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

LLMMLL

OscarMIlde wrote: »

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.

Only if you assume that only cis women are women.

Annasopra

Deleted User wrote: »

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

That's a more accurate description.

No

It's not. Trans people and trans allies are abused and persecuted in this debate.

Gruffalux

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.


It's also really ****ty when people advertise the group's they WONT sleep with. It's ****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.

I just want to quote this so any gay men following the thread know that you are calling them ****ty transphobes if they eliminate female bodied people from their dating pool. I took out the false equivalence between race and gender identity that you attempt to make. Gay men must be open to male fannies as an option for their sexual activity.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

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

That's a more accurate description.

Facts? Like your absence of a definition for black people. Come on. Give me the scientific definition.

OscarMIlde

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.

Definitions for biological sexes are rooted in biological realities. If some trans people find this prejudicial (and not all do of course) that is on them. Hysteria doesn't alter reality.

CtevenSrowder

LLMMLL wrote: »

Definitions are being used to persecute trans people.

No they aren't. Definitions can't persecute.

LLMMLL wrote: »

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

You havn't answered. You can't even muster the beginnings of a definition then? I wonder why that is!

Examplars: "a person or thing serving as a typical example or appropriate model".

A typical woman is one who, wait for it, "has the capacity to bear young or produce eggs" or put another way, not a trans women.

We got there in the end.

OscarMIlde

LLMMLL wrote: »

Only if you assume that only cis women are women.

I do assume so, as is right and proper for a biologist, which I am.

LLMMLL

Gruffalox wrote: »

I just want to quote this so any gay men following the thread know that you are calling them ****ty transphobes if they eliminate female bodied people from their dating pool. I took out the false equivalence between race and gender identity that you attempt to make. Gay men must be open to male fannies as an option for their sexual activity.

I didn't call anyone a ****ty trabsphobe and I didn't say they must be open to it. I said the opposite in fact. You clearly have an issue with people if you must call them Haggard. Dried up. ****ty trabsphobe. So full of hatred.

Girly Gal

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

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.

One attack is too many. Women also get attacked by other women, so what do you do here? I don't know if the stats prove men and transwomen have the same proportion of attacks on women or not.

I think the main issue is with men self identifying as trans, yet, not really making any real effort to live as their new gender, there's a question mark if these are genuinely trans or trying to play the system e.g. male prisoners getting moved to a womens prison. The rise of non-binary/genderfluid has further complicated the issue.

Gatling

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

No

It's not. Trans people and trans allies are abused and persecuted in this debate.

From what I've seen it's tends be anyone who doesn't subscribe the whole support trans people are more likely to face abuse and demand they face criminal charges and lose the jobs because they don't support the ideology of trans people -

What's worse is the idea trans people have to be protected

One eyed Jack

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

When it comes to Science and what things actually are, or how things are, how people feel is irrelevant.

Social science wants a word :pac:

I do get what you mean of course, you’re speaking specifically in relation to biology, as opposed to philosophy.

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

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.

It really isn’t. That’s why in terms of biology a sexually dimorphic species such as humans are referred to in terms of opposites as male and female.

In sociological terms adult human males and females are commonly referred to as men and women, and that’s why a person who is male, but prefers to identify themselves as a woman, is commonly referred to as a trans woman, or a person who is female, who prefers to identify themselves as a man, is commonly referred to as a trans man.

It’s also why in terms of legal recognition of their preferred gender, people may apply to be recognised as their preferred gender, and there is no reference that they should be identified as trans male or trans female, but simply by their preferred sex - male or female.


Effect of gender recognition certificate generally

18. (1) Where a gender recognition certificate is issued to a person the person’s gender shall from the date of that issue become for all purposes the preferred gender so that if the preferred gender is the male gender the person’s sex becomes that of a man, and if it is the female gender the person’s sex becomes that of a woman.


Gender Recognition Act 2015

OscarMIlde

LLMMLL wrote: »

Only if you assume that only cis women are women.

I do assume that only biological women are women, which is a scientifically appropriate position for a biologist, which I am, to hold.

EagererBeaver

Speaking as a biological woman, a lot of people in positions of power really need to grow a pair (which is doubtless literally possible, according to the kind of people who argue that clownfish prove humans aren’t a dimorphic species).

My Queen.

LLMMLL

OscarMIlde wrote: »

I do assume so, as is right and proper for a biologist, which I am.

Right so you're a scientist who thinks that the meanings of cis and trans in chemistry apply to their uses in popular culture..... Great scientist.

OscarMIlde

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Social science wants a word :pac:

I do get what you mean of course, you’re speaking specifically in relation to biology[/i], as opposed to philosophy.





It really isn’t. That’s why in terms of biology a sexually dimorphic species such as humans are referred to in terms of opposites as male and female.

In sociological terms adult human males and females are commonly referred to as men and women, and that’s why a person who is male, but prefers to identify themselves as a woman, is commonly referred to as a trans woman, or a person who is female, who prefers to identify themselves as a man, is commonly referred to as a trans man.

It’s also why in terms of legal recognition of their preferred gender, people may apply to be recognised as their preferred gender, and there is no reference that they should be identified as trans male or trans female, but simply by their preferred sex - male or female.


Effect of gender recognition certificate generally

18. (1) Where a gender recognition certificate is issued to a person the person’s gender shall from the date of that issue become for all purposes the preferred gender so that if the preferred gender is the male gender the person’s sex becomes that of a man, and if it is the female gender the person’s sex becomes that of a woman.


Gender Recognition Act 2015

You believe in the sexual dimorphism of humans now? Earlier in this thread you were referring to non-binary people as a biological category.

LLMMLL

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

No they aren't. Definitions can't persecute.



You havn't answered. You can't even muster the beginnings of a definition then? I wonder why that is!

Examplars: "a person or thing serving as a typical example or appropriate model".

A typical woman is one who, wait for it, "has the capacity to bear young or produce eggs" or put another way, not a trans women.

We got there in the end.

That's your definition of an exemplar of a woman. Not mine.

Ever going to answer my questions about your scientific definition of black people?

LLMMLL

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

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

Ok so greater than 50%? So nobody who fails to meet this criteria is black?

Gruffalux

LLMMLL wrote: »

I didn't call anyone a ****ty trabsphobe and I didn't say they must be open to it. I said the opposite in fact. You clearly have an issue with people if you must call them Haggard. Dried up. ****ty trabsphobe. So full of hatred.

My dear chap, you will forever be the man who called women who disagree with you spinstery old terfs of a certain demographic who are irrelevant.
Never more the white knight shall you be.
A few of your gay compadres may also be a little wide eyed wondering if you now expect them to ditch the penis and dive on into the muff to meet your standards.
You are burning bridges left, right and centre.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

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?

Where does the delusion of being able to apply a scientific definition to everything stop?

I can't answer the question who is back and who isn't. There's a myriad of factors. I do know that saying it's having a certain ratio of menanins on your skin is nonsense.

Do you think people who don't meet ctevencrlwders definition should be told they are not black?

One eyed Jack

OscarMIlde wrote: »

You believe in the sexual dimorphism of humans now? Earlier in this thread you were referring to non-binary people as a biological category.

Where did I ever say I didn’t before?

I didn’t refer to non-binary people as a biological category, I’m quite aware it’s a sociological term. It’s not one I would ever care to use myself, but if other people want to use it, I’ll still understand who they’re referring to when context is provided, as it was in the article JK referred to in her tweet.

CtevenSrowder

LLMMLL wrote: »

That's your definition of an exemplar of a woman. Not mine.

No it's what a typical woman is, which is what an examplar is; a person or thing serving as a typical example or appropriate model.*

Or is this definition problematic now aswell as it also doesn't suit your Worldview? How about this one then: "a typical or standard specimen".** Can you give us your examplar of a women, your example of a typical woman?

LLMMLL wrote: »

Ever going to answer my questions about your scientific definition of black people?

I gave you one.

*https://www.google.com/search?biw=1536&bih=792&ei=ZCXhXpu1FYCj1fAP9ueG6A0&q=exemplar+definition&oq=exemplar+de&gs_lcp=CgZwc3ktYWIQARgAMgUIABCRAjICCAAyAggAMgIIADICCAAyAggAMgIIADICCAAyAggAMgIIADoECAAQR1CkoQZYlqUGYMWuBmgAcAF4AIABV4gB3gGSAQEzmAEAoAEBqgEHZ3dzLXdpergBAw&sclient=psy-ab
**https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exemplar

EagererBeaver

I've tried to work out the logical extreme of how far this all goes. How long before a straight, male porn actor gets fired for "being a bigot" for refusing to be penetrated by a transwoman with a penis in what some will try to tell you is a heterosexual sex scene? There'll also be the arguement that if that idea doesn't get you off, then you're a transphobic bigot too. I say five years.

Annasopra

Gatling wrote: »

From what I've seen it's tends be anyone who doesn't subscribe the whole support trans people are more likely to face abuse and demand they face criminal charges and lose the jobs because they don't support the ideology of trans people -

What's worse is the idea trans people have to be protected

Wow so you basically feel it's ok to abuse and persecute trans people.

LLMMLL

Gruffalox wrote: »

My dear chap, you will forever be the man who called women who disagree with you spinstery old terfs of a certain demographic who are irrelevant.
Never more the white knight shall you be.
A few of your gay compadres may also be a little wide eyed wondering if you now expect them to ditch the penis and dive on into the muff to meet your standards.
You are burning bridges left, right and centre.

The fact that you have to reword everything I say is testament to the shaky ground you are on. But please go on. It's great entertainment.

CtevenSrowder

LLMMLL wrote: »

Ok so greater than 50%? So nobody who fails to meet this criteria is black?

What's your definition of black? What's your definition of nobody? What's your definition of 50%?

Baggly

Mod

Lads - keep it civil in this discussion. Ive no shortage of cards for those not doing so or engaging in trolling.

LLMMLL

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

No it's what a typical woman is, which is what an examplar is; a person or thing serving as a typical example or appropriate model.*

Or is this definition problematic now aswell as it also doesn't suit your Worldview? How about this one then: "a typical or standard specimen".** Can you give us your examplar of a women, your example of a typical woman?



I gave you one.

*https://www.google.com/search?biw=1536&bih=792&ei=ZCXhXpu1FYCj1fAP9ueG6A0&q=exemplar+definition&oq=exemplar+de&gs_lcp=CgZwc3ktYWIQARgAMgUIABCRAjICCAAyAggAMgIIADICCAAyAggAMgIIADICCAAyAggAMgIIADoECAAQR1CkoQZYlqUGYMWuBmgAcAF4AIABV4gB3gGSAQEzmAEAoAEBqgEHZ3dzLXdpergBAw&sclient=psy-ab
**https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exemplar

I said exemplars not exemplar. And I have cis women and trans women as exemplars.

OscarMIlde

LLMMLL wrote: »

Right so you're a scientist who thinks that the meanings of cis and trans in chemistry apply to their uses in popular culture..... Great scientist.

No, actually I believe the originators of the terms did understand those terms, and selected those terms for precisely that reason; to come up with a terminology to describe people who lived their lives as women, but biologically were not women. A lot of people who nowadays parrot the trans women are women line are likely ignorant of the origin of the terms, and how the trans movement has become more divorced from biological realities over time.

CtevenSrowder

LLMMLL wrote: »

I said exemplars not exemplar. And I have cis women and trans women as exemplars.

What are they exemplars of?

Gatling

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Wow so you basically feel it's ok to abuse and persecute trans people.

It seems to be the other way around actually

Including from professional attention seekers