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

One eyed Jack

ceadaoin. wrote: »

In my experience, women do talk about menstruation amongst themselves. Not sure where you're getting the idea from that we dont.

I didn’t say women don’t talk about it amongst themselves, the other poster insinuated that much. My point was that women don’t talk about it to other people not out of shame in their bodies or embarrassment, but simply because it’s generally considered an inappropriate topic for general conversation.

To bring it back somewhat to the topic of this thread, I suppose if anyone wants to continue talking about it they can hit Jessica Yanniv up on social media, they’re obsessed.

But for JK Rowling to use the organisations campaign to make her point, she actually undermined that whole social movement Gruffalox and the other poster are talking about which was to inform the public in underdeveloped countries about what is commonly becoming known in the UK and Ireland as “period poverty”. It’s as though she hadn’t even taken the time to read the article before attempting to undermine their work -


Opinion: Creating a more equal post-COVID-19 world for people who menstruate


It’s worth a read for the wider point they’re making at least, which is the experiences of people who do not enjoy the comforts of access to first world standards with regards to their hygiene and health. It’s not the first time I’ve been aware of the conditions for women in developing countries where women are sent to huts during their time of the month and lack adequate access to facilities due to social, cultural and economic factors, but I’m not the least bit surprised all that went over the head of JK Rowling, the Billionaire celebrity author.

Lefty Bicek

One eyed Jack wrote: »

More of a hobby, not that I’d be wanting to compete in the women’s long jumping events in any case, you’re fairly safe on that score Gruffalox

No, my point was simply that contrary to that posters opinion that mensuration was something women were ashamed of or anything else as the reason it’s not something they talk about in normal conversation, is nonsense. Women don’t talk about mensuration for the same reason they don’t talk about plenty of bodily functions - because it’s simply considered vulgar and inappropriate to do so.

I genuinely can’t see how associating bodily functions like mensuration with women is the least bit “empowering”, or encouraging women to talk about their hygiene practices is empowering. I’m certainly not alone in that view, and it’s certainly not because I’m a man that I don’t understand it either. I know of only a handful of women who have tried to bring up the discussion with me, precisely because they were aware I was uncomfortable with the topic, and they found my discomfort amusing. They sure as hell weren’t doing it as part of any long standing social movement. They knew I was about as interested in hearing about it as I was their perfectly normal and natural bowel movements.

Describing anything as normal and natural doesn’t immediately validate it as an acceptable topic of conversation.

Mensuration. You probably don't want to talk about that either...



What I had in mind was more the progression that has been made towards where we are now in our every day lives and conversations. Particularly men.

The day-to-day attitude towards women in all-male environments has vastly changed over the decades, in my experience. And that is reflected in what is considered smirk-worthy, amongst other things.

Menstruation may not empower women - I have no idea - but men sniggering and sneering about it demeans them. In my opinion.

I'm aware of that advert, but that's all it is. An attention-seeking exercise. I'm not interested in mindless consumerism.

One way or another, the idea that the term 'people' here, is somehow an exaggerated inclusiveness without political intent, is laughable.

Lefty Bicek

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I didn’t say women don’t talk about it amongst themselves, the other poster insinuated that much. My point was that women don’t talk about it to other people not out of shame in their bodies or embarrassment, but simply because it’s generally considered an inappropriate topic for general conversation.

Just in case you're referring to me, that was not my point and I'm not sure how you got that out of it.

Just an FYI.

I think we are getting slightly off topic.

Can we get a show of hands here; is a woman saying only women can have periods ok or not? Both factually and in terms of acceptability

Lefty Bicek

Deleted User wrote: »

I think we are getting slightly off topic.

Can we get a show of hands here; is a woman saying only women can have periods ok or not? Both factually and in terms of acceptability

OK, and OK.

Gruffalux

Wombatman wrote: »

You seem concerned about words and their true meaning. Are you suggesting below, had they continued to express gender differently, past puberty, and into adulthood, it would be unnatural?

Careful there. You might hurt yourself doing silly stretches.

One eyed Jack

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

One way or another, the idea that the term 'people' here, is somehow an exaggerated inclusiveness without political intent, is laughable.

Of course it’s an exaggerated inclusiveness entirely with political intent, same as any other campaign with political intent, like implying that there is a taboo which somehow prevents women from talking about their bodily functions.

The point of inclusiveness is for women who identify themselves as men. You can’t possibly have missed that? It’s one of the first things that occurred to me, and it’s not because I’m particularly woke either or aware of feminist discourse. I have no time as I said earlier for the identity politics of all this stuff, but when it comes to healthcare, legal and human rights issues and social issues involved, then it shouldn’t come as a surprise that they would include women who identify themselves as men considering there are a greater number of girls and women who do not identify themselves as women, than those boys and men who identify themselves as women -


Why are so many teenage girls appearing in gender clinics?


Maybe it’s just me, but I’d consider that far more worthy of discussion than promoting the idea that there is any sort of a social stigma surrounding periods. Different people have different priorities too though I guess.

One eyed Jack

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

Just in case you're referring to me, that was not my point and I'm not sure how you got that out of it.

Just an FYI.

That wasn’t your point, fair enough, but I should point out how I got from what you said that you were insinuating that women don’t talk about it among themselves -

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

No.

I think the issue about menstruation is that for so long it was seen as a taboo, something for men to make crude locker-room references to.

Attaching the word strongly to 'women', rather than 'people' was a way of empowering women - the only ones who experience it - to reject those sh1tty attitudes towards that aspect of their bodies and lives. And for it to be considered as something natural, normal, and something experienced by everyone's mother, sister, daughter.

'People' is a dismissal of that truth. A diminution of the progress that has been made in terms of those perceptions.

'People' is not a harmless catch-call, nor is it intended to be.

Interesting that you would consider it the business of everyone, but then have an issue with the authors of that articles use of the word ‘people’, in an article about educating people about mensuration. From my perspective it’s really not anyone else’s business, I’m somewhat consistent, but from yours it’s as though it’s everyone’s business, but they’re not to be referred to as people?

Wombatman

Gruffalox wrote: »

Careful there. You might hurt yourself doing silly stretches.

Go on. Admit it. The mask slipped a little.

Lefty Bicek

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That wasn’t your point, fair enough, but I should point out how I got from what you said that you were insinuating that women don’t talk about it among themselves -

Interesting that you're using the present tense. Whereas I used the past tense, in a sense of a progression from then to now in terms of how men talk about the more 'mysterious' aspects of womanhood.

My post was not at all about women not talking about it, neither in the past nor certainly not in the present.

Interesting that you would consider it the business of everyone

Not so much that, rather that mens' attitude towards women is now more interesting for what they don't say, insinuate, or sneer about in everyday contexts eg the all-male workplace, and so on.

I see it as a progression, and I can understand why women are reluctant to surrender those hard-fought gains.

...but then have an issue with the authors of that articles use of the word ‘people’, in an article about educating people about mensuration.

If we're educating people, 'women menstruate' is far more educational, informative, true, and accurate than 'people menstruate'.

Education does not obfuscate. Politics does.

From my perspective it’s really not anyone else’s business, I’m somewhat consistent, but from yours it’s as though it’s everyone’s business, but they’re not to be referred to as people?

It's everyone's business that women are treated with dignity. Don't see any problem with referring to them specifically as 'women' in that case. Seems necessary, actually.

I do see it as feminist business, and I can understand why they react to this issue.

I'm not a feminist at all, by the way.

FVP3

Wombatman wrote: »

Go on. Admit it. The mask slipped a little.

Behind the mask is what now? Seems like a snide little ad hominem.

If I were to remove masks in the general sense, I would say that the woke male who is pro self determination is a raging misogynist. A truth universally acknowleded on some feminist sites.

Wombatman

FVP3 wrote: »

Behind the mask is what now? Seems like a snide little ad hominem.

If I were to remove masks in the general sense, I would say that the woke male who is pro self determination is a raging misogynist. A truth universally acknowleded on some feminist sites.

You ignore the first personal attack and point out the second. What is the Latin for such an inconsistency, eh?

