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

Eric Cartman

Gervais08 wrote: »

People like me must baffle you - staunch gay ally who has been giving a good kicking a couple of times for defending gay friends - and who has enough cop on to know basic immutable science and biology.

You can throw around as many lies and accusations and childish names as you like - no one with a brain will start believing two plus two is yellow and a penis is anything other than a male appendage that a lesbian has every right to decline.

this, I can't believe theres actually a side of the political spectrum that is advocating for exposing young girls to penises in changing rooms and trying to make a problem out of somebody of either gender wanting a partner who doesn't have a penis. I don't see much rabbling on the other side but it seems to be all about exposing young girls, lesbians and straight guys to unwanted penises.

Justin Credible Darts

Errashareesh wrote: »

Who insists women don't support trans people?

I support trans people - their right to be recognised, their right to identify as another gender to the one they were born with. Their right to live in peace and dignity. That abuse of them should be punished. I just don't agree with denial of biology/redefinition of "woman"/"female". Anyone who's not in kneejerk mode will see that just because there are aspects I don't agree with, doesn't cancel out the support that I do have.

As ever, you and the rest (apart from OEJ), in the absence of having an argument, just swoop in with a sneery post and some line about something not particularly relevant (literally zero evidence of homophobia). Plus ca change.

what is just as bad as the people making false accusations, throwing the term homophobes and racists out without zero evidence, or whenever they are confronted with any form of debate, is that it seems to be perfectly acceptable by mods and even allowed.


Yet when you question the intelligence of a person making the slurs and false accusations, the mods will be all over you, while others get free reign to spout their one sided dogma and level any sort of insulting term at others.


There is a clear agenda and double standards, when the people challenging those mouthing off vile terms, are jumped on by mods and those making the unfounded accusations have free reign.


I have seen zero members of here attack trans people, but speak about genuine biological differences, speaking about biology is not attacking trans, however those name callers want to label people.

Gervais08

Eric Cartman wrote: »

this, I can't believe theres actually a side of the political spectrum that is advocating for exposing young girls to penises in changing rooms and trying to make a problem out of somebody of either gender wanting a partner who doesn't have a penis. I don't see much rabbling on the other side but it seems to be all about exposing young girls, lesbians and straight guys to unwanted penises.

I’ve said a few times Eric - in the so-called “Me Too” era where a 30 year old clumsy flirtation is enough to ruin a career - the same crowd support “the cotton ceiling” which is basically coercion of lesbians into sex with a penis.

I shudder even typing that

Errashareesh

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

That ‘terf’ is allowed here on boards is still notable.

Misgendering? NO!

A misogynistic slur? Knock yourselves out, apparently.

I’d actually prefer if neither was banned. It’s the inconsistency I can’t stand.

"Deadnaming".





Oh unless you were a successful Olympic athlete at the time.

Fathering six children though - do not dare acknowledge this reality.

Gervais08

Errashareesh wrote: »

"Deadnaming".





Oh unless you were a successful Olympic athlete at the time.

Fathering six children though - do not dare acknowledge this reality.

Most of Caitlyn Jenner’s kids call her dad. The grandkids I believe don’t call her grandad but they’ve only ever known her as a woman.

Delirium

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

That ‘terf’ is allowed here on boards is still notable.

Misgendering? NO!

A misogynistic slur? Knock yourselves out, apparently.

I’d actually prefer if neither was banned. It’s the inconsistency I can’t stand.

'terf': trans-exclusionary radical feminist

It's a label applied to a person based on the opinions they espouse. How is it a slur?

Errashareesh

Delirium wrote: »

'terf': trans-exclusionary radical feminist

It's a label applied to a person based on the opinions they espouse. How is it a slur?

It has absolutely become a slur. It is fired out to silence people for making completely reasonable points/asking completely reasonable questions, based on simple reality. It is often inaccurate too.

And how is simply questioning denial of biology the same as trans exclusion?

What also can be inaccurate is the radical feminist part. I sure ain't a radical feminist. If merely not wanting to deny biology is "radical", we are in a bit of trouble.

jam_mac_jam

Delirium wrote: »

'terf': trans-exclusionary radical feminist

It's a label applied to a person based on the opinions they espouse. How is it a slur?

Because not everyone would be radical feminist, not everyone wants to exclude trans people; just because they want people to use the word women for example.

It's no longer accurate and is used as a slur. Doesn't bother me but I can see the point.

Smacruairi

Airyfairy12 wrote: »

Out of all the celebrities who stood against JK Rowling im mostly shocked at Daniel Radcliffe & especially Emma watson who built a brand on feminism and supporting at risk women and girls. Not to mention, JK Rowling made Daniel Radcliffe and Emma Watson, they owe her their careers, considering neither of them can actually act and both have personalities like two wooden spoons, they would be nothing without her. How dare they?!

My theory on this one was that jkr texted Emma, Daniel et al, told them to go with the media narrative so that they wouldn't be bogged down in the hatred. She seems very maternal towards them, particularly Emma, so can imagine her saying "you can disagree in public to save you hassle if you want, I won't take it personally". I base the only on the fact that they all came out, even the lesser known ones, at pretty much the exact same time with a similar message.

Then again I could just be trying to see the good in my crush!

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Delirium wrote: »

'terf': trans-exclusionary radical feminist

It's a label applied to a person based on the opinions they espouse. How is it a slur?

Well, let’s set aside how it is actually used for a moment. I will gladly show you how it used as a pejorative if you wish to feign innocence about that.

The actual term. Let’s break it down: Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist.

Trans-exclusionary. What do you mean by this? The people it is applied to recognise that there are conflicts between some of the rights of females and some of the rights of transgender people. Those conflicts exist, no matter who pretends otherwise. How is acknowledging that conflict exclusionary to transgender people? Transgender people have needs. So do females. Not everything is about one group. If people are exclusionary for recognising that conflict, does that mean that transgender rights activists are exclusionary towards to women for ignoring those conflicts? Let’s come up with an acronym for that, shall we?

Radical feminist. The people who recognise the above conflicts are not all radical feminists. They’re not even all feminists.

So, it’s a completely glib, inaccurate term. And undoubtedly aimed at women, as most feminists are women.

You can pretend there’s not misogynistic intent behind its use but how stupid do you think people are?

Now, here is a website dedicated to documenting the numerous examples of it being used pejoratively. Read it, don’t read it, but you can’t say you weren’t given any examples. Twitter is awash with examples too.

https://terfisaslur.com/

Delirium

Errashareesh wrote: »

It has absolutely become a slur. It is fired out to silence people for making completely reasonable points/asking completely reasonable questions, based on simple reality. It is often inaccurate too.

And how is simply questioning denial of biology the same as trans exclusion?

Because stating biological sex = gender means that people don't accept trans women as women. That means if you're a feminist who has that opinion then you're a trans-exclusionary feminist.

What also can be inaccurate is the radical feminist part. I sure ain't a radical feminist. If merely not wanting to deny biology is "radical", we are in a bit of trouble.

Reducing anyone to what's between their legs would be radical (in negative way) to me.

ProfessorPlum

Delirium wrote: »

'terf': trans-exclusionary radical feminist

It's a label applied to a person based on the opinions they espouse. How is it a slur?

Did you really just wake up in 2020?

Just look at the thread title “JK Rowling cancelled because she is a TERF”

Slur:
1.an insinuation or allegation about someone that is likely to insult them or damage their reputation.

If TERF wasn’t a slur, if it was a neutral or just a descriptive term, why would JKR need to be ‘cancelled’.

The way trans activists use the term TERF is the textbook definition of a slur.

Gervais08

Delirium wrote: »

Because stating biological sex = gender means that people don't accept trans women as women. That means if you're a feminist who has that opinion then you're a trans-exclusionary feminist.


Reducing anyone to what's between their legs would be radical (in negative way) to me.

Allow me to explain same sex attraction to you - it’s about what’s between your legs or I’d have hit on Wentworth Miller.

Tho to some of the achingly woke crowd I could declare myself a trans man and ask him for a knee trembler and a go at my boy’s hooha..

ProfessorPlum

Delirium wrote: »

Reducing anyone to what's between their legs would be radical (in negative way) to me.

If you think that what’s between somebody’s legs is the only difference between males and females, you need to go back to biology class.

Dyr

Delirium wrote: »

Because stating biological sex = gender means that people don't accept trans women as women. That means if you're a feminist who has that opinion then you're a trans-exclusionary feminist.


Reducing anyone to what's between their legs would be radical (in negative way) to me.

yeah, because thats the only difference between men and women, genitialia

Mad stuff altogether but I suppose the party line it must be parroted no matter how fantasticit is

Gruffalux

Delirium wrote: »

Because stating biological sex = gender means that people don't accept trans women as women. That means if you're a feminist who has that opinion then you're a trans-exclusionary feminist.


Reducing anyone to what's between their legs would be radical (in negative way) to me.

Ahh I see. You are one of those who come in here and swear blind that the genitals of who you are attracted to don't matter in a slightest bit. You fall in love first with the person and then what is in their pants is an exciting lucky dip. And apparently you are not bisexual. Just really really really good.

Delirium

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Well, let’s set aside how it is actually used for a moment. I will gladly show you how it used as a pejorative if you wish to feign innocence about that.

The actual term. Let’s break it down: Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist.

Trans-exclusionary. What do you mean by this? The people it is applied to recognise that there are conflicts between some of the rights of females and some of the rights of transgender people. Those conflicts exist, no matter who pretends otherwise. How is acknowledging that conflict exclusionary to transgender people? Transgender people have needs. So do females. Not everything is about one group. If people are exclusionary for recognising that conflict, does that mean that transgender rights activists are exclusionary towards to women for ignoring those conflicts? Let’s come up with an acronym for that, shall we?

Radical feminist. The people who recognise the above conflicts are not all radical feminists. They’re not even all feminists.

So, it’s a completely glib, inaccurate term. And undoubtedly aimed at women, as most feminists are women.

You can pretend there’s not misogynistic intent behind its use but how stupid do you think people are?

Now, here is a website dedicated to documenting the numerous examples of it being used pejoratively. Read it, don’t read it, but you can’t say you weren’t given any examples. Twitter is awash with examples too.

https://terfisaslur.com/

It's referring to how some feminists exclude trans women when fighting for rights of women. It distinguishes them from feminism that is inclusive when it comes to trans women.

The website is a collection of threats/wishes of violence to terfs. Not going to defend those.

Is the objection with people being wrongly assumed to be (radical) feminists?

Delirium

Gruffalux wrote: »

Ahh I see. You are one of those who come in here and swear blind that the genitals of who you are attracted to don't matter in a slightest bit. You fall in love first with the person and then what is in their pants is an exciting lucky dip. And apparently you are not bisexual. Just really really really good.

So human experience is to be reduced to sexual preference?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Delirium wrote: »

Because stating biological sex = gender means that people don't accept trans women as women. That means if you're a feminist who has that opinion then you're a trans-exclusionary feminist.

Not everyone who thinks this is feminist for starters. The idea that somebody who doesn’t believe that transgender women are actually women and transgender men are actually men is being exclusionary is daft. You can’t control people’s beliefs. You can’t make somebody believe something they don’t. If they treat the transgender person with respect, how are they being exclusionary? Maybe you think that not getting to access female spaces is exclusionary. Yes, that is. By definition. We have those female spaces for a reason. Do you think they just exist for the craic? Why are only the rights of transgender people important here? There are vulnerable people in other groups too.

Reducing anyone to what's between their legs would be radical (in negative way) to me.

Women the world over are oppressed precisely because of what it between their legs. Not so much in the West but elsewhere.

Gruffalux

Delirium wrote: »

So human experience is to be reduced to sexual preference?

Uhhh. I don't want to go back to the birds and the bees because I am presuming you are a big lad. But yeah, sex is pretty big deal. Sex, death, food and sleep - they seem to be big ones for us mere humans. Perhaps you have evolved to a transhuman state.

Gervais08

Gruffalux wrote: »

Ahh I see. You are one of those who come in here and swear blind that the genitals of who you are attracted to don't matter in a slightest bit. You fall in love first with the person and then what is in their pants is an exciting lucky dip. And apparently you are not bisexual. Just really really really good.

I know a couple of bisexuals - one of each (aware that is treason nowadays!!).

The male describes himself as “absolutely bi” - he’s been in relationships with both men and women.

The woman is a lesbian but in her words, “sometimes a man just looks at me and ...”

I’m straight. I drink with a load of gay men who’ve never been with a woman.

We re all happy - but in lots of different ways. Why ? Cos we know what’s normal and go with it.

If there’s a Grindr ad for a “two spirit cyber queer nonbinary seeks similar” - that person is not gonna be getting any.

Gervais08

Gruffalux wrote: »

Uhhh. I don't want to go back to the birds and the bees because I am presuming you are a big lad. But yeah, sex is pretty big deal. Sex, death, food and sleep - they seem to be big ones for us mere humans. Perhaps you have evolved to a transhuman state.

I want sport and chocolate too.

But aside from that, you’re in the ballpark

Gruffalux

Gervais08 wrote: »

I want sport and chocolate too.

But aside from that, you’re in the ballpark

They are the primal desires and fears re survival. Chocolate maybe could slot in there at a push. I call a halt at sport though.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Delirium wrote: »

It's referring to how some feminists exclude trans women when fighting for rights of women. It distinguishes them from feminism that is inclusive when it comes to trans women.

The website is a collection of threats/wishes of violence to terfs. Not going to defend those.

Is the objection with people being wrongly assumed to be (radical) feminists?

Tell me, Delirium, do you think women should have the right to female-only sports? A female counsellor if they’ve been raped? A female police officer to search them? A female doctor doing an intimate exam? Should female prisoners have to share a space with a male sex offender (actually happening in Ireland right now). Would women be bigoted for objecting to a transgender woman dealing with them in any of the above scenarios? Do you think it’s fair to brand them as exclusionary? If you think a woman should able to request a female doctor/counsellor/whatever, does that make YOU trans-exclusionary? And if it does, are you okay with that label?

Invidious

Delirium wrote: »

It's referring to how some feminists exclude trans women when fighting for rights of women.

How do you define what a woman is?

Gruffalux

https://twitter.com/roche_toni/status/1310584170884759552?s=20


gets tricky, doesn't it, for the allies who insist...

0xzmro3n4y7lb5

Gervais08 wrote: »

I know a couple of bisexuals - one of each (aware that is treason nowadays!!).

The male describes himself as “absolutely bi” - he’s been in relationships with both men and women.

The woman is a lesbian but in her words, “sometimes a man just looks at me and ...”

I’m straight. I drink with a load of gay men who’ve never been with a woman.

We re all happy - but in lots of different ways. Why ? Cos we know what’s normal and go with it.

If there’s a Grindr ad for a “two spirit cyber queer nonbinary seeks similar” - that person is not gonna be getting any.

So you don't just want to oppress trans people you want to oppress indigenous people?

Are you opposed to Hijra?

Errashareesh

"So you [insert something they never said]."

Always effective debating.

0xzmro3n4y7lb5

Gruffalux wrote: »

https://twitter.com/roche_toni/status/1310584170884759552?s=20


gets tricky, doesn't it, for the allies who insist...

So trans women self-identifying is fine once they self-identity with what you approve of!

jam_mac_jam

Delaney Nice Salesclerk wrote: »

So you don't just want to oppress trans people you want to oppress indigenous people?

Are you opposed to Hijra?

The Hijra, you are really straw clutching now.

But keep arguing with things that nobody said. It really helps your argument.