Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
1…124125127129130…207

Comments

  • Options
    #3782
    Gervais08
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,612 ✭✭✭Gervais08


    Gruffalox wrote: »
    That is not possible. It is scientifically, biologically, realistically impossible. You are making a political statement that defies scientific truth and that is disquieting as you are a scientist
    Transwomen are transwomen and good for them. They are entitled to all human rights and protections and respect.

    Why is that last part not enough for some???

    To be honest the first time I heard the phrase “female penis” I despaired at how we’d hit rock bottom.

    We weren’t even close :( Lesbians and gay men shamed (or worse) into relationships with the opposite sex merely because someone denies basic biology.

    What balls (no pun intended) must someone have to try to tell a gay woman that he is a lesbian and if she - rightly - says she only is attracted to women, he pulls her up and starts the cancel culture nonsense.


  • Options
    #3783
    LLMMLL
    Registered Users Posts: 4,590 ✭✭✭LLMMLL


    Smacruairi wrote: »
    So if 999 people from many different disciplines, of all qualifications and expertise all agree on the meaning of the word, and you have an issue, then that's that?

    Well if you want to use numbers, then millions of people use the word female all the time. How many of them would be able to reproduce that complex "gamete" definition?

    You are under the mistaken definition that science gets to dictate common language. It doesn't. And scientists are not even trying to dictate the usage of language.

    It's mostly people with little or no scientific background foaming at the mouth over these issues.


  • Options
    #3784
    Gervais08
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,612 ✭✭✭Gervais08


    Woman = adult human female

    Not former man; not man who wants to be a woman:adult human female.

    That’s it.


  • Options
    #3785
    Smacruairi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,481 ✭✭✭Smacruairi


    LLMMLL wrote: »
    Well if you want to use numbers, then millions of people use the word female all the time. How many of them would be able to reproduce that complex "gamete" definition?

    You are under the mistaken definition that science gets to dictate common language. It doesn't. And scientists are not even trying to dictate the usage of language.

    It's mostly people with little or no scientific background foaming at the mouth over these issues.

    Foaming at the mouth? Why did you get banned from this thread for a while again?


  • Options
    #3786
    LLMMLL
    Registered Users Posts: 4,590 ✭✭✭LLMMLL


    Gervais08 wrote: »
    Woman = adult human female

    Not former man; not man who wants to be a woman:adult human female.

    That’s it.

    Wrong


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3787
    CtevenSrowder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,909 ✭✭✭CtevenSrowder


    Smacruairi wrote: »
    So if 999 people from many different disciplines, of all qualifications and expertise all agree on the meaning of the word, and you have an issue, then that's that?

    We've done this debate with the poster in question before. Ultimately they are a deconstructionist, whether they want to admit it or not, who believes there is no objective reality and nothing has any meaning. As such they can state absurdities like transwomen are female. Or stated another way, males are female.

    Pointing out people's understanding of what is male and female is essentially universal is pointless. As is trying to make them understand the importance of having agreed upon definitions of words, not just in a scientific context, but in an everyday context aswell.


  • Options
    #3788
    CtevenSrowder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,909 ✭✭✭CtevenSrowder


    LLMMLL wrote: »
    Well if you want to use numbers, then millions of people use the word female all the time. How many of them would be able to reproduce that complex "gamete" definition?

    You are under the mistaken definition that science gets to dictate common language. It doesn't. And scientists are not even trying to dictate the usage of language.

    It's mostly people with little or no scientific background foaming at the mouth over these issues.
    The definition uses the word typically or some variation thereof. Secondly, one does not have to meet necessarily every criteria, the issue arises when one meets none of the criteria, as is the case with Trans-women... Because they are male.


  • Options
    #3789
    LLMMLL
    Registered Users Posts: 4,590 ✭✭✭LLMMLL


    CtevenSrowder wrote: »
    We've done this debate with the poster in question before. Ultimately they are a deconstructionist, whether they want to admit it or not, who believes there is no objective reality and nothing has any meaning. As such they can state absurdities like transwomen are female. Or stated another way, males are female.

    Pointing out people's understanding of what is male and female is essentially universal is pointless. As is trying to make them understand the importance of having agreed upon definitions of words, not just in a scientific context, but in an everyday context aswell.

    Complete misunderstanding of my view.

    I do believe in objective reality. I just don't believe that one person or group of people gets to ringfence the way language is used to describe that reality.


  • Options
    #3790
    o1s1n
    Registered Users Posts: 35,034 ✭✭✭✭o1s1n
    Master of the Universe


    LLMMLL wrote: »
    Scientists have no right to ringfence a word, match it to a concept, and forbid everyone else from using the word in a different way.

