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

randomchild

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

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

That was quite an experience. The bit where she smeared British feminism as being steeped in racism since the time of the suffragettes was certainly a highlight.

volchitsa

LLMMLL wrote: »

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

I'm pretty sure they do actually.Those who don't haven't had the occasion to look into it, and just assume it's like someone being gay, when in fact there are completely different issues, including women's safety.

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 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,

When did I accuse you of gaslighting?

RWCNT

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

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".

The man I call "Dad" isn't actually my biological father. Do you object so vigorously to stepfathers being called fathers?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

She also used the term 'transmisogyny', FFS.

What upsets you about the term?

suicide_circus

randomchild wrote: »

That was quite an experience. The bit where she smeared British feminism as being steeped in racism since the time of the suffragettes was certainly a highlight.

complete headbanger

LLMMLL

volchitsa wrote: »

I'm pretty sure they do actually.Those who don't haven't had the occasion to look into it, and just assume it's like someone being gay, when in fact there are completely different issues, including women's safety.

There aren't any safety issues. It's moral panic.

jimboblep

LLMMLL wrote: »

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

Pregressing! Was that a Freudian slip

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

randomchild wrote: »

That was quite an experience. The bit where she smeared British feminism as being steeped in racism since the time of the suffragettes was certainly a highlight.

And spoke for all the Irish women. Funny, I never recall being asked my opinion. And what was with her laughing throughout? It kind of seemed like even she didn't believe the bilge she was secreting from her mouth.

volchitsa

LLMMLL wrote: »

There aren't any safety issues. It's moral panic.

Not true. And several links have been posted to show that gender neutral spaces increase the risk to women from predatory men. Not all of whom are trans women of course, but that's not the point. The safety issues exist. That makes it a problem for me.

One eyed Jack

OscarMIlde wrote: »

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.

I would suggest it was a country obsessed with controlling both men and women, by other men and women. And it’s exactly the sort of society one ends up with when they argue that women need to be protected from men.

Nice people and all, but I wouldn’t be keen on sharing their philosophy.

One eyed Jack

OscarMIlde wrote: »

When did I accuse you of gaslighting?

Sorry for that, you didn’t accuse me of gaslighting. It was another poster entirely who accused me of gaslighting.

CtevenSrowder

RWCNT wrote: »

The man I call "Dad" isn't actually my biological father. Do you object so vigorously to stepfathers being called fathers?



What upsets you about the term?

You can call him that if you want. It doesn't mean he is your biological father though, in the sense he wasn't the person who created you along with your mother. As such, your analogy doesn't work.

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

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

Well there's an oxymoron

OscarMIlde

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I would suggest it was a country obsessed with controlling both men and women, by other men and women. And it’s exactly the sort of society one ends up with when they argue that women need to be protected from men.

Nice people and all, but I wouldn’t be keen on sharing their philosophy.

Do you think women are treated in equal regard to men in Saudi Arabia, yes or no?

What restrictions with regards to employment, free travel, and voting do men face in Saudi Arabia that are equivalent to that imposed upon women.

CtevenSrowder

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I would suggest it was a country obsessed with controlling both men and women, by other men and women. And it’s exactly the sort of society one ends up with when they argue that women need to be protected from men.

Nice people and all, but I wouldn’t be keen on sharing their philosophy.

Lad what in the name of God are you on about. It may exert control on both sexes but the control it exerts on women are far far more severe. They still can't drive as far as I'm aware, only recently allowed to attend sports stadiums, need male chaperones when going out in public. I'm sure the brother who had to fly all the way to Ireland to pick up his sister was rightly pissed, but it's far worse for her.

The idea that by not allowing biological men into female reserved spaces such as changing rooms, toilets or whatever is going to lead us ending up like Saudi Arabia is just so.. I mean, I don't know, I haven't even got the vocabulary to adequately describe how much of a ridiculous assertion that is.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

volchitsa wrote: »

Not true. And several links have been posted to show that gender neutral spaces increase the risk to women from predatory men. Not all of whom are trans women of course, but that's not the point. The safety issues exist. That makes it a problem for me.

