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

Smacruairi

LLMMLL wrote: »

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

Yeah exactly.. You missed the point... Who is to say how far it influences.. Or didn't influence. So you might make an assumption about something that had been ghostwritten, had editor's feedback, had test readings change it, been retconned etc. And myriad number of things to infer... But that's all you're doing. Inferring. Sometimes very very badly, like now.

RWCNT

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

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

You've started your sentence with the word "all" there. So you think some can and some can't? How exactly does that work? We're not saying fiction definitively represents the views of an author here, but that it's possible. You can't possibly argue against that in any type of good faith.

CtevenSrowder

RWCNT wrote: »

You've started your sentence with the word "all" there. So you think some can and some can't? How exactly does that work? We're not saying fiction definitively represents the views of an author here, but that it's possible. You can't possibly argue against that in any type of good faith.

This is what the OP wrote.

'And all fiction is capable of giving insights into the culture into which it was written. And the attitudes of the author who wrote it.'

Notice their use of the word all. Maybe take your own advice and argue in good faith.

patnor1011

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

Most of the people simply have hard time to accept that fictional character in fictional novel issuing fictional threats to another fictional character warrant real life outrage and threats to a real person. You actually went a step further projecting your own thoughts and imagination about what may happen in real life because of this fiction. Not to mention that somehow you think or believe you know the person you decided to hate despite never met her in person. You pretty much know nothing about what person she is.

RWCNT

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

This is what the OP wrote.

'And all fiction is capable of giving insights into the culture into which it was written. And the attitudes of the author who wrote it.'

Notice their use of the word all. Maybe take your own advice and argue in good faith.

Yes, ALL fiction is CAPABLE (not DOES, not ALWAYS WILL) of that. Are you following me? I'm arguing in complete good faith. If some fiction can then ALL of it can. Whether it actually DOES is where you could have a discusion.

CtevenSrowder

RWCNT wrote: »

Yes, ALL fiction is CAPABLE (not DOES, not ALWAYS WILL) of that. Are you following me? I'm arguing in complete good faith. If some fiction can then ALL of it can. Whether it actually DOES is where you could have a discusion.

No all fiction is not capable of that. You can infer essentially nothing about Stephen kings views on anything from his books.

RWCNT

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

No all fiction is not capable of that. You can infer essentially nothing about Stephen kings views on anything from his books.

OK, so using your chosen example, you don't think I could THEORISE what Stephen King's ideas are on crime and punishment, or the death penalty, from reading "The Green Mile"?

Because I DID. In leaving cert English. I got a B if I remember correctly. You almost certainly were asked to do a similar exercise at school.

Come on, man.

LLMMLL

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

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

Trans females were always female

LLMMLL

Smacruairi wrote: »

Yeah exactly.. You missed the point... Who is to say how far it influences.. Or didn't influence. So you might make an assumption about something that had been ghostwritten, had editor's feedback, had test readings change it, been retconned etc. And myriad number of things to infer... But that's all you're doing. Inferring. Sometimes very very badly, like now.

It's not a bad inference. Anti trans campaigner has trans character threatened with prison rape by novel's hero in moment of triumph. It's a very clear inference.

jaxxx

LLMMLL wrote: »

Trans females were always female

Female is biological, not psychological.. .. ..



You know, the fact that this is even a debate in this day and age is extremely concerning.

patnor1011

LLMMLL wrote: »

Trans females were always female

What is the definition of trans female?

Gervais08

LLMMLL wrote: »

Trans females were always female

Wrong, spectacularly wrong.

LLMMLL

jaxxx wrote: »

Female is biological, not psychological.. .. ..



You know, the fact that this is even a debate in this day and age is extremely concerning.

Female is commonly used as the adjectival form of woman. When I say someone is a female engineer so I need to setup a scientific experiment to verify it?

jaxxx

LLMMLL wrote: »

It's not a bad inference. Anti trans campaigner has trans character threatened with prison rape by novel's hero in moment of triumph. It's a very clear inference.

JK is not anti-trans, she is defending what it means to actually be a woman!

jaxxx

LLMMLL wrote: »

Female is commonly used as the adjectival form of woman. When I say someone is a female engineer so I need to setup a scientific experiment to verify it?

I've given the definition of female already, you can take your adjectives to somewhere else. 'Female' is not a term used exclusively for humans either btw, it is a used for all animals as well as to describe the male and female part of plants.

