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

LineOfBeauty · 20-12-2019 4:52pm

Deleted User wrote: »

The difference is, you weren't born with them. They are artificial. They are not related to your genetic makeup. They are cosmetic. They are made to replicate and simulate the sexual organs that you wished you had.

So a huge difference.

Now, what is your point?

So because you aren't born with something it isn't part of who you are? In your world it is really that black and white? I ask because I'm sure this isn't the 1st time I've talked to you on threads like this and so I'm curious, has a transgender person being treated like a 1st class citizen ever infringed upon your rights? Because, at times, your wording makes it sound as though you've had some real personal issues with transgender people.

So what if a person isn't born with something, if a person wants to be something, has gone through a mentally painstaking process and a physically difficult process to become something, what is it that stops you from accepting that? Because they aren't "born with it?" Does that not seem like a weak explanation?

ELM327 · 20-12-2019 4:56pm

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Okay, let’s focus on sexual attraction. So, you transition from male to female. Does the neo-vagina:

- alter your waist-to-hip ratio to female parameters?
- make your shoulders narrower?
- remove your Adam’s apple?

Those are things that many straight men and gay women will flag as male traits and not be attracted to. And that’s just a sample of the markers really.

There's obviously something that does the above in the transition because as a straight male I find some male to female trans women very attractive

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 20-12-2019 5:00pm

Sheeps wrote: »

This failure to acknowledge difference between the physiology of men and women by trans radicals is literally the reason we're having transgender athletes participating in women's sports breaking all sorts of records. The fear of being labeled anti-progressive has resulted in some absolutely insane decisions to let transgender athletes compete against biological women. Transgender athletes are damagig the integrity of women's sports where they are allowed to participate.

The refrain tends to be that very few transgender people become athletes. But there doesn’t need to be that many to completely distort things.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 20-12-2019 5:00pm

ELM327 wrote: »

There's obviously something that does the above in the transition because as a straight male I find some male to female trans women very attractive

I didn’t say all straight men and gay women! The hormones do have some effect on body shape of course. But you can’t shave bone.

One eyed Jack · 20-12-2019 5:03pm

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

So because you aren't born with something it isn't part of who you are? In your world it is really that black and white? I ask because I'm sure this isn't the 1st time I've talked to you on threads like this and so I'm curious, has a transgender person being treated like a 1st class citizen ever infringed upon your rights? Because, at times, your wording makes it sound as though you've had some real personal issues with transgender people.

So what if a person isn't born with something, if a person wants to be something, has gone through a mentally painstaking process and a physically difficult process to become something, what is it that stops you from accepting that? Because they aren't "born with it?" Does that not seem like a weak explanation?

It’s an absolute solid explanation.

I’m not sure why you expected it wouldn’t be when the entire purpose of someone wanting to be something they’re not, and subjecting themselves to mentally and physically difficult processes, is because they themselves simply cannot accept who they are.

If they aren’t prepared to hold themselves to their own standards, I’m not seeing why anyone else should be expected to accept something they can’t accept themselves.

20-12-2019 5:10pm

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

So because you aren't born with something it isn't part of who you are? In your world it is really that black and white? I ask because I'm sure this isn't the 1st time I've talked to you on threads like this and so I'm curious, has a transgender person being treated like a 1st class citizen ever infringed upon your rights? Because, at times, your wording makes it sound as though you've had some real personal issues with transgender people.

So what if a person isn't born with something, if a person wants to be something, has gone through a mentally painstaking process and a physically difficult process to become something, what is it that stops you from accepting that? Because they aren't "born with it?" Does that not seem like a weak explanation?

No. Not even in the slightest is it a weak explanation.

You asked me the difference between a man and a woman. I explained it is biological. I explained that biological sex is not a matter of opinion nor is it something that can be "willed". You cannot choose your biology. It is that black and white.

A transgender person should always be treated as a 1st class citizen. This does not extend to mean that I should deny biology nor should they be able to have the rights or benefits that are afforded solely to the opposite sex. A transgender person will never be the sex that they wish to be. To say any different is a lie.

Why do you think it is acceptable to lie?

Gynoid · 20-12-2019 5:11pm

ELM327 wrote: »

There's obviously something that does the above in the transition because as a straight male I find some male to female trans women very attractive

Feeling attracted to a transwoman is perfectly fine and some of them do look lovely.
But you still cannot say they are a biological woman because they are not.
Which is the whole point. Re Maya.
The person you are attracted to is a transwoman.
And so what? Why would they want anyone to subvert their reason and say they have literally changed biological sex. That kind of tyrannical ideological demand on another would not be attractive surely?

lozenges · 20-12-2019 5:16pm

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I didn’t say all straight men and gay women! The hormones do have some effect on body shape of course. But you can’t shave bone.

There is - facial feminisation surgery - which Caitlyn Jenner availed of. It is very expensive though and as such not available to most people.

The fact remains that if in 1000 years, archaeologists discover the skeleton of a trans woman (male at birth), they will identify that skeleton as male. Width of the pelvis, length of long bones, overall height, brow and jaw heaviness and other features will not change no matter what surgery is done on the soft tissues (unless the person had puberty blockers).

So, sex is biological. Does that mean that people who wish to change gender shouldn't be afforded respect and protections in law? Sure. But they are a trans woman/man and should be distinguished from biological males or females.
And while they should be addressed as they wish, and in the vast majority of cases be treated as their desired gender, there are some situations where that might not be appropriate. EG not be permitted in female domestic violence refuges, prisons unless they have had bottom surgery.

LineOfBeauty · 20-12-2019 5:18pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s an absolute solid explanation.

I’m not sure why you expected it wouldn’t be when the entire purpose of someone wanting to be something they’re not, and subjecting themselves to mentally and physically difficult processes, is because they themselves simply cannot accept who they are.

If they aren’t prepared to hold themselves to their own standards, I’m not seeing why anyone else should be expected to accept something they can’t accept themselves.

That is the point, they are people who have been born into the wrong body, and to be very honest I'm not sure that you or I could fully understand what that must feel like unless you have lived it. I have friends who have transitioned and they have tried to explain their state of mind, what it was like growing up ect. and honestly it was horrible to hear but actually going through it, I don't know if I'd be able.

"They can't accept who they are" because they have been wronged from birth and they've undergone an incredibly difficult process in so many aspects (physically, mentally, legally) to change that. Why is that such a hard thing for people to accept?

gw80 · 20-12-2019 5:20pm

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Okay, let’s focus on sexual attraction. So, you transition from male to female. Does the neo-vagina:

- alter your waist-to-hip ratio to female parameters?
- make your shoulders narrower?
- remove your Adam’s apple?

Those are things that many straight men and gay women will flag as male traits and not be attracted to. And that’s just a sample of the markers really.

On that note,
I wonder how long before an an archeologist is accused of a hate crime for assuming the gender of a skeleton.

20-12-2019 5:28pm

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

That is the point, they are people who have been born into the wrong body, and to be very honest I'm not sure that you or I could fully understand what that must feel like unless you have lived it. I have friends who have transitioned and they have tried to explain their state of mind, what it was like growing up ect. and honestly it was horrible to hear but actually going through it, I don't know if I'd be able.

"They can't accept who they are" because they have been wronged from birth and they've undergone an incredibly difficult process in so many aspects (physically, mentally, legally) to change that. Why is that such a hard thing for people to accept?

It is so hard to accept because it is unacceptable to ask me to ignore facts and biology.

And they feel like they were born into the wrong body, they weren't born in the wrong body.

LineOfBeauty · 20-12-2019 5:33pm

Deleted User wrote: »

It is so hard to accept because it is unacceptable to ask me to ignore facts and biology.

And they feel like they were born into the wrong body, they weren't born in the wrong body.

Who are you to say somebody wasn't born into the wrong body? If the state recognises a person's right to change genders then who are you to say otherwise?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 20-12-2019 5:34pm

lozenges wrote: »

There is - facial feminisation surgery - which Caitlyn Jenner availed of. It is very expensive though and as such not available to most people.

The fact remains that if in 1000 years, archaeologists discover the skeleton of a trans woman (male at birth), they will identify that skeleton as male. Width of the pelvis, length of long bones, overall height, brow and jaw heaviness and other features will not change no matter what surgery is done on the soft tissues (unless the person had puberty blockers).

So, sex is biological. Does that mean that people who wish to change gender shouldn't be afforded respect and protections in law? Sure. But they are a trans woman/man and should be distinguished from biological males or females.
And while they should be addressed as they wish, and in the vast majority of cases be treated as their desired gender, there are some situations where that might not be appropriate. EG not be permitted in female domestic violence refuges, prisons unless they have had bottom surgery.

And isn’t that scary? Imagine applying that to, say, the femur? As somebody with shitty bones because of disease, I’m horrified at the notion at somebody voluntarily have people chisel away at their healthy bone tissue. Like, yikes! And on load-bearing bones, it would not be a good idea.

And, to be frank, Jenner doesn’t look good.

seamus · 20-12-2019 5:37pm

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Whose comfort is more important here? I’m not saying one over the other. What do you think?

Neither's comfort is more important than the other. It's impossible to rank such a massively subjective issue.

It's kind of like asking whether a cancer patient's discomfort at being bald is more important than the randomer on the street's discomfort at seeing it.

As a man I would be doubly uncomfortable in a gender neutral changing area - both of my own body and in making a distinct effort to avoid the slightest implication that I might be looking elsewhere. Is my discomfort more important than that of the women around me?

There's no singular answer on it.

Really the fact is here that a number of different conversations get muddled into one.

- Transgender access to toilets
- Transgender access to communal changing facilities
- Gender neutral toilets
- Gender neutral changing facilities
- Gender neutral communal changing facilities

These are distinct topics where someone may have very different points of view. The same arguments that can be used for TG toilet access are not the same ones as GN toilet access. Changing facilities in themselves are a whole other kettle of fish.

If we consider changing facilities specifically, we're in a bit of an odd prudish bubble. There are many other locations in the world where there's no segregation of genders in changing rooms and people there don't care. Throughout human history there have been various iterations of the changing room, sliced and diced into all sorts of segregations on the basis of gender, race, class, age, etc.

So we already know there is no ideal or preferred solution, really. It's whatever the trend is at the point in time.

There is already at least one gender neutral changing facility in Ireland that I know of, and the world hasn't collapsed. It's extremely popular.

What surprises me is that more places haven't copped onto the fact that people in general would be more comfortable if the locker room was replaced with stalls. But that's expensive, economically and in terms of space.

The reality is that protecting transgender rights, as a class, has no bearing on the debate about gender neutrality of "safe spaces". Allowing transwomen to use women's facilities without fear of being arrested or humiliated by staff. That's it. Discomfort is subjective and if seeing bodies with different lumps and bumps makes you uncomfortable, then communal changing areas are probably not for you, trans-friendly or otherwise.

The reality is that transwomen typically don't use these facilities, but when they do, they are more often subject to assault than cis people. Communal changing rooms in particular are an enormous no-no. If you want to legally prevent transpeople from using your facilities, make them communal.

20-12-2019 5:37pm

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

Who are you to say somebody wasn't born into the wrong body? If the state recognises a person's right to change genders then who are you to say otherwise?

People can choose to be whatever gender they want. People cannot choose their sex. You are confusing gender with sex again.

LineOfBeauty · 20-12-2019 5:40pm

seamus wrote: »

Neither's comfort is more important than the other. It's impossible to rank such a massively subjective issue.

It's kind of like asking whether a cancer patient's discomfort at being bald is more important than the randomer on the street's discomfort at seeing it.

As a man I would be doubly uncomfortable in a gender neutral changing area - both of my own body and in making a distinct effort to avoid the slightest implication that I might be looking elsewhere. Is my discomfort more important than that of the women around me?

There's no singular answer on it.

Really the fact is here that a number of different conversations get muddled into one.

- Transgender access to toilets
- Transgender access to communal changing facilities
- Gender neutral toilets
- Gender neutral changing facilities
- Gender neutral communal changing facilities

These are distinct topics where someone may have very different points of view. The same arguments that can be used for TG toilet access are not the same ones as GN toilet access. Changing facilities in themselves are a whole other kettle of fish.

If we consider changing facilities specifically, we're in a bit of an odd prudish bubble. There are many other locations in the world where there's no segregation of genders in changing rooms and people there don't care. Throughout human history there have been various iterations of the changing room, sliced and diced into all sorts of segregations on the basis of gender, race, class, age, etc.

So we already know there is no ideal or preferred solution, really. It's whatever the trend is at the point in time.

There is already at least one gender neutral changing facility in Ireland that I know of, and the world hasn't collapsed. It's extremely popular.

What surprises me is that more places haven't copped onto the fact that people in general would be more comfortable if the locker room was replaced with stalls. But that's expensive, economically and in terms of space.

The reality is that protecting transgender rights, as a class, has no bearing on the debate about gender neutrality of "safe spaces". Allowing transwomen to use women's facilities without fear of being arrested or humiliated by staff. That's it. Discomfort is subjective and if seeing bodies with different lumps and bumps makes you uncomfortable, then communal changing areas are probably not for you, trans-friendly or otherwise.

The reality is that transwomen typically don't use these facilities, but when they do, they are more often subject to assault than cis people. Communal changing rooms in particular are an enormous no-no. If you want to legally prevent transpeople from using your facilities, make them communal.

The reality is, from that comment earlier about the guy physically removing a transgender person from a locker room to protect his daughter, the transgender person is in infinitely more danger from others in the locker room (both in terms of physical and verbal abuse) than that guy's daughter is ever in from the transgender person.

buried · 20-12-2019 5:41pm

Harry Potter and the Key to the Gender Neutral Quidditch Changing Rooms

Gynoid · 20-12-2019 5:41pm

There are difficult conversation to be had about transgenderism but unless we can agree on solid biological facts then the conversation is tainted ab initio.
Biological sex is dimorphic with rare intersex exceptions. This us the ground we must start from.
Gender expression is another thing.

There is a movement among some trans people to advocate for a third space which seems very reasonable.
There will be other good solutions when we can start from reason.
That includes not experimenting on children, up to the age of brain maturation, medically, chemically or even socially making a big thing out of gender for them. Especially not children with autism, depression or anxiety.

One reason why wholesale opening of biological females single sex spaces cannot happen is that the definition if transgender runs a gamut now (especially with self ID) from those genuine transsexuals who have long examined their souls and gone through what must be excruciating gender reassignment processes to alleviate dysphoria, right through to autogynophilic males who have the sexual paraphilia of perceiving themselves as women and on to include the floating gender queer fashionistas who cannot decide from day to day whether they are male, female or beast. That is not satisfactory from the point of view of women like me in terms of opening the doors to single sex spaces.

LineOfBeauty · 20-12-2019 5:42pm

Deleted User wrote: »

People can choose to be whatever gender they want. People cannot choose their sex. You are confusing gender with sex again.

I've moved away from that because I am pretty sure you are saying that you would not extend full rights to a transgender person which is quite a stance.

20-12-2019 5:44pm

Gynoid wrote: »

There are difficult conversation to be had about transgenderism but unless we can agree on solid biological facts then the conversation is tainted ab initio.
Biological sex is dimorphic with rare intersex exceptions. This us the ground we must start from.
Gender expression is another thing.

There is a movement among some trans people to advocate for a third space which seems very reasonable.
There will be other good solutions when we can start from reason.
That includes not experimenting on children, up to the age of brain maturation, medically, chemically or even socially making a big thing out of gender for them. Especially not children with autism, depression or anxiety.

One reason why wholesale opening of biological females single sex spaces cannot happen is that the definition if transgender runs a gamut now (especially with self ID) from those genuine transsexuals who have long examined their souls and gone through what must be excruciating gender reassignment processes to alleviate dysphoria, right through to autogynophilic males who have the sexual paraphilia of perceiving themselves as women and on to include the floating gender queer fashionistas who cannot decide from day to day whether they are male, female or beast. That is not satisfactory from the point of view of women like me in terms of opening the doors to single sex spaces.

get t'**** with your reasonable logic. Bleedin' transphobe.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 20-12-2019 5:45pm

seamus wrote: »

Neither's comfort is more important than the other. It's impossible to rank such a massively subjective issue.

It's kind of like asking whether a cancer patient's discomfort at being bald is more important than the randomer on the street's discomfort at seeing it.

As a man I would be doubly uncomfortable in a gender neutral changing area - both of my own body and in making a distinct effort to avoid the slightest implication that I might be looking elsewhere. Is my discomfort more important than that of the women around me?

There's no singular answer on it.

Really the fact is here that a number of different conversations get muddled into one.

- Transgender access to toilets
- Transgender access to communal changing facilities
- Gender neutral toilets
- Gender neutral changing facilities
- Gender neutral communal changing facilities

These are distinct topics where someone may have very different points of view. The same arguments that can be used for TG toilet access are not the same ones as GN toilet access. Changing facilities in themselves are a whole other kettle of fish.

If we consider changing facilities specifically, we're in a bit of an odd prudish bubble. There are many other locations in the world where there's no segregation of genders in changing rooms and people there don't care. Throughout human history there have been various iterations of the changing room, sliced and diced into all sorts of segregations on the basis of gender, race, class, age, etc.

So we already know there is no ideal or preferred solution, really. It's whatever the trend is at the point in time.

There is already at least one gender neutral changing facility in Ireland that I know of, and the world hasn't collapsed. It's extremely popular.

What surprises me is that more places haven't copped onto the fact that people in general would be more comfortable if the locker room was replaced with stalls. But that's expensive, economically and in terms of space.

The reality is that protecting transgender rights, as a class, has no bearing on the debate about gender neutrality of "safe spaces". Allowing transwomen to use women's facilities without fear of being arrested or humiliated by staff. That's it. Discomfort is subjective and if seeing bodies with different lumps and bumps makes you uncomfortable, then communal changing areas are probably not for you, trans-friendly or otherwise.

The reality is that transwomen typically don't use these facilities, but when they do, they are more often subject to assault than cis people. Communal changing rooms in particular are an enormous no-no. If you want to legally prevent transpeople from using your facilities, make them communal.

Except that women’s communal changing rooms are something I’m fine with. So, no.

20-12-2019 5:46pm

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

I've moved away from that because I am pretty sure you are saying that you would not extend full rights to a transgender person which is quite a stance.

When did I say that? I would offer every person their full rights according to their sex. Nobody should be denied their rights.

Gynoid · 20-12-2019 5:47pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

get t'**** with your reasonable logic. Bleedin' transphobe.

Oh but the unreasonable typos make me sad

damn tiny phone keyboards. And my fingers are quite small! What the...

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 20-12-2019 5:58pm

So, I have a tale. I think I’ve brought it up before but anyway.

I worked in a pharmaceutical company a decade ago where there were men’s and women’s locker rooms without stalls to change into scrubs for working in certain parts of the plant. You’d be stripped to your underwear at your most naked. A man, let’s call him Simon transitioned to a woman, let’s call her Kate, during my time working there. Kate contacted HR to talk about the changing room issue because she didn’t want to cause discomfort to those who knew her as Simon before. Kate sent the whole company an email explaining her transition so that her switching to the women’s changing rooms would not cause friction.

It was all totally fine because we all knew what was going on and Kate handled it well. But this was all very controlled because it’s a workplace and we were all informed. But out in the wild, I feel like it’s different. People won’t get to voice their concerns. They’ll just have to deal with it. ‘Good’, some might say. I don’t think so, personally.

I read about a school in the UK that changed to gender neutral toilets without doing the necessary upgrades to make the stalls separate, self-contained rooms. In this school, girls were allegedly holding in their wee all day so that they didn’t have to use the bathroom. Or not drinking enough do that they don't need to wee. This could be dismissed as tabloid fodder but I believe it. The reason I believe it is that I would have been that little girl. I’d have been holding in my wee to avoid sharing a bathroom with any of the boys in my class. Without any doubt.

blanch152 · 20-12-2019 6:05pm

Sheeps wrote: »

The latest victim of cancel culture is J. K. Rowling. She has been cancelled today for being a transphobe, or a TERF (Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist).

Her crime, it seems was sticking up for a woman who had been fired from her job because that woman aired an opinion that a transsexual didn't approve of. That transexual then proceded to get in touch with the womans employer which resulted in her being fired.

The opinion this woman aired was that there were two biological sexes and that transgender women shouldn't be automatically granted permission to be in womens spaces such as womens bathroom's and women's changing rooms, because it may make biological women feel uncomfortable and unsafe.

There was a court case to determine whether it was an unfair dismissal, the result of which has created the battlefield for trans people and supporters of the fired woman to fight their social justic war against each other.

In all of this, J. K. Rowling seems to have picked up the blame for taking a side (the un"woke" side). She posted the following on social media.

https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1207646162813100033?s=20

Now she is cancelled and being labelled a transphobe. I find it very difficult to give my sympathy to trans people when this is the kind of carry on that their struggle bases itself around.

I am struggling to understand the controversy over this tweet.

Firstly, she is defending freedom of expression, she is saying that a woman shouldn't be fired for something she said. I happen to agree with this. I had fired every employee that said something inappropriate, I would be firing a hell of a lot of people every week.

Secondly, she says that "sex is real", she doesn't say that gender is fixed. There is a difference between sex and gender. Sex is biologically determined, gender is identity. A person may legitimately hold an opinion that toilets should be divided along biological sex lines rather than gender lines. That opinion may be offensive to other people, but it nevertheless can be a genuine and legitimately held opinion. It may well be that societal norms are changing and that may be unacceptable in the short to medium-term, but there is an ongoing debate around the issue and it isn't resolved.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 20-12-2019 6:12pm

blanch152 wrote: »

I am struggling to understand the controversy over this tweet.

Firstly, she is defending freedom of expression, she is saying that a woman shouldn't be fired for something she said. I happen to agree with this. I had fired every employee that said something inappropriate, I would be firing a hell of a lot of people every week.

Secondly, she says that "sex is real", she doesn't say that gender is fixed. There is a difference between sex and gender. Sex is biologically determined, gender is identity. A person may legitimately hold an opinion that toilets should be divided along biological sex lines rather than gender lines. That opinion may be offensive to other people, but it nevertheless can be a genuine and legitimately held opinion. It may well be that societal norms are changing and that may be unacceptable in the short to medium-term, but there is an ongoing debate around the issue and it isn't resolved.

Yeah and I know I’m repeating myself but I don’t know why people bring up intersex conditions because they also can’t be changed on a genetic level.

Lol at this tweet from what I’m pretty sure is a parody account:

daithi84 · 20-12-2019 6:13pm

My experience of secondary school was fear of using the toilets due to bullying and intimidation from straight males.

The world is a horrible place, people are cruel and treat others horrendously.

I find it ridiculous that once sharing a toilet is mentioned, or trans people using a toilet, then all of a sudden everyone is a rapist or molester or some ****e like this. This "debate" on trans people just stinks of the same abuse gay people went through for decades. Trans people are just the new target. People should actually go out and meet a trans person and have a conversation before judging, slandering and generalising.

One eyed Jack · 20-12-2019 6:14pm

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

That is the point, they are people who have been born into the wrong body, and to be very honest I'm not sure that you or I could fully understand what that must feel like unless you have lived it. I have friends who have transitioned and they have tried to explain their state of mind, what it was like growing up ect. and honestly it was horrible to hear but actually going through it, I don't know if I'd be able.

You could have saved an awful lot of strife and just made that point earlier. For what it’s worth though, that’s the first step in the attempted pedagogy which I refuse to accept. There is no such thing as being born in the wrong body. It’s a terrible way to begin an explanation of what it is to be gender dysphoric, but it’s been perpetuated now so many years that it’s become an all too common trope. I don’t fully understand it, I don’t think anyone fully understands the condition, and I don’t think either medicine or science is even beginning to scratch the surface of understanding the condition. I genuinely don’t give hypothetical scenarios such as imagining myself experiencing gender dysphoria as there are far too many variables involved, and even then I know I won’t have accounted for them all. In the same way, someone experiencing gender dysphoria can not possibly comprehend what it is not to experience dysphoria.

Therefore they’re in no position to evaluate the idea of not experiencing dysphoria and imagine that their distress will be alleviated by undergoing all sorts of attempts to mentally distance themselves from their physiology by altering their physical appearance. The results are simply unsatisfying, which is why the suicide rates among those people who experience dysphoria, medical and hormonal treatments aren’t what alleviates their dysphoria, but rather social acceptance appears to be the greatest influence on the person’s acceptance of themselves and reduces their risk of suicide. There are other factors of course, but the whole “you’re killing us if you don’t let us surgically transition” mantra has been demonstrated to be something of a falsehood with greater social acceptance of people who are transgender.

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

"They can't accept who they are" because they have been wronged from birth and they've undergone an incredibly difficult process in so many aspects (physically, mentally, legally) to change that. Why is that such a hard thing for people to accept?

That definitely sounds like a line you’ve been fed by someone else. I don’t know, but I’ve heard that same line used many, many times before by way of explanation and an appeal to empathy (they came up short on every occasion tbh, I just find practiced lines like that incredibly tedious and repetitive). I accept that they have endured great personal suffering throughout their lives, I don’t find that the least bit contentious and they are by no means unusual in that regard. There’s a giant chasm between accepting that someone has endured great suffering to present themselves as they wish to be perceived, and my perception of how I perceive them. Because it goes back to their first fundamental misunderstanding, that they claim to have been born in the wrong body, there’s an immediate barrier there in my mind, which there is no getting over. Their attempts to imply that there is something wrong with me as though I am the person experiencing gender dysphoria, is something that I can’t begin to tell you how it riles me up. It doesn’t even qualify as cognitive dissonance simply because I do not perceive them as their preferred gender in any case. It’s that simple. Fortunately the few I’ve known have always been up front and good natured and never tried to force the issue. They were aware of my position and it was always that difference which meant there could be no hope of anything ever even resembling friendship. Civility and courtesy certainly, and protection in some circumstances, but there was always that fundamental barrier there which prevented us from being able to trust each other - fundamentally any sort of a friendship would be based upon a lie, which I was willing to acknowledge, but I would never accept.

victor8600 · 20-12-2019 6:21pm

blanch152 wrote: »

I am struggling to understand the controversy over this tweet.

It is tiny "controversy", it would have not merited a discussion, but for the fact it concerns transsexuals.

There is a section of the Boards society that is unhealthily obsessed with toilets and changing rooms, and a word "transsexual" in any context sends them over the edge and the same old toilet discussion is resurrected. Then it progresses to male prisoners who want to identify as women, goes into muddling and clarifying of words sex and gender, into several bouts of personal abuse, and so it goes in circles until mods start banning people and the thread is locked.

Gynoid · 20-12-2019 6:26pm

daithi84 wrote: »

My experience of secondary school was fear of using the toilets due to bullying and intimidation from straight males.

The world is a horrible place, people are cruel and treat others horrendously.

I find it ridiculous that once sharing a toilet is mentioned, or trans people using a toilet, then all of a sudden everyone is a rapist or molester or some ****e like this. This "debate" on trans people just stinks of the same abuse gay people went through for decades. Trans people are just the new target. People should actually go out and meet a trans person and have a conversation before judging, slandering and generalising.

This is not what is said. You are effectively calling gender theory critics bigots. Extreme trans activism is not the same as gay rights activism. At all.

You are using appeal to emotion to trump fact.
Im sorry you were bullied at school by horrible people. I was badly bullied too, for being skinny, and smart. And other reasons. But. Personal emotion cannot be used to oust reality. There are big issues at play here. There has already been significant collateral damage with women raped in prison, women losing sports awards and scholarships, thousands of children adversely chemically affected and people assaulted in unisex spaces. It is best we all try to be truthful about reality.

lozenges · 20-12-2019 6:27pm

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

And isn’t that scary? Imagine applying that to, say, the femur? As somebody with shitty bones because of disease, I’m horrified at the notion at somebody voluntarily have people chisel away at their healthy bone tissue. Like, yikes! And on load-bearing bones, it would not be a good idea.

And, to be frank, Jenner doesn’t look good.

Oh, I agree. But it is out there. I thought Jenner looked ok but had only seen them in photos - caught a couple minutes of I'm a celebrity on TV last week and the effect is much different.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 20-12-2019 6:38pm

daithi84 wrote: »

My experience of secondary school was fear of using the toilets due to bullying and intimidation from straight males.

The world is a horrible place, people are cruel and treat others horrendously.

I find it ridiculous that once sharing a toilet is mentioned, or trans people using a toilet, then all of a sudden everyone is a rapist or molester or some ****e like this. This "debate" on trans people just stinks of the same abuse gay people went through for decades. Trans people are just the new target. People should actually go out and meet a trans person and have a conversation before judging, slandering and generalising.

Ah, some of us have.

BeerWolf · 20-12-2019 6:49pm

The LGBTQ+ community, online/social media, is the absolute most toxic bunch I have EVER come across...

suicide_circus · 20-12-2019 6:49pm

The best part of the TERF acronym is the R for Radical. It is now considered radical to think that you cannot change your biological sex.

Just play this tune in your head any time you read about this stuff

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_B0CyOAO8y0

20-12-2019 7:14pm

BeerWolf wrote: »

The LGBTQ+ community, online/social media, is the absolute most toxic bunch I have EVER come across...

Don't tar us all with the same brush.

Most LGBT people get on with the rest of their lives and do not get involved with this kind of nonsense.

I happen to be one of those. And the majority are against this rubbish, too.

What you're witnessing, as always, is a very hollow and vocal minority; most of whom are absolutely desperate to impose their ideology upon society. They are all for inclusion, except inclusion of other people's opinions.

20-12-2019 7:24pm

seamus wrote: »

.

Really the fact is here that a number of different conversations get muddled into one.

- Transgender access to toilets
- Transgender access to communal changing facilities
- Gender neutral toilets
- Gender neutral changing facilities
- Gender neutral communal changing facilities

These are distinct topics where someone may have very different points of view. The same arguments that can be used for TG toilet access are not the same ones as GN toilet access. Changing facilities in themselves are a whole other kettle of fish.

If we consider changing facilities specifically, we're in a bit of an odd prudish bubble. There are many other locations in the world where there's no segregation of genders in changing rooms and people there don't care. Throughout human history there have been various iterations of the changing room, sliced and diced into all sorts of segregations on the basis of gender, race, class, age, etc.

I think this is where a lot of peoples issue lies Seamus, there's a needless complexity. This was something very simple, and still is in the eyes of the vast vast majority.
A minority want change (nothing wrong with change) the it's so complex, ambiguous, and disagreeable even among members of the minority that the majority has little time for it. And resents it wasting public discourse airspace but that's the fault of a lazy media relying on Twitter for source material (significant issue imo)

20-12-2019 7:29pm

Deleted User wrote: »

I think this is where a lot of peoples issue lies Seamus, there's a needless complexity. This was something very simple, and still is in the eyes of the vast vast majority.
A minority want change (nothing wrong with change) the it's so complex, ambiguous, and disagreeable even among members of the minority that the majority has little time for it. And resents it wasting public discourse airspace but that's the fault of a lazy media relying on Twitter for source material (significant issue imo)

In the end, what gender militants are asking us to do is to accept terms that describe non-male and non-female typical stereotypes.

But this says nothing about sex. These 100+ genders are merely personality descriptions that people who are not stereotypically male/female are using to describe themselves. Perhaps they're not very feminine, but adhere to some elements of what a "male" is stereotypically like and - BANG! - a term has just been created. But what they are saying is nothing more than that they don't adhere to strict stereotypes. Well neither do I, but I'm still male.

If someone does not identify as a stereotypical male, they should simply say that they don't use that term to describe themselves. Nothing more is needed than that.

Sex does not change, so pronouns should not change either. Gender identities cannot be used to create new pronouns, when pronouns are themselves expressions of what sex you are.

2ygb4cmqetsjhx · 20-12-2019 7:34pm

buried wrote: »

T.U.R.F.

T.U.R.F. make good fire and feet warm

Greta Thunberg is on the phone. She wants a word with you.

HappyAsLarE · 20-12-2019 7:35pm

If someone needs it explained to them that men and women are different in many ways then they are fcuking stupid.

buried · 20-12-2019 7:40pm

Ignacio Tasteless Minor wrote: »

Greta Thunberg is on the phone. She wants a word with you.

Lucky for me that me phone got 'cancelled'

gormdubhgorm · 20-12-2019 7:40pm

The only thing I learnt from this thread is that turf is no longer just found in the bog.

donaghs · 20-12-2019 7:45pm

GRACKEA wrote: »

Pardon me, I thought the thread was about JK Rowling not everyone else in society, based on the title and first post.

Yes, it’s about JK Rowling and her post/tweet. Nice attempt to derail the thread! she highlighted the fact that someone was fired from their job for stating a “belief” that people born as one sex could not become the opposite sex by declaring themselves to be it. Regardless of what people believe themselves, it does seem a frightening precedent. How can you be certain that all your beliefs align correctly with current/future standard?

buried · 20-12-2019 7:46pm

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

The only thing I learnt from this thread is that turf is no longer just found in the bog.

Theres definitely two types of turf anyways.
Good turf and bad turf.
There is no neutral turf.

uck51js9zml2yt · 20-12-2019 7:54pm

buried wrote: »

Theres definitely two types of turf anyways.
Good turf and bad turf.
There is no neutral turf.

Ah I get it....it's turf to most of us but if you're from Caavaan...it's terf.

Why is JKR being called turf? A sod I can understand but turf makes no sense:)

lozenges · 20-12-2019 8:03pm

HappyAsLarE wrote: »

If someone needs it explained to them that men and women are different in many ways then they are fcuking stupid.

Insistence that men and women are fundamentally different personality wise and overly restrictive gender norms aren't helpful, though.

If you're brought up to truly believe that only men like X and only women like Y and you happen to be a male who likes Y maybe you would think you were the 'wrong' gender.
Whereas if you accept that some people of both genders like both things - though not necessarily in equal numbers - you would not.

That is not to take away from the many people who do have intractable gender dysphoria which is not related to beliefs about societal norms.

Boggles · 20-12-2019 8:14pm

donaghs wrote: »

Yes, it’s about JK Rowling and her post/tweet. Nice attempt to derail the thread! she highlighted the fact that someone was fired from their job for stating a “belief” that people born as one sex could not become the opposite sex by declaring themselves to be it. Regardless of what people believe themselves, it does seem a frightening precedent. How can you be certain that all your beliefs align correctly with current/future standard?

She didn't get fired, she was a contractor, the contract wasn't renewed or extended.

That really should have been the end of it there IMO.

But essentially her contract wasn't renewed because she created what her colleagues felt was a hostile environment in work.

Moral of the story, if you are going to play Captain Edgelord and try be the hero make sure you have more than a 12 month contract because acting the bollíx will make you unemployed.

Like I said earlier this is just a more sophisticated gay cake trap, she is an attention seeking cretin IMHO.

suicide_circus · 20-12-2019 8:31pm

This is transsubstanciation. Nothing more, nothing less.

The denial of transsubstanciation is heretical.

Ush1 · 20-12-2019 8:40pm

Person saying men are men and women are women is an edge lord, 2019 is gas craic altogether.

20-12-2019 8:44pm

Don’t we pretty well all have “gender neutral” toilets at home? I mean, don’t people of any persuasion go to the same loo, especially in houses that only have one loo?

Or am I missing the point? Don’t answer that!

Stovepipe · 20-12-2019 8:48pm

Im sure when JK is at the bank,idling thru stacks of her money, as high as the roof, she'll feel proper told off or cancelled,whatever that is.

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

Comments