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

CtevenSrowder

LLMMLL wrote: »

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

No it isn't. There is a clash of rights which you refuse to acknowledge.

JoannaJag

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.

Kirsty Blackman, Scottish MP tweeted yesterday: Woman. I would use woman. For the avoidance of doubt, trans women are also adult human females.

LLMMLL

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

No it isn't. There is a clash of rights which you refuse to acknowledge.

There's no clash of rights. There is one group trying to trample on the rights of trans people. Their own rights are not threatened. Thankfully, they're a minority.

CtevenSrowder

LLMMLL wrote: »

There's no clash of rights. There is one group trying to trample on the rights of trans people. Their own rights are not threatened. Thankfully, they're a minority.

There is. We wouldn't be having this discussion if there wasn't. Have you any assertion that your view is the majority one? Or is this another one of your fantasies?

OscarMIlde

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

You know full well that no one on this thread is advocating for a society like Saudi Arabia. You are also ignoring arguments people have made regarding the dangers of untested hormone regimens on children/teens and the loss of sports scholarships to trans women who have biological advantages over natal women. Debate the issues properly without creating strawmen sideshows.

Also for someone who was very concerned that I was denying Saudi women agency, you seem very keen to tell me what I think.

LLMMLL

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

There is. We wouldn't be having this discussion if there wasn't. Have you any assertion that your view is the majority one? Or is this another one of your fantasies?

the people who have issues with trans people are a dying breed confined to outdated message boards.

One eyed Jack

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

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.

It’s as ridiculous as the assertion that segregation of the sexes prevents men who want to cause harm to women from doing so and protects women from men.

My point is that is the next step in protecting women from harm - chaperoning them and preventing them from having any sort of a life of their own, they must be protected from men at all costs.

Women in those societies are just as complicit as men. Women want to be protected, men want to protect them. To an outsider it appears as though the women are being subjugated to men, but it’s not all that different from traditional Western society where even going by this thread alone, there are an abundance of men seeking to protect women from harm by other men. You don’t imagine the same men are simply going to step aside to be dictated to by women do you?

The same men arguing that women need protecting from men, will be the same men arguing with women that they aren’t equal to men, men are bigger and stronger and will protect women for their own good. Square that with equality, if you can?

CtevenSrowder

LLMMLL wrote: »

the people who have issues with trans people are a dying breed confined to outdated message boards.

So no. No evidence. You can continue on in your fantasy World were biological males are women, and that your view is the majority one all you like. But this doesn't mean you are correct, and with the former you are simply wrong, as:

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.

LLMMLL

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s as ridiculous as the assertion that segregation of the sexes prevents men who want to cause harm to women from doing so and protects women from men.

My point is that is the next step in protecting women from harm - chaperoning them and preventing them from having any sort of a life of their own, they must be protected from men at all costs.

Women in those societies are just as complicit as men. Women want to be protected, men want to protect them. To an outsider it appears as though the women are being subjugated to men, but it’s not all that different from traditional Western society where even going by this thread alone, there are an abundance of men seeking to protect women from harm by other men. You don’t imagine the same men are simply going to step aside to be dictated to by women do you?

The same men arguing that women need protecting from men, will be the same men arguing with women that they aren’t equal to men, men are bigger and stronger and will protect women for their own good. Square that with equality, if you can?

Indeed. This nonsense about "the strictest guidelines" and focussing on the places where "women are most at danger from men" naturally leads to women having their freedom highly restricted. It's a smokescreen that not even those who propose it actually believe in.

LLMMLL

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

So no. No evidence. You can continue on in your fantasy World were biological males are women, and that your view is the majority one all you like. But this doesn't mean you are correct, and with the former you are simply wrong, as:

I'm not wrong. Trans women are women. Why is this so threatening to you?

RWCNT

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

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.

Ffair enough, I'm hopelessly late to this conversation and wasn't taking the bolded bit into account.

CtevenSrowder

LLMMLL wrote: »

I'm not wrong. Trans women are women. Why is this so threatening to you?

You are wrong. I have literally given you the definition of the terms. The words are steeped in biological fact.

It is not threatening to me. What it is is a complete denial of scientific fact. It's akin to the Earth is Flat, Climate Change isn't real, Vaccines give you Autism, people choose to be gay etc. The complete undermining of science that has long festered in American society but which was usually confined to the right has now sprung up amongst those on the (usually far) left and has now made it's merry way over to Ireland, Britain, Australia.

OscarMIlde

LLMMLL wrote: »

Indeed. This nonsense about "the strictest guidelines" and focussing on the places where "women are most at danger from men" naturally leads to women having their freedom highly restricted. It's a smokescreen that not even those who propose it actually believe in.

No, it does not naturally lead to that. No one is advocating restricting the rights of biological women. In fact people are discussing restricting the facilities and sports competitions biological men are allowed access, not those biological women are allowed access. Something you are willfully ignoring.

Dyr

LLMMLL wrote: »

the people who have issues with trans people are a dying breed confined to outdated message boards.

I think you're going to find the opposite now, people who previously took a understanding view of this issue on the basis that its a hard oul station being trans and sure what harm is it to make an exception are now looking at the lunacy they opened the door to and are going back to upholding a strict biological defintion quick smart

One eyed Jack

OscarMIlde wrote: »

You know full well that no one on this thread is advocating for a society like Saudi Arabia. You are also ignoring arguments people have made regarding the dangers of untested hormone regimens on children/teens and the loss of sports scholarships to trans women who have biological advantages over natal women. Debate the issues properly without creating strawmen sideshows.

I do know they’re not advocating for a society like Saudi Arabia. My point is that what they are arguing for, inevitably ends up looking like Saudi Arabian society.

I haven’t ignored any arguments either, and I have long debated the hormone treatments and sports scholarships issues. The bathrooms issue is a non-starter distraction because people who are transgender have long been using the bathrooms of their preferred gender. I myself always used whatever door was nearest, and it’s never been an issue, apart from me being embarrassed that I’m in the ladies again, but the ladies themselves often appeared amused more than thinking I was liable to cause them any harm.

OscarMIlde wrote: »

Also for someone who was very concerned that I was denying Saudi women agency, you seem very keen to tell me what I think.

I’m not telling you what you think at all. That’s why I started the sentence with “I think it’s fair to say”, that’s telling you what I think.

OscarMIlde

RWCNT wrote: »

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.

You've seen no references to biology in a thread that is discussing whether J.K. Rowling is a bigot for stating that only women menstruate? That is very odd.

CtevenSrowder

RWCNT wrote: »

Ffair enough, I'm hopelessly late to this conversation and wasn't taking the bolded bit into account.

No problem, and with respect, I'd say you are similar to a lot of people. Everyone wants people to enjoy all the rights of others. But when it comes to the trans issue they don't think or realise the clash of rights that may arise if we all go along with the idea that trans-woman are literally women in particular.

If a trans-woman goes through with all the medical procedures and hormone therapy then I believe they should have access to woman only spaces (changing rooms, prisons, toilets etc. with the one exception of sports, or at least sports at a high level.

LLMMLL

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

You are wrong. I have literally given you the definition of the terms. The words are steeped in biological fact.

It is not threatening to me. What it is is a complete denial of scientific fact. It's akin to the Earth is Flat, Climate Change isn't real, Vaccines give you Autism, people choose to be gay etc. The complete undermining of science that has long festered in American society but which was usually confined to the right has now sprung up amongst those on the (usually far) left and has now made it's merry way over to Ireland, Britain, Australia.

Science does not determine the colloquial use of words. It never has.

LLMMLL

OscarMIlde wrote: »

No, it does not naturally lead to that. No one is advocating restricting the rights of biological women. In fact people are discussing restricting the facilities and sports competitions biological men are allowed access, not those biological women are allowed access. Something you are willfully ignoring.

Nobody is advocating restricting the rights of cis women because they aren't really trying to protect them from stronger men. Their sole aim is restrict the rights of trans people.

But in pretending to care about women's safety the ideas they propose DO lead to a restriction in all women's freedoms. If men and women should be separated anywhere that men could potentially harm women due to their greater strength (as OBD proposes) then that basically means separating women.....EVERYWHERE.

Sarcozies

First they came for the gentleman clubs, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not in a gentleman's club.

Then they came for the golf courses, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a golfer.

Then they came for the gyms , and I did not speak out—
Because I was a fat bastard.

Then they came for my changing rooms—and there was no one left to speak for me.

CtevenSrowder

LLMMLL wrote: »

Science does not determine the colloquial use of words. It never has.

Colloquial use?! The colloquial use of the word has always been matched to it's actual definition. It is a word with a scientific basis, the important part of the definition being female. You are simply trying to change the meaning of the word to suit your ideological agenda. That's not how science works.

Do you accept that trans-women are not female?

LLMMLL

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Colloquial use?! The colloquial use of the word has always been matched to it's actual definition. It is a word with a scientific basis, the important part of the definition being female. You are simply trying to change the meaning of the word to suit your ideological agenda. That's not how science works.

Do you accept that trans-women are not female?

No I don't. I accept that they do not have two X chromosomes though.

CtevenSrowder

LLMMLL wrote: »

Nobody is advocating restricting the rights of cis women because they aren't really trying to protect them from stronger men. Their sole aim is restrict the rights of trans people.

But in pretending to care about women's safety the ideas they propose DO lead to a restriction in all women's freedoms. If men and women should be separated anywhere that men could potentially harm women due to their greater strength (as OBD proposes) then that basically means separating women.....EVERYWHERE.

Women in this country are entitled to be put in prison with people of their own sex (as are men) and the sexes have to be separated as per prison guidelines.

How do you square that with pointing a biological male (trans-women) in prison with biological females? If you think this should happen then you are infringing on the rights of women. If you don't think this should happen then you are by default admitting they are not women!

Why should female athletes have to compete against biological males, who have a natural advantage over them, resulting in the loss of scholarships, the chance to represent their country/club etc. or the chance to win medals?

RWCNT

OscarMIlde wrote: »

You've seen no references to biology in a thread that is discussing whether J.K. Rowling is a bigot for stating that only women menstruate? That is very odd.

I was referring to the post before mine that you pointed me toward.

CtevenSrowder

LLMMLL wrote: »

No I don't. I accept that they do not have two X chromosomes though.

Oh my God. Ye, as I said, flat Earthism, anti-Vaccers, Climate Change Denialists etc.

"I believe the World is warming but just not that humans play any part in it whatsoever".

If they don't have two X chromosomes, and have XY instead, then they are not female.

OscarMIlde

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I do know they’re not advocating for a society like Saudi Arabia. My point is that what they are arguing for, inevitably ends up looking like Saudi Arabian society.

I haven’t ignored any arguments either, and I have long debated the hormone treatments and sports scholarships issues. The bathrooms issue is a non-starter distraction because people who are transgender have long been using the bathrooms of their preferred gender. I myself always used whatever door was nearest, and it’s never been an issue, apart from me being embarrassed that I’m in the ladies again, but the ladies themselves often appeared amused more than thinking I was liable to cause them any harm.





I’m not telling you what you think at all. That’s why I started the sentence with “I think it’s fair to say”, that’s telling you what I think.

You think that objecting to men who identify as women being allowed access to women's prisons and women's refuge centres is a slippery slope to a society like Saudi Arabia?

You think that objecting to men who identify as women being allowed to compete in women's sports event, denying biological women the chance to be professional athletes and the loss of sports scholarships is a slippery slope to a society like Saudi Arabia?

You think that questioning defined gender roles attributed to men and women will lead to a society like Saudi Arabia?

You think that objecting to children who are still physically and mentally developing being given untested cocktails of hormone treatments is going to lead to a society like Saudi Arabia?

You implied that you knew what I was thinking. A man speaking for a woman, as if my assertions on this thread weren't clear enough. A man, who was outraged that I would dare to tell a muslim woman to remove her headscarf (even though I said no such thing) and would dare to deny them agency. The same man who is unconcerned with the inequality faced by women in Saudi Arabia.

The same man who can't rationally win the argument advanced by the women in this thread so feels the need to continuously resort to obstufication.

One eyed Jack

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

No problem, and with respect, I'd say you are similar to a lot of people. Everyone wants people to enjoy all the rights of others. But when it comes to the trans issue they don't think or realise the clash of rights that may arise if we all go along with the idea that trans-woman are literally women in particular.

People’s rights clash all the time, and the Courts act as arbiter in any dispute where people’s rights are in conflict. This is no different than whether or not parents who are religious have a right to educate their own children according to their beliefs and values, and those people who say it’s child abuse.

It’s no different than people who say Maya Forstater was fired for stating a biological fact. No she wasn’t, her contract of employment was not renewed because in spite of numerous warnings about her behaviour making her co-workers feel unsafe, Maya continued to behave as she wanted. She then tried to paint herself as the victim of unfair dismissal and discrimination by her former employer. But in order to do that she had to prove that her beliefs were worthy of protection under equality legislation. The judge in the case determined that her beliefs did not warrant legal protection in a democratic society.

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

If a trans-woman goes through with all the medical procedures and hormone therapy then I believe they should have access to woman only spaces (changing rooms, prisons, toilets etc. with the one exception of sports, or at least sports at a high level.

Discrimination cases aren’t determined like that.

LollipopJimmy

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Women in this country are entitled to be put in prison with people of their own sex (as are men) and the sexes have to be separated as per prison guidelines.

How do you square that with pointing a biological male (trans-women) in prison with biological females? If you think this should happen then you are infringing on the rights of women. If you don't think this should happen then you are by default admitting they are not women!

Why should female athletes have to compete against biological males, who have a natural advantage over them, resulting in the loss of scholarships, the chance to represent their country/club etc. or the chance to win medals?

Or Fallon Fox smashing the skull of a fellow competitor.

Shelga

LLMMLL wrote: »

I'm not wrong. Trans women are women. Why is this so threatening to you?

What do you define as a woman? Whatever one wants it to be?

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

No I don't. I accept that they do not have two X chromosomes though.

So what is a woman/female by your definition?