

    If someone claims to be a different age, will you treat them as such and give them access to age specific areas?

    Or is it only transgenderism where your willingness to deny reality lies?


  • Options
    #98
    Sudden Valley
    Registered Users Posts: 3,899 ✭✭✭Sudden Valley


    Is the problem that the psychiatrists are of the opinion that trans people have changed their gender once they have fully transitioned and the general public just dont subscribe to this view?


  • Options
    #99
    Calhoun
    Registered Users Posts: 7,447 ✭✭✭Calhoun


    Wibbs wrote: »
    I support the rights of anyone to be who they want to be and how they want to live their lives, right up to the moment where their rights impinge on other's rights. The obvious if extreme example is the Canadian wierdo(and that's being kind) who has a fetish for menstruation, insisting salons wax his "lady balls" and wanting to hang out in women and girl's changing rooms. GTFO.

    Adding in to this the person in question has a fetish for young girls periods and wanted to host a topless pool party for underage kids with no parental supervision.

    It could be argued they are just an extreme taking advantage but a Canadian LGBT charity requested it before her.

    If they stir clear of kids and using their position to abuse others be all grand.


  • Options
    #100
    johnnyskeleton
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,465 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    The future is having unisex single occupant bathrooms ans then everyone can get along. Or like in Australia there can be male and female multi user toilets and one or two single user unisex bathrooms. Disabled toilets could be rebranded as "access" toilets and would be ideal for anyone who doesnt feel comfortable using multi user toilets


  • Options
    #101
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,713 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I don't accept that men should be able to claim to be physical women (and vice versa) and gain access to places or have the same rights that are exclusively for women.

    That is literally what I am saying.

    I have to ask you, where do YOU draw the line when it comes to accepting other peoples reality?

    If someone claims to be a different age, will you treat them as such and give them access to age specific areas?

    Or is it only transgenderism where your willingness to deny reality lies?


    So what do you propose?


    Take public toilets for example, are you suggesting that any man or woman (be they transgender or cisgender) could be required to prove their gender to use a toilet?


    Legally in Ireland, transgender people are recognised as the gender they identify as. To do suggest otherwise is, to use your own term, deny reality.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    ELM327
    Registered Users Posts: 21,373 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    Delirium wrote: »
    So what do you propose?


    Take public toilets for example, are you suggesting that any man or woman (be they transgender or cisgender) could be required to prove their gender to use a toilet?


    Legally in Ireland, transgender people are recognised as the gender they identify as. To do suggest otherwise is, to use your own term, deny reality.
    +1


    There are two topics at hand here
    Biology/sex, and gender.
    Gender is a social construct and anyone can and should identify as whatever gender they want to be.


    However you cannot change your biological sex.


  • Options
    #103
    Limpy
    Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 1,105 ✭✭✭Limpy


    I think people are just jealous. Lafonda who used to be Larry with the 12 inch shlong can shower with the women and not be called a creep. That's not a penis unless you indentify as a male, Lafonda is a female the schlong is just a piece of meat.


  • Options
    #104
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Delirium wrote: »
    So what do you propose?


    Take public toilets for example, are you suggesting that any man or woman (be they transgender or cisgender) could be required to prove their gender to use a toilet?


    Legally in Ireland, transgender people are recognised as the gender they identify as. To do suggest otherwise is, to use your own term, deny reality.

    I propose that men and women use their own bathrooms in accordance to what their sex is. A transgender woman is not a biological woman.

    I am not advocating for border style checks in toilets. The way it works now. Just common sense. There are no checks at the moment to stop men using the ladies. They just don't.

    I'd be more concerned about changing rooms or other areas where adults and children are in various states of undress or are vulnerable.

    I am not denying reality. Men cannot physically become women by virtue of wanting to do so.

    The fact that a law is in place to legally recognise transgender people as whatever gender they want, does absolutely nothing to change biology.


  • Options
    #105
    Spleerbun
    Registered Users Posts: 262 ✭✭Spleerbun


    What I just don't get is that, these online lunatics, these radical justice warriors who got this woman fired and say things like "terf" (just learned that word now)...they are clearly in an extreme minority. Nobody in the real world when you talk to them agrees with this stuff. It's the same reactions you see in this thread - incredulity, despair, annoyance etc.

    And yet this subset of vocal extremists always seem to get their way? People are afraid to say what they actually think in public, companies fear them and will always pander to them with apologies, same with celebrities. It's seen as bad publicity, but if the majority don't actually agree with these wingnuts, surely standing up to them would be 'good' publicity, no? Surely JK Rowling should be whatever the opposite of "cancelled" is going forward seeing as 99% of us in the world agree with her?


  • Options
    #106
    jimgoose
    Registered Users Posts: 20,174 ✭✭✭✭jimgoose


    seamus wrote: »
    WTF do you get up to in a toilet that involves waving your mickey around the place? Tbh, I don't want anyone having that right in any toilet.

    Urinating?


  • Options
    #107
    Hector Savage
    Registered Users Posts: 8,810 ✭✭✭Hector Savage


    Deleted User wrote: »
    As a committed member of the LGBT community, I find what is happening re: gender/sex to be nothing short of appalling.

    You cannot change biological sex. There is no standard for "feeling like a woman". I am a man, and I have no idea what "feeling like a man" is, so how can biologically-born women "feel" this?

    Second, you cannot be born into stereotypes. Long hair, make-up, attraction to pink etc., are all social constructions. You cannot be born into a social construction.

    Third, biological sex is XX and XY. There are some aberrations, such as Kleinfelters, XXY etc., but these are aberrations. The claim here is that biological men or women can switch chromosomal sex. It is not possible.

    Fourth, this is the only trans- category that is taken seriously by society. For example - there are some people who are able-bodied, but believe they were "born disabled". There are some in society now arguing that we should have the State pay for these people to become disabled to meet their "mental image". This is the equivalent of saying to an anorexic person, "you are fine the way you are, it has nothing to do with mental dysphoria".

    There are many trans- men/women who are equally as appalled by what is going on, especially regarding the gender identity question.

    I, as a member of the LGBT community, get completely sidelined. When people speak to me privately about this issue, they agree with me. But they dare not say it in public.

    An extremist identity politics minority have taken over. They are vocal and dangerous and are destroying societal norms as we know them to be.

    very encouraging to see this post get so many thanks!


  • Options
    #108
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,075 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    Delirium wrote: »
    Legally in Ireland, transgender people are recognised as the gender they identify as. To do suggest otherwise is, to use your own term, deny reality.
    I'm always amused when the "Law" is wheeled out in cases like this and others and this makes it reality and this makes it correct. There have always been stupid laws that denied reality, laws that were considered correct at the time. In 1930's Germany Jews were stateless non persons and to suggest otherwise in law or in general at the time was to "deny reality". Hell, it's not so long ago many of the same medical people who say Transgender is a reality now were saying that Transgender was a mental illness. But we have more information now? Do we? There are quite a few rumblings on the back of current research that's suggesting a percentage of Trans individuals may be suffering more from autism spectrum conditions. In five years time the definitions of Trans may well shift again.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Options
    #109
    Spleerbun
    Registered Users Posts: 262 ✭✭Spleerbun


    Hector Savage wrote: »
    very encouraging to see this post get so many thanks!

    Precisely my point. We all agree with it, common sense.

    Yet if JK Rowling was an actress she'd prob have no roles for the foreseeable future. If she was average Joe like us, she'd lose her job. Why? The VAST majority of us agree with her. Why does the extreme fringe scare us so much?


  • Options
    #110
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,713 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I propose that men and women use their own bathrooms in accordance to what their sex is. A transgender woman is not a biological woman.

    I am not advocating for border style checks in toilets. The way it works now. Just common sense. There are no checks at the moment to stop men using the ladies. They just don't.

    I'd be more concerned about changing rooms or other areas where adults and children are in various states of undress or are vulnerable.

    I am not denying reality. Men cannot physically become women by virtue of wanting to do so.

    The fact that a law is in place to legally recognise transgender people as what they want, does absolutely nothing to change biology.


    We're talking gender not sex, so nobody is talking about changing biological sex.


    That's not the case though. Trans people currently use the toilet of their gender.


    With regards to the changing rooms, why is it preferable for young boys instead of young girls share changing rooms with transgender women?

