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

Invidious

Delaney Nice Salesclerk wrote: »

Because they seek to put trans people in situations where they will be hurt.

Trans advocates would have no problem letting a 6'2" 250lb male-bodied rugby player compete against natal women half that size, putting the latter at serious risk of spinal injury.

They have no problem imprisoning male-bodied sex offenders in a women's prison, putting women at serious risk of sexual assault.

Why are we worried only about trans people getting hurt? What about actual women? Do they not matter?

Rowling should not be demonised for highlighting these kinds of issues.

Invidious

Invidious wrote: »

Trans advocates would have no problem letting a 6'2" 250lb male-bodied rugby player compete against natal women half that size, putting the latter at serious risk of spinal injury.

They have no problem imprisoning male-bodied sex offenders in a women's prison, putting women at serious risk of sexual assault.

Why are we worried only about trans people getting hurt? What about actual women? Do they not matter?

Rowling should not be demonised for highlighting these kinds of issues.

It's not just about the dangers to women. But also the dangers to society.. Why are we in such a rush to accept these changes without consideration for all the negatives that might arise from it? There's no long term appreciation anymore.

JKR definitely shouldn't be demonized for this. Oh, I don't think she's a complete innocent, considering that she chose to make public statements previously in support of various stances, but at the same time, we really need to be moving away from this culture that's being allowed to develop.

Gervais08

Invidious wrote: »

Trans advocates would have no problem letting a 6'2" 250lb male-bodied rugby player compete against natal women half that size, putting the latter at serious risk of spinal injury.

They have no problem imprisoning male-bodied sex offenders in a women's prison, putting women at serious risk of sexual assault.

Why are we worried only about trans people getting hurt? What about actual women? Do they not matter?

Rowling should not be demonised for highlighting these kinds of issues.

I happened to say it was “troubling” that a male bodied, muscular MMA fighter could step into the ring (ring ? Whatever it is sorry!!) with a woman and fracture her skull.

I even went as far as to muse that perhaps if there was a man with woman issues then he had a perfect way into legally hurting women - contact sports after “identifying” as a woman.

Both transphobic apparently ...

Invidious

Deleted User wrote: »

It's not just about the dangers to women. But also the dangers to society..

True ... but let's face it, when it comes to issues around contact sports, prisons, changing facilities, etc., women's physical safety is impacted disproportionately.

And yet when the evident risks are pointed out, the trans advocates don't seem to care. IMO they are the ones who are being anti-feminist, i.e., not giving a damn about actual women in a way that would make any old-school chauvinist proud.

Invidious

Invidious wrote: »

True ... but let's face it, when it comes to issues around contact sports, prisons, changing facilities, etc., women's physical safety is impacted disproportionately.

And yet when the evident risks are pointed out, the trans advocates don't seem to care. IMO they are the ones who are being anti-feminist, i.e., not giving a damn about actual women.

By allowing them to identify as women, it clouds the issue. Trans women/men should be extra gender identification, and treated as separate to male/female. Allowing this nonsense of being the same as a natural woman/man simply ensures that conflict/dangers will arise.

If people want to be other than their biologically natural/born sex, then they should accept that they're going to be treated different. Anything else is unrealistic and counter-productive. Which is the point, is my guess.

Invidious

Deleted User wrote: »

By allowing them to identify as women, it clouds the issue.

It raises the question of what is a man? What is a woman? Can a man become a woman or vice-versa just by identifying differently?

The current all-consuming obsession with identity creates so much reality-distorting nonsense. The Guardian last year ran a story about an Ohio woman who had one black great-great-grandparent. That makes her about 94 percent white — and she looks as white as anyone else — and yet she resolutely identifies as black.

At the end of the day, someone can identify as anything he or she wants to. But the issue arises when other people are forced to accept evident absurdities—such as that a man with a penis is a woman, or a woman with 94 percent white heritage is black, because of how they self-identify—under the threat of being censured, canceled, etc.

Invidious

Invidious wrote: »

It raises the question of what is a man? What is a woman? Can a man become a woman or vice-versa just by identifying differently?

No... actually, it doesn't raise the question. Because we know what a man and woman are.

The reason people want to question everything, and debate their definitions is because it makes the definition less specific and more vague. Interjecting endless amounts of but, or, perhaps. It allows the scope to be increased so much as to make the vocabulary next to useless, and so, new words are "required" to fill the gap. With those new words, come ever more questions, and so, we're screwed... endlessly debating, moving away from simplicity, and paralyzing ourselves unable to make a decision or take a genuine stand on anything.

Just look at the range of groups or definitions that have come from the Trans debate. Even within trans communities, each of the terms are disagreed with, debated, changed, and fought over. There's no specific and immutable aspect to them. It's fluid, ever changing, and full of frustration... a frustration that is passed on to society for not accepting them... when they, themselves, haven't figured out anything specific and permanent. Society is expected to accept definitions which have no definite form... definitions which change depending on who you're talking to.

Which is why we don't need to ask the question. We, can simply say: a man is this... and a woman is that... and a trans whatever is somewhat different. Be specific. Clear. Unambiguous.

End the questions that lead only to more questions.

Invidious

Deleted User wrote: »

No... actually, it doesn't raise the question. Because we know what a man and woman are.

Becoming a man or a woman results from a complex interplay of biological, social, cultural, and sexual factors, all of which are intimately linked. The trans agenda wants to ignore biology entirely, and focus exclusively on social and cultural factors — so that now a sensitive boy who plays with dolls, or a brash girl who likes cars, is flagged as potentially "trans" from a young age. These judgments are often based on crude stereotypes about how boys and girls should behave and what interests they should have.

Rather than hormone treatments and gender recognition certificates, we need greater social and cultural acceptance of boys and girls who don't fit the macho-man or girly-girl stereotypes. If we had that, fewer people would feel that the answer to not fitting in is to look for acceptance as a member of the opposite sex.

Invidious

Invidious wrote: »

Becoming a man or a woman results from a complex interplay of biological, social, cultural, and sexual factors, all of which are intimately linked. The trans agenda wants to ignore biology entirely, and focus exclusively on social and cultural factors — so that now a sensitive boy who plays with dolls, or a brash girl who likes cars, is flagged as potentially "trans" from a young age. These judgments are often based on crude stereotypes about how boys and girls should behave and what interests they should have.

Rather than hormone treatments and gender recognition certificates, we need greater social and cultural acceptance of boys and girls who don't fit the macho-man or girly-girl stereotypes. If we had that, fewer people would feel that the answer to not fitting in is to look for acceptance as a member of the opposite sex.

Becoming a man or woman requires being born a boy or a girl respectively. The social/personality changes that come are tied directly to that biological birth... Anyone making the claim to changing their gender, are simply imitating, but that doesn't make them their desired gender.. because it's still a shallow imitation which is tarnished by their past experiences as their original gender.

We would have less people pushing for this, if the classifications of what were male/female were fixed and not open to interpretation. Let them enter an entirely different classification if they so wish. Just as homosexual, Bisexual and Heterosexuals do. Each with it's own distinct advantages and disadvantages...

Invidious

Deleted User wrote: »

Becoming a man or woman requires being born a boy or a girl respectively.

Agreed. Allowing people who were born as boys to later obtain certificates that change their legal sex to "female" makes a mockery of basic biology.

A biological male wearing a dress is not "female," and not a "woman," regardless of how he has chosen to self-identify. Naturally, anyone should be free to dress and identify as whatever they please — it's a free country — but we should not be entertaining a legal fiction that a man can turn himself into a woman or vice-versa.

It's clear that many girls in particular are now identifying as "trans" because they don't fit in with mainstream social and cultural expectations of what it means to be a girl. The problem is with these restrictive expectations, not with her being a "boy trapped in a girl's body."

Invidious

Invidious wrote: »

It's clear that many girls in particular are now identifying as "trans" because they don't fit in with mainstream social and cultural expectations of what it means to be a girl. The problem is with these restrictive expectations, not with her being a "boy trapped in a girl's body."

To be fair... it's not girls in particular... rates of people identifying or undergoing actual physical change applies just as much to males as it does to females. At all ages.

Invidious

Deleted User wrote: »

To be fair... it's not girls in particular... rates of people identifying or undergoing actual physical change applies just as much to males as it does to females. At all ages.

Over the past decade, we have seen a remarkable increase in the numbers of female adolescents and teenagers seeking to transition to male. The Guardian reports that 70 percent of the young people seeking to transition in the UK are natal girls. So it doesn't apply "just as much" to males as females — at present, there are more than twice as many natal girls seeking to become male as vice-versa.

Invidious

Invidious wrote: »

Over the past decade, we have seen a remarkable increase in the numbers of female adolescents and teenagers seeking to transition to male. The Guardian reports that 70 percent of the young people seeking to transition in the UK are natal girls. So it doesn't apply "just as much" to males as females — at present, there are more than twice as many natal girls seeking to become male as vice-versa.

"Regarding relative prevalence of specific identities, two main trends are described widely in the literature. First, transgender females (females assigned ‘male’ at birth) are usually identified at higher rates than transgender males (males assigned ‘female’ at birth). In some studies, the proportion of transgender women to men is as high as 2:1 (6,10). However, these ratios should not be taken as a definitive indication of actual population sizes, given the limitations in methodology used to record them. Many studies survey subjects enrolled in plastic surgery, endocrinology, or primary care clinics, and as such only reflect populations that are well-integrated into existing healthcare systems and accessing care. Furthermore, some estimates derived from global data, and definitions of transgender and non-binary identities vary substantially across cultures (10)."

The guardian tends to push it's own agenda so I'm iffy about accepting their reports on any topic. I don't disagree with you, however, considering the manner of the Trans community and it's effects on society, I think there's a lot more going on than what's been reported so far.

Gruffalux

Invidious wrote: »

Agreed. Allowing people who were born as boys to later obtain certificates that change their legal sex to "female" makes a mockery of basic biology.

A biological male wearing a dress is not "female," and not a "woman," regardless of how he has chosen to self-identify. Naturally, anyone should be free to dress and identify as whatever they please — it's a free country — but we should not be entertaining a legal fiction that a man can turn himself into a woman or vice-versa.

It's clear that many girls in particular are now identifying as "trans" because they don't fit in with mainstream social and cultural expectations of what it means to be a girl. The problem is with these restrictive expectations, not with her being a "boy trapped in a girl's body."

I agree generally. But this thing of saying a biological male wearing a dress...etc etc is simplistic. Transgender people don't just wear the clothes of the gender they would prefer to be. They adopt a lot of expressions. Some use hormonal treatments. Some - few- have sex reassignment surgery. The medical parts are very demanding treatments, in the case of surgery I would say drastic as they remove healthy functioning organs and sometimes replace with others that can never function adequately. There is a lot is suffering and pain involved. It must in general be a terrible suffering to hate one's natural body and natal sex expression so much. I really feel sorry for people who experience it. It is even more complex when it is children and teenagers because they have other co-morbidities, distresses and dysphorias that can be displaced into gender discomfort etc. And so on.
The point I a making is really that transwomen are not males in dresses. They are transwomen.

Gruffalux

Deleted User wrote: »

"Regarding relative prevalence of specific identities, two main trends are described widely in the literature. First, transgender females (females assigned ‘male’ at birth) are usually identified at higher rates than transgender males (males assigned ‘female’ at birth). In some studies, the proportion of transgender women to men is as high as 2:1 (6,10). However, these ratios should not be taken as a definitive indication of actual population sizes, given the limitations in methodology used to record them. Many studies survey subjects enrolled in plastic surgery, endocrinology, or primary care clinics, and as such only reflect populations that are well-integrated into existing healthcare systems and accessing care. Furthermore, some estimates derived from global data, and definitions of transgender and non-binary identities vary substantially across cultures (10)."

The guardian tends to push it's own agenda so I'm iffy about accepting their reports on any topic. I don't disagree with you, however, considering the manner of the Trans community and it's effects on society, I think there's a lot more going on than what's been reported so far.

Abigail Shrier has recently written a book on the phenomenon in girls. She was also on the Joe Rogan Podcast. There is something unusual going on with girls. Given that they would be the ones who have adopted anorexia or cutting or various panics in the past (and still), it may be related.

Invidious

Deleted User wrote: »

The guardian tends to push it's own agenda so I'm iffy about accepting their reports on any topic.

It's not just the Guardian. It's been widely reported. Between 2016 and 2017, the number of gender surgeries performed in the US on natal females quadrupled. The numbers of teenage girls seeking to transition in the UK are up 4,400 percent over the past decade. This is a relatively recent development, so may not be reflected in the historical literature. But there's no denying that there's been an unprecedented surge in recent years of teenage girls claiming to identify as male and wanting to change their sex.

Sittingpretty

Gruffalux wrote: »

The point I a making is really that transwomen are not males in dresses. They are transwomen.

I agree to an extent.

Trans women will always be biological men though.

They are men who are imitating women. No matter how extreme that imitation might be (surgical alteration of their bodies/hormone therapy etc.)

If we, as women concede to the trans women ARE women mantra then we’re othering ourselves as a subset of ourselves.

I realise that’s probably not a very popular opinion though.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Sittingpretty wrote: »

I agree to an extent.

Trans women will always be biological men though.

They are men who are imitating women. No matter how extreme that imitation might be (surgical alteration of their bodies/hormone therapy etc.)

If we, as women concede to the trans women ARE women mantra then we’re othering ourselves as a subset of ourselves.

I realise that’s probably not a very popular opinion though.

We’re not saying TWAW. We’re saying that they are transwomen. I consider it a completely separate category to women.

Sittingpretty

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

We’re not saying TWAW. We’re saying that they are transwomen. I consider it a completely separate category to women.

Yeah I know, I agree entirely. Separate catergory, separate rights.

Gruffalux

Sittingpretty wrote: »

I agree to an extent.

Trans women will always be biological men though.

They are men who are imitating women. No matter how extreme that imitation might be (surgical alteration of their bodies/hormone therapy etc.)

If we, as women concede to the trans women ARE women mantra then we’re othering ourselves as a subset of ourselves.

I realise that’s probably not a very popular opinion though.

No. I am not conceding that transwomen are women. They would have to peel off my fingernails first and then I definitely would because that is one of my worst imaginary fears!! They are male - in that their biological reality is male. That cannot be changed. But I would not say they are men - maybe that seems pedantic, but they are not in my view. And I would certainly not say you are a man in a dress to a transgender person. They are transwomen. Real. Existing. Deserving of rights and respect. Normal. Nothing wrong with being transgender. They are a third gender, an alternative expression of genderhood, that is neither man nor woman but transgender. I don't even see how that could be seen as being in any way bad.

I am not here addressing the apparent need in extreme transactivism to create an ab initio state of transgenderism - gender in the soul, so to speak - which is why the whole children thing is so important to them to cultivate.

A child can be gender uncertain and still go through natural puberty with emotional and mental supports because that is BY FAR the most healthy thing to happen to their body. Otherwise it is extreme intervention. They can make drastic life-altering decisions as adults.

I think there are reasons for transgenderism. Imprinting. Choice of fashion or sexual expression among feminine men. Experts have also talked about sexual aspects for many heterosexuals experiencing transgenderism for eg autogynophelia. There may be hormonal issues during uterine development or even exogenous chemicals like pollutants in the environment. It is an area that should be researched objectively. There are related areas that should be studied like the huge drop off in male sperm counts, for example. Also pornification of the culture. I have seen trans people admit to having been extremely influenced by sissy porn, and a further aspect is girls rejecting their bodies due to the prevalence of very graphic porn. Loads of stuff that could be looked at if there is not a holy writ of ''born in the wrong body''.

Gatling

It's like when a woman who's self-identifies as males announces that they are the first man or male to give natural birth - ehhhh sorry no your a woman having a baby like the majority of women eventually do (unless there is medical conditions preventing conception)
You have ovaries, womb, cervix , vagina ,vulva from birth your a woman ,yes you can self identify as whatever you want but nothing changed

Infini

All I'll say is the day someone develops a way of changing a person completely from one biological sex to the other..... will be a very rich (wo)man!

Delirium

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

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?

I'm presuming that your use of female does not include trans women?

Sports, trans women should be able to compete with cis women.
Other scenarios, it's transphobic to exclude trans women from those scenarios. In much the same way it'd be homophobic to refuse because the doctor/police officer is a lesbian.

Should female prisoners have to share a space with a male sex offender (actually happening in Ireland right now).

Cis man? No
Trans man? No
Trans woman? Yes

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?

I'd label them transphobic on some level. Wouldn't necessarily say they are a terf because as people pointed out, they aren't necessarily a feminist.

Invidious

Delirium wrote: »

Sports, trans women should be able to compete with cis women.

Recent research by World Rugby found that even after hormonal intervention, male-bodied players are on average 40 percent heavier, 15 percent faster, and 25 to 50 percent stronger than natal female players.

The obvious conclusion is that natal female players — who are at considerable risk playing full-contact rugby against heavier, faster, and stronger male-bodied opponents — deserve protection from the sport's governing body in the form of restricting competition only to natal women. The same should go for other full-contact sports such as boxing, MMA, etc., where women are at risk of serious injury from male-bodied opponents.

But I'm sure you will cling to our ideology even in the face of physics.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Invidious wrote: »

True ... but let's face it, when it comes to issues around contact sports, prisons, changing facilities, etc., women's physical safety is impacted disproportionately.

And yet when the evident risks are pointed out, the trans advocates don't seem to care. IMO they are the ones who are being anti-feminist, i.e., not giving a damn about actual women in a way that would make any old-school chauvinist proud.

I’m not a swashbuckling feminist. In fact, I have a lot of issues with the feminist movement (some radical strands of it are REALLY misandrist, other strands depict women as having no agency and see us as the victims in every single situation) but the current transgender rights movement really seems to allow a socially acceptable outlet for misogyny and many men seem to have embraced it wholeheartedly. And those men generally posture as progressive and tolerant.

Delirium

Invidious wrote: »

Recent research by World Rugby found that even after hormonal intervention, male-bodied players are on average 40 percent heavier, 15 percent faster, and 25 to 50 percent stronger than natal female players.

The obvious conclusion is that natal female players — who are at considerable risk playing full-contact rugby against heavier, faster, and stronger male-bodied opponents — deserve protection from the sport's governing body in the form of restricting competition only to natal women. The same should go for other full-contact sports such as boxing, MMA, etc., where women are at risk of serious injury from male-bodied opponents.

But I'm sure you will cling to our ideology even in the face of physics.

so would you also support cis women that meet that criteria being excluded from womens rugby?

I mean it follows that you should because physics still applies.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Gruffalux wrote: »

Abigail Shrier has recently written a book on the phenomenon in girls. She was also on the Joe Rogan Podcast. There is something unusual going on with girls. Given that they would be the ones who have adopted anorexia or cutting or various panics in the past (and still), it may be related.

Some Spotify employees are threatening to strike if certain episodes of The Joe Rogan Experience aren’t removed, including the Shrier episode. Censorious toe rags. I hope Spotify doesn’t capitulate. Unfortunately I think they have met some of the demands of the staff and I really wish they hadn’t done that.

Parabellum9

Delirium wrote: »

I'm presuming that your use of female does not include trans women?

Female means Woman, "trans"-female are men who feel they are women. They are biologically not and never will be Female.

Sports, trans women should be able to compete with cis women.
Other scenarios, it's transphobic to exclude trans women from those scenarios. In much the same way it'd be homophobic to refuse because the doctor/police officer is a lesbian.

Absolutely not, as pointed out above no amount of hokery is going to reduce the physical strength and attributes of being born a male.

And I would completely disagree that professions such as gynaecologists etc should be forced to treat anyone who is not a biological female - what would be the point? They are missing the required anatomy to be considered as such so would just be wasting everybody's time even attempting to force those people to interact with them.

Trans can be who they want to be and that's pretty much where the line is as far as I'm concerned - they don't have any right to force themselves in to female spaces, sports or female only services because they are not female.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Delirium wrote: »

so would you also support cis women that meet that criteria being excluded from womens rugby?

I mean it follows that you should because physics still applies.

Men’s advantage over women in sports is multifactorial. Even if you did find a woman as strong as a man (which in elite sports or even lower down is highly unlikely because when choosing players, you are selecting for the strongest, the most athletic. It is vanishingly unlikely that a female rugby player will match a male rugby player for strength), there are other advantages conferred by male puberty. Larger hands. Greater lung capacity, bigger hearts and more red blood cells, all of which confer greater stamina. Stronger grip (studies have been done to show that even the average male grip size is stronger than that of female athletes selected for having better-than-average grip strength).

So no, it’s not simple physics. Women’s only divisions were created in acknowledgment of these (really bloody obvious) differences, to give talented women a chance to compete. There is absolutely no honour in gaming that system. None at all.

Delirium

Parabellum9 wrote: »

Female means Woman, "trans"-female are men who feel they are women. They are biologically not and never will be Female.



Absolutely not, as pointed out above no amount of hokery is going to reduce the physical strength and attributes of being born a male.

And I would completely disagree that professions such as gynaecologists etc should be forced to treat anyone who is not a biological female - what would be the point? They are missing the required anatomy to be considered as such so would just be wasting everybody's time even attempting to force those people to interact with them.

Trans can be who they want to be and that's pretty much where the line is as far as I'm concerned - they don't have any right to force themselves in to female spaces, sports or female only services because they are not female.

so trans men would be acceptable then if a female doctor was requested? Or to compete in womens sports?