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

for the record i dont find 'cis' an insulting term, tho its often deployed to provoke.

TERF is very obviously used to denigrate but it is so overused that it has zero meaning and little sting

i dont like piling on lllmlll (sorry if wrong no of letters there) as i do think that there's sincerely-held beliefs on this that are opposed but could be worked upon, and its obviously not an easy thing to not take personally for them

but i do find that the actual sincere problem i think most people have with the ideology- nobody should nor can be told what they believe about trans issues- is always handwaved away (as it was above) and thats just frustrating for everyone.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

for the record i dont find 'cis' an insulting term, tho its often deployed to provoke.

TERF is very obviously used to denigrate but it is so overused that it has zero meaning and little sting

i dont like piling on lllmlll (sorry if wrong no of letters there) as i do think that there's sincerely-held beliefs on this that are opposed but could be worked upon, and its obviously not an easy thing to not take personally for them

but i do find that the actual sincere problem i think most people have with the ideology- nobody should nor can be told what they believe about trans issues- is always handwaved away (as it was above) and thats just frustrating for everyone.

You're mistaken if you think I've taken anything personally. I wonder where you got that idea?

I do point out the quite strong insults ive received on this thread, not because they upset me, but because I find it extremely ironic that they are deployed in a thread which started as a response to JK being insulted on Twitter.

I also find it interesting that you think I handwave people's beliefs about trans issues away.

Firstly the pretense of being offended at cis is not a trans issue. It's a debating issue. People trying to limit the use of the word because it describes a concept that they do not even want discussed.

Secondly, I appreciate the fact you have been relatively respectful in how you've addressed me. But it's a little much that you say I handwave people's beliefs.away while portraying mine as something changeable that "can be worked on" and based on emotion "taking things personally".

One eyed Jack

LLMMLL wrote: »

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.

That’s just insulting on two fronts - you don’t believe people are insulted by it even though they have told you numerous times they find the the term offensive to them, and you’ll continue to use the term to refer to people whom you know find it offensive. Your intent in using the term is to offend people in the context where you use it to refer to people whom you know find the term offensive.

LLMMLL wrote: »

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

But I never said that for you to fully agree with it in the first place? You claimed it had no impact on what you call “trans issues”, I pointed out that the research has significant implications for people who identify themselves as transgender with regard to their healthcare. Do you fully agree with that statement? It’s not a trick question btw. I’m simply reiterating what I actually said already.

LLMMLL

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That’s just insulting on two fronts - you don’t believe people are insulted by it even though they have told you numerous times they find the the term offensive to them, and you’ll continue to use the term to refer to people whom you know find it offensive. Your intent in using the term is to offend people in the context where you use it to refer to people whom you know find the term offensive.





But I never said that for you to fully agree with it in the first place? You claimed it had no impact on what you call “trans issues”, I pointed out that the research has significant implications for people who are transgender with regard to their healthcare. Do you fully agree with that statement?

Yes I don't believe that people are insulted by it and I get that people may find that belief insulting. That's does not make the word cis an insult.

I will continue to use the word but you are 100% incorrect that my intent is to insult people. My intent is the same as when I first used the word. To describe a group of people in a debate where having a word to describe them is Handy.

I agree it has implications for cis AND trans people's healthcare. So yes it does have implications for trans people's healthcare. It also has implications for cis people's healthcare. That's not a trans issue.

One eyed Jack

LLMMLL wrote: »

I get that people may find that belief insulting.

Good man, that wasn’t that difficult.

LLMMLL wrote: »

So yes it does have implications for trans people's healthcare.

Fair play, progress at last, and with that I’m off to sleep.

CtevenSrowder

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Good man, that wasn’t that difficult.





Fair play, progress at last, and with that I’m off to sleep.

I feel your pain. It took me nearly 100 pages to get a definition of woman out of this poster. You managed to 'score' your point in a tenth of that!

derfderf

LLMMLL wrote: »

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

Which biological features do they not share?

Gruffalux

LLMMLL wrote: »

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.

You use the word cis not as an adjective, eg tall, black, strong, Irish, but as an ideological weapon to attempt to divide the ontological category of woman into sub categories of female women and male women. Your own earlier fantasy of transfemales notwithstanding, there are no male women existing in reality. Transwomen exist. The reason I object to your use of cis is because of this purpose to which you attempt to deploy it.

Re earlier mentions of far right similarities when it comes to enforcing ideology I think the descriptor people are looking for is the authoritarian left.
I have been very surprised over the past decade or so at how radical authoritarianism and ideological extremism has infiltrated the left side of politics. I suppose I should not be so surprised given that eugenics and forced sterilisation, etc were ideas that emanated from the left wings of intellectual history.
When I hear elements within the authoritarian left now accept as incontestable issues like rights to abort up to birth or a duty to educate children that they live on a dying planet mere years away from extinction or that white people must take the knee publicly, be silenced academically and make reparations for implied ancestral sins, that childrens puberty must be halted regardless of what damage that does to the body and brain, sex offending males must be imprisoned with females due to their womanly souls, and so on, really I find it dystopian.

CtevenSrowder

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

I feel your pain. It took me nearly 100 pages to get a definition of woman out of this poster. You managed to 'score' your point in a tenth of that!

What was it?

Sittingpretty

LLMMLL wrote: »

"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.

Jesus Christ. What a reach.

There is quite simply no debate with LLMMLL.

Clearly an educated, articulate individual which is completely juxtaposed with how complete and utter indoctrination has stripped him/her of any individual thought process.

You will not get a straight answer to any question.

Never.

It’s a complete waste of anyone’s bandwidth to even attempt to get him/her to even consider a viewpoint other than TWAW or TMAM.

Taxi from this thread please! AGAIN

Wibbs

OscarMIlde wrote: »

Except that trans women are biologically the same as men, and trans men are biologically the same as women. There are a huge number of differences between men and women at a molecular level which effect every aspect of our lives and you think this is irrelevant to Trans issues?

Having read that article you linked(and it's been kinda known for quite a while) I had a look at the comments. One was from Trans individual wondering about how this would impact them and one reply was this:

You don’t need to substantiate your feelings though. I mean a biological reality is nice to have, but the feelings are the most important bit.

Reality be damned, feelings are the most important part. That sums up much of the half baked self indulgent and self involved philosophy that has moved through western culture over the last thirty years and not just with the Trans debate. Identity politics of all kinds are stuffed with this notion.

One eyed Jack

Gruffalux wrote: »

You use the word cis not as an adjective, eg tall, black, strong, Irish, but as an ideological weapon to attempt to divide the ontological category of woman into sub categories of female women and male women. Your own earlier fantasy of transfemales notwithstanding, there are no male women existing in reality. Transwomen exist. The reason I object to your use of cis is because of this purpose to which you attempt to deploy it.

I’m certain it’s not your intention, but suggesting that transwomen exist is surely an acknowledgement that they are a subset of women, the corollary being that ciswomen are a subset of women? I would suggest that what is implied by the term ‘transwoman’, is misleading, as it suggests they are a subset of women, when they very clearly aren’t a subset of women, but rather they are a subset of men - men who identify themselves as transgender or transsexual.

LM doesn’t make any distinction between sex and gender, which allows them to be purposely ambiguous in whether they are referring to men or women as transgender or transsexual, cisgender or cisexual. It’s more important to be clear on just what anyone means when they use the terms, because they could be referring to something entirely different - not the kind of thing any medical professional for example needs to discover for themselves when they are confronted with a patient who’s physiology is inconsistent with their medical records.

That’s also my issue with the term “adult human female” as though such a reductive definition is in any way useful to describe women. There’s far more to being a woman than simply being the product of a biological process, there are the social, political and economic considerations of that status in society, a status that is not any easier to adopt than attempting to alter their physiology when one feels that their sense of being is incongruous with their sex. Simply attempting to appropriate womanhood does not and can not resolve the underlying psychological issues.

Gervais08

Wibbs wrote: »

Having read that article you linked(and it's been kinda known for quite a while) I had a look at the comments. One was from Trans individual wondering about how this would impact them and one reply was this:

You don’t need to substantiate your feelings though. I mean a biological reality is nice to have, but the feelings are the most important bit.

Reality be damned, feelings are the most important part. That sums up much of the half baked self indulgent and self involved philosophy that has moved through western culture over the last thirty years and not just with the Trans debate. Identity politics of all kinds are stuffed with this notion.

Reductio ad absurdum I know but I had a chat one night with a guy who only went out with in his words “9s or higher” - told him he was a Sex and the City cliche but he was adamant.

If a man can “feel” they are a woman and “that’s more important” would I be able to say I feel I’m a foot taller, 60lbs lighter and beautiful ?? And if he rejects me he is phobic???

Or is that only a man’s prerogative ???

ingalway

Sittingpretty wrote: »

Jesus Christ. What a reach.

There is quite simply no debate with LLMMLL.

Clearly an educated, articulate individual which is completely juxtaposed with how complete and utter indoctrination has stripped him/her of any individual thought process.

You will not get a straight answer to any question.

Never.

It’s a complete waste of anyone’s bandwidth to even attempt to get him/her to even consider a viewpoint other than TWAW or TMAM.

Taxi from this thread please! AGAIN

It's a tactic used by many TRA's. They think it's clever and that it will sway people to their way of thinking, or at least drive away anyone with a brain who argues against them. I just ignore at this stage as there is nothing to be gained by engaging with them but I won't let it stop me saying what needs to be said.

suicide_circus

When an archaeologist digs up your bones in 1000 years, you'll be put into one of two categories based on the physical evidence at hand.

Gervais08

suicide_circus wrote: »

When an archaeologist digs up your bones in 1000 years, you'll be put into one of two categories based on the physical evidence at hand.

I said that a few posts ago - a mate took students who complained about his surgical language as “rather exclusive” because he said male and female.

Took them down to the cadaver lab and went - one male there, one female - that’s your choices.

One eyed Jack

suicide_circus wrote: »

When an archaeologist digs up your bones in 1000 years, you'll be put into one of two categories based on the physical evidence at hand.

I admire your optimism

However I wouldn’t be as confident given the evidence of past and current trends in archaeology and where those trends are most likely to go - it will be unlikely to be interpreted based upon the understanding of sex as a binary concept. In no specific chronological order -


”Nasty Women” and Man the Hunter: Archaeology and Gender Politics in 2016

Discovery of 9,000-Year-Old Female Hunter in Peru Is Rewriting History


The quote below is from 1992, and one could be forgiven for thinking it was satire in the style of the Life of Brian’s rewriting of history -


Prominent archaeologists Margaret W. Conkey and Joan M. Gero detail the various ways gender is shaped in archaeological research. Gender can appear as sociobiological strategy, social construction, political economy, agency, and as an evolutionary process. These six theoretical approaches allow for the engendering of archaeology and imparts a well-developed position on gender.

Although the new feminized outlook on archeology addressed detrimental biases in the analysis of past societies and made progress in the study of gender, the feminist theory created a new set of criticisms about archeological research. Some archaeologists have openly criticized gender archaeology. One of those responsible was Paul Bahn, who in 1992 published a statement declaring that:

The latest outbreak - which bears a great resemblance to the good old days of the new archaeology (primarily a racket for the boys) - is gender archaeology, which is actually feminist archaeology (a new racket for the girls). Yes, folks, sisters are doing it for themselves... Hardly a month goes by without another conference on 'gender archaeology' being held somewhere by a host of female archaeologists (plus a few brave or trendy males who aspire to political correctness). Some of its aims are laudable, but the bandwagon shouldn't be allowed to roll too far, as the new archaeology did, before the empresses' lack of clothes is pointed out by gleeful cynics.


Gender archaeology

Gervais08

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I admire your optimism

However I wouldn’t be as confident given the evidence of past and current trends in archaeology and where those trends are most likely to go - it will be unlikely to be interpreted based upon the understanding of sex as a binary concept. In no specific chronological order -


”Nasty Women” and Man the Hunter: Archaeology and Gender Politics in 2016

Discovery of 9,000-Year-Old Female Hunter in Peru Is Rewriting History


The quote below is from 1992, and one could be forgiven for thinking it was satire in the style of the Life of Brian’s rewriting of history -


Prominent archaeologists Margaret W. Conkey and Joan M. Gero detail the various ways gender is shaped in archaeological research. Gender can appear as sociobiological strategy, social construction, political economy, agency, and as an evolutionary process. These six theoretical approaches allow for the engendering of archaeology and imparts a well-developed position on gender.

Although the new feminized outlook on archeology addressed detrimental biases in the analysis of past societies and made progress in the study of gender, the feminist theory created a new set of criticisms about archeological research. Some archaeologists have openly criticized gender archaeology. One of those responsible was Paul Bahn, who in 1992 published a statement declaring that:

The latest outbreak - which bears a great resemblance to the good old days of the new archaeology (primarily a racket for the boys) - is gender archaeology, which is actually feminist archaeology (a new racket for the girls). Yes, folks, sisters are doing it for themselves... Hardly a month goes by without another conference on 'gender archaeology' being held somewhere by a host of female archaeologists (plus a few brave or trendy males who aspire to political correctness). Some of its aims are laudable, but the bandwagon shouldn't be allowed to roll too far, as the new archaeology did, before the empresses' lack of clothes is pointed out by gleeful cynics.


Gender archaeology

Well to quote Con Air “We be ****ed”.

Wibbs

Standard operating procedure of late. Let's look at how dumb stuff could be in the past and rather than bring the pendulum back into balance, massively over swing into the daft and as a means of some petty "revenge" on the "oppressors". By copying them their dumb.

Gatling

Can you imagine now going back to something more recent as say WW1 and then trying to climb a certain percentage of the millions of soldiers killed were trans based off an internet opinion .

It's bad enough we see groups pressuring the likes of studios to make movie or TV characters trans and gay to be more inclusive or face somekind of transpobic backlash

Wibbs

There's a helluva lot more gay people though.

LLMMLL

Gruffalux wrote: »

You use the word cis not as an adjective, eg tall, black, strong, Irish, but as an ideological weapon to attempt to divide the ontological category of woman into sub categories of female women and male women. Your own earlier fantasy of transfemales notwithstanding, there are no male women existing in reality. Transwomen exist. The reason I object to your use of cis is because of this purpose to which you attempt to deploy it.

Re earlier mentions of far right similarities when it comes to enforcing ideology I think the descriptor people are looking for is the authoritarian left.
I have been very surprised over the past decade or so at how radical authoritarianism and ideological extremism has infiltrated the left side of politics. I suppose I should not be so surprised given that eugenics and forced sterilisation, etc were ideas that emanated from the left wings of intellectual history.
When I hear elements within the authoritarian left now accept as incontestable issues like rights to abort up to birth or a duty to educate children that they live on a dying planet mere years away from extinction or that white people must take the knee publicly, be silenced academically and make reparations for implied ancestral sins, that childrens puberty must be halted regardless of what damage that does to the body and brain, sex offending males must be imprisoned with females due to their womanly souls, and so on, really I find it dystopian.

That's pretty much the function of adjectives. The adjectives you quote all divide up groups into subgroups. The only difference is that you don't mind if humans are divided into tall and short groups, but you have a Amajor problem with women being divided into cis and trans. The issue is with you, not me. You have an issue with cis being used as an adjective so instead of just saying that, you try to claim it's not being used as an adjective as it doesn't align with your political views. Your political views do not get to decide what is an adjective or not.

"authoritarian left" is nonsense. TERFs are extremely adept at using institutional authority (or at least attempting to do so) to enforce their views. Just take a look at the multiple judicial reviews they have going on in the UK. You're happy for an authority to enforce your views but any attempting by TRAs to do so, again is a problem for you.

I think it's far more authoritarian to believe the definition of adjective should be "anything that aligns with gruffalux's political views".

LLMMLL

Sittingpretty wrote: »

Jesus Christ. What a reach.

There is quite simply no debate with LLMMLL.

