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

LLMMLL

volchitsa wrote: »

Not multiple. Two. And as I said, neither appear in the part that says who needs to have screening. Here's what the page you linked to says about that:

But it mentions women and does not mention trans. The two aspects that people were focussing on. And it was false.

OscarMIlde

Calina wrote: »

You might think so but it is standard experience for a lot of women. It takes a long while to get medical issues taken seriously.

Yup. I remember having agonising pains and GI bleeds, and being asked by a doctor was I sure it wasn't actually my period? As if, after 14 years of having a period every 28 days, I wasn't entirely certain what orifice menstrual blood came out of.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

LLMMLL wrote: »

But it mentions women and does not mention trans. The two aspects that people were focussing on. And it was false.

The link I provided (the one has caused consternation) does not mention women at all. Sorry if that’s inconvenient.

LLMMLL

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

The link I provided (the one has caused consternation) does not mention women at all. Sorry if that’s inconvenient.

Why would that be inconvenient. Contrary to what was claimed, their page on cervical cancer makes no mention of trans people and multiple mentions of the word "women". Manufactured outrage.

hatrickpatrick

LLMMLL wrote: »

Why would that be inconvenient. Contrary to what was claimed, their page on cervical cancer makes no mention of trans people and multiple mentions of the word "women". Manufactured outrage.

Given your regular defence of the newspeak-era, I'm honestly curious - how do you feel about certain extremists trying to use the gender identity ideology to deny people their right to a sexual preference? Leaving aside how unfair it is to straight people since it's un-hip to talk about that, how is it fair to erase the sexual preferences of gay people and lesbians? Ironically enough, the T part of LGBT is trying to erase the L and G parts.

Or rather, it isn't. Because many trans people themselves (people with actual gender dysphoria issues) are harsh critics of the gender identity extremists (people who think gender is merely a state of mind that people can flip between at will) for this exact reason, delegitimising their lived experience in favour of what amounts to, fundamentally, a movement which seeks to deny individuals a right to discriminate based on sex when it comes to who they choose to date, who they choose to kiss, who they choose to ride.

The deafening silence whenever this is brought up is ridiculous - I guarantee you that this is fundamentally what lies behind 90% of the backlash against the gender identity movement.

LLMMLL

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Given your regular defence of the newspeak-era, I'm honestly curious - how do you feel about certain extremists trying to use the gender identity ideology to deny people their right to a sexual preference? Leaving aside how unfair it is to straight people since it's un-hip to talk about that, how is it fair to erase the sexual preferences of gay people and lesbians? Ironically enough, the T part of LGBT is trying to erase the L and G parts.

Or rather, it isn't. Because many trans people themselves (people with actual gender dysphoria issues) are harsh critics of the gender identity extremists (people who think gender is merely a state of mind that people can flip between at will) for this exact reason, delegitimising their lived experience in favour of what amounts to, fundamentally, a movement which seeks to deny individuals a right to discriminate based on sex when it comes to who they choose to date, who they choose to kiss, who they choose to ride.

The deafening silence whenever this is brought up is ridiculous - I guarantee you that this is fundamentally what lies behind 90% of the backlash against the gender identity movement.

Nobody has ever been denied a right to a sexual preference. The "newspeak" is that anti trans campaigners try to claim this to muddy the waters.

Gruffalux

^^^As a wittier someone that I said recently, we have come to a time when men can be lesbians but women can not.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Given your regular defence of the newspeak-era, I'm honestly curious - how do you feel about certain extremists trying to use the gender identity ideology to deny people their right to a sexual preference? Leaving aside how unfair it is to straight people since it's un-hip to talk about that, how is it fair to erase the sexual preferences of gay people and lesbians? Ironically enough, the T part of LGBT is trying to erase the L and G parts.

Or rather, it isn't. Because many trans people themselves (people with actual gender dysphoria issues) are harsh critics of the gender identity extremists (people who think gender is merely a state of mind that people can flip between at will) for this exact reason, delegitimising their lived experience in favour of what amounts to, fundamentally, a movement which seeks to deny individuals a right to discriminate based on sex when it comes to who they choose to date, who they choose to kiss, who they choose to ride.

The deafening silence whenever this is brought up is ridiculous - I guarantee you that this is fundamentally what lies behind 90% of the backlash against the gender identity movement.

The silence is especially galling when you consider that the most extreme gender ideologists compare their struggles to the struggle for acceptance of gay people decades ago and say that people’s (supposed) bigotry is the same as the bigotry gay people faced. They have some nerve making that comparison when they are the ones who say the being exclusively attracted to a particular biological sex (be it straight or gay) is bigoted.

patnor1011

There are about 0.3% of transgender people living in EU. That is according to Amnesty international.
Gender identity activists or better said extremists account for a minuscule fraction of that so any talk about billionaire being cancelled by them is hillarious. Mainly considering that her only sin is in the realm of "what if" and "can be interpeted as".

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

patnor1011 wrote: »

There are about 0.3% of transgender people living in EU. That is according to Amnesty international.
Gender identity activists or better said extremists account for a minuscule fraction of that so any talk about billionaire being cancelled by them is hillarious. Mainly considering that her only sin is in the realm of "what if" and "can be interpeted as".

Her speaking out is still important because, whilst she might be uncancellable, others without her power aren’t so fortunate and I think she recognises that.

jaxxx

LLMMLL wrote: »

Nobody has ever been denied a right to a sexual preference. The "newspeak" is that anti trans campaigners try to claim this to muddy the waters.

Meh. I've sized it up. And it's worth the ban.


You're a grade A1 delusional idiot.


Catch ya all on the flip side. Or.. .. probably not actually :pac: Was getting tired of the BS here anyway, forum wide.

suicide_circus

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

uncancellable

This might be one of the main reasons for the vitriolic campaign against her - their voodoo dosnt work on her.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

suicide_circus wrote: »

This might be one of the main reasons for the vitriolic campaign against her - their voodoo dosnt work on her.

Yup, it’s concentrated foot-stomping.

Rothko

suicide_circus wrote: »

This might be one of the main reasons for the vitriolic campaign against her - their voodoo dosnt work on her.

I'd almost feel sorry for them. Almost.

suicide_circus

Rothko wrote: »

I'd almost feel sorry for them. Almost.

The obsession with fascists and bigots around every corner in the modern West is nothing short of pathological. As i've said elsewhere, the demand way outstrips the supply.

MoonUnit75

patnor1011 wrote: »

There are about 0.3% of transgender people living in EU. That is according to Amnesty international.
Gender identity activists or better said extremists account for a minuscule fraction of that so any talk about billionaire being cancelled by them is hillarious. Mainly considering that her only sin is in the realm of "what if" and "can be interpeted as".

The main reason trans issues have become the Great Struggle of Our Time® is that the vast majority of centrists and conservatives have taken gay/lesbian rights and dignity fully on board years ago. Therefore these groups can no longer be plausibly used as human shields to protect the wider identity politics agenda from scrutiny.

RWCNT

jaxxx wrote: »

Meh. I've sized it up. And it's worth the ban.


You're a grade A1 delusional idiot.


Catch ya all on the flip side. Or.. .. probably not actually :pac: Was getting tired of the BS here anyway, forum wide.

You know full well you're not going to get banned for that, come off it.

This is not an easy thread at all to pose an opposing view to the majority in. I give LLMMLL credit for putting the time in, even if I don't agree with some of what they've said.

Rothko

suicide_circus wrote: »

The obsession with fascists and bigots around every corner in the modern West is nothing short of pathological. As i've said elsewhere, the demand way outstrips the supply.

Yeah, but you have to remember that most of it is based on narcissism.

raclle

To all the LGBT activists on here, what is your aim or goal?

Do you want to see JKR put on trial or something?

I'm genuinely curious.

suicide_circus

Rothko wrote: »

Yeah, but you have to remember that most of it is based on narcissism.

People who grew up living life through the lense of their social media profile....them kids never had a chance

Sir Oxman

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Her speaking out is still important because, whilst she might be uncancellable, others without her power aren’t so fortunate and I think she recognises that.

With reason and compassion, she's single handedly flushed the extreme critical queer theorists undeniably *bad* ideas into the mainstream.
Never mind Twitter and Pink 'News' etc, they hate the sunlight where the previously unknowing public can hear their sh1t and awfulness.
That's why they absolutely detest her hence the orchestrated idiot footsoldiers on Twitter etc and deliciously on tv, radio, newspapers and their 'arguments' being torn to shreds.
For years they hid behind #nodebate - well, #nomore

Sir Oxman

patnor1011 wrote: »

There are about 0.3% of transgender people living in EU. That is according to Amnesty international.
Gender identity activists or better said extremists account for a minuscule fraction of that so any talk about billionaire being cancelled by them is hillarious. Mainly considering that her only sin is in the realm of "what if" and "can be interpeted as".

Don't forget, the vast majority of mainsteam media, giant ubiquitous tech platforms, tv, radio are onboard with the theory and messaging.
In the UK, nearly every public body (and corporations) that requires compliance with the Equality Act 2010 (UK) is misrepresnting that act via Stonewall and it's proxies and other critical theory NGOs (mandatory D.I.E. and gender identity training) - that's how 'not powerful' the activists/theorists are.
They want her name to be associated with bigotry and 'transphobia' no matter there is not one shred of evidence that she is (she is plainly, undeniably not) so that is all the public will read or hear when her name is mentioned.
That's the attempt at cancelling.

ceadaoin.

Sir Oxman wrote: »

Don't forget, the vast majority of mainsteam media, giant ubiquitous tech platforms, tv, radio are onboard with the theory and messaging.
In the UK, nearly every public body (and corporations) that requires compliance with the Equality Act 2010 (UK) is misrepresnting that act via Stonewall and it's proxies and other critical theory NGOs (mandatory D.I.E. and gender identity training) - that's how 'not powerful' the activists/theorists are.
They want her name to be associated with bigotry and 'transphobia' no matter there is not one shred of evidence that she is (she is plainly, undeniably not) so that is all the public will read or hear when her name is mentioned.
That's the attempt at cancelling.

They don't just want her cancelled, they want her ruined, professionally and personally. Its really quite disturbing, especially the threats of violence, sexual and otherwise, against her. I admire her dignity though it all.

hatrickpatrick

LLMMLL wrote: »

Nobody has ever been denied a right to a sexual preference. The "newspeak" is that anti trans campaigners try to claim this to muddy the waters.

So if I openly state that I'm only sexually interested in and interested in dating or hooking up with women who are biologically female, and that either an MtF transwoman or a man 'identifying' as a woman would be an automatic turn-off for me, you think that wouldn't get me accused of being some kind of transphobic bigot? I 100% guarantee you that that's exactly what would happen. If I was foolish enough to say such a thing in public with my real name attached to it, I fully expect that everyone from my school or employer to members of my family would be subjected to harassment from the Twitterati, and that if I were a public figure - a successful musician, for example, which is something I'm actively working towards - I would immediately be "cancelled" and subjected to all of the societal ostracism which comes with that. If JK Rowling isn't safe, I certainly wouldn't be. And literally all she did, to kick all this off, was state that there was a fundamental difference between an MtF transwoman and a biologically female woman.

If acknowledging that they're not the same thing is bigoted, then clearly differentiating between the two when deciding who to pursue sexual relationships with is also bigoted. And that's something which has been repeated time and time again by the very vocal extremists on the identity politics side of this debate. I refer you once again to the series of Tweets I linked to a page or two ago, in which somebody insisted that a man touching the penis of a man who identifies as a woman would simply be a heterosexual interaction as "it's a woman's penis" - I can tell you for a fact that this dystopian sh!t is absolutely rampant among those who are trying to erase the distinction between trans and biological gender.

That's a problem for straight men and women, it's a problem for lesbians, it's a problem for gay people. The only group for whom it may not be an issue is bisexual people.

It's frankly f*cking absurd that you're "allowed" in the eyes of these SJW nutcases to discriminate based on height, eye colour, hair colour, hobbies, taste in music or film, etc when deciding who you'd be comfortable having f*ck you, but not based on whether someone is male or female. It's insane. And as soon as these idiots decided to push this extremist crap into the mainstream, they "lost the room" as the saying goes.

That's what I mean whenever I say that the "conservative" side didn't fire the opening shots in the "culture war". The radical identity politics morons did, by attempting to coerce people into adopting a worldview which is counterintuitive, freedom-restricting and frankly utterly twisted and bizarre to anyone who grew up before the 2010s. Unlike paradigm shifts before it, such as the normalisation of homosexuality, contraception etc, this one actively seeks to restrict peoples' freedom by ascribing bigotry to them for having a sexual orientation.

Unless there is a clear, distinct break between the mainstream trans movement and the "gender literally doesn't exist except in your head" movement, the vast majority of people will never get on board. And that's a real shame, because prior to this sh!t taking hold, society was making real, genuine progress towards inclusivity and tolerance.

raclle

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

society was making real, genuine progress towards inclusivity and tolerance.

Well, they shot themselves in the foot there

Parsnips

Media are judge and Jury Now.
I support Rowling freedom of speech.
This whole "people that menstruate" thing is a joke and is actually offensive to Woman. but are they allowed to stand up for themselves bexcause they are the majority. Gimme a break.

This culture of wanting to absolutely annihilate someone because of something they said or did ( as if they had murdered someone) is madness. (in most cases us "regular" people cock up everyday of our lives but are not in the limelight).

This " I want to be offended " lark cannot carry on.

McGinniesta

Perf with surf

Quantum Erasure

Serf and Terf

LLMMLL

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

So if I openly state that I'm only sexually interested in and interested in dating or hooking up with women who are biologically female, and that either an MtF transwoman or a man 'identifying' as a woman would be an automatic turn-off for me, you think that wouldn't get me accused of being some kind of transphobic bigot? I 100%

I seriously doubt you would lose your job or anything of the sort. But yes some people would call you a bigot. Not for the reasons you think though. Here's why:

Summing up who you are attracted to by their status of belonging to a minority group is awful behaviour.

I had a friend who moved here from Singapore over 10 years ago. Reasonay confident, normal guy. He'd been rejected before and was no shrinking violet. However, when he moved here if he would even talk to someone In a bar he would astoundingly regularly be told immediately "sorry I'm not into Asians". This would even occur in situations where he had no interest in the person. This had a pretty nasty effect on him and coupled with the other forms of racism be experienced left him with a lot of issues around being Asian and self worth and whether he was valued in other aspects of his life.

Now thankfully it doesn't happen that often anymore. In fact it rarely happens at all. Because people have wised up that openly saying you won't even interact with a person because of their race is racist.

Nobody is requiring that these people would be forced to sleep with or date someone they are not attracted to. But openly stating these preferences is racist. There is no need to come into a public forum and state that you won't even consider dating a black person. And if a black or Asian person approaches you, you can make your excuses without referencing their race.

All of this applies to trans people. If you believe you couldn't possibly date or sleep with a trans person.....ok. There is no need to come onto a forum and make reference to their lack of your required primary sexual organs. If you feel the need to do this then YES. you are transphobic.

I also don't believe these people and their supposed sexual red lines that cannot be crossed. I don't believe people who say they will not sleep with Asian people are not attracted to ALL Asian people. Usually they have some ****ty stereotype in their head. I had a friend who claimed that "he just wasn't into black people sexually" and that it was just a sexual preference etc. Guess what. He moved to New York and has now slept with multiple black people. People who advertise their red lines are usually just being well, a little silly. We cross these lines all the time when were confronted with..... Actual individuals. And when advertising these red lines is part of a campaign to dehumanise people (I'm not attracted to trans women therefore they're not real women) then YES. it's transphobic.

Separately to people advertising their red lines, there is the issue of why people have these red lines in the first place. Why is this person not into Asians people, or at least believes they would never date an Asian person. It's impossible to understand the roots of sexual preferences. If a gay man or staright woman says they absolutely need the person they're dating to have a penis and they would Equally not date a cis man who lost their penis in a horrific accident then I would say NO. That is not transphobic. If that person feels the need to publically state they would never date a trans person then YES. Its transphobic.

So hatrickpatrick the hyperbole about "being denied" your "right to a sexual preference" is absolute nonsense. You're perfectly entitled to your sexual preference. But how you publically talk about your sexual preference may cause people to make judgements about you. TOUGH.

Also, you seem to be saying that a trans activist who DOESNT require straight men/gay women to be attracted to trans women and straight women/gay men to be attracted to trans men is a hypocrite. This is completely false and is just a basic misunderstanding of trans activists beliefs.

Nobody is saying that trans women and cis women are identical. Just that they are both women. You are perceiving trans activists arguments through your own beliefs. You believe that only cis women are "real women" so if a trans activist says a trans woman is a woman, you believe they are claiming she is identical in every way to a cis woman. They are not claiming that. It is a faulty misunderstanding of their position and using it to develop your own arguments is a mistake.

Lastly, I hope you can drop this "deafening silence" nonsense now. You've been fully answered. I imagine of someone has previously not engaged with you on this issue is because nobody wants to defend a position they never held, or verbalised. Why would anyone fee the need to defend your assertion that people were being "denied their right to a sexual preference" when they never made that assertion themselves?

Sean Tyler

LLMMLL wrote: »

I seriously doubt you would lose your job or anything of the sort. But yes some people would call you a bigot. Not for the reasons you think though. Here's why:

Summing up who you are attracted to by their status of belonging to a minority group is awful behaviour.

I had a friend who moved here from Singapore over 10 years ago. Reasonay confident, normal guy. He'd been rejected before and was no shrinking violet. However, when he moved here if he would even talk to someone In a bar he would astoundingly regularly be told immediately "sorry I'm not into Asians". This would even occur in situations where he had no interest in the person. This had a pretty nasty effect on him and coupled with the other forms of racism be experienced left him with a lot of issues around being Asian and self worth and whether he was valued in other aspects of his life.

Now thankfully it doesn't happen that often anymore. In fact it rarely happens at all. Because people have wised up that openly saying you won't even interact with a person because of their race is racist.

Nobody is requiring that these people would be forced to sleep with or date someone they are not attracted to. But openly stating these preferences is racist. There is no need to come into a public forum and state that you won't even consider dating a black person. And if a black or Asian person approaches you, you can make your excuses without referencing their race.

All of this applies to trans people. If you believe you couldn't possibly date or sleep with a trans person.....ok. There is no need to come onto a forum and make reference to their lack of your required primary sexual organs. If you feel the need to do this then YES. you are transphobic.

I also don't believe these people and their supposed sexual red lines that cannot be crossed. I don't believe people who say they will not sleep with Asian people are not attracted to ALL Asian people. Usually they have some ****ty stereotype in their head. I had a friend who claimed that "he just wasn't into black people sexually" and that it was just a sexual preference etc. Guess what. He moved to New York and has now slept with multiple black people. People who advertise their red lines are usually just being well, a little silly. We cross these lines all the time when were confronted with..... Actual individuals. And when advertising these red lines is part of a campaign to dehumanise people (I'm not attracted to trans women therefore they're not real women) then YES. it's transphobic.

Separately to people advertising their red lines, there is the issue of why people have these red lines in the first place. Why is this person not into Asians people, or at least believes they would never date an Asian person. It's impossible to understand the roots of sexual preferences. If a gay man or staright woman says they absolutely need the person they're dating to have a penis and they would Equally not date a cis man who lost their penis in a horrific accident then I would say NO. That is not transphobic. If that person feels the need to publically state they would never date a trans person then YES. Its transphobic.

So hatrickpatrick the hyperbole about "being denied" your "right to a sexual preference" is absolute nonsense. You're perfectly entitled to your sexual preference. But how you publically talk about your sexual preference may cause people to make judgements about you. TOUGH.

Also, you seem to be saying that a trans activist who DOESNT require straight men/gay women to be attracted to trans women and straight women/gay men to be attracted to trans men is a hypocrite. This is completely false and is just a basic misunderstanding of trans activists beliefs.

Nobody is saying that trans women and cis women are identical. Just that they are both women. You are perceiving trans activists arguments through your own beliefs. You believe that only cis women are "real women" so if a trans activist says a trans woman is a woman, you believe they are claiming she is identical in every way to a cis woman. They are not claiming that. It is a faulty misunderstanding of their position and using it to develop your own arguments is a mistake.

Lastly, I hope you can drop this "deafening silence" nonsense now. You've been fully answered. I imagine of someone has previously not engaged with you on this issue is because nobody wants to defend a position they never held, or verbalised. Why would anyone fee the need to defend your assertion that people were being "denied their right to a sexual preference" when they never made that assertion themselves?

Tldr: if you refuse to suck girlcock, or stick your dick in another man's inverted penisvagina, then you're a bigot.

**** off.