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

Gruffalux

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

The only place she lets herself down a bit is correcting him on how she is to be addressed. It comes across a bit petty and she really didn’t need it.

Yes and especially because he then asks her to use Doctor. Still. There is no love lost between them.

suicide_circus

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Well, lots of women don’t confirm to gender stereotypes and they’re still women. Lot’s of men don’t conform to gender stereotypes and they are still men. So, if sex and gender ARE related, where do these people fit in?

Exceptions don't disprove the general rule. I think it's unbelievable hubris to imagine that sex role stereotypes are purely a function of social conditioning. Is a lioness the caregiver of her cubs because the male lions got together and decided that childcare wasnt for them? Is social conditioning a thing? 100% yes but so are things like hormones and chromosomes

Gruffalux

suicide_circus wrote: »

Exceptions don't disprove the general rule. I think it's unbelievable hubris to imagine that sex role stereotypes are purely a function of social conditioning. Is a lioness the caregiver of her cubs because the male lions got together and decided that childcare wasnt for them? Is social conditioning a thing? 100% yes but so are things like hormones and chromosomes

One example I was thinking of recently that makes a significant difference between the lives of women and men is peeing. Bear with me now! It encompasses sexual differences - organs, size and placement thereof, and gendered differences - location of peeing especially. Half my life on outings is spent eyeing up secluded potential pee spots. Whereas my husband can hold it for a day and then piss like a horse. Organ size is important, the bladder is differently sized between the sexes and a woman's is both squashed by other organs and often easily irritated due to shorter urethra admitting pathogens, friction in sex, childbirth etc. And the gender difference is that at a festival or outdoor hike he can wander to the distant hedge, angle away and it is discrete and no one really bats an eyelid. Whereas if I wandered to the same distant hedge, angled away from onlookers and whipped down my knickers people would be a bit wtf. At least early in the evening. And in some places in the world the gender activity difference means women are at high risk of sex assault in the bushes having a pee.
Anyways just a peeful musing on how sex helplessly determines and is connected to some gendered activities. I wish I could pee out my finger.

iguana

suicide_circus wrote: »

Exceptions don't disprove the general rule. I think it's unbelievable hubris to imagine that sex role stereotypes are purely a function of social conditioning. Is a lioness the caregiver of her cubs because the male lions got together and decided that childcare wasnt for them? Is social conditioning a thing? 100% yes but so are things like hormones and chromosomes

The thing is though that humans have evolved past just those instincts because we have an enormous potential for intellect and such a range of choices in front of us. So women who never want children or prefer to work full time instead of raising children full time are far from unusual. Men who decide to be stay at home fathers exist. There are natural aspects of gender but they don’t affect everyone to the same extent.

There are also completely and totally socially constructed aspects. Things like the clothes we wear, the length of our hair, whether we wear make up, paint our nails or remove our body hair are 100% social.

ProfessorPlum

suicide_circus wrote: »

What a monumental knob that man is. I think Posie Parker is the inevitable response to the absolutist, abrasive and aggressive tack taken by the "no debate" TRAs.

Errashareesh wrote: »

I know by looking at him what a piece of sh1t he is. They always have that crazed look don't they?

Had never heard of that delightful gentleman before today, but luckily I found a wonderful introduction penned by Graham Linehan!

https://grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/doctor-do-much-harm

suicide_circus

iguana wrote: »

There are also completely and totally socially constructed aspects. Things like the clothes we wear, the length of our hair, whether we wear make up, paint our nails or remove our body hair are 100% social.

Most animals engage in some kind of display to increase their sexual desirability and humans are no different. The specifics, what clothes, hair, make up are deemed attractive have of course changed over time and much of it is nothing to do with reproduction but rather social animals finding a way to fit in, but they are a manifestation of base evolutionary imperatives.

Gruffalux

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Had never heard of that delightful gentleman before today, but luckily I found a wonderful introduction penned by Graham Linehan!

https://grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/doctor-do-much-harm

What an absolute knob that Doctor is.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

suicide_circus wrote: »

Exceptions don't disprove the general rule. I think it's unbelievable hubris to imagine that sex role stereotypes are purely a function of social conditioning. Is a lioness the caregiver of her cubs because the male lions got together and decided that childcare wasnt for them? Is social conditioning a thing? 100% yes but so are things like hormones and chromosomes

The point is though that the people who react against gender ideology now are being entirely consistent. They didn’t conflate sex and gender then and don’t now. So I don’t know what Kisin was getting at. He seemed to saying there was a contradiction which there isn’t.

iguana

suicide_circus wrote: »

Most animals engage in some kind of display to increase their sexual desirability and humans are no different. The specifics, what clothes, hair, make up are deemed attractive have of course changed over time and much of it is nothing to do with reproduction but rather social animals finding a way to fit in, but they are a manifestation of base evolutionary imperatives.

Which has nothing to do with current fashions whatsoever. Culturally right now make-up is generally seen as for women. Whereas Georgian aristocratics of both sexes wore make-up.

And animal displays for sexual desirability tend to be more common in males. Peacocks’ amazing tales, lions’ striking manes. In humans we tend towards the opposite with women being more likely to dress to attract.

suicide_circus

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

The point is though that the people who react against gender ideology now are being entirely consistent. They didn’t conflate sex and gender then and don’t now. So I don’t know what Kisin was getting at. He seemed to saying there was a contradiction which there isn’t.

I think his idea is that those who disconnected gender and sex paved the way for people of one sex to claim to be the other gender.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

suicide_circus wrote: »

I think his idea is that those who disconnected gender and sex paved the way for people of one sex to claim to be the other gender.

Again, that’s in line with what people who separate sex and gender are arguing for. They had no problem with gender-bending pop stars and still don’t. What they object to is sex being conflated with gender. He is misunderstanding the point of contention. That declaring you are a certain gender doesn’t extinguish sex-based rights and protections. Changing gender is nothing new. I mean really, really nothing new. We’re nearly five decades out from Bowie experimenting with it.

suicide_circus

Indeed, but Bowie never claimed to be an actual literal woman.

Edit: i suppose without gender bending there would be no sex bending, a lame enough point in all conscience.

Errashareesh

Was only recently looking at photos of Bowie impersonating a woman. No denying he looked utterly fabulous.

Gruffalux

Is not one of the odder parts of evolving TRA ideology that gender identity actually now changes sex in real time?
Gender theory is evolving from gender is a social construct - which has undeniably some points of merit, though I believe it is also highly influenced by sex - to gender is a physical construct. Thus - it is proposed - sex via gender is built not by DNA but by thought.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Gruffalux wrote: »

Is not one of the odder parts of evolving TRA ideology that gender identity actually now changes sex in real time?
Gender theory is evolving from gender is a social construct - which has undeniably some points of merit, though I believe it is also highly influenced by sex - to gender is a physical construct. Thus - it is proposed - sex via gender is built not by DNA but by thought.

Well, we live in a world where cancer quack clinics misappropriate epigenetics and physics to claim that people can alter their gene expression with their own thoughts so it’s no surprise that some people believe you can change your sex.

hetuzozaho

I'll never understand the love for Bowie when you read about what he got up to

Gruffalux

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Well, we live in a world where cancer quack clinics misappropriate epigenetics and physics to claim that people can alter their gene expression with their own thoughts so it’s no surprise that some people believe you can change your sex.

Yes. I once hung about in online spaces where all manner of esoteric gobbledegook was promoted. There are also non medical people making massive fortunes claiming such stuff.

Ray Kurzweil is interesting as an off beat far out connection here. He believes in the reprogramming the brain stuff. He is also a dedicated transhumanist. An interesting thing to check out is his AI alter ego Ramona, a sexy chick in a laced up top talking about how you can be who you wanna be...Not quite the singularity he is famous for theorising, more of a sideline.
Kurzweil is a mainstream person in spite of his unusual ideas. He works for google and has won some of the highest science and tech awards in the US.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

hetuzozaho wrote: »

I'll never understand the love for Bowie when you read about what he got up to

It was known about in his lifetime but didn’t seem to fully pierce the public consciousness. Me Too came around 22 months after his death. Had he still been alive, I’m not sure he’d have escaped unscathed.

Gatling

Gender bending has been since time began ,

But this nonsense of men who self identify as women and people attacking anyone that doesn't agree that a man who self identifies as a woman is a real women

Slapping on a dress as a man doesn't make you a woman just as a woman slapping on a suit doesn't make you a man people have always known this ,

But people women should not be getting attacked or lose their jobs for saying men are now women this is scientific fact and biological fact

Justin Credible Darts

how long til this really happens

Gervais08

Justin Credible Darts wrote: »

how long til this really happens

Oh God I laughed so much harder at that than I should have!!!

The new crowd annoy the f**k out of me - there was some “non binary” sort who complained he couldn’t lose his driving license as he would be “verbally assaulted” on public transport for wearing make up.

His rationale was “these old people have never seen anyone like me”. Nah lad we never saw Bowie, Marc Bolan, The Sweet, Boy George, Steve Strange and the many and varied colourful and glorious others who expressed themselves beautifully when we were younger.