    You can use any word in any way you want, nobody is stopping you.

    All science does is try to create ways of understanding the world around us through empirical evidence.

    If you are not happy with the outcomes of such observations, then that is your decision to make. It won't change how scientists observe and record things.

    Do you apply this to all sciences by the way, or just those which offend you?


  • Options
    #3791
    LLMMLL
    Registered Users Posts: 4,590 ✭✭✭LLMMLL


    CtevenSrowder wrote: »
    The definition uses the word typically or some variation thereof. Secondly, one does not have to meet necessarily every criteria, the issue arises when one meets none of the criteria, as is the case with Trans-women... Because they are male.

    That definition did not include the word typically. That is something you are now inserting because the view that a woman or female has to fall under that definition is false.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3792
    LLMMLL
    Registered Users Posts: 4,590 ✭✭✭LLMMLL


    o1s1n wrote: »
    You can use any word in any way you want, nobody is stopping you.

    All science does is try to create ways of understanding the world around us through empirical evidence.

    If you are not happy with the outcomes of such observations, then that is your decision to make. It won't change how scientists observe and record things.

    Do you apply this to all sciences by the way, or just those which offend you?

    I agree with everything you said. I'm glad we agree on this.


  • Options
    #3793
    Gervais08
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,612 ✭✭✭Gervais08


    LLMMLL wrote: »
    Wrong

    You misspelt “correct but I’m so entrenched in my delusion I can’t admit it” there.


  • Options
    #3794
    Smacruairi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,481 ✭✭✭Smacruairi


    LLMMLL wrote: »
    That definition did not include the word typically. That is something you are now inserting because the view that a woman or female has to fall under that definition is false.

    So ironically, for someone who is saying no one gets to ring-fence language, you are now trying to use linguistic slight of hand to adjust reality to your narrative.


  • Options
    #3795
    LLMMLL
    Registered Users Posts: 4,590 ✭✭✭LLMMLL


    Smacruairi wrote: »
    So ironically, for someone who is saying no one gets to ring-fence language, you are now trying to use linguistic slight of hand to adjust reality to your narrative.

    Nope I am saying that the definition that anti-trans people on this thread have canonised as the ONLY way to define a female does not and has never included the word typically.

    I am.not the one trying to insert a word that just isn't there. Therefore I am not the one attempting a linguistic sleight of hand


  • Options
    #3796
    RWCNT
    Registered Users Posts: 1,430 ✭✭✭RWCNT


    CtevenSrowder wrote: »
    No it isn't. This is total rubbish.

    This is an absurdly, hilariously bad take. Did you not study any novels or plays in school? Jesus christ.


  • Options
    #3797
    CtevenSrowder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,909 ✭✭✭CtevenSrowder


    RWCNT wrote: »
    This is an absurdly, hilariously bad take. Did you not study any novels or plays in school? Jesus christ.

    What is written in a fictional novel does not automatically represent an authors views on anything. It is fiction. There is nothing absurd about that.


  • Options
    #3798
    Smacruairi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,481 ✭✭✭Smacruairi


    LLMMLL wrote: »
    Nope I am saying that the definition that anti-trans people on this thread have canonised as the ONLY way to define a female does not and has never included the word typically.

    I am.not the one trying to insert a word that just isn't there. Therefore I am not the one attempting a linguistic sleight of hand

    No one here is anti trans. People however are pro science and reality. Stop using language which asserts an idea "that just isn't there" to quote yourself.

    Ask a 7 year old from every country in the world to draw a woman, and I'd be amazed if any of them add a phallus.


  • Options
    #3799
    jaxxx
    Registered Users Posts: 3,230 ✭✭✭jaxxx


    Standard global definition of female:

    "of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes"

    For the record, no one here is anti-trans. But as typical with you lot, whoever doesn't agree with your opinion is automatically wrong and therefore a hater. NEWSFLASH: disagreeing with something does not equate to a hatred of said thing. Your hypocrisy is out of this world. "Conform to our way of thinking or forever be labelled as a bigot!"

    Modern day fascism in a nutshell.

    As some ancient dead religious fella once said (even though I am anti-religion, that I will wholeheartedly admit).. .. ..

    “A time is coming when man [mankind] will go mad, and when they see someone who is not mad, they will attack them, saying, 'You are mad; for you are not like us.”


  • Options
    #3800
    RWCNT
    Registered Users Posts: 1,430 ✭✭✭RWCNT


    CtevenSrowder wrote: »
    What is written in a fictional novel does not automatically represent an authors views on anything. It is fiction. There is nothing absurd about that.