Universally on some? Really?

One eyed Jack

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

If we're educating people, 'women menstruate' is far more educational, informative, true, and accurate than 'people menstruate'.

Education does not obfuscate. Politics does.

I can more or less understand the rest of where you’re coming from, but on this one suggesting that education doesn’t obfuscate, I’d have to disagree. It depends upon whatever particular ideological viewpoint one wants to educate people in, yes sometimes they are political ideology, sometimes they are religious ideology, and sometimes, well, they’re just a nonsense ideology masquerading as education reform tbh, like this one which has caused a lot of anger and frustration among parents and teachers alike -


Irate parents complain to minister over sex education reform plans

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

It's everyone's business that women are treated with dignity. Don't see any problem with referring to them specifically as 'women' in that case. Seems necessary, actually.

Well I’d suggest it was more everyone’s business that everyone in society is treated with dignity, and that’s precisely why it was necessary to refer to people who mensurate as an acknowledgement of the dignity of those people who do not wish to be referred to as women, but who still mensurate. Understandably that raises the heckles of the likes of JK Rowling and people who imagine they have some sort of copyright on mensuration, at which point it seems only pertinent to educate people to the fact that mensuration is in fact not unique to women.

Then the question simply becomes a a matter of do we respect the dignity of people who agree with us and share our perspective, because that’s easy and requires no effort on our part whatsoever, or do we respect the dignity of people who do not agree with us and have a different point of view in that they do not wish to be seen or referred to as women, but rather they wish to be acknowledged as men who not only mensurate, but give birth too? And do we acknowledge the necessity of providing for their particular healthcare needs?

That’s kinda the point of human rights and recognition of human dignity in human rights law. It has very little to do with science and what bathrooms or changing rooms or sports people are or aren’t permitted to use or participate in. People have been doing that much for centuries already, they didn’t need anyone’s permission to do so.

J_E

Deleted User wrote: »

I raised this kind of question in the LGBT forum, but even as a member of that community, that thread was closed because it was deemed in breach.

You want to be part of the community but unwilling to support its members, then cry about it to people you know will react favourably towards your own biases. I'm disappointed.

Dante7

J_E wrote: »

You want to be part of the community but unwilling to support its members, then cry about it to people you know will react favourably towards your own biases. I'm disappointed.

Yet heterosexual men pretending to be lesbians are welcome, while real lesbians who say they are not sexually attracted to penises are branded bigots and told they are not welcome. And when these lesbians say OK, we'll set up our own LGB group that is purely for us people who are same SEX attracted, you lose your sh1t again and brand them bigots again and ban them pride. And you have the cheek to complain about women "crying about it". But the tide is turning. People are seeing you for what you are. Just another misogynistic men's rights movement trying to control uppity women, this time dressed up in wokeism. Lesbians don't want your penises, so f*ck off.

Gruffalux

Dante7 wrote: »

Yet heterosexual men pretending to be lesbians are welcome, while real lesbians who say they are not sexually attracted to penises are branded bigots and told they are not welcome. And when these lesbians say OK, we'll set up our own LGB group that is purely for us people who are same SEX attracted, you lose your sh1t again and brand them bigots again and ban them pride. And you have the cheek to complain about women "crying about it". But the tide is turning. People are seeing you for what you are. Just another misogynistic men's rights movement trying to control uppity women, this time dressed up in wokeism. Lesbians don't want your penises, so f*ck off.

Hetereosexual men pretending to be lesbians tis true and how I wish Monty Pythonesque responses were still permitted in this newly religious world.

J_E

Dante7 wrote: »

Yet heterosexual men pretending to be lesbians are welcome, while real lesbians who say they are not sexually attracted to penises are branded bigots and told they are not welcome. And when these lesbians say OK, we'll set up our own LGB group that is purely for us people who are same SEX attracted, you lose your sh1t again and brand them bigots again and ban them pride. And you have the cheek to complain about women "crying about it". But the tide is turning. People are seeing you for what you are. Just another misogynistic men's rights movement trying to control uppity women, this time dressed up in wokeism. Lesbians don't want your penises, so f*ck off.

