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

Tired Gardener

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.

Hang on a minute... what if the man/woman in question wanted to start a family? If a woman refused a sexual relationship with a Trans Man due to the inability of the Trans Man to get her pregnant would that still be Transphobic, as in this case the Woman is still viewing the Trans Man as a Woman?

One eyed Jack

Sir Oxman wrote: »

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:

Any chance of a link to that story? The only thing I can find about mslexia dropping a judge is when they dropped Lionel Shriver two years ago for her comments about diversity?


Shriver, a UK-based American writer who won the 2005 Orange prize for We Need to Talk About Kevin, made headlines after dismissing Penguin Random House’s goal to have a more diverse staff and author list by 2025 as a sign that the publisher was “drunk on virtue”.

“From now until 2025, literary excellence will be secondary to ticking all those ethnicity, gender, disability, sexual preference and crap-education boxes,” she wrote. “We can safely infer from that email that if an agent submits a manuscript written by a gay transgender Caribbean who dropped out of school at seven and powers around town on a mobility scooter, it will be published, whether or not said manuscript is an incoherent, tedious, meandering and insensible pile of mixed-paper recycling.”


Lionel Shriver dropped from prize judges over diversity comments


This is the article in question -


Penguin wants its authors to represent all UK minorities. What about just publishing good books?

One eyed Jack

Tired Gardener wrote: »

Hang on a minute... what if the man/woman in question wanted to start a family? If a woman refused a sexual relationship with a Trans Man due to the inability of the Trans Man to get her pregnant would that still be Transphobic, as in this case the Woman is still viewing the Trans Man as a Woman?

Being honest with you I wouldn’t even entertain the utter nonsense (and I’ll entertain a lot of nonsense!) that LL wrote in that post.

“If they refuse to sleep with anyone who lacks their preferred genitalia...”

“If your friend can’t handle a penis...”

That kind of sentiment reminded me of this particular nut jobs musings when she wrote this article -


Radfems, you’re not just missing out on great sex. You’re confused about what it means to be a lesbian, or a woman. I don’t care what your physical preferences are or what gender identity you prefer. I do care that you confuse those two things, and thereby insult trans women. I care that you don’t bother to interrogate the origins of your phallus-based distaste for trans women, and think about whether it’s actually a dislike of the organ that’s happening here or whether transphobia and a refusal to view trans women as women is involved. I care that you assume describing yourself as a lesbian tells others that you prefer what you call a pussy, as if everyone has the same definition of lesbian, woman, or pussy.

THAT is privilege. Assuming that you speak the same language, rather than consensually sharing vocabulary. Using lesbian as a proxy term that tells a whole group of women that they are not real, and not seeing anything wrong with that. I find your appropriation of the language of oppression disgusting.

Sit down, shut up, and read a book (or a blog). We will be over here, having fabulous queer sex without you.


The Cotton Ceiling Is Real and It’s Time for All Queer and Trans People to Fight Back


Reminds me of the same sort of nonsense gay lads spout when I refuse their advances, as though I’m the one with the “problem” - I’m homophobic, can’t handle a penis, don’t know what I’m missing out on, etc.

Any rationale to justify their belief that they’re not the person who is completely and utterly in the wrong with their attitudes towards other people. Nobody has to justify their reasons for not wishing to have sex with another person, it shouldn’t even be entertained like it’s up for debate or discussion.

Errashareesh

Gruffalux wrote: »

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.

Sir Oxman wrote: »

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:

Total vile bullies. Including here.

Errashareesh

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?

Any takers? LL? excludedbin?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Errashareesh wrote: »

Any takers? LL? excludedbin?

suicide_circus

Wibbs wrote: »

It's almost exclusively male to female transexuals that are the sh1t stirrers in this.

And it's almost exclusively women they go after online.

LLMMLL

Errashareesh wrote: »

Any takers? LL? excludedbin?

That wasn't really worth responding to to be honest. It's pretty obvious. For example if someone was like "oh of course I like black people and fully support their right to exist and I believe they should have all the Same rights as white people......but they should have separate changing rooms".

That person couldn't possibly be a racist......

Wibbs

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Radfems, you’re not just missing out on great sex. You’re confused about what it means to be a lesbian, or a woman. I don’t care what your physical preferences are or what gender identity you prefer. I do care that you confuse those two things, and thereby insult trans women. I care that you don’t bother to interrogate the origins of your phallus-based distaste for trans women, and think about whether it’s actually a dislike of the organ that’s happening here or whether transphobia and a refusal to view trans women as women is involved. I care that you assume describing yourself as a lesbian tells others that you prefer what you call a pussy, as if everyone has the same definition of lesbian, woman, or pussy.

THAT is privilege. Assuming that you speak the same language, rather than consensually sharing vocabulary. Using lesbian as a proxy term that tells a whole group of women that they are not real, and not seeing anything wrong with that. I find your appropriation of the language of oppression disgusting.

Sit down, shut up, and read a book (or a blog). We will be over here, having fabulous queer sex without you.

Well of course a blog. I dunno how to begin to unwrap that utter scutter.

I care that you assume describing yourself as a lesbian tells others that you prefer what you call a pussy, as if everyone has the same definition of lesbian, woman, or pussy.

Hint, it's not a cock.

phallus-based distaste for trans women

Gay women don't like nor want mickeys in the equation. Neither do Straight men. Craaaazy notion that it is. Gay folks have had centuries of prejudice and dogs abuse over their sexuality and now a bunch of nutters are going to tell them how they should live their intimate lives? GTFO.

And frankly I no longer give a tuppeny damn in standing up and plainly stating that if someone is sporting an XY chromosome and a penis they are Trans and that's fine and I wish them all the best and they should be left in peace to live their lives, but they're not a woman as far as I'm concerned. Same going the other way, though as I've noted you don't hear this guff from F-M Trans folks. You want to define yourself as a two spirit non CIS whatever, you have my blessings, but by god you can go to perdition if you try to tell me how and what I think and feel.

That this blindingly bloody obvious statement and medical and scientific fact has to be said and worse likely pilloried by a minority of bullying, screeching and deluded pearl clutchers is a step too far as far as I'm concerned. Call me a "transphobe" all you bloody like. I've had enough. On this day no fcuks are given.

suicide_circus

LLMMLL wrote: »

That wasn't really worth responding to to be honest. It's pretty obvious. For example if someone was like "oh of course I like black people and fully support their right to exist and I believe they should have all the Same rights as white people......but they should have separate changing rooms".

That person couldn't possibly be a racist......

We dont seperate changing rooms by race.

We do seperate changing rooms by sex.

LLMMLL

suicide_circus wrote: »

We dont seperate changing rooms by race.

We do seperate changing rooms by sex.

You can take any example you like. If you support some rights for black people but don't support others then that's why you can be considered racist.

Note that the term misogynist is constantly used here. The double standards are hilarious.

Errashareesh

LLMMLL wrote: »

That wasn't really worth responding to to be honest. It's pretty obvious. For example if someone was like "oh of course I like black people and fully support their right to exist and I believe they should have all the Same rights as white people......but they should have separate changing rooms".

That person couldn't possibly be a racist......

And yet... I never mentioned changing rooms - I said I am concerned about the redefining of woman/female and denial of biology. Try again.

LLMMLL

Errashareesh wrote: »

And yet... I never mentioned changing rooms - I said I am concerned about the redefining of woman/female and denial of biology. Try again.

Are you saying you support trans women using women's changing rooms? Try again.

Gruffalux

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Avory Faucette..
Radfems, you’re not just missing out on great sex. You’re confused about what it means to be a lesbian, or a woman. I don’t care what your physical preferences are or what gender identity you prefer. I do care that you confuse those two things, and thereby insult trans women. I care that you don’t bother to interrogate the origins of your phallus-based distaste for trans women, and think about whether it’s actually a dislike of the organ that’s happening here or whether transphobia and a refusal to view trans women as women is involved. I care that you assume describing yourself as a lesbian tells others that you prefer what you call a pussy, as if everyone has the same definition of lesbian, woman, or pussy.

THAT is privilege. Assuming that you speak the same language, rather than consensually sharing vocabulary. Using lesbian as a proxy term that tells a whole group of women that they are not real, and not seeing anything wrong with that. I find your appropriation of the language of oppression disgusting.

Sit down, shut up, and read a book (or a blog). We will be over here, having fabulous queer sex without you.


The Cotton Ceiling Is Real and It’s Time for All Queer and Trans People to Fight Back

I wrote a long paragraph wondering about this person but d'you know what, I can't even....the tribe would have happily offered such idiots to passing sabre toothed tigers to protect the lineage.

Errashareesh

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Look at Gruffalux's thoughtful, in depth post above - so well written and supported. And yet the only response - if acknowledged at all - would be "yeah but you're a transphobe!" (thanked by E and G of course).

If I was a mod, I'd purge that sh1t. It's 1. Not bringing anything to the discussion, 2. Breaching the "Don't be a dick" rule.

suicide_circus

Its some trick to convince people that failure to play with your flute is tantamount to a hate crime. Wish i'd thought of that.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

suicide_circus wrote: »

We dont seperate changing rooms by race.

We do seperate changing rooms by sex.

