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

excludedbin

TomTomTim wrote: »

Go on, who are the right wing writers at Quillette? From my experience, most of writers there are old school liberals, the types that were the majority before the lunatics took over. At least you're only calling them right wing, I've seen them being called far right on here before.

Liberalism is only used as a synonym for 'left wing' in the US. On this side of the Atlantic, most self-described liberals would be right wing. So yes, if they are indeed liberals, that would make them right wing.

Another own-goal, it'd seem...

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

Because you should read a wide range of sources and opinions on things? Hear different ideas and judge for yourself.

You don't need to hear the opinions of racists or ideologues spouting off about phrenology to know it's a load of discredited nonsense. At best you're wasting your time, at worst you're being sucked in because it plays to your prejudices or "it's just common sense". There is literally nothing to be gained from listening to conspiracy theorists and ideologues outside of learning how to recognise them and why their ideas are discredited.

What you should do is listen to experts in their fields. Especially when they contradict the ideologues who think they know better. Even when they contradict what you consider 'common sense'. Because it's rarely either.

Did you read it yourself or not interested in what the person's opinion is as it differs to yours?

Isn't that what all of you have been doing for months on end in this thread? :pac:

suicide_circus

excludedbin wrote: »

.So yes, if they are indeed liberals, that would make them right wing.

Oh Noooo! Not right wing!!!! HELP SOMEBODY HELP ME!!!!

Tired Gardener

https://mobile.twitter.com/Aja02537920/status/1313851475748163590

The defence have anecdotal data and evidence... which they argued their defence with.

Anecdotal data... the most robust data and evidence of them all!

TomTomTim

excludedbin wrote: »

Liberalism is only used as a synonym for 'left wing' in the US. On this side of the Atlantic, most self-described liberals would be right wing. So yes, if they are indeed liberals, that would make them right wing.

Another own-goal, it'd seem...

Nope.

You're going to have to start defining terms if you want to play this game, because all you're doing now is speaking generally, without explanation of definitions. I said "old school liberal" for a reason, I never said anything about the "left wing". You're the one bringing Americanism into this, not me. Quillette is ran by a New Zealander by the way, who most certainly wouldn't describe herself as right wing, but I'm sure you know better than her about her own ideology.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

excludedbin wrote: »

What you should do is listen to experts in their fields. Especially when they contradict the ideologues who think they know better. Even when they contradict what you consider 'common sense'. Because it's rarely either.

Oh, I do. The ones who do physiological research on the irreversible physical advantages conferred by male puberty, the ones who point out that arresting puberty when we know so little about the long-term side effects of doing so is deeply unethical, the criminologists who have collected data on male pattern violence and so on and so forth. As you are pontificating to others about listening to the experts, I trust you are well-versed in all of the above too?

andekwarhola

excludedbin wrote: »

Liberalism is only used as a synonym for 'left wing' in the US. On this side of the Atlantic, most self-described liberals would be right wing. So yes, if they are indeed liberals, that would make them right wing.

I dunno. I would describe myself as a socially conscious liberal and I'd fall pretty much squarely left on most issues.

I thought that article was thought provoking, don't care where it was published. I'm open minded enough to judge opinion on its own merit and not hang it immediately by source.

I'm also from a perhaps more anachronistic time where my experience of life directly informs and challenges my political opinions, not where my experience of life and opinions has to kowtow to a self-held political stance.

jam_mac_jam

excludedbin wrote: »

Liberalism is only used as a synonym for 'left wing' in the US. On this side of the Atlantic, most self-described liberals would be right wing. So yes, if they are indeed liberals, that would make them right wing.

Another own-goal, it'd seem...


You don't need to hear the opinions of racists or ideologues spouting off about phrenology to know it's a load of discredited nonsense. At best you're wasting your time, at worst you're being sucked in because it plays to your prejudices or "it's just common sense". There is literally nothing to be gained from listening to conspiracy theorists and ideologues outside of learning how to recognise them and why their ideas are discredited.

What you should do is listen to experts in their fields. Especially when they contradict the ideologues who think they know better. Even when they contradict what you consider 'common sense'. Because it's rarely either.


Isn't that what all of you have been doing for months on end in this thread? :pac:

I agree with you. There is no point in listening to people at extremes of the debate. The horrible medical situation of the man probably influenced his opinion. However I don't think it puts him in the same bracket as phenology scientists. He raises some interesting points that I have heard raised before.

The article is mainly questioning children transitioning. I think he has interesting points about the need for medical regulation.

I do try and listen to both sides and am on the fence on some of the issues surrounding this.

Sir Oxman

Detransitioners are the theorist cult's kryptonite.
Hence, attack/deflect.

Sir Oxman

TomTomTim wrote: »

Nope.

You're going to have to start defining terms if you want to play this game, because all you're doing now is speaking generally, without explanation of definitions. I said "old school liberal" for a reason, I never said anything about the "left wing". You're the one bringing Americanism into this, not me.

^^This

jam_mac_jam

Sir Oxman wrote: »

Detransitioners are the theorist cult's kryptonite.
Hence, attack/deflect.

Maybe I am biased and I am but I think the article is balanced. There are huge ethical issues with hormone treatments and transitioning for teenagers. I think his main point that it is serious, it's a huge step so all implications should be considered.

I am not really seeing anything that he said as all that radical. The hormone treatments are off label for those drugs and are experimental.

From what I have read about it, it seems to be a much more dangerous situation in the US. Where are cases of girls getting mastectomies without proper therapy or after self diagnosis. Where if you have a multidisciplinary approach there is less risk.

In the Uk there with the NHS there is likely to be a more consistent approach. But there have been court cases there as well

It's a scary situation because if you go ahead with a teenager taking a strong hormone and having a risk medically but if you don't you are risking that person's mental health. It's difficult but we should consider all the implications of making such a serious decision.

I don't see how that is extreme.

Gruffalux

Heh. I honestly did not know Quillette was considered right wing. Over time I have probably read 4 articles there, because I saw a link to them and it was something that interested me. Never noticed anything weird about it. I did see some linked tweets from Claire Lehmann over the lockdown and it was when I learned what thirst trap means. She was doing that silly thing of posting sultry selfies and I have to say I always find that really lame. Ask your friend to give you a compliment for gods sake, if you are desperate, dont be gagging for anonymous people to be drooling all over ya! Anyway I saw that article because I follow Scott Newgent on Twitter and thought hmmm what does Scott have to say here. And it was very strong, what they wrote.

I read pretty much anywhere to be honest. If something resonates with me I dont care what platform it is on or even who wrote it. There is so much pre crime censorship happening on all platforms and media re the written word these days that the truth is a very hard thing to unearth anymore.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Sir Oxman wrote: »

Detransitioners are the theorist cult's kryptonite.
Hence, attack/deflect.

And for people that plead compassion, their lack of compassion for people who regret transition is staggering. They are an inconvenience.

Invidious

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

I am not really seeing anything that he said as all that radical.

Unfortunately, anyone who is not fully on-board with the trans activists' party line will likely be dismissed as a right-wing transphobe or similar.

But there's nothing "right-wing" about questioning the medical ethics of removing a healthy 14-year-old girl's breasts, or giving puberty-blockers to an adolescent boy. Given the irreversible and lifelong effects of these interventions, the issues involved deserve far more serious consideration than they have received to date.

Labeling everyone who disagrees with them "right-wing" is the default lazy position of those who can't actually justify what they believe in — i.e., that an adolescent child experiencing some (likely temporary) confusion about his or her gender identity should be diagnosed as trans, and should undergo serious hormonal and surgical alterations, the long-term implications of which are largely unstudied.

Thousands of children are having their lives destroyed because of an ideology that few dare question. It's horrific.

statesaver

Might be of interest here although some posters might view him as right wing or whatever ...

Live now

"Sex is NOT a Spectrum" - Colin Wright

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncF-ZbfVR2w


Evolutionary biologist and Managing Editor of Quillette Colin Wright joins us. Triggernometry.

One eyed Jack

statesaver wrote: »

Might be of interest here although some posters might view him as right wing or whatever ...

Live now

"Sex is NOT a Spectrum" - Colin Wright

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncF-ZbfVR2w


Evolutionary biologist and Managing Editor of Quillette Colin Wright joins us. Triggernometry.

Bit of a stretch on their part tbh. He would more accurately be regarded as an academic who studied evolutionary biology. The distinction helps in understanding his opinions and how they were formed as a consequence of his own perception and experiences of academia. It then makes sense that he would find his natural home amongst the “Quilette set”, the “intelligentsia” who have been ousted from their positions and are now fairly salty about it -


In the closing lines of The New Evolution Deniers, I wrote that academia was “no longer a refuge for outspoken, free-thinking intellectuals,” and that “one must now choose between living a zipper-lipped life as an academic scientist, or living a life as a fulfilled intellectual.” My own experience, reinforced by the steady flow of emails I receive from concerned academics, would suggest that the situation has only gotten worse.

What you have read here is the story of just one ex-academic. But it should concern everyone that the entire academy is now being held hostage to a vocal minority that insists we should inhabit a fantasy intellectual milieu that is little more than an ideologically deflected play on Christian myths.


Think Cancel Culture Doesn’t Exist? My Own ‘Lived Experience’ Says Otherwise


It’s not unusual then that they would turn up as an “expert” on Triggernometry, a channel which has hosted other “experts” such as Posie Parker, Rose of Dawn and India Willoughby on this particular topic. To be fair to them, the hosts acknowledge that they aren’t the experts, but when they claim that they ask the experts? Well, there’s a considerable difference in whom they would consider an expert on a topic and whom I might consider an expert on a particular topic.

Speaking of experts on a particular topic, while I was at it I took the liberty of reading some more of Scott Newgents musings on this particular topic, and pretty soon it becomes evident that their opinions too have been formed of their negative experiences, as opposed to what I would consider to be a more rational and critical approach to the whole topic. It becomes evident early on that they have a particular beef against the pharmaceutical industry, and the medical community. A view which would be perfectly reasonable given their experiences of both have been unfortunately and overwhelmingly negative -


Trans Adults Are Being Silenced & We Are Trying To Save Your Kids!


I don’t think it’s the children need saving.

suicide_circus

statesaver wrote: »

Might be of interest here although some posters might view him as right wing or whatever ...

Live now

"Sex is NOT a Spectrum" - Colin Wright

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncF-ZbfVR2w


Evolutionary biologist and Managing Editor of Quillette Colin Wright joins us. Triggernometry.

Well worth a watch

One eyed Jack

suicide_circus wrote: »

Well worth a watch

It’s only a matter of time before Scott Newgent makes an appearance on the channel. They’ve already given an interview with Graham Linehan -


Interview with Scott Newgent


And although I understand they mean it as a term of endearment or affection, the term ‘baby homosexuals’ referring to children, is right up there with the shakedown artist formerly known as Rachel McKinnon’s invitation to children to “find their glitter family” -


Our baby homosexuals, as I call them, our precious butch girls and femme boys are being sucked in, and they are hearing that something is wrong with them. There is nothing wrong with a butch lesbian; in fact, they are like Gods in the gay community, I mean women fall at their feet, nothing sexier than a confident, beautiful butch woman. Femme boys are cherished in the community as well, but outside the community, these two types of homosexuals are not revered, and growing up, they are isolated and left to feel something is wrong with them.

We need to give these baby butch girls and femme boys time to experience the gay community and to understand how much they are loved. People on the outside of the community need to tell these baby homosexuals that they are needed and loved as well. Until we do this, the trans agenda is going to suck a ton of these baby homosexuals into their revenue channel.

You see, this is about bigotry, but not the way it is played out in the media. The prejudice is what these baby homosexuals are feeling. Very few people are stereotypical males or females, and we have to stop telling our children than men and women come only one way. The majority of people don’t fit, and that’s ok, that’s life, and that’s the way the world is. We HAVE to tell our baby homosexuals that WE LOVE YOU AND NEED YOU!

So let me be the first;

"To all the baby butch girls and fem boys, I love you, and I need you, we all do; just the way you are, I can't wait to see all the wonderful things you accomplish with your unique lives."


That sort of sentiment doesn’t go down well on Triggernometry.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

They’ve already given an interview with Graham Linehan? OMG! The dastards!

One eyed Jack

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

They’ve already given an interview to Graham Linehan? OMG! The dastards!

‘Useful idiot’ is probably a better term, as I don’t imagine Scott Newgent intends any harm with their over-wrought rhetoric. Undoubtedly there is a place for them on the speaker’s circuit, whether it’s Triggernometry or Good Morning Britain, etc, or indeed an appearance at the Women’s Labour Party Conference à la Debbie Hayton (too eccentric for a channel like Triggernometry that one, comes off like the nutty professor).

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Transgender rights activists are the experts in overwrought rhetoric.

If they are now being counteracted with same, I have little sympathy.

One eyed Jack

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Transgender rights activists are the experts in overwrought rhetoric.

If they are now being counteracted with same, I have little sympathy.

On the contrary really, they’re using exactly the same rhetoric of social justice that feminists have used for decades in their aims of political and social equality.

Second wave feminists in the 70’s latched onto the ideas of John Money who originally theorised the idea of separating sex and gender in his attempt to make an argument for a biological basis for gender as distinct from sex. I actually do have some sympathy for those feminists that their ideas which originated in transgender ideology are now coming back to bite them.

At the same time I have little sympathy for feminists generally speaking as they imagine themselves to represent all women, which they very clearly do not.

That being said, I don’t imagine anyone cares much either way for our sympathies, except those people who use overwrought rhetoric to portray themselves as a victim, when in reality it is quite the opposite. JK is a good example of her claims of being silenced when she is without doubt one of the most popular authors of modern times in the English speaking world.

At one time portraying herself “as poor as it is possible to be in modern Britain, without being homeless”, the woman really hasn’t a clue what it is to be a woman living in poverty in modern Britain, y’know, that society you regard as being well ahead of Ireland in terms of women’s rights and women’s welfare -


Benefit cap: single mothers make up 85% of those affected, data shows


That’s not overwrought rhetoric either, they had the data projections in 2011 and 2015 to show the effects of the cuts and who would be most affected, and pressed ahead anyway -


Single mothers hardest hit by cuts - Fawcett Society

Benefit cuts to hit huge number of children, government figures show


The idea of referring to people who menstruate is enough to get JK overwrought about the “erasure of women”, which I suppose if one has such a myopic view of reality that they view the world from between their bowels, it stands to reason they would miss the bigger picture and think it’s ok to be a dick. It’s all they know.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

I actually do have some sympathy for those feminists that their ideas which originated in transgender ideology are now coming back to bite them.

As I’ve said to Suicide Circus, second wave feminists are being entirely consistent. They railed against gender stereotypes types and are still doing so.

Whereas, transgender rights activists are actually deeply wedded to gender stereotypes. This idea that this has come back to bite second wave feminists therefore makes little sense. With TRAs who support self-declaration, being a woman is merely a feeling and “acting” like a woman, whatever that means. To second wave feminists, women are women based on their biology, no matter whether they are feminine or not. How they act is separate from their biology and many women don’t conform to gender stereotypes in sometimes extreme ways or more subtle. But they are still women.

Liberal feminists have embraced transgender women as real women but they were not the ones pointing our that being a woman has often got little to do with behaviour.

Basically, it’s specious reasoning to say that this is coming back to bite second wave feminists. It's superficially credible but doesn’t stand up to much scrutiny. It makes a neat sound bite but that’s about it.

The idea of referring to people who menstruate is enough to get JK overwrought about the “erasure of women”, which I suppose if one has such a myopic view of reality that they view the world from between their bowels, it stands to reason they would miss the bigger picture and think it’s ok to be a dick. It’s all they know

Sure thing, bepenised person.

Oh, and I can’t speak for any other female contributors to this thread but I don’t think I’m speaking for all women at all. I’m very well aware that many women disagree with me but I’m not bothered about being popular.

One eyed Jack

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

As I’ve said to Suicide Circus, second wave feminists are being entirely consistent. They railed against gender stereotypes types and are still doing so.

Whereas, transgender rights activists are actually deeply wedded to gender stereotypes. This idea that this has come back to bite second wave feminists therefore makes little sense. With TRAs who support self-declaration, being a woman is merely a feeling and “acting” like a woman, whatever that means. To second wave feminists, women are women based on their biology, no matter whether they are feminine or not. How they act is separate from their biology and many women don’t conform to gender stereotypes in sometimes extreme ways or more subtle. But they are still women.

Liberal feminists have embraced transgender women as real women but they were not the ones pointing our that being a woman has often got little to do with behaviour.

Basically, it’s specious reasoning to say that this is coming back to bite second wave feminists. It's superficially credible but doesn’t stand up to much scrutiny. It makes a neat sound bite but that’s about it.

Even in the above paragraphs alone, you’re doing exactly what I had suggested second wave feminists had done by viewing gender as distinct from sex. First wave feminists simply referred to sex and sex roles, the idea of gender or gender roles or gender stereotypes was a nothing to them, something which as I said was latched onto later by feminists in the 70’s. This is a good article on the history and politics of the interplay between feminist and transgender ideologies (it’s quite a long read, but it covers quite a bit) -


Feminist Perspectives on Trans Issues


That’s why I said that TRA’s and modern feminists are using the same language of social justice (note I said nothing about biology) and that’s why they incorporate people who are transgender into their framework of oppression. It started with second wave feminists separating gender from sex, talking about gender roles and gender stereotypes as opposed to first wave feminists whose focus was based entirely upon their oppression as a result of their sex. They didn’t even have to clarify that they were referring to biology, it was a given long before the idea of gender and gender roles and gender stereotypes. That’s why John Money tried to argue that anyone who would disagree with him were “anti-feminist” - it sowed the seeds of second wave feminism.

Second wave feminists are being entirely consistent, and that’s why the same language that they used is being used by TRA’s - because overwrought rhetoric loaded specifically with the purposes of portraying themselves as victims, works!

Sure thing, bepenised person.

Oh, and I can’t speak for any other female contributors to this thread but I don’t think I’m speaking for all women at all. I’m very well aware that many women disagree with me but I’m not bothered about being popular.

You’d have an incontrovertible argument if men actually did think with their penis, but contrary to popular belief...

I wasn’t referring to you at all either btw, I thought it was pretty clear I was referring to JK Rowling who has a rather myopic view of the world as she appears to have her head firmly lodged up her own rectum*. I know you’re not concerned with being popular, but it would be silly to imagine that JK isn’t concerned with being popular or being the centre of attention among her peers, her peers of course being the “Quilette set” I referred to earlier, academics and self-perceived intellectuals who imagine themselves to be enlightened individuals. It’s precisely why she fawned over Stephen King when she thought he thought like her, and then retracted her fawning tweet when she realised he didn’t.


*Thats a metaphor btw, in case you were unable to see it for what it is.

Gervais08

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Even in the above paragraphs alone, you’re doing exactly what I had suggested second wave feminists had done by viewing gender as distinct from sex. First wave feminists simply referred to sex and sex roles, the idea of gender or gender roles or gender stereotypes was a nothing to them, something which as I said was latched onto later by feminists in the 70’s. This is a good article on the history and politics of the interplay between feminist and transgender ideologies (it’s quite a long read, but it covers quite a bit) -


Feminist Perspectives on Trans Issues


That’s why I said that TRA’s and modern feminists are using the same language of social justice (note I said nothing about biology) and that’s why they incorporate people who are transgender into their framework of oppression. It started with second wave feminists separating gender from sex, talking about gender roles and gender stereotypes as opposed to first wave feminists whose focus was based entirely upon their oppression as a result of their sex. They didn’t even have to clarify that they were referring to biology, it was a given long before the idea of gender and gender roles and gender stereotypes. That’s why John Money tried to argue that anyone who would disagree with him were “anti-feminist” - it sowed the seeds of second wave feminism.

Second wave feminists are being entirely consistent, and that’s why the same language that they used is being used by TRA’s - because overwrought rhetoric loaded specifically with the purposes of portraying themselves as victims, works!





You’d have an incontrovertible argument if men actually did think with their penis, but contrary to popular belief...

I wasn’t referring to you at all either btw, I thought it was pretty clear I was referring to JK Rowling who has a rather myopic view of the world as she appears to have her head firmly lodged up her own rectum*. I know you’re not concerned with being popular, but it would be silly to imagine that JK isn’t concerned with being popular or being the centre of attention among her peers, her peers of course being the “Quilette set” I referred to earlier, academics and self-perceived intellectuals who imagine themselves to be enlightened individuals. It’s precisely why she fawned over Stephen King when she thought he thought like her, and then retracted her fawning tweet when she realised he didn’t.


*Thats a metaphor btw, in case you were unable to see it for what it is.

Mansplaining 101 right there ffs. Very patronising that last line.

ODB is spot on. 100%. How that can be argued with is baffling!!!

The very thought of “I preferred playing with dolls - I must be a woman”; “I hated wearing the pink dresses my mother put out for me - I’m a man really”.

Utter garbage and the feminists of the time were absolutely correct to rail against it. Yet all you see now are “stunning and brave transwomen” - dressed like how Scorsese would portray a 70s hooker; it’s beyond a joke.

The Starbucks ad with “James”. That person is a beautiful woman with short hair - so was Audrey f***ing Hepburn!

There are a tiny number of people who latch on to the idea that gender is somehow a spectrum. And they are dragging perfectly normal people into surgery, medication, anxiety and therapy when all they need is a strong support system to tell them “you’re fine as you are, love who and what you want”.

But as the title of this thread notes - JKR tried exactly that and they pounced.

Gruffalux

What I find interesting over the last couple of pages is Scott Newgent being singled out for purposeful repeated condescension. Scott is not "rational or critical", they use "overwrought" rhethoric, an attempt is made to create equivalence between the term of endearment baby homosexuals and the blatant online grooming of vulnerable children who were being asked to directly PM that cycling bollox, Scott is also portrayed as traumatised, helplessly swayed by their bad experiences. Scott is portrayed in the long established condescending mode as a neurotic woman, in other words. And finally dismissed as a "useful idiot" who will make token appearances on the banal speaker's circuit.

Gervais08

Gruffalux wrote: »

What I find interesting over the last couple of pages is Scott Newgent being singled out for purposeful repeated condescension. Scott is not "rational or critical", they use "overwrought" rhethoric, an attempt is made to create equivalence between the term of endearment baby homosexuals and the blatant online grooming of vulnerable children who were being asked to directly PM that cycling bollox, Scott is also portrayed as traumatised, helplessly swayed by their bad experiences. Scott is portrayed in the long established condescending mode as a neurotic woman, in other words. And finally dismissed as a "useful idiot" who will make token appearances on the banal speaker's circuit.

When they have no argument they shoot the messenger.

The trans “movement” is deep rooted in the worst kinds of misogyny - we want to be you but better; we want you not to feel safe in your spaces; you will have sex with us even if you are a gay woman - it’s nauseating at this point.

One eyed Jack

Gervais08 wrote: »

Mansplaining 101 right there ffs. Very patronising that last line.

ODB is spot on. 100%. How that can be argued with is baffling!!!

The argument had nothing to do with the fact that ODB is a woman or that I’m a man. Feminism is by definition a political and social ideology in the same way as transgenderism is both a political and social ideology. I provided evidence for the history of the relationship between the two political and social ideologies, yet somehow I’m wrong because and ODB is correct in spite of evidence which suggests otherwise. It’s very easy to argue that someone is mistaken when the evidence is there to contradict their assertions.

Gervais08 wrote: »

The very thought of “I preferred playing with dolls - I must be a woman”; “I hated wearing the pink dresses my mother put out for me - I’m a man really”.

Utter garbage and the feminists of the time were absolutely correct to rail against it. Yet all you see now are “stunning and brave transwomen” - dressed like how Scorsese would portray a 70s hooker; it’s beyond a joke.

The Starbucks ad with “James”. That person is a beautiful woman with short hair - so was Audrey f***ing Hepburn!

There are a tiny number of people who latch on to the idea that gender is somehow a spectrum. And they are dragging perfectly normal people into surgery, medication, anxiety and therapy when all they need is a strong support system to tell them “you’re fine as you are, love who and what you want”.

But as the title of this thread notes - JKR tried exactly that and they pounced.

Feminists of the time who did rally against it were very few and far between. Essentially it could be seen as history repeating itself where we are now when men are applauded for their feminism, based upon the idea of rallying against ‘gender stereotypes’, and feminists constantly pushing the narrative that men too are victims of ‘toxic masculinity’ and ‘male violence’. It rather appears as though “breaking down gender stereotypes” refers to emasculating boys and men. I’m not all that surprised by the outcomes of that particular political philosophy.

What JK tried was simply to provoke people in order to further her political ideology of free speech. I’m all for the idea of freedom of speech, but there was never any such right as the freedom to be obnoxious. She was pounced on because she set herself up for it, knowing full well what she was doing. Allowances that one might make for a child who is not fully aware of the consequences of their behaviour do not apply to a grown woman whom one would reasonably expect should know better - the same rights and responsibilities which apply to everyone else in society equally apply to her.

Gruffalux wrote: »

What I find interesting over the last couple of pages is Scott Newgent being singled out for purposeful repeated condescension. Scott is not "rational or critical", they use "overwrought" rhethoric, an attempt is made to create equivalence between the term of endearment baby homosexuals and the blatant online grooming of vulnerable children who were being asked to directly PM that cycling bollox, Scott is also portrayed as traumatised, helplessly swayed by their bad experiences. Scott is portrayed in the long established condescending mode as a neurotic woman, in other words. And finally dismissed as a "useful idiot" who will make token appearances on the banal speaker's circuit.

I’m being kind to Scott, that’s why I advised against rhetoric such as referring to children as ‘baby homosexuals’. I understand they mean it as a term of endearment, it’s just not a term I personally found the least bit endearing, but I understand why they might. I don’t think it’s any worse than suggesting there is a correlation between autism and transgenderism, or sexually inappropriate behaviour and transgenderism, or “ROGD” and transgenderism, or abuse in childhood and transgenderism, take your pick of the usual stereotypes which have been applied throughout this thread to individuals who are transgender.

Gervais08 wrote: »

When they have no argument they shoot the messenger.

The trans “movement” is deep rooted in the worst kinds of misogyny - we want to be you but better; we want you not to feel safe in your spaces; you will have sex with us even if you are a gay woman - it’s nauseating at this point.

I have no interest in turning anyone into a martyr, they’re perfectly capable of managing that much for themselves already, and again JK is a good example of same. People who are transgender weren’t the first to come up with the idea of turning sex into a political power play either. Again it was feminists who came up with the idea of “political lesbianism” as a way of “freeing themselves from patriarchal oppression”. There are some women who have even managed to make a religion out of the idea. They seem like a fun bunch -


pussy church of modern witchcraft – Sisterhood is Sacred

Gervais08

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The argument had nothing to do with the fact that ODB is a woman or that I’m a man. Feminism is by definition a political and social ideology in the same way as transgenderism is both a political and social ideology. I provided evidence for the history of the relationship between the two political and social ideologies, yet somehow I’m wrong because and ODB is correct in spite of evidence which suggests otherwise. It’s very easy to argue that someone is mistaken when the evidence is there to contradict their assertions.





Feminists of the time who did rally against it were very few and far between. Essentially it could be seen as history repeating itself where we are now when men are applauded for their feminism, based upon the idea of rallying against ‘gender stereotypes’, and feminists constantly pushing the narrative that men too are victims of ‘toxic masculinity’ and ‘male violence’. It rather appears as though “breaking down gender stereotypes” refers to emasculating boys and men. I’m not all that surprised by the outcomes of that particular political philosophy.

What JK tried was simply to provoke people in order to further her political ideology of free speech. I’m all for the idea of freedom of speech, but there was never any such right as the freedom to be obnoxious. She was pounced on because she set herself up for it, knowing full well what she was doing. Allowances that one might make for a child who is not fully aware of the consequences of their behaviour do not apply to a grown woman whom one would reasonably expect should know better - the same rights and responsibilities which apply to everyone else in society equally apply to her.





I’m being kind to Scott, that’s why I advised against rhetoric such as referring to children as ‘baby homosexuals’. I understand they mean it as a term of endearment, it’s just not a term I personally found the least bit endearing, but I understand why they might. I don’t think it’s any worse than suggesting there is a correlation between autism and transgenderism, or sexually inappropriate behaviour and transgenderism, or “ROGD” and transgenderism, or abuse in childhood and transgenderism, take your pick of the usual stereotypes which have been applied throughout this thread to individuals who are transgender.





I have no interest in turning anyone into a martyr, they’re perfectly capable of managing that much for themselves already, and again JK is a good example of same. People who are transgender weren’t the first to come up with the idea of turning sex into a political power play either. Again it was feminists who came up with the idea of “political lesbianism” as a way of “freeing themselves from patriarchal oppression”. There are some women who have even managed to make a religion out of the idea. They seem like a fun bunch -


pussy church of modern witchcraft – Sisterhood is Sacred

This posts and others add nothing to debate other than scolding women, lengthy rants telling everyone how little you believe we understand so I’m out.

I haven’t been told how to think as a woman since I had a bigoted Psych lecturer at 17 and I didn’t listen to him then and I’m not doing it three decades plus on.

LLMMLL

Gervais08 wrote: »

Yet all you see now are “stunning and brave transwomen” - dressed like how Scorsese would portray a 70s hooker; it’s beyond a joke.

Very telling that this is how you see trans people. Have you ever met a trans person?

It's incredibly clear that the TERF ideology comes from these stereotypes and the casual disgust that they feel for trans people.

RWCNT

Gervais08 wrote: »

Utter garbage and the feminists of the time were absolutely correct to rail against it. Yet all you see now are “stunning and brave transwomen” - dressed like how Scorsese would portray a 70s hooker; it’s beyond a joke.

"All you see now"? How many trans women do you come across in your day to day life? Where are you seeing them exactly?

I live in a University city and I see masses of young women dolled up to the nines all over the place on a regular basis. That's their prerogative, they're adults and can dress how they like - wouldn't you agree? I'd never dream to make such a daft generalisation that "all i see" are people dressed up in such and such a way, or that there's something wrong with it.

Trans people I've known personally present themselves in as many different ways as anyone else I know.