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

KiKi III

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It was you who told me to educate myself and look up Emily Davison? I didn’t call what you tried to do revisionist bullshìt, but if I were being frank, that’s exactly what it was. I didn’t see any need to address Millicent Fawcett as she wasn’t a warmonger, nor did she fight, she was definitely more interested in pacifism and didn’t agree with Pankhursts methods. It’s not an attempt to discredit anyone, it’s simply to show you that the narrative you were trying to paint was lacking in context.

The idea of fighting usually does imply some sort of physical force is involved against an enemy, hence why I made the point that I couldn’t think of any bullet stoppers who were women (as opposed to the numbers of bullet stoppers who were men, pressured into doing so by the White Feather movement). The fact that there were women who tried to kill themselves isn’t what I would consider a particularly valuable contribution to the women’s rights movement.

Okay aside from the bullsh1t loop-dee-loop on what constitutes "fighting for rights", you literally claimed men simply granted women rights and gave women exactly none of the credit for this coming about.

I said:

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.

And you came back with:

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.

You come out with so much sh1te over the course of a day that I'm not surprised you can't even remember what you posted an hour ago, but it's post 3082 if you'd like to re-read and clarify what you meant.

One eyed Jack

Smacruairi wrote: »

You're correct there.I've never seen a poster able to devote so much time and effort into typing relentlessly and never even contemplate being in any way wrong. A wall of text that shifts the goalposts endlessly is all you get.

You’re hardly contemplating that you might be wrong either, are you? Especially when international human rights law protects both your rights and the rights of people who are transgender so that in just the same way as you can’t be compelled to believe something you don’t, nobody else can either.

Smacruairi wrote: »

What I really don't understand is, when transsexuals say "I feel like a woman". What does that feel like, other than resorting to gender clichés? I look at my female friends, they're all unique and different, the only difference to my male friends is their sex organs. I get on extremely well with all of them, share similar hobbies and interests, believe we are all equally capable in so many ways. Am I too woke that I don't want to categorise them any more, or not woke enough!?

If a guy or girl wants to change their body to affect their confidence, fine, play away. They can fancy who they want, be into any kinks they want, within reason. I don't understand why that's not enough. If you're compelling me to then say black is white it strikes me that that insistence can only come from a place of severe insecurity.

Using gender cliches as the best way they can describe to anyone how they feel. It’s not an attempt to insult anyone else, though of course using gender cliches may be considered offensive to some people. Nobody is compelling you to say anything you don’t wish to say, you’re not compelled to say anything. If you want to say something and expect that the law should protect you when you say it, that’s where you might be found wanting, and you’re right btw - attempting to compel other people to say what you want them to say does come from a place of severe insecurity. Being secure in yourself would mean that it wouldn’t matter to you how other people choose to define or describe themselves.

o1s1n

volchitsa wrote: »

Here's one of them (there were several)
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=110555254

I've read some crazy insanity on this thread but that linked post is in a league of it's own.

I can't even begin to formulate a response because I honestly don't know where to start.

One eyed Jack

KiKi III wrote: »

Okay aside from the bullsh1t loop-dee-loop on what constitutes "fighting for rights", you literally claimed men simply granted women rights and gave women exactly none of the credit for this coming about.

I said:

And you came back with:

You come out with so much sh1te over the course of a day that I'm not surprised you can't even remember what you posted an hour ago, but it's post 3082 if you'd like to re-read and clarify what you meant.

And I stand by what I said.

It’s not that I didn’t give a small number of women any credit for this coming about. They never would have been granted the right to vote had it not been for David Lloyd George granting that small minority of women the right to vote because he needed their vote in order to save his political career. It was another ten years before most women in Britain were granted the right to vote.

The way you’re making out it was as though anyone is supposed to imagine women were in the trenches with the men who fought an actual war, with guns and bullets, as opposed to what didn’t amount to much more than a war of words where the only women who died were actually the ones who killed themselves.

KiKi III

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The way you’re making out it was as though anyone is supposed to imagine women were in the trenches with the men who fought an actual war, with guns and bullets, as opposed to what didn’t amount to much more than a war of words where the only women who died were actually the ones who killed themselves.

No, no I didn't, and nobody else interpreted my words the way you did. Anyway, I've had enough of your silliness for one day. Slán!

One eyed Jack

KiKi III wrote: »

No, no I didn't, and nobody else interpreted my words the way you did. Anyway, I've had enough of your silliness for one day. Slán!

Well colour me shocked :pac:

Anyways, slán agus beannacht leat

Smacruairi

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You’re hardly contemplating that you might be wrong either, are you? Especially when international human rights law protects both your rights and the rights of people who are transgender so that in just the same way as you can’t be compelled to believe something you don’t, nobody else can either.



Using gender cliches as the best way they can describe to anyone how they feel. It’s not an attempt to insult anyone else, though of course using gender cliches may be considered offensive to some people. Nobody is compelling you to say anything you don’t wish to say, you’re not compelled to say anything. If you want to say something and expect that the law should protect you when you say it, that’s where you might be found wanting, and you’re right btw - attempting to compel other people to say what you want them to say does come from a place of severe insecurity. Being secure in yourself would mean that it wouldn’t matter to you how other people choose to define or describe themselves.

No, I don't contemplate being wrong about sex when every scientific definition I can see describes it exactly as interpret it. Chromosomes and primary sex organs corresponding to man or woman.

Not an attempt to insult anyone else, is what you say. Likewise we are not attempting to insult anyone when describing men and women in scientific terms. Do you work for an NGO?

One eyed Jack

Smacruairi wrote: »

No, I don't contemplate being wrong about sex when every scientific definition I can see describes it exactly as interpret it. Chromosomes and primary sex organs corresponding to man or woman.

I don’t see how that’s any different from me saying that any scientific terminology I have seen describes sex determination as more than just chromosomes and primary sex organs but sure when you’re only reading what you already agree with I can understand why you might be more inclined to think you’re right and anyone who doesn’t share your opinions are wrong.

Smacruairi wrote: »

Not an attempt to insult anyone else, is what you say. Likewise we are not attempting to insult anyone when describing men and women in scientific terms. Do you work for an NGO?

What does working for an NGO have to do with anything? Maya Forstater worked for an NGO before her contract was terminated and she claimed she had been the victim of unlawful discrimination. James Damnore claimed he wasn’t insulting anyone either with his own hot take on science and he worked for one of the largest corporations in the world. His employer didn’t see things the way he did either. I’m not sure what you’re driving at tbh, or do you imagine that employers should be obligated to put up with arseholes who are making life difficult for everyone else in their employment?

Nobody should have to put up with that sort of behaviour from anyone, and in reality they don’t have to, because for all your “science”, it doesn’t matter a jot in terms of human rights and law which take precedence over science every time in order to promote social progress in a democratic society. Maya Forstater, James Damore, JK Rowling, Stephen Fry and and all the rest of the “I don’t care who I offend” bunch only have the capacity to express that opinion as a consequence of them being afforded human rights in the first place. They then use the same idea in an attempt to deny other people human rights and wonder why anyone would object.

For fiercely intellectual types they’re not actually all that clever, but you’re free to disagree of course.

suicide_circus

Are there any other immutable characteristics of a human being that can be altered based on the persons own internal convictions about themselves or is this exclusive to gender?

Smacruairi

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don’t see how that’s any different from me saying that any scientific terminology I have seen describes sex determination as more than just chromosomes and primary sex organs but sure when you’re only reading what you already agree with I can understand why you might be more inclined to think you’re right and anyone who doesn’t share your opinions are wrong.


What does working for an NGO have to do with anything? Maya Forstater worked for an NGO before her contract was terminated and she claimed she had been the victim of unlawful discrimination. James Damnore claimed he wasn’t insulting anyone either with his own hot take on science and he worked for one of the largest corporations in the world. His employer didn’t see things the way he did either. I’m not sure what you’re driving at tbh, or do you imagine that employers should be obligated to put up with arseholes who are making life difficult for everyone else in their employment?

Nobody should have to put up with that sort of behaviour from anyone, and in reality they don’t have to, because for all your “science”, it doesn’t matter a jot in terms of human rights and law which take precedence over science every time in order to promote social progress in a democratic society. Maya Forstater, James Damore, JK Rowling, Stephen Fry and and all the rest of the “I don’t care who I offend” bunch only have the capacity to express that opinion as a consequence of them being afforded human rights in the first place. They then use the same idea in an attempt to deny other people human rights and wonder why anyone would object.

For fiercely intellectual types they’re not actually all that clever, but you’re free to disagree of course.

Implying I'm willfully ignorant in paragraph 1. Unwilling to answer a simple question in paragraph 2. Vaguely implying I'm an asshole by going off on a totally unrelated anecdote in paragraph 2. Another random anecdote not relevant in paragraph 3. Paragraph 4 you just come across as exactly how you want to come across. It's obstructionism in another form. Pointless.

suicide_circus

Smacruairi wrote: »

It's obstructionism in another form.

a vital tool when your argument is built on sand

Tired Gardener

suicide_circus wrote: »

Are there any other immutable characteristics of a human being that can be altered based on the persons own internal convictions about themselves or is this exclusive to gender?

Sure wish I could identify out of my colourblindness. Would open a lot more career opportunities for me.

One eyed Jack

Smacruairi wrote: »

Implying I'm willfully ignorant in paragraph 1.

Sorry, I hadn’t meant you to think I was just implying it. You are wilfully ignorant when by your own admission you state that everything you have read agrees with you.

Smacruairi wrote: »

Unwilling to answer a simple question in paragraph 2.

Yes, as it’s none of your business, what I do for a living is also completely irrelevant to the discussion. I have no interest in what you do for a living either.

Smacruairi wrote: »

Vaguely implying I'm an asshole by going off on a totally unrelated anecdote in paragraph 2.

Now that definitely didn’t happen. I didn’t imply anything about you personally, I asked you do you imagine that employers should be obligated to put up with the sort of behaviour you described which is the kind of behaviour that both Damore and Forstater were engaging in and led to them being fired from their jobs in Damores case, and Forstaters case her contact of employment was not renewed. Both tried to portray themselves as victims when in reality it was because they weren’t permitted to behave like assholes towards other people.

Smacruairi wrote: »

Another random anecdote not relevant in paragraph 3. Paragraph 4 you just come across as exactly how you want to come across. It's obstructionism in another form. Pointless.

Obstructionism in another form would have been simply not responding to you at all, and I wouldn’t have responded to this thread at all had my post in another thread not been dragged into this one by the very poster who later went on to claim I was trolling, implying that they were the victim of a troll, when in reality they had been the one who lifted my post from another thread to continue the discussion here.

I’m fine with leaving the discussion here and not responding any further as the thread has run it’s course as far as I’m concerned. The other threads too have moved on to other topics away from their original topic so I’m not too inclined to post in those either. By that same token you’re not compelled to respond to anything I’ve written above, but if you choose to, for the love of God don’t bother attempting to play the victim again. It’s undignified tbh IMO and trying to one-up anyone who disagrees with you, and certainly is no way to conduct a civil or rational conversation.

Smacruairi

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Sorry, I hadn’t meant you to think I was just implying it. You are wilfully ignorant when by your own admission you state that everything you have read agrees with you.





Yes, as it’s none of your business, what I do for a living is also completely irrelevant to the discussion. I have no interest in what you do for a living either.





Now that definitely didn’t happen. I didn’t imply anything about you personally, I asked you do you imagine that employers should be obligated to put up with the sort of behaviour you described which is the kind of behaviour that both Damore and Forstater were engaging in and led to them being fired from their jobs in Damores case, and Forstaters case her contact of employment was not renewed. Both tried to portray themselves as victims when in reality it was because they weren’t permitted to behave like assholes towards other people.





Obstructionism in another form would have been simply not responding to you at all, and I wouldn’t have responded to this thread at all had my post in another thread not been dragged into this one by the very poster who later went on to claim I was trolling, implying that they were the victim of a troll, when in reality they had been the one who lifted my post from another thread to continue the discussion here.

I’m fine with leaving the discussion here and not responding any further as the thread has run it’s course as far as I’m concerned. The other threads too have moved on to other topics away from their original topic so I’m not too inclined to post in those either. By that same token you’re not compelled to respond to anything I’ve written above, but if you choose to, for the love of God don’t bother attempting to play the victim again. It’s undignified tbh IMO and trying to one-up anyone who disagrees with you, and certainly is no way to conduct a civil or rational conversation.

I agree, I think you've demonstrated expertly why no one agrees with or "thanks" your posts. Your post is incredibly vacuous, bereft of substance, and as they say, self-praise is no praise. Enjoy your walls of texts

Tokyo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’m fine with leaving the discussion here and not responding any further as the thread has run it’s course as far as I’m concerned.

Mod: I think this is a good idea. The thread has gone far off topic at this stage.

iptba

Welcome to the world you created, J.K. Rowling
Online mobs are a threat to everyone’s freedoms
by
Kevin Myers

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/welcome-to-the-world-you-created-j-k-rowling

suicide_circus

iptba wrote: »

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/welcome-to-the-world-you-created-j-k-rowling

POW!!!

vintage Kev there

excludedbin

Oh God, is it really time for another round of Kevin "Africa is giving nothing to anyone – apart from AIDS" Myers huffing his own farts and setting the resultant delirious high of self-aggrandisement to paper? Well at least he's not cribbing about Africa only contributing AIDS to humanity, or pining for the lost days of Britain putting Irish people in their rightful place.

In Ireland, I had long been recognised for my unremitting hostility to the IRA, support for Israel and my many articles about the horrors of the Holocaust.

Funny way of saying "In Ireland, I had long been criticised for my racism, hatred of Ireland and Irish people, condemnation of anyone criticising Israel's brutalisation of Palestinians, and my many articles proclaiming the infinite depths of my wit, the boundless breadth of my intellect, and my unquestionable magnanimity towards perpetrators of atrocities, as long as I agree with them".

Kevin Myers - weaponised contrarianism made human. If you said the sky was blue he'd smugly insist otherwise. Good bloody grief...

seenitall

Hey, why don't you tell us how you really feel about bould Kev?

excludedbin

Sorry, passed my eyes over too many sharticles by him in the Indo back in the day so now my eyes just kind of... glaze over when I have the misfortune to encounter him again. The absolute nicest thing I can say about Kevin "I sexually identify as a member of the Protestant Ascendancy" Myers is that he's an inveterate contrarian who built his career out of misplaced smug superiority. Which of course means that every other contrarian and anti-"elite" complainer hangs off his every word. The quintessential "idiot's idea of a smart person" and, I'm sure, the originator of the idea that "if I disagree with the majority of people, that must automatically make me right".

statesaver

excludedbin wrote: »

Sorry, passed my eyes over too many sharticles by him in the Indo back in the day so now my eyes just kind of... glaze over when I have the misfortune to encounter him again. The absolute nicest thing I can say about Kevin "I sexually identify as a member of the Protestant Ascendancy" Myers is that he's an inveterate contrarian who built his career out of misplaced smug superiority. Which of course means that every other contrarian and anti-"elite" complainer hangs off his every word. The quintessential "idiot's idea of a smart person" and, I'm sure, the originator of the idea that "if I disagree with the majority of people, that must automatically make me right".

It seems Kevin has triggered this one :D:D:D:D:D:D

excludedbin

Oh, "triggered", the "u mad bro XD" for the terminally banal. Sorry I'm not worshipping at the feet of Kevin "here's a thousand words about why I'm great" Myers but my tolerance for ****-stirring contrarians has long been exceeded.

Gruffalux

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtftWcgXjdg

Half way through this Joe Rogan interview with Abigail Shrier. She has written a book about transgender trend in young adolescent girls - Irreversible Damage.
I already know most of what she is saying here but for anyone who does not know the state of play this is informative. Shocking stuff. Progressives swallowing ideology because they want to be good. Terrible harm being done. The girls that used to cut themselves or starve themselves are leaning now towards a cult that allows them EASY access to devastating cross sex hormones and surgeries that do as Shrier says correctly irreversible damage.

CtevenSrowder

Gruffalox wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtftWcgXjdg

Half way through this Joe Rogan interview with Abigail Shrier. She has written a book about transgender trend in young adolescent girls - Irreversible Damage.
I already know most of what she is saying here but for anyone who does not know the state of play this is informative. Shocking stuff. Progressives swallowing ideology because they want to be good. Terrible harm being done. The girls that used to cut themselves or starve themselves are leaning now towards a cult that allows them EASY access to devastating cross sex hormones and surgeries that do as Shrier says correctly irreversible damage.

Nah she's just a transphobe. End of discussion.

excludedbin

Homophobes said the same things about themselves when they wrote nasty screeds about us. Abusers always cry that its their victims' fault they're being abused, after all.

excludedbin

Also I'll never stop finding it so amusing that terfs/transphobes object to being called that... while themselves forcing their own identities on trans people. The irony, sadly, seems to be perpetually lost on them. I suppose devoting so much of your time and energy towards harassing and abusing people who don't do you any harm mustn't leave much for self-reflection.

Gruffalux

excludedbin wrote: »

Also I'll never stop finding it so amusing that terfs/transphobes object to being called that... while themselves forcing their own identities on trans people. The irony, sadly, seems to be perpetually lost on them. I suppose devoting so much of your time and energy towards harassing and abusing people who don't do you any harm mustn't leave much for self-reflection.

If you watch the video you might learn that harm IS being enacted upon vulnerable young girls.

Abigail interviewed a girl who had her womb removed at 21 and when she came round from the operation she suddenly realised what a dreadful mistake she had made. But all along her path she had been affirmed and congratulated instead of receiving any therapy.

Abigail makes the point that it is for the most part biological males who are shutting down any discussion in this whole area, often in violent or bullying ways. They are the ones calling girls and women TERFs, terfy, transphobes. I presume you are a biological male? I know the thankers who religiously thank those who call women on here slurs such as transphobes and TERFs and CIS are largely biological males ( what used to be called in old money men).

I also know a lot of men who stand up against this bullying.

It is just that it is an interesting point she made, one I had not thought about before. Most radical trans activists are men - very odd.

And since you mention people who do no harm to others, personally I truly think that anyone who encourages or facilitates a vulnerable young person into doing irreversible damage to their body - including by shouting down on public forums or insulting those with slurs who question areas of this ideology such as this terrible contagion among young girls - is in a direct and contributory manner responsible for that harm to vulnerable young people.

suicide_circus

excludedbin wrote: »

Also I'll never stop finding it so amusing that terfs/transphobes object to being called that... while themselves forcing their own identities on trans people.

you give terfs far too much credit, its human biology that does that.

excludedbin

Life is, quite honestly, not long enough to waste any of it watching any of Joe Rogan's videos. Also I don't feel a journalist who wrote an entire book about how trans people are bad isn't someone worth listening to, no more than, say, Fred Phelps is worth listening to for his opinions on gay people.

Please do ignore the fact that like 'alt-right', the term 'terf' was coined by a self-described terf. They've just somehow managed to weaponise it by claiming it's now a slur. Oh and of course we get 'radical activists' because, y'know, if you think people who harass anyone that likes pizza or spends their time telling people who like pizza that they're wrong and mentally ill, that makes you a 'pizza radical activist', in the warped minds of terfs. And of course it's easy to claim most trans "activists" are 'men' when you pointedly refuse to acknowledge the existence of trans men. Just more fuel for the "it's all misogyny" fire, of course, rather than terfs just acknowledging that they're hateful creeps.

Personally, I think anyone that desperately hunts for whatever meagre handful of medical experts (or mere journalists) they can find who disagree with the established consensus with regards proper treatment for youths are the ones doing harm. So blinded by ideology, you'd condemn them to misery rather than admit you're wrong. Like the loonies who advocate for 'conversion therapy' for LGB children, you're happy to force whatever quackery you've made up on them rather than accept the truth.

Funny, as well, how ye lot only ever mention the tiny, tiny percentage of detransitioners rather than the vast majority who're happy with it.

Do note, however, that 'cis' is a Latin prefix that just means 'on the same side'. It's used in chemistry so I'm sure we'll be treated to more ravings about how chemists use slurs, now.

Not sure what my sex has to do with anything I've said, though, perhaps you should try judging what I've said on its own merits rather than rushing to your own prejudices. Or are you slyly insinuating I'm trans and, as such, my opinion can safely be discarded?

TuringBot47

excludedbin wrote: »

Also I'll never stop finding it so amusing that terfs/transphobes object to being called that... while themselves forcing their own identities on trans people.

From birth the midwife/your mother has easily worked out your identity.
Is your mother a transphobe?