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

CtevenSrowder

LLMMLL wrote: »

so if I say "I reckon obvious breakfast is looking for children with less than vigilant parents" I'm asking a question?

Are you aware of what "I reckon..." Means?

"I reckon" is the opposite of speculation.

This is truly bizarre reasoning.

No it isn't. You could say about someone: 'I reckon he is straight'. You don't know he is, but you are speculating that they may be.

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

so if I say "I reckon obvious breakfast is looking for children with less than vigilant parents" I'm asking a question?

Are you aware of what "I reckon..." Means?

"I reckon" is the opposite of speculation.

This is truly bizarre reasoning.

I do hope you see the irony of asking someone if they are aware what a word means when you are literally arguing that a man can be a woman.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Anyway...

Woodsie1 wrote: »

Maybe you should do some courses in child protection.
Your naivety is dangerous.

There is a lot of ‘optimism bias’ around all this. Whenever safeguarding is brought up and erosion of sex-based rights queried in various online discussions, there tends to be lots of happy clappy “Can’t we all get along?” type responses. I mean, that would be lovely, but in any population group (men, women, straight, gay, transgender), one needs to consider the small amount of people who are up to no good. We cannot pretend they don’t exist and we need protections in place against them. We should be able to talk about safeguarding and protection of vulnerable people without being called bigots. Because the world isn’t all happy clappy.

Woodsie1

LLMMLL wrote: »

I'm not naive at all. I actually researched the group and found that they provided a range of wetsuit tops for trans girls.

Everything claimed about that group was a lie. If you continue to perpetuate the lies then there must be some reason you have an axe to grind with this group. Maybe because they're trans?

You clearly have no clue whats involved in putting on events involving children.
All you care about is trans people getting their own way.

CtevenSrowder

LLMMLL wrote: »

I'm not naive at all. I actually researched the group and found that they provided a range of wetsuit tops for trans girls.

Everything claimed about that group was a lie. If you continue to perpetuate the lies then there must be some reason you have an axe to grind with this group. Maybe because they're trans?

Or maybe it's because they'd a truly bizarre ad out for swimming. If any swim club put out a similar ad it would similarly questioned, but ofcourse when it's anything trans no dissent is allowed, and the old tired tactic of transphobia gets wheeled out.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

I expect this thread to be closed by morning.

LLMMLL

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

No it isn't. You could say about someone: 'I reckon he is straight'. You don't know he is, but you are speculating that they may be.

That's a ridiculous definition of the.meaning of reckon. You are not just idly speculating. You are staying that this your belief. You are right that it does not express certainty but in no way is it neutral. Here's the dictionaty definition: be of the opinion

When you have an opinion you are not speculating. You have arrived at your belief.

Woodsie1

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I expect this thread to be closed by morning.

Hopefully mods can see what needs to be actioned and not nuke the whole thread.

LLMMLL

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Anyway...



There is a lot of ‘optimism bias’ around all this. Whenever safeguarding is brought up and erosion of sex-based rights queried in various online discussions, there tends to be lots of happy clappy “Can’t we all get along?” type responses. I mean, that would be lovely, but in any population group (men, women, straight, gay, transgender), one needs to consider the small amount of people who are up to no good. We cannot pretend they don’t exist and we need protections in place against them. We should be able to talk about safeguarding and protection of vulnerable people without being called bigots. Because the world isn’t all happy clappy.

I'm perfectly willing to talk child safety and safeguarding.

I am against it being used to imply groups of people are oaedophiles.

I don't Think you really have any knowledge or interest on child safety. You clearly hadn't read the 120 document you linked to earlier. You had no idea what was in it.

I'd be more willing to take you seriously if you actually educated yourself on child safety instead of using it as a weapon against marginalized groups.

Ten of Swords

Leave out the swimming group please, thread is going off topic

CtevenSrowder

LLMMLL wrote: »

That's a ridiculous definition of the.meaning of reckon. You are not just idly speculating. You are staying that this your belief. You are right that it does not express certainty but in no way is it neutral. Here's the dictionaty definition: be of the opinion

When you have an opinion you are not speculating. You have arrived at your belief.

Yes, but an opinion can be speculative. He's it's definition: 'engaged in, expressing, or based on conjecture rather than knowledge'. ODB didn't know they up were up to nefarious things, but speculated they may be based on a bizarre ad and its contents.

Woodsie1

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Anyway...



There is a lot of ‘optimism bias’ around all this. Whenever safeguarding is brought up and erosion of sex-based rights queried in various online discussions, there tends to be lots of happy clappy “Can’t we all get along?” type responses. I mean, that would be lovely, but in any population group (men, women, straight, gay, transgender), one needs to consider the small amount of people who are up to no good. We cannot pretend they don’t exist and we need protections in place against them. We should be able to talk about safeguarding and protection of vulnerable people without being called bigots. Because the world isn’t all happy clappy.

Ive a very close family member involved in youth work and the hoops she needs to jump through to organise any kind of event involving under age children is astounding...astounding but neccessary...stuff like trans swimming classes shouldnt be above these same restrictions and should be just as heavily scrutinised but for some strange reason the authorities are a ot morelax concerning these events.

Woodsie1

Ten of Swords wrote: »

Leave out the swimming group please, thread is going off topic

Sorry,I was posting that and didnt see your warning:o

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

PoisonIvyBelle wrote: »

i find it's all getting a bit confusing. Jordan Peterson spoke out on the whole 20 million pronouns thing a few years ago and was vilified for it, but I've always agreed with his logic on that score.

I agree with J.K. Rowling also, but here's the thing: I'm not transphobic and I'm not homophobic. I'm just looking at the facts.

A.If you're born biologically male, you're biologically male.
B.If you're born biologically female, you're biologically female.

If you identify as another gender, then you identify as another gender. And everyone should be able to do that, live as they want to live, and request to be called what they want to be called.

But the crazy thing is, Rowling was dogpiled for stating just this. Called scum. Transphobic. Responsible for suicides. It’s absolutely insane. How did we get here? How is stating “only women menstruate” controversial?

LLMMLL

Woodsie1 wrote: »

Ive a very close family member involved in youth work and the hoops she needs to jump through to organise any kind of event involving under age children is astounding...astounding but neccessary...stuff like trans swimming classes shouldnt be above these same restrictions and should be just as heavily scrutinised but for some strange reason the authorities are a ot morelax concerning these events.

You have no idea what hoops they jumped through. None at all. The fact that you assume they didn't abide by the rules after all the assumptions about banned parents and exposed breasts turned out to be nonsense really exposes your prejudice.

LLMMLL

Ten of Swords wrote: »

Leave out the swimming group please, thread is going off topic

Also just saw this warning

LLMMLL

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

But the crazy thing is, Rowling was dogpiled for stating just this. Called scum. Transphobic. Responsible for suicides. It’s absolutely insane. How did we get here? How is stating “only women menstruate” controversial?

Because transmen can menstruate too.

One eyed Jack

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

There is a lot of ‘optimism bias’ around all this. Whenever safeguarding is brought up and erosion of sex-based rights queried in various online discussions, there tends to be lots of happy clappy “Can’t we all get along?” type responses. I mean, that would be lovely, but in any population group (men, women, straight, gay, transgender), one needs to consider the small amount of people who are up to no good. We cannot pretend they don’t exist and we need protections in place against them. We should be able to talk about safeguarding and protection of vulnerable people without being called bigots. Because the world isn’t all happy clappy.

What are these sex based rights you keep referring to and how are they being eroded? As far as I’m aware women’s rights still exist in Irish law, as do men’s rights, and since 2015 people who prefer to be identified in law as their preferred gender have that right.

Why should the small minority of people who are up to no good determine anyone’s rights? We have protections in place already in law and punishments in law to deter people from violating the rights of others. We are able to talk about safeguarding and protecting vulnerable people without being called bigots, but if you’re trying to argue that people should be denied rights on the basis of what they might do if they got them, then the cap fits really, because nobody ever cared about rights or needed rights to get up to no good. It’s when people get up to good we punish those individuals, not a whole group of people who haven’t done anything wrong.


Definition of bigot btw:

a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions.

