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

Errashareesh

LLMMLL wrote: »

I've figured out it's best to take a step back sometimes and let the ranting speak for itself.

Yes that is a good tactic when it comes to people of your ilk who don't have anything BUT ranting.

it's a global billionaire conspiracy now great stuff.

Nearly as ridiculous as saying people who don't deny biology are transphobes and racists.

Glad that this concern women have - one which they have articulated in detail and with thought, rather than "waaaaaaah muh transphobia", is a source of such amusement for you though.

Gruffalux

LLMMLL wrote: »

I've figured out it's best to take a step back sometimes and let the ranting speak for itself.

It's a global billionaire conspiracy now great stuff.

Not just billionaires investing in the pharmaceutical and surgical side but also Dentons, the largest law firm in the world and Thomson Reuters, the media giant. Growing market.

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-document-that-reveals-the-remarkable-tactics-of-trans-lobbyists/amp

Errashareesh

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Yup, it's socially acceptable misogyny. Getting to perform progressiveness whilst being allowed to be utterly contemptuous of women at the same time. The weirdest thing is women partaking. But, hey, women can be misogynists too. It's absolutely pitiful. Especially when they can't put themselves outside of their own experience and in the shoes of much more vulnerable women.

I think there is reason to feel hopeful in the last few weeks. People are pushing back against this nonsense. In the UK at least, great pushback is happening on the back of a strong grassroots movement. The UK has for a long time been much stronger than Ireland on women's rights anyway and this is a continuation of that.

In the last week:

- JK Rowling has been publicly supported by many high profile people and the number is rising by the day
- self ID has been shelved, meaning that female-only spaces will be protected. In England and Wales anyway.
- teachers will no longer be allowed to nudge children who play with the "wrong" toys for their gender or don't act stereotypically like their gender towards thinking that they are in the wrong body, as guidance released this week has shown.
- the infamous Mermaids charity has been in panic mode all week, claiming that they never said that they believed somebody could be born in the wrong body, despite ample evidence to the contrary.

It's all very encouraging. And, honestly, most people seem to realise how utterly absurd it is to allow biological males to compete in women's sports divisions.

Good stuff indeed - thanks for that. It would get you down as a woman. Like that odious crowd AIMS the other day. And the sheer spite of a few here. The situation last night - the taunting, insulting, goading, lying, misrepresenting, making stuff up about people. It was only one person but their viciousness was extraordinary. And not one single argument did they make - just "no YOU are!" - because they HAVE no argument. And they even started to take their own trolling seriously. The victimhood isn't even faux. They claim THAT is defending trans people. It was like the personification of all the derangement on Twitter. Atrocious stuff.

And now this development that can't be discussed.

LLMMLL

Errashareesh wrote: »

Nearly as ridiculous as saying people who don't deny biology are transphobes and racists.

I'm glad you agree the billionaire conspiracy theories are ridiculous. I was starting to worry that I had wandered into a GOC/John waters thread.

Errashareesh

LLMMLL wrote: »

I'm glad you agree the billionaire conspiracy theories are ridiculous. I was starting to worry that I had wandered into a GOC/John waters thread.

No actual argument still as ever.

Just sneering.

LLMMLL

Errashareesh wrote: »

No actual argument still as ever.

Just sneering.

Yeah couldn't have been me that had made pages and pages of detailed arguments involving science, linguistics, social theory etc. ......oh wait it was

But you're right. I am sneering at the global billionaire theory. It's giving me a good laugh

CtevenSrowder

LLMMLL wrote: »

I've figured out it's best to take a step back sometimes and let the ranting speak for itself.

It's a global billionaire conspiracy now great stuff.

The only reason you 'step back' is so you don't have to answer difficult questions posed to you. Buried in the pages now, as you wanted.

LLMMLL

I think the funniest part is that

TERFs are complaining that there is a global billionaire conspiracy against them in a thread about

A global billionaire TERF

ProfessorPlum

LLMMLL wrote: »

I think the funniest part is that

TERFs are complaining that there is a global billionaire conspiracy against them in a thread about

A global billionaire TERF

Will you find it equally funny when Barbie Kardashian tears the eyes out of one of the female prisoners?

CtevenSrowder

LLMMLL wrote: »

Yeah couldn't have been me that had made pages and pages of detailed arguments involving science, linguistics, social theory etc. ......oh wait it was

But you're right. I am sneering at the global billionaire theory. It's giving me a good laugh

Are these the pages we're you repeatedly refused to give a definition of a woman, laughably referring to 'tables of exemplars' , coined the term 'trans-female' and consistently referred to others as being 'anti-trans' and 'TERFS' ?

LLMMLL

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

The only reason you 'step back' is so you don't have to answer difficult questions posed to you. Buried in the pages now, as you wanted.

Misinformation. I'm pretty noted on these threads for responding to everyone. But I am avoiding circular arguments that have already been covered for the moment as I just don't have the time that retirees have.

The global billionaire conspiracy was worth coming out of retirement for though

Errashareesh

LLMMLL wrote: »

Yeah couldn't have been me that had made pages and pages of detailed arguments involving science, linguistics, social theory etc. ......oh wait it was

But you're right. I am sneering at the global billionaire theory. It's giving me a good laugh

Why do you not care about the concern women have about woman/female being redefined? About biology being denied? (And none of these mean hating trans women just because they are trans women). Why is your approach so *nasty*? You come across as a bit of a bully. Really spiteful towards women who are upset about this contempt towards their concerns - contempt without a basis (other than that what's in the imagination).

LLMMLL

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Are these the pages we're you repeatedly refused to give a definition of a woman, laughably referring to 'tables of exemplars' , coined the term 'trans-female' and consistently referred to others as being 'anti-trans'?

I'm absolutely fine with you disagreeing with my opinion Cteven but what you've posted clearly disproves that I make no arguments and just sneer at people. Thank you.

Justin Credible Darts

Errashareesh wrote: »

Good stuff indeed - thanks for that. It would get you down as a woman. Like that odious crowd AIMS the other day. And the sheer spite of a few here. The situation last night - the taunting, insulting, goading, lying, misrepresenting, making stuff up about people. It was only one person but their viciousness was extraordinary. And not one single argument did they make - just "no YOU are!" - because they HAVE no argument. And they even started to take their own trolling seriously. The victimhood isn't even faux. They claim THAT is defending trans people. It was like the personification of all the derangement on Twitter. Atrocious stuff.

And now this development that can't be discussed.

I remember reading about a time where a straight guy who was with a trans woman who he thought was a real woman...yes, real as in biological, and then found out the person he was with was previously a man, and **** hit the fan.


When you have trans women thinking to be real women, there will be trouble down the line

CtevenSrowder

LLMMLL wrote: »

Misinformation. I'm pretty noted on these threads for responding to everyone.

Noted by who? Yourself? You may respond but you do so dishonestly by ignoring a lot of what a poster says/asks or intentionally misrepresenting what they have said.

LLMMLL

Errashareesh wrote: »

Why do you not care about the concern women have about woman/female being redefined? About biology being denied? .

Do you really expect anyone to engage with you when you misrepresent their opinions so willfully?

I'm not going to defend arguments I've never made. Go back and actually read my posts please.

CtevenSrowder

LLMMLL wrote: »

I'm absolutely fine with you disagreeing with my opinion Cteven but what you've posted clearly disproves that I make no arguments and just sneer at people. Thank you.

I never said the above. I think you make completely incoherent and illogical arguments, whilst sneering at people. It only took you what? 2, 3 posts after coming out of 'retirement' to start banding around the word TERF again. Pathetic.

Spanish Eyes

LLMMLL wrote: »

I think the funniest part is that

TERFs are complaining that there is a global billionaire conspiracy against them in a thread about

A global billionaire TERF

Terf applies to radical feminists. We are not all in that category at all. Some of us are men.

But from what I am reading here, many have the intelligence to see through this total bullsh!t now. Takes time for the reality to sink in because in fairness the GRA was passed with no reports in the WOKE media. Quelle surprise.

Same with Travellers, Asylum seekers, and so on. Not allowed to be mentioned at all.

Muzzled. So places like here (subject to the mods) are the only places we can say things now. Sad indeed,

LLMMLL

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Noted by who? Yourself? You may respond but you do so dishonestly by ignoring a lot of what a poster says/asks or intentionally misrepresenting what they have said.

It's been said on multiple threads about me. Generally people find it annoying but most don't try to misrepresent it as me avoiding an argument.

Anyway you're getting very personal attacky Cteven. I won't reply to any more analyses of my posting style as I would prefer not to be lured into a threadban.

Errashareesh

Cherrypicking again. "Terf" is an inaccurate term a lot of the time too. Fashionable, sure, but inaccurate.

Oh hey Emmet! You know the way you constantly tell lads on After Hours that they have a problem with women? Well you're... kinda... being "contradictory" here with all your "thanking" of the "bile" that "rubbishes" concerns which women "have".

LLMMLL

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Terf applies to radical feminists. We are not all in that category at all. Some of us are men.

Men can't be feminists? :0

LLMMLL

Errashareesh wrote: »

Cherrypicking again. "Terf" is an inaccurate term a lot of the time too. Fashionable, sure, but inaccurate.

Oh hey Emmet! You know the way you constantly tell lads on After Hours that they have a problem with women? Well you're... kinda... being "contradictory" here with all your "thanking" of the "bile" that "rubbishes" concerns which women "have".

Are you trying to say I'm the poster Emmetspiceland with multiple accounts or something? Wow

Errashareesh

LLMMLL wrote: »

Are you trying to say I'm the poster Emmetspiceland with multiple accounts or something? Wow

Eh... no. So no need for the "wow" before letting me answer you. A post can address two people.

CtevenSrowder

LLMMLL wrote: »

It's been said on multiple threads about me. Generally people find it annoying but most don't try to misrepresent it as me avoiding an argument.

Anyway you're getting very personal attacky Cteven. I won't reply to any more analyses of my posting style as I would prefer not to be lured into a threadban.

Personal attacky?!! This coming from the poster who consistently calls those with opposing opinions terfs, transphobe, anti-trans etc. Maybe take a look in the mirror

We will try get back on track then shall we?

If my friend John gets chatted up by a transwomen, is it transphobic if he turns them down politely saying 'I'm sorry, but I don't date transwomen'?

Is it transphobic or not, if he lies, and politely says 'Sorry I don't date women who are over 5'7' even if the real reason is because he doesn't date transwomen?

LLMMLL

Errashareesh wrote: »

Eh... no. So no need for the "wow" before letting me answer you. A post can address two people.

Why on Earth would you address Emmett? This is truly bizarre ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Gatling

LLMMLL wrote: »

Why on Earth would you address Emmett? This is truly bizarre ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Mary Whitehouse comes to mind.

Spanish Eyes

LLMMLL wrote: »

Men can't be feminists? :0

Of course they can and many are. The word TERF is not conducive to logical and calm discussion though. Is it..

Anyway, enjoy stirring it up. It is not necessary, most people have a brain and that is why they are questioning this stealth passing of a law that allows a dangerous nutjob MAN to be in a women's prison. It is totally bizarre.

So let us question that. Would the same issue apply if a woman SID as a man and asked to be put in the male prison? I doubt that person would even contemplate it. Far too dangerous. See what I mean?

But off you go and do the man TERF denigration. No worries my love. It is so boring and predictive.

Justin Credible Darts

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Personal attacky?!! This coming from the poster who consistently calls those with opposing opinions terfs, transphobe, anti-trans etc. Maybe take a look in the mirror

We will try get back on track then shall we?

If my friend John gets chatted up by a transwomen, is it transphobic if he turns them down politely saying 'I'm sorry, but I don't date transwomen'?

Is it transphobic or not, if he lies, and politely says 'Sorry I don't date women who are over 5'7' even if the real reason is because he doesn't date transwomen?

John prefers real women, that is his sexual preference,, its a different thing.


as a straight male I would not fu(k a guy, that dont mean i am homophobic, its just not my sexual preference.


If a black woman would not date a white guy, dont mean she is racist, maybe white guys are not her preference.


you cannot be racist, transphobe, homophobe etc because of your sexual preferences.

LLMMLL

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Personal attacky?!! This coming from the poster who consistently calls those with opposing opinions terfs, transphobe, anti-trans etc. Maybe take a look in the mirror

We will try get back on track then shall we?

If my friend John gets chatted up by a transwomen, is it transphobic if he turns them down politely saying 'I'm sorry, but I don't date transwomen'?

Is it transphobic or not, if he lies, and politely says 'Sorry I don't date women who are over 5'7' even if the real reason is because he doesn't date transwomen?

Cteven I've covered this extensively. I told you this and you asked where I covered it and I pointed you to the post and you said fine. You then proceeded to repeat the same questions.

So again. Yes the first guy is transphobic.

The second guy may or.may not be transphobic. It depends why he does not date transwomen.

I dealt with this extensively. Have been asked and answered the exact question you posted multiple times. I am only answering again so you can't spread the misinformation that I try to avoid questions.

Seriously go back and look at my previous responses. You'll find all the answers you require on the topic.

Parabellum9

LLMMLL wrote: »

Cteven I've covered this extensively. I told you this and you asked where I covered it and I pointed you to the post and you said fine. You then proceeded to repeat the same questions.

So again. Yes the first guy is transphobic.

The second guy may or.may not be transphobic. It depends why he does not date transwomen.

I dealt with this extensively. Have been asked and answered the exact question you posted multiple times. I am only answering again so you can't spread the misinformation that I try to avoid questions.

Seriously go back and look at my previous responses. You'll find all the answers you require on the topic.

That’s not transphobic - it’s called personal preference which every single person is entitled to ffs. If a fella comes over to me in a pub chatting me up, I’m not going to entertain his advances for fear of being branded “homophobic” - I don’t do guys simple, and will tell him as much. Just as I don’t do “women” with dicks.