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

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

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.

It’s astounding to me that people can now be called prejudiced for having a sexual orientation or preferences. It’s actually vaguely coercive. “Oh, you can have your preferences, it just makes you prejudiced to have them”.

And saying people are “obsessed with genitals” as if that’s not completely normal. I’m Obvious Desperate Breakfasts and I love schlong. How perverted of me.

redlead

For the last 299,960 years of modern humans existence, the thought that people would be arguing over what a woman is would be absolutely bizarre. Here we are though.....

OscarMIlde

LLMMLL wrote: »

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.

Black people are not a discrete biological category. Females are. Thus there is a precise biological definition for biological females.

LLMMLL

OscarMIlde wrote: »

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.

The word female was coined in the 14th century long before gametes.

LLMMLL

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

It’s astounding to me that people can now be called prejudiced for having a sexual orientation or preferences. It’s actually vaguely coercive. “Oh, you can have your preferences, it just makes you prejudiced to have them”.

And saying people are “obsessed with genitals” as if that’s not completely normal. I’m Obvious Desperate Breakfasts and I love schlong. How perverted of me.

Do you think there are any issues of prejudice in sexual attitudes? Like the slave owners who boasted of their slaves inherent sexual prowess?

Baggly

Thread closed for review.

Baggly

All. For some this is a very emotive issue. Fair enough. You are all, on both 'sides' of the discussion, entitled to your opinions and to express them here with the rules of the forum.

I've had to action a number of posts for uncivil language and behaviour towards others. Some have improved their posting, some unfortunately have not.

To those that have not please do. It just means the discussion itself is the better for it.

Disagree with each other fine but temper the sarcasm and disingenuous questions to those you are disagreeing with.

Thanks.

Thread reopened.

CtevenSrowder

LLMMLL wrote: »

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.

I have provided one. If you don't need a commonly accepted definition then you can define anything as you wish. This ofcourse raises the point of what is the use of definitions in the first place, if everything means something different to everyone, then there is no definition and conversation cannot happen. We might aswell not have language.

And you are not consistent. You haven't even given a definition as to what a woman is, unless you mean you are consistent in nothing having a definition? A woman "is a cis woman and a trans-woman" is not a definition.

"What's a women?"
"A women is a cis-woman and a trans-woman"

"What's a trans-woman?"
"A trans-woman is a woman"

"What's a cis-woman?"
"A cis-woman is a woman"

"What's a woman?"
"A woman is a cis-woman and a trans-woman"

Circular logic, noone is any the wiser as to what a women actually is. So can you provide us with your definition please.

Gatling

Apologies to mod Baggly for the unnecessary on thread reaction .

LLMMLL

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

I have provided one. If you don't need a commonly accepted definition then you can define anything as you wish. This ofcourse raises the point of what is the use of definitions in the first place, if everything means something different to everyone, then there is no definition and conversation cannot happen. We might aswell not have language.

And you are not consistent. You haven't even given a definition as to what a woman is, unless you mean you are consistent in nothing having a definition? A woman "is a cis woman and a trans-woman" is not a definition.

"What's a women?"
"A women is a cis-woman and a trans-woman"

"What's a trans-woman?"
"A trans-woman is a woman"

"What's a cis-woman?"
"A cis-woman is a woman"

"What's a woman?"
"A woman is a cis-woman and a trans-woman"

Circular logic, noone is any the wiser as to what a women actually is. So can you provide us with your definition please.

You have not provided a commonly accepted definiton of balck people. I cannot find one source that backs it up.

CtevenSrowder

LLMMLL wrote: »

You have not provided a commonly accepted definiton of balck people. I cannot find one source that backs it up.

But you've stated that it doesn't have to be a commonly accepted definition.

Edit: Here is my source by the way:

For example, someone with very dark skin would primarily produce eumelanin, while pale-skinned Europeans might produce a majority of pheomelanin. Perhaps more importantly, the size and number of melanin particles is also a factor in determining skin color.

https://www.scienceabc.com/humans/melanin-pigment-definition-meaning-skin-color.html

OscarMIlde

LLMMLL wrote: »

The word female was coined in the 14th century long before gametes.

People didn't begin mating in the 14th century, I can assure you of that. Animal husbandry and plant species cultivation began well before that date also. People understand the biological realities of the sexes even though they didn't understand the molecular mechanisms underpinning them. We're not discussing the 14th century however, but the present day, where we do understand those mechanisms and have coined precise terms, which are known as 'definitions' to define and encompass them.

OscarMIlde

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

What does non-binary mean to you then?

LLMMLL

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

But you've stated that it doesn't have to be a commonly accepted definition.

Edit: Here is my source by the way:



https://www.scienceabc.com/humans/melanin-pigment-definition-meaning-skin-color.html

I've said that I don't require one. But you are the one stating that without scientific definitions we are incapable.ofndiscussing things. One would expect you to have a common scientific definition of blackness considering we commonly discuss balck people and their rights.

Except that article explains why some people have darker skin than others. I see no definition of black people there. So you can't come up with an exclusive definiton of balck people that definitively allows you to decide for every individual whether they are black or not black.

One would have to wonder why you're comfortable discussing black people while not being able to define them, but are outraged that someone does not buy into your exclusionary definition of women.

LLMMLL

OscarMIlde wrote: »

People didn't begin mating in the 14th century, I can assure you of that. Animal husbandry and plant species cultivation began well before that date also. People understand the biological realities of the sexes even though they didn't understand the molecular mechanisms underpinning them. We're not discussing the 14th century however, but the present day, where we do understand those mechanisms and have coined precise terms, which are known as 'definitions' to define and encompass them.

These terms only have their scientific definiton in certain spheres. Do you really think someone sees a woman and goes "that Is an individual that has an xx chroMosome". The usgae of the words female.and woman have ignored science. It's not that the definition became scientific. It's that the common understanding of a.woman has continued and science has its own definition.

OscarMIlde

LLMMLL wrote: »

I've said that I don't require one. But you are the one stating that without scientific definitions we are incapable.ofndiscussing things. One would expect you to have a common scientific definition of blackness considering we commonly discuss balck people and their rights.

Except that article explains why some people have darker skin than others. I see no definition of black people there. So you can't come up with an exclusive definiton of balck people that definitively allows you to decide for every individual whether they are black or not black.

One would have to wonder why you're comfortable discussing black people while not being able to define them, but are outraged that someone does not buy into your exclusionary definition of women.

Blackness is not a discrete category but occurs across a spectrum, thus there is not and cannot be a precise definition of blackness. Sexes in humans are discrete and thus can be defined precisely. Such definitions have been provided to you throughout this thread but you have chosen to ignore them as it conflicts with your worldview.

OscarMIlde

LLMMLL wrote: »

These terms only have their scientific definiton in certain spheres. Do you really think someone sees a woman and goes "that Is an individual that has an xx chroMosome". The usgae of the words female.and woman have ignored science. It's not that the definition became scientific. It's that the common understanding of a.woman has continued and science has its own definition.

They understand a woman as someone with a specific biological makeup and characteristics even if they don't understand precisely the scientific underpinnings of that. The general and social usage reflects the biological definition, in terms of secondary and primary sexual characteristics. It is for precisely these reasons that some trans women will undertake surgery to mimic female breasts and genitalia. Because they understand that the meaning of a woman is inherently related to biology. The social is rooted in the scientific.

One eyed Jack

OscarMIlde wrote: »

What does non-binary mean to you then?

To me it means a different perspective of gender. It’s not a perspective I share, but I understand it when someone says they are non-binary, that they do not share the same idea I do in terms of gender that it is binary. They are of the opinion that it isn’t, and that’s why they adopt the identifier of non-binary.

CtevenSrowder

LLMMLL wrote: »

I've said that I don't require one. But you are the one stating that without scientific definitions we are incapable.ofndiscussing things. One would expect you to have a common scientific definition of blackness considering we commonly discuss balck people and their rights.

But I'm talking to you. Why should I give you a scientific definition (even though I have) when you admit yourself that you don't need one?

LLMMLL wrote: »

Except that article explains why some people have darker skin than others. I see no definition of black people there. So you can't come up with an exclusive definiton of balck people that definitively allows you to decide for every individual whether they are black or not black.

Yes why some people are darker then others. It does give a definition of what a black person is:

someone with very dark skin would primarily produce eumelanin, while pale-skinned Europeans might produce a majority of pheomelanin.

I presume we'll add this to the list of definitions that don't suit your World view so won't accept.

LLMMLL wrote: »

One would have to wonder why you're comfortable discussing black people while not being able to define them, but are outraged that someone does not buy into your exclusionary definition of women.

What is your definition of a women? You continually use a word that you can't even begin to define and as such has no meaning. Now, as I stated earlier

A woman "is a cis woman and a trans-woman" is not a definition.

"What's a women?"
"A women is a cis-woman and a trans-woman"

"What's a trans-woman?"
"A trans-woman is a woman"

"What's a cis-woman?"
"A cis-woman is a woman"

"What's a woman?"
"A woman is a cis-woman and a trans-woman"

Circular logic, noone is any the wiser as to what a women actually is. So can you provide us with your definition please.

hetuzozaho

JoannaJag wrote: »

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.

I'd be interested in the current day to day issues in Ireland with some of these.

I understand the Self Id Law now and am just wondering the outcomes of that within Ireland from an anecdotal perspective even.

Say taking the communal changing areas, what's the situation and what are the issues that "cis women" are having with "trans women" in this space?

As a "cis guy" I haven't any experience with the issues or really heard any real world talk e.g. within work / social life, but there is so much talk about it on Twitter etc that I'd just like to understand it all better.

(and i'm just using these terms so we are clear, not wanting to be shouted at for using cis or whatever)

OscarMIlde

One eyed Jack wrote: »

To me it means a different perspective of gender. It’s not a perspective I share, but I understand it when someone says they are non-binary, that they do not share the same idea I do in terms of gender that it is binary. They are of the opinion that it isn’t, and that’s why they adopt the identifier of non-binary.

If that is the case then why did you say J.K Rowling was being offensive. You specifically said ''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.''

As I understand it, the view is that gender is separate from biology so it doesn't matter whether a biological woman identifies with a female gender or a male gender, or neither, and is thus non-binary, they would still fall under the biological venn diagram of a woman, and thus should not expect to be listed alongside women as a separate biological category.

Why then did you claim J.K.Rowling was wrong. Surely as gender is separate from biology the ability to menstruate has nothing to do with the gender identity of anyone.

Dante7

J.K. has tweeted what is possibly the definitive piece of writing on the subject that I have read. It is impossible to read this and still claim that there is not a huge issue. Wonderful writing.

https://www.jkrowling.com/answers/

Mules

Neyite wrote: »

Seamus, in Ireland the GRA has some subtle differences to the UK one - notably the exceptions such as prisons and hospital wards as far as I can remember. So there's no automatic right of a transwoman to have a bed in a public ward beside another woman, and there's no automatic right to be housed in a female prison. There may have been cases where it's been an issue but I've not heard of any - I imagine they are dealt with in Ireland on a case by case basis in as sensitive a way as possible.

It is a growing problem in the UK though and there are quite a few violent offenders, particularly rapists conveniently changing their gender legally to be housed in a female prison. It's a nice loophole for them - move from a prison where sex offenders are usually at the bottom of the food chain, move to a secure unit where in general the population are no threat to you AND you have a fresh pool of vulnerable victims to sexually assault.

There's a transgender woman in the women's wing in Limerick prison. The person hasn't done anything to transition, hasn't even taken hormones. The insane thing is the person is in for sex offences. The prison guards have follow him about so he doesn't assault female prisoners. This is after something similar happened in England. (I'm not even using female pronouns cus its obvious he's taking the piss)

LLMMLL

OscarMIlde wrote: »

Blackness is not a discrete category but occurs across a spectrum, thus there is not and cannot be a precise definition of blackness. Sexes in humans are discrete and thus can be defined precisely. Such definitions have been provided to you throughout this thread but you have chosen to ignore them as it conflicts with your worldview.

Nope I said that scientific definitions define scientific categories that are only partially related to how people use language in reality.

LLMMLL

OscarMIlde wrote: »

They understand a woman as someone with a specific biological makeup and characteristics even if they don't understand precisely the scientific underpinnings of that. The general and social usage reflects the biological definition, in terms of secondary and primary sexual characteristics. It is for precisely these reasons that some trans women will undertake surgery to mimic female breasts and genitalia. Because they understand that the meaning of a woman is inherently related to biology. The social is rooted in the scientific.

The social is rooted in people's perceptions of the natural world. Science is a tool used to describe It. People's belief that breasts indicate women is not a scientific belief that they arrived at through a scientific process. And while you could say the social is rooted in perceptions of the natural world, the social is not defined by the natural world.

Gatling

Jk Rowling take a bow ,

Seems she's way more informed than any so called trans activists and allies ,

Women afraid to speak up due for fears of losing their careers and threats of violence ,now I wonder how many police officers will be despatched to speak to these victims or can they only go if someone claims they posted transpobic comments?

Gruffalux

hetuzozaho wrote: »

I'd be interested in the current day to day issues in Ireland with some of these.

I understand the Self Id Law now and am just wondering the outcomes of that within Ireland from an anecdotal perspective even.

Say taking the communal changing areas, what's the situation and what are the issues that cis women are having with trans women in this space?

As a guy I haven't any experience with the issues or really heard any real world talk e.g. within work / social life, but there is so much talk about it on Twitter etc that I'd just like to understand it all better.

(and i'm just using these terms so we are clear, not wanting to be shouted at for using cis or whatever)

You used cis to qualify women but not guy.
Why did you not refer to yourself as a cis guy?

Regarding cis, it may have started life as an innocuous word but it became loaded. This is undeniable.
It has been used by radical trans activists as a slur. Die Cis Scum like Kill a Terf or Punch a Terf became a meme. The word cis cannot be rehabilitated because it was abused.

Also the word cis was never chosen by non transgendered people. Trans was chosen or easily accepted by transgender people. The vocal part of the trans community has foisted the word onto others. It does not matter how often people say they do not like it they are told that is what they are. That is the word they must accept.
It is a horrible word. Like the sound a snake makes.
Personally I do not think the noun woman needs qualification. It is a factual unqualified state of existence. But in the event of needing clarity I prefer biological woman or natal woman.

Just to reply to that part of your post.

OscarMIlde

LLMMLL wrote: »

The social is rooted in people's perceptions of the natural world. Science is a tool used to describe It. People's belief that breasts indicate women is not a scientific belief that they arrived at through a scientific process. And while you could say the social is rooted in perceptions of the natural world, the social is not defined by the natural world.

Do you think that in general social usage when people refer to a woman they mean a biological female or do they mean a biological male with a belief he is a woman?

LLMMLL

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

But I'm talking to you. Why should I give you a scientific definition (even though I have) when you admit yourself that you don't need one?

Because I know the definiton does not exist and this shows you are full of contradictions. Obviously I don't need the definiton that doesn't exist.

Yes why some people are darker then others. It does give a definition of what a black person is:

Quote:
someone with very dark skin would primarily produce eumelanin, while pale-skinned Europeans might produce a majority of pheomelanin.

Wow. Do you really believe that? You equate the definition of a black person with an explanation of the reason some people have darker skin? Incredible. Does that mean no black people can havelighter skin?

I presume we'll add this to the list of definitions that don't suit your World view so won't accept.

Yeah because it's nonsense. You do realise the silence from the other anti-trans people on this thread about this is because every single person on this thread knows that your definition of black people is astoundingly ridiculous.

What is your definition of a women? You continually use a word that you can't even begin to define and as such has no meaning. Now, as I stated earlier

Like I said about 6/7 times now, I don't use exclusionary definitions that people must fulfil to be considered part of a group. I don't do it for women. I don't do it for black people.

JoannaJag

hetuzozaho wrote: »

I'd be interested in the current day to day issues in Ireland with some of these.

I understand the Self Id Law now and am just wondering the outcomes of that within Ireland from an anecdotal perspective even.

Say taking the communal changing areas, what's the situation and what are the issues that cis women are having with trans women in this space?

As a guy I haven't any experience with the issues or really heard any real world talk e.g. within work / social life, but there is so much talk about it on Twitter etc that I'd just like to understand it all better.

(and i'm just using these terms so we are clear, not wanting to be shouted at for using cis or whatever)

I only have the experience of a transman being unhappy with being excluded from a male changing room during a school play (they were given an individual changing area and the head teacher was called terf and transphobic for arranging this) and girls in my young daughter’s class being told to share a Communal changing room With a boy in their class because he feels like a girl.

However my greater concern is that where the definition for transwoman is anyone who says they ID as a woman it leaves us vulnerable to these type people:

https://theysaythisneverhappens.tumblr.com/

And these

https://twitter.com/tibby17/status/1267756460349497350?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

Now if I say these people are trans I am transphobic for suggesting trans people can be abusers. If i say they aren’t trans I am transphobic for denying people the right to self ID, since many of them were able to offend by taking advantage of self ID. If I call them men I’m transphobic because men includes woman and men who don’t abuse women.