Clearly an educated, articulate individual which is completely juxtaposed with how complete and utter indoctrination has stripped him/her of any individual thought process.

You will not get a straight answer to any question.

Never.

It’s a complete waste of anyone’s bandwidth to even attempt to get him/her to even consider a viewpoint other than TWAW or TMAM.

Taxi from this thread please! AGAIN

Bizarre that you would defend the posting of outright lies. Posting internet memes as fact is pretty outrageous.

Gervais08

LLMMLL wrote: »

That's pretty much the function of adjectives. The adjectives you quote all divide up groups into subgroups. The only difference is that you don't mind if humans are divided into tall and short groups, but you have a Amajor problem with women being divided into cis and trans. The issue is with you, not me. You have an issue with cis being used as an adjective so instead of just saying that, you try to claim it's not being used as an adjective as it doesn't align with your political views. Your political views do not get to decide what is an adjective or not.

"authoritarian left" is nonsense. TERFs are extremely adept at using institutional authority (or at least attempting to do so) to enforce their views. Just take a look at the multiple judicial reviews they have going on in the UK. You're happy for an authority to enforce your views but any attempting by TRAs to do so, again is a problem for you.

I think it's far more authoritarian to believe the definition of adjective should be "anything that aligns with gruffalux's political views".

Or to tell someone who finds a word you use offensive that they - in your opinion only - are wrong.

Think of a negative word for a transgender person. If someone in here used it and you complained, there is zero chance that poster would be able to say “it’s the TRAs PR campaign, it’s not an offensive word, you’re lying”.

No, we’d be banned. Why the doubles standards here is beyond me.

LLMMLL

Gervais08 wrote: »

I said that a few posts ago - a mate took students who complained about his surgical language as “rather exclusive” because he said male and female.

Took them down to the cadaver lab and went - one male there, one female - that’s your choices.

I'm pretty sure I've seen this exact same story posted on mumsnet. Funny how there are so many surgeons taking their students down to the cadaver lab to educate those silly TRAs.

Smacruairi

It's true of all NOBs (non believers of biology). Very myopic view of the standards of discourse, their way or no way. They also seem dangerously obsessed with mumsnet.

Gervais08

LLMMLL wrote: »

I'm pretty sure I've seen this exact same story posted on mumsnet. Funny how there are so many surgeons taking their students down to the cadaver lab to educate those silly TRAs.

Deflect all you want pal, I’m not a mum so I’d avoid mumsnet like I wish I could avoid you.

Gervais08

Smacruairi wrote: »

It's true of all NOBs (non believers of biology). Very myopic view of the standards of discourse, their way or no way. They also seem dangerously obsessed with mumsnet.

Possibly indignant on behalf of those playing dress up who want to gestate their foetuses in a box a la Loretta in the Life of Brian.

LLMMLL

Gervais08 wrote: »

Or to tell someone who finds a word you use offensive that they - in your opinion only - are wrong.

Think of a negative word for a transgender person. If someone in here used it and you complained, there is zero chance that poster would be able to say “it’s the TRAs PR campaign, it’s not an offensive word, you’re lying”.

No, we’d be banned. Why the doubles standards here is beyond me.

Lol you literally use the word "in your opinion". Your first sentence is basically saying it is authoritarian of me to tell someone my opinion that they are wrong.

We have peopleon this thread complaining about the new crazy world where reality is ignored but also it's authoritarian to state an opinion. It's really laughable.

As for the second part of your post, some words are widely agreed by everyone to be offensive. Not every word. I don't think a gay person or group of gay people would be successful in getting the word "gay" banned on boards.

You do not get to decide which words are insults. You are not society. Anyone can decide what words they feel insults them personally. Nobody else has to listen. You are free to use all the trans insults you seem to want to be able to use. Nobody can stop you. But it will probably result in mod action.

LLMMLL

Gervais08 wrote: »

Deflect all you want pal, I’m not a mum so I’d avoid mumsnet like I wish I could avoid you.

I wasn't saying you used mumsnet. Just that the "story" is doing the rounds there. Probably people on Twitter too saying their surgeon friend took their students down to the cadaver lab for a bit of a laugh.