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

LLMMLL

Gruffalox wrote: »

You did.

I didn't

LLMMLL

FVP3 wrote: »

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.

For someone who loves stretching the meaning of ad hominem you are being very ad hominem (by your own definition) in the last paragraph.

Where have I been defensive about men?

FVP3

LLMMLL wrote: »

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.

Is it? He can now get in with a self determined sex change, if I understand Canadian law correctly.

The terfs you are so clearly in disagreement with would clearly find that the rug has been pulled under them on this subject, and that -- rather than any unhappiness with life -- might be the reason for their terfness.

The question is why any feminist would support self determination ( sure, access after medical transition should be a right).

LLMMLL

Gruffalox wrote: »

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

By your logic if I said "men who sexually attack women are rapists" you would interpret that as "men are rapists".

Keep going gruff. You're giving me a good laugh.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

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.

It is true, there is no law which exists which can compel you to accept anything. However if you act in such a way as constitutes harm to another person, then you could always be charged with plenty more than just a hate crime -


10.—(1) Any person who, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, by any means including by use of the telephone, harasses another by persistently following, watching, pestering, besetting or communicating with him or her, shall be guilty of an offence.

(2) For the purposes of this section a person harasses another where—

(a) he or she, by his or her acts intentionally or recklessly, seriously interferes with the other's peace and privacy or causes alarm, distress or harm to the other, and

(b) his or her acts are such that a reasonable person would realise that the acts would seriously interfere with the other's peace and privacy or cause alarm, distress or harm to the other.


Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act, 1997


The same law also protects you from harassment.

FVP3

LLMMLL wrote: »

For someone who loves stretching the meaning of ad hominem you are being very ad hominem (by your own definition) in the last paragraph.

No, I didnt. I was attacking your argument.

Where have I been defensive about men?

In the post about unisex changing rooms where you whatabouted your way out of the reality that most attacks on women happen in the changing rooms where men and women change. This is true regardless of the trans movement. In a different era defending that statistic would be left to the MRAs.

(As a guy though, I also feel that I should leave this to women themselves. Women are pretty good at applying patriarchal pressures on themselves as history shows, so i will let you at it and respond to One Eyed Jack, who is male as far as I know).

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

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.

There seems to be this odd belief that if a man transitions to a transgender woman, the male biology disappears. The transgender woman still needs to be classified under male patterns of strength and potential for criminality, IMO. Some people seem to be believe that those things just melt away during the transition process. It's most bizarre. Literally magical thinking.

FVP3

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It is true, there is no law which exists which can compel you to accept anything. However if you act in such a way as constitutes harm to another person, then you could always be charged with plenty more than just a hate crime -


10.—(1) Any person who, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, by any means including by use of the telephone, harasses another by persistently following, watching, pestering, besetting or communicating with him or her, shall be guilty of an offence.

(2) For the purposes of this section a person harasses another where—

(a) he or she, by his or her acts intentionally or recklessly, seriously interferes with the other's peace and privacy or causes alarm, distress or harm to the other, and

(b) his or her acts are such that a reasonable person would realise that the acts would seriously interfere with the other's peace and privacy or cause alarm, distress or harm to the other.


Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act, 1997


The same law also protects you from harassment.

Hard to see the relevance to that to this debate.

LLMMLL

FVP3 wrote: »

Is it? He can now get in with a self determined sex change, if I understand Canadian law correctly.

The terfs you are so clearly in disagreement with would clearly find that the rug has been pulled under them on this subject, and that -- rather than any unhappiness with life -- might be the reason for their terfness.

The question is why any feminist would support self determination ( sure, access after medical transition should be a right).

Yes it is ridiculous. ODB is trying to say that older feminists are showing consistency as they struggled to gain sex segregated spaces in the first place. It didn't happen that way. Sure some men in the 2000s tried to access female exclusive spaces (not changing rooms but gyms and clubs) under the guise of equality legislation. And these isolated incidents were quite easily shutdown. Trying to retroactively fit this into a struggle that older feminists faced to gain sex segregated changing areas in the first place is a quite extreme manipulation of the facts.

LLMMLL

FVP3 wrote: »

No, I didnt. I was attacking your argument.



In the post about unisex changing rooms where you whatabouted your way out of the reality that most attacks on women happen in the changing rooms where men and women change. This is true regardless of the trans movement. In a different era defending that statistic would be left to the MRAs.

(As a guy though, I also feel that I should leave this to women themselves. Women are pretty good at applying patriarchal pressures on themselves as history shows, so i will let you at it and respond to One Eyed Jack, who is male as far as I know).

You are suddenly focussed on OEJs gender and making up opinions that I have had in the past (apparently my current opinions are a surprise to my younger self. I'm glad you know younger me so well).

I don't particularly mind these comments but you've been dropping the term "ad hominem" all over the shop. Maybe you should use it consistently when it applies to yourself?

joseywhales

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

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.

I'm still waiting for the time when everyone gets tired of social media and sees it for what it is, a fantasy entertainment land unrelated to reality. Although, it seems to be taking a long time, so I might need to rethink. I'm still of the mindset of , it's just Twitter, nobody cares. All this outrage. I mean I still listen to Wagner if it was on and he was famously anti semitic, doesn't mean I care when I listen to the music.

Some people build a career on 'being famous', if your career is a house of cards, then don't be surprised if it falls. In the end you can just turn off your device, boom it's gone, no more endless squabbling.

One eyed Jack

Bambi wrote: »

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.

They do not though, certainly not solely by virtue of their sex. Nobody does that, and that’s why I made the point that men are no more of a danger to women than women are to men, because the point being made is that men pose a danger to women and therefore all men should be treated as though they actually pose a danger to women.

Like I said - it’s not an argument that’s going to gain popular support any time soon because most men don’t think like that of themselves first of all, most men don’t think like that of their fathers, brothers and sons. Most women don’t think like that either, they don’t think like that of their fathers, brothers and sons, not to mention anyone’s extended social networks.

The tiny minority of people who do think like that, aren’t going to have their prejudices enshrined in law any time soon. This is not Saudi Arabia.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

FVP3 wrote: »

Is it? He can now get in with a self determined sex change, if I understand Canadian law correctly.

The terfs you are so clearly in disagreement with would clearly find that the rug has been pulled under them on this subject, and that -- rather than any unhappiness with life -- might be the reason for their terfness.

The question is why any feminist would support self determination ( sure, access after medical transition should be a right).

I disagree there re: sex-segregated spaces because male strength is almost fully retained afterwards. And honestly, I'm uncomfortable with people being required to mutilate themselves. I think people should be able to identity as they wish without changing their body but that they need to accept that their natal biology brings limitations on what they can do and where they can go, as the surgeries are mostly just cosmetic and hormones won't reduce male strength to that of a woman.

LLMMLL

Height is highly correlated with strength. Maybe they should have separate changing rooms for women over 5ft5 and women below 5ft5.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

[QUOTE=joseywhales;113690827]I'm still waiting for the time when everyone gets tired of social media and sees it for what it is, a fantasy entertainment land unrelated to reality. Although, it seems to be taking a long time, so I might need to rethink. I'm still of the mindset of , it's just Twitter, nobody cares. All this outrage. I mean I still listen to Wagner if it was on and he was famously anti semitic, doesn't mean I care when I listen to the music.[/QUOTE]

I think this was apparent during the last general election in the UK. SO many tweets showing photos of lines of students queuing up to vote accompanied by captions saying that these photos springing up all over social media showed that the Tories were going to be ousted. And, well, we know how that worked out...

One eyed Jack

FVP3 wrote: »

Hard to see the relevance to that to this debate.

The dunne made the point that the potential for being charged with a hate crime was an encroachment on his life, I was pointing out that the potential of being charged with a criminal offence exists even without specific legislation relating to hate crimes if he is found to be harassing another person, or if another person is found to be harassing him by trying to force their beliefs upon him which he does not share and does not want to entertain. My point is that he doesn’t have to entertain anything he doesn’t want to, but if he chooses to harass someone or they choose to harass him, then either could find themselves being charged with committing an offence.

randomchild

One eyed Jack wrote: »

They do not though, certainly not solely by virtue of their sex. Nobody does that, and that’s why I made the point that men are no more of a danger to women than women are to men, because the point being made is that men pose a danger to women and therefore all men should be treated as though they actually pose a danger to women.

Like I said - it’s not an argument that’s going to gain popular support any time soon because most men don’t think like that of themselves first of all, most men don’t think like that of their fathers, brothers and sons. Most women don’t think like that either, they don’t think like that of their fathers, brothers and sons, not to mention anyone’s extended social networks.

The tiny minority of people who do think like that, aren’t going to have their prejudices enshrined in law any time soon. This is not Saudi Arabia.

This is some serious gaslighting, but using the example of Saudi Arabia of all places as part of an assertion that women are not oppressed on the basis of their sex has to be one of the most ludicrous things I have ever read in my life.

OscarMIlde

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.

Why do you get to determine whether they feel strongly about it or not? I know as a woman and as a biologist I feel very strongly about the rigid gender roles espoused by trans advocates, the erosion of women's rights and the dangers of allowing hormone treatments on young children and adolescents when the long term biological effects of such treatments is currently unknown.

iptba

OscarMIlde wrote: »

One Eyed Jack wrote:

Well if you’re going to use criminal statistics in support of your argument that men should be perceived as a threat to women, then there are a greater percentage of black men incarcerated than there are men of any skin colour in dresses incarcerated. On that basis it would it would be entirely justifiable to treat black men as though they are a greater threat to women than men in dresses. It’s not an argument I could see gaining much support, but have at it if you like.

