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

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I certainly didn’t say all was fine and dandy. They died, in great numbers.

Are you claiming that the reason for high infant death rates in the past was because women didn't know they could breast feed other babies than their own and motherless babies were given plant juice instead??

Because I'm going to have to ask for some evidence of this amazing claim.

LLMMLL

Gruffalox wrote: »

Transwomen are not women - Jenn Smith (transwoman).

https://transanityca.wordpress.com/2019/03/01/the-new-transgendermanwoman/


Transwomen are not women - Miranda Yardley (transwoman)

https://mirandayardley.com/en/transwomen-are-not-women/

Transwomen are not women - Fionne Orlander (transwoman)
Source - all over their popular Twitter account
https://twitter.com/FionneOrlander/status/1229087625526611969?s=19

Transwomen are not women - Dr Debbie Haydon

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/12/22/transgender-woman-accused-hate-speech-wearing-t-shirt-stating/amp/


There are many more but these are well known.


I suppose these transgender people who disagree with you are haggard old spinsterly terfs too..?

I mean I really don't know enough about them to know how Haggard they are. It seems to be far more you concern than mine. What do you have against women in their 50s anyway?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Deleted User wrote: »

That is an outright lie. She never defined a woman by an ability to menstruate.

She said that only women can menstruate.

Huge difference.

Massively misrepresentative of what was said and you know it.

SO many people have misrepresented her in this way. Do they not realise how obtuse they come across? Dopes.

I don't menstruate because of medication I'm on and I am very aware that Rowling thinks I'm a woman.

LLMMLL

chopperbyrne wrote: »

Self identifying trans women pose a much greater risk to biological women in shared changing/bathing facilities than self identifying trans men do to biological men in shared changing/bathing facilities, especially if that person has fully matured before transitioning, or is not going through HRT.

However, I'd think trans men are much more at risk from biological men in shared changing/bathing facilities than trans women are from biological women.

It's a bit of a catch 22 situation.

If my wife or daughter (both biologically female), or any biological woman, objected to sharing facilities with someone who is biologically male, I don't see how you could not respect their objections, and concerns.

Would you respect the objections of a straight man who wanted a gay male removed from his changing area?

ceadaoin.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I certainly didn’t say all was fine and dandy. They died, in great numbers.

This is what you said

They’d eat what they were given, or die. What they were given would likely have consisted of mainly plant based nutrition, including milk from plants like I suggested earlier, long before breastfeeding was a thing

You said that there was "alternative nutrition" from plants available in ancient times and then when it was pointed out that there wasnt and that breast milk from another woman would be used if at all possible you continued to argue about this plant based "nutrition" being a thing. Certainly seems to imply that you think its a viable alternative.

I brought that up because it seems to indicate that you have some sort of weird issue with women having bodily functions that relate to only them. "But men can theoretically do it too" (yes, you also said that about breastfeeding) , "but plants can do the same job" etc.

CtevenSrowder

LLMMLL wrote: »

Nothing to do with any of those. The words woman and female were used long before we had any scientific notions that corresponded to those. And they are some of our most fundamental words.

The same doeS not apply to climate change.

Yes fundamental words, that you are trying to artificially change the meaning of to support your ideology. And we did have scientific notions: They were applied to people who could give birth, menstruate, had breasts etc. etc., you know, women. Just because science advanced to a stage were a robust and proper definition could be made doesn't undermine the definition itself. You are trying to control language and change science because neither fit with your ideology.

The reason I brought up Climate Change and Flat Earthers is because they do exactly what you do, which is dismiss the science because it doesn't fit with their World view.

Do you want to give us your definition of the terms female and women so?

LLMMLL

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That’s because there isn’t any actual clash of rights. There’s a conflict for you in imagining the rights people should have vs the rights they have in law.





I’m simply making the point that it wouldn’t be up to you as an individual to determine the rights that other people are or aren’t entitled to in law.

I think the use of the phrase "sex-based rights" by terfy people leads the uneducated to believe that these rights actually exist and are codified somewhere.

randomchild

randomchild wrote: »

This will be the end of my brief interaction with this thread. There's no point participating with this crapology.

Excuse me?

How is anything I said "crapology"?

A woman (dictionary definition, biological woman) may have medical issues that cause disruption to natural menstruations. Her genetics are still that of a woman.

A man (disctiinary definition, biological man) will never be able to have a period. They have not got the genetic makeup or body parts required.

A man will never have a period. Some, not a lot, of women don't have periods.

Only women can have periods. Men can never have periods. Ever.

That is what jk Rowling said and never once said that a woman is defined by her ability to menstruate.

LLMMLL

FVP3 wrote: »

you are.



They aren't. I think they guy asking you was asking for proof. That kind of statement is as logical as "Cats are chickens". Repetition of a position is not proof of that position.



Personalisation of debate.

It doesn't threaten me at all, for one. Although it clearly has an effect on (what you would call cis) women.

You have personalized debates too. Is this your new version of "ad hominem". Please apply your standards to yourself before others.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

That is an outright lie. She never defined a woman by an ability to menstruate.

She said that only women can menstruate.

Huge difference.

Massively misrepresentative of what was said and you know it.

What she said in her tweet was in reference to the use of the word “people” in the article. This is exactly what she said -

“‘People who menstruate.’ I’m sure there used to be a word for those people. Someone help me out. Wumben? Wimpund? Woomud?”


That’s defining women by their capacity to menstruate, no misrepresentation on my part, but a misrepresentation by JK of the article she was referring to, which included the paragraph -


An estimated 1.8 billion girls, women, and gender non-binary persons menstruate, and this has not stopped because of the pandemic. They still require menstrual materials, safe access to toilets, soap, water, and private spaces in the face of lockdown living conditions that have eliminated privacy for many populations.


Bold emphasis my own. If I were being kind to her I’d assume it simply went over her head, but JK has form for this sort of making a boob and then apologising afterwards in a “sorry not sorry” childish sort of way.

LLMMLL

FVP3 wrote: »

Theres a clear clash of rights. And the law isnt the same everywhere. Very few countries have full on self determination.




I doubt he said that. It is, of course, up to society. If we had a referendum on the issue it would be interesting.

I'm quite sure the majority of people are not threatened by trans people and would show concern for their rights. So you're right. It would be interesting.

LLMMLL

FVP3 wrote: »

Naw, it means restricting male access to places where "cis" women feel unsafe, which is something that feminism has been advocating for years until men became women if they thunk it.

It also means that other spaces or gender quotas are under threat from men, or the gender fluid.

Oh where women FEEL unsafe? Not where wome. ARE unsafe?

I thought what people feel doesn't matter and we must respect reality? Or is it only what trans people feel that we have to ignore?

mohawk

LLMMLL wrote: »

Trans women and cis women.

So you believe biology to be completely irrelevant?

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What she said in her tweet was in reference to the use of the word “people” in the article. This is exactly what she said -

“‘People who menstruate.’ I’m sure there used to be a word for those people. Someone help me out. Wumben? Wimpund? Woomud?”


That’s defining women by their capacity to menstruate, no misrepresentation on my part, but a misrepresentation by JK of the article she was referring to, which included the paragraph -


An estimated 1.8 billion girls, women, and gender non-binary persons menstruate, and this has not stopped because of the pandemic. They still require menstrual materials, safe access to toilets, soap, water, and private spaces in the face of lockdown living conditions that have eliminated privacy for many populations.


Bold emphasis my own. If I were being kind to her I’d assume it simply went over her head, but JK has form for this sort of making a boob and then apologising afterwards in a “sorry not sorry” childish sort of way.

People who menstruate can only be women.

Where is anything she said wrong?

No man can menstruate. Only women can.

Some women may not be able to not but NO man can.

So therefore ONLY women can have a period.

Jesus, the fact that I need to explain that to a grown up is very very sad.

volchitsa

ceadaoin. wrote: »

This is what you said


You said that there was "alternative nutrition" from plants available in ancient times and then when it was pointed out that there wasnt and that breast milk from another woman would be used if at all possible you continued to argue about this plant based "nutrition" being a thing. Certainly seems to imply that you think its a viable alternative.

I brought that up because it seems to indicate that you have some sort of weird issue with women having bodily functions that relate to only them. "But men can theoretically do it too" (yes, you also said that about breastfeeding) , "but plants can do the same job" etc.

Well done for the quote, I was wondering if it was worth searching out to recheck.

What strikes me most there is the belief that babies were given plant juices "before breast feeding was a thing" - like WTAF?

LLMMLL

ceadaoin. wrote: »

"There's nothing hateful about the word woman/women/female. I'll continue to use it." JK Rowling

*misogynistic hate storm ensues

Can you say raging hypocrisy?

I think we all agree that there is nothing hateful about the term women/woman/female. JK and every other person o the planet has used those words countless times. Nobody is annoyed because JK used the word "women". There's this thing called "context". Ever heard of it ?

OscarMIlde

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What she said in her tweet was in reference to the use of the word “people” in the article. This is exactly what she said -

“‘People who menstruate.’ I’m sure there used to be a word for those people. Someone help me out. Wumben? Wimpund? Woomud?”


That’s defining women by their capacity to menstruate, no misrepresentation on my part, but a misrepresentation by JK of the article she was referring to, which included the paragraph -


An estimated 1.8 billion girls, women, and gender non-binary persons menstruate, and this has not stopped because of the pandemic. They still require menstrual materials, safe access to toilets, soap, water, and private spaces in the face of lockdown living conditions that have eliminated privacy for many populations.


Bold emphasis my own. If I were being kind to her I’d assume it simply went over her head, but JK has form for this sort of making a boob and then apologising afterwards in a “sorry not sorry” childish sort of way.

The ONLY people who can menstruate are women. Therefore it is more correct to say women who menstruate rather than people who menstruate. The only reason this is contentious is that a subset of men who believe they are women wish to remove any link between biological primary and secondary characteristics of women to the definition of womanhood as it interferes with their (biologically incorrect) worldview. And they are prepared to shout down and label a bigot anyone who disagrees with this incontestable fact.

OscarMIlde

LLMMLL wrote: »

I think we all agree that there is nothing hateful about the term women/woman/female. JK and every other person o the planet has used those words countless times. Nobody is annoyed because JK used the word "women". There's this thing called "context". Ever heard of it ?

Exactly. They are specifically annoyed because J.K. Rowling linked the concept of womanhood to biological characteristics of the female sex. And that hurt their feelings.

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

I think we all agree that there is nothing hateful about the term women/woman/female. JK and every other person o the planet has used those words countless times. Nobody is annoyed because JK used the word "women". There's this thing called "context". Ever heard of it ?

I would have thought so but most people go by the actual definition.

You have said that your definition of woman is:
Cis Woman or trans woman.

You can't even define what a woman is.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

No...what is the definition of a woman? That's who you class as women. What parameters must you meet to be defined as a woman?

I wouldnt propose a definition that restricts people. Definitions are notoriously unwieldy. That would be putting myself in the position of defining something integral to one's identity.

I am discussing how people actually USE the word woman. And it had a looooooong history before anyone had heard the word chromosome.

chopperbyrne

LLMMLL wrote: »

Would you respect the objections of a straight man who wanted a gay male removed from his changing area?

No, because again, it's a risk factor. The average man doesn't have to worry about an average gay man being able to overpower them in the same way an average woman would have to fear that a trans woman would be able to overpower them.

GreeBo

Deleted User wrote: »

No...what is the definition of a woman? That's who you class as women. What parameters must you meet to be defined as a woman?

A woman is anyone who is not a man.

OscarMIlde

LLMMLL wrote: »

I wouldnt propose a definition that restricts people. Definitions are notoriously unwieldy. That would be putting myself in the position of defining something integral to one's identity.

I am discussing how people actually USE the word woman. And it had a looooooong history before anyone had heard the word chromosome.

That's true. Women were defined as the sex with non motile gametes who bore children and men as the sex with motile gametes who could not bear children. Later, as molecular biology progressed the genetic basis for these differences was understood.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

People who menstruate can only be women.

Where is anything she said wrong?

No man can menstruate. Only women can.

Some women may not be able to not but NO man can.

So therefore ONLY women can have a period.

Jesus, the fact that I need to explain that to a grown up is very very sad.

That’s defining women by their capacity to menstruate.

That’s exactly the gender stereotyping ODB was saying should be avoided, it’s why I gave the example.

There was nothing wrong with what she said, in just the same way that there is nothing wrong with saying that gender non-binary people menstruate too.

It’s not a scientific argument, it’s a sociological argument.

OscarMIlde

GreeBo wrote: »

A woman is anyone who is not a man.

So boys are women?

CtevenSrowder

LLMMLL wrote: »

I wouldnt propose a definition that restricts people. Definitions are notoriously unwieldy. That would be putting myself in the position of defining something integral to one's identity.

I am discussing how people actually USE the word woman. And it had a looooooong history before anyone had heard the word chromosome.

So how does one engage in biological research then? If a dead body is found, how do we know what sex it is if we have no definition of the word woman or female.

What you are saying is the the very idea of a woman doesn't exist, since it has no definition. You are, quite literally, denying woman's existence :pac::pac::D

suicide_circus

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

Does anyone else find this whole trans issue to be hilarious? It’s what happens when the madness of intersectionality reaches a point where it starts to collapse in on itself due to the sheer weight of its own contradictions.

It is funny. But I'm not laughing.

LLMMLL

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Yes fundamental words, that you are trying to artificially change the meaning of to support your ideology. And we did have scientific notions: They were applied to people who could give birth, menstruate, had breasts etc. etc., you know, women. Just because science advanced to a stage were a robust and proper definition could be made doesn't undermine the definition itself. You are trying to control language and change science because neither fit with your ideology.

The reason I brought up Climate Change and Flat Earthers is because they do exactly what you do, which is dismiss the science because it doesn't fit with their World view.

Do you want to give us your definition of the terms female and women so?

And those pre-scientific definitions had their own major issues. As in many women don't have breasts or mesntruate. The increase in scientific knowledge surrounding genetics did not solve the problem that definitions are notorously unwieldy.

In linguistics semantics proceeds not by definitions but by giving examplars. The meaning of the word "table" is literally the set of all objects that are considered to be tables. Not some ridiculous definition.

"A table is a 4 legged object you can place things in"

"You mean a chair?"

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I would have thought so but most people go by the actual definition.

You have said that your definition of woman is:
Cis Woman or trans woman.

You can't even define what a woman is.

There are lots of things I can't define. Dictionary definitions are approximations.

CtevenSrowder

LLMMLL wrote: »

And those pre-scientific definitions had their own major issues. As in many women don't have breasts or mesntruate. The increase in scientific knowledge surrounding genetics did not solve the problem that definitions are notorously unwieldy.

In linguistics semantics proceeds not by definitions but by giving examplars. The meaning of the word "table" is literally the set of all objects that are considered to be tables. Not some ridiculous definition.

"A table is a 4 legged object you can place things in"

"You mean a chair?"

Everything is problematic then. We can't define anything. Nothing has a definition. Anything can be anything. Why do we even have language so?

The pre-scientific definitions may have had problems, which is why we gave them definitions with a scientific basis.

Do you ever sit and just think of the mental gymnastics you put yourself through to keep us this facade? And just to add, the definition of a chair is not a scientific one, so there is a difference.