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

volchitsa

GreeBo wrote: »

A woman is anyone who is not a man.

I've no idea what your position is on the trans issue, but no matter, I'm just not keen on a definition of women as merely "not men".

Not to mention that that also begs the question of how you define "men""?

FVP3

LLMMLL wrote: »

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.

Ah the terfs again. But that if opposition if from people who are not feminists or radicals?

Anyway you do have a bee in your bonnet about the term sex based rights, a once unusual position for a feminist.

I think you are saying that the rights should be gender based, not sex based.

In fact equality laws have often mentioned sex, not gender, as in single-sex. Example below.

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/consumer/discrimination-in-the-provision-of-goods-and-services/discrimination-in-the-provision-of-goods-and-services1/goods-and-services-what-are-the-different-types-of-discrimination/what-doesn-t-count-as-unlawful-discrimination-in-goods-and-services/single-sex-and-separate-services-for-men-and-women-when-discrimination-is-allowed/

LLMMLL

chopperbyrne wrote: »

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.

If it's about risk factor, then the miniscule number of trans people would SERIOUSLY reduce any risk. But of course it's not really about risk factor at all.

One eyed Jack

OscarMIlde wrote: »

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.

The people who have the capacity to menstruate are women and non-binary people. The reason it’s contentious to say that is because there are people who menstruate who do not identify themselves as women.

There was no reference made to men having the capacity to menstruate in the article.

CtevenSrowder

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The people who have the capacity to menstruate are women and non-binary people. The reason it’s contentious to say that is because there are people who menstruate who do not identify themselves as women.

There was no reference made to men having the capacity to menstruate in the article.

It doesn't matter hat they identify themselves as. it's what they are.

OscarMIlde

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The people who have the capacity to menstruate are women and non-binary people. The reason it’s contentious to say that is because there are people who menstruate who do not identify themselves as women.

There was no reference made to men having the capacity to menstruate in the article.

If they are able to menstruate then biologically they ARE women, regardless if they consider themselves non-binary or not. The biological sexes ARE binary in mammals. If that upsets them that's on them. It does not make J.K.R Rowling or anyone who agrees with her a bigot.

LLMMLL

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.

Ffs. Good luck.

A woman is a biological female human.

You want to add any caveats onto that, fire ahead. I can't stop you being wrong or purposely obtuse. You are like a Sacha baron Cohen sketch.

FVP3

LLMMLL wrote: »

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.

its clear that you are from the anti-scientific side of the fence.

If we were however to change the definition of table to mean lamp, or lamp to mean table, we would be in trouble. Nor is your re-definition of male to mean female, and vice versa generally accepted anyway.

Furthermore the general acceptance of something does not make it true. The earth wasnt flat when most people believed it was.

One eyed Jack

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

It doesn't matter hat they identify themselves as. it's what they are.

It doesn’t matter to you, fair enough, I can accept that. But to suggest that it doesn’t matter to anyone else is something I wouldn’t accept. It clearly matters to the people who use the term in the context of their having access to adequate and appropriate facilities for their menstrual healthcare.

LLMMLL

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

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

People can use definitions All they want. What they can't do is use these definitions to exclude people because of their own prejudice.

We see this in the menstruation case. There is really no issue with the words used that upset JK Rowling so much as Jack has shown. If distinctions need to be made for.medical reasons then the definition can be used without saying that anyone who doesn't fall under this definition is NOT a woman.

What is an issue is using definitions to exclude people from spaces when the real reason for excluding them is not about safety but about transphobia.

CtevenSrowder

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It doesn’t matter to you, fair enough, I can accept that. But to suggest that it doesn’t matter to anyone else is something I wouldn’t accept. It clearly matters to the people who use the term in the context of their having access to adequate and appropriate facilities for their menstrual healthcare.

No it doesn't matter because it's a biological fact. They are female. How I or anyone else feels is irrelevant.

Girly Gal

LLMMLL wrote: »

If it's about risk factor, then the miniscule number of trans people would SERIOUSLY reduce any risk. But of course it's not really about risk factor at all.

Have to agree with you here, transwomen make up a tiny % of the population, also, the vast majority are decent genuine people who are probably more susceptible to being attacked than most other people in society.The chances of a woman getting attacked by a transwomen is extremely low. Transwomen are being unfairly portrayed by some people here.

LLMMLL

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

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

Nope I'm saying that concepts can exist, they are usually fuzzy. Words and definitions are imperfect but useful approximations. Using words and definitions to persecute people should not happen.

ceadaoin.

LLMMLL wrote: »

If it's about risk factor, then the miniscule number of trans people would SERIOUSLY reduce any risk. But of course it's not really about risk factor at all.

I dont really give a **** about sharing a changing room with a trans person. I'm sure I've done it many times over the years. I give a **** about any man self id'ing his way into womens spaces whether he is trans or not. That seriously increases the risk. Thats the issue many women have. Its not about denying trans people their rights. Theyve already been sharing our facilities for years without issue. I wish you'd stop portraying these 'terfy spinsters' as an actual danger to trans people. We all know where that danger comes from, and its not women. Men get a free pass to be actually transphobic though whereas women get attacked and told to suck a dick for saying that women have periods.

