Author John Boyne receives abuse from strangers on Twitter

I'm no white knight, trust me. Also as I am anonymous what good would it do me?

It would be nice if we could all use the same jacks (and some places in Dublin have had them and I haven't noticed any issue) but on the other hand male violence and sexual violence is a thing. No, that doesn't mean all men are violent or even most men are violent or even many men at all are violent, but it's a thing in a way that female violence isn't. It only takes one man.

I accept that women might want to have spaces away from men and if that includes the jacks (which is after all often a place a woman can go to get away from a pest or worse) then we should listen, that's all.

Cienciano

Deleted User wrote: »

I think some women are 'obsessed' about the issue because they feel vulnerable with males in previously female only spaces.

They might be victims of abuse in the past or something illogical like that.

They might be nervous about the data suggesting sexual assault is more common in unisex toilets than sex-segregated toilets.

Silly old women and their funny ideas!

When you're passive aggressive about sexual assault, it comes across as creepy.
Any links to back up any of your claims? I'm a man and I've used ladies toilets on lots of occasions as I've a young daughter.

Mrs OBumble

seamus wrote: »

I don't dismiss the concerns of women out of hand, but I don't buy into baseless fear either. If something is being done to make people "feel" safe without actually making them safer, then it's pointless.

....

This is not rocket science. Do you look twice at anyone who comes into the bathroom? No.

So emotional safety is pointless? Thanks for sharing that opinion, but many people disagree.

And I can assure you that more women than you think do look twice at anyone who comes into a confined space, like the area outside a set of cubicles, that they're in.

kowloon

It's a novel, not a piece of peer-reviewed research in The Lancet, I'm sure people who don't like it will manage to not buy it.

jimgoose

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

So emotional safety is pointless? Thanks for sharing that opinion, but many people disagree.

And I can assure you that more women than you think do look twice at anyone who comes into a confined space, like the area outside a set of cubicles, that they're in.

There's a restaurant here in Cork with one of the restrooms configured like that, i.e. two cubicles, His'n'Hers, with a common wash-basin area. The facility is quite small, and I get the impression a lot of women aren't quite comfortable with it. I can see their point.

Regarding Mr. Boyne, well - the Internet is the Internet, isn't it, and a small percentage of the Trans community are properly mental and will kill you over the word "cis" and all the usual carry-on. I wouldn't say he was tarred and feathered and run off of Twitter on a rail, mind. :pac:

seamus

Deleted User wrote: »

I accept that women might want to have spaces away from men and if that includes the jacks (which is after all often a place a woman can go to get away from a pest or worse) then we should listen, that's all.

I don't disagree that we should listen, but I question the value of any women-only spaces when the purpose of them is safety. Safety is often very counter-intuitive. People think by locking their bike or parking their car in a quiet secluded location, it's less likely to be stolen. When in fact the opposite is true.

In one context women are frequently told that for safety reasons they should avoid being alone in public spaces, but then people argue that the public location where women are at their most vulnerable should be a very quiet place with as few people as possible.

You often hear women say they go to the bathroom in groups partially as a safety measure. But if a woman is on her own, that's not an option. Surely a unisex bathroom provides more foot traffic, and therefore less opportunity for an attacker?

Tikki Wang Wang

super_furry wrote: »

Who?

What?

Assetbacked

Trans etc. gets far more coverage than it deserves. The percentage of the population it impacts, directly and indirectly is negligible.

jimgoose

Assetbacked wrote: »

Trans etc. gets far more coverage than it deserves. The percentage of the population it impacts, directly and indirectly is negligible.

Whatever about that, I would say that the loony element of that demograph might want to look at the current policy of publicly garroting ordinary folk who make one of these modern social faux pas that we seem to have invented for ourselves by mistake, in all good-humour. That has to be counter-productive.

Penn

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Are you saying that a gender disorder is not a physical condition? Ie that it's all in the person's head?

Or that it doesn't make using shared-space cubicles difficult?

Disabled Accessibility Toilets are for those who have physical conditions which makes it difficult for them to use standard toilets. Many people who have disabilities can still use standard toilets (eg. an amputee with a fake leg would still count as being disabled, but could still likely use a standard toilet without issue).

Disabled Access toilets aren't for those who have any disabilities, but for those who have disabilities which means they need special facilities not provided in a standard toilet.

seamus

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

So emotional safety is pointless?

"Emotional safety"?

Not even a thing.

Given the fact that a woman is nine times more likely to be assaulted by a man that they know than a random member of the public, I don't buy into the fearmongering that tells women they need to be continuously afraid of random men.

I have a lot more respect for the argument that women would prefer a space where they can scratch their tits behind the bra strap, squeeze their spots and put on some makeup without men wandering around. As a man I appreciate in a man's toilets being able to adjust my bits, fart and burp out of women's earshot.

But personal comfort is not a valid reason for restricting the rights of others.

Assetbacked wrote: »

Trans etc. gets far more coverage than it deserves. The percentage of the population it impacts, directly and indirectly is negligible.

I agree. If the weenies would stop freaking out and looking for the law to force gender segregation of toilets and protect their rights to harass trans people, this discussion would all go away.

Franz Von Peppercorn

seamus wrote: »

"Emotional safety"?

Not even a thing.

Given the fact that a woman is nine times more likely to be assaulted by a man that they know than a random member of the public, I don't buy into the fearmongering that tells women they need to be continuously afraid of random men.

I have a lot more respect for the argument that women would prefer a space where they can scratch their tits behind the bra strap, squeeze their spots and put on some makeup without men wandering around. As a man I appreciate in a man's toilets being able to adjust my bits, fart and burp out of women's earshot.

But personal comfort is not a valid reason for restricting the rights of others.

In a different context your posts would come across as a strong men's rights activist.

beejee

Engaging the internet with your career on the line is fast becoming an imbecilic move.

Its just a wasteland of people so toxic that they couldn't exist anywhere else. The reject bin of society.

Not this particular subject, just all of it!

DEFTLEFTHAND

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm no white knight, trust me. Also as I am anonymous what good would it do me?

It would be nice if we could all use the same jacks (and some places in Dublin have had them and I haven't noticed any issue) but on the other hand male violence and sexual violence is a thing. No, that doesn't mean all men are violent or even most men are violent or even many men at all are violent, but it's a thing in a way that female violence isn't. It only takes one man.

I accept that women might want to have spaces away from men and if that includes the jacks (which is after all often a place a woman can go to get away from a pest or worse) then we should listen, that's all.

Men also like to have spaces away from women.

We should really get back to having men only spaces. For eg, golf club bars.

BarryD2

If you can't stand the heat in the kitchen, then get out and leave it to those that want to engage. If enough people leave, then those left will just be in an echo chamber of their own making.

seamus

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

In a different context your posts would come across as a strong men's rights activist.

It makes me glad to hear that because if you asked some MRA's they'd say I'm a cuck feminist extremist.

So if I can be accused of being both sides at once, then I'm probably finding a good balance.

o1s1n

seamus wrote: »

"Emotional safety"?

Not even a thing.

American colleges with their safe spaces would like to disagree :eek:

mcmoustache

I didn't see anything in the article about bathrooms.

Rubberchikken

when its accepted as a mental illness maybe then these people will calm bloody down.

god im glad ive never gone on social media. seems to be filled with the dregs of society.

DEFTLEFTHAND

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Men also like to have spaces away from women.

We should really get back to having men only spaces. For eg, golf club bars.

fwiw I agree, I don't have a problem with single-sex clubs etc. Not really for me but some people like them.

There's a problem when they monopolise resources like golf clubs, and when they actually exist as a power network away from the other sex, but in principle I don't see what's wrong with them, never have.

Gimme A Pound

It's not a mental illness though. If it were, it could be treated with psychiatric meds and counselling, and it is at the start, to rule out the possibility.

I don't question that trans among people who are at least puberty age is a real thing - it's the more militant politics around it that I find objectionable.

super_furry wrote: »

Who?

If only there was some way to look up who he is.

RWCNT

Rubberchikken wrote: »

when its accepted as a mental illness maybe then these people will calm bloody down.

god im glad ive never gone on social media. seems to be filled with the dregs of society.

It was once accepted as a mental illness, not anymore though. What makes you think it will be again?

Assetbacked

I agree. If the weenies would stop freaking out and looking for the law to force gender segregation of toilets and protect their rights to harass trans people, this discussion would all go away.

If that's all that amounts to discrimination in their society then I would count them lucky.

Church on Tuesday

The permanently outraged cabal of Twitter(irrelevant who the sub section is, everyone is angry on Twitter it would seem) giving sickening abuse to a middle aged man who dared ask pertinent questions about a certain societal situation.

I'm shocked so I am.

Marengo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

He wasn't "forced" to leave Twitter, he chose not to stand up for his beliefs and to run away from the debate. I have no time for people who claim to be "forced" to leave a platform because of words written by strangers on the internet - grow a f*cking pair* and stand your ground.

*I realise that this particular remark may, in the context of the trans issue, be taken as either an appalling or an incredible pun, depending on one's viewpoint

He's dead right to leave Twitter and not be wasting his time going around in circles arguing with people who do little else only that. Has nothing to do with having a pair only the cop on to know it's a waste of time with nothing to be gained.

Marengo

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Goodbye John Boyne. Whoever the fcuk you are.

Boy in the Stripped Pyjamas ring a bell? Award winning book made into a film.

Limerick91

I learned a new word today "cis". WTF!!!!

Seriously what is this about. 2% of the population trying to dictate how the other 98% describe themselves

DEFTLEFTHAND

Limerick91 wrote: »

I learned a new word today "cis". WTF!!!!

Seriously what is this about. 2% of the population trying to dictate how the other 98% describe themselves

0.03% of the population.

Dante7

Mark Rippetoe wrote: »

Mod:

var originalThreadTitle = "John Boyne forced to leave twitter";
var newThreadTitle = String.RemoveFalsehoods(originalThreadTitle);
Console.WriteLine(newThreadTitle);

I would be obliged if you wouldn't change the thread titles of threads that other people create to suit your agenda. In the absence of such a guarantee I will not be creating any further threads. You may not miss my threads or posts, but I am sure a lot of people feel the same and will also stop creating threads. After a while this site will become an echo chamber.

Yermande

I feel I need to better educate myself on this and related topics.

Can someone please explain to me the differences between:

1. Transgender people;
2. Transsexuals;
3. Transvestites;
4. Drag Queens.

Thanks.

hatrickpatrick

Yurt! wrote: »

Normally I'd agree with you; but there's more to life than getting into a twitter war with an army of the ideologically possessed from all corners of the internet - particularly if one is a successful author, I'd imagine he has more productive things to do with his time.

He'll come back when Wokeus Dei have moved on to feast on their next victim.

I'm not suggesting he had to actually engage them, I'm merely suggesting that deleting his Twitter was his own decision. If words written by strangers on the internet have the power to upset you enough to cause real-life psychological distress, then in my view you're just not cut out for social media. It's different when we talk about cyberbullying of teens etc by people they actually know in real life, as an extension of day-to-day bullying, but random strangers on the internet? I don't understand how anyone could possibly care enough about what they think to get genuinely "upset" by what they write.

Take the death threats issue, for example. If some random idiot on Twitter tells me they're going to hunt me down and slit my throat, my reaction will be "good luck with that, I've never tied my real-life address to an online account and even if I had, I have a dog which would rip your bollocks off before you got anywhere near me". Like, it's the internet. It's not supposed to be taken so seriously - if the things random strangers say about you on it are enough to genuinely upset you in real life, then you're doing social media wrong. That's simply not how it's meant to be used, and it's not how seriously it's supposed to be taken.

Maybe this is just because as a child of the 90s, I hung out in anonymous online chatrooms where death and violence threats against everyone, myself included, tended to flow thick and fast because those chatrooms always had their fair share of total w@nkers hanging out in them. But like, even at a young teenager I would just scratch my head and think "how do they imagine they're going to find some random lad in Ireland to hunt down? Ok, they know the word "patrick" is in my name, that'll really help narrow the search "

Maybe it's a bit more intimidating when your real full name is out there, as on Twitter or Facebook. But only a bit. The fact is that keyboard warriors are an actual real-life threat to a person's safety in 0.000001% of cases. So if someone is actually traumatised or upset enough by their antics to describe themselves as being "forced" to leave a social media platform, in my honest opinion it just means they're overly sensitive muppets who really didn't belong on social media to begin with.

Just my opinion, obviously. And I'm sure it's partly a generational thing - when you've been exposed to the violent ramblings of internet keyboard warriors from a young age, you grow into adulthood and they're honestly just not capable of causing you anything more than mild annoyance or mild amusement.

Ipso

Was there any hate speech involved?

mcmoustache

Dante7 wrote: »

I would be obliged if you wouldn't change the thread titles of threads that other people create to suit your agenda. In the absence of such a guarantee I will not be creating any further threads. You may not miss my threads or posts, but I am sure a lot of people feel the same and will also stop creating threads. After a while this site will become an echo chamber.

It was a shíte title and a shíte OP on a topic that had a small chance of generating some serious discussion. Here was a story of someone not associated with homophobia or transphobia who got loads of abuse on social media because he objected to being labelled as "cis" and objected to the attacks on Martina Navratilova. this was a reasonable man with a reasonable critique of some of the extreme ends of the trans rights movement and you couldn't even be arsed adding a link so that people could know what you were on about.

You blew it.

SexBobomb

Yermande wrote: »

I feel I need to better educate myself on this and related topics.

Can someone please explain to me the differences between:

1. Transgender people;
2. Transsexuals;
3. Transvestites;
4. Drag Queens.

Thanks.

Well, they're not quite a man, they're not quite a woman but maaann....

so to answer your question I don't know.

mcmoustache

Yermande wrote: »

I feel I need to better educate myself on this and related topics.

Can someone please explain to me the differences between:

1. Transgender people;
2. Transsexuals;
3. Transvestites;
4. Drag Queens.

Thanks.

As far as I'm aware, it's:

1. Transgender: Someone who self identities as the opposite gender. May or may not have transitioned.
2. Transsexual: Someone who identifies as the opposite gender and has transitioned.
3: Transvestites are people who dress and wear makeup like the opposite gender like Rory O Neal or Annie Lennox.
4: Drag Queens: Same as 3 but it's men dressed as women, usually for entertainment.

mcmoustache

Ipso wrote: »

Was there any hate speech involved?

From the author? Certainly not in that article. I linked to it in my first post in this thread.

seamus

1. Transgender people;
2. Transsexuals;

Very similar. The key difference is in the words; gender and sex. Gender being what you feel like in your head. Sex being what you look like on the outside.

In other words someone who is transgender is someone who identifies themselves as a gender different to the one they were given at birth. A transexual is someone who uses medical or surgical means to alter their physical appearance to match. Transsexual can be regarded a subset of transgender, but by and large it's falling out of usage, people choose to use transgender instead as a whole.

3. Transvestites;
4. Drag Queens.

All drag queens are transvestites, not all transvestites are drag queens.

"vestite" referring to clothing, a transvestite is someone who chooses to wear (either full time or on occasion),clothes which do not match their gender. It doesn't assume anything about their sexuality.

A drag queen is a male transvestite who often adopts an alter-ego (usually of the other gender) while they are wearing the clothing, which is also typically an exaggerated and flamboyant persona, not necessarily in any way related to the underlying persona.
There is a female equivalent called a Drag King.

mikep

This is what cis and trans really mean..

I expect chemistry will have to find new terminology:

https://www.chemguide.co.uk/basicorg/isomerism/geometric.html

AndrewJRenko

Isn't it fascinating how many people are hugely concerned about the theoretical risk to women arising from transgender women in bathrooms when they don't seem too bothered about the very real and actual violence done to women by men every day!

Lux23

Forgive me if I am wrong, but didn't he leave Twitter because he was getting abuse from anti-trans eegits as well? It wasn't all to do with his comments about Cis labels.

mcmoustache

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Isn't it fascinating how many people are hugely concerned about the theoretical risk to women arising from transgender women in bathrooms when they don't seem too bothered about the very real and actual violence done to women by men every day!

You'll see similar with the sudden care for women's rights from the same types when it comes to threads immigration from muslim-majority countries. It's utterly transparent but they do it anyway.

Ipso

mcmoustache wrote: »

From the author? Certainly not in that article. I linked to it in my first post in this thread.

Against the author, I’m sure the professionally annoyed often become what they claim to hate.

mcmoustache

Lux23 wrote: »

Forgive me if I am wrong, but didn't he leave Twitter because he was getting abuse from anti-trans eegits as well? It wasn't all to do with his comments about Cis labels.

This Times article doesn't make it clear but the implication is that the backlash was against the article from saturday.

I'm not sure what in the article would prompt a backlash from transphobes but then again, those types don't really need much of an excuse to be cúnts to people online.

Larbre34

Lux23 wrote: »

Forgive me if I am wrong, but didn't he leave Twitter because he was getting abuse from anti-trans eegits as well? It wasn't all to do with his comments about Cis labels.

This is a major part of the problem, any kind of real debate or attempts at education are muddied by transphobes, homophobes and those of other prejudices who deliberately hijack and confuse the message.

Cis is a perfectly logical opposite of trans as taken from latin, but its recent usage means it will likely never be acceptable to folk who have never needed a prefix in normal usage to identify or differentiate them and id be one of them. For me there are trans men and women and just men and women (or any age related alternative). In the case where in conversation or writing it is necessary to make a distinction for clarity, non-trans is the appropriate exceptional use.

For me, if you were born with a pee pee you are forever a chap or with a noo noo you are forever a lassie but i do understand what mental and endocrinological illnesses are and what homosexuality (or degrees of) is and that every person deserves healthcare and support and effectively to live and let live. Its when an aggression and militancy creeps in on either side of that, that it needs to be tackled.

Yermande

mcmoustache wrote: »

As far as I'm aware, it's:

1. Transgender: Someone who self identities as the opposite gender. May or may not have transitioned.
2. Transsexual: Someone who identifies as the opposite gender and has transitioned.
3: Transvestites are people who dress and wear makeup like the opposite gender like Rory O Neal or Annie Lennox.
4: Drag Queens: Same as 3 but it's men dressed as women, usually for entertainment.

seamus wrote: »

Very similar. The key difference is in the words; gender and sex. Gender being what you feel like in your head. Sex being what you look like on the outside.

In other words someone who is transgender is someone who identifies themselves as a gender different to the one they were given at birth. A transexual is someone who uses medical or surgical means to alter their physical appearance to match. Transsexual can be regarded a subset of transgender, but by and large it's falling out of usage, people choose to use transgender instead as a whole.

All drag queens are transvestites, not all transvestites are drag queens.

"vestite" referring to clothing, a transvestite is someone who chooses to wear (either full time or on occasion),clothes which do not match their gender. It doesn't assume anything about their sexuality.

A drag queen is a male transvestite who often adopts an alter-ego (usually of the other gender) while they are wearing the clothing, which is also typically an exaggerated and flamboyant persona, not necessarily in any way related to the underlying persona.
There is a female equivalent called a Drag King.

Thanks for the replies.

I'm glad I asked as I thought a transgender person would have to have had surgery or be taking hormone medication or something like that. I guess I thought that 'trans' meant they were in a state of transition or in the process of changing in some way.

I'm not trying to make light of the situation but, in theory, could I start identifying myself as a woman from tomorrow morning onward and compel the State to recognise me as a woman? In practical terms surely it's not that 'simple'?

Would a GP or some other professional have to assist me or confirm with the State that I am now a woman? What happens with passports and birth certificates etc.? Can they be re-issued?

I guess I'm just asking the above because that's where I really fall down. I just don't understand the practical outcomes for individuals and society.

For example, there's a new women's wellness clinic about to open near my apartment. Could I enter their premises, looking as I do, i.e. like an average man, and say I'd like to see a GP. If they give my any resistance could I just say, actually, I may look like a man, but I self-identify as a woman and I would like you to recognise me as a woman and schedule the appointment.

If they refuse to schedule the appointment have they discriminated against me based on my biological sex? But would that be an acceptable grounds to discriminate based on the entire rationale of the clinic?

Anyway, these are genuine questions. I'm interested in learning how this all plays out.

What country is the most accommodating of transgender people and how have they dealt with these issues?

Franz Von Peppercorn

Ipso wrote: »

Was there any hate speech involved?

A few sassanach called him a spud, but thats ok these days.

mcmoustache

Yermande wrote: »

Thanks for the replies.

I'm glad I asked as I thought a transgender person would have to have had surgery or be taking hormone medication or something like that. I guess I thought that 'trans' meant they were in a state of transition or in the process of changing in some way.

I only learned of the distinction between transexual and transgender recently. The gist of it is that sex and gender are different. According to most sources on the matter, sex is biological while gender is social.

Yermande wrote: »

I'm not trying to make light of the situation but, in theory, could I start identifying myself as a woman from tomorrow morning onward and compel the State to recognise me as a woman? In practical terms surely it's not that 'simple'?

This refers to self-id. I'm not sure how it all works but my understanding is that no, you couldn't just start identifying yourself as female and expect the state to see you that way. You would need to fill out some forms and make some declarations, I would imagine.

Yermande wrote: »

Would a GP or some other professional have to assist me or confirm with the State that I am now a woman? What happens with passports and birth certificates etc.? Can they be re-issued?

I don't think you would need anything from a GP but you would probably want to get your passport re-issued. I'm not sure what happens to birth certs but I do remember this debate coming up before so maybe it's possible to get your birt cert changed too.

Yermande wrote: »

I guess I'm just asking the above because that's where I really fall down. I just don't understand the practical outcomes for individuals and society.

I'm still fairly ignorant on this too. Transsexuality has been a thing for years now and is fairly uncomplicated. Transgenderism is more recent and I think that there are a lot of issues there that are yet to be resolved and understood.

Yermande wrote: »

For example, there's a new women's wellness clinic about to open near my apartment. Could I enter their premises, looking as I do, i.e. like an average man, and say I'd like to see a GP. If they give my any resistance could I just say, actually, I may look like a man, but I self-identify as a woman and I would like you to recognise me as a woman and schedule the appointment.


If they refuse to schedule the appointment have they discriminated against you based on your biological sex? But would that be an acceptable grounds to discriminate based on the entire rationale of the clinic?

I don't know actually. Maybe someone else can help out.

Yermande wrote: »

Anyway, these are genuine questions. I'm interested in learning how this all plays out.

Same.

Yermande wrote: »

What country is the most accommodating of transgender people and how have they dealt with these issues?

No idea.

B0jangles

I've always wondered - would people who really object to being described as 'cis' feel the same way about being described as 'straight', 'gay' or 'bi'?

I know they aren't exactly the same thing, but they are reasonably similar.

cloudatlas

If you are a woman and you are being harassed or receiving unwanted attention then the female bathrooms is like a sanctuary to escape that, the thought of it becoming an open space for all where you can be pursued and have the harassment legitimately continue concerns me.

RWCNT

B0jangles wrote: »

I've always wondered - would people who really object to being described as 'cis' feel the same way about being described as 'straight', 'gay' or 'bi'?

Or "able bodied"? Or "sober"?

I think "non-trans" would be a better term as it would be far less confusing to most people, but I don't mind "cis" at all. Some people seem to think it's a slur and that's simply not true.