LLMMLL

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What are these sex based rights you keep referring to and how are they being eroded? As far as I’m aware women’s rights still exist in Irish law, as do men’s rights, and since 2015 people who prefer to be identified in law as their preferred gender have that right.

Why should the small minority of people who are up to no good determine anyone’s rights? We have protections in place already in law and punishments in law to deter people from violating the rights of others. We are able to talk about safeguarding and protecting vulnerable people without being called bigots, but if you’re trying to argue that people should be denied rights on the basis of what they might do if they got them, then the cap fits really, because nobody ever cared about rights or needed rights to get up to no good. It’s when people get up to good we punish those individuals, not a whole group of people who haven’t done anything wrong.

You won't find them written down anywhere. They're made up.

Woodsie1

LLMMLL wrote: »

Because transmen can menstruate too.

Thats because transmen are biologically women

LLMMLL

Woodsie1 wrote: »

Thats because transmen are biologically women

They are men. So she is wrong in stating that only women menstruate.

jaxxx

LLMMLL wrote: »

The "....phobia" words are rarely used to mean the old lyncher, gaybasher kind of prejudice.

Lots of people will say terrible things about gay people for example but claim they actually have no issue with them. They are still homophobic.

Oh my f*cking god.. .. .. disagreeing with the idea that people can change their gender because they identify as a different sex IS NOT TRANSPHOBIC! Automatically attacking and vilifiying ANYONE like JK Rowling, etc just because they state this and disagree with this IDEA is nothing short of FASCIST! There are people out there that identify as a different age, actual adults identifying as kids! Is it "phobic" to disagree with that notion?? The f*cking hypocrisy is absolutely unreal!

WHAT you are is determined at the moment you were conceived. The combination of your mother's egg and your father's one sperm out of millions that broke through and fertilsied that egg determines what you are. This f*cking issue INFURIATES me because it yet another nail in the coffin of the last remnants of respect humanity has for the natural world! Human beings CANNOT naturally change their DNA. Even if science one day created the means for changing DNA on a cellular level, that would still be irrelevant because IT IS NOT A NATURAL PROCESS. It is ONLY cosmetic! Nothing more! The fact that the world is allowing this DELUSION is absolute insanity. I sympathise with those who genuinely feel they were born as the wrong sex, really I do. But they should be receiving the counselling and support they require to deal with the fact that they are what they are, and what they are is what nature intended.

Woodsie1

LLMMLL wrote: »

They are men. So she is wrong in stating that only women menstruate.

They are transmen...so you are wrong.

Danzy

LLMMLL wrote: »

They are men. So she is wrong in stating that only women menstruate.

Ok then.

LLMMLL

jaxxx wrote: »

Oh my f*cking god.. .. .. disagreeing with the idea that people can change their gender because they identify as a different sex IS NOT TRANSPHOBIC! Automatically attacking and vilifiying ANYONE like JK Rowling, etc just because they state this and disagree with this IDEA is nothing short of FASCIST! There are people out there that identify as a different age, actual adults identifying as kids! Is it "phobic" to disagree with that notion?? The f*cking hypocrisy is absolutely unreal!

There is no slippery slope here much as you'd like to pretend there is. If a similar number of people identified as a different age as the number of people who are trans I'd damn sure want to find out more about it and why this is. I'm guessing it's just one person you read about in a clcikbait article though.

And you REALLY need to read up on what fascism actually is.

LLMMLL

Woodsie1 wrote: »

They are transmen...so you are wrong.

Nope. Transmen are men. Cis men are men. All men.

o1s1n

LLMMLL wrote: »

They are men. So she is wrong in stating that only women menstruate.

I think that's enough internet for me tonight.

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

They are men. So she is wrong in stating that only women menstruate.

No. They are not

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

No. They are not

You're entitled to your opinion the Dunne. But you can't force it on anyone else.

Thankfut society is moving forward In A Progressive way on trans issues.

jaxxx

LLMMLL wrote: »

You're entitled to your opinion the Dunne. But you can't force it on anyone else.

Thankfut society is moving forward In A Progressive way on trans issues.

LOL THE ABSOLUTE IRONY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!