CtevenSrowder

RWCNT wrote: »

OK, so using your chosen example, you don't think I could THEORISE what Stephen King's ideas are on crime and punishment, or the death penalty, from reading "The Green Mile"?

Because I DID. In leaving cert English. I got a B if I remember correctly. You almost certainly were asked to do a similar exercise at school.

Come on, man.

You can of course infer anything you want about anything. You could read a trump speech (usually works of fiction) and infer that he is an antifa supporting communist if you'd like.

But I am talking in a real sense. Not all works of fiction are capable of showing an authors views on something/anything. You can infer what you want but it would essentially be you making something up yourself.

CtevenSrowder

jaxxx wrote: »

I've given the definition of female already, you can take your adjectives to somewhere else. 'Female' is not a term used exclusively for humans either btw, it is a used for all animals as well as to describe the male and female part of plants.

It's a non point anyway. The adjectival definition of female is (when referring to animals is:
'of, relating to, or being a female animal.'

So the adjectival form doesn't in anyway boost their argument.

LLMMLL

jaxxx wrote: »

JK is not anti-trans, she is defending what it means to actually be a woman!

She is clearly anti-trans

SqUEE

The world is stupid

LLMMLL

jaxxx wrote: »

I've given the definition of female already, you can take your adjectives to somewhere else. 'Female' is not a term used exclusively for humans either btw, it is a used for all animals as well as to describe the male and female part of plants.

Yes it is used for all those things. As well as the adjectival form of woman. So the gamete definition is clearly not complete.

hatrickpatrick

The irony of this entire debate is that the vast majority of people have never and would never have had an opinion or problem with the whole transgender issue at all if radical SJWs hadn't spent the 2010s attempting to literally erase any and all distinctions made between trans folk and biological men and women. For example: Most lesbians and gay men would probably have been fully on board with the trans rights campaign if some of the incredibly vocal extremists hadn't been pushing a narrative that the era of "gender is a social construct" meant that a person wasn't allowed to have sexual preferences anymore. I know that's one of the main reasons I first took issue with it - the idea which is commonly pedalled that in a world in which there is literally no difference between someone who is born male or female and someone who identifies as such - post-op or non-op - and that I, as a straight lad, was some kind of bigot for being uncomfortable with dating or engaging in sexual activities with someone who wasn't biologically female.

The fact, to take one ludicrous and lighthearted example, that you can specify your sexual preference on dating websites and apps, but it is now irrelevant as people of the opposite sex can and do sign up as the opposite gender and as such are still able to interact with your profile despite the fact that you've made it clear you're not sexually interested in people of that sex - and that dating apps and websites have been attacked, hounded and vilified in the past for enforcing rules about this to the point of all-but-abandoning the concept of gender selection on their platforms.

That's a silly and minor lighthearted example of how ludicrous it is - the fact that I, a straight man, can come across other men on Tinder or whatever because they 'identify' as women even though I would have set my profile to say that I'm not interested in matching with other men. But that's obviously a silly and minor issue (unless of course someone ends up riding somebody who hasn't disclosed this, in which case it would by all feminist metrics count as rape by deception - and has happened a number of times in the US with varying horrible consequences) - it's no real problem and is just mildly amusing and absurd in the majority of cases.

Taken in other contexts though and it really does become a problem - for example, one of the lesbian forums on Reddit recently had a bit of an upheaval because someone posted that she had been attacked for being "transphobic" for not wanting to date a man, because he either identified as a woman or had actually had surgery to that effect (can't remember which). This caused a serious drama over there between those who attacked OP as transphobic for not being willing to date a woman-identifying-male, and those who regarded sexual preference as a personal choice and the idea of biological men invading lesbian spaces and biological women invading gay spaces under the pretext of transgender identity as utterly absurd.

Once the extremists began to push that narrative, it suddenly became everyone's problem, as opposed to just a personal issue which the vast majority of decent, non-judgmental people wouldn't have taken any issue with on the grounds of "you do you, live and let live" etc. This is the aspect of trans ideology which is causing so much havoc, doing so much harm both to society in general and to the trans movement itself, and is itself now unquestionable under threat of being "cancelled" if you do speak up about it.

I refer once again to the following graphic, which on the surface seems like something ridiculous to laugh at, but taken to its logical conclusion is the basis on which many SJW types are attempting to deny people the right to a sexual preference.

CtevenSrowder

LLMMLL wrote: »

Yes it is used for all those things. As well as the adjectival form of woman. So the gamete definition is clearly not complete.

It is complete when referencing humans.

LLMMLL

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

It is complete when referencing humans.

No it misses out on the adjectival definition.

Gervais08

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The irony of this entire debate is that the vast majority of people have never and would never have had an opinion or problem with the whole transgender issue at all if radical SJWs hadn't spent the 2010s attempting to literally erase any and all distinctions made between trans folk and biological men and women. For example: Most lesbians and gay men would probably have been fully on board with the trans rights campaign if some of the incredibly vocal extremists hadn't been pushing a narrative that the era of "gender is a social construct" meant that a person wasn't allowed to have sexual preferences anymore. I know that's one of the main reasons I first took issue with it - the idea which is commonly pedalled that in a world in which there is literally no difference between someone who is born male or female and someone who identifies as such - post-op or non-op - and that I, as a straight lad, was some kind of bigot for being uncomfortable with dating or engaging in sexual activities with someone who wasn't biologically female.

The fact, to take one ludicrous and lighthearted example, that you can specify your sexual preference on dating websites and apps, but it is now irrelevant as people of the opposite sex can and do sign up as the opposite gender and as such are still able to interact with your profile despite the fact that you've made it clear you're not sexually interested in people of that sex - and that dating apps and websites have been attacked, hounded and vilified in the past for enforcing rules about this to the point of all-but-abandoning the concept of gender selection on their platforms.

That's a silly and minor lighthearted example of how ludicrous it is - the fact that I, a straight man, can come across other men on Tinder or whatever because they 'identify' as women even though I would have set my profile to say that I'm not interested in matching with other men. But that's obviously a silly and minor issue (unless of course someone ends up riding somebody who hasn't disclosed this, in which case it would by all feminist metrics count as rape by deception - and has happened a number of times in the US with varying horrible consequences) - it's no real problem and is just mildly amusing and absurd in the majority of cases.

Taken in other contexts though and it really does become a problem - for example, one of the lesbian forums on Reddit recently had a bit of an upheaval because someone posted that she had been attacked for being "transphobic" for not wanting to date a man, because he either identified as a woman or had actually had surgery to that effect (can't remember which). This caused a serious drama over there between those who attacked OP as transphobic for not being willing to date a woman-identifying-male, and those who regarded sexual preference as a personal choice and the idea of biological men invading lesbian spaces and biological women invading gay spaces under the pretext of transgender identity as utterly absurd.

Once the extremists began to push that narrative, it suddenly became everyone's problem, as opposed to just a personal issue which the vast majority of decent, non-judgmental people wouldn't have taken any issue with on the grounds of "you do you, live and let live" etc. This is the aspect of trans ideology which is causing so much havoc, doing so much harm both to society in general and to the trans movement itself, and is itself now unquestionable under threat of being "cancelled" if you do speak up about it.

I refer once again to the following graphic, which on the surface seems like something ridiculous to laugh at, but taken to its logical conclusion is the basis on which many SJW types are attempting to deny people the right to a sexual preference.

Yeah that Tweet was what I saw and wept, who knew we’d go further from sanity ?

Gervais08

I’ll tell you what really gets on my nerves - the word “identify”.

Gay people have for so long been trying to be accepted as being born gay, as they are. Now these numpties keep saying “... identify as gay” and undo decades of progress.

It’s bloody maddening.

ceadaoin.

LLMMLL wrote: »

Trans females were always female

And Oceana has always been at war with Eastasia.

metaoblivia

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The irony of this entire debate is that the vast majority of people have never and would never have had an opinion or problem with the whole transgender issue at all if radical SJWs hadn't spent the 2010s attempting to literally erase any and all distinctions made between trans folk and biological men and women.

I agree with this. Look, I'm happy to call a person by their preferred pronouns and chosen names, etc. But there was a time when trans activists would say, "there's a difference between sex and gender. Sex is biological, gender is a social construct." And I agree with that. But now it seems they're trying to claim - or rather, ignore - the biological part too, and that just doesn't sit well with me. And if you disagree, they'd rather call you names instead of sitting down and having a rational discussion about how transwomen maybe, you know, shouldn't compete in the same sports category with biological women. Maybe, at an all women's spa, the majority of the patrons don't want to see a "female penis" hanging out. When did the wants of an small minority start to outweigh the needs of a much larger majority?

And the way some trans folks want to be linguistically coddled, i.e. people with uteri? That's not inclusive, it's dehumanizing. We call it objectification when straight men choose to view women solely through the lens of their female body parts. "People with uteri" feels no different.

RWCNT

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

You can of course infer anything you want about anything. You could read a trump speech (usually works of fiction) and infer that he is an antifa supporting communist if you'd like.

But I am talking in a real sense. Not all works of fiction are capable of showing an authors views on something/anything. You can infer what you want but it would essentially be you making something up yourself.

You generally have to back up your inferrance with some logically sound reasoning in order to receive a passing mark - this is what literary students do in their assignments - everyone who did English in secondary school did this. They also studied poems and novels and learned about the most supported analyses of the themes and motifs to learn how its done. You'd have a serious job inferring credibly that Trump is a supporter of antifa. I'd honestly love to see someone have a crack at that.

I have no idea what you mean by "I'm talking in a real sense" - of course we can't draw a firm conclusion, and that was never the point. Of course all works of fiction can offer a potential insight into the authors worldview. This is the entire basis of literary analysis as practised for hundreds and hundreds of years. You're an absolute gas man Cteven, and thanks for the chat but I've probably dragged the thread off topic enough at this stage. You can repeat yourself again if you want and call it a W. Have a good one.

Airyfairy12

I just saw on a news article today that the HSE website has removed any reference to 'women' on their cervical cancer sources. Theyve changed the word 'women' to 'people with cervixes' - No mention of the term man or men being offensive in any of the male related health sources, they didnt change the prostate cancer page from men to 'people with prostates' - How ridiculous does that phrase even sound?

Recently read an article that was about creating equality for 'people who menstruate'

Pregnant women must now be referred to as 'Pregnant people'

These are easily the most Patronising and belittling statements ive heard referring to women in a long time. Literally up there with calling us Sluts and hoes. Derogatory and reduces us to body parts and body functions.


Clearly trans women have never had to experience the constant threat and fear of being raped, sexually and physically abused and as such dont understand why cis women might be uncomfortable with the idea of biological men - regardless of how they identify - in womens changing rooms, refuges and public toilets. Is biological womens safety now the sacrifice to be made so as not to offend trans women?
Apparently even when men identify as female their given more rights over biological women.

Feels like we're being erased. Im shocked at how so many people cant see this or dont care and get offended when it's mentioned. Trans women are coming across as misogynists who hate biological women! They want more rights at our expense, even if it means it puts biological women in physical danger.

Its worrying how many celebrities have spoken up against JK Rowling..

ceadaoin.

Airyfairy12 wrote: »

I just saw on a news article today that the HSE website has removed any reference to 'women' on their cervical cancer sources. Theyve changed the word 'women' to 'people with cervixes' - No mention of the term man or men being offensive in any of the male related health sources, they didnt change the prostate cancer page from men to 'people with prostates' - How ridiculous does that phrase even sound?

Recently read an article that was about creating equality for 'people who menstruate'

Pregnant women must now be referred to as 'Pregnant people'

These are easily the most Patronising and belittling statements ive heard referring to women in a long time. Literally up there with calling us Sluts and hoes. Derogatory and reduces us to body parts and body functions.


Clearly trans women have never had to experience the constant threat and fear of being raped, sexually and physically abused and as such dont understand why cis women might be uncomfortable with the idea of biological men - regardless of how they identify - in womens changing rooms, refuges and public toilets. Is biological womens safety now the sacrifice to be made so as not to offend trans women?
Apparently even when men identify as female their given more rights over biological women.

Feels like we're being erased. Im shocked at how so many people cant see this or dont care and get offended when it's mentioned. Trans women are coming across as misogynists who hate biological women! They want more rights at our expense, even if it means it puts biological women in physical danger.

Its worrying how many celebrities have spoken up against JK Rowling..

I brought up the HSE thing months ago on this or another thread and was told by the usual suspects that I was lying and hysterical because at the time there was one single incidence of woman on the page (that wasn't there months previous btw). This stuff has been going on for a while now.