    The poster you responded to said "capable" not automatically, and you dismissed it out of hand. The fact anyone liked it fully displays the bad faith in which people have argued in this mess of a thread. I dont even agree with much of what LLMMLL has argued, but that was poor.


  • Options
    #3801
    LLMMLL
    Registered Users Posts: 4,590 ✭✭✭LLMMLL


    Smacruairi wrote: »
    No one here is anti trans. People however are pro science and reality. Stop using language which asserts an idea "that just isn't there" to quote yourself.

    Ask a 7 year old from every country in the world to draw a woman, and I'd be amazed if any of them add a phallus.

    Pretty sure a 7 year old isn't going to draw a fallopian tube either ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3802
    patnor1011
    Registered Users Posts: 3,108 ✭✭✭patnor1011


    CtevenSrowder wrote: »
    We've done this debate with the poster in question before. Ultimately they are a deconstructionist, whether they want to admit it or not, who believes there is no objective reality and nothing has any meaning. As such they can state absurdities like transwomen are female. Or stated another way, males are female.

    Pointing out people's understanding of what is male and female is essentially universal is pointless. As is trying to make them understand the importance of having agreed upon definitions of words, not just in a scientific context, but in an everyday context aswell.

    That is because what we talk about is faith. That person believes in something and beliefs most of the time do not fare well with reality. This, combined with some entitlement is a recipe for disaster if you try to engage with them.
    In their simple view if you do not agree with their believes you surely must be against.


  • Options
    #3803
    Smacruairi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,481 ✭✭✭Smacruairi


    LLMMLL wrote: »
    Pretty sure a 7 year old isn't going to draw a fallopian tube either ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

    Nope, but it'll just demonstrate that a world full of 7 year olds have a better handle on life than you, they might not even resort to emojis to make their point.


  • Options
    #3804
    CtevenSrowder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,909 ✭✭✭CtevenSrowder


    RWCNT wrote: »
    The poster you responded to said "capable" not automatically, and you dismissed it out of hand. The fact anyone liked it fully displays the bad faith in which people have argued in this mess of a thread. I dont even agree with much of what LLMMLL has argued, but that was poor.

    All fiction absolutely isn't capable of giving insights into an author's attitudes about what they wrote.


  • Options
    #3805
    Smacruairi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,481 ✭✭✭Smacruairi


    CtevenSrowder wrote: »
    All fiction absolutely isn't capable of giving insights into the author who wrote it.

    The position of a ghostwriter would probably bear that out to be fair.


  • Options
    #3806
    LLMMLL
    Registered Users Posts: 4,590 ✭✭✭LLMMLL


    patnor1011 wrote: »
    That is because what we talk about is faith. That person believes in something and beliefs most of the time do not fare well with reality. This, combined with some entitlement is a recipe for disaster if you try to engage with them.
    In their simple view if you do not agree with their believes you surely must be against.

    The exact same.can be said of those arguing against me. It's just their beliefs that they are right that allows them to characterise me in the above way


  • Options
    #3807
    LLMMLL
    Registered Users Posts: 4,590 ✭✭✭LLMMLL


    Smacruairi wrote: »
    The position of a ghostwriter would probably bear that out to be fair.

    Actually a ghostwriter could easily bring aspects of their own views and personality into their writing.


  • Options
    #3808
    Smacruairi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,481 ✭✭✭Smacruairi


    LLMMLL wrote: »
    The exact same.can be said of those arguing against me. It's just their beliefs that they are right that allows them to characterise me in the above way

    Do you think it's possible for someone to believe that they are in the right, fervently so, but they are actually wrong?would you accept that as a premise?


  • Options
    #3809
    LLMMLL
    Registered Users Posts: 4,590 ✭✭✭LLMMLL


    Smacruairi wrote: »
    Do you think it's possible for someone to believe that they are in the right, fervently so, but they are actually wrong?would you accept that as a premise?

    Of course


  • Options
    #3810
    jaxxx
    Registered Users Posts: 3,230 ✭✭✭jaxxx


    LLMMLL wrote: »
    The exact same.can be said of those arguing against me. It's just their beliefs that they are right that allows them to characterise me in the above way


    Calling a man a man, a woman a woman, and refusing to acknowledge that one can transition from one to the another is not an opinion or belief it is a biological fact.. .. .. As I've said before, there are species in most animal classes that can naturally undergo change in sex, mammals are not one of them; and if there are any mammals that can, primates are not among them [which we're part of btw]


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3811
    CtevenSrowder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,909 ✭✭✭CtevenSrowder


    LLMMLL wrote: »
    The exact same.can be said of those arguing against me. It's just their beliefs that they are right that allows them to characterise me in the above way

    The fact that (human) males cannot be females is not a belief. It is objective reality.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement