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

LLMMLL

OscarMIlde wrote: »

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?

I think that most people have a cis woman in mind but mostly because trans women are rare. It's like the fuss about a new Star and their love interest. Currently I'm bombarded with articles about who Paul Mescal's love interest might be. It's assumed he is straight. I don't think that makes people homophobic or that they believe straight is the only sexuality and gay is made up.

LLMMLL

OscarMIlde wrote: »

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?

I think that most people have a cis woman in mind but mostly because trans women are rare. It's like the fuss about a new Star and their love interest. Currently I'm bombarded with articles about who Paul Mescal's love interest might be. It's assumed he is straight. I don't think that makes people homophobic or that they believe straight is the only sexuality and gay is made up.

Gatling

LLMMLL wrote: »

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.

Maybe people don't want to discuss race in a thread that has nothing to do with race .

The other anti trans people - the new buzz word card

LLMMLL

JoannaJag wrote: »

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.

I read about 6 from each list and didn't see onE case of self id. Could you clarify which ones were self id?

hetuzozaho

Gruffalox wrote: »

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.

I just forgot. Christ.

OscarMIlde

LLMMLL wrote: »

I think that most people have a cis woman in mind but mostly because trans women are rare. It's like the fuss about a new Star and their love interest. Currently I'm bombarded with articles about who Paul Mescal's love interest might be. It's assumed he is straight. I don't think that makes people homophobic or that they believe straight is the only sexuality and gay is made up.

So you are acknowledging that the general social understanding of a woman is aligned with the biological status of a human female.

LLMMLL

Gatling wrote: »

Maybe people don't want to discuss race in a thread that has nothing to do with race .

The other anti trans people - the new buzz word card

Presumably you agree with cteven that you must have a certain ratio of melanin to be considered black and anyone who does not meet this requirement is not black then?

OscarMIlde

hetuzozaho wrote: »

I just forgot. Christ.

It's understandable you did, because very rarely does anyone use the term cis to describe biological males that way despite it being du jour in certain spheres to describe biological females that way.

Gruffalux

hetuzozaho wrote: »

I just forgot. Christ.

It is interesting how often it is forgotten. Cis guy or cis man is not really becoming common parlance in the way cis woman creeps in and in...

(See the cis in Christ )

LLMMLL

OscarMIlde wrote: »

So you are acknowledging that the general social understanding of a woman is aligned with the biological status of a human female.

No I'm saying scientific biology would not enter their heads. I've never thought "oh she must have a vagina" or "she must have a xx chromosomes" EVER. But it probably wouldn't enter most people's head that a woman is trans.

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

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.



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?



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.



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.

Jesus. It was my fault. I brought up the black element which I hold my hands up and admit it was a mistake as it has dragged the thread completely off topic and had little or no relevance.

My reason for doing so was to see (because you refuse to define the word woman,) if you believe that ethnicity is a mental choice or belief or whether or not it lands squarely with gender.

I admit it is difficult to pin down a scientific explanation as to what defines blackness and concede that point. However there must be a definition as genealogy tests can identify what percentage people are of different ethnicities.

But I concede that because of mixed race couples producing children, the definition is more ambiguous and wasn't a valid sidestep to take in this very definite argument. The race argument is genetic while the trans argument is mental.

Again, nothing to do with the topic and my fault for bringing it up.

But back on topic, you have tiptoed and gone around in circles to NOT explain what a woman is.

Do you disagree that a woman is a female who has two X chromosomes, while males have one X and one Y chromosome?

If your belief is that is not true, please tell me what your belief is.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Jesus. It was my fault. I brought up the black element which I hold my hands up and admit it was a mistake as it has dragged the thread completely off topic and had little or no relevance.

My reason for doing so was to see (because you refuse to define the word woman,) if you believe that ethnicity is a mental choice or belief or whether or not it lands squarely with gender.

I admit it is difficult to pin down a scientific explanation as to what defines blackness and concede that point. However there must be a definition as genealogy tests can identify what percentage people are of different ethnicities.

But I concede that because of mixed race couples producing children, the definition is more ambiguous and wasn't a valid sidestep to take in this very definite argument. The race argument is genetic while the trans argument is mental.

Again, nothing to do with the topic and my fault for bringing it up.

But back on topic, you have tiptoed and gone around in circles to NOT explain what a woman is.

Do you disagree that a woman is a female who has two X chromosomes, while males have one X and one Y chromosome?

If your belief is that is not true, please tell me what your belief is.

No I believe women consist of cis women who fit your definition (which I do not accept as a definiton for women in general) and trans women who do not for your definition.

OscarMIlde

LLMMLL wrote: »

No I'm saying scientific biology would not enter their heads. I've never thought "oh she must have a vagina" or "she must have a xx chromosomes" EVER. But it probably wouldn't enter most people's head that a woman is trans.

But you said that most people would think of a cis woman when they think of what a woman is? A cis woman is a biological woman is it not? So the scientific definition of a female is not some abstract thing divorced from the social concept of what a woman is?

Merry Prankster

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.

You are using the words female and woman interchangeably, which is a little confusing because I can't tell if you're referring to cultural or scientific terms. Arguing for the inclusion of cis and transgender women within the cultural definition of 'woman' is entirely different to arguing that both should be included within the scientific definition of female.

