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

jam_mac_jam

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

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.

Exactly. It's very easy to think everyone would know if you have a cervix but not everyone does. The message should be as clear as possible and the one chosen is much better.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Gervais08 wrote: »

Are we seeing the tide turning back to sense??

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

You mean ‘identify as men’? Because, harsh as this sounds, males who identify as women don’t need to be reached with this campaign.

Gervais08

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

You mean ‘identify as men’? Because, harsh as this sounds, males who identify as women don’t need to be reached with this campaign.

Yeah it’s weirdly confusing - my bad!!!

Errashareesh

Lol @ Twitter. I certainly don't wish death on Trump but it would be nice if Twitter had demonstrated the same vigilance towards JK Rowling - and many MANY others.

https://twitter.com/TwitterComms/status/1312167835783708672?s=19

Justin Credible Darts

its like a certain forum where you have one group of people who can call people racists, transphobes, homophobes, and other derogatory names based on zero evidence.

but if you call them stupid, you are being uncivil and that is a ban or a warning, and we cannot have that.

Errashareesh

Inconsistencies all over the place. A recent Cardi B video for a "song" called Wet Ass Pussy (she is vile) where women call themselves whores and put out the message that all you are as a woman is tits, ass and pussy - in exchange for money and jewellery. Kids are fans of her like.

The clueless contingent of feminism - "she's sexually liberated and celebrating her sexy sexuality you prudes!"

But then, some man they don't like, saying he likes looking at sexy women - "omg muh objectificayshun!", "stop sexualising cis women of colour!"

They're hilarious.

AdrianBalboa

Errashareesh wrote: »

Inconsistencies all over the place. A recent Cardi B video for a "song" called Wet Ass Pussy (she is vile) where women call themselves whores and put out the message that all you are as a woman is tits, ass and pussy - in exchange for money and jewellery. Kids are fans of her like.

The clueless contingent of feminism - "she's sexually liberated and celebrating her sexy sexuality you prudes!"

But then, some man they don't like, saying he likes looking at sexy women - "omg muh objectificayshun!", "stop sexualising cis women of colour!"

They're hilarious.

Jesus christ you're such a moan.

Errashareesh

As long as you think so, I know I'm doing something right.

Gervais08

AdrianBalboa wrote: »

Jesus christ you're such a moan.

He’s right to highlight the glaring double standards.

AdrianBalboa

Gervais08 wrote: »

He’s right to highlight the glaring double standards.

By moaning about the WAP song? What are you on about? He strikes me as a middle aged auld moan moaning that about the disco music the young people do be listening to. He’s clearly struggling to adjust to the fact that time is passing him by.

Gervais08

AdrianBalboa wrote: »

By moaning about the WAP song? What are you on about? He strikes me as a middle aged auld moan moaning that about the disco music the young people do be listening to. He’s clearly struggling to adjust to the fact that time is passing him by.

You see that hundred mile expense of nothing ? That’s how far you missed the point.

bodice ripper

The principal issue with WAP is that that young wan thinks she is Lil Kim, and she really isn't.

AdrianBalboa

Gervais08 wrote: »

You see that hundred mile expense of nothing ? That’s how far you missed the point.

What’s the point then? Young people shouldn’t be listening to songs about riding? I’m fairly sure my grandmother was writing letters to Ireland’s Own about that sixty years ago.

Errashareesh

*she

That stuff about it being old people complaining about new stuff - yawn. Seriously poor argument. Objecting to the message to the kids who love her being "women are just tits, ass and hole - and let's call ourselves ho's" is nothing to do with being old.

And "feminists" celebrating it are hilarious. They absolutely cannot think for themselves.

AdrianBalboa

Errashareesh wrote: »

*she

That stuff about it being old people complaining about new stuff - yawn. Seriously poor argument. Objecting to the message to the kids who love her is "women are just tits, ass and hole - and let's call ourselves ho's" is nothing to do with being old.

And "feminists" celebrating it are hilarious. They absolutely cannot think for themselves.

It’s a better argument than you shrieking “think of the children” over and over again.

You strike me as someone very set in your ways, like your idea what progressiveness was when you were young is as far as it should have gotten and anything after that is “too much.”

The world has moved on without you, you need to deal with that on your own instead of taking it out on popstars and transsexuals.

Gatling

AdrianBalboa wrote: »

It’s a better argument than you shrieking “

Let me guess you came for the aldi bargains

Errashareesh

Obviously I didn't just say "think of the children" - I spoke about a depiction of women which is a reasonable concern for any feminist.

But you folks - when you don't have an argument and the inconsistencies of your position are highlighted... always have insults and getting personal to fall back on. It's your go-to in place of discussion.

AdrianBalboa

Errashareesh wrote: »

Obviously I didn't just say "think of the children" - I spoke about a depiction of women which is a reasonable concern for any feminist.

But you folks - when you don't have an argument and the inconsistencies of your position are highlighted... always have insults and getting personal to fall back on. It's your go-to in place of discussion.

You got personal like twenty minutes ago, even though I have never interacted with you before.

Errashareesh wrote: »

As long as you think so, I know I'm doing something right.

Gruffalux

AdrianBalboa wrote: »

It’s a better argument than you shrieking “think of the children” over and over again.

You strike me as someone very set in your ways, like your idea what progressiveness was when you were young is as far as it should have gotten and anything after that is “too much.”

The world has moved on without you, you need to deal with that on your own instead of taking it out on popstars and transsexuals.

Yawn, Adrian. Back to the shriveled-up pearl-clutching spinsters who are not down with the awesome new-fangled songs about very moist fannies line of argument....

AdrianBalboa

Gruffalux wrote: »

Yawn, Adrian. Back to the shriveled-up pearl-clutching spinsters who are not down with the awesome new-fangled songs about very moist fannies line of argument....

Yawn yawn yawn, that’s all you (pl) have to say. Auld ones boring themselves to death because young people listen to music about fannies. “David Bowie, now there was a transvestite you could set hang your hat on!”

Errashareesh

I'm a big fan of Peaches and Princess Superstar, whose lyrics are filthy. But... they don't market themselves to kids, they market themselves to adults. And they are about empowering women, not putting out the message that being a "ho" is the thing to be, and a vapid Kardashian wannabe.

I also love Madonna's work when she was at her most sexually frank. And Prince's.

The stuff about "Rurrrrr you're just old" in relation to that video/song is so disingenuous and free-of-thinking.

AdrianBalboa

Errashareesh wrote: »

I'm a big fan of Peaches and Princess Superstar, whose lyrics are filthy. But... they don't market themselves to kids, they market themselves to adults. And they are about empowering women, not putting out the message that being a "ho" is the thing to be, and a vapid Kardashian wannabe.

I also love Madonna's work when she was at her most sexually frank. And Prince's.

The stuff about "Rurrrrr you're just old" in relation to that video/song is so disingenuous and free-of-thinking.

“Think of the children! The stuff that was around when I was young is fine but not this modern rubbish. Stop misinterpreting what I am saying by inferring my exact sentiments from my posts. Rurrr muh Americanisms.”

I’m done here. Enjoy middle age.

ceadaoin.

Women who disagree fall into 2 distinct categories. If you're not just a plain old hysterical, "radicalised" woman, then you're a Mary whitehouse/maude flanders/"wont someone think of the children"/dried up old spinster type. In other words, a prude and possibly old. Gasp. What could be worse?! Off with you!

Errashareesh

AdrianBalboa wrote: »

You got personal like twenty minutes ago, even though I have never interacted with you before.

That was only in relation to your posts, which come across as being of the selective feminism ilk.

And "Jesus Christ you're such a moan" was your first post here.

Errashareesh

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Women who disagree fall into 2 distinct categories. If you're not just a plain old hysterical women, then you're a Mary whitehouse/maude flanders/"wont someone think of the children"/dried up old spinster type. In other words, a prude and possibly old. Gasp. What could be worse?!

Bad enough from the MGTOW crowd - but then from fellow women too. Women who are oh so tolerant also.

The nu feminism is quite misogynistic at times really.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

AdrianBalboa wrote: »

It’s a better argument than you shrieking “think of the children” over and over again.

You strike me as someone very set in your ways, like your idea what progressiveness was when you were young is as far as it should have gotten and anything after that is “too much.”

The world has moved on without you, you need to deal with that on your own instead of taking it out on popstars and transsexuals.

Ooh, Adrian, you failed the purity test. I believe that's not the word these days.

AdrianBalboa

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Ooh, Adrian, you failed the purity test. I believe that's not the word these days.

You’re the one obsessed with them, not me.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Gruffalux wrote: »

Yawn, Adrian. Back to the shriveled-up pearl-clutching spinsters who are not down with the awesome new-fangled songs about very moist fannies line of argument....

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Women who disagree fall into 2 distinct categories. If you're not just a plain old hysterical, "radicalised" woman, then you're a Mary whitehouse/maude flanders/"wont someone think of the children"/dried up old spinster type. In other words, a prude and possibly old. Gasp. What could be worse?! Off with you!

Let them off. It just highlights the weakness of their arguments. People are already tiring of it. Talking about squandering goodwill.

Gruffalux

AdrianBalboa wrote: »

You’re the one obsessed with them, not me.

We are not, though. I hardly ever think about trans people - shocker!! :eek: Good luck to them. We are obsessed with defending sex-based spaces, rights and protections, with preserving the meaning of language and scientific reality against ideological contortion, and with protesting experimental medicalisation of minors. That sort of boring old stuff.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

AdrianBalboa wrote: »

You’re the one obsessed with them, not me.

You probably shouldn't be claiming anyone else is out of touch when you're using outdated language yourself. Just a thought.

And yes, I am indeed very into protecting women's rights. If that's an obsession, so be it.