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

Sir Oxman

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I just think the whole "I identify as" thing is weird. Like, so? A person's personality is what makes them interesting, not what they are. Oh, you're straight/gay/transgender/Irish. That's... fascinating.

Identity politics is brimming with narcissists who are straining to be interesting.

This.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

excludedbin wrote: »

Yeah, it's almost like human beings state their identities to share similar experiences with others like them. Clearly something that's totally new and has never been done before in the entirety of human history. Nobody goes out to meet like-minded people, nah, doesn't happen apparently.

Jesus, all politics is """identity politics""". If you're working class, middle class, you're right, left, your economic and social outlooks. Terfs (and right wingers in general these days) have this frankly ludicrous idea that nobody ever grouped themselves together under common identities or groups before the modern day. I've no idea where it originated but it's frustratingly nonsensical.

You're dreadfully bothered.

I don't know about you, but I don't have some checklist for who my friends and acquaintances should be and never did. The only factor is "Do I get on with this person?". Really, that's it. My eyes would glaze over if somebody started telling me what they identify as. Because in and of itself, it's not interesting. And doesn't make somebody interesting. "I'm working class!" or "I'm transgender!". Okay, and?

EmmetSpiceland

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

You're dreadfully bothered.

Ah now, O, pot kettle black?

You’re in no position to be calling others “bothered” when you, yourself, have been on this thread, night and day, for literally months getting incredibly bothered about trans rights.

Annasopra

Gentlemanne wrote: »

cis is to trans is just what straight is to gay.

I notice that a lot of people that feel attacked by the term are constantly antagonistic to trans people, so maye the response they get from these views might create a feeling of victimization. But that doesn't mean its a slur. That is absurd.

Yes, exactly, there are useful terms marginalised people use to differentiate themselves from others. Now you're getting it!!

Exactly. The manufactured outrage is ridiculous. Noone ever objects to the term straight. Its not a hate term. The origin of it to define something. Thats it.

Annasopra

suicide_circus wrote: »

Sure your condition is real, no need for the dramatics. And if you have specific nomenclature within your "community" thats fine. But "cis" has been shoehorned into the mainstream so that it's an everyday descriptor expected to be used when not even referencing trans people. I'm not engaging with it.

Thats fine. Ignore it then. No biggy if you ignore it.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

Ah now, O, pot kettle black?

You’re in no position to be calling others “bothered” when you, yourself, have been on this thread, night and day, for literally months getting incredibly bothered about trans rights.

Hey, you’ve branched out from slurring people! Good for you. Baby steps.

I am indeed bothered about the clash of trans rights and sex-based rights. Unashamedly.

excludedbin

Oh right, of course, I forgot that nobody ever forms groups or clubs or what have you based on shared interests or experiences (i.e. identity). Doesn't happen apparently because the only way people find others based on shared interests is to "have some checklist for who my friends and acquaintances should be". Yeah, forums like those for music or films on Boards have people who go out with checklists, looking for anyone that might share those interests and would want to join. Because apparently, in your world, that's the only way people with common interests can meet.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

"I'm working class!" or "I'm transgender!". Okay, and?

This just baffles me. Do you really not understand that human beings often seek people like them to share and contrast their experiences? Are you really so desperate to make your idiotic point that you're going to ignore something so obvious and so ubiquitous to human existence?

Is your imagination so limited that you can't even deduce that "I'm working class" is obviously a jumping-off point to discuss experiences relevant to being working class?

I don't know. This right wing railing against """identity politics""" (but only identities we don't like) just gets more bizarre by the day. I tip my hat to the people who have the patience to deal with this inanity on an ongoing basis because I can't damn well imagine what it must be like.

Annasopra

Neyite wrote: »

I honestly could not tell you when 'ownership' of pronouns started, but I would imagine it began when people wanted to be referred to with a certain pronoun? However, the page you linked also states:

"Penny came out as a genderqueer woman in 2015.[36] In 2020, Penny stated that their preferred pronouns are they/them and that they consider the pronouns she/her to be "less accurate", but acceptable to use when referring to them.[37]"

So Penny has cleared up any potential confusion in this instance. Someone who is respectful will use Penny's preferences. Someone who wants to hurt or insult them, will not. If I deliberately called Penny Cis, that would be a slur as far as they are concerned I imagine.

I feel that calling someone Cis without their prior agreement is rude. It's making an assumption on their preferred pronoun. Similar to if you refer to a married woman as Mrs. HisSurname when she chooses to go by Mrs. MaidenName. The first time is accidental, the second and subsequent time you do it, you are being deliberately provocative.

When you are talking about cis men and cis women as a whole in a discussion regarding trans issues that doesnt work.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

excludedbin wrote: »

Oh right, of course, I forgot that nobody ever forms groups or clubs or what have you based on shared interests or experiences (i.e. identity). Doesn't happen apparently because the only way people find others based on shared interests is to "have some checklist for who my friends and acquaintances should be". Yeah, forums like those for music or films on Boards have people who go out with checklists, looking for anyone that might share those interests and would want to join. Because apparently, in your world, that's the only way people with common interests can meet.

I’m not somebody who believes that sarcasm is the lowest form of wit but is that really all you have in your toolbox?

Oh and I’m left-wing. As are many people who are concerned about the erosion of sex-based rights. I know it’s probably more comforting to pretend otherwise but that’s the reality. People of varying political hues are concerned about it.

RWCNT

In fairness to ODB, an aversion to identity politics isn't solely a right wing thing, many leftists are very anti-idpol as well and prefer a class-based approach. Class isn't typically included in modern identity politics - tends to be race, gender and sexuality.

Must say though, I've been in many "woke" spaces over the years and have yet to encounter anyone just blurting all the things they identify as to me if they didn't naturally come up in conversation. More of a twitter bio thing.

andekwarhola

excludedbin wrote: »

Jesus, all politics is """identity politics""". If you're working class, middle class, you're right, left, your economic and social outlooks. Terfs (and right wingers in general these days) have this frankly ludicrous idea that nobody ever grouped themselves together under common identities or groups before the modern day..

So deciding your gender (and possibly sharing female spaces or dominating female sports) takes as much effort as being a Mod or supporting Real Madrid?

Gruffalux

RWCNT wrote: »

In fairness to ODB, an aversion to identity politics isn't solely a right wing thing, many leftists are very anti-idpol as well and prefer a class-based approach. Class isn't typically included in modern identity politics - tends to be race, gender and sexuality.

Must say though, I've been in many "woke" spaces over the years and have yet to encounter anyone just blurting all the things they identify as to me if they didn't naturally come up in conversation. More of a twitter bio thing.

It really isn't. I have a good friend in America who is from the original batch of 60s feminists and she recently quit lifelong community politics because she could no longer stomach the going round the room at the beginning of meetings declaring your name (fair enough) and your fecking pronouns. Identity politics, including stupid identity politics based completely on cretinous gender theory, a wild invention of idiot deconstructionists, has infused every aspect of life there and we will not be far behind. There are companies now in the UK also that encourage you to put your pronouns in your email signature. This is stupidly stupid stupidity.

Errashareesh

excludedbin wrote: »

It's literally just a Latin word that means "on the same side". Do you get upset when someone says transport, or transfer? Jesus...


Now there's irony for ya. An entire thread of people bitching about how trans people aren't what they say they are... then turn around and get upset when people call them something they don't identify as.

You couldn't make it up.

They were actually pointing out the irony of the term "cis" being used when unnecessary... by people who want specific terms used/not used in relation to them/others.

I don't mind "cis" being used to describe a non trans person in that specific context but I very much do otherwise. I am a woman - not a cis woman, a woman. And it absolutely does get used derogatorily at times. Like "cis scum". "Straight" is not used in that manner.

Gentlemanne wrote: »

That is exactly how the term straight is used but there is not the same outrage. You guys just have a problem with trans people.

This is so dishonest. Show an example of any of the contributors in question saying they have a problem with trans people. Objecting to aspects of an ideology is not the same as having a problem with the people it relates to.

It's a tactic that you and your thankers have been resorting to throughout the thread - those who question/object to the dogmatic aspects are putting forward detailed, reasoned, logical, supported points. None of them are hate-filled, they are fact filled. They are from women who are deeply concerned about "woman" and "female" being redefined and a disturbing new form of misogyny rearing its head (and I bet some of ye think ye are SO feminist). They are from people who are concerned about the normalisation of child transition. These are not right-wing or hate filled or cruel people. You haven't a rebuttal for them though, so all you can come back with is "you hate trans people" and nasty sneers. One of you - I question your sincerity, since you're always winding people up with a gimmicky posting style. Another will just pick the liberal view at all costs, even when it's contradictory and lacking logic; how they look is super important to them. Another - is just addicted to being contrarian and would argue that green is purple.

All men too. Maybe instead of being slaves to "brocialism", just think about the points being made rather than dismissing them.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Errashareesh wrote: »

It's a tactic that you and your thankers have been resorting to throughout the thread - those who question/object to the dogmatic aspects are putting forward detailed, reasoned, logical, supported points. None of them are hate-filled, they are fact filled. They are from women who are deeply concerned about "woman" and "female" being redefined and a disturbing new form of misogyny rearing its head (and I bet some of ye think ye are SO feminist). They are from people who are concerned about the normalisation of child transition. These are not right-wing or hate filled or cruel people. You haven't a rebuttal for them though, so all you can come back with is "you hate trans people" and nasty sneers. One of you - I question your sincerity, since you're always winding people up with a gimmicky posting style. Another will just pick the liberal view at all costs, even when it's contradictory and lacking logic. Another - is just addicted to being contrarian and would argue that green is purple.

All men too. Maybe instead of being slaves to "brocialism", just think about the points being made rather than dismissing them.

All true. But, you know, I'm actually okay with all of the above. It's really transparent and they only make themselves look bad by acting in that way. Let them off! Expose those shitty tactics to sunlight. And yes, LOL at the thought of any of them thinking themselves feminist. Maybe they don't label themselves that way. But if they do - lollers.

Ekerot

Cis is just such a ugly word to hear or use, everything it comes up all I can think of is a big lump I had when I was in the states years ago.

Errashareesh

Of course the backlash against women from the left is not just coming from men. Look at this tripe:

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/bbc-no-apologise-for-karens-podcast

Aren't the BBC so cool the way they're saying Karen? Cringe.

Today's feminism is a joke. Anyone see Mrs. America? Those women in the early 70s were awesome. Bad-ass, unlike today's adult babies.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Errashareesh wrote: »

Of course the backlash against women from the left is not just coming from men. Look at this tripe:

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/bbc-no-apologise-for-karens-podcast

Aren't the BBC so cool the way they're saying Karen? Cringe.

Today's feminism is a joke. Anyone see Mrs. America? Those women in the early 70s were awesome. Bad-ass, unlike today's adult babies.

The reaction to that podcast episode was high-larious. I've never seen a more ratioed tweet. Two white women telling other white women to shut up. Yeah, that's going to go down well. One wonders why they don't think that they themselves should shut up? Oh right, of course, because they have the correct opinions.

Errashareesh

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

One wonders why they don't think that they themselves should shut up? Oh right, of course, because they have the correct opinions.

Oh god yeah, this is the level of narcissism at the heart of it. And they're also middleclass/privileged. The arrogance and lack of self awareness or irony recognition. All rather thick really.

Imagine, a female academic, using the sexist "Karen" slur as a legit thing!

andekwarhola

Errashareesh wrote: »

Oh god yeah, this is the level of narcissism at the heart of it. And they're also middleclass/privileged. The arrogance and lack of self awareness or irony recognition. All rather thick really.

Imagine, a female academic, using the sexist "Karen" slur as a legit thing!

Back in the day, one would have placed bets that the sole future threat to genuine leftism and woman's rights would have emanated from the Right but ironically it's also under threat from what is essentially solipsistic, bourgeois liberals, albeit with Twitter and the broadsheets as its canonical body.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Errashareesh wrote: »

Oh god yeah, this is the level of narcissism at the heart of it. And they're also middleclass/privileged. The arrogance and lack of self awareness or irony recognition. All rather thick really.

Imagine, a female academic, using the sexist "Karen" slur as a legit thing!

I believe that one of them justified her stance by pointing out that she’s Jewish. Lots of white women are Jewish so I’m not sure what her point was.

The whole Karen thing is both ageist and classist at its core. The funny thing is, one of the two women is well into her thirties. A bit long in the tooth to be dismissing middle-aged women. She’ll be middle-aged herself before she knows it.

Gruffalux

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I believe that one of them justified her stance by pointing out that she’s Jewish. Lots of white women are Jewish so I’m not sure what her point was.

The whole Karen thing is both ageist and classist at its core. The funny thing is, one of the two women is well into her thirties. A bit long in the tooth to be dismissing middle-aged women. She’ll be middle-aged herself before she knows it.

I was surprised recently to see posters I quite like refering to women they did not agree with as Karens. It seems to have become a thing. Hopefully not in real life, so to speak. Is it the female equivalent of gammon?
I feel sorry for people called Karen.

Gruffalux

Ekerot wrote: »

Cis is just such a ugly word to hear or use, everything it comes up all I can think of is a big lump I had when I was in the states years ago.

Yes. Luscious. Mega. Fabulous. Galactic. There are lots of words I could live with if compelling me is what some would like.

Errashareesh

Gruffalox wrote: »

I was surprised recently to see posters I quite like refering to women they did not agree with as Karens. It seems to have become a thing. Hopefully not in real life, so to speak. Is it the female equivalent of gammon?
I feel sorry for people called Karen.

Even well meaning people jump on toxic bandwagons - not meaning badness, just not thinking things through.

Sir Oxman

Good news from Britain:
https://twitter.com/ALLIANCELGB/status/1303051353388974083?s=20

Errashareesh

Pretty cool that this and the sports thread are still open. Feels like the only place where we aren't relentlessly shouted down and accused of being horrific bigots. Much due to the well written posts by folk like ODB and Neyite. Thanks for sticking it out these many months. I'm sure you have made people rethink things.

I see elsewhere on Boards they're drinking the Kool-Aid - "a male to female is a female"... and then I remember I would have said the very same thing myself... maybe only six months ago (although I was simultaneously questioning things). Then I started to peel back the layers below that mostly well meaning statement, and see the ramifications of it.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Errashareesh wrote: »

Pretty cool that this and the sports thread are still open. Feels like the only place where we aren't relentlessly shouted down and accused of being horrific bigots. Much due to the well written posts by folk like ODB and Neyite. Thanks for sticking it out these many months. I'm sure you have made people rethink things.

I see elsewhere on Boards they're drinking the Kool-Aid - "a male to female is a female"... and then I remember I would have said the very same thing myself... maybe only six months ago (although I was simultaneously questioning things). Then I started to peel back the layers below that mostly well meaning statement, and see the ramifications of it.

I would have said the same a year ago. Well, truth be told, I hadn’t given it much thought. I think that many people who see themselves as trans allies have the best of intentions but just haven’t really thought it through (not that I ever described myself as one). What opened my eyes was the verdict in the Maya Forstater case late last year. As a biology graduate, that stunned me. It wasn’t just about live and let live anymore. We were being asked to deny material reality. Once I started reading about it all, I never looked back.

Honestly, I’m not that brave though. I’d never speak out against this under my real name. Some women do. They are the brave ones.

Errashareesh

Yes actually it was Maya for me too.

And there were ripples before that also - Caitlyn Jenner probably kick started it. No issue whatsoever with her finding herself to be trans. All the best to her. But I found myself questioning aspects of the narrative surrounding her. A major one was the denial of her sports career as a man.

Then there was my concern about trans women competing in women's sports.

But things like "trans women are women" didn't concern me until Maya.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Errashareesh wrote: »

Yes actually it was Maya for me too.

And there were ripples before that also - Caitlyn Jenner probably kick started it. No issue whatsoever with her finding herself to be trans. All the best to her. But I found myself questioning aspects of the narrative surrounding her. A major one was the denial of her sports career as a man.

Then there was my concern about trans women competing in women's sports.

But things like "trans women are women" didn't concern me until Maya.

Actually, yeah, there were ripples before that for me. Puberty blockers were bothering me for quite of a while before that. I just couldn’t understand how anyone with knowledge of medical ethics and clinical trials could be okay with their use. Unfortunately, I believe this is a future medical scandal. I wish I was wrong and that they were no longer prescribed.

A doctor I know told me that many doctors are concerned about their use but are reluctant to speak up.

Errashareesh

God yeah children being deemed trans by their parents - always shocked me.

Gruffalux

If there is a roll of honour being listed Sir Oxman should be mentioned. He has bravely come across the aisle, so to speak, which is very hard to do publicly even on an anonymous board. I have read on different threads where members of the LGBT community can be particularly scathing of homosexual people who will not get into lock step with so called trans rights. Sir O has been a staunch supporter of reason.