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

Gatling

LLMMLL wrote: »

Until we understand the brain we cannot make the claim that trans women are biolocally the same as cis men.

Biology says otherwise .

Unless your intersex and born both male and female ,
you are then either a man or woman ,no amount of self-identity changes that.

LLMMLL

Gatling wrote: »

Biology says otherwise .

Unless your intersex and born both male and female ,
you are then either a man or woman ,no amount of self-identity changes that.

And transmen are men and transwomen are women.

Gervais08

LLMMLL wrote: »

Can you quote an instance of me using the word cis where the context indicates it was intended as a slur?

When you are told that it is deemed an offensive term and insist on using it even more.

Gervais08

Gatling wrote: »

Biology says otherwise .

Unless your intersex and born both male and female ,
you are then either a man or woman ,no amount of self-identity changes that.

But something about feeling and identifying and being “assigned” your sex when that’s been known from the 20 week scan.

LLMMLL

Gervais08 wrote: »

When you are told that it is deemed an offensive term and insist on using it even more.

I've actually been using it since I first engaged in trans debates and before anyone made the silly PR claim that it's a slur.

I dont believe for a second anyone finds it insulting. I know it's a PR tactic.

I do believe some people do not like the idea that trans women are women or trans men are men and that they Find the idea that someone different to them may be considered a woman or a man To be insulting.

THAT is what they do not like. Not the word that stems from this view. They do not want the concept which they disagree with to be verbalized.

That does not make the word a slur.

o1s1n

LLMMLL wrote: »

And transmen are men and transwomen are women.

Do you not understand how biology works?

It's not that complicated on these matters really.

OscarMIlde

LLMMLL wrote: »

Well the word vast adds a bit too much subjectivity here.

I would say there are a group of people that TERFs consider to be the only group describable as women or female and there are a group of people TERFs consider to be the only group describable as men or male and there are clear differences between these two groups.

And your article describes some of these differences but has no impact on trans issues.

So if there are no appreciable differences between men and women, why are Trans people so insistent on being identified as a biological sex other than their own?

LLMMLL

o1s1n wrote: »

Do you not understand how biology works?

It's not that complicated on these matters really.

I do understand. Do you?

LLMMLL

OscarMIlde wrote: »

So if there are no appreciable differences between men and women, why are Trans people so insistent on being identified as a biological sex other than their own?

There are appreciable differences between cis men and cis women. Where did I say there weren't?

o1s1n

LLMMLL wrote: »

I've actually been using it since I first engaged in trans debates and before anyone made the silly PR claim that it's a slur.

I dont believe for a second anyone finds it insulting. I know it's a PR tactic.

I do believe some people do not like the idea that trans women are women or trans men are men and that they Find the idea that someone different to them may be considered a woman or a man To be insulting.

THAT is what they do not like. Not the word that stems from this view. They do not want the concept which they disagree with to be verbalized.

That does not make the word a slur.

Not really.

Most simply dislike the idea that, en mass, we are now 'meant to' deny biology to keep the Twitter crackpots happy.

I have zero problem refering to any person in any way they so wish - it still doesn't change biology. Your far right jackboot attempt at making me believe 1 plus 1 equals 5 won't work, sorry if I hurt your feelings.

LLMMLL

o1s1n wrote: »

Not really.

Most simply dislike the idea that, en mass, we are now 'meant to' deny biology to keep the Twitter crackpots happy.

I have zero problem refering to any person in any way they so wish - it still doesn't change biology. Your far right jackboot attempt at making me believe 1 plus 1 equals 5 won't work, sorry if I hurt your feelings.

Far right? Loooooool.

Don't worry. My feelings aren't even slightly hurt.

One eyed Jack

LLMMLL wrote: »

The "third of the human genome" is meaningless as a fact. Can you explain how a third of the genome behaving differently impacts versus a sixth? Versus two thirds? Versus 1%? Reminds me of that old "humans share 98% of their DNA with chimps" fact that used to be trotted out a lot. Ok... Now tell me why I should care about this number.

You’ve chosen to take it out of context? In the context of differences between humans based on sex, the fact that a third of the human genome behaves differently in men and women is significant. I’ve already explained why you should care about it - because in the context of people who identify themselves as transgender, it has implications in terms of their health.

Further down the article leads to another article which indicates why the findings in the research reported in the article Oscar linked to are significant in terms of how science and medicine needs to regard men and women differently in terms of their health based upon these differences between the sexes -


Medicine’s gender revolution: how women stopped being treated as ‘small men’


It’s not the first time it has been noted that historically speaking in terms of their healthcare, women were simply treated as ‘small men’ -


Menstrual Fictions: languages of medicine and menstruation, c. 1850–1930

LLMMLL

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You’ve chosen to take it out of context? In the context of differences between humans based on sex, the fact that a third of the human genome behaves differently in men and women is significant. I’ve already explained why you should care about it - because in the context of people who identify themselves as transgender, it has implications in terms of their health.

Further down the article leads to another article which indicates why the findings in the research reported in the article Oscar linked to are significant in terms of how science and medicine needs to regard men and women differently in terms of their health based upon these differences between the sexes -


Medicine’s gender revolution: how women stopped being treated as ‘small men’


It’s not the first time it has been noted that historically speaking in terms of their healthcare, women were simply treated as ‘small men’ -


Menstrual Fictions: languages of medicine and menstruation, c. 1850–1930

Neither of those articles are about trans issues.

Gatling

LLMMLL wrote: »

And transmen are men and transwomen are women.

No .

Self identify doesn't equate to medical and scientific , biological fact .

No Matter how much nonsense people spew

o1s1n

LLMMLL wrote: »

Far right? Loooooool.

Don't worry. My feelings aren't even slightly hurt.

The fact that you can't see that you use exactly the same line of brow beating your opinion as the far right and expect everyone else to tow the line is actually fairly staggering.

I tip my hat to your lack of self awareness.

LLMMLL

Gatling wrote: »

No .

Self identify doesn't equate to medical and scientific , biological fact .

No Matter how much nonsense people spew

You believe that self identity doesn't equate to.your interpretation of biological fact.

LLMMLL

o1s1n wrote: »

The fact that you can't see that you use exactly the same line of brow beating your opinion as the far right and expect everyone else to tow the line is actually fairly staggering.

I tip my hat to your lack of self awareness.

Who am I brow beating? Do you want people who disagree with you not to post or something?

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

I've actually been using it since I first engaged in trans debates and before anyone made the silly PR claim that it's a slur.

I dont believe for a second anyone finds it insulting. I know it's a PR tactic.

do you think that it's wise, in context, to tell people that what they believe doesnt matter, if you dont agree with it?

seems that you believe in your set of beliefs being set above anyone else's.

thats handy for when you want to pick and choose your ground in this thread but not much use besides, really.

the main thrust of this ongoing issue is not cis people hating trans people, its not cis people demanding the right to tell trans people they cannot believe what they like about their own gender.

its about a radical ideology only coming to prominence in the past few years that insists on telling everyone else what they have to believe about the trans phenomenon

trying to elide that basic truth by making out that all the objections or concerns are more than that, or that any questioning at all is therefore equivalent to an attack, is profoundly counterproductive and smacks more of a control agenda than any real engagement.

that said, the assertion that it is a "far right" ideology is patently nonsensical

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

do you think that it's wise, in context, to tell people that what they believe doesnt matter, if you dont agree with it?

seems that you believe in your set of beliefs being set above anyone else's.

thats handy for when you want to pick and choose your ground in this thread but not much use besides, really.

the main thrust of this ongoing issue is not cis people hating trans people, its not cis people demanding the right to tell trans people they cannot believe what they like about their own gender.

its about a radical ideology only coming to prominence in the past few years that insists on telling everyone else what they have to believe about the trans phenomenon

trying to elide that basic truth by making out that all the objections or concerns are more than that, or that any questioning at all is therefore equivalent to an attack, is profoundly counterproductive and smacks more of a control agenda than any real engagement.

What exactly is unwise?

I'm not telling people what they believe doesn't matter. I'm saying they don't believe it. They don't believe cis is a slur. They just want to stop it being used for ideological reasons.

I have never said cis people hate trans people or anything even vaguely similar. I'm not sure you actually know what cis means to be honest.

Gatling

LLMMLL wrote: »

You believe that

It's not my interpretation .

It's fact and no amount of magical pixie dust changes that.


Self-identity means absolutely nothing ,we have people who believe that they are cats ,dogs , other house hold pets , some believe that they are from another planet or from the future ,some even think they are Attack helicopters (tip my hat ) trump even believes he was re-elected ,

It's just that it's words and choice it's not real or biological or science based fact

Gatling

[Deleted User] wrote: »

that said, the assertion that it is a "far right" ideology is patently nonsensical

Apparently only the other poster knows what words mean even if they are made up

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

What exactly is unwise?

I'm not telling people what they believe doesn't matter. I'm saying they don't believe it. They don't believe cis is a slur. They just want to stop it being used for ideological reasons.

I have never said cis people hate trans people or anything even vaguely similar. I'm not sure you actually know what cis means to be honest.

if someone tells you they find something insulting then your interpretation of that is your own belief

my own belief is that your unblinking confusion at anything you dont want to answer is pretty transparent as a method of avoidance.

my own belief us that absolutely none of what i set out there speaks one way or the other to my understanding of the term "cis" so your last point is a swipe that doesnt even make any sense.

see, we all have beliefs, eh

LLMMLL

Gatling wrote: »

It's not my interpretation .

It's fact and no amount of magical pixie dust changes that.


Self-identity means absolutely nothing ,we have people who believe that they are cats ,dogs , other house hold pets , some believe that they are from another planet or from the future ,some even think they are Attack helicopters (tip my hat ) trump even believes he was re-elected ,

It's just that it's words and choice it's not real or biological or science based fact

"The phrase "I sexually identify as an attack helicopter" is a transphobic Internet meme.[2][3][4] The phrase originated as part of a copypasta text posted in 2014 on the Internet forum Reddit, which spread to other fora such as 4chan, where it was used (peaking in 2015) to mock transgender people.[5]

This is the third time today you have posted something that is demonstrably false

1. That all trans people detransition.
2. That TERF is actionable by mods on other threads in boards
3. Now you are posting an internet meme as fact.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

if someone tells you they find something insulting then your interpretation of that is your own belief

my own belief is that your unblinking confusion at anything you dont want to answer is pretty transparent as a method of avoidance.

my own belief us that absolutely none of what i set out there speaks one way or the other to my understanding of the term "cis" so your last point is a swipe that doesnt even make any sense.

see, we all have beliefs, eh

It's not a swipe. I'm genuinely confused where you got the idea that I believe that cis people hate trans people and thought you must have mixed it up with something else.

Gatling

LLMMLL wrote: »

"The phrase "identify as an attack helicopter"

It was a nod to a post previously made asking can one identify as an attack helicopter (tip my hat) there was no mention of sexual orientation or sexual preference.


Such a shame people jump to being offended so fast



I just remembered I use to be airwolf I flew everywhere while huming the best TV tune ever ,drove my folks Demented , they'd ask a question and I'd reply ask my pilot Stringfellow Hawke

LLMMLL

Gatling wrote: »

It was a nod to a post previously made asking can one identify as an attack helicopter (tip my hat) there was no mention of sexual orientation or sexual preference.


Such a shame people jump to being offended so fast

You explicitly said some people identify as attack helicopters. Stop trying to pretend you didn't believe it. I think it's best if I don't respond to your posts anymore. The risk of getting banned for pointing out the misinformation you post is too high.

One eyed Jack

LLMMLL wrote: »

Can you quote an instance of me using the word cis where the context indicates it was intended as a slur?

Your continued use of the term which you know people reject provides the context from which it doesn’t take a genius to determine your intent is solely to use the term to insult people.

LLMMLL wrote: »

Neither of those articles are about trans issues.

You claimed the discovery had no impact on trans issues, but it does - it has a direct impact on healthcare for people who identify themselves as transgender, whether they are of the male or female sex, such as the reality of how cardiovascular issues present differently in men and women precisely because of their biological differences.

Biology doesn’t have the capacity to care about how a person chooses to identify themselves. Medicine does, and that’s why people should care about the biological differences between the sexes - because it has implications for their health and healthcare, and that includes people who identify themselves as transgender.

Gatling

LLMMLL wrote: »

You explicitly said some people identify as attack helicopters.

The risk of getting banned for pointing out the misinformation you post is too high.

Yes some people identify as attack helicopters and that offend you .

Some people hey

LLMMLL

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Your continued use of the term which you know people reject provides the context from which it doesn’t take a genius to determine your intent is solely to use the term to insult people.





You claimed the discovery had no impact on trans issues, but it does - it has a direct impact on healthcare for people who identify themselves as transgender, whether they are of the male or female sex, such as the reality of how cardiovascular issues present differently in men and women precisely because of their biological differences.

Biology doesn’t have the capacity to care about how a person chooses to identify themselves. Medicine does, and that’s why people should care about the biological differences between the sexes - because it has implications for their health and healthcare, and that includes people who identify themselves as transgender.

My use of the term came long before anyone ever claimed it was a slur. My continued use of it is not because I believe it insults people. The most simple explanation is the correct one. I continue to use the term because I've always used it. And it's never been in an insulting context.

I fully agree the bilogical features that cis men share with trans women are important in a limited range of medical contexts.