LLMMLL wrote: »

I wouldn't 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.

Words by their nature are exclusionary. If they weren't, we would only need one word for everything, which would get old really quickly. Your own definition of 'woman' is exclusionary because it does not include men. This is a tacit recognition that there has to be a boundary somewhere if a term is to have any meaning at all.

Gatling

LLMMLL wrote: »

Presumably you agree with cteven

Again I'm not here to discuss race or variations of colour thanks but no thanks

hetuzozaho

Gruffalox wrote: »

It is interesting how often it is forgotten. Cis guy or cis man is not really becoming common parlance in the way cis woman creeps in and in...

(See the cis in Christ )

That's a fair point. I agree.

I've updated now with some "" added too. So hopefully my post is less offensive to both sides of the discussion.

To understand things I just like them to be clear and focussed. Didn't mean to cause offence to you by using the term "cis" either.

I've just honestly never seen something that has divided people that usually agree if that makes sense. And just wanted to understand it more.

OscarMIlde

LLMMLL wrote: »

No I believe women consist of cis women who fit your definition (which I do not accept as a definiton for women in general) and trans women who do not for your definition.

Why do trans women fit the definition of a woman in your view. You've acknowledged that generally both from a societal and biological view they would not be viewed as a woman. Why do you think otherwise?

ceadaoin.

If a being a woman is totally disconnected from biology then the only way that can be defined is by using stereotypes. Thats why the question about what a woman is it cant or won't be answered

FVP3

LLMMLL wrote: »

Presumably you agree with cteven that you must have a certain ratio of melanin to be considered black and anyone who does not meet this requirement is not black then?

Well you can't have no melanin, unless you are an albino of african descent.

Clearly after a while phenotype trumps genotype. In Brazil, where everybody is intermixed, affirmative action is based on what you look like, rather than your ancestry, since the privileges are supposed to be white skin, not ancestry.

Therefore whiteness means something different there to the US.

And of course plenty of ethnic groups have some kind of limit, to be part of a native american tribe you need to be 25%-50% descended from that tribe. So ratios do exist.

LLMMLL

OscarMIlde wrote: »

But you said that most people would think of a cis woman when they think of what a woman is? A cis woman is a biological woman is it not? So the scientific definition of a female is not some abstract thing divorced from the social concept of what a woman is?

I think that barely anyone would think of genitals and breasts if asked to picture a women. I would think most people would imagine a clothed woman with some stereotypical female characteristics such as long hair, female specific clothing, makeup etc.

I doubt anyone would imagine a naked woman and be like VAGINA.

I think if you asked someone directly is this woman likely to have a vagina they would say yes because of numbers.

I do not think this imaginary person has a biOlogical definiton of what a woman is. I believe they would be 100% unaware of the definiton you proposed invoving terms like "gamete".

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

No I believe women consist of cis women who fit your definition (which I do not accept as a definiton for women in general) and trans women who do not for your definition.

We get that.

But what is the criterion required for women to consist of trans women and cis women?

This is a question you have been sidestepping.

LLMMLL

FVP3 wrote: »

Well you can't have no melanin, unless you are an albino of african descent.

Clearly after a while phenotype trumps genotype. In Brazil, where everybody is intermixed, affirmative action is based on what you look like, rather than your ancestry, since the privileges are supposed to be white skin, not ancestry.

Therefore whiteness means something different there to the US.

And of course plenty of ethnic groups have some kind of limit, to be part of a native american tribe you need to be 25%-50% descended from that tribe. So ratios do exist.

That's all very nice information but does anything suggest as cteven does that there is a fixed definiton of blackness that can be used to exclude anyone who does not meet this criteria?

ceadaoin.

Dante7 wrote: »

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/

I wonder if any of the activists will even bother reading before jumping on twitter to cry transphobia and continue the abuse? Highly doubt it

FVP3

LLMMLL wrote: »

I do not think this imaginary person has a biOlogical definiton of what a woman is. I believe they would be 100% unaware of the definiton you proposed invoving terms like "gamete".

Of course people, and every single society in the world, and the history of the world, thinks genitals not gametes. We name the gender at birth ( "assigned at birth" in the terminology of the transgenderist) so I don't know how clothing comes into it. And as it happens in 99.99% of the case that matches with the actual scientific facts.

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

I think that barely anyone would think of genitals and breasts if asked to picture a women.

If there was any doubt that you were incredibly misguided, it left once you said that.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

We get that.

But what is the criterion required for women to consist of trans women and cis women?

This is a question you have been sidestepping.

I'm not sidestepping. I'm directly telling you that I do not provide definitions that are designed to exclude people and provide a hard limit on who can belong to a group. And your black person example is the perfect reason why. Thank you.

OscarMIlde

LLMMLL wrote: »

I think that barely anyone would think of genitals and breasts if asked to picture a women. I would think most people would imagine a clothed woman with some stereotypical female characteristics such as long hair, female specific clothing, makeup etc.

I doubt anyone would imagine a naked woman and be like VAGINA.

I think if you asked someone directly is this woman likely to have a vagina they would say yes because of numbers.

I do not think this imaginary person has a biