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

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

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!

For some reason, sex as a category has been deemed worthless despite being written in law. And it’s mostly focused on women.

For example, in the statement he made, Daniel Radcliffe said “Transgender women are women. Any statement to the contrary erases the identity and dignity of transgender people and goes against all advice given by professional health care associations who have far more expertise on this subject matter than either Jo or I.” But that’s weird considering that Rowling talked about “people who menstruate” so it’s transgender men who were in the scope of her comments, not transgender women. But he made no reference to transgender men. He mentioned transgender women, then transgender people. Females got no look in anywhere in that opening paragraph.

jaxxx

LLMMLL wrote: »

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.

FASCISM:
Fascism is a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition


You in a nutshell!

And that age-identifying thing wasn't just a single case. Do your research. Hypocrite.

LLMMLL

jaxxx wrote: »

FASCISM:
Fascism is a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition


You in a nutshell!

Lol where is my dictatorial power and forcible.suppression. What a bizarre attitude.

(Plus I'd probably be more likely accused of being far-left)

LLMMLL

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

For some reason, sex as a category has been deemed worthless despite being written in law. And it’s mostly focused on women.

For example, in the statement he made, Daniel Radcliffe said “Transgender women are women. Any statement to the contrary erases the identity and dignity of transgender people and goes against all advice given by professional health care associations who have far more expertise on this subject matter than either Jo or I.” But that’s weird considering that Rowling talked about “people who menstruate” so it’s transgender men who were in the scope of her comments, not transgender women. But he made no reference to transgender men. He mentioned transgender women, then transgender people. Females got no look in anywhere in that opening paragraph.

I actually agree with you here. Not sure Daniel Radcliff understood the issue.

LLMMLL

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.

You are entitled to yours too. Thankfully, no matter how "progressive" society gets, biology won't change.

I'm not trying to force an opinion on anyone. It's a fact that there are demonstrable genetic differences between the sexes. A man is not a woman and vice versa. If you want to try and change terminology, go for it.

You can call a cow a chicken if it makes you feel better, but you won't get an egg.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You are entitled to yours too. Thankfully, no matter how "progressive" society gets, biology won't change.

I'm not trying to force an opinion on anyone. Im not forcing an opinion on anyone. It's a fact that there are demonstrable genetic differences between the sexes. A man is not a woman and vice versa. If you want to try and change terminology, go for it.

You can call a cow a chicken if it makes you feel better, but you won't get an egg.

I've no intention of calling a cow a.chicken. Why would I do that?

But a transman is a man, and this is being enshrined in more progressive states. Society is moving forward. These threads will have no negative impact on that process.

jaxxx

LLMMLL wrote: »

I've no intention of calling a cow a.chicken. Why would I do that?

But a transman is a man, and this is being enshrined in more progressive states. Society is moving forward. These threads will have no negative impact on that process.

Jane becomes John. So, let's now clone John: who are we gonna get? Jane? Or John?


QED


WE ARE NOT IN CHARGE OF THE NATURAL WORLD! You are what you are and you cannot change it anymore than a leopard can change its spots! All this is a result of self-entitlement as a society that we have lost all respect for life itself and believe that the planet and all other forms of life are nothing more than play things for us to do with as we wish!

LLMMLL

jaxxx wrote: »

Jane becomes John. So, let's now clone John: who are we gonna get? Jane? Or John?


QED


WE ARE NOT IN CHARGE OF THE NATURAL WORLD! You are what you are and you cannot change it anymore than a leopard can change its spots! All this is a result of self-entitlement as a society that we have lost all respect for life itself and believe that the planet and all other forms of life are nothing more than play things for us to do with as we wish!

Nobody has claimed we are in charge of the natural world. But we can be in charge of parts of it. I guess if you got cancer you wouldn't want someone to influence it's natural course. No chemo for you!

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

I've no intention of calling a cow a.chicken. Why would I do that?

But a transman is a man, and this is being enshrined in more progressive states. Society is moving forward. These threads will have no negative impact on that process.

Enshrined?

How?

A transgender man is no more a man than a "cis" woman is a man.

Semantics and wordplay aside, they will not have the genetics of a man, despite looking (maybe), acting and behaving as they feel a man would.

Some people may pretend along with them, but biologically they will never be a man.

It may be an inconvenient truth for you but it's the truth all the same. No amount of bull**** liberal pandering by "progressive" states will change that.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You are entitled to yours too. Thankfully, no matter how "progressive" society gets, biology won't change.

I'm not trying to force an opinion on anyone. It's a fact that there are demonstrable genetic differences between the sexes. A man is not a woman and vice versa. If you want to try and change terminology, go for it.

You can call a cow a chicken if it makes you feel better, but you won't get an egg.

Terminology changes constantly anyway. Of course there are genetic differences between the sexes, but when was the last time you determined anyone’s sex based upon their genes? Most people don’t carry an electron microscope on their person.

Calling a cow a chicken wouldn’t make any actual difference to the chicken, they’re still a chicken, it’s simply the case that now you can get milk from chickens, and if you want to call a chicken a cow, then cows lay eggs and everyone’s happy (except vegans, but nobody gives a fcuk what they think :pac:).

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

Nobody has claimed we are in charge of the natural world. But we can be in charge of parts of it. I guess if you got cancer you wouldn't want someone to influence it's natural course. No chemo for you!

That's a false equivalence.

Perhaps they could just identify as not having cancer.

jaxxx

LLMMLL wrote: »

Nobody has claimed we are in charge of the natural world. But we can be in charge of parts of it. I guess if you got cancer you wouldn't want someone to influence it's natural course. No chemo for you!

What a disgusting human being you are. You're really bringing cancer into this? How f*cking dare you. Cancer is a disease. Believing that you can actually change into something that conflicts your natural biology is an illusion.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Enshrined?

How?

Self id laws

A transgender man is no more a man than a "cis" woman is a man.

Semantics and wordplay aside, they will not have the genetics of a man, despite looking (maybe), acting and behaving as they feel a man would.

Some people may pretend along with them, but biologically they will never be a man.

It may be an inconvenient truth for you but it's the truth all the same. No amount of bull**** liberal pandering by "progressive" states will change that.

Oh i agree their genetics won't change. But a trans man is still a man.

LLMMLL

jaxxx wrote: »

What a disgusting human being you are. You're really bringing cancer into this? How f*cking dare you. Cancer is a disease. Believing that you can actually change into something that conflicts your natural biology is an illusion.

You sound very like those people who insult JK Rowling in this post.

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

Self id laws



Oh i agree their genetics won't change. But a trans man is still a man.

As long as your definition of a man is

Man: "not genetically a man"

then yes ok.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

As long as your definition of a man is

Man: "not genetically a man"

then yes ok.

No that's not my definition of man. Cis women are not men.

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

No that's not my definition of man. Cis women are not men.

May I ask which way you have transitioned?

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

May I ask which way you have transitioned?

Im not trans. Are you?

jaxxx

LLMMLL wrote: »

You sound very like those people who insult JK Rowling in this post.

You're the one equating a disease that kills millions with an illusion that effects less than 1% of people in the EU.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Deleted User wrote: »

You are entitled to yours too. Thankfully, no matter how "progressive" society gets, biology won't change.

I'm not trying to force an opinion on anyone. It's a fact that there are demonstrable genetic differences between the sexes. A man is not a woman and vice versa. If you want to try and change terminology, go for it.

You can call a cow a chicken if it makes you feel better, but you won't get an egg.

And JK Rowling was attacked, sometimes viciously, for observing that difference. But apparently, she’s the intolerant person in this situation?

Another thing I saw a lot of was “Why NOW, JK? There’s sooo much going on in the world” as if people are only allowed to care about one thing at a time. And I suspect she chose right now because it came in a week where somebody with a pretty large Twitter platform called her not safe to be around children simply because she supported Maya Forstater last year.

LLMMLL

jaxxx wrote: »

You're the one equating a disease that kills millions with an illusion that effects less than 1%.

I didn't equate them. They are separate examples of human interference in nature. There are many many more.

oyvey

jaxxx wrote: »

What a disgusting human being you are. You're really bringing cancer into this? How f*cking dare you. Cancer is a disease. Believing that you can actually change into something that conflicts your natural biology is an illusion.

Why can't they mention cancer?

LLMMLL

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

And JK Rowling was attacked, sometimes viciously, for observing that difference. But apparently, she’s the intolerant person in this situation?

Another thing I saw a lot of was “Why NOW, JK? There’s sooo much going on in the world” as if people are only allowed to care about one thing at a time. And I suspect she chose right now because it came in a week where somebody with a pretty large Twitter platform called her not safe to be around children simply because she supported Maya Forstater last year.

Do you think they were implying something about her?

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

Im not trans. Are you?

Apologies. I thought you were.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Apologies. I thought you were.

There's no need to apologise. I don't see any negative in being trans. It's like asking me do I have blond hair.

hetuzozaho

LLMMLL wrote: »

Self id laws

Pretty ignorant on all this...

Is there any other law changes that trans people are looking for in Ireland?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

oyvey wrote: »

Why can't they mention cancer?

I think jaxxx had cancer so it may be a sensitive subject for her. I have it too but I’ve had it for five years and so I’m battle-hardened.

jaxxx

LLMMLL wrote: »

I didn't equate them. They are separate examples of human interference in nature. There are many many more.

Oh you're such a hypocrite. Not surprising, most far left/right people are. Cancer is a natural part of life. Treating cancer isn't, but some very benign cancers (very rare though) can be survived. Can someone transition from male to female NATURALLY? Like I said earlier, if you clone John, you get Jane!

oyvey wrote: »

Why can't they mention cancer?

You equate something of a comparable nature.. .. .. Cancer and TS is cannot be compared as they are nowhere near similar to one another.. .. ..

hetuzozaho

jaxxx wrote: »

You equate something of a comparable nature.. .. .. Cancer and TS is cannot be compared as they are nowhere near similar to one another.. .. ..

I think LLMMLL was just saying that we do intervene with "nature" with science.

Tokyo

jaxxx wrote: »

What a disgusting human being you are. You're really bringing cancer into this? How f*cking dare you. Cancer is a disease. Believing that you can actually change into something that conflicts your natural biology is an illusion.

Mod: rein it in.