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

CtevenSrowder

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.

He doesn't date transwomen because he is heterosexual and is attracted to females, and as such is not attracted to transwomen as they are male.

Is he transphobic?

Daragh1980

LLMMLL wrote: »

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

Because he’s thanking some of your posts and is - generally speaking - a bit of a sneaky snake.

Justin Credible Darts

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.
.

wow.


so by that logic a straight male in a bar was chatted up by a gay male, he would be homophobic if he turned him down ?

Errashareesh

The first guy is transphobic. Because he doesn't want to have sex with a trans woman.

I mean... incredible.

LLMMLL

Daragh1980 wrote: »

Because he’s thanking some of your posts and is - generally speaking - a bit of a sneaky snake.

For thanking my posts? And I'm the one being criticised for my supposed lack of argument? Okaaayyyyy

LLMMLL

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

He doesn't date transwomen because he is heterosexual and is attracted to females, and as such is not attracted to transwomen as they are male.

Is he transphobic?

I've answered this before as well.

Parabellum9

Justin Credible Darts wrote: »

wow.


so by that logic a straight male in a bar was chatted up by a gay male, he would be homophobic if he turned him down ?

That’s trans logic for you, your sexual preferences don’t matter to them and if you dare reject them or don’t fancy a night with a dick and balls, you’re a ghastly transphobe. Ridiculous nonsense bollixology.

Justin Credible Darts

Errashareesh wrote: »

The first guy is transphobic. Because he doesn't want to have sex with a trans woman.

I mean... incredible.

This is the mindset you are dealing with.


He will be telling us next any real woman that refuses to be chatted up by a man is a man hater.


god forbid the man is black then she would be racist as well.


how dare any person have a preference or the right to choose who they sleep with.
I think they have to be on the wind up, no one could be this stupid to think people will believe that nonsense of his.

LLMMLL

Errashareesh wrote: »

The first guy is transphobic. Because he doesn't want to have sex with a trans woman.

I mean... incredible.

Misrepresentation. Please go back and actually read my posts.

CtevenSrowder

LLMMLL wrote: »

I've answered this before as well.

Can you answer again please, as your position is still not quite clear. Also I believe you did not answer me when I originally posed this question afair. Now in your defence you were replying to a lot of posters, so probably missed it.

So could you answer me now please. Thank you.

CtevenSrowder

Parabellum9 wrote: »

That’s trans logic for you, your sexual preferences don’t matter to them and if you dare reject them or don’t fancy a night with a dick and balls, you’re a ghastly transphobe. Ridiculous nonsense bollixology.

It is trans-activist logic. Don't conflate trans-people with tra's as they do not always overlap. None of the people on the opposing 'side' so far in this thread have been trans (that I recall) for example.

It's actually this element of TR activism that annoys me so much, in that they make trans-people look like bigoted, misogynistic fools.

LLMMLL

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Can you answer again please, as your position is still not quite clear. Also I believe you did not answer me when I originally posed this question afair. Now in your defence you were replying to a lot of posters, so probably missed it.

So could you answer me now please. Thank you.

Fine but I'm not responding to you repeating the same question again.

If someone believes a trans woman is a man or a trans man is a woman and they have no other reason for rejecting them then they are ttabsphobic.

If they refuse to sleep with anyone who lacks their preferred genitalia and apply it consistently they are not ttabsphobic.
So if your friend cannot handle a penis that's absolutely fine.

I have stated this multiple times so please stop the misrepresentation that I avoid arguments.

And I spent 2-3 days on this topic. That's my last word on it.

jam_mac_jam

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

It is trans-activist logic. Don't conflate trans-people with tra's as they do not always overlap. None of the people on the opposing 'side' so far in this thread have been trans (that I recall) for example.

It's actually this element of TR activism that annoys me so much, in that they make trans-people look like bigoted, misogynistic fools.

I think that's an important point and by the nature of it, it's going to be the most extreme activists that are heard.

There was a hashtag on Twitter the wrong type of trans where those who did not agree with the trans activists or some of their opninions and felt they were not being listened to.

Spanish Eyes

It is all so irrelevant to the vast majority really.

But there is no doubt that there is a sinister well funded element making this into a big issue.

I don't care about it all, apart from the fact that self ID male to female can invade REAL female spaces and they will, to prove a point. That I do worry about.

That Barbie fella is just the tip of the iceberg really if this is not taken seriously anymore. That is danger here.

Female to male trans never seems to have caused any issue. Well now, I wonder why. Answers on a postcard please lol.

Justin Credible Darts

dear god the nonsense you spew. (ref: Llmmll)

If a straight man goes in to a club or bar looking for a woman to score with and ends up chatting with a person he thinks is a real woman and the he finds out the person was born a man, he will back away and send the person on, as he is stright and has no intention of fu(king a man.

It does not make him a transphobe
It does not make him anti gay or anti man.

They are not his sexual preference......

you either are well aware of this and on the wind up, or else you are so indoctrinated, you are not even aware of the utter nonsense you are typing.

CtevenSrowder

LLMMLL wrote: »

Fine but I'm not responding to you repeating the same question again.

If someone believes a trans woman is a man or a trans man is a woman and they have no other reason for rejecting them then they are ttabsphobic.

If they refuse to sleep with anyone who lacks their preferred genitalia and apply it consistently they are not ttabsphobic.
So if your friend cannot handle a penis that's absolutely fine.

I have stated this multiple times so please stop the misrepresentation that I avoid arguments.

And I spent 2-3 days on this topic. That's my last word on it.

Thank you for answering. If you could placate me pls. .. What if the transwomen has had sex reassignment surgery? John does still not want to sleep with the transwomen, for the previous stated reason (they are male). Is this an act of transphobia in your view?

Invidious

Errashareesh wrote: »

The first guy is transphobic. Because he doesn't want to have sex with a trans woman.

I mean... incredible.

Lesbians who refuse to sleep with transwomen have also been called transphobic. Even though the whole point of being a lesbian is not wanting sex with someone who has a penis.

Spanish Eyes

So some like JK are monikored as TERF. Trans Exclusive Radical Feminist.

Is there a comparative moniker for men I often wonder? Doubt it. Because some men are terrified of women I suppose. So they want to invade women's spaces to prove how they can denigrate women. So obvious and not a good look at all, but not surprising.

Says it all for me. With due respect with those men who are not involved in this total sh!t and respect women. Well I do.

Errashareesh

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

I think that's an important point and by the nature of it, it's going to be the most extreme activists that are heard.

There was a hashtag on Twitter the wrong type of trans where those who did not agree with the trans activists or some of their opninions and felt they were not being listened to.

Yeah there are loads of trans women who don't buy into the dogma. I'd say they get some abuse.

Invidious wrote: »

Lesbians who refuse to sleep with transwomen have also been called transphobic. Even though the whole point of being a lesbian is not wanting sex with someone who has a penis.

It's just disturbing.

Parabellum9

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

So some like JK are monikored as TERF. Trans Exclusive Radical Feminist.

Is there a comparative moniker for men I often wonder? Doubt it. Because some men are terrified of women I suppose. So they want to invade women's spaces to prove how they can denigrate women. So obvious and not a good look at all, but not surprising.

Says it all for me. With due respect with those men who are not involved in this total sh!t and respect women. Well I do.

Well i can tell you as a man that I would be highly suspect of any male who is cheerleading this type of nonsense if they are not directly involved in it. Something deeper at play there than just being progressive “woke” types.

Errashareesh

Having seen one of those super feminist liberals just now state as fact elsewhere that Gruffalux is a transphobe (happily insulting someone basically) I would love an explanation as to how people who don't hate trans people, recognise the legitimacy of being transgender, support transgender people in their path to transitioning, despise abuse towards trans people, however just disagree with denial of biology and redefining (sometimes erasure) of woman/female... are transphobic.

Anyone?

Spanish Eyes

Parabellum9 wrote: »

Well i can tell you as a man that I would be highly suspect of any male who is cheerleading this type of nonsense if they are not directly involved in it. Something deeper at play there than just being progressive “woke” types.

Indeed there is, well IMV anyway. Don't know what to think much anymore about where this has all come from so quickly to the detriment of so many.

Gervais08

Invidious wrote: »

Lesbians who refuse to sleep with transwomen have also been called transphobic. Even though the whole point of being a lesbian is not wanting sex with someone who has a penis.

They have and if you read some of the “logic” (anything but of course) that these TRAs use - a lesbian doesn’t want to have sex with a penis; hence she is a lesbian ffs!!!

To read pages of ways to “persuade” a lesbian to accept your penis just because you maintain it’s a “female penis” (no such thing!) is sickening.

Harvey Weinstein wouldn’t stoop half as low at his worst.

Justin Credible Darts

Errashareesh wrote: »

Having seen one of those super feminist liberals just now state as fact elsewhere that Gruffalux is a transphobe (happily insulting someone basically) I would love an explanation as to how people who don't hate trans people, recognise the legitimacy of being transgender, support transgender people in their path to transitioning, despise abuse towards trans people, however just disagree with denial of biology and redefining (sometimes erasure) of woman/female... are transphobic.

Anyone?

people who throw around accusations like racist, homophobe, transphobe etc without zero evidence and do so on a whim because bright intelligent people wont drink their kool aid are the real dangerous people to society.


People who when faced with things like fact, biology etc who resort to trying to destroy peoples reputations are the real scourge in society.

Gruffalux

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

Over a long thread and others I have engaged with you on many fronts. You have often ignored valid reasoned arguments made by me to engage instead in sneering and misrepresentation.
I engage primarily on the purely physical reality front where biological truth cannot be subverted by a radical ideology. It just cannot. There are scientific facts about the way things are that are simply not mutable. I will not say 2+2=5.

I engage on the flank where womens rights to protection, privacy and self determination are being demonstrably affected in a negative way by ideological imposition. One of the solutions I have consistently proposed is the third space which protects all persons rights.

On the intellectual front I have engaged against the gender theory aspect of transactivism where I oppose deconstruction of the meaning of words and language.

There are also wider interesting areas concerning the driving forces, politically and financially for example, behind a growing transgender industry, one could call it, which sees clinics, hospitals, treatments, surgeries, laws, research, govt policies, ngo programs for action springing up at warp speed in many places. The social media element also which has been so influential on vulnerable young girls.

And yes, these areas are being directly financed by rich people involved in particularly the pharmaceutical area. Why would they not finance it? It is a huge growth market with lifelong customers from childhood to death handing over large amounts of money to attempt to assuage their distress.

Everything gets investment from somewhere. I regularly see suspicious remarks posed about where conservative social campaigns get their funding - and rightly so. Funding, backing, all of that should be on the table in full view for every issue and social movement.
Few things really qualify as grass roots movements anymore. The grass is mostly astroturf these days. Look at BLM for example where emblems and insignia of the black lives matter movement are cynically adopted in support of them by global corporations who harvest massive profits by enslaving black and brown people in the developing world.

Money is a big question. Cui bono.
You choose to attach the word conspiracy as it is a word full of implied meaning and derision which serves a political purpose on your behalf, and it is underhand. I said clearly that I am not on board fully with the persons views but that it is an interesting angle to start to investigate. It is. It is worth checking out. Add that to my anti TRA flank couched in biological realism and scientific fact, the flank that simply seeks to protect hard won sex based rights, the defense flank against intellectual deconstructionism and then the part that wonders cui bono - you can call it my far-out flank, man. I don't need it. The first flank defending biological reality and scientific fact against neo-metaphysics is all that is really needed by anyone arguing against this religion.

Thanks to E who has pointed out that I regularly defend trans people in this thread and others, and how in spite of that I am called slurs all the time. I do defend them. I even defended against attack on the second trans identifying male to enter an Irish female prison. I have no beef with transgender people. It is those who promote crazy gender theories, deconstructionist ideologies and who openly sneer at womens or mens resultant concerns that I have a problem with.

Sittingpretty

Justin Credible Darts wrote: »

people who throw around accusations like racist, homophobe, transphobe etc without zero evidence and do so on a whim because bright intelligent people wont drink their kool aid are the real dangerous people to society.


People who when faced with things like fact, biology etc who resort to trying to destroy peoples reputations are the real scourge in society.

Precisely, the TRA movement is ALL about control.

Those they deem transphobic just won’t be coerced into towing the party TWAW/TMAM line.

It GALLS them that some people think independently and are not afraid to go against the current swathe of absolute nonsense.

Wibbs

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Female to male trans never seems to have caused any issue. Well now, I wonder why. Answers on a postcard please lol.

It's almost exclusively male to female transexuals that are the sh1t stirrers in this. You almost never hear of female to male trans pulling this nonsense.

LLMMLL wrote: »

If someone believes a trans woman is a man or a trans man is a woman and they have no other reason for rejecting them then they are ttabsphobic.

If they refuse to sleep with anyone who lacks their preferred genitalia and apply it consistently they are not ttabsphobic.

"preferred genitalia". Good christ. We're well through the looking glass with this outright insanity.

Invidious

Eddie Redmayne has disagreed with Rowling's stance on trans issues, but has also come out to condemn the "vitriol" aimed at her, calling the social media reaction "absolutely disgusting."

Kudos to Redmayne for modeling respectful disagreement. It's should be possible to disagree with someone's thinking on social or political issues while still respecting her as a human being.

One eyed Jack

Invidious wrote: »

It's should be possible to disagree with someone's thinking on social or political issues while still respecting her as a human being.

I’m not sure why you have this idea that anyone should respect someone who makes it clear has no respect for them. Is it simply because they’re more articulate in how they express the same sentiment? Not everyone has had the benefit of JK’s education in order to have the ability to express themselves with the same level of passive aggression, smarminess or barbed sarcasm as she does.

Sir Oxman

Invidious wrote: »

Eddie Redmayne has disagreed with Rowling's stance on trans issues, but has also come out to condemn the "vitriol" aimed at her, calling the social media reaction "absolutely disgusting."

Kudos to Redmayne for modeling respectful disagreement. It's should be possible to disagree with someone's thinking on social or political issues while still respecting her as a human being.

Redmayne is now under attack 'online' but funnily enough, zero rape or death threats.

A woman writer has been dropped from the judges panel of MsLexia, 'the UK's best selling magazine for women who write'.

What happened?
Well, she signed the letter condemning the misogyny, death and rape threats towards another woman.
Another woman writer also on the judges panel at said magazine went to the board and said she 'wouldn't feel comfortable'(??!!) in the same room as her colleague who had signed a letter condemning violence and violent threats against women.

The magazine dropped the signee within hours.


Remember, this NEVER happens and extreme critical gender/queer theology is sooo underrepresented.:rolleyes: