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

One eyed Jack

randomchild wrote: »

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.

I was using Saudi Arabia as an example of a country where the idea of men being dangerous to women leads to segregation of men and women, and women covering themselves from head to toe “so that men aren’t tempted to rape them”. How’s that working out?

CtevenSrowder

OscarMIlde wrote: »

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

Or biological reality, as I like to call it.

LLMMLL

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

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:



Or are you just going to continue to ignore it.

I'm not trying to shame people into calling something something it isn't. I think they should call something something it is. Trans women are women. Hope that answers your Q.

randomchild

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I was using Saudi Arabia as an example of a country where the idea of men being dangerous to women leads to segregation of men and women, and women covering themselves from head to toe “so that men aren’t tempted to rape them”. How’s that working out?

Otherwise known as men oppressing women on the basis of sex?

Gruffalux

LLMMLL wrote: »

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.

Own it, man. You have been dropping derogatory names all over this thread on the women who disagree with you.
You have used precise and insulting language to imply they are frigid or sexually inactive - spinisterish. You have implied incorrectly that they are aged, but with the intention to thus impugn them- old or of a certain demographic. You have used known slurs on them - terf, cis - words which are specifically charged by the present popular culture in the same way breeders once was, eg Die Cis Scum or Kill All Terfs. And you have called women irrelevant if they do not hold the same POV as your shiny, funky galpals (poor dears) who are simply gagging to have anyone who self identifies as a lady in their intimate spaces.
At least own it when you are a bowsie. The denial after the fact looks a bit mad, Ted...

LLMMLL

OscarMIlde wrote: »

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

I would call it something different

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

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.

It’s not harassment. It’s not abuse to accept another person’s delusion either. It’s not what is being asked of anyone either. Nobody has ever asked me to entertain their delusions and I have never asked anyone to entertain mine. Everyone gets along grand.

Then there are a small minority of people who won’t accept that someone doesn’t want to entertain them, and can’t be obligated by law to entertain them, and that’s the sort of person I think you’re referring to. It’s the sort of person you are from their perspective if you try to tell them they’re not who or what they think they are.

Again most people will simply dismiss you, but if you force the issue then you shouldn’t be surprised that someone would make a complaint to the authorities. It would be the same from your perspective, that if someone were harassing you, they shouldn’t be surprised that you would make a complaint to the authorities.

LLMMLL

Gruffalox wrote: »

Own it, man. You have been dropping derogatory names all over this thread on the women who disagree with you.
You have used precise and insulting language to imply they are frigid or sexually inactive - spinisterish. You have implied incorrectly that they are aged, but with the intention to thus impugn them- old or of a certain demographic. You have used known slurs on them - terf, cis - words which are specifically charged by the present popular culture in the same way breeders once was, eg Die Cis Scum or Kill All Terfs. And you have called women irrelevant if they do not hold the same POV as your shiny, funky galpals (poor dears) who are simply gagging to have anyone who self identifies as a lady in their intimate spaces.
At least own it when you are a bowsie. The denial after the fact looks a bit mad, Ted...

Oh please, it's not even controversial On this thread that terfy people strongly correlate with a certain demographic. Many others have tried to explain it with reference to older feminists.

I'm afraid the "dried up old hag" stuff is comjng from you. Maybe you have an issue with women in their 50s? Or are very sensitive about it for some reason? Are you an older woman?

iptba

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

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.

So can settled people get extra protections from being in vulnerable situations with Travellers? It seems protecting women is much more important and making negative comments and assumptions about men is much acceptable than making negative points about, or protecting, other groups.

LLMMLL

Bambi wrote: »

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

Basic biology, the mortal enemy of the trans activist

Ah but I'm not trying to segregated changing rooms based on strength. OBD is.

One eyed Jack

randomchild wrote: »

Otherwise known as men oppressing women on the basis of sex?

That’s how you see it, it’s not how they see it. They see it as protecting women from men.

CtevenSrowder

LLMMLL wrote: »

I'm not trying to shame people into calling something something it isn't. I think they should call something something it is. Trans women are women. Hope that answers your Q.