TRAs are forever othering black women. Black women were barred from white restrooms for very different reasons to males. The bar on black women was nothing but prejudice whereas with males are barred from them because of the recognised strength difference and because we know that most violent crimes are committed by men. It’s sensible risk reduction. By not acknowledging the different reasons for the two different barrings, TRAs are othering black women, saying they are different from white women, when we are all just women. It’s really racist, and from people who like to think themselves progressive.

LLMMLL

Errashareesh wrote: »

Look at Gruffalux's thoughtful, in depth post above - so well written and supported. And yet the only response - if acknowledged at all - would be "yeah but you're a transphobe!" (thanked by E and G of course).

If I was a mod, I'd purge that sh1t. It's 1. Not bringing anything to the discussion, 2. Breaching the "Don't be a dick" rule.

This is hilarious. You quote a post from ODB with a dismissive sneery meme while talking about "the other side" can only be sneery. This is the gift that keeps on giving.

Gruffalux

Errashareesh wrote: »

Look at Gruffalux's thoughtful, in depth post above - so well written and supported. And yet the only response - if acknowledged at all - would be "yeah but you're a transphobe!" (thanked by E and G of course).

If I was a mod, I'd purge that sh1t. It's 1. Not bringing anything to the discussion, 2. Breaching the "Don't be a dick" rule.

Some "people" have compulsive thank finger. It's a "progressive" illness. There is no cure.

Errashareesh

LLMMLL wrote: »

Are you saying you support trans women using women's changing rooms? Try again.

I actually do - not as much in agreement about that one. But I do recognise the fear of this being exploited - not by trans women but by predatory men taking advantage.

Anyway, do address the rest of what I said when you can.

LLMMLL

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

TRAs are forever othering black women. Black women were barred from white restrooms for very different reasons to males. The bar on black women was nothing but prejudice whereas with males are barred from them because of the recognised strength difference and because we know that most violent crimes are committed by men. It’s sensible risk reduction. By not acknowledging the different reasons for the two different barrings, TRAs are othering black women, saying they are different from white women, when we are all just women. It’s really racist, and from people who like to think themselves progressive.

Misrepresentation. Trans women are women. So are black women. Your opinion that TRAs are othering black.women is based on your othering of trans women. TRAs consider both trans women and black women to be women and are othering neither.

LLMMLL

Errashareesh wrote: »

I actually do - not as much in agreement about that one. But I do recognise the fear of this being exploited - not by trans women but by predatory men taking advantage.

Anyway, do address the rest of what I said when you can.

Actually this is quite lovely to hear. It's refreshing to hear someone on this thread with a slightly more nuanced view of the issue.

What is the rest of what you said? Someone who is "concerned about the definition of female etc." Isn't necessarily transphobic. If their "concern" is used to circumscribe trans rights then they are.

Parabellum9

LLMMLL wrote: »

Misrepresentation. Trans women are women. So are back women. Your opinion that TRAs are othering black.women is based on your othering of trans women. TRAs consider both trans women and black women to be women and donate othering neither.

The thing you keep missing which is adding confusion to your points - trans women are only women in your view. In biological terms they are not, in the majority view they are not - you are espousing it as a fact each time when it's nothing but fact in your own world view. Repeating it over and over is not going to make it reality.

CtevenSrowder

LLMMLL wrote: »

Are you saying you support trans women using women's changing rooms? Try again.

Changing rooms are divided up based on sex. Transwomen are male.

Regardless, could you answer my previous question to you please:

"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?"

LLMMLL

Parabellum9 wrote: »

The thing you keep missing which is adding confusion to your points - trans women are only women in your view. In biological terms they are not, in the majority view they are not - you are espousing it as a fact each time when it's nothing but fact in your own world view. Repeating it over and over is not going to make it reality.

In the majority view they are.

Gatling

LLMMLL wrote: »

In the majority view they are.

If your based that on this thread the majority don't agree with your opinion.

Remember your only speaking for yourself .
Not 5 10 ,100 people just you

Wibbs

LLMMLL wrote: »

In the majority view they are.

Maybe in the principality of Lalaland they are, meanwhile in the real world...

Parabellum9

LLMMLL wrote: »

In the majority view they are.

Incorrect, try again.

LLMMLL

Gatling wrote: »

If your based that on this thread the majority don't agree with your opinion.

Remember your only speaking for yourself .
Not 5 10 ,100 people just you

I wouldn't take boards as the real world.....

Delirium

Parabellum9 wrote: »

The thing you keep missing which is adding confusion to your points - trans women are only women in your view. In biological terms they are not, in the majority view they are not - you are espousing it as a fact each time when it's nothing but fact in your own world view. Repeating it over and over is not going to make it reality.

Not according to the law in Ireland, i.e. trans women are recognised as women.