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

LLMMLL

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

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

I wouldn't set a criteria for black people where I get to decide everyone who doesn't meet it is not black. I'd love to see you tell some black people they don't meet your melanin criteria for balclness though. I'm sure it would go down really well.

Joeytheparrot

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Both sides get abused and persecuted.

(genuine trigger warning for the worst kind of violent, rapey misogyny)

https://medium.com/@rebeccarc/j-k-rowling-and-the-trans-activists-a-story-in-screenshots-78e01dca68d

joeytheparrot I am sure will find some similar messages from feminists to share with us.

Who am I kidding. Of course he won't. They don't exist.

Stop making excuses for this kind of ****e. And as a side note, how interesting it is that all these poor petals with their dysphoria suddenly seem to love their penis when they can threaten a woman with it. FASCINATING.

CtevenSrowder

LLMMLL wrote: »

I wouldn't set a criteria for black people where I get to decide everyone who doesn't meet it is not black. I'd love to see you tell some black people they don't meet your melanin criteria for balclness though. I'm sure it would go down really well.

So anyone can identify as black then? What's your criteria? Is Rachel Dolziel black?

LLMMLL

OscarMIlde wrote: »

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.

Can you point to where the originators of the cos/trans distinctions believed that trans women were not women?

CtevenSrowder

LLMMLL wrote: »

Can you point to where the originators of the cos/trans distinctions believed that trans women were not women?

What do you define as a woman?

OscarMIlde

LLMMLL wrote: »

I wouldn't set a criteria for black people where I get to decide everyone who doesn't meet it is not black. I'd love to see you tell some black people they don't meet your melanin criteria for balclness though. I'm sure it would go down really well.

But you have no issue defining who is and isn't a women. Even if it contradicts biology.

LLMMLL

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

So anyone can identify as black then? What's your criteria? Is Rachel Dolziel black?

As I said I don't get to set the criteria. I don't get to make the definiton. You're asking me to justify something I never said and never claimed to be able to do. However you have said you can define black people. Do your hand by your ratio definition?

LLMMLL

OscarMIlde wrote: »

But you have no issue defining who is and isn't a women. Even if it contradicts biology.

It doesn't contradict biology. I have made no biological statements.

LLMMLL

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

What do you define as a woman?

Trans women and cis women.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

(genuine trigger warning for the worst kind of violent, rapey misogyny)

https://medium.com/@rebeccarc/j-k-rowling-and-the-trans-activists-a-story-in-screenshots-78e01dca68d

joeytheparrot I am sure will find some similar messages from feminists to share with us.

Who am I kidding. Of course he won't. They don't exist.

Stop making excuses for this kind of ****e. And as a side note, how interesting it is that all these poor petals with their dysphoria suddenly seem to love their penis when they can threaten a woman with it. FASCINATING.

I could show you the messages both Joey an I have got calling us paedopjiles but they were deleted by mods

Gatling

[Deleted User] wrote: »

(genuine trigger warning for the worst kind of violent, rapey misogyny)

https://medium.com/@rebeccarc/j-k-rowling-and-the-trans-activists-a-story-in-screenshots-78e01dca68d

Talk about about a pack or hyenas

It's amazing what a keyboard and a sense of being untouchable will do to people ,

CtevenSrowder

LLMMLL wrote: »

As I said I don't get to set the criteria. I don't get to make the definiton. You're asking me to justify something I never said and never claimed to be able to do. However you have said you can define black people. Do your hand by your ratio definition?

Who sets the criteria? How do we define anything in your World? How do we ever say anyone is black?

LLMMLL

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Who sets the criteria? How do we define anything in your World? How do we ever say anyone is black?

So your definition is the criteria for being black? Because if it's not then we talked about black people all the time without defining it. So is it the definition of black people or not?

CtevenSrowder

LLMMLL wrote: »

Trans women and cis women.

That is not a definition of a woman. You can't define a word and use the word you are trying to define in the definition.

Define what a tree is:

"A tree is a tree"

"A tall tree and a small tree is a tree".

Neither of those tell you what a tree is.

Define what a woman is: "A trans women and a cis women".

That is not a definition.

OscarMIlde

LLMMLL wrote: »

Can you point to where the originators of the cos/trans distinctions believed that trans women were not women?

I don't have any references to hand since I'm not a social scientist, but I was aware of this background to the terminology when the term cis was becoming widespread to describe natal women. It is used to directly describe how a persons gender identity is opposite to their biological identity, so I don't see how it can be argued under either social or biological grounds that trans women are the same as cis women. By either definition they are not.

LLMMLL

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

That is not a definition of a woman. You can't define a word and use the word you are trying to define in the definition.

Define what a tree is:

"A tree is a tree"

"A tall tree and a small tree is a tree".

Neither of those tell you what a tree is.

Define what a woman is: "A trans women and a cis women".

That is not a definition.

Please give me the scientific definition of black people.

CtevenSrowder

LLMMLL wrote: »

So your definition is the criteria for being black? Because if it's not then we talked about black people all the time without defining it. So is it the definition of black people or not?

It's not my definition. It's the scientific definition.

LLMMLL

OscarMIlde wrote: »

I don't have any references to hand since I'm not a social scientist, but I was aware of this background to the terminology when the term cis was becoming widespread to describe natal women. It is used to directly describe how a persons gender identity is opposite to their biological identity, so I don't see how it can be argued under either social or biological grounds that trans women are the same as cis women. By either definition they are not.

I know they're not. Never said a trans woman was a cis woman. But they are both women.

LLMMLL

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

It's not my definition. It's the scientific definition.

Can you post the source for that definition?

hatrickpatrick

I for one find it extremely bizarre and disturbing that this new definition of gender as a psychological thing entirely separate from sex has basically been imposed on society at large in the last five or six years with zero discussion permitted, zero dissent permitted, zero disagreement permitted or somebody gets "cancelled" and accused of being a bigot.

It's extremely bizarre, and extremely disturbing. Nothing should be off limits for ideological discussion particularly when it comes to trying to redefine basic concepts pertaining to everyday life more or less overnight and with no consensus.

Some people do not believe in the psychological construct definition of gender and see gender as purely a biological, physical trait relating to chromosomes. And those people are not bad people. You can't call people bigots, scumbags, etc just because a definition and a lense through which they've defined a fundamental human characteristic for their entire lives has very suddenly been changed to something which, in all honesty, is almost entirely unintelligible and contradictory, in an extremely short space of time, and any opposition to or questioning thereof has been branded socially unacceptable.

It's completely f*cking mental.

CtevenSrowder

LLMMLL wrote: »

Please give me the scientific definition of black people.

I gave it to you. You even responded to the post. So can you give me your definition of what a women is? A cis women and a trans women is not a definition.

OscarMIlde

LLMMLL wrote: »

I know they're not. Never said a trans woman was a cis woman. But they are both women.

They are not both women. Cis women are women and trans women believe/wish themselves to be women.

Dyr

Gatling wrote: »

Talk about about a pack or hyenas

It's amazing what a keyboard and a sense of being untouchable will do to people ,

Especially monomaniacal nutters.

LLMMLL

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

I gave it to you. You even responded to the post. So can you give me your definition of what a women is? A cis women and a trans women is not a definition.

You mean your commonly accepted scientific definiton that seems to exist nowhere else on the internet?

LLMMLL

OscarMIlde wrote: »

They are not both women. Cis women are women and trans women believe/wish themselves to be women.

Nope. Both women.

JoannaJag

I think you’re going round in circles - some people will just never accept that transwomen are women. Some will never accept that a woman is an adult human female. It is futile to persist really.

But the implications for females (ie women and trans men) in communal changing areas, sports, rape crisis centers, prisons and healthcare is actually worthwhile and does need to be addressed.

CtevenSrowder

LLMMLL wrote: »

You mean your commonly accepted scientific definiton that seems to exist nowhere else on the internet?

Oh, so what? It has to be commonly accepted does it? Because the commonly accepted definition of a woman is:

"An adult human female". And transwomen are not female.

Since you don't set the parameters or criteria as to what the definition of black is, can you tell me who does?

Gatling

Bambi wrote: »

Especially monomaniacal nutters.

I'm scared to reply

OscarMIlde

LLMMLL wrote: »

You mean your commonly accepted scientific definiton that seems to exist nowhere else on the internet?

The most basic biological definition of a female and male in all sexually dimorphic species is that males have motile gametes and females have non-motile gametes.This situation arises due to the need for uniparental inheritance of mitochondria to ensure selection of genetic fitness between mitochondrial and nuclear genomes. All primary and secondary sexual characteristics of male and females across sexually dimorphic species were selected for due to these underlying molecular constraints.

In more general usage woman is the term used to describe the adult female of the human species.

LLMMLL

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Oh, so what? It has to be commonly accepted does it? Because the commonly accepted definition of a woman is:

"An adult human female". And transwomen are not female.

Since you don't set the parameters or criteria as to what the definition of black is, can you tell me who does?

I wouldn't say any one person does. It's an identity with many factors. I know I certainly don't. And your definition is horrific. Imagine telling someone with lighter pigmented skin they're not really black. It's just mind boggling and very telling that nobody has jumped in the agree with you.

I don't need a commonly accepted scientific definition for women or balck people as I'm consistent.

However you need a common scientific definition for women but can't provide the same for black people. Inconsistent.