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #111
    biko
    Registered Users Posts: 81,223 ✭✭✭✭biko


    It's just another case of the left eating itself.
    Best of ignored and let them fight it out among themselves.
    Unfortunately it can have effect on real issues and real people.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,713 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    Wibbs wrote: »
    I'm always amused when the "Law" is wheeled out in cases like this and others and this makes it reality and this makes it correct. There have always been stupid laws that denied reality, laws that were considered correct at the time. In 1930's Germany Jews were stateless non persons and to suggest otherwise in law or in general at the time was to "deny reality". Hell, it's not so long ago many of the same medical people who say Transgender is a reality now were saying that Transgender was a mental illness. But we have more information now? Do we? There are quite a few rumblings on the back of current research that's suggesting a percentage of Trans individuals may be suffering more from autism spectrum conditions. In five years time the definitions of Trans may well shift again.


    okay, so how would you determine what is reality/correct?

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #113
    LoonyLovegood
    Moderators, Music Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 6,068 Mod ✭✭✭✭LoonyLovegood


    Not getting into the ins or outs of any of it - but there's a fundamental misunderstanding about this case.

    Someone took this case saying she was fired for being transphobic. In fact, her contract that she expected to be renewed, wasn't renewed. The contract was up, she was gone.


  • Options
    #114
    jimgoose
    Registered Users Posts: 20,174 ✭✭✭✭jimgoose


    Delirium wrote: »
    We're talking gender not sex, so nobody is talking about changing biological sex.


    That's not the case though. Trans people currently use the toilet of their gender.


    With regards to the changing rooms, why is it preferable for young boys instead of young girls share changing rooms with transgender women?

    Is it possible that people should use the toilet of their biological sex instead? Regarding your second question, I would consider it preferable for youngsters to share changing facilities and similar with people possessed of the same equipment as themselves.


  • Options
    #115
    Winning_Stroke
    Closed Accounts Posts: 224 ✭✭Winning_Stroke


    Delirium wrote: »
    okay, so how would you determine what is reality/correct?

    Do you think men can give birth?


  • Options
    #116
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 23,661 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    Spleerbun wrote: »
    Precisely my point. We all agree with it, common sense.

    Yet if JK Rowling was an actress she'd prob have no roles for the foreseeable future. If she was average Joe like us, she'd lose her job. Why? The VAST majority of us agree with her. Why does the extreme fringe scare us so much?


    Off you go to bat for a billionaire so, like she needs the support :pac:

    I think the vast majority of people simply don’t care one way or the other about JK’s opinions on, well, anything really. So they’re not any more likely to care that some bunch of nobodies they’ve ever heard of is using JK to boost their own public profile, by attaching themselves to the ‘JK got cancelled’ nonsense in order to feel important about themselves. They ‘took down’ a billionaire.

    No they didn’t, JK could wipe her arse on a Starbucks napkin and sell it at Christie’s in the morning, it would still net her a fortune.


  • Options
    #117
    Sir Oxman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,492 ✭✭✭Sir Oxman


    LoonyLovegood wrote: »
    Not getting into the ins or outs of any of it - but there's a fundamental misunderstanding about this case.

    Someone took this case saying she was fired for being transphobic. In fact, her contract that she expected to be renewed, wasn't renewed. The contract was up, she was gone.


    No.
    Her contract wasn't renewed specifically because she holds the factual belief that humans cannot change sex.


  • Options
    #118
    Hector Savage
    Registered Users Posts: 8,810 ✭✭✭Hector Savage


    Greyfox wrote: »
    She's a billionaire because she wrote the best book series ever.

    :D:D go back to school.


  • Options
    #119
    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,474 ✭✭✭Obvious Desperate Breakfasts


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Quality and popularity are not related.

    Why yes, this is totally relevant to her tweet.


  • Options
    #120
    Sir Oxman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,492 ✭✭✭Sir Oxman


    jimgoose wrote: »
    Is it possible that people should use the toilet of their biological sex instead? Regarding your second question, I would consider it preferable for youngsters to share changing facilities and similar with people possessed of the same equipment as themselves.


    As the activists keep saying, 'be kind' except this would require men being kind and accepting to their fellow men who present as women.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    joe40
    Registered Users Posts: 3,811 ✭✭✭joe40


    James Tayler, the ruling judge, concluded that Forstater did not have the right to ignore or deny the legal rights of trans people and said her tweets were “incompatible with human dignity and fundamental rights of others”.

    Judge Tayler said Forstater had not acknowledged the “enormous pain that can be caused by misgendering a person”. If she had won the case, Tayler said, it would have set a precedent that would prevent employers from dismissing staff expressing similar views about LGBTQ+ rights.


    This is from a newspaper article quoting the judgement.

    I would imagine a judge has some knowledge of the legalities, that is the rules which apply to all.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement