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

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

LLMMLL wrote: »

I do. And when these women realise that fulfillment won't be found through radicalism I would welcome them back with open arms and no judgement.

I predict many recanting TERF beliefs in a year or two when they've had time to process.

I have little time left on this earth and I think that defending against the erosion of women's rights is a damn find way to spend my time. It's very fulfilling actually, especially since recently there are signs that people are waking up to the absurdities of this topic.

Rothko

Lillyfae wrote: »

I predict you've wildly misunderstood the direction in which arguments are going of late.

I wouldn't bother engaging with that poster. He's obviously just here to try and get a reaction out of people and doesn't actually care about the topic at hand.

Lillyfae

Rothko wrote: »

I wouldn't bother engaging with that poster. He's obviously just here to try and get a reaction out of people and doesn't actually care about the topic at hand.

To be honest I don't care what "their" views are. They can go on about "their truth" all "they" want. I'll stay over here with the actual truth, thanks very much.

Dante7

Errashareesh wrote: »

Lol she deleted it.

Still there for me. Maybe she blocked you?

Errashareesh

Rothko wrote: »

I wouldn't bother engaging with that poster. He's obviously just here to try and get a reaction out of people and doesn't actually care about the topic at hand.

And trying to close the thread. Much as I agree with the insults of him for his appalling behaviour, that could result in the thread being shut down.

Gruffalux

LLMMLL wrote: »

I do. And when these women realise that fulfillment won't be found through radicalism I would welcome them back with open arms and no judgement.

I predict many recanting TERF beliefs in a year or two when they've had time to process.

I remember a guru saying much the same statement about people who had left the cult. Can you see the religious symbolism in your words and turn of phrase? A right wing American televangelist pastor could have spread his tubby arms on his donor funded channel and used the exact same words about the unbelievers.

Errashareesh

Dante7 wrote: »

Still there for me. Maybe she blocked you?

Bizarre. It's there again now - not blocked. It definitely wasn't loading at one point earlier - on either my phone or laptop.

Good in a way - the exposure of her continues. Must take a screen shot.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Errashareesh wrote: »

Bizarre. It's there again now - not blocked. It definitely wasn't loading at one point earlier - on either my phone or laptop.

Good in a way - the exposure of her continues. Must take a screen shot.

Twitter was down briefly. Back up again.

keano_afc

Dante7 wrote: »

Still there for me. Maybe she blocked you?

Yeah I can still see it too.

Rothko

Errashareesh wrote: »

And trying to close the thread. Much as I agree with the insults of him for his appalling behaviour, that could result in the thread being shut down.

And they're not the only one trying to close threads either.

It's funny because at least one of them would proudly describe themselves as being "liberal" yet they're desperate to silence anyone that disagrees with them. A bit of a contradiction there, to say the least.

LLMMLL

Gruffalux wrote: »

I remember a guru saying much the same statement about people who had left the cult. Can you see the religious symbolism in your words and turn of phrase? A right wing American televangelist pastor could have spread his tubby arms on his donor funded channel and used the exact same words about the unbelievers.

Yes the religious terminology was appropriate for the situation. Many people turn to religion for.comfort after a relationship breakdown. These women have been ensnared into anti-trans ideology. It's only a temporary band aid though.

Gatling

LLMMLL wrote: »

These women have been ensnared into anti-trans ideology. It's only a temporary band aid though.

Maybe stop making stuff up.

LLMMLL

Gatling wrote: »

Maybe stop making stuff up.

Go take a look at the trans widows thread. You'll see how these women are groomed.

Gatling

LLMMLL wrote: »

Go take a look at the trans widows thread. You'll see how these women are groomed.

Face it you want an echo chamber made up of false narratives.


Pretty sad stuff oh go read Mumsnet

jam_mac_jam

LLMMLL wrote: »

Go take a look at the trans widows thread. You'll see how these women are groomed.

I will have a read. I will probably be radicalised.

I did love the first question...

May I ask something I have also wondered about, apologies if already covered in previous thread.
When your husbands start to transition and wish to be viewed as women, do they insist on taking over the more traditional women's roles, like child care, elder care, generally all the things you were doing as his wife. I know that sounds a bit sexist but women do generally do the heavy lifting in those areas still.

One eyed Jack

LLMMLL wrote: »

Yes the religious terminology was appropriate for the situation. Many people turn to religion for.comfort after a relationship breakdown. These women have been ensnared into anti-trans ideology. It's only a temporary band aid though.

I have to think it must be purely an oversight on your part rather than putting it down to anything malicious, but that’s just nonsense. You’re suggesting that these women who were married to men have been radicalised after they discover that their husbands have always harboured a deep desire to emulate womanhood, and that’s what turns them towards “anti-trans” ideology, and you imagine they’ll do an about face once they’ve had time to process the idea that their husband has always harboured a deep desire to emulate womanhood?

I can understand why you are of that belief that appears to have formed in an echo chamber which perpetuates certain narratives to justify behaviour which you try to make sense of, but I would suggest that because the underlying contention is fundamentally flawed (the idea that “trans women are women”), it’s natural that the conclusion would also be fundamentally flawed.

One of the most recent examples (and there are many) that contradicts your “cart before the horse” thinking was a case in the UK -


Transgender woman ends bid to see her ultra-Orthodox Jewish children

Lillyfae

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

When your husbands start to transition and wish to be viewed as women, do they insist on taking over the more traditional women's roles, like child care, elder care, generally all the things you were doing as his wife. I know that sounds a bit sexist but women do generally do the heavy lifting in those areas still.

Jayz I might try and convince my fella to transition :pac:

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

Yes the religious terminology was appropriate for the situation. Many people turn to religion for.comfort after a relationship breakdown. These women have been ensnared into anti-trans ideology. It's only a temporary band aid though.

Sorry - "women" - what do you mean by "women"?

This is the word you can't define and that means nothing, remember? So how can you use it in this way?

jam_mac_jam

Lillyfae wrote: »

Jayz I might try and convince my fella to transition :pac:

I'm glad you said that. I wouldn't mind a wife sometimes myself.

Spanish Eyes

Let us hope that the fightback has begun. This issue is beyond bizarre given the tiny amount of people affected.

There is something sinister behind the activism, but I don't know who is funding them or where it is coming from. Sounds quite mysoginistic to me anyway. And it is a way for born males to continue their control over women. That's obvious.

Not a peep from female to male trans is there? Nope because they don't have beards and gonads and are not six footers at sixteen stone either.

ceadaoin.

LLMMLL wrote: »

Go take a look at the trans widows thread. You'll see how these women are groomed.

In reality it's a place where women can find solidarity with others who have been through the same thing and be able to have a discussion without being shouted down as transphobes. Obviously though, anything that involves women talking amongst themselves about their own experiences is a threat, and therefore must be misrepresented as something sinister. "Grooming" lol.

Rothko

Deleted User wrote: »

Sorry - "women" - what do you mean by "women"?

This is the word you can't define and that means nothing, remember? So how can you use it in this way?

Don't expect an answer, or at least a coherent one.

Justin Credible Darts

I have no problem is some simple people with zero knowledge of basic biology wants to claim trans women are "real women".
To me that is their freedom of speech, yes, normal people will laugh at them , think them idiotic, but it is their opinion to voice such nonsense.

However when they start throwing slurs, derogatory insults, outright calling people transphobes etc based on zero evidence , merely because normal rational people wont buy the nonsense they spout, that goes beyond freedom of speech and becomes outright abuse and a personal attack.

I think to label some a racist, or transphobe etc without any proof is not only a vile thing to do, but it should be against the rules.
We have mods on here banning people for calling others stupid, to me what these people are doing is far worse, and they are allowed to carry on doing it.

Wibbs

Justin Credible Darts wrote: »

However when they start throwing slurs, derogatory insults, outright calling people transphobes etc based on zero evidence , merely because normal rational people wont buy the nonsense they spout, that goes beyond freedom of speech and becomes outright abuse and a personal attack.

Meh J, the trick is not to give a damn. Really. It's that simple.

And not just on this subject. There are so many ists/isms/phobes been thrown around these days on the interwebs by the perpetually oppressed, triggered, daft, politicised, hectoring screechers who reckon the existence of a platform means people actually give a toss about what anybody has to say. It's hard to keep up to speed with all of them. So I don't. And if I get called a whateverist or whateverphobe based on something I've said that is demonstrably factual? Big whoop.



That's how you counter their attempts to reframe reality or shut down debate. Not by engaging with the weak attempts to shut you up by loudhailing words like racist or phobe etc. Unless you're actually an ist or phobe and it stings to hear it, otherwise treat it like the white noise it is and know their argument has fallen on its arse.

Gervais08

Wibbs wrote: »

Meh J, the trick is not to give a damn. Really. It's that simple.