I’d say if those statistics were corrected to account for predisposing factors such as drug use/abuse, educational background, and household income, there wouldn't be such a disparity in white and black offending rates. I doubt such corrections would alter the violent crime ratio of me to women much however.

If one’s interest in protecting people, why would one correct for other factors? It’s not what got them there that is relevant but their current threat level. By that logic one might argue that corrected for testosterone, men are not more violent than women so shouldn’t be treated differently.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The dunne made the point that the potential for being charged with a hate crime was an encroachment on his life, I was pointing out that the potential of being charged with a criminal offence exists even without specific legislation relating to hate crimes if he is found to be harassing another person, or if another person is found to be harassing him by trying to force their beliefs upon him which he does not share and does not want to entertain. My point is that he doesn’t have to entertain anything he doesn’t want to, but if he chooses to harass someone or they choose to harass him, then either could find themselves being charged with committing an offence.

My point is, it should not be harassment to not agree or not accept someone else demonstrable lie.

It's cannot be abuse to refuse to accept another person's delusion.

That is what is being asked of "cis" people and it is not right.

LLMMLL

OscarMIlde wrote: »

Why do you get to determine whether they feel strongly about it or not? I know as a woman and as a biologist I feel very strongly about the rigid gender roles espoused by trans advocates, the erosion of women's rights and the dangers of allowing hormone treatments on young children and adolescents when the long term biological effects of such treatments is currently unknown.

That's like me saying to you "why do you get to determine whether trans people have access to....".

You don't. You're just expressing an opinion. As I am expressing mine. You should drop the victim act.

joseywhales

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I think this was apparent during the last general election in the UK. SO many tweets showing photos of lines of students queuing up to vote accompanied by captions saying that these photos springing up all over social media showed that the Tories were going to be ousted. And, well, we know how that worked out...

I thinks it's easy for an adult to see but it would be nice if kids were given more guidance on the fact that social media is not real because of the disconnect in responsibility for the statements made and the management of online personas.

OscarMIlde

LLMMLL wrote: »

That's like me saying to you "why do you get to determine whether trans people have access to....".

You don't. You're just expressing an opinion. As I am expressing mine. You should drop the victim act.

Except my opinions are informed by and backed up by biological facts. Yours are informed by your idealogical bias.

Nicky88

joseywhales wrote: »

I thinks it's easy for an adult to see but it would be nice if kids were given more guidance on the fact that social media is not real because of the disconnect in responsibility for the statements made and the management of online personas.

You OK?

LLMMLL

OscarMIlde wrote: »

Except my opinions are informed by and backed up by biological facts. Yours are informed by your idealogical bias.

Nah you have your own ideology.

Dyr

LLMMLL wrote: »

Height is highly correlated with strength. Maybe they should have separate changing rooms for women over 5ft5 and women below 5ft5.

You know what strength is even more correalated with in Humans? Sex.

Basic biology, the mortal enemy of the trans activist

CtevenSrowder

LLMMLL wrote: »

You are really obsessed with him haha. So you are not actually offended by cis you are just pretending to as another anti-trans stick to beat people with. Ok then.

No I'm using your silly arguments against you, clearly you're not aware enough to pick up on this. Have you anything to say with regards to the following:

Control of our language you say; you want us to call biological men women, that is absolutely trying to control language. A trans-women is a biological male, or put another way, they are not:

An adult human female

because a female is:

of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes.

or if you'd prefer:

an individual of the sex that is typically capable of bearing young or producing eggs

so by calling people bigots, transphobes, hateful or whatever for not calling trans-women woman, you are absolutely trying to control language and by default people by trying to shame and humiliate them into calling something something it isn't.

* https://www.google.com/search?q=female+definition&oq=female+def&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0l7.3725j1j9&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

** https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/female

Or are you just going to continue to ignore it.

joseywhales

Nicky88 wrote: »

You OK?

All good! Sorry was off topoc

OscarMIlde

LLMMLL wrote: »

Nah you have your own ideology.

Yes, I do. Reason and sense as I like to call it.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

iptba wrote: »

If one’s interest in protecting people, why would one correct for other factors? It’s not what got them there that is relevant but their current threat level. By that logic one might argue that corrected for testosterone, men are not more violent than women.

I agree, no corrections need to accounted for. Men (whether white or black or transgender women) are much stronger than women (with the odd exception) and should not be placed in prisons with them. That's the material reality. Men should not have endure violence in prison either but placing some men in women's prisons won't solve that issue unfortunately.