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

Here is a conundrum for wokescolds -
Individuals with a cervix has 22 letters
Women and transmen has 16 letters.
6 letters more means 27% more ink wasted, more paper used, more trees felled, more waste laid to the environment. You are egregious monsters!!

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Yesterday, Irvine Welsh posted a few tweets pointing out the conflict between some transgender rights and some women’s right. He was measured, just like JK. The response was muted. Very few threats, very few transphobia accusations, not much of anything really. He’s lower profile than Rowling but still pretty high profile. Now, what could be the behind the difference of treatment of the two authors. I wonder?

I honestly doubt many of the younger people engaged in Cancel Culture would even know who Irvine Welsh is, especially the Yanks, whereas they would have grown up reading JK Rowling's books and watching the film adaptations.

I mean even Morrissey is nearly off their radar, the response to his endorsement of For Britain was fairly muted, and he was massive for older generations.

Well hopefully pillow talk won’t cause Johnson to make a grave error.

CrankyHaus wrote: »

I honestly doubt many of the younger people engaged in Cancel Culture would even know who Irvine Welsh is, especially the Yanks, whereas they would have grown up reading JK Rowling's books and watching the film adaptations.

I mean even Morrissey is nearly off their radar, the response to his endorsement of For Britain was fairly muted, and he was massive for older generations.

It is still notable for him to get basically no blowback. It would be at a lower level than Rowling but you’d imagine there’d be some. But, hey, if you think he’s not high-profile enough, William Shatner has been tackling gender ideology absurdities in the last few days. John Cleese did too recently. They are both very well known across the generations. Women get attacked and vilified much more for expressing doubt about gender ideology without a shadow of a doubt. Check out the worst tweets aimed at Cleese and Shatner as opposed to Rowling. There’s a difference. Both in viciousness and volume. Basically any leftie bloke who secretly harbours misogynistic feelings now has a socially acceptable way to express them whilst still looking progressive.

volchitsa wrote: »

Cleese was a few years back though. He keeps his head down these days.
I wonder if the tone from the pro trans lobbies has just got far more vicious recently. Look at Graham Limehan, he got plenty of vitriol thrown at him didn’t he?

We’ll see what happens if Irvine Welsh keeps it up.

No, only a few weeks back, he expressed support for Rowling. And that you haven’t heard of it demonstrates neatly the difference in treatment he received compared to her.

I do think there is increased viciousness and I think it’s because people are waking up to the absurdities we are all supposed to swallow.

I have always been supportive of transgender people. I don't think it's just a mental illness (although I see why psychiatric assessment is part of the treatment, to rule it out, as gender reassignment treatment is very drastic and potentially traumatising). I think the high levels of depression and suicide in the community are linked to the loneliness and desperation people who are trans can experience. I have no issue with using the preferred pronouns, no issue with someone identifying as the opposite gender to the one they were born as. I recognise that trans people can experience horrendous abuse and hurt, and even just the experience of being trans in and of itself can cause terrible heartache and pain - emotionally, mentally and physically - and I know virtually nobody would inflict that on themselves just for attention, etc. Also I'm not going to pretend that I, a middle-class, white, heterosexual woman living in the west, have experienced anything like what trans people have experienced. I believe in compassion and empathy, and in every good person being able to live their life in peace and dignity. As long as you are not harming yourself or anyone else, be who you want to be, dress how you want to dress, love who you want to love.

But that doesn't mean I have to agree with everything that members of the transgender community claim (and not all do) including pretending a fallacy is the truth. Nor does the lack of ticking absolutely every box mean I hate trans people and want them to experience hardship. This is the crazy narrative that's being put out there though - tick eight out of ten boxes in support? You hate trans people and want them to suffer - it's ten or nothing. In the past few months, I have become more familiar with the debate on Twitter, and I have been astounded, and absolutely appalled... and quite upset by it. I have seen women spoken to/of in a way that I thought was confined only to the grubbiest, grottiest corners of misogyny on the internet (the obsession with insulting middle-aged women - wtf? Can't that just be the preserve of incels?) And by so-called liberals and feminists. I decided just to close my Twitter because it wasn't good for me to be drip fed that kind of hatred. As for people losing their jobs because of saying biological sex is real? Only someone deluded would not see how frightening that is.

I will not accept that trans women are women - the gleefully spiteful way some insist it's the case, what the hell is wrong with them? Trans women are trans women. If trans women are women, then I'm a trans woman - which of course I'm not, and I would never claim to be, because that would be a lie. Women have a vagina, clitoris, cervix, ovaries; women menstruate, gestate, give birth and breastfeed. The argument "What about women who don't do one or more of those things? Are they not women?" is terrible - and people who resort to it think they're so clever. Not all women have a cervix, ovaries, menstruate, gestate, give birth or breastfeed, but only women do. "What about those who have gone through the menopause or had a hysterectomy? Are they not women?" Duh, only women can go through the menopause or have a hysterectomy. The cheek of telling women that "woman" should be redefined. Tell that to a woman who has or has had ovarian cancer, cervical cancer (and the less than pleasant experience of the smear test - as someone once said to me: it's like your vagina is a tyre and it's getting jacked up :pac:), breast cancer (I know men and trans women can be diagnosed with breast cancer but the vast majority of breast cancer patients by miles are women - because of oestrogen), miscarriages, stillbirth, polycystic ovarian syndrome, gestational diabetes, endometriosis, becomes terribly ill - physically and psychologically - every month because of her period, a traumatic birth (there are women who have experienced the death in utero of the baby they were carrying, and had to deliver a dead baby), ectopic pregnancy, post natal depression, a terrible time breastfeeding, an awful menopausal experience. Physical sex is real (the fact I'm even saying that...) - claiming it's subjective is absolutely an Orwellian spin on language (and I don't use that term lightly). Ditto pretending the past of high profile trans women (like Caitlyn Jenner) never existed.

Try saying trans women are women to the millions of women outside the western world who are brutalised for being women, who endure FGM and banishment to the "menstrual hut". Respect should be a two-way street - I don't claim that the global demographic which I'm part of knows what it's like to be transgender and the awful experiences that can go with this. If you were born with male genitalia but now identify as female, I respect that - I see you as female too. But you are not a woman. You are a trans woman.

And "cis"? Give me a break. As someone said on Twitter, it's like a cross between "cyst" and "piss". I am a woman. Not a cis woman - a woman. All this obtuse "define woman" stuff - insulting, disingenuous tripe.

If what I'm saying is hurtful to trans people, I mean... I'm not trying to hurt - but I refuse to deny reality. There are realities for all of us which are uncomfortable. I acknowledge that the defensiveness (not the abuse) from trans people is somewhat understandable (I wasn't a fan of Graham Linehan's tweets - he could be very nasty and hurtful to trans people) but abuse from non trans people? Pitiful - all about optics and looking "right on". Absolute bandwagon jumping. To see women - feminists - call JK Rowling (to claim what she said is transphobic is utterly bizarre) and other women who share her views "TERF cunnts" (even in contexts which have nothing to do with trans rights) is utterly depressing. No thought involved whatsoever.

Now I do agree that there are unscrupulous types hijacking this debate who are genuinely transphobic and who previously couldn't give a fiddler's about women. I have also seen some feminists say awful things about trans women - again, clear transphobia. But I won't let their muddying of the waters sway me when it comes to the objective reality of biological sex. And from what I've seen, the majority of the abuse is from the other direction.

As for women's/girls' spaces being abused? It's not trans women I'm concerned about at all - it's a minority of men, who aren't actually trans women, exploiting self ID.

Errashareesh wrote: »

I have always been supportive of transgender people. I don't think it's just a mental illness (although I see why psychiatric assessment is part of the treatment, to rule it out, as gender reassignment treatment is very drastic and potentially traumatising). I think the high levels of depression and suicide in the community are linked to the loneliness and desperation people who are trans can experience. I have no issue with using the preferred pronouns, no issue with someone identifying as the opposite gender to the one they were born as. I recognise that trans people can experience horrendous abuse and hurt, and even just the experience of being trans in and of itself can cause terrible heartache and pain - emotionally, mentally and physically - and I know virtually nobody would inflict that on themselves just for attention, etc. Also I'm not going to pretend that I, a middle-class, white, heterosexual woman living in the west, have experienced anything like what trans people have experienced. I believe in compassion and empathy, and in every good person being able to live their life in peace and dignity. As long as you are not harming anyone else, be who you want to be, dress how you want to dress, love who you want to love.

But that doesn't mean I have to agree with everything that members of the transgender community claim (and not all do) including pretending a fallacy is the truth. Nor does the lack of ticking absolutely every box mean I hate trans people and want them to experience hardship. This is the crazy narrative that's being put out there though - tick eight out of ten boxes in support? You hate trans people and want them to suffer - it's ten or nothing. In the past few months, I have become more familiar with the debate on Twitter, and I have been astounded, and absolutely appalled... and quite upset by it. I have seen women spoken to/of in a way that I thought was confined only to the grubbiest, grottiest corners of misogyny on the internet (the obsession with insulting middle-aged women - wtf? Can't that just be the preserve of incels?) And by so-called liberals and feminists. I decided just to close my Twitter because it wasn't good for me to be drip fed that kind of hatred. As for people losing their jobs because of saying biological sex is real? Only someone deluded would not see how frightening that is.

I will not accept that trans women are women - the gleefully spiteful way some insist it's the case, what the hell is wrong with them? Trans women are trans women. If trans women are women, then I'm a trans woman - which of course I'm not, and I would never claim to be, because that would be a lie. Women have a vagina, clitoris, cervix, ovaries; women menstruate, gestate, give birth and breastfeed. The argument "What about women who don't do one or more of those things? Are they not women?" is terrible - and people who resort to it think they're so clever. Not all women have a cervix, ovaries, menstruate, gestate, give birth or breastfeed, but only women do. "What about those who have gone through the menopause or had a hysterectomy? Are they not women?" Duh, only women can go through the menopause or have a hysterectomy. The cheek of telling women that "woman" should be redefined. Tell that to a woman who has or has had ovarian cancer, cervical cancer (and the less than pleasant experience of the smear test - as someone once said to me: it's like your vagina is a tyre and it's getting jacked up :pac:), breast cancer (I know men and trans women can be diagnosed with breast cancer but the vast majority of breast cancer patients by miles are women - because of oestrogen), miscarriages, stillbirth, polycystic ovarian syndrome, gestational diabetes, endometriosis, becomes terribly ill - physically and psychologically - every month because of her period, a traumatic birth (there are women who have experienced the death in utero of the baby they were carrying, and had to deliver a dead baby), ectopic pregnancy, post natal depression, a terrible time breastfeeding, an awful menopausal experience. Physical sex is real (the fact I'm even saying that...) - claiming it's subjective is absolutely an Orwellian spin on language (and I don't use that term lightly). Ditto pretending the past of high profile trans women (like Caitlyn Jenner) never existed.

Try saying trans women are women to the millions of women outside the western world who are brutalised for being women, who endure FGM and banishment to the "menstrual hut". Respect should be a two-way street - I don't claim that the global demographic which I'm part of knows what it's like to be transgender and the awful experiences that can go with this. If you were born with male genitalia but now identify as female, I respect that - I see you as female too. But you are not a woman. You are a trans woman.

And "cis"? Give me a break. As someone said on Twitter, it's like a cross between "cyst" and "piss". I am a woman. Not a cis woman - a woman. All this obtuse "define woman" stuff - insulting, disingenuous tripe.

If what I'm saying is hurtful to trans people, I mean... I'm not trying to hurt - but I refuse to deny reality. There are realities for all of us which are uncomfortable. I acknowledge that the defensiveness (not the abuse) from trans people is somewhat understandable (I wasn't a fan of Graham Linehan's tweets - he could be very nasty and hurtful to trans people) but abuse from non trans people? Pitiful - all about optics and looking "right on". Absolute bandwagon jumping. To see women - feminists - call JK Rowling (to claim what she said is transphobic is utterly bizarre) and other women who share her views "TERF cunnts" (even in contexts which have nothing to do with trans rights) is utterly depressing. No thought involved whatsoever.

Now I do agree that there are unscrupulous types hijacking this debate who are genuinely transphobic and who previously couldn't give a fiddler's about women. I have also seen some feminists say awful things about trans women - again, clear transphobia. But I won't let their muddying of the waters sway me when it comes to the objective reality of biological sex. And from what I've seen, the majority of the abuse is from the other direction.

As for women's/girls' spaces being abused? It's not trans women I'm concerned about at all - it's a minority of men, who aren't actually trans women, exploiting self ID.

OMG TRANSPHOBE.

Agree with everything you say except the bolded bit. Female is the one thing that cannot be identified into. Or male. That’s biological sex, not gender.