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

LLMMLL

OscarMIlde wrote: »

Or maybe they feel strongly about this issue, and aren't about to let hard won protections be lost for fear of disfavour. Feminists have always faced a certain amount of opprobrium from society. It didn't stop them campaigning before, and it certainly won't stop them now.

Which suggests to me that they don't feel strongly about the issue. They just feel irrelevant and are lashing out. And unfortunately it is the vulnerable people in society they chose as their targets.

LLMMLL

randomchild wrote: »

Careful your misogyny is showing.

How so? Terfs are a tiny minority of women and most women don't share their prejudiced views.

randomchild

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s not a statement of fact? It’s your interpretation of evidence you’ve chosen to present which suits your argument. Easily contradicted by the evidence which suggests quite the opposite - that men are incredibly protective of women. It’s not that I don’t like it, it’s that I think the argument that men pose a threat to women simply has no merit whatsoever.

It’s an argument that’s used to justify prejudice and paranoia, founded on neuroticism, and that’s why it just doesn’t have any influence on our laws, because the law does not presume guilt by suggesting that solely by virtue of their sex, men present any danger to women whatsoever.

This is an incredible claim:

1 in 7 women in Ireland compared to 1 in 17 men experience severe domestic violence. Women are over twice as likely as men to have experienced severe physical abuse, seven times more likely to have experienced sexual abuse, and are more likely to experience serious injuries than men. (National Crime Council and ESRI, Domestic Abuse of Women and Men in Ireland, 2005)

90% of the more systematic, persistent and injurious violence that is instrumental in the maintenance of power, is perpetrated by men. (Male Victims of Domestic Violence: A Substantive and Methodology Research Review, Michael S. Kimmel, 2001)

A major study of police reports and crime surveys in the UK, USA and Canada found that between 90 and 97% of perpetrators of violence in intimate relationships are men. (Dobash and Dobash, Women, Violence and Social Change, 1992)

In the five years ending in March 2010, more than 312,100 defendants were prosecuted for domestic violence in the UK. 93% of defendants were men and 85% of victims were women. [Violence against Women Crime Report 2009-2010, UK Crown Prosecution Service]

The entire history of humanity has been men beating, raping and subjugating women with statistical impunity on the basis of their sex.

LLMMLL

Dave0301 wrote: »

It is not up to you to decide if a word is offensive to a particular group or not though.

If the group it refers to finds it offensive, or feel that it has negative connotations then it shouldn't be used.

That can be applied to any words used in a pejorative context.

Cis is a descriptor of reality and I haven't used it as an insult. I challenge you to find one post where I used it as an insult.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Homelander wrote: »

The mental gymnastics on display in this thread to defeat or deflect common sense and logic is breath taking.

I know, like, I can't believe people are coming at me with questions like (I'm paraphrasing) "What do you mean by safeguarding exactly?" and "What is this vulnerability that you speak of when it comes to women and girls?". They know well but are just trying to trip me up for motivations unclear to me. And I don't have all the answers because I'm not a social worker, teacher, doctor or in any position of minding children. I just have my common sense and have done some reading on the topic but not as much as a professional in the field. Naturally.

And I'm pretty sure one of the people asking me these questions is a father. :eek:

LLMMLL

Gruffalox wrote: »

Sorry. I mistook you earlier on. You meant to call women opposing gender ideology IRRELEVANT dried up old hags. Apologies.

You should really stop using the term dried up old hags to describe women. You are the only one who has said it.

They are definitely irrelevant.

OscarMIlde

LLMMLL wrote: »

Which suggests to me that they don't feel strongly about the issue. They just feel irrelevant and are lashing out. And unfortunately it is the vulnerable people in society they chose as their targets.

I'm not certain how that suggest to you that they don't feel strongly about the issue, what I'm saying is they are not about to let verbal and at times physical threats of violence dissuade them from their cause, which is advocating on behalf of women.

And make no mistake about it, women are vulnerable. By dint of our biology we are on average less strong than men, and that includes men who believe themselves to be women. If you disbelieve this it is because you are letting idealogy/bias override your critical thinking skills.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Not even a bit. People are free to believe what they want.

If someone says to me they believe in God, I have no issue with that.

If someone says I believe in God so now you must acknowledge that my belief is true and anything less is hate speak, I will tell them to **** off.

Believe what you want, but I will not be forced into accepting your delusion and will not deny actual reality to suit your feelings.

I’ve never argued that you should be forced to accept anything, ever. By that same token I would argue that nobody should be forced to accept anything you say either. From their perspective they’re not going to deny reality to suit your feelings either.

That’s why I pointed out that Irish law and indeed international human rights law acknowledges both perspectives, and doesn’t favour one over the other. It tolerates both perspectives, and prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender, sexual orientation, religious belief and so on. The same laws which protect everyone from discrimination also protect you from being discriminated against.

LLMMLL

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I think many really young women just don't realise the tussles that were required for what they even consider basic, everyday rights. All that the suffragettes went through over a century ago. That many places didn't even have women's WCs until well into the 20th century.

They are, I believe, mostly coming from a good place. But it's twinkly eyed idealism. They haven't thought it through. People haven't thought it through. And men supporting the cause simply have less to lose.

Here's a thought experiment. Now, I must stress, I DON'T THINK THIS SHOULD ACTUALLY HAPPEN. It's just a thought experiment:

On the changing rooms and restrooms issue, because space in buildings is often at a premium, how about women's changing rooms/WCs and unisex changing rooms/WCs? If the argument is that unisex facilities are safe, why not have that unisex facility and a separate one for women and girls (and for mothers to bring their little boys into also) in recognition of the physical strength differential? Any woman who doesn't feel there's any issue can use the unisex facilities. Any transgender women worried about her safety should feel more assured in a unisex facility than a men's facility. Transgender men may also feel safer in the unisex option.

Now, in reality, I think men deserve their sex-segregated space too. There might be a strength difference but men I'm sure want to preserve their dignity and privacy too and shouldn't have to be naked around women.

I just bring up the thought experiment because the argument is that transgender women are in grave danger in male facilities so a unisex facility and a women's facility should solve that as some women and transgender men might use the unisex one too and might perhaps make it safer for transgender women. If there's an objection to this by transgender women and transgender men, then why?

If men deserve a space where they can be guaranteed freedom from a minority of harassers then we would need separate changing rooms for gay men as well.

And I think young women are well aware of the fights that have been fought. The 50 year old terfy feminist was not a suffragette, she would have to be quite delusional to think so.

But they know older femijsits did not fight against unisex changing rooms. They were never proposed in the past.

FVP3

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s not a statement of fact? It’s your interpretation of evidence you’ve chosen to present which suits your argument. Easily contradicted by the evidence which suggests quite the opposite - that men are incredibly protective of women. It’s not that I don’t like it, it’s that I think the argument that men pose a threat to women simply has no merit whatsoever.
.

Your misunderstanding of the statistics presented to you is quite simply astounding.

It’s an argument that’s used to justify prejudice and paranoia, founded on neuroticism, and that’s why it just doesn’t have any influence on our laws, because the law does not presume guilt by suggesting that solely by virtue of their sex, men present any danger to women whatsoever.

This is the kind of post that only an extreme MRA would have posted a decade or so ago.

JoannaJag

LLMMLL wrote: »

You should really stop using the term dried up old hags to describe women. You are the only one who has said it.

They are definitely irrelevant.

Again with the women. Women are irrelevant. This is massively transphobic language. Transwomen are women and absolutely relevant in today’s society. Your exclusionary language is outing you as a terf. Again. Oh wait did you mean women women?

LLMMLL

Madeleine Birchfield wrote: »

Plenty of American white supremecists would say there is nothing hateful about the n-word. That doesn't make the n-word appropriate to use.

Mmmhmmm because cis and the n-word have a similar history. Sure *nods politely*

OscarMIlde

LLMMLL wrote: »

You should really stop using the term dried up old hags to describe women. You are the only one who has said it.

They are definitely irrelevant.

They are more relevant then ever as they are fighting against the encroachment of women's rights by a brigade of idealogues who refuse to engage in well meaning dialogue to resolve the issue of protecting both people who believe themselves to be the opposite biological sex and protecting biological women. The idea of give and take from some quarters seems to be that women must do all the giving.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Haha. Accusing someone of living in a fantasy world while claiming men can be women by virtue of wanting it to be so.

Pot...meet the racist kettle.

I'm racist now? LOL

Baggly

Deleted User wrote: »

Haha. Accusing someone of living in a fantasy world while claiming men can be women by virtue of wanting it to be so.

Pot...meet the racist kettle.

LLMMLL wrote: »

I'm racist now? LOL

Mod

Both of you please calm down and discuss things civilly.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’ve never argued that you should be forced to accept anything, ever. By that same token I would argue that nobody should be forced to accept anything you say either. From their perspective they’re not going to deny reality to suit your feelings either.

That’s why I pointed out that Irish law and indeed international human rights law acknowledges both perspectives, and doesn’t favour one over the other. It tolerates both perspectives, and prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender, sexual orientation, religious belief and so on. The same laws which protect everyone from discrimination also protect you from being discriminated against.

Not true. If I am forced to accept the biological lie that women are men and vice versa and by my non acceptance am open to being charged with a hate crime, a demonstrably false belief is encroaching into my life.

A woman is not a man. That is a fact.

LLMMLL

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I know, like, I can't believe people are coming at me with questions like (I'm paraphrasing) "What do you mean by safeguarding exactly?" and "What is this vulnerability that you speak of when it comes to women and girls?". They know well but are just trying to trip me up for motivations unclear to me. And I don't have all the answers because I'm not a social worker, teacher, doctor or in any position of minding children. I just have my common sense and have done some reading on the topic but not as much as a professional in the field. Naturally.

And I'm pretty sure one of the people asking me these questions is a father. :eek:

The reason you have been asked about your stance on safeguarding is that you claimed to be following strict safeguarding rules.

When asked where these rules are you posted a 120 page document from Tulsa that contained ZERO reference to the rules you claim to be following.

So of course people need to ask what YOU mean by safeguarding. We all know what safeguarding is. We j7st don't know what made up version exists in your head.

FVP3

LLMMLL wrote: »

But they know older femijsits did not fight against unisex changing rooms. They were never proposed in the past.

Never been proposed in general ( they did exist in Nordic countries) means that there was no reason to oppose them of course.

However men's rights advocates did try to get into female only spaces (for instance gyms)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stopps_v_Just_Ladies_Fitness_(Metrotown)_Ltd

On October 2, 2004 Vancouver resident Ralph Stopps applied to the Just Ladies Fitness facility in Metrotown and was denied membership because he is male. Stopps filed a complaint with the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal on November 21, 2006 that he was discriminated against because of his gender, violating s. 8 of the "Human Rights Code," which prohibits discrimination by sex. The tribunal, a panel of 9 females and 3 males, rendered its decision that the complainant had not established that he was discriminated against.

The existence of these gyms ( or even classes within gyms ) and other female safe spaces was challenged by right wingers for years, they seem to have won in the end.

One eyed Jack

randomchild wrote: »

This is an incredible claim:

...
The entire history of humanity has been men beating, raping and subjugating women with statistical impunity on the basis of their sex.

It’s not based on their sex, it’s based upon those men’s attitudes towards women. If you’re going to come at me with statistics, then I would expect your figures to be based upon the attitudes of the total number of men towards women, and not just the number of men who have attitudes towards women which supports your argument. Just like I would expect if the argument is that men in dresses are a danger to women, then of the total number of men in dresses, how many have horrible attitudes towards women, and how many do not? The vast majority do not, so any evidence you have which suggests a predisposition to those attitudes is simply known as cherry picking statistics to support your prejudice.

LLMMLL

OscarMIlde wrote: »

I'm not certain how that suggest to you that they don't feel strongly about the issue, what I'm saying is they are not about to let verbal and at times physical threats of violence dissuade them from their cause, which is advocating on behalf of women.

And make no mistake about it, women are vulnerable. By dint of our biology we are on average less strong than men, and that includes men who believe themselves to be women. If you disbelieve this it is because you are letting idealogy/bias override your critical thinking skills.

I'm saying they don't feel strongly about the issue in particular, that it is an expression of their need to feel strongly about something in the face of complete irrelevancy.

People who are lost in life often latch onto a belief system and become zealots. This is what's happening with terfy people.

joseywhales

This is why I never wanted a job that was public facing

LLMMLL

JoannaJag wrote: »

Again with the women. Women are irrelevant. This is massively transphobic language. Transwomen are women and absolutely relevant in today’s society. Your exclusionary language is outing you as a terf. Again. Oh wait did you mean women women?

I never said women are irrelevant. Please try harder.

LLMMLL

OscarMIlde wrote: »

They are more relevant then ever as they are fighting against the encroachment of women's rights by a brigade of idealogues who refuse to engage in well meaning dialogue to resolve the issue of protecting both people who believe themselves to be the opposite biological sex and protecting biological women. The idea of give and take from some quarters seems to be that women must do all the giving.

I think you are confusing relevant with "kicking up a stink on Twitter". Society is pregressing regardless of their protests.

Gruffalux

LLMMLL wrote: »

You should really stop using the term dried up old hags to describe women. You are the only one who has said it.

They are definitely irrelevant.

Begging your pardon, why I meant spinstery old irrelevant terfs of a certain demographic. Much nicer way of putting it. Thank you .

Gruffalux

LLMMLL wrote: »

I never said women are irrelevant. Please try harder.

You did.

Dyr

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s not a statement of fact? It’s your interpretation of evidence you’ve chosen to present which suits your argument. Easily contradicted by the evidence which suggests quite the opposite - that men are incredibly protective of women. It’s not that I don’t like it, it’s that I think the argument that men pose a threat to women simply has no merit whatsoever.

It’s an argument that’s used to justify prejudice and paranoia, founded on neuroticism, and that’s why it just doesn’t have any influence on our laws, because the law does not presume guilt by suggesting that solely by virtue of their sex, men present any danger to women whatsoever.

And now, you've had to change your original statement in the hope of having a leg to stand on :

"Men pose no more of a danger to women than women pose to men or vice versa."

Statistically and physically Men very much do present more of a danger to women than women do either to other women or men.

LLMMLL

FVP3 wrote: »

Never been proposed in general ( they did exist in Nordic countries) means that there was no reason to oppose them of course.

However men's rights advocates did try to get into female only spaces (for instance gyms)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stopps_v_Just_Ladies_Fitness_(Metrotown)_Ltd

On October 2, 2004 Vancouver resident Ralph Stopps applied to the Just Ladies Fitness facility in Metrotown and was denied membership because he is male. Stopps filed a complaint with the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal on November 21, 2006 that he was discriminated against because of his gender, violating s. 8 of the "Human Rights Code," which prohibits discrimination by sex. The tribunal, a panel of 9 females and 3 males, rendered its decision that the complainant had not established that he was discriminated against.

The existence of these gyms ( or even classes within gyms ) and other female safe spaces was challenged by right wingers for years, they seem to have won in the end.

It is absolutely ridiculous to paint these isolated incidents of MRA types fake-trying to gain access to women's spaces (we both know they had zero interest in joining Curves and we're just trying to make a point) as part of a long struggle that older feminists endured to have sex segregated spaces.

FVP3

LLMMLL wrote: »

I'm saying they don't feel strongly about the issue in particular, that it is an expression of their need to feel strongly about something in the face of complete irrelevancy.

People who are lost in life often latch onto a belief system and become zealots. This is what's happening with terfy people.

Thats an extreme generalised ad hominem. Maybe they are cis women ( to use that awful term) who want safe spaces for cis women, which was the general belief of all feminists until a few years ago.

You seem to be defending men on this thread in a way which might have been surprising to your younger self. The other pro trans poster is extremely pro male.

Gruffalux

LLMMLL wrote: »

Yes I actually think it's older feminists trying to cling to the relevancy they once had but is fast disappearing. It does explain the demographic issues somewhat.

In which LLMMLL calls women (who have opinions different than those he deems acceptable) irrelevant...

MoonUnit75

joseywhales wrote: »

This is why I never wanted a job that was public facing

The next stage will be to shame public facing people into picking a side. PR consultants know its better for a company or persona to placate fundamentalists than to stand up to them. Secular people don't really care that much but the fundamentalists rage at any person or entity committing blasphemy is enough to tarnish their public image.