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

ceadaoin.

Gruffalox wrote: »

Just on a side note Butler has heavily influenced new writers like Sophie Lewis who recently wrote Full Surrogacy Now. Surrogacy is an area that really interests me. I think it is inherently abusive. Sophie Lewis argues that motherhood is really some kind of communal labour, she bases her ideas on Butler's ideas of detached and manufactured kinship. She believes in the abolition of the family as it is inherently abusive. In the last few days Benjamin Cohen of Pink News was giving out about the money he and his partner have to spend on IVF as opposed to heterosexual couples who (sometimes) get funded IVF where the female in the couple is carrying the child. This is a big step for him to argue - he is looking for state funding so he can have IVF done on a woman providing him with surrogacy services. Rich considering he does not recognise biological reality in the first place. Anyways. These are the weird and winding cul de sacs all this shyte lead on down. Note Sophie Lewis's partner is Vicky Osterweil who wrote the idiotic book In Defense Of Looting.

And the next step will be that the government should provide a female incubator to grow him a child. After all its so unfair that females get to use their own reproductive systems for "free" too. And why shouldn't single men get that "right" as well? Is this the road we should really be going down? Its like the handmaids tale come to life.

Parsnips

Very hard to to keep in mind.
All this nonsence is only coming from a few mouths thrying to put everyone in a category ( which is actually the opposite of what should be happening )
These mouth pieces are actually turning into the monsters they hate.

Ignore Ignore Ignore

Gruffalux

Just want to post Cohen's tweet, so people can evaluate for themselves, and in case I am misinterpreting. You have to follow the thread to see his points. But as far as I can make out surrogacy will have to involve a woman outside his relationship. Note pregnancy is a danger by its very nature to any woman who undergoes it and this danger increases with IVF drugs like Lupron plus multiple embryos- surrogacy is therefore a considerable risk to any woman. I do not know why society is in any way casual about it. Also this habit of referring to someone as ''the surrogate'' instead of the woman who will bear the child is very de-humanising.

https://twitter.com/benjamincohen/status/1308357671708434434?s=20

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Gruffalox wrote: »

Just want to post Cohen's tweet, so people can evaluate for themselves, and in case I am misinterpreting. You have to follow the thread to see his points. But as far as I can make out surrogacy will have to involve a woman outside his relationship. Note pregnancy is a danger by its very nature to any woman who undergoes it and this danger increases with IVF drugs like Lupron plus multiple embryos- surrogacy is therefore a considerable risk to any woman. I do not know why society is in any way casual about it. Also this habit of referring to someone as ''the surrogate'' instead of the woman who will bear the child is very de-humanising.

Well, if that’s NOT the case, medical science has made some dramatic overnight leaps and bounds! :eek: :P :pac:

Anyway, it’s interesting that Ben understands and acknowledges biology when it suits him.

Errashareesh

ceadaoin. wrote: »

And the next step will be that the government should provide a female incubator to grow him a child. After all its so unfair that females get to use their own reproductive systems for "free" too. And why shouldn't single men get that "right" as well? Is this the road we should really be going down? Its like the handmaids tale come to life.

It has the characteristics of a cult indeed.

hetuzozaho

Gruffalox wrote: »

Just want to post Cohen's tweet, so people can evaluate for themselves, and in case I am misinterpreting. You have to follow the thread to see his points. But as far as I can make out surrogacy will have to involve a woman outside his relationship. Note pregnancy is a danger by its very nature to any woman who undergoes it and this danger increases with IVF drugs like Lupron plus multiple embryos- surrogacy is therefore a considerable risk to any woman. I do not know why society is in any way casual about it. Also this habit of referring to someone as ''the surrogate'' instead of the woman who will bear the child is very de-humanising.

https://twitter.com/benjamincohen/status/1308357671708434434?s=20

You know the way he is comparing the situation between straight and gay couples. I presume he is being disingenuous in that if a straight couple decide on surrogacy they are in the same position as him and his partner, or am I wrong?

ceadaoin.

ceadaoin. wrote: »

And the next step will be that the government should provide a female incubator to grow him a child. After all its so unfair that females get to use their own reproductive systems for "free" too. And why shouldn't single men get that "right" as well? Is this the road we should really be going down? Its like the handmaids tale come to life.

Don't expect any rights for males regarding their own bodies or otherwise... the trend is to give women full rights even when they counter what should obviously be a male right. for example, the male right of ownership & use of his sperm.. at least he should have such rights, but typically, doesn't.

Gruffalux

hetuzozaho wrote: »

You know the way he is comparing the situation between straight and gay couples. I presume he is being disingenuous in that if a straight couple decide on surrogacy they are in the same position as him and his partner, or am I wrong?

I see Scotland has paid NHS IVF treatment using surrogate first time this year. I think surrogacy is a very questionable practice no matter what. Ben Cohen is an interesting case specifically as he argues transwomen are women and yet needs a biological woman as surrogate to have IVF and carry his child.

Gruffalux

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Don't expect any rights for males regarding their own bodies or otherwise... the trend is to give women full rights even when they counter what should obviously be a male right. for example, the male right of ownership & use of his sperm.. at least he should have such rights, but typically, doesn't.

I agree men should have rights to ownership re sperm. Eg use after break ups.
Of course all these issues are complicated but it does not mean they should not be addressed. It is only going to keep on getting more complicated as more unusual circumstances arise.

hetuzozaho

Gruffalox wrote: »

I see Scotland has paid NHS IVF treatment using surrogate first time this year. I think surrogacy is a very questionable practice no matter what. Ben Cohen is an interesting case specifically as he argues transwomen are women and yet needs a biological woman as surrogate to have IVF and carry his child.

Ah so he is right that there is a difference between straight and gay couples in relation to surrogacy?

Gruffalux

hetuzozaho wrote: »

Ah so he is right that there is a difference between straight and gay couples in relation to surrogacy?

I actually do not think any couples can have IVF surrogacy paid in UK. The case I mentioned is Scotland. I think his beef is that a couple in possession of a womb in UK can get some funding for IVF wheŕeas he cannot get IVF funding to use a woman outside of the couple. Thats as far as I understand it.

Gruffalox

Gruffalox wrote: »

I agree men should have rights to ownership re sperm. Eg use after break ups.

Why after breakups? Even within a relationship, the rights of a woman regarding her body are protected.

Of course all these issues are complicated but it does not mean they should not be addressed. It is only going to keep on getting more complicated as more unusual circumstances arise.

If we want equality, then both parties need to respected and protected... but that's not what generally happens. I get what you're saying, but I have little faith that male rights will gain any genuine support for another decade or so. Feminism has guaranteed that female rights will outshine those of males for some time yet.

SusieBlue

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Why after breakups? Even within a relationship, the rights of a woman regarding her body are protected.



If we want equality, then both parties need to respected and protected... but that's not what generally happens. I get what you're saying, but I have little faith that male rights will gain any genuine support for another decade or so. Feminism has guaranteed that female rights will outshine those of males for some time yet.

Female rights should always trump male rights when it comes to pregnancy. Biologically they cannot ever be equal.

Sir Oxman

More from England, the pushback against shoddy, harmful gender ideology in schools is underway. New guidelines.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/plan-your-relationships-sex-and-health-curriculum



Councils and schools had outsourced their duties to extremely disingenuous NGOs (Stonewall, Mermaids, Gendered Intelligence etc)
In the meantime if they want their toolkits in schools they will have to be evidence based, scientific, factual, compassionate. That should mean in reality, no critical gender/queer ideological theory materials allowed.

Two of those same well funded orgs recently made submissions to an upcoming courtcase of a young female detransitioner claiming the NHS and dysphoria services (again, 'trained' by the above orgs) failed in their duty of care to her resulting in lifelong physical and mental harm.
Their submissions were deemed irrelevant for consideration by the court and rejected.
I guess slideshows of Barbie Dolls and GI Joe's just don't cut it in the sunlight.
These orgs are/were considered as the authority on the subject by fools.
The only evidence based submission accepted by the judge pre-hearing was by a not very well funded organisation who were deplatformed by the above at every turn when they attempted to be heard.

ceadaoin.

hetuzozaho wrote: »

Ah so he is right that there is a difference between straight and gay couples in relation to surrogacy?

Not in england, where he is. As far as I know, the NHS there don't offer it for surrogates either, whether the couple is straight or gay.

Gruffalux

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Why after breakups? Even within a relationship, the rights of a woman regarding her body are protected.
.

I used the example of after break up as it was one that occurred to me. I don't really know what kind of situation it would be if the ownership of sperm is being disputed in a relationship but maybe it is a failure of my imagination. One can keep sperm contained so to speak and if one chooses not to then the sperm has taken off on its own independent journey...and can one call back ownership? haha okay this is not an area I have well developed views on..

hetuzozaho

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Not in england, where he is. As far as I know, the NHS there don't offer it for surrogates either, whether the couple is straight or gay.

Yes I was assuming that as I feel he would have just stated that comparison. I feel his comparison is a little apples and oranges? Like if same applies to straight couple.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Sir Oxman wrote: »

More from England, the pushback against shoddy, harmful gender ideology in schools is underway. New guidelines.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/plan-your-relationships-sex-and-health-curriculum



Councils and schools had outsourced their duties to extremely disingenuous NGOs (Stonewall, Mermaids, Gendered Intelligence etc)
In the meantime if they want their toolkits in schools they will have to be evidence based, scientific, factual, compassionate. That should mean in reality, no critical gender/queer ideological theory materials allowed.

Two of those same well funded orgs recently made submissions to an upcoming courtcase of a young female detransitioner claiming the NHS and dysphoria services (again, 'trained' by the above orgs) failed in their duty of care to her resulting in lifelong physical and mental harm.
Their submissions were deemed irrelevant for consideration by the court and rejected.
I guess slideshows of Barbie Dolls and GI Joe's just don't cut it in the sunlight.
These orgs are/were considered as the authority on the subject by fools.
The only evidence based submission accepted by the judge pre-hearing was by a not very well funded organisation who were deplatformed by the above at every turn when they attempted to be heard.

This pushback is fantastic to see. I was honestly so pleased. Sanity prevails.

And now Mermaids is attempting to backpedal and pretend that they never tried to tell children that they might be born in the wrong body and that certain toys and clothing choices and behaviours were indicative of one sex over another.

Sir Oxman

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

This pushback is fantastic to see. I was honestly so pleased. Sanity prevails.

And now Mermaids is attempting to backpedal and pretend that they never tried to tell children that they might be born in the wrong body and that certain toys and clothing choices and behaviours were indicative of one sex over another.

It is a great start to a long journey though the current speed suggests the grown ups have entered the room.
Thankfully because Ireland sends our young over there and it's services are (were?) completely captured by Stonewall/Mermaids/GI bullsh1tology.
And yep, Mermaids may have scrubbed their extremely harmful teaching and training diversity (ideology) guidelines from their website recently but the internet is funny like that - it never forgets despite big techs best efforts.
The receipts are all present and correct and in order.:)

Irish women (outside the institutionally approved NGOs) will be heard here too.

Gervais08

SusieBlue wrote: »

Female rights should always trump male rights when it comes to pregnancy. Biologically they cannot ever be equal.

I agree with you 1,000% but I think that fertilised ova that are not implanted should not be just the property of the woman after a break up - unless the male is permitted (if he wishes) to give up any parental responsibility and walk away.

SusieBlue

Gervais08 wrote: »

I agree with you 1,000% but I think that fertilised ova that are not implanted should not be just the property of the woman after a break up - unless the male is permitted (if he wishes) to give up any parental responsibility and walk away.

I completely agree with this, I believe there was a case in the courts about this a few years back (could have been the UK actually) where the man was successful in stopping his ex partner from getting IVF using embryos fertilised using his sperm.

hatrickpatrick

I sincerely apologise for opening such a hornet's nest of a debate and then seemingly abandoning the thread. If truth be told, COVID blues have finally got the better of me and my usual enthusiasm for writing etc has just taken a nosedive in the last week or two. I'll respond to anyone who quoted my post as soon as that energy returns, just didn't want ye to think I was running away from complicated questions

y0ssar1an22

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I sincerely apologise for opening such a hornet's nest of a debate and then seemingly abandoning the thread. If truth be told, COVID blues have finally got the better of me and my usual enthusiasm for writing etc has just taken a nosedive in the last week or two. I'll respond to anyone who quoted my post as soon as that energy returns, just didn't want ye to think I was running away from complicated questions

jeepers, you're not that special! we're all well capable without you

Sir Oxman

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I sincerely apologise for opening such a hornet's nest of a debate and then seemingly abandoning the thread. If truth be told, COVID blues have finally got the better of me and my usual enthusiasm for writing etc has just taken a nosedive in the last week or two. I'll respond to anyone who quoted my post as soon as that energy returns, just didn't want ye to think I was running away from complicated questions

Most non-extreme activists knew you were posting an example of the ridiculousness of the ever expanding 'transphobe!' get-out-of-thinking card.
'Everything is "transphobic" ' is now an actual thing.

jaxxx

"The truth is considered offensive to those offended by the truth" - some dead fella

volchitsa

Sir Oxman wrote: »

Most non-extreme activists knew you were posting an example of the ridiculousness of the ever expanding 'transphobe!' get-out-of-thinking card.
'Everything is "transphobic" ' is now an actual thing.

So now there's this, thanks to Ireland's self declaration laws:

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/teen-outlined-chilling-plan-to-track-down-and-kill-mother-39542753.html

You have to go on twitter to discover that this is a trans teen who is physically mal. The newspapers have been banned form reporting that fact - which makes their articles look like an incomprehensible mess. For once, thats not their fault!

One of the residential placements broke down due to what the Court of Appeal described as G's "extreme and excessively sexualised behaviour towards female staff". This included an attack on a member of staff when she was aged 13 and a half.

As a result, there were always at least two members of staff with her.

It was the view of staff the assaults had a premeditated feel to them.

Last year, while returning to her care accommodation after a court appearance, G grabbed the social care worker who was driving the car from behind, digging her nails into the worker's eyeballs and tearing the eyelids. G tore hair from the social worker's head, wrapped her legs around her victim's head and chest, refusing to let go and biting her on the hand. During the chilling incident, she repeatedly said: "I am going to kill you."

The social care worker somehow managed to stop the car on the road and gardaí were called. Officers later found a clump of the woman's hair in G's pocket.

When interviewed by gardaí G expressed a desire to murder the care worker and appeared annoyed that her assault hadn't led to that outcome. She said it was "music to [her] ears to hear her scream and cry while asking [G] to stop".

G spoke about planning assaults on staff for weeks and months and that she had a list of staff she wanted to assault for various reasons, including how they spoke to her in the past.

ProfessorPlum

Following this week’s hearing she was due to be released yesterday. Hopefully the guards will have the resources to track her 24/7, but it seems inevitable that some woman will come to harm at the hands of this person.

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/amp.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/teen-who-wants-to-murder-mother-to-be-released-in-days-39552680.html

Edit: Looks like she was arrested on her release from the care unit. Just shows how worried the guards are about her being free in public.

Lillyfae

volchitsa wrote: »

So now there's this, thanks to Ireland's self declaration laws:

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/teen-outlined-chilling-plan-to-track-down-and-kill-mother-39542753.html

You have to go on twitter to discover that this is a trans teen who is physically mal. The newspapers have been banned form reporting that fact - which makes their articles look like an incomprehensible mess. For once, thats not their fault!

Seriously? I've been reading that case over the last few days and couldn't make out what the problem with reincarceration, since all involved have reported a danger. This makes my blood run cold. People don't even know who they need to be careful of.

They are 18. There is no reason, in respect of the risk posed, then their identity should be released.

Eric Cartman

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Following this week’s hearing she was due to be released yesterday. Hopefully the guards will have the resources to track her 24/7, but it seems inevitable that some woman will come to harm at the hands of this person.

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/amp.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/teen-who-wants-to-murder-mother-to-be-released-in-days-39552680.html

And then its off to a womens prison for even more victims after it strikes again.

Vic_08

That story makes so much more sense now. I am actually annoyed I didn't cop that this was a "girl", the behaviour and violence is so out of the norm for a female, even the most vicious female sociopaths are rarely so openly aggressive it certainly didn't ring true.

It is just beyond the bounds of any logic that someone who there was a real risk of being let loose on the public would be so comprehensively described as female when they are not.