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

LLMMLL

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That’s somewhat missing the point.

TRAs, as the acronym suggests, are people who campaign for the rights of people who are transgender. Women’s rights advocates... one would think it should be obvious, but they campaign for women’s rights. They’re two distinct ideals.

I didn’t suggest that anyone couldn’t be both an advocate for women’s rights, and they can be an advocate for the rights of people who are transgender, but they are two completely separate and distinct ideals, as indicated by the T, or “trans”, rather than just referring to them as women. It should be obvious, but people who are transgender aren’t necessarily women.

That really does not make sense. It's like saying that when people campaigned for black people to have basic human rights that is impying that black people are not human. Totally illogical.

Campaigning for subgroups of a group does not mean you believe that the subgrou is not part of the group.

And I agree that trans people are not always women. There are trans men too.

LLMMLL

Wibbs wrote: »

If tomorrow the government brought back legislation that allowed slavery I wouldn't go out and buy a slave. It doesn't mean it wouldn't be a retarded law.

I agree.

But made up alarmist negative consequences also do not make something a bad law.

suicide_circus

LLMMLL wrote: »

. You can regard trans women as women but acknowledge that they have issues that other women (cis women) do not face

Like prostate exams?

Gruffalux

LLMMLL wrote: »

That doesn't really make sense. You can regard trans women as women but acknowledge that they have issues that other women (cis women) do not face (such as people trying to police their use of changing rooms) and campaign around those issues.

Trans as an adjective does not have the magical superpower of breaking scientific reality and extending the category called woman beyond the boundaries of its biological reality as being female. Trans does not change male to female. It can not do this.
Any other adjectives such as tall black lesbian added before woman merely give a descriptor to the already extant and biologically real category of woman, as they are all factually female. These are not comparable to trans or cis.
Cis is an attempt to break the single ontological category of woman as female into parts - some women can thus be female, some women can be male it proposes. As such cis as a descriptor before woman is an attempt to use an ideological weapon to confound reason. See how you use cis to refer to "other" women. As if you have broken scientific reality merely by speaking. You have not.


All this applies also to girl, boy, man.

Errashareesh

Thanks OEJ for taking our points on board instead of ignoring them/ridiculing them out of pigheadedness.

LLMMLL

Gruffalux wrote: »

Trans as an adjective does not have the magical superpower of breaking scientific reality and extending the category called woman beyond the boundaries of its biological reality as being female. Trans does not change male to female. It can not do this.
Any other adjectives such as tall black lesbian added before woman merely give a descriptor to the already extant and biologically real category of woman, as they are all factually female. These are not comparable to trans or cis.
Cis is an attempt to break the single ontological category of woman as female into parts - some women can thus be female, some women can be male it proposes. As such cis as a descriptor before woman is an attempt to use an ideological weapon to confound reason. See how you use cis to refer to "other" women. As if you have broken scientific reality merely by speaking. You have not.


All this applies also to girl, boy, man.

Any group can be broken into subgroups. White women, black women, Asian men, gay men, bi Asian women who like Star trek.

You're trying to politicize something completely natural.

LLMMLL

Errashareesh wrote: »

Thanks OEJ for taking our points on board instead of ignoring them/ridiculing them out of pigheadedness.

Yes I have to give OEJ credit. He has a nuanced viewpoint that isn't just based on hate.

One eyed Jack

LLMMLL wrote: »

That really does not make sense. It's like saying that when people campaigned for black people to have basic human rights that is impying that black people are not human. Totally illogical.

Campaigning for subgroups of a group does not mean you believe that the subgrou is not part of the group.

And I agree that trans people are not always women. There are trans men too.

It’s not implying any such thing. I’m simply pointing out that if transgender rights advocates agreed that women are women, the distinction wouldn’t exist. The subgroup distinction wouldn’t need to be made!

Instead they would have to consider as you suggest some other way of grouping other than by sex, such as indeed the colour of their skin, or women who have had breast augmentation or women who have had labiaplasty, y’know, the things they recognise as commonalities as opposed to distinctions, or “othering”.

Wibbs

LLMMLL wrote: »

Any group can be broken into subgroups. White women, black women, Asian men, gay men, bi Asian women who like Star trek.

You're trying to politicize something completely natural.

All of the above are real and natural and measurable and with the exception of the Trekkie don't require subjective self identification and none claim nonsense and state it as fact. A biological woman claiming to be a man and stating this is a fact is a very different thing. If the White woman in your example claimed to be a Black African they'd be sectioned, but...

Gruffalux

LLMMLL wrote: »

Any group can be broken into subgroups. White women, black women, Asian men, gay men, bi Asian women who like Star trek.

You're trying to politicize something completely natural.

Category subgroups have to be linked to the fundamental qualifying definition or quality of the category. In the case of women the fundamental qualifying definition or quality is female, the sex that produces large gametes. Thus one cannot divide heifers into cis heifers and trans heifers. One cannot say a tractor is a subcategory within the category of cars. The adjectives you mention do not in any manner attempt to alter the biological factuality of what they describe.

Gruffalux

LLMMLL wrote: »

Yes I have to give OEJ credit. He has a nuanced viewpoint that isn't just based on hate.

See this despicable sh1t from you. My opinions are not based on hate.

LLMMLL

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s not implying any such thing. I’m simply pointing out that if transgender rights advocates agreed that women are women, the distinction wouldn’t exist. The subgroup distinction wouldn’t need to be made!

Instead they would have to consider as you suggest some other way of grouping other than by sex, such as indeed the colour of their skin, or women who have had breast augmentation or women who have had labiaplasty, y’know, the things they recognise as commonalities as opposed to distinctions, or “othering”.

Of course The distinction needs to be made. If they are treayed differently by society then reference needs to be made to that.

It's not reflective of TRAs views. It's reflective of the fact that trans people's rights are circumscribed.

Errashareesh

Gruffalux wrote: »

See this despicable sh1t from you. My opinions are not based on hate.

Isn't it such bullying and unashamed lying - when we have set out our stalls in such depth with zero hatred. They're the hate-filled one. And so disrespectful to women.

LLMMLL

Wibbs wrote: »

All of the above are real and natural and measurable and with the exception of the Trekkie don't require subjective self identification and none claim nonsense and state it as fact. A biological woman claiming to be a man and stating this is a fact is a very different thing. If the White woman in your example claimed to be a Black African they'd be sectioned, but...

Let's not go back to pretending that race can be measured please.

CtevenSrowder

LLMMLL wrote: »

Yes I have to give OEJ credit. He has a nuanced viewpoint that isn't just based on hate.

He accepts that transwomen aren't women, so is a hate-filled transphobe in your view, no? Would this not mean in your view he is coming from a place of hatred?

And any chance I could receive an answer to my question please? I've asked a few times, and not received an answer.

"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?"

Thank you.

LLMMLL

Gruffalux wrote: »

Category subgroups have to be linked to the fundamental qualifying definition or quality of the category. In the case of women the fundamental qualifying definition or quality is female, the sex that produces large gametes. Thus one cannot divide heifers into cis heifers and trans heifers. One cannot say a tractor is a subcategory within the category of cars. The adjectives you mention do not in any manner attempt to alter the biological factuality of what they describe.

This is based on your belief that trans women are not women. Your previous post was based on saying that the category of women cannot be broken down. You're arguing two separate things at the same time.

I'm fully aware that You do not believe trans women are women.

LLMMLL

Errashareesh wrote: »

Isn't it such bullying and unashamed lying - when we have set out our stalls in such depth with zero hatred. They're the hate-filled one. And so disrespectful to women.

The only argument TERFs have used is sneering meme type stuff.

CtevenSrowder

LLMMLL wrote: »

This is based on your belief that trans women are not women. Your previous post was based on saying that the category of women cannot be broken down. You're arguing two separate things at the same time.

I'm fully aware that You do not believe trans women are women.

It is not a belief. It is objective fact.

Justin Credible Darts

Wibbs wrote: »

1) I don't regard Trans women(or men) as the biological sex they identify as, I regard them as Trans.



2) "cis" women are the biological sex they identify as. If there's any campaigning to do it's to call out nonsense wherever it's promoted, especially if it impinges on others and actual realities.
.

Exactly, and when the so called "enlightened" are met with this and factual scientific things like biology they know that have lost.


hence why the spin, the deflections, attacking people with derogatory slurs, labeling people that wont drink their kool-aid as some sort of bigot.


At this point they are either trying to convince themselves, because they are not convincing anyone else.


or they have to be on a wind up as no one could be that dense

Errashareesh

LLMMLL wrote: »

The only argument TERFs have used is sneering meme type stuff.

Of course you know that's a lie but it appears you don't care about the truth.

One eyed Jack

LLMMLL wrote: »

Any group can be broken into subgroups. White women, black women, Asian men, gay men, bi Asian women who like Star trek.

You're trying to politicize something completely natural.

Aren’t you doing the very same thing though? You’re just using different criteria to categorise people into their various groups as you see fit.

When discussing women’s rights, men’s rights, the rights of people who are transgender, those are three distinct categories that each have their own peculiarities.

I wouldn’t categorise people who are transgender in the same group as people who are not transgender, which is what some TRA extremists are attempting to do - rather than acknowledge that they are not women, or they are not men, they argue that how men and women are defined should be based upon their criteria.

You must surely be able to see why people who do not share their ideology would disagree with their assertion? It’s entirely advantageous to them, and has a negative impact on people who do not share their ideology.

Gruffalux

LLMMLL wrote: »

This is based on your belief that trans women are not women. Your previous post was based on saying that the category of women cannot be broken down. You're arguing two separate things at the same time.

I'm fully aware that You do not believe trans women are women.

I KNOW transwomen are not women. They are transwomen.
You, on the other hand, BELIEVE that transwomen are women. This is an ideological stance, not empirical, and odd for a scientist.

Dyr

Justin Credible Darts wrote: »

Exactly, and when the so called "enlightened" are met with this and factual scientific things like biology they know that have lost.


hence why the spin, the deflections, attacking people with derogatory slurs, labeling people that wont drink their kool-aid as some sort of bigot.

You left out the most important tool in their arsenal, changing the definition of words to have a leg to stand on.

Gervais08

Errashareesh wrote: »

Of course you know that's a lie but it appears you don't care about the truth.

Or respect for that matter.

I was sent back to page 1 of the debate earlier and was reminded not to be a d**k.

It seems like Covid travel advice, that is guidance and not mandatory instructions.

Wibbs

LLMMLL wrote: »

Let's not go back to pretending that race can be measured please.

Your were the one who brought up race I'm afraid and then completely avoided the obvious problem with your comparison.

And actually population genetics can be measured and they match up pretty well to the old notion of "race". Indeed just going on archaic human admixture you can tell if someone is predominantly African, European or Asian. There are also differences in the skulls between the above, differences that a pathologist not dealing with someone from a mixed background can have a very good try at determining their "race" from that.

Gervais08

Beliefs are not facts.

I believe in God
Yet I know evolution to be a scientific fact.

I believe in ghosts and the afterlife
Yet I know there has been little if any real scientific evidence of same.

Some people believe saying a few magic words makes men into women.

Not possible.

Dante7

LLMMLL wrote: »

The only argument TERFs have used is sneering meme type stuff.

The reason why TERF is considered an insult has been explained many times now. You have been asked by several people to stop using the term as they find it offensive, yet you persist. This is a community driven site and the community on this thread would appear to have spoken. Your continued use of this slur despite repeated requests to stop can now only be viewed as blatant, wilful misogyny and I think any further use of it should be reported and hopefully sanctioned. I won't be interacting with you any further as I refuse to entertain the ramblings of an unhinged misogynist.

Gervais08

Wibbs wrote: »

Your were the one who brought up race I'm afraid and then completely avoided the obvious problem with your comparison.

And actually population genetics can be measured and they match up pretty well to the old notion of "race". Indeed just going on archaic human admixture you can tell if someone is predominantly African, European or Asian. There are also differences in the skulls between the above, differences that a pathologist not dealing with someone from a mixed background can have a very good try at determining their "race" from that.

Have you ever watched Bones ?

Based on books written by a real Forensic Anthropologist before anyone scoffs at a tv show.

A trained expert can look at the smallest of bones and see the sex and race of a skeleton.

Yet we are being gaslit, threatened, called names and abused into changing that simple fact and that someone can complete a form and change biology.

Transwomen are transwomen.
Transmen are transmen.

Both deserve the same respect as any other human being.

They and their acolytes don’t get to have their beliefs overtire biology.

One eyed Jack

LLMMLL wrote: »

Of course The distinction needs to be made. If they are treayed differently by society then reference needs to be made to that.

It's not reflective of TRAs views. It's reflective of the fact that trans people's rights are circumscribed.

That’s exactly my point - this idea that “trans women are women” is absolutely not reflective of the views of people who advocate for the rights and welfare of people who are transgender. The reference exists because they themselves make the distinction between women, men, and people who are transgender.

That’s why I said that most people who advocate for the rights of people who are transgender do not share the minority opinion of a handful of extremists who put about that “trans women are women” nonsense. They don’t have to believe that nonsense to campaign for equality in society for people who are transgender either.

People who are different from each other will be treated differently, and the idea that anyone should treat different people as though they are the same, ignores the reality that they aren’t the same, and that’s why everyone’s rights are circumscribed, not just the rights of people on the basis that they are transgender. Their rights are circumscribed because most people acknowledge that other people have rights too,

CtevenSrowder

One eyed Jack wrote: »

“trans women are women” nonsense.

Thank you for your nuanced view