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

Tired Gardener

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Wait is this what all this is about ? I'll admit I'd seen the news about this but never looked into why(that's my fault) but I'd assumed the reason was for a genuine transphobic reason. Okay now I'm even more confused if that's all she said.

https://mobile.twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1269382518362509313

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Wait is this what all this is about ? I'll admit I'd seen the news about this but never looked into why(that's my fault) but I'd assumed the reason was for a genuine transphobic reason. Okay now I'm even more confused if that's all she said.

She tweeted an article that talked about “people who menstruate” and basically objected to the word ‘woman’ not being used. That was, I believe, the tweet that kicked it all off. She followed it up with other tweets and an essay, all around the subject of the erosion of sex-based rights. Some people think she is being transphobic with all this, other do not. (I’m in the latter camp.)

That’s the short version.

Itssoeasy

Tired Gardener wrote: »

https://mobile.twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1269382518362509313

I read the first three replies to her tweet and I'm not a huge Harry Potter fan bar reading the first couple of books years ago but white supremacy is a new angle on it which you don't expect.

Itssoeasy

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

She tweeted an article that talked about “people who menstruate” and basically objected to the word ‘woman’ not being used. That was, I believe, the tweet that kicked it all off. She followed it up with other tweets and an essay, all around the subject of the erosion of sex-based rights. Some people think she is being transphobic with all this, other do not. (I’m in the latter camp.)

That’s the short version.

I appreciate the short version. I'm not someone in real life or online who likes confrontation but maybe being an introvert and saying not a lot helps me not get labelled as something I'm not.

Bonniedog

Itssoeasy wrote: »

I read the first three replies to her tweet and I'm not a huge Harry Potter fan bar reading the first couple of books years ago but white supremacy is a new angle on it which you don't expect.

You learn something new every day!

We are dealing with serious irrationality here.

All totalitarians - which is what the post modern relativistic left are just as much as were its Marxist progenitors - think they can silence reality and truth by beatings, murders, camps, censorship or whatever.

The means open to the current spawn is basically confined to censorship, abuse and the occasional violent assault.

They need to be put firmly back into their box. Stating the truth is the best way as it annoys the fk out of them.

That men or little boys cannot just decide to be girls or women other than as a harmless psychological attraction to feminine things is one such truth.

Gruffalux

Merriam Webster was founded in 1831 and is well known mostly for its dictionaries.

Go to its online dictionary..
https://www.merriam-webster.com/

And in the search bar type in ''homosexual''.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Gruffalox wrote: »

Merriam Webster was founded in 1831 and is well known mostly for its dictionaries.

Go to its online dictionary..
https://www.merriam-webster.com/

And in the search bar type in ''homosexual''.

Cripes: :eek: Websters is like the US version of the OED or Collins dictionary.

Gruffalux

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Cripes: :eek: Websters is like the US version of the OED or Collins dictionary.

I find it unbelievable.

Quantum Erasure

Old Mr Webster could never define, what's being said between your heart and mine....

TuringBot47

iptba wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/new-childrens-minister-to-make-it-easier-for-under-16s-to-change-their-gender-39346464.html

Great...

The green party has become the pink party....
Couldn't lose my vote anymore.

Hopefully Sinn Fein will be savaged in the next election and nobody will need to resort to these Green liberal idiots

Tired Gardener

Taken from another thread, where this topic came up, bit took the main thread off course.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Ahh mate there was an awful lot wrong with that one individual fcukwit. You’re hardly suggesting that one person’s malfeasance is representative of much are you?

It sure could be argued that children are influenced by everything, how legitimate that argument is though is up to anyone whether or not the argument has any merit. How do we explain ROGD? By self-selection bias for that survey of the parents of course! As that’s exactly how that study was conducted to adhere to the authors own agenda. It was hardly the stuff of rigorous scientific research!

John Money was as you say a ****wit, he may have been only one person, true. However we can not dismiss his influence in gender theory. His work was back in the 60's, so it isn't out of the realms of possibility to entertain the idea that he influenced a lot of future psychologist. Of whom they have gone on to champion and encourage his ideas?

We know that Sigmund Freud was wrong, he has been absolutely discredited, yet we see that the Tavistock institution has a large statue of him. We only erect statues of people we find influence in. So my idea is that a lot of the folk working at Tavistock cling to some pretty damaging and discredited ideas.

Regarding the ROGD study, everything I have read about it has said that it wasn't unscientific, and calls for it to be retracted were political motivated.

Also we have seen an alarming increase in young girls coming out and identify as transgender. Think it is a 4,000% increase. 5 years ago it was a 100% increase. These numbers are well above what we would expect to see for the numbers of Transgender in a population.


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/culture-mind-and-brain/201811/why-is-transgender-identity-the-rise-among-teens%3famp

One eyed Jack

Tired Gardener wrote: »

Taken from another thread, where this topic came up, bit took the main thread off course.

The main thread you’re referring to was this one -


Intellectuals weigh in on Cancel Culture


Seems perfectly appropriate to make the point that some people are attempting to suppress the views and opinions of other people whom they disagree with. You bowed down to that pressure when you agreed that it wasn’t the thread to air your disagreement with other people’s views.

Tired Gardener wrote: »

John Money was as you say a ****wit, he may have been only one person, true. However we can not dismiss his influence in gender theory. His work was back in the 60's, so it isn't out of the realms of possibility to entertain the idea that he influenced a lot of future psychologist. Of whom they have gone on to champion and encourage his ideas?

We know that Sigmund Freud was wrong, he has been absolutely discredited, yet we see that the Tavistock institution has a large statue of him. We only erect statues of people we find influence in. So my idea is that a lot of the folk working at Tavistock cling to some pretty damaging and discredited ideas.

Why can’t we dismiss Moneys views? What is actually stopping anyone from doing so? There was nothing stopping anyone from suggesting that Freud was talking out his arse and even still many people refer to him as the grandfather of psychology. Far more of this gender studies stuff comes from feminist theorists than anything that ever emerged from the field of psychology.

We erect statues of people we wish to commemorate for their contributions to society or in the case of Freud statue outside the Tavistock - Freuds contribution to psychology. The Tavistock is only one institution of many, so the idea of a commemorative statue of one of the founding fathers of modern psychology doesn’t actually suggest anything about the institute itself, unless you really want it to. Ain’t nobody at the Tavistock suggesting that girls want to be their fathers and boys want to be their mothers.

Tired Gardener wrote: »

Regarding the ROGD study, everything I have read about it has said that it wasn't unscientific, and calls for it to be retracted were political motivated.

Also we have seen an alarming increase in young girls coming out and identify as transgender. Think it is a 4,000% increase. 5 years ago it was a 100% increase. These numbers are well above what we would expect to see for the numbers of Transgender in a population.


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/culture-mind-and-brain/201811/why-is-transgender-identity-the-rise-among-teens%3famp

It was politically motivated in the first place? Everything you’ve read about it has only confirmed your own assessment that it was scientific, but that only tells me what you haven’t read about it -


The term "rapid onset gender dysphoria", coined by Littman, first appeared in a July 2016 notice that was posted on four websites, recruiting parents to respond to a research survey that Littman described as "Rapid onset gender dysphoria, social media, and peer groups". In the title of Littman's poster abstract for the study, published in February 2017, the phrase appeared as "Rapid Onset of Gender Dysphoria".

According to Littman, "Rapid-onset gender dysphoria (ROGD) is not a formal mental health diagnosis at this time."


Rapid onset gender dysphoria controversy


You’re right that we have seen a 4,000% increase in the last 10 years of the number of young girls identifying as transgender, but the suggestion that figure is above the numbers of girls who identify as transgender in the population suggests that it’s far more likely we simply underestimated the numbers of girls who identified as transgender.

Social contagion is certainly one way of explaining why more and more young girls are finding their voices and speaking up for themselves, and there are a number of things which have influenced that behaviour, rather than simply attributing cultural change to social media as the parents and Lisa Littman did in her hypothesis of ROGD which she sought to have confirmed and chose her sources on that basis.

What she did was no different to Freud or Money - they formed a hypothesis and sought out evidence to confirm their hypothesis, to the exclusion of the overwhelming body of evidence which contradicted their hypothesis. Politically motivated research and confirmation bias have always plagued the social sciences, and in these circumstances it’s no different -


Abstract: Behavioral scientists routinely publish broad claims about human psychology and behavior in the world’s top journals based on samples drawn entirely from Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic (WEIRD) societies. Researchers – often implicitly – assume that either there is little variation across human populations, or that these “standard subjects” are as representative of the species as any other population. Are these assumptions justified? Here, our review of the comparative database from across the behavioral sciences suggests both that there is substantial variability in experimental results across populations and that WEIRD subjects are particularly unusual compared with the rest of the species – frequent outliers. The domains reviewed include visual perception, fairness, cooperation, spatial reasoning, categorization and inferential induction, moral reasoning, reasoning styles, self-concepts and related motivations, and the heritability of IQ. The findings suggest that members of WEIRD societies, including young children, are among the least representative populations one could find for generalizing about humans. Many of these findings involve domains that are associated with fundamental aspects of psychology, motivation, and behavior – hence, there are no obvious a priori grounds for claiming that a particular behavioral phenomenon is universal based on sampling from a single subpopulation. Overall, these empirical patterns suggests that we need to be less cavalier in addressing questions of human nature on the basis of data drawn from this particularly thin, and rather unusual, slice of humanity. We close by proposing ways to structurally re-organize the behavioral sciences to best tackle these challenges.


The weirdest people in the world?


I certainly wouldn’t be taking my cues about human behaviour and psychology from a children’s author with an obvious political agenda of her own.

Tired Gardener

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The main thread you’re referring to was this one -


Intellectuals weigh in on Cancel Culture


Seems perfectly appropriate to make the point that some people are attempting to suppress the views and opinions of other people whom they disagree with. You bowed down to that pressure when you agreed that it wasn’t the thread to air your disagreement with other people’s views.

Interesting that you see it as me bowing down to pressure. It was merely people pointing out how that it was taking the thread off topic. Imagine if there were a thread about cooking, and a few people started to argue about sports in it. That is similar to what happened. I copied your post and placed it here as this is a better place suited for the discussion.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Why can’t we dismiss Moneys views? What is actually stopping anyone from doing so? There was nothing stopping anyone from suggesting that Freud was talking out his arse and even still many people refer to him as the grandfather of psychology. Far more of this gender studies stuff comes from feminist theorists than anything that ever emerged from the field of psychology.

We erect statues of people we wish to commemorate for their contributions to society or in the case of Freud statue outside the Tavistock - Freuds contribution to psychology. The Tavistock is only one institution of many, so the idea of a commemorative statue of one of the founding fathers of modern psychology doesn’t actually suggest anything about the institute itself, unless you really want it to. Ain’t nobody at the Tavistock suggesting that girls want to be their fathers and boys want to be their mothers.





It was politically motivated in the first place? Everything you’ve read about it has only confirmed your own assessment that it was scientific, but that only tells me what you haven’t read about it -


The term "rapid onset gender dysphoria", coined by Littman, first appeared in a July 2016 notice that was posted on four websites, recruiting parents to respond to a research survey that Littman described as "Rapid onset gender dysphoria, social media, and peer groups". In the title of Littman's poster abstract for the study, published in February 2017, the phrase appeared as "Rapid Onset of Gender Dysphoria".

According to Littman, "Rapid-onset gender dysphoria (ROGD) is not a formal mental health diagnosis at this time."


Rapid onset gender dysphoria controversy


You’re right that we have seen a 4,000% increase in the last 10 years of the number of young girls identifying as transgender, but the suggestion that figure is above the numbers of girls who identify as transgender in the population suggests that it’s far more likely we simply underestimated the numbers of girls who identified as transgender.

Social contagion is certainly one way of explaining why more and more young girls are finding their voices and speaking up for themselves, and there are a number of things which have influenced that behaviour, rather than simply attributing cultural change to social media as the parents and Lisa Littman did in her hypothesis of ROGD which she sought to have confirmed and chose her sources on that basis.

What she did was no different to Freud or Money - they formed a hypothesis and sought out evidence to confirm their hypothesis, to the exclusion of the overwhelming body of evidence which contradicted their hypothesis. Politically motivated research and confirmation bias have always plagued the social sciences, and in these circumstances it’s no different -


Abstract: Behavioral scientists routinely publish broad claims about human psychology and behavior in the world’s top journals based on samples drawn entirely from Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic (WEIRD) societies. Researchers – often implicitly – assume that either there is little variation across human populations, or that these “standard subjects” are as representative of the species as any other population. Are these assumptions justified? Here, our review of the comparative database from across the behavioral sciences suggests both that there is substantial variability in experimental results across populations and that WEIRD subjects are particularly unusual compared with the rest of the species – frequent outliers. The domains reviewed include visual perception, fairness, cooperation, spatial reasoning, categorization and inferential induction, moral reasoning, reasoning styles, self-concepts and related motivations, and the heritability of IQ. The findings suggest that members of WEIRD societies, including young children, are among the least representative populations one could find for generalizing about humans. Many of these findings involve domains that are associated with fundamental aspects of psychology, motivation, and behavior – hence, there are no obvious a priori grounds for claiming that a particular behavioral phenomenon is universal based on sampling from a single subpopulation. Overall, these empirical patterns suggests that we need to be less cavalier in addressing questions of human nature on the basis of data drawn from this particularly thin, and rather unusual, slice of humanity. We close by proposing ways to structurally re-organize the behavioral sciences to best tackle these challenges.


The weirdest people in the world?


I certainly wouldn’t be taking my cues about human behaviour and psychology from a children’s author with an obvious political agenda of her own.

I think it is safe to say that we strongly disagree on this subject, and are unlikely to convince or win over each other to see it from our points of view. So with that in mind, I think it is best to agree to disagree and hope that we can find a middle ground on other subjects that we agree on on boards.

Gruffalux

Reddit/detrans has been banned. It was very active for several years, an online support group for hundreds if not thousands of young people mainly who were coming off testosterone or estrogen or who were regretting irreversible operations and severe effects on their body.

Tired Gardener

Gruffalox wrote: »

Reddit/detrans has been banned. It was very active for several years, an online support group for hundreds if not thousands of young people mainly who were coming off testosterone or estrogen or who were regretting irreversible operations and severe effects on their body.

Really?

That is a very cold thing to do. I understand that a vocal minority in the TRA may not like the detransitioners, however what ever happened to live and let live?

Edit, just checked and even LGB drop the T has gone. Guess Reddit has had a bit of a purge recently. Not really used Reddit, always looked too noisy.

Oh well.

ceadaoin.

Gruffalox wrote: »

Reddit/detrans has been banned. It was very active for several years, an online support group for hundreds if not thousands of young people mainly who were coming off testosterone or estrogen or who were regretting irreversible operations and severe effects on their body.

rape, violent porn, and paedophile subs are grand though. Says it all

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

And r/pcos had to go private because apparently women talking about their polycystic ovaries is transphobic.

Sheeps

I see today that men are being branded transphobes today for not finding the transgender model Valentina Sampaio attractive on the sports illustrated magazine cover.

yerwanthere123

Sheeps wrote: »

I see today that men are being branded transphobes today for not finding the transgender model Valentina Sampaio attractive on the sports illustrated magazine cover.

Tbf, most of the comments are men posting different variations of "she's still a dude tho", which is quintessentially transphobic.

Dyr

Sheeps wrote: »

I see today that men are being branded transphobes today for not finding the transgender model Valentina Sampaio attractive on the sports illustrated magazine cover.

The one thing these loons cant force people to do is to buy their ****. Every product and industry thats panders to them usually suffers for it.

Just like they cant get people to vote for them so instead they pressurise political parties to bend the knee through the media pressure. Worked for a while but its starting to backfire there too, some politicians are starting to realise that theres a lot of currency to be gained in telling them to get f***ked.

Still waters

Tired Gardener wrote: »

https://mobile.twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1269382518362509313

"Hi I'm a man I menstruate " lol what a fcukin donkey he is, people like that should be sterilised

chrisd2019

buried wrote: »

T.U.R.F.

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

Careful now TED, the Green's will be after you

Calhoun

Bambi wrote: »

The one thing these loons cant force people to do is to buy their ****. Every product and industry thats panders to them usually suffers for it.

Just like they cant get people to vote for them so instead they pressurise political parties to bend the knee through the media pressure. Worked for a while but its starting to backfire there too, some politicians are starting to realise that theres a lot of currency to be gained in telling them to get f***ked.

There is a big danger with the type of politics they have engaged in because it's been your with us or your against us.

As such they have built a big opposition against them and as such more politicians are feeling brave enough to step out and challenge. I suspect we shall see more of this.

Bonniedog

yerwanthere123 wrote: »

Tbf, most of the comments are men posting different variations of "she's still a dude tho", which is quintessentially transphobic.

He is a male so nothing "transphobic" about it.

Annasopra

Still waters wrote: »

"Hi I'm a man I menstruate " lol what a fcukin donkey he is, people like that should be sterilised

So basically you are advocating mandatory torture of trans people.

http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/Regularsession/Session22/A.HRC.22.53_English.pdf

Brian Hartman

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

So basically you are advocating mandatory torture of trans people.

Interesting that you perceived that literally. It is speculated there is a link between autism and transgenderism.

ExMachina1000

yerwanthere123 wrote: »

Tbf, most of the comments are men posting different variations of "she's still a dude tho", which is quintessentially transphobic.

That's unfair. I mean you have a right to be what ever you choose but you dont have a right to make everyone else think it too.
Nobody else is under obligation

Tokyo

Bonniedog wrote: »

He is a male so nothing "transphobic" about it.

Mod: Deliberately misgendering someone, regardless of your feelings about them personally, is a dickish thing to do though. If you can't bring yourself to use their chosen pronoun, use 'they' instead.

_Godot_

Danny La Rue did drag, being trans is not drag.

mick087

In this day and age you have to be so careful what you say.
Its difficult to say anything without offending someone.
Opinions are not really wanted by growing groups.

I dont know where this will lead us but i dont believe for one minute it will lead to a better society.