The difference is they entertained, didn’t take themselves seriously and were much loved.

Bobtheman

Deleted User wrote: »

As a committed member of the LGBT community, I find what is happening re: gender/sex to be nothing short of appalling.

You cannot change biological sex. There is no standard for "feeling like a woman". I am a man, and I have no idea what "feeling like a man" is, so how can biologically-born women "feel" this?

Second, you cannot be born into stereotypes. Long hair, make-up, attraction to pink etc., are all social constructions. You cannot be born into a social construction.

Third, biological sex is XX and XY. There are some aberrations, such as Kleinfelters, XXY etc., but these are aberrations. The claim here is that biological men or women can switch chromosomal sex. It is not possible.

Fourth, this is the only trans- category that is taken seriously by society. For example - there are some people who are able-bodied, but believe they were "born disabled". There are some in society now arguing that we should have the State pay for these people to become disabled to meet their "mental image". This is the equivalent of saying to an anorexic person, "you are fine the way you are, it has nothing to do with mental dysphoria".

There are many trans- men/women who are equally as appalled by what is going on, especially regarding the gender identity question.

I, as a member of the LGBT community, get completely sidelined. When people speak to me privately about this issue, they agree with me. But they dare not say it in public.

An extremist identity politics minority have taken over. They are vocal and dangerous and are destroying societal norms as we know them to be.

What you are saying makes sense. I don't think trans women or men should take part in activities reserved for biological men or women. That includes toilets.sports.
Get on with your lives- your jobs. You should not be discriminated against but don't push fhe boat In ludicrous directions that simply smacks of look at me- Look at me

Errashareesh

They always resort to that "old" stuff (they've nothing else) - thought they were embracing of all?

The glam rock and new romantic guys and androgynous punks and goths would wipe the floor with those little runts - they were tough as nails. Repeatedly got the living sh1t kicked out of them yet soldiered on. They were awesome.

And of course so, so many gay dudes. Quentin Crisp - what a man.

Gervais08

Errashareesh wrote: »

They always resort to that "old" stuff (they've nothing else) - thought they were embracing of all?

The glam rock and new romantic guys and androgynous punks and goths would wipe the floor with those little runts - they were tough as nails. Repeatedly got the living sh1t kicked out of them yet soldiered on. They were awesome.

And of course so, so many gay dudes. Quentin Crisp - what a man.

Oh one of the greats!!!

Gruffalux

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/d656978e-0592-11eb-910e-49261a8ea333?shareToken=a8c0af6e66d8d7868700830194f74bcb

The National Women's Council of Ireland are due to meet with HSE about their screening campaign which targetted "anyone with a cervix" . The NWCI want the word woman reinstated. Women, girls and anyone with a cervix. As was recommended on boards!

hetuzozaho

Gruffalux wrote: »

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/d656978e-0592-11eb-910e-49261a8ea333?shareToken=a8c0af6e66d8d7868700830194f74bcb

The National Women's Council of Ireland are due to meet with HSE about their screening campaign which targetted "anyone with a cervix" . The NWCI want the word woman reinstated. Women, girls and anyone with a cervix. As was recommended on boards!

Nice! Sounds like something both sides can agree on!

Gruffalux

hetuzozaho wrote: »

Nice! Sounds like something both sides can agree on!

Yes. The obliteration of the word felt like a very weird thing to do. Hopefully things will start to be more sensible in general.

hetuzozaho

Gruffalux wrote: »

Yes. The obliteration of the word felt like a very weird thing to do. Hopefully things will start to be more sensible in general.

Although I now in relation to this thread the NWCI took a side. But let's not get into that. Good news!

Gervais08

hetuzozaho wrote: »

Although I now in relation to this thread the NWCI took a side. But let's not get into that. Good news!

Are we seeing the tide turning back to sense??

What’s wrong with “women (including those who identify as women” ??

ProfessorPlum

Gervais08 wrote: »

Are we seeing the tide turning back to sense??

What’s wrong with “women (including those who identify as women” ??

For cervical screening, it would have to be “women (including those who identify as men)......so I don’t think that would be acceptable!

“Women and anyone with a cervix” should do.

Ironically, in their bid to be inclusive, they excluded those that are least likely to know they needed screening. I’m willing to bet that every trans man knows full well they have a cervix, and as they are very likely to have engaged with health services, they are likely to have been reminded that as transmen they still need to engage in female health screening.
Marginalised women, women who’s first language is not English, immigrants from countries who don’t have a screening program, women who don’t engage directly with health services are far less likey to realise they have a cervix and need to be screened.