What do you think about the gay man's comments abouts trans men posted earlier? Why do you think he didn't receive the same abuse as JK Rowling and other women?

LLMMLL

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

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.

Slippery slope nonsense. As I've said definitions can be useful but are inherently imperfect.

If definitions are so clear and easy please propose a scientific definition for chair.

Gruffalux

LLMMLL wrote: »

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

Would you respect the objections of a gay man who wants transmen to know that he wants an actual man's c0ck in his life and wants transmen to shag off out of his Grindr feed? And would you respect all the gay man who respond by totally agreeing that the actual factual masculine penis on an actual man is what they want.

https://twitter.com/faintlyfalling/status/1270410188714098688?s=19

One eyed Jack

FVP3 wrote: »

its clear that you are from the anti-scientific side of the fence.

If we were however to change the definition of table to mean lamp, or lamp to mean table, we would be in trouble. Nor is your re-definition of male to mean female, and vice versa generally accepted anyway.

Furthermore the general acceptance of something does not make it true. The earth wasnt flat when most people believed it was.

You must struggle with foreign languages that use different words which refer to the same thing. I’m reminded of the lads that demanded that their foreign co-workers should only speak in English. I told them they’re more than welcome to speak in Irish, problem solved.

LLMMLL

FVP3 wrote: »

Ah the terfs again. But that if opposition if from people who are not feminists or radicals?

Anyway you do have a bee in your bonnet about the term sex based rights, a once unusual position for a feminist.

I think you are saying that the rights should be gender based, not sex based.

In fact equality laws have often mentioned sex, not gender, as in single-sex. Example below.

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/consumer/discrimination-in-the-provision-of-goods-and-services/discrimination-in-the-provision-of-goods-and-services1/goods-and-services-what-are-the-different-types-of-discrimination/what-doesn-t-count-as-unlawful-discrimination-in-goods-and-services/single-sex-and-separate-services-for-men-and-women-when-discrimination-is-allowed/

That document also says that none of this can be used against trans people. I'm Glad you support that Document.

CtevenSrowder

LLMMLL wrote: »

People can use definitions All they want. What they can't do is use these definitions to exclude people because of their own prejudice.

What definitions? Nothing can be defined according to you.

LLMMLL wrote: »

We see this in the menstruation case. There is really no issue with the words used that upset JK Rowling so much as Jack has shown. If distinctions need to be made for.medical reasons then the definition can be used without saying that anyone who doesn't fall under this definition is NOT a woman.

I've no idea what you mean here. We either use definitions because they are scientifically correct or we don't use them at all. If you mean we keep up a facade that trans-women are bone-fide women then that may be something that could potentially be done in certain circumstances. It doesn't mean that trans-women are actual women though, that being an adult human female.

LLMMLL wrote: »

What is an issue is using definitions to exclude people from spaces when the real reason for excluding them is not about safety but about transphobia.

And we back to it's all because of transphobia. Let me ask you this, if you can't define what a woman is, how can you say trans-woman are woman?

OscarMIlde

LLMMLL wrote: »

People can use definitions All they want. What they can't do is use these definitions to exclude people because of their own prejudice.

We see this in the menstruation case. There is really no issue with the words used that upset JK Rowling so much as Jack has shown. If distinctions need to be made for.medical reasons then the definition can be used without saying that anyone who doesn't fall under this definition is NOT a woman.

What is an issue is using definitions to exclude people from spaces when the real reason for excluding them is not about safety but about transphobia.

So you and Jack, both men, get to decide whether there is an issue with how women on this thread, and women like J.K. Rowling use the word women. And you've decided that there is an issue if it used in a biologically correct manner, as that is prejudicial towards transwomen. But inaccurate, biologically incorrect definitions of what a woman is can be used despite biological women arguing that it results in prejudicial outcomes towards women?

Gosh, aren't ye's great lads altogether.

LLMMLL

FVP3 wrote: »

its clear that you are from the anti-scientific side of the fence.

If we were however to change the definition of table to mean lamp, or lamp to mean table, we would be in trouble. Nor is your re-definition of male to mean female, and vice versa generally accepted anyway.

Furthermore the general acceptance of something does not make it true. The earth wasnt flat when most people believed it was.

I fully accept scientific truths. As I've said I fully accept trans women do not have xx chromosomes. What I don't accept is the restriction of commonly used words to a scientific definition they never had that is used as a stick to beat trans people with.

GreeBo

volchitsa wrote: »

I've no idea what your position is on the trans issue, but no matter, I'm just not keen on a definition of women as merely "not men".

Not to mention that that also begs the question of how you define "men""?

Men are anyone who are not women.
Its very easy in these binary scenarios.

CtevenSrowder

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

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

Depends.... Dead can mean alive if you want it to.

LLMMLL

ceadaoin. wrote: »

I dont really give a **** about sharing a changing room with a trans person. I'm sure I've done it many times over the years. I give a **** about any man self id'ing his way into womens spaces whether he is trans or not. That seriously increases the risk. Thats the issue many women have. Its not about denying trans people their rights. Theyve already been sharing our facilities for years without issue. I wish you'd stop portraying these 'terfy spinsters' as an actual danger to trans people. We all know where that danger comes from, and its not women. Men get a free pass to be actually transphobic though whereas women get attacked and told to suck a dick for saying that women have periods.

What do you think about the gay man's comments abouts trans men posted earlier? Why do you think he didn't receive the same abuse as JK Rowling and other women?

Clearly because JK is super famous. And I do consider terfy people to be a much bigger danger than trans people.

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

I fully accept scientific truths. As I've said I fully accept trans women do not have xx chromosomes. What I don't accept is the restriction of commonly used words to a scientific definition they never had that is used as a stick to beat trans people with.

So you believe people can choose their skin colour too? Does black lives matter mean everyone?

CtevenSrowder

LLMMLL wrote: »

Slippery slope nonsense. As I've said definitions can be useful but are inherently imperfect.

If definitions are so clear and easy please propose a scientific definition for chair.

It's not slipperly slope nonsense. We don't need a scientific definition for a chair. It's an inanimate object. You only think the definition of what a woman is is imperfect because it doesn't fit your World view.

What you are doing is like a flat Earther rejecting to the term Globe being used to describe the Earth, as it is also used to describe a spherical object (which the World roughly is), because they believe it is flat. So they will deny that Globe even has a definition, or that definitions are inherently imperfect (they aren't). "Sure we can't even define what a chair is".

LLMMLL

Gruffalox wrote: »

Would you respect the objections of a gay man who wants transmen to know that he wants an actual man's c0ck in his life and wants transmen to shag off out of his Grindr feed? And would you respect all the gay man who respond by totally agreeing that the actual factual masculine penis on an actual man is what they want.

https://twitter.com/faintlyfalling/status/1270410188714098688?s=19

I think it's abhorrent that he doesn't want to see trans men on Grindr if that's what he actually said.

And I think anyone can have their own sexual preferences though many are rooted in prejudice. So if someone doesn't want to sleep with black men obviously nobody's going to force them. But their non-interest In black men Is most likely a sign of inherent prejudice.

It's also really ****ty when people advertise the group's they WONT sleep with. Such as the relatively.common issue on Grindr of "no Asians!!!". It's equally as ****ty for someone to Publically advertise that they wont sleep with trans men when it's very unlikely that a trans man would even want to sleep with them.

CtevenSrowder

LLMMLL wrote: »

I think it's abhorrent that he doesn't want to see trans men on Grindr if that's what he actually said.

And I think anyone can have their own sexual preferences though many are rooted in prejudice. So if someone doesn't want to sleep with black men obviously nobody's going to force them. But their non-interest In black men Is most likely a sign of inherent prejudice.

It's also really ****ty when people advertise the group's they WONT sleep with. Such as the relatively.common issue on Grindr of "no Asians!!!". It's equally as ****ty for someone to Publically advertise that they wont sleep with trans men when it's very unlikely that a trans man would even want to sleep with them.

****ing christ. I'm straight. I don't want to sleep with men. Am I "inherently" misandrist? Are all gay men misogynists?

One eyed Jack

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

No it doesn't matter because it's a biological fact. They are female. How I or anyone else feels is irrelevant.

How you feel or how anyone else feels is the only thing that’s relevant. You can’t surely be denying that when people are comfortable in themselves they feel good? That much should be obvious. People’s dignity is important in terms of human rights and law, and that’s why it was important for the Lydia Foy, the example I gave earlier, to have their preferred gender recognised in law. That’s why they fought the Irish State for 20 years for that right. Because legal recognition whether it matters to you or not, is important to people.

It’s important to everyone, because in order for them to avail of their rights such as the right to equal treatment free from discrimination, they first have to be acknowledged in law.

Not science. Law. Because law is the basis on which human rights are exercised, based upon regarding all humans as equals worthy of dignity and respect and freedom from discrimination and prejudice.

LLMMLL

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

What definitions? Nothing can be defined according to you.



I've no idea what you mean here. We either use definitions because they are scientifically correct or we don't use them at all. If you mean we keep up a facade that trans-women are bone-fide women then that may be something that could potentially be done in certain circumstances. It doesn't mean that trans-women are actual women though, that being an adult human female.



And we back to it's all because of transphobia. Let me ask you this, if you can't define what a woman is, how can you say trans-woman are woman?

I didn't say nothing can be defined. I said the definitions are imperfect and should'nt be used to persecute people.

And we use many definitions that are not scientifically correct. Most definitions aren't scientific.

As I've said trans women and cis women are women. It's not a definition but it's an inclusive guide. I don't object to their being other possibilities that I haven't included.