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

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Gruffalox wrote: »

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!

Well, it's just all so silly. Like yesterday, I saw so many "So iS RoWLiNg sAyiNg tHaT WoMen wHo dOn'T gEt PeRiOdS aReN't rEaL WoMen?" tweets. No, as a woman who doesn't get periods anymore because of medication I'm on, I know she is not saying I'm not a real woman, you obtuse mouth-breather. I mean, I get that they might just be trolling but they seem willing to make themselves look stupid in the process, sometimes with their real name on their profile.

This is another one. "ArE yOu sAyInG ThAt bLoCKiNg pUbErTy iS uNnAtUraL?". Errrm... yeah? Yes I am.

Woke Hogan

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Well, it's just all so silly. Like yesterday, I saw so many "So iS RoWLiNg sAyiNg tHaT WoMen wHo dOn'T gEt PeRiOdS aReN't rEaL WoMen?" tweets. No, as a woman who doesn't get periods anymore because of medication I'm on, I know she is not saying I'm not a real woman, you obtuse mouth-breather. I mean, I get that they might just be trolling but they seem willing to make themselves look stupid in the process, sometimes with their real name on their profile.

This is another one. "ArE yOu sAyInG ThAt bLoCKiNg pUbErTy iS uNnAtUraL?". Errrm... yeah? Yes I am.

These Tweeters you follow have strange formatting habits in their text.

Quantum Erasure

Woke Hogan wrote: »

These Tweeters you follow have strange formatting habits in their text.

WhAt Is Up WiTh ThAt WeIrD, NeW SpOnGeBoB MeMe?

(The idea, so far as there is one, is that the erratically capitalized line is meant to represent a sort of mocking imitation of the original line.)

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Woke Hogan wrote: »

These Tweeters you follow have strange formatting habits in their text.

It’s a thing. I realise it’s not for everyone.

volchitsa

yerwanthere123 wrote: »

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

:pac:

Titania McGrath (and particularly that photo) is a troll though - isn't she? Has to be - surely??

Quantum Erasure

Gruffalox wrote: »

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

but then, we know friends is considered "problematic" these days...

yerwanthere123

volchitsa wrote: »

Titania McGrath (and particularly that photo) is a troll though - isn't she? Has to be - surely??

Satire account

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

volchitsa wrote: »

Titania McGrath (and particularly that photo) is a troll though - isn't she? Has to be - surely??

Yes, it’s a parody account. Twitter has tried to ban it a few times but failed.

jaxxx

This f*cking transsexual issue is f*cking absurd. I sympathise with those who GENUINELY feel that they were born as the wrong sex, really I do. But no matter what physical alterations you make to your body, no matter how much hormones you take, you CANNOT change your biology. Even if science someday found a way to change DNA on a cellular level, that would still be nothing more than cosmetic only, because it is not natural. We are living natural organisms. Whatever you are is determined at the moment of your conception: whether you were born through natural means or by something like IVF. That one single sperm out of millions that broke through and fertilised the egg, it is that combination that determines what you are.

Sometimes that process goes wrong: people are born with certain disorders or in the case of sex/gender (of which there is NO difference, you can call me f*cking transphobic [which I'm not cos I have no hatred towards transsexuals] or any other name under the sun), people are born as intersex: of which there are many variations. So we don't have 2 sexes, we have 3.

I'm a supporter of LGBI, but nothing more. Because LGBI is all part of nature. Everything else is nothing more than a sense of entitlement among our species because we believe that we are in control of nature and not the other way around. How you feel is not part of nature, and as such has no basis on which to overrule the natural order of life.I have f*cking had it with these f*cking attitudes that try and silence those of us that dare speak out against this nonsense. As I said, I sympathise with those who genuinely think they were born as the wrong sex. And anyone like this should receive the help and support they need to accept that they are what they are. But there is no natural process by which you can change your biology. Just like there is no natural process where a leopard can change its spots!


Yes I may have slightly quoted Ben Shapiro on the 'feelings' bit, but I am no fan of his because of his views on homosexuality. I respect the natural world, I respect life. And anything that dares fabricate itself as being natural is something I take great issue with, and I owe no apology to anyone for that. We are all human. Regardless of skin colour. Regardless of sex. We are alive. Life is a miraculous thing. When I mentioned this was all as a result of self-entitlement above, I meant it. Because we as a species have gotten so lackadaisical about the wonder that life is, the wonder of the natural world; that we have taken it all for granted.


Call me transphobic, call me ignorant, call me whatever the f*ck you like. I don't concern myself with the opinions of those who have no respect for Mother Nature.

jaxxx

I do take issue with Rowling's tweet about menstruation. Because some women cannot for reasons beyond their control. That said, only women can menstruate. So I think it was a case of bad wording on her part more than anything else. But as ever, the left/right have jumped on the bandwagon again. The definition of transphobia is "a fear or dislike of people who feel that they are not the same gender as the one they had or were said to have at birth". Stating facts, biological facts, is not transphobic. And it is this entitled attitude that f*cking angers me.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

jaxxx wrote: »

I do take issue with Rowling's tweet about menstruation. Because some women cannot for reasons beyond their control. That said, only women can menstruate. So I think it was a case of bad wording on her part more than anything else. But as ever, the left/right have jumped on the bandwagon again. The definition of transphobia is "a fear or dislike of people who feel that they are not the same gender as the one they had or were said to have at birth". Stating facts, biological facts, is not transphobic. And it is this entitled attitude that f*cking angers me.

But she clearly isn't excluding those women. She is just saying only females menstruate.

But yeah, there has been an attempt of late to conflate sex and gender. If people don't believe me, Chase Strangio, a lawyer with the high profile American organisation the ACLU has argued that biological sex is a construct, in some high profile publications if I rightly recall. And is not the only one. I think everyone was okay with people being whatever gender they wanted because sex-based rights were not under threat. But now they are.

the purple tin

This stuff is getting beyond a joke.
As an example: Female inmates have been raped and sexually assaulted because males who were seving time for rape said they identified as women and demanded to be moved to the female prison!

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

the purple tin wrote: »

This stuff is getting beyond a joke.
As an example: Female inmates have been raped and sexually assaulted because males who were seving time for rape said they identified as women and demanded to be moved to the female prison!

I know and, IMO, that happening even once is too many times. I have little time for the “But it’s so rare!” argument. There’s many things we don’t allow even though they don’t happen often. We still legislate against them.

In the lead up to the eighth amendment referendum, ‘No’ campaigners argued that it shouldn’t be repealed just because of the cases of pregnancy through rape because there were so few cases of that happening. I didn’t care for the ‘rareness’ tack then and I don’t care for it now either. Once is too many times.

Gruffalux

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I know and, IMO, that happening even once is too many times. I have little time for the “But it’s so rare!” argument. There’s many things we don’t allow even though they don’t happen often. We still legislate against them.

.

And then there is the men get raped in prison too argument which was made to me a couple of days ago on boards.
It is terrible that men get raped by other men in prison. It is something that has truly bothered me since I was a teen - the horror of it. But to somehow excuse men raping women in prison now by saying men have always raped men in prison.. I just don't even know how to deal with that kind of weirdness. Is it called moral equivocation or something fancy I cannot remember.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Gruffalox wrote: »

And then there is the men get raped in prison too argument which was made to me a couple of days ago on boards.
It is terrible that men get raped by other men in prison. It is something that has truly bothered me since I was a teen - the horror of it. But to somehow excuse men raping women in prison now by saying men have always raped men in prison.. I just don't even know how to deal with that kind of weirdness. Is it called moral equivocation or something fancy I cannot remember.

Absolutely. I've also seen people argue that. I'm like "Ummm, both those things are bad". I cannot get my head around that bizarre reasoning. It shouldn't happen to men and let's try and make sure it doesn't also happen to women. And when it's men in with women, there's the added unevenness in strength levels.

peddlelies

This is what happens when we mainstream delusion.

jaxxx

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Absolutely. I've also seen people argue that. I'm like "Ummm, both those things are bad". I cannot get my head around that bizarre reasoning. It shouldn't happen to men and let's try and make sure it doesn't also happen to women. And when it's men in with women, there's the added unevenness in strength levels.

Obviously on a whole different spectrum because the above is among the most deplorable acts in the world (nothing disgusts me more than sexual assault and all 'affiliates' of it) but the principle of unevenness in strength applies to allowing TS women in women's sports too. Hardly fair. Think of all those who campaigned and fought throughout the 1900's for women's rights. I'd love to know their take on how a man can now choose to become a woman! And now this sh*t? As a global society (well, in places where this is going on) we're actually going backwards. If you don't agree with transexuality then you're automatically labelled a transphobe? Reminds me of good old fashioned fascism.

WashYourHands

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.

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.

This is the silliest post I've read on here :pac:

Girly Gal

I think the issue is a little more complex than alot of people think. There are alot of genuine transwomen and transmen, who make every effort to socially and aesthetically transition ( hormones, surgery, etc.), they go through alot of hardship and sacrifice during transition. They should be treated fairly and with respect and be afforded the same rights as everyone else, once transition is complete; obviously they can't biologically change sex as this is impossible.
There are alot of issues around the trans community which need to be addressed, which are really hurting the trans community. Issues like children being put on hormones at a young age, this should not be allowed. If kids want to dress as the opposite gender, let them, but hormones and surgery shouldn't be considered until late teens when they have reached maturity.
Also some people self declaring as the opposite gender, expecting to be treated and have same rights as their "new gender" yet make little to no effort to socially or aesthetically transition. The onus should be on the person transitioning to make every effort to socially and aesthetically transition ( hormones, surgery etc.)before gaining the rights of their new gender. Obviously during transition they will need to make sacrifices/compromises until they have completed their transition.
The issue of transwomen in sport also needs to be addressed as it's unfair on biological women. It may be a sacrifice/ compromise that transwomen have to make that means they cannot compete directly with biological women.
In the last few years we have also seen the rise of the idea of non- binary/ genderfluid and with it a proliferation of gender pronouns which is complete nonsense and is really doing a disservice to genuine trans people who just want to live as close to a normal life as possible.
Like most issues in life, it is a small minority within the trans community or people who are offended on behalf of trans people who shout loudest and claim to represent all trans people when in reality most trans people are happy to live their life without creating any extra unnecessary hassle for themselves, as they already have enough issues to deal with.

WashYourHands

Girly Gal wrote: »

The onus should be on the person transitioning to make every effort to socially and aesthetically transition ( hormones, surgery etc.)before gaining the rights of their new gender.

Why though - who can make that rule? What if the hormones and surgery are not an option for the person?

Girly Gal

WashYourHands wrote: »

Why though - who can make that rule? What if the hormones and surgery are not an option for the person?

Other than financially I can't see any reason why hormones and surgery would not be an option once a person has reached maturity. I 'm referring to people who are not financially limited yet make little to no effort to transition and expect to be treated and have the same rights as their preferred gender.
The reality is the general public are not that aware of trans issues or know any trans people and only read about the sensational stories in the media. That's why the onus is on the person transitioning to make every effort to pass as their preferred gender, they can't really expect to be treated as their preferred gender if they don't make any effort to pass as their preferred gender. It's also a safety issue especially for transwomen.I know it will be easier for some to pass with little effort while others will make alot of effort and still not pass. I don't have an issue as long as try their best to pass.
Alot of trans people never have gender confirmation surgery (bottom surgery)as they either can't afford it financially or don't want to, I don't have any issue with that.
I know that some people will be limited financially to how far they can go regards hormones and surgery, but, most still make every effort to pass socially and aesthetically as their preferred gender as it makes life easier for them. The harsh reality is that the general public will treat people as the gender they perceive them to be.

Gruffalux

Girly Gal wrote: »

Other than financially I can't see any reason why hormones and surgery would not be an option once a person has reached maturity. I 'm referring to people who are not financially limited yet make little to no effort to transition and expect to be treated and have the same rights as their preferred gender.
The reality is the general public are not that aware of trans issues or know any trans people and only read about the sensational stories in the media. That's why the onus is on the person transitioning to make every effort to pass as their preferred gender, they can't really expect to be treated as their preferred gender if they don't make any effort to pass as their preferred gender. It's also a safety issue especially for transwomen.I know it will be easier for some to pass with little effort while others will make alot of effort and still not pass. I don't have an issue as long as try their best to pass.
Alot of trans people never have gender confirmation surgery (bottom surgery)as they either can't afford it financially or don't want to, I don't have any issue with that.
I know that some people will be limited financially to how far they can go regards hormones and surgery, but, most still make every effort to pass socially and aesthetically as their preferred gender as it makes life easier for them. The harsh reality is that the general public will treat people as the gender they perceive them to be.

I agree with a lot of what you wrote in your previous post. A lot of it is what many transgender people themselves say publicly.

Regarding surgery, quite a small number of transwomen choose to have it. Could be as low as 5 % I remember reading. I would not blame them. It is at best an attempt at imitation and at worst a lifelong painful disfigurement.

Personally I do not think alternative gender expression requires medical intervention. Better to retain form and function of the body parts and be able to have sexual potency, fertility and health. And simultaneously express gender however one feels like.

At the moment the growth area in trans surgery is mastectomy. Often breast removal from quite young women and girls. Given that autism and depression are frequent comorbidities it seems a horrific step. Dr Johanna Olson Kennedy, Director of transyouth services in Childrens Hospital LA and lecturer on the subject in the UK advocates for early mastectomy at 12 and early hormone intervention at 8.

But the issues re "passing" that you mention and aesthetics open up a can of worms. Passing and born in the wrong body ideology (which is impossible and a disturbing existential philosophy) requires intervention at puberty to validate itself. Feminising and masculinising hormones will profoundly alter the ability of a person to "pass" if administered early enough. So the activists need the children.

But this very response is what will soon be recognised as amoral. Because left alone almost all children desist and many are homosexuals. So there is also an element of homosexual erasure and "treatment".

It is very complex. Third spaces for transgender adults, reaffirmation of the reality of biological fact and leave the kids alone seem to me to be elementary rational readjustments.

JoannaJag

Most transgender people do not physically transition. They live, in their male or female body, living the stereotype of the opposite sex. Many do not “pass”. Why should they have to pass? Why can they not live their gender non-conforming lives safely, without endangering themselves or being told that they are actually the opposite sex, an ideology which Actually invalidates their non conformist reality and in turn endangers women by erasing the fact that people’s sexes are real, defining, and make us different to each other in massively important ways that aren’t about clothes, hobbies and personality.

JoannaJag

JoannaJag wrote: »

Most transgender people do not physically transition. They live, in their male or female body, living the stereotype of the opposite sex. Many do not “pass”. Why should they have to pass? Why can they not live their gender non-conforming lives safely, without endangering themselves or being told that they are actually the opposite sex, an ideology which Actually invalidates their non conformist reality and in turn endangers women by erasing the fact that people’s sexes are real, defining, and make us different to each other in massively important ways that aren’t about clothes, hobbies and personality.

Because women and men ARE different.

They can live as whatever gender they want. But that doesn't make them the sex they want to be. And nobody has any obligation to pander to their belief.

The erosion of sexual identity into it becoming nothing more than a belief is dangerous.

Dante7

JoannaJag wrote: »

Most transgender people do not physically transition. They live, in their male or female body, living the stereotype of the opposite sex. Many do not “pass”. Why should they have to pass? Why can they not live their gender non-conforming lives safely, without endangering themselves or being told that they are actually the opposite sex, an ideology which Actually invalidates their non conformist reality and in turn endangers women by erasing the fact that people’s sexes are real, defining, and make us different to each other in massively important ways that aren’t about clothes, hobbies and personality.

What? Believing that biological sex is immutable erases the fact that people's sexes are real? Do people even think about the nonsense that they are trying to peddle?

suicide_circus

peddlelies wrote: »

This is what happens when we mainstream delusion.

Alistair through the Looking-Glass

Gruffalux

Dante7 wrote: »

What? Believing that biological sex is immutable erases the fact that people's sexes are real? Do people even think about the nonsense that they are trying to peddle?

The poster has been misunderstood. They are saying - among other things - that it is damaging to transgender people to invalidate their non conforming gender identity by telling them lies about biological reality.

Ye are on the same team.

Dante7

Gruffalox wrote: »

The poster has been misunderstood. They are saying - among other things - that it is damaging to transgender people to invalidate their non conforming gender identity by telling them lies about biological reality.

Ye are on the same team.

Ah ok. Apologies to JoannaLag.

Eric Cartman

Any change in laws or public feeling which attempts to allow biological males into womens spaces or attempts to allow biological females into mens spaces is bad for society. Allowing the glaring risk of children being abused, prisoners being raped or athletes having an unfair advantage by playing the gender card is not worth appeasing the feelings of a tiny percentage of people. Rowling is right to hold firm here.

hetuzozaho

Much more polite when on the same team