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

OscarMIlde

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.

Rowling was discussing a biological facet of womanhood, so science obviously relates. People objected to it, because of 'feelings' and called her a bigot. How can she be defended without citing scientific definitions. You have continuously maintained that trans women are women without explaining how or why this is so. Trans people were not being attacked, a biological woman is being vilified and attacked for using scientifically accurate language.

LLMMLL

OscarMIlde wrote: »

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.

Pure hysteria. I've never claimed I can control what other people think say or do. I've stated opinions as have you. Someone on the internet disagrees with you. Please drop the victim act.

OscarMIlde

LLMMLL wrote: »

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.

The only person being persecuted is J.K. Rowling for stating only women can menstruate, which is a FACT.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

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/

Indeed. TERF makes no sense because it’s not just feminists and not just radicals that oppose all this stuff.

There are attempts to replace sex-based rights with gender-based rights in the UK. Problem is, nobody can come with a coherent, non-circular definition of gender. They want the replacement of sex-based rights with that which cannot be defined. Madness.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

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

Can you give a scientific definition of black skin that accurately captures everyone who is black? Can't wait to hear this one.

CtevenSrowder

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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 yo 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.

When it comes to Science and what things actually are, or how things are, how people feel is irrelevant. Woman is a word with an underlying scientific basis. Thats why a person born male is referred to as a trans-women, because they are not a bone fide women no matter how much they think they, feel they are, or others want them to be.

LLMMLL

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

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".

We don't need a scientific definition for something that's inanaimate???? Looooool. That would be news to Newton.

Girly Gal

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.

It's not right to imply that someone is racist if they are not attracted to people of a different race. The vast majority of people are generally more strongly attracted to their own race. It's also ok that a gay man would not want a trans man as a sexual partner.

CtevenSrowder

LLMMLL wrote: »

Can you give a scientific definition of black skin that accurately captures everyone who is black? Can't wait to hear this one.

Someone who produces mainly eumelanin as opposed to pheomelanin.

LLMMLL

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

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

Do you think that not being attracted to a black person is an inherent sexual preference similar to being gay or straight?

Do you see no issue with multiple people having "noblacls, no Asians" on their profiles?

LLMMLL

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Someone who produces mainly eumelanin as opposed to pheomelanin.

And what does the ratio have to be to be considered black?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Girly Gal wrote: »

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.

Transgender women are few in number. Statistically, their crime levels will break down into the same proportions as any other males though. I don’t care if that means only a handful of women are harmed per year. One is too many. What’s an acceptable number to you personally? AND if a transgender woman gets attacked by another male, there isn’t a strength differential. There is if a woman is attacked by a transgender woman.

Annasopra

OscarMIlde wrote: »

The only person being persecuted is J.K. Rowling for stating only women can menstruate, which is a FACT.

That's simply not true. This debate is toxic and ends up with both sides being abused and persecuted.

LLMMLL

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

When it comes to Science and what things actually are, or how things are, how people feel is irrelevant. Woman is a word with an underlying scientific basis. Thats why a person born male is referred to as a trans-women, because they are not a bone fide women no matter how much they think they, feel they are, or others want them to be.

And we can also use the word cis women. That does not mean that cis women are not women. Nor does someone saying trans woman mean that she is not really a woman.

CtevenSrowder

LLMMLL wrote: »

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

They are not being used to persecute people. Again, you only feel this way because of your World view.

LLMMLL wrote: »

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

Yes, scientific definitions are scientific. Well done. No, in Science we may not use terms that are scientifically incorrect. That is just bogus science. You quite evidently have no scientific background at all

LLMMLL wrote: »

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.

"An inclusive guide".:rolleyes: And ofcourse if you don't go along with this "inclusive guide" you are not being inclusive and as such transphobic and as such have to go along with the inclusive guide because otherwise your an awful human being. It's all quite clever (not).

Can you answer this please: How can trans-women be woman when there is no definition of what a woman is?

OscarMIlde

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

That's simply not true. This debate is toxic and ends up with both sides being abused and persecuted.

The debate is toxic because one side denies reality and cries bigot when reminded of it.

CtevenSrowder

LLMMLL wrote: »

And we can also use the word cis women. That does not mean that cis women are not women. Nor does someone saying trans woman mean that she is not really a woman.

You can't even define what a woman is. The word has no meaning when you use it.

ceadaoin.

LLMMLL wrote: »

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

I said how are terfy people a bigger danger to trans people than the men who actually use violence and transphobic slurs against them. You try to twist it into me saying trans people are a danger. Good work.

Gruffalux

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.

Air never had a scientific definition until we had the study of molecules and realised it was made up of particular atomic constituents with specific qualities. And yet humans have a loooong history, to use your phrase, of having words for air and knowing exactly what it meant.

And even so now and even back then we do and did restrict the word for air to a universal understanding of what it means and hardly ever mixed it up with..oh... water or earth or, to keep it comparable, other gaseous elements.

Because we do not actually live in a marshmallow world where meaning and language and reality can be deconstructed. Some think we do. You think we do.

Deconstruction is the motivating ideology behind gender theory. Deconstruction of meaning. Refer to Butler and her gurus Jacques Derrida and Michel Foucault and back to Georges Bataille and even further. Deconstructionism is a profoundly nihilistic misanthropic philosophy which wants to root out all meaning in human affairs setting people loose in a state of anomie and disillusion. The notions of the good, the true and the beautiful as Plato bequeathed them to us are ripped asunder. There is no God. There is no good. There is no meaning. There is just chaos and nothingness. Every time you say words have no meaning you pursue a deconstructionist ideology.

Transwoman is woman is unadulterated deconstructionism. You are purely driven by that ideology when you speak thus.. It is a powerfully nihilistic creed. It is why you are impenetrable to the opinions, feelings, beliefs of others, because you think they are nothing. Nothing is. Nothing exists. Nothing is real for those who pursue that ideology.
Thats okay. You are not the first to think such thoughts.

CtevenSrowder

LLMMLL wrote: »

And what does the ratio have to be to be considered black?

What's your understanding of the word mainly? Surely you aren't that scientifically illiterate.

LLMMLL

Girly Gal wrote: »

It's not right to imply that someone is racist if they are not attracted to people of a different race. The vast majority of people are generally more strongly attracted to their own race. It's also ok that a gay man would not want a trans man as a sexual partner.

I don't think they are anti back people per se but I do believe there is an inherent prejudice that underlies all these race based preferences.

Like I said I've no intention of forcing someone to change their sexual preferences. But the Glee with which they advertise their preferences against marginal groups is just wrong. I had an Asian friend who was constantly rejected and every single time was told "I'm not into Asians". It was incredibly damaging to him when the people just could have said "no thanks".

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

Can you give a scientific definition of black skin that accurately captures everyone who is black? Can't wait to hear this one.

That didn't answer my question.

Im asking is it acceptable, in your mind, for people to decide their own ethnicity?

Not just black. Could I choose to be Asian? Could I define myself as Cherokee?

If not, why not?

Where does your delusion acceptance end?

Baggly

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

What's your understanding of the word mainly? Surely you aren't that scientifically illiterate.

Mod

Ill give you the benefit of the doubt you arent trolling here but if you cannot respond with some civility, perhaps dont.

OscarMIlde

LLMMLL wrote: »

And we can also use the word cis women. That does not mean that cis women are not women. Nor does someone saying trans woman mean that she is not really a woman.

Cis and trans are terms used in organic chemistry to refer to the location of side chains on the carbon backbone. Cis means on the same side as. Trans means on the opposite side of the backbone. Even using this terminology in a social context a trans woman would be opposite to a cis woman, e.g, not the same. Because they are not biologically women.

Annasopra

OscarMIlde wrote: »

The debate is toxic because one side denies reality and cries bigot when reminded of it.

Both sides get abused and persecuted.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

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.

Oh... my... god.

EVERYONE is discriminatory when it comes to dating and sex. That’s how it works. I’ve been rejected. That was somebody discriminating against me. I’ve rejected. That me being discriminatory against somebody. Nobody, but nobody, has to justify their dating preferences to anybody. And if somebody has a preference for black people or white people, they don’t have to justify that to anybody. Similarly, people have genital preferences. This is completely normal.

I actually worry for teenagers who are transitioning because the future could well be very lonely for them.

LLMMLL

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

They are not being used to persecute people. Again, you only feel this way because of your World view.


Yes, scientific definitions are scientific. Well done. No, in Science we may not use terms that are scientifically incorrect. That is just bogus science. You quite evidently have no scientific background at all



"An inclusive guide".:rolleyes: And ofcourse if you don't go along with this "inclusive guide" you are not being inclusive and as such transphobic and as such have to go along with the inclusive guide because otherwise your an awful human being. It's all quite clever (not).

Can you answer this please: How can trans-women be woman when there is no definition of what a woman is?

Definitions are being used to persecute trans people.

I've answered you multiple times about definitions. Examplars can be used that match the concepts.

TuringBot47

ceadaoin. wrote: »

I said how are terfy people a bigger danger to trans people than the men who actually use violence and transphobic slurs against them.

They're a bigger danger to the trans agenda and attempt to change public opinion/common sense.


The pen(is) is mightier than the sword.

LLMMLL

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Oh... my... god.

EVERYONE is discriminatory when it comes to dating and sex. That’s how it works. I’ve been rejected. That was somebody discriminating against me. I’ve rejected. That me being discriminatory against somebody. Nobody, but nobody, has to justify their dating preferences to anybody. And if somebody has a preference for black people or white people, they don’t have to justify that to anybody. Similarly, people have genital preferences. This is completely normal.

I actually worry for teenagers who are transitioning because the future could well be very lonely for them.

Where did I say they had to justify it. I specified the reasons for it and I said they should not advertise their rejection is because the person is part of a minority group. As I actually said, they could just say "no thanks".

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

Definitions are being used to persecute trans people.

I've answered you multiple times about definitions. Examplars can be used that match the concepts.

Facts are being used and trans people are feeling persecuted by reality.

That's a more accurate description.