And not just on this subject. There are so many ists/isms/phobes been thrown around these days on the interwebs by the perpetually oppressed, triggered, daft, politicised, hectoring screechers who reckon the existence of a platform means people actually give a toss about what anybody has to say. It's hard to keep up to speed with all of them. So I don't. And if I get called a whateverist or whateverphobe based on something I've said that is demonstrably factual? Big whoop.



That's how you counter their attempts to reframe reality or shut down debate. Not by engaging with the weak attempts to shut you up by loudhailing words like racist or phobe etc. Unless you're actually an ist or phobe and it stings to hear it, otherwise treat it like the white noise it is and know their argument has fallen on its arse.

Excellent advice - zero f***ks shall now be given to Wokeus Dei!!!

Gruffalux

Wibbs wrote: »

Meh J, the trick is not to give a damn. Really. It's that simple.

And not just on this subject. There are so many ists/isms/phobes been thrown around these days on the interwebs by the perpetually oppressed, triggered, daft, politicised, hectoring screechers who reckon the existence of a platform means people actually give a toss about what anybody has to say. It's hard to keep up to speed with all of them. So I don't. And if I get called a whateverist or whateverphobe based on something I've said that is demonstrably factual? Big whoop.



That's how you counter their attempts to reframe reality or shut down debate. Not by engaging with the weak attempts to shut you up by loudhailing words like racist or phobe etc. Unless you're actually an ist or phobe and it stings to hear it, otherwise treat it like the white noise it is and know their argument has fallen on its arse.

In theory that should work. But if several people make it their business to repeatedly attach sexist or racist or homophobe or whatever to your posts or your name on a platform then there are going to be non-discriminating readers who presume there is truth in the slander.
Like in real life if there was an innocent someone called Mr x that I met and Mrs y maliciously said to me he is a paedophile I would be "wut!". But then if Mr z thanked them for saying it to me and Mr abc repeated it along with some other pals etc I might be left wondering about poor innocent Mr x...

Justin Credible Darts

Wibbs wrote: »

Meh J, the trick is not to give a damn. Really. It's that simple.

And not just on this subject. There are so many ists/isms/phobes been thrown around these days on the interwebs by the perpetually oppressed, triggered, daft, politicised, hectoring screechers who reckon the existence of a platform means people actually give a toss about what anybody has to say. It's hard to keep up to speed with all of them. So I don't. And if I get called a whateverist or whateverphobe based on something I've said that is demonstrably factual? Big whoop.



That's how you counter their attempts to reframe reality or shut down debate. Not by engaging with the weak attempts to shut you up by loudhailing words like racist or phobe etc. Unless you're actually an ist or phobe and it stings to hear it, otherwise treat it like the white noise it is and know their argument has fallen on its arse.

my point is I dont care if a simpleton calls me a racist, or whatever on the internet.


however I just got an infraction on another thread for calling a person who told outright lie a liar.


People can lie about me, abuse me, and thats fine, but why am I not allowed the same leeway ?


If some one calls me racist and i call them a moron, i get the warning for being uncivil or making it personal.


The fact mods cannot see the sheer hypocrisy is what annoys me.

Wibbs

Gruffalux wrote: »

In theory that should work. But if several people make it their business to repeatedly attach sexist or racist or homophobe or whatever to your posts or your name on a platform then there are going to be non-discriminating readers who presume there is truth in the slander.

I personally don't care G, I gave up caring about that sorta thing many moons ago. I care what me and mine think, beyond that pffft. Though I can fully understand why many would care. I'd be an oddball in this respect.

Justin Credible Darts wrote: »

If some one calls me racist and i call them a moron, i get the warning for being uncivil or making it personal.

I agree with you there. There can be a double standard at play alright. Especially given an accusation of say racism has way more reach in intent than being called a moron.

LLMMLL

ceadaoin. wrote: »

In reality it's a place where women can find solidarity with others who have been through the same thing and be able to have a discussion without being shouted down as transphobes. Obviously though, anything that involves women talking amongst themselves about their own experiences is a threat, and therefore must be misrepresented as something sinister. "Grooming" lol.

That's often how it's presented. Reel them in with sympathy and shared experience. Then provide them a framework that gives instant gratification.

It's pretty much how radicalization works.

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

That's often how it's presented. Reel them in with sympathy and shared experience. Then provide them a framework that gives instant gratification.

It's pretty much how radicalization works.

Ain't that the truth