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

One eyed Jack

Tired Gardener wrote: »

A skirt and heels are just articles of clothing and footwear. They aren't exclusive to women.

Heels were originally worn by men first. Skirts are worn by men in many none western cultures.

Heels were worn by men who needed to stay up on the horses saddle in combat. Then they became something of a fashion statement among the aristocracy because they made men taller than the plebs. The history of men wearing heels has very little to do with men sporting a snazzy pair of Louboutins! And skirts aren’t worn by men in non-Western cultures, not that it would make any difference to the fact that in Western cultures, men almost exclusively wear trousers and not skirts, and women almost exclusively wear skirts and dresses and not trousers or pants.

Tired Gardener wrote: »

Our rigid gender stereotypes are false. If a man wanted to live as a woman, in the Western world wearing a skirt and heels would be a way to play along with our rigid social ideas. So in your example, it would help them pass without the need to legally alter their gender. However their sex would remain male/man/him/his. Sex is in humans immutable.

If a woman choose not to shave her legs or under arm hair, it doesn't mean she is no longer a woman.

Our rigid gender stereotypes are hardly false if by your own examples they’re actually a thing for the vast majority of people? Legal recognition of their preferred gender has nothing to do with passing as their preferred gender, it has everything to do with being recognised by the State as their preferred gender and by extension their acquired sex -


Effect of gender recognition certificate generally

18. (1) Where a gender recognition certificate is issued to a person the person’s gender shall from the date of that issue become for all purposes the preferred gender so that if the preferred gender is the male gender the person’s sex becomes that of a man, and if it is the female gender the person’s sex becomes that of a woman.


Gender Recognition Act 2015, Section 18

Gruffalux

CroatoanCat wrote: »

Apologies if this has already been highlighted, but here is a link to an absolutely heartbreaking piece in The Sunday Times today on female detransitioners:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/25f95e06-bf8f-11ea-9ea2-5a548b3aebca?shareToken=0db1eb05b264c2938550c78050d3106d

(That link will allow you to read the article without signing up to anything.)

These young women are being utterly failed. We must speak up for them and others like them. Please, I urge everybody, to read this with an open mind.

Gosh I cannot read that in one go because it is so sad to hear of their traumas. Thanks for putting free to read link. I had read about one of those girls before, and her and her oartner who had also taken testosterone for afew years and had mastectomy, they both had terrible vaginal atrophy and infections which was what motivated them to stop taking cross sex hormones.
That hysterectomy is done so young is mad as per article. Prolapse of pelvic organs is a big reason to avoid womb removal if possible. I have read of young transmen with prolapses. Agh. Horrible for them.

CtevenSrowder

volchitsa wrote: »

I honestly don't think that's the problem, it's about being unable to query the idea that someone can actually be a different sex than the one that corresponds to their genitalia.

This for instance:

'NHS should have challenged me more on my transition'
She's challenging the idea that the correct response to a teenager saying that they are the opposite sex (may be different for an adult) should be the current approach of positive affirmation, ie, calling them by the pronoun they want etc. She says that makes it more likely that someone will end up wrongly going down the road of taking hormones and eventually getting surgery, as she did. Something she now bitterly regrets.

So while I agree with you that it's more polite (and in most cases appropriate) to call someone by the pronoun they want, making it a legal obligation, or even a rule on an internet site, is going down a dangerous road of making it harder to question that even when it needs to be.

Jesus the lawsuits have started already!

CtevenSrowder

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That’s a matter of opinion, in this case your own.

I don’t imagine you’ll find too many people who agree with you on the basis of the actions of the majority of people who conform to gender stereotypes, it doesn’t appear as though anyone cares a whole lot about your idea of equality.

You always come out with passive aggressive ****. As if anyone seemingly cares about your idea of equality either. The poster in questions never said anyone cares about their idea of equality.

Invidious

KiKi III wrote: »

Are trans people unaware of how hard women had to fight for our rights? I'm willing to make reasonable accommodations such as that above to make trans people feel included but I'm not okay with women's identity being hidden or erased. We matter just as much as trans people.

I think that's JK Rowling's point also. She has tweeted that: "If sex isn’t real, the lived reality of women globally is erased. I know and love trans people, but erasing the concept of sex removes the ability of many to meaningfully discuss their lives."

Women spent centuries trying to gain appropriate recognition — but now, a vocal minority wants to erase hard-won concepts such as "women's health," "women's literature," "women's history," etc. from our vocabulary in the interests of "inclusion." They also want to talk about experiences such as menstruation, pregnancy, etc., as if they are not unique to women.

I definitely understand why many feminists have an issue with this.

One eyed Jack

KiKi III wrote: »

I'm talking about the erasure of womanhood from public policy, by way of government documents, NGOs and advocacy groups refusing to use the word woman where it is appropriate.

I have no problem with them saying "Women, girls and other pregnant/ mentruating people", but I don't think the word woman, which applies most often to these cases, should be erased.

Are trans people unaware of how hard women had to fight for our rights? I'm willing to make reasonable accommodations such as that above to make trans people feel included but I'm not okay with women's identity being hidden or erased. We matter just as much as trans people.

I know exactly what you’re talking about, and as it’s public policy you’re referring to, then it’s more appropriate to use women in some contexts when referring to something which is unique to women, and people in other contexts when referring to something which is not unique to women. Nobody is erasing womanhood from public policy, they’re formulating policy that relates to the public, not just to women!

I don’t think anyone is unaware of women who claim they fought hard for their rights (I can’t think of any women who were used as bullet stoppers off the top of my head, they were prohibited from serving on the front lines for a good number of years), my point being that women didn’t actually fight for anything, they were granted what legal rights they have, same as people who are transgender are granted what legal rights they have.

That way nobody actually has to care what “reasonable accommodations“ you personally or anyone else is or isn’t willing to make in the same way as nobody has to care what “reasonable accommodations” some people claimed they were willing to make with regard to women. The law determined what rights and responsibilities everyone has or hasn’t, and those rights have never included ownership of language or demanding that people who formulate public policy must adhere to your individual interpretations and standards. Then it wouldn’t be public policy, it would be your policy, or, those people who agree with you at least, and to hell with those people who don’t.

Invidious

One eyed Jack wrote: »

...then it’s more appropriate to use women in some contexts when referring to something which is unique to women...

Can you give an example of something that is "unique to women"? If menstruation and pregnancy are not experiences unique to women, what remains?

women didn’t actually fight for anything

More revisionism...

CtevenSrowder

One eyed Jack wrote: »

my point being that women didn’t actually fight for anything

Oh. My. God.

By this token Mandela didn't fight for anything either, or Martin Luther King.

One eyed Jack

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

You always come out with passive aggressive ****. As if anyone seemingly cares about your idea of equality either. The poster in questions never said anyone cares about their idea of equality.

That’s not passive aggressive ****? It’s an opinion based upon my own observations that it doesn’t appear as though many people do share Tired Gardener’s opinions on gender equality!

They are implying that there is something as they put it “odd” or damaging about gender stereotypes. The vast majority of people don’t appear to think so.

CtevenSrowder

Invidious wrote: »

More revisionism...

When one believes that there is no objective reality (as OEJ does), and as such everything is subjective, you are only ever left with revisionism, as nothing can actually be true.

CtevenSrowder

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That’s not passive aggressive ****? It’s an opinion based upon my own observations that it doesn’t appear as though many people do share Tired Gardener’s opinions on gender equality!

They are implying that there is something as they put it “odd” or damaging about gender stereotypes. The vast majority of people don’t appear to think so.

Well it can come across as passive aggressive, imo. If it's unintentional then fair enough.

One eyed Jack

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Oh. My. God.

By this token Mandela didn't fight for anything either, or Martin Luther King.

If you say so. I never mentioned Mandela or MLK. I simply don’t agree with the narrative that women actually fought for their rights. The vast majority women did no such thing.

CtevenSrowder

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If you say so. I never mentioned Mandela or MLK. I simply don’t agree with the narrative that women actually fought for their rights. The vast majority women did no such thing.

No, not what I say, what you say. Sure weren't they both just 'granted what legal rights they have'.

One eyed Jack

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Well it can come across as passive aggressive, imo. If it's unintentional then fair enough.

Not in my nature to be passive aggressive Cteven, I’m not a woman

KiKi III

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I know exactly what you’re talking about, and as it’s public policy you’re referring to, then it’s more appropriate to use women in some contexts when referring to something which is unique to women, and people in other contexts when referring to something which is not unique to women. Nobody is erasing womanhood from public policy, they’re formulating policy that relates to the public, not just to women!

Can you give me an example of something that is unique to women, and something that is unique to men. I note we're not replacing the term 'men' with "people who ejaculate". It seems we're on the road to having two categories, "men" and "people who..." which is the very definition of erasing womanhood.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don’t think anyone is unaware of women who claim they fought hard for their rights (I can’t think of any women who were used as bullet stoppers off the top of my head, they were prohibited from serving on the front lines for a good number of years), my point being that women didn’t actually fight for anything, they were granted what legal rights they have, same as people who are transgender are granted what legal rights they have.

No, women weren't just suddenly granted rights by benevolent men who decided it was about time for equality. They fought for them; through protest, through the courts, through advocacy and yes, through sacrificing their lives - look up Emily Davison.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The law determined what rights and responsibilities everyone has or hasn’t, and those rights have never included ownership of language or demanding that people who formulate public policy must adhere to your individual interpretations and standards. Then it wouldn’t be public policy, it would be your policy, or, those people who agree with you at least, and to hell with those people who don’t.

Isn't that exactly what trans people are doing? And they're the ones demanding the change, you're acting like what I'm advocating is revolutionary when women mentruating and getting pregnant is the status quo and the language around it has been as such without any great confusion for hundreds of years.

Now, if we want to change it and be more inclusive, as I've said I'm not opposed to that - but we have a word for female people and there's no reason why we should stop using it.

One eyed Jack

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

No, not what I say, what you say. Sure weren't they both just 'granted what legal rights they have'.

Again I didn’t mention Mandela or MLK, they were very much what you said.

Kiki made a point about “how hard women fought for their rights”, I made the point that they didn’t. The vast majority of women didn’t fight for anything, and they still don’t, and there are only a tiny minority of women who will refer to themselves as feminists who claim to be fighting for equal rights in areas where they are not equal to men.

I’ve even encountered feminists who claim to be advocating for fathers rights, which I find contradictory to the aims of feminism as I understand it, but y’know, I’m easy with however anyone wishes to refer to themselves.

suicide_circus

sydthebeat wrote: »

People who identify as non binary should not have the driving control over the language used. That's my point

it's bizarre. we have never defined things based on their least likely manifestation and with good reason.

Brian Hartman

How will women respond to the gender neutrality agenda? I have no doubt the ultimate goal is to eliminate the concept of men and women altogether. Forcing women to share intimate spaces with men is all part of the plan.

As men, how do we support women in their fight to retain their rights?

2u2me

mike_ie wrote: »

Admin Note - Please Read:

Do you feel this way about all potential hate speech, or just this issue? Do you feel this way about, say, an argument that black people should be enslaved (or exterminated) because they are not fully human, as long as it’s expressed calmly and without invective?

We've been down this road before with respect to pronoun usage, with the same arguments and righteous indignation in response. I've deleted a bunch of similar responses to my mod warning, but apparently some people can't let it go.

As has been posted on this site before, you are not being forced to use pronouns that you are not comfortable with (the irony here should not be lost on you or anyone else) but ARE being asked not to use what you have been told are the incorrect pronouns for this person. Refer to them/they if 'she' is beyond your reach.
I'm sure that's what they want.
This is not up for further debate, nor are mod or admin warnings. If you can't live with that, don't post. If posters continue with this line of posting, I'll presume that people are acting with willful ignorance and act accordingly.

Unsubscribes from thread. I was one of those postesr that made a good fair argument. That you choose to delete it rather than give a warning or something is absolutely ridiculous. I guess I will stay away from all these futures threads aswell in future, better that way.

Brian Hartman

2u2me wrote: »

Unsubscribes from thread. I was one of those postesr that made a good fair argument. That you choose to delete it rather than give a warning or something is absolutely ridiculous. I guess I will stay away from all these futures threads aswell in future, better that way.

Don't run away. That's what's the trans lobby wants. Everyone to cower in fear.

One eyed Jack

KiKi III wrote: »

Can you give me an example of something that is unique to women, and something that is unique to men. I note we're not replacing the term 'men' with "people who ejaculate". It seems we're on the road to having two categories, "men" and "people who..." which is the very definition of erasing womanhood.

I can’t really, but being honest with you I’m not trying very hard to think of any examples either as that has never been the basis of my argument. I can give you plenty of examples of things which are neither unique to men or women or people who identify themselves as non-binary or transgender though? We could start from the basis of recognition of human rights, and go from there.

Even if you wanted to replace the term “men” with people who ejaculate, I dare say it’s an indication of the idea that you aren’t aware of women who ejaculate. That still doesn’t mean anyone is erasing womanhood, and if you weren’t aware of women who ejaculate, well there’s a whole Internet at your fingertips, knock yourself out.

KiKi III wrote: »

No, women weren't just suddenly granted rights by benevolent men who decided it was about time for equality. They fought for them; through protest, through the courts, through advocacy and yes, through sacrificing their lives - look up Emily Davison.

Actually that’s precisely what happened, in Britain at least when David Lloyd George realised he needed women to vote because the British people were just a tad pissed off that he’d overseen the British economy going tits up. Emily Davison was a rather unfortunate pawn who was killed when she tried to pull down the Kings Horse and there was no putting her back together again. She was nothing more than a pawn in Emmeline Pankhurst’s warmongering politics. I’ve addressed this before on this thread.

Still to this day the vast majority of people living below the poverty line are women while JK the billionaire children’s fiction writer gets her tits in a twist about “women being unable to talk about their experiences”. It’s as though she’s less interested in the experiences of women, and more interested in herself. I dunno, perhaps we have a different perspective on womanhood and all it entails.

KiKi III wrote: »

Isn't that exactly what trans people are doing? And they're the ones demanding the change, you're acting like what I'm advocating is revolutionary when women mentruating and getting pregnant is the status quo and the language around it has been as such without any great confusion for hundreds of years.

Now, if we want to change it and be more inclusive, as I've said I'm not opposed to that - but we have a word for female people and there's no reason why we should stop using it.

No it’s not. Some people are demanding change. I don’t imagine that many people who are transgender or that many women are all that interested in whatever public policy decisions are made by women formerly employed by think tanks and billionaire authors speaking as though they represent women. There’s no great confusion in public policy either only that generated by tabloid rags and the likes of a site that keeps popping up again and again in these discussions - quilette, seems to want to generate controversy where there is none for what appears to be the the vast majority of people.

Again, you’re not being stopped from using the word woman if you want to, or womanhood or anything else. You just don’t have the right to demand that other people have to use it any more than they have a right to demand that you use the word people. If people who formulate policies choose to be as inclusive as possible on any particular issue, then your issue is with them, not with people who are transgender.

KiKi III

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Again, you’re not being stopped from using the word woman if you want to, or womanhood or anything else. You just don’t have the right to demand that other people have to use it any more than they have a right to demand that you use the word people. If people who formulate policies choose to be as inclusive as possible on any particular issue, then your issue is with them, not with people who are transgender.

I have as much right as any trans woman does.

And I'm the one advocating for the most inclusive way it could be phrased, "women, girls, and people who menstruate" acknowledges each group inclusively, without erasing any of them. One could go as far as saying "women, girls, and trans or non-binary people who menstruate."

That's inclusive.

Erasing the word woman because it's deemed offensive by a tiny minority is not inclusive, and it's bizarre that you think it is.

KiKi III

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Actually that’s precisely what happened, in Britain at least when David Lloyd George realised he needed women to vote because the British people were just a tad pissed off that he’d overseen the British economy going tits up. Emily Davison was a rather unfortunate pawn who was killed when she tried to pull down the Kings Horse and there was no putting her back together again. She was nothing more than a pawn in Emmeline Pankhurst’s warmongering politics. I’ve addressed this before on this thread.

The fact that you're determined to diminish and erase the contributions of generations of feminists and suffragette's in achieving women's rights in the UK is convincing me further that you are in fact anti-woman.

Educate yourself: https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/electionsvoting/womenvote/overview/startsuffragette-/

Moderate women's organisations, such as the National Union of Women's Suffrage Societies (NUWSS) led by Millicent Fawcett, were instrumental in building up the legal and constitutional support for the enfranchisement of women, but their contributions were often overshadowed by the high profile actions of the suffragettes.

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Actually that’s precisely what happened, in Britain at least when David Lloyd George realised ....(blah blah blah)

Someone who thinks that babies were fed

milk from plants like I suggested earlier, long before breastfeeding was a thing

is in no position to give history lessons, or any other lessons, to anyone.

suicide_circus

One eyed Jack wrote: »

milk from plants like I suggested earlier, long before breastfeeding was a thing

christ on a bike

Brian Hartman

Can someone explain the 'milk from plants' thing?

Tired Gardener

Brian Hartman wrote: »

Can someone explain the 'milk from plants' thing?

Haven't seen the person in question post that... but, I think they are either a troll, or take things at face value.

I'm not in favour of censorship, I'd rather discourse and debate. I've tried with the person in question, and some of the things they have posted have helped me come to the conclusion that it is pointless to engage with them. Let them waffle their views, doesn't mean we have to listen to them, nor does it mean we have the right to stop them posting.

Sean.3516

I think the best way to tell if a person advocating for so called “trans” folk is a reasonable person or not is to ask them this question:

Do you believe that sex is genetically determined?

If they answer “yes” and they then explain that there is a distinction between biological sex and gender expression and that some people feel psychologically alienated from their biological sex and want to express themselves differently etc. etc. At least this is an argument at least somewhat grounded in reality. (I still disagree with it but I’m willing to have a productive discussion with the person.)

However, if the person says “no” and thus denies that there is such a thing as biological sex and that in spite of genetics we all come into the world “blank slates” and are shaped by our environments and also that we can be whatever we think we are etc. etc. Then this person is a dangerous radical who I wouldn’t give the time of day since they wish to throw out hundreds of years of scientific progress to push their own ideology.

One eyed Jack

KiKi III wrote: »

The fact that you're determined to diminish and erase the contributions of generations of feminists and suffragette's in achieving women's rights in the UK is convincing me further that you are in fact anti-woman.

Educate yourself: https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/electionsvoting/womenvote/overview/startsuffragette-/

I have done, the capacity of some women to shoot themselves in the foot is a source of constant bemusement -


Although highlighting their cause, the actions of the suffragettes often drew criticism for their recklessness and destructiveness, particularly when in 1913 the WSPU burned down David Lloyd George’s house. This act of vandalism allowed others to make the argument that women were not capable of having such responsibilities and were uncontrollable. Furthermore, David Lloyd George had always been supportive of their cause and therefore the act seemed counter-productive to the message they were hoping to convey.


Votes for Women


And if ever evidence were necessary that “cancelling” of people who aren’t on board with the orthodoxy were necessary, well look no further than how Emmeline Pankhurst treated her own daughters and women who disagreed with her -


Sylvia and Adela, meanwhile, did not share their mother's enthusiasm for the war. As committed pacifists, they rejected the WSPU's support for the government. Sylvia's socialist perspective convinced her that the war was another example of capitalist oligarchs exploiting poor soldiers and workers. Adela, meanwhile, spoke against the war in Australia and made public her opposition to conscription. In a short letter, Emmeline told Sylvia: "I am ashamed to know where you and Adela stand."[6] She had a similar impatience for dissent within the WSPU; when long-time member Mary Leigh asked a question during a meeting in October 1915, Pankhurst replied: "[T]hat woman is a pro German and should leave the hall. ... I denounce you as a pro German and wish to forget that such a person ever existed."[100] Some WSPU members were outraged by this sudden rigid devotion to the government, the leadership's perceived abandonment of efforts to win the vote for women, and questions about how funds collected on behalf of suffrage were being managed with regard to the organisation's new focus.


Emmeline Pankhurst


Like Emmeline Pankhurst, it doesn’t take much to convince you that someone is anti-woman, they just have to disagree with you.

Gruffalux

Brian Hartman wrote: »

Can someone explain the 'milk from plants' thing?

It's an exploratory position held by one non trans man.