You are, because as I have pointed out:

A women is an adult human female. A female is one who is of the sex that is typically capable of bearing young or producing eggs.

A trans-woman is biologically male ergo they are not female, ergo they are not women.

It is very, very simple. You are wrong. You just don't want to accept this, instead continuing to repeat the same biologically incorrect mantra and proclaim those that disagree are "anti-trans".

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s not harassment. It’s not abuse to accept another person’s delusion either. It’s not what is being asked of anyone either. Nobody has ever asked me to entertain their delusions and I have never asked anyone to entertain mine. Everyone gets along grand.

Then there are a small minority of people who won’t accept that someone doesn’t want to entertain them, and can’t be obligated by law to entertain them, and that’s the sort of person I think you’re referring to. It’s the sort of person you are from their perspective if you try to tell them they’re not who or what they think they are.

Again most people will simply dismiss you, but if you force the issue then you shouldn’t be surprised that someone would make a complaint to the authorities. It would be the same from your perspective, that if someone were harassing you, they shouldn’t be surprised that you would make a complaint to the authorities.

Would you class "misgendering" or failure to acknowledge someone's preferred gender to be hate speech? Because that's what some are advocating for.

James Brown

Agree or not, 'Cancel culture' is a term used by people in a hurry to dismiss the concerns of others they don't agree with. Nobody says let's boycott X because, y'know, cancel culture'. People have reasons. You can agree or not on a case by case basis.
'Gone with the Wind' has been pulled. Yes it's full of racist crap but it's of it's time IMO. Next step would be book burning.

OscarMIlde

LLMMLL wrote: »

I'm not trying to shame people into calling something something it isn't. I think they should call something something it is. Trans women are women. Hope that answers your Q.

Trans women are men who believe they are women. Biologically that belief is incorrect.

CtevenSrowder

Bowie wrote: »

Agree or not, 'Cancel culture' is a term used by people in a hurry to dismiss the concerns of others they don't agree with. Nobody says let's boycott X because, y'know, cancel culture'. People have reasons. You can agree or not on a case by case basis.
'Gone with the Wind' has been pulled. Yes it's full of racist crap but it's of it's time IMO. Next step would be book burning.

I was reading that Little Britain has been removed from the BBC iplayer aswell because "times have changed".

Gruffalux

LLMMLL wrote: »

Oh please, it's not even controversial On this thread that terfy people strongly correlate with a certain demographic. Many others have tried to explain it with reference to older feminists.

I'm afraid the "dried up old hag" stuff is comjng from you. Maybe you have an issue with women in their 50s? Or are very sensitive about it for some reason? Are you an older woman?

Terf is a slur LLMMLL. It is a word specifically used to insult women. You are throwing it around like it means nothing. It is a bad word. It is an ad hominen. It is not used in legitimate debate.
The women arguing against you are all ages. You called them old and spinsterish. You did that specifically to be rude and nasty. If you look closely on social media the women arguing against TRA s are just as likely to be young as midle aged or old. They are all ages. There are many transwomen among them. Most of the people calling women terfs, cis and words like spinsters are narcissistic men full of animus who talk about their dicks an awful lot more than anyone ever wants to hear about their dicks.

OscarMIlde

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That’s how you see it, it’s not how they see it. They see it as protecting women from men.

It is about controlling women not protecting women. They are being denied their own agency.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

iptba wrote: »

So can settled people get extra protections from being in vulnerable situations with Travellers? It seems protecting women is much more important and making negative comments and assumptions about men is much acceptable than other groups.

Well, this topic is about the retention of sex-based rights (including men's). Obviously women's vulnerability is going to come up here. And the stats about male violence are going to come up. Why would you think they wouldn't on this specific topic? We need to legislate for worst case scenarios. Why not start a thread about prisons in general if you want to broaden the topic?

I get that men's rights are your thing but honestly, you're coming across tone-deaf here. This isn't tGC.

LLMMLL

Gruffalox wrote: »

Terf is a slur LLMMLL. It is a word specifically used to insult women. You are throwing it around like it means nothing. It is a bad word. It is an ad hominen. It is not used in legitimate debate.
The women arguing against you are all ages. You called them old and spinsterish. You did that specifically to be rude and nasty. If you look closely on social media the women arguing against TRA s are just as likely to be young as midle aged or old. They are all ages. There are many transwomen among them. Most of the people calling women terfs, cis and words like spinsters are narcissistic men full of animus who talk about their dicks an awful lot more than anyone ever wants to hear about their dicks.

Terf is not used to insult women. Stop trying to pretend most women agree with you. They don't.

LLMMLL

OscarMIlde wrote: »

Trans women are men who believe they are women. Biologically that belief is incorrect.

Trans women are women.

suicide_circus

LLMMLL wrote: »

Stop trying to pretend most women agree with you. They don't.

evidence?

suicide_circus

LLMMLL wrote: »

Trans women are women.

2+2=5

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Would you class "misgendering" or failure to acknowledge someone's preferred gender to be hate speech? Because that's what some are advocating for.

I wouldn’t, I don’t support such specificity at all in law. We already have laws which are broad enough to encompass all forms of harassment without the need of being infused with identity politics. At the same time, let whoever wants to advocate for what they want, either they gain popular support for their ideas or they don’t, and if their ideas are evaluated as having any merit in the pursuit of a more just and fairer society, then I would support that. I don’t care whether they base their ideas on science or religion or whatever they happen to pull out of their ass - either it’s a good idea which would lead to a fairer society, or it’s not, in which case I would politely suggest they put their idea back up wherever they pulled it from.

EmmetSpiceland

Moncrief about to “talk TERF” on Newstalk now if anyone is interested.

One eyed Jack

OscarMIlde wrote: »

It is about controlling women not protecting women. They are being denied their own agency.

Again, that’s simply how you see it. It’s not how women themselves who grew up in those societies see it. It’s not how women who come to Europe only to be told they must take off their head coverings see it. It’s not how my own sister sees it. It’s not how my work colleagues and neighbours and friends who wear head coverings see it, Being denied their own agency is exactly how you see it.

Arguing that they are being denied their own agency is contrary to what they themselves would argue. You argue as though you know better for them than they know themselves, and then you accuse me of gaslighting? Well, at least I can understand why you would accuse me of gaslighting,

suicide_circus

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

Moncrief about to “talk TERF” on Newstalk now if anyone is interested.

Car crash interview. Linking TERFs with colonialism...moron.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

Moncrief about to “talk TERF” on Newstalk now if anyone is interested.

Oh dear, the woman on there now has alluded (more than alluded, really) to Rowling being racist in bringing this all up now. In reality, it appears that Rowling brought it up in response to being accused by a Canadian politician of being unsafe to be around children and reaching the end of her ropes. It also seems lost on this woman that somebody is allowed to care about more than one thing at once.

She also used the term 'transmisogyny', FFS.

OscarMIlde

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Again, that’s simply how you see it. It’s not how women themselves who grew up in those societies see it. It’s not how women who come to Europe only to be told they must take off their head coverings see it. It’s not how my own sister sees it. It’s not how my work colleagues who wear head coverings see it, Being denied their own agency is exactly how you see it.

Arguing that they are being denied their own agency is contrary to what they themselves would argue. You argue as though you know better for them than they know themselves, and then you accuse me of gaslighting? Well, at least I can understand why you would accuse me of gaslighting,

Well I know a Saudi PhD student who found it very insulting that while she could live freely in Ireland on her own, to return to visit required her younger brother to come to Ireland to 'chaperone' her back as per the laws of the land. And this was a woman in her thirties, who had been previously married, but as she was currently single 'needed' a man to watch over her.

If women want to wear a head scarf so be it. The control Saudi Arabia exterts over women goes far beyond that. It's a regressive country obsessed with controlling women, to the degree that there are apps where a male 'guardian' can digitally control the spaces women under their aegis are legally allowed travel to. It is not gaslighting to point that out. For you to glibly deny the second class status of women in that country shows how disingenuous you are.

LLMMLL

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

Moncrief about to “talk TERF” on Newstalk now if anyone is interested.

Very impressive feminst. She made a lot of good points.