I'm really not sure where you're coming from, but you don't represent me at all, please keep your weird lesbian-penis fantasies away.

Like, what are you actually on about.

Dante7

J_E wrote: »

I'm really not sure where you're coming from, but you don't represent me at all, please keep your weird lesbian-penis fantasies away.

Like, what are you actually on about.

If you don't understand the reference to lesbians being told they are bigots for not being attracted to penises, then you really don't understand the debate and should hold off on lecturing other people and being "disappointed" with their views.

J_E

Dante7 wrote: »

If you don't understand the reference to lesbians beings told they are bigots for not being attracted to penises, then you really don't understand the debate and should hold off on lecturing other people and being "disappointed" with their views.

I get that part loud and clear. It was the rest of the post that totally alienated me. Would love to hear some women's opinions on it though.

Dante7

J_E wrote: »

I get that part loud and clear. It was the rest of the post that totally alienated me. Would love to hear some women's opinions on it though.

No you wouldn't. Read the thread. They are giving their opinions and you are disappointed in them.

B.A._Baracus

And it would appear the thread is turning into madness too :pac:

Sir Oxman

J_E wrote: »

You want to be part of the community but unwilling to support its members, then cry about it to people you know will react favourably towards your own biases. I'm disappointed.

@eskimohunt:
I read some of that thread but not every post.
Is it still up?

carolmon

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I didn’t say women don’t talk about it amongst themselves.....My point was that women don’t talk about it to other people

Other people.... do you mean men?
Talk about obfuscation of language ðŸ˜

seamus

FVP3 wrote: »

If I were to remove masks in the general sense, I would say that the woke male who is pro self determination is a raging misogynist. A truth universally acknowleded on some feminist sites.

I love how much this debate eats itself in the end.

In the UK, feminism after WW2 took on a more sinister persona than in other parts of the world.

The standard of public debate in Britain has always been very childish and immature. It's always been A -v- B, us -v- them. With us or ag'in us. Public figures are either heroes or villains. There's never been nuance.

Hence why, e.g., British people blame "the Germans" for WW2, where the rest of Europe blames the Nazis.

And British media thrives on this. So when feminism rose up as an equality movement, the British media needed some way to make this an adversarial issue. Women fighting for equal rights doesn't really have a "loser". Equal rights for all doesn't mean less rights for some.
So in Britain, the more extremist feminists were given the space to talk about it.

And these feminists were all misandrists. Their platform focussing less on more rights for women, and more on hating men, and attacking men and tearing down men.

Women's rights movement in other parts of the world didn't do this.

As a result the entire women's rights movement in the UK was closer to a hate group than a rights group. And women who identified as feminists got sucked into it.

As a result, you have this crazy situation now in the UK, where the people most outspoken about feminism aren't progressive and passionate about equal rights. They're deeply conservative and unashamedly misandrist.

This is why the TERFs have appeared. 1 - Because gender theory exposes the irrational nature of their bigotry and 2 - because they believe that most men are potential sex predators who will do anything to rape women, and transgenderism is just an extension of that.

There is a lot of head scratching around the rest of the world about the phenomenon of the TERF in the UK.

This is why I find it amusing that apparently anyone who dares support self determination is a mysogynist. They forget that an entire other class of transgender people exist. Because trans men are an inconvenience. They only care about trans women, because at the heart of every TERF is a misandrist.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

I can’t believe that the utterly moronic term ‘TERF’ is still being used unironically by some. In reality, the people with objections to the more insidious and abusive parts of the trans rights movement (for example, the attempt to blur the line between gender and sex) are all kinds of people: left wing, right wing, feminist, non-feminist, radical, moderate, male, female. But apparent TERFs are modern day witches and there’s always an appetite to burn the witches.

And yes, the UK is being singled out as an apparent haven of intolerance. Not to me. To me, the UK has realised that SEX-based rights are in grave danger of erosion and has resolved to not let that happen. I believe that in future we will realise how right they were.

Gruffalux

Well I am not a feminist as it is understood today- ssssssss that is the sound of water hissing when flicked on my skin - much much less a radical feminist.

But I do know the people on Boards who were supportive of drastic medical intervention in young children's lives to impede their physiological and mental development. Quieter on that specific subject now. Oh yes, hardly a peep. Though still inclined to call any woman with a different POV than their own present cherished stance a misandrist.
Hahaha. Tis gas. Will they put up their hands and say they argued from deep inside the Mengele camp at an earlier point in the debate when over the next few years the monstrosity of what they supported becomes clearer? And actionable. Like fcuk they will. They will instead anonymously call women who love men misandrists.

FVP3

seamus wrote: »

I love how much this debate eats itself in the end.

In the UK, feminism after WW2 took on a more sinister persona than in other parts of the world.

The standard of public debate in Britain has always been very childish and immature. It's always been A -v- B, us -v- them. With us or ag'in us. Public figures are either heroes or villains. There's never been nuance.

Hence why, e.g., British people blame "the Germans" for WW2, where the rest of Europe blames the Nazis.

And British media thrives on this. So when feminism rose up as an equality movement, the British media needed some way to make this an adversarial issue. Women fighting for equal rights doesn't really have a "loser". Equal rights for all doesn't mean less rights for some.
So in Britain, the more extremist feminists were given the space to talk about it.

And these feminists were all misandrists. Their platform focussing less on more rights for women, and more on hating men, and attacking men and tearing down men.

Women's rights movement in other parts of the world didn't do this.

As a result the entire women's rights movement in the UK was closer to a hate group than a rights group. And women who identified as feminists got sucked into it.

As a result, you have this crazy situation now in the UK, where the people most outspoken about feminism aren't progressive and passionate about equal rights. They're deeply conservative and unashamedly misandrist.

This is why the TERFs have appeared. 1 - Because gender theory exposes the irrational nature of their bigotry and 2 - because they believe that most men are potential sex predators who will do anything to rape women, and transgenderism is just an extension of that.

This is why I find it amusing that apparently anyone who dares support self determination is a mysogynist. They forget that an entire other class of transgender people exist. Because trans men are an inconvenience. They only care about trans women, because at the heart of every TERF is a misandrist.

I don't think that Britain is all that radical actually, the US is crazytown these days. The rest of your defense, while being somewhat accurate in terms of some feminist attitudes to men, is nevertheless a clear defense of men which is what feminism accuses the trans movement of being - a men's rights movement .

I don't have to buy the extreme idea that all men are rapists to agree with "TERFS" that public spaces are safer for biological women if biological men are absent.

There is a lot of head scratching around the rest of the world about the phenomenon of the TERF in the UK.

In reality trans is a big deal in the US and its ideological subsidiaries but nowhere else. In general the UK falls in line with most American ideas, in this case the UK had its own homegrown feminism and didn't fall so completely in line. I think this explains some of the bile from the US.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Wombatman wrote: »

You seem concerned about words and their true meaning. Are you suggesting below, had they continued to express gender differently, past puberty, and into adulthood, it would be unnatural?

I mean, that poster said that puberty is natural. The ducks lining up is I'm guessing all the things that happen in puberty happening. Acknowledging that puberty is a natural, necessary process (for the developing brain as well as the body) is indicative of mask-slippage? O....kay.

Gruffalux

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I mean, that poster said that puberty is natural. The ducks lining up is I'm guessing all the things that happen in puberty happening. Acknowledging that puberty is a natural, necessary process (for the developing brain as well as the body) is indicative of mask-slippage? O....kay.

Thanks ODB. I get so weary entertaining the unpleasant baiters. Natural meant unfolding as and however things do in their own course and time. I did not even mention how things natyrally unfolded so I could have a girl with a beard or a boy in a gown, or any evolution of expression but people are so neurotic in defense of this stuff that they lie in wait, panting it seems.

Some seem to think experimentally arresting puberty, along with arresting frontal lobe development, along with all the other attendant chemically-induced horrors as a preamble to detaching healthy body parts, is....em.... natural.

I Appreciate your flank defense!

yerwanthere123

https://twitter.com/TitaniaMcGrath/status/1269692374835507209

:pac: