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

ELM327 · 20-12-2019 12:02pm

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.

Limpy · 20-12-2019 12:07pm

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.

20-12-2019 12:08pm

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.

Spleerbun · 20-12-2019 12:09pm

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?

jimgoose · 20-12-2019 12:11pm

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?

Hector Savage · 20-12-2019 12:11pm

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!

Wibbs · 20-12-2019 12:12pm

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.

Spleerbun · 20-12-2019 12:15pm

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?

Delirium · 20-12-2019 12:19pm

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?

biko · 20-12-2019 12:20pm

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.

Delirium · 20-12-2019 12:20pm

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?

LoonyLovegood · 20-12-2019 12:21pm

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.

jimgoose · 20-12-2019 12:21pm

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.

Winning_Stroke · 20-12-2019 12:24pm

Delirium wrote: »

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

Do you think men can give birth?

One eyed Jack · 20-12-2019 12:25pm

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.

Sir Oxman · 20-12-2019 12:34pm

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.

Hector Savage · 20-12-2019 12:34pm

Greyfox wrote: »

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

go back to school.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 20-12-2019 12:35pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Quality and popularity are not related.

Why yes, this is totally relevant to her tweet.

Sir Oxman · 20-12-2019 12:35pm

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.

joe40 · 20-12-2019 12:35pm

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.

Spleerbun · 20-12-2019 12:37pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

Jk Rowling is just the example here in this case. You've kind of missed the point I was making

Wibbs · 20-12-2019 12:39pm

Delirium wrote: »

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

Such things are always in flux, but for the moment, yep someone can self define themselves as whatever they like, but that ends in the case of Trans with spaces defined as private spaces for biological sex, changing rooms, toilets and the like. Yep I know we all have unisex toilets in our houses, but in the public sphere outside of defined unisex toilets nope.

I have also noted that this Trans extremism has a strong tendency to be biased towards one direction, that is male to female. We don't hear nearly so much from female to male Trans in this debate.

As for reality? Well, currently there is nothing like any sort of "test" for Trans outside of self definition, backed up by medical people. The same medical people who as I say would have called mental illness along the lines of dysmorphia a few years ago. It would take a strong willed and brave medical type to have suggested otherwise not so long ago and a strong willed and brave medical type to suggest it might be in more cases than is accepted today.

jimgoose · 20-12-2019 12:41pm

Sir Oxman wrote: »

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

The way we seem to be stacked up at the moment requires young women to be kind and accepting of their fellow ladies who present with mickeys. Which is less disruptive, I wonder?

Vorenus400 · 20-12-2019 12:43pm

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.

Is this your christmas? do you wait for these cases and the muslim cases to come up so you can get on your sjw outrage box and spew out yout copied internet opinions?

What does the T in lgbt stand for?

Are you a re-reg? your posts are kinda funny though

i love the part about lots of people being afraid to speak out. There is always the great silent majority to support your case

Gynoid · 20-12-2019 12:45pm

Delirium wrote: »

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

I do not determine what is reality or correct by asking what the law tells me. That would seem crazy.
As it happens I do not break laws because in general they accord with my moral sense and intellectual reasoning, but if a law did not do so I would not abide by it and would take the consequences. Maybe that makes me a weirdo. I dont care. To be so subservient as to rely on the changing laws of humankind to know what is reality (!!!) or what is correct seems bizarre.

Delirium · 20-12-2019 12:45pm

Wibbs wrote: »

Such things are always in flux, but for the moment, yep someone can self define themselves as whatever they like, but that ends in the case of Trans with spaces defined as private spaces for biological sex, changing rooms, toilets and the like. Yep I know we all have unisex toilets in our houses, but in the public sphere outside of defined unisex toilets nope.

I have also noted that this Trans extremism has a strong tendency to be biased towards one direction, that is male to female. We don't hear nearly so much from female to male Trans in this debate.

As for reality? Well, currently there is nothing like any sort of "test" for Trans outside of self definition, backed up by medical people. The same medical people who as I say would have called mental illness along the lines of dysmorphia a few years ago. It would take a strong willed and brave medical type to have suggested otherwise not so long ago and a strong willed and brave medical type to suggest it might be in more cases than is accepted today.

That could be due to those targetting transgender people. I've hardly, if ever, seen those arguing for curtailing access to somewhere/rights of transgender people to go after transgender men.

20-12-2019 12:47pm

Delirium wrote: »

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

Common sense.

Boggles · 20-12-2019 12:47pm

jimgoose wrote: »

She can dress up as Hermann Goering in an SS uniform with a little tutu and recite passages from Mein Kampf in a little slot just after the Angelus, and I will defend to the death her right to speak.

Ah you wouldn't.

If she was fired out of a cannon into a inferno of shíté you'd do fúck all.

You might sit down and whittle on the internet for a bit. But that would be it.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 20-12-2019 12:47pm

Gynoid wrote: »

People are a bit hung up on the use of the word "cancel" being a hysterical Americanisation.
It is not a word I would use. It is hard to keep up with the evolution of language - himself only told me yesterday netflix and chill means come over for sex, I thought it meant to lazily watch movies .
But leaving aside cancel as a word, what is meant is that Rowling has been subject to a litany of vile public abuse from a baying mob in what is effectively the modern public square. Other people saying what she said have been getting death and rape threats for ages. The mob gloated viciously over Magdalen Berns death from brain cancer. There have been people visited by police for expressing opinions critical of gender theory.
It may yet be designated as hate speech and made an actionable offense. I would never publicly express my opinions on extreme trans activism without anonymity, Im sure there are many who feel the same way - ordinary people are in effect silenced from expressing opposition to extremist anti-reason ascientific ideology by threatening mobs. It is kind of weird.

I think a lot of people are staying quiet about it because they don’t want the hassle.

jimgoose · 20-12-2019 12:50pm

Boggles wrote: »

...If she was fired out of a cannon into a inferno of shíté...

That's probably more fun than it sounds, in fairness.

Wibbs · 20-12-2019 12:51pm

Delirium wrote: »

That could be due to those targetting transgender people. I've hardly, if ever, seen those arguing for curtailing access to somewhere/rights of transgender people to go after transgender men.

True enough. Maybe because at a very basic biological level men are less physically vulnerable than women, so they're not nearly so concerned? For all the ballsology around trans women in sport being "equal" to women, the plain fact is they're more of a physical threat than the other way around.

Gynoid · 20-12-2019 12:51pm

Delirium wrote: »

That could be due to those targetting transgender people. I've hardly, if ever, seen those arguing for curtailing access to somewhere/rights of transgender people to go after transgender men.

Oh hahaha that is because of the nasty bad women bullying .. .we are going there huh?

Did you ever think maybe men have little to fear from transmen in their single sex spaces like sports or showers...

Honest to god this whole shyte is such a parody of reason that it is hard to believe where we are.

seamus · 20-12-2019 12:52pm

jimgoose wrote: »

Urinating?

I'd kind of hope, for everyone's sake, that when you urinate you don't wander around the toilets waving your mickey all over the place.

Aside from just being weird, you'll get piss everywhere.

Boggles · 20-12-2019 12:52pm

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.

She worked for a company who campaigned on inequality.

It's the gay cake trap but with more sophistication.

Attention seeking Cretin.

jimgoose · 20-12-2019 12:53pm

seamus wrote: »

I'd kind of hope, for everyone's sake, that when you urinate you don't wander around the toilets waving your mickey all over the place.

Aside from just being weird, you'll get piss everywhere.

I'll be fine. Try not to worry about how I urinate, that's kind of what has us where we are in this thread. :pac:

seamus · 20-12-2019 12:54pm

Gynoid wrote: »

Did you ever think maybe men have little to fear from transmen in their single sex spaces like sports or showers...

...and there it is.

Biological men are dangerous would-be rapists from whom women need to be protected. Bravo.

Boggles · 20-12-2019 12:54pm

seamus wrote: »

I'd kind of hope, for everyone's sake, that when you urinate you don't wander around the toilets waving your mickey all over the place.

Aside from just being weird, you'll get piss everywhere.

Can a mickey actual wave?

Apart from

20-12-2019 12:55pm

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.

Hannah mouncey had a fit when told he coudlnt do just that in women's changing rooms and showers instead of using a private space.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 20-12-2019 12:56pm

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.

You’ve never been in a communal changing area?

20-12-2019 1:00pm

seamus wrote: »

...and there it is.

Biological men are dangerous would-be rapists from whom women need to be protected. Bravo.

Erm… that's not what was said.

There are biological differences between a man and a woman. In general, women are more vulnerable than men. Allowing a man into places which are designated only for women, could result in scenarios where the woman is/feels threatened or uncomfortable.

Nobody is saying that all men are a threat, but some are.

Limiting the possibilities where this can happen is not about vilifying all men.

Do you think that because people lock their doors, they feel that EVERYONE is a would-be thief?

Gynoid · 20-12-2019 1:02pm

seamus wrote: »

...and there it is.

Biological men are dangerous would-be rapists from whom women need to be protected. Bravo.

Have to laugh again. This fcuking inanity. Yes, men rape at a higher degree than women. Newsflash.
So yes of course the safeguarding fears are precisely based on criminological statistics and actual reality!
And of course it is not all men, but away with you making that idiotic argument.

Did you really think my objection was based on my being offended by fcuking knobbly knees sticking out of ill fitting frocks?

seamus · 20-12-2019 1:03pm

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

You’ve never been in a communal changing area?

Poster specifically mentioned toilets (restrooms). Different conversation.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 20-12-2019 1:03pm

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.

I read that snippet a millionty times yesterday. I understand it that her contract would have been renewed had there not been this furore. So same fucking difference, as far as I’m concerned.

20-12-2019 1:05pm

seamus wrote: »

...and there it is.

Biological men are dangerous would-be rapists from whom women need to be protected. Bravo.

So we should abolish ladies toilets so

seamus · 20-12-2019 1:08pm

Gynoid wrote: »

Have to laugh again. This fcuking inanity. Yes, men rape at a higher degree than women. Newsflash.
So yes of course the safeguarding fears are precisely based on criminological statistics and actual reality!
And of course it is not all men, but away with you making that idiotic argument.

Did you really think my objection was based on my being offended by fcuking knobbly knees sticking out of ill fitting frocks?

Well at least you're comfortable with your misandry.

If you have any evidence that denying transwomen access to women's toilets makes women safer, then fire away.

The reason transwomen are virtually always targetted rather than transmen, is the exact same stupidity that made gay men the bigger target of hate in the 1980s above lesbians. Misandry. The belief that all men are sexual deviants, and any behaviour outside the norm is just some other angle to try and have sex with unwilling participants.

When you realise that transwomen aren't trans because it's a sexual thing, you'll understand why the arguments about toilets are ridiculous. Why are lesbians allowed to use women's toilets? Why are gay men allowed to use men's toilets?

LineOfBeauty · 20-12-2019 1:10pm

[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?

I don't know if you've ever tried to legally change your gender, it's really not an easy process. I think recently there was a case in the Netherlands of a man trying to change his age and it was denied.

I believe if a person is recognised as a gender then that person should have all the rights of that gender.

On a larger point, I do think going after transgender people is a horrible thing to do. They are probably amongst the most vulnerable people in society, I had the privilege of being able to hide my sexual orientation until I was ready to deal with it, transgender people don't have the same ability to hide who they are. They are so open to attack, and the abuse they suffer on a day to day basis leads to such serious mental health issues. I'd never want to be somebody who kicks down so to speak.

20-12-2019 1:12pm

Mixed changing rooms

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/life-style/women/sexual-assault-unisex-changing-rooms-sunday-times-women-risk-a8519086.html%3famp

General discussion
https://medium.com/@camradfems/there-is-nothing-progressive-about-removing-women-only-bathrooms-37729064cfb7

There's stats on toilets also somewhere

Gynoid · 20-12-2019 1:12pm

seamus wrote: »

Well at least you're comfortable with your misandry.

If you have any evidence that denying transwomen access to women's toilets makes women safer, then fire away.

The reason transwomen are virtually always targetted rather than transmen, is the exact same stupidity that made gay men the bigger target of hate in the 1980s above lesbians. Misandry. The belief that all men are sexual deviants, and any behaviour outside the norm is just some other angle to try and have sex with unwilling participants.

When you realise that transwomen aren't trans because it's a sexual thing, you'll understand why the arguments about toilets are ridiculous.

No. It is absolutely not misandry. I never feel misandry. Never have. It is a direct insult to call me that. I have argued long and hard on this issue from all angles and never felt misandry. But such a scurrilous accusation is not unexpected from you.

20-12-2019 1:13pm

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?

Many in the trans- community argue that gender is not the same as sex, which I wholeheartedly agree with.

But if that's the case, then how can one transition from "man" to "woman" -- which are the sexes?

Seems to be a category error on their part.

The problem becomes worse if you assume gender and sex are the same. As there are individuals who believe they were born "agender" (without a gender), in theory they can "transition" to become another gender.

So, which is it!?

Whatever way you slice the pie, things don't come out the right way.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 20-12-2019 1:15pm

seamus wrote: »

Poster specifically mentioned toilets (restrooms). Different conversation.

Right... but then you quoted the below part of Gynoid’s post and replied as follows (emphasis mine):

Gynoid wrote: »

Did you ever think maybe men have little to fear from transmen in their single sex spaces like sports or showers...

seamus wrote: »

...and there it is.

Biological men are dangerous would-be rapists from whom women need to be protected. Bravo.

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

Comments