This is key. I certainly don't think transgender women are any more dangerous than other males. I just see no reason to think that they are less so. And self ID can absolutely be exploited by men who don't truly believe they are transgender. That hurts genuine transgender women. A false equivalence is made to the discrimination and judgement gay men faced too. I'm basing the objections I have on the male biology of transgender women.

CtevenSrowder

LLMMLL wrote: »

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

Why did she also deny biological reality?

randomchild

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Why did she also deny biological reality?

Yes, while also implying anyone who was a woman and did believe in biological reality was a racist.

CtevenSrowder

randomchild wrote: »

Yes, while also implying anyone who was a woman and did believe in biological reality was a racist.

A racist!? They can't even get their slurs right anymore.

LLMMLL

volchitsa wrote: »

Not true. And several links have been posted to show that gender neutral spaces increase the risk to women from predatory men. Not all of whom are trans women of course, but that's not the point. The safety issues exist. That makes it a problem for me.

But no links have been posted to suggest that allowing trans women access to spaces poses any risk to women whatsoever.

RWCNT

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

You can call him that if you want. It doesn't mean he is your biological father though, in the sense he wasn't the person who created you along with your mother. As such, your analogy doesn't work.

Of course I can call him what I like. but speaking more broadly, do you object to stepfathers being referred to as fathers on the biological basis you outline? If not, why not?

CtevenSrowder

LLMMLL wrote: »

But no links have been posted to suggest that allowing trans women access to spaces poses any risk to women whatsoever.

No but they are biologically male which is the point.

LLMMLL

RWCNT wrote: »

Of course I can call him what I like. but speaking more broadly, do you object to stepfathers being referred to as fathers on the biological basis you outline? If not, why not?

Because it's not about biology at all. It's about alienating trans people and they will use any justification they can find.

LLMMLL

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

No but they are biologically male which is the point.

They are women and should have access to.womens spaces.

RWCNT

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

No but they are biologically male which is the point.

Im not balls-deep into this topic but are there people out there trying to claim that trans women are physiologically identical to people born female? I've never seen it.

OscarMIlde

RWCNT wrote: »

Im not balls-deep into this topic but are there people out there trying to claim that trans women are physiologically identical to people born female? I've never seen it.

Eh, check the post above yours!

CtevenSrowder

RWCNT wrote: »

Of course I can call him what I like. but speaking more broadly, do you object to stepfathers being referred to as fathers on the biological basis you outline? If not, why not?

No, but your thinking is overly simplistic. The argument is that trans-women are women and as such should have access to female only spaces, be able to take part in female only sports, have access to female only grants/scholarships/awards etc.

If you said to me he is my stepfather and biological father I would say, well no, he is either one or the other. You could keep insisting that even though someone else impregnated your mother with you that still, this man is your biological father, but you'd be wrong. It would be a denial of the biological reality that he isn't.

In this discussion one needs to be precise with the terminology they use. I may in my day to day life refer to a trans-women as a woman, but I know they aren't one and when discussing issues such as this I will state this fact.

One eyed Jack

OscarMIlde wrote: »

Do you think women are treated in equal regard to men in Saudi Arabia, yes or no?

What restrictions with regards to employment, free travel, and voting do men face in Saudi Arabia that are equivalent to that imposed upon women.

My comments aren’t about equality, they are about the sort of society one ends up with when they argue that men need to be protected from women.

I think it’s fair to say you imagine that would lead to women feeling safer, and logically speaking that would make absolute sense, as long as there were no other factors considered.

RWCNT

OscarMIlde wrote: »

Eh, check the post above yours!

I don't see any references to biology - also, very nice run of one sentence posts.

Edit: Ah it got ****ed up while I typed this.

CtevenSrowder

LLMMLL wrote: »

They are women and should have access to.womens spaces.

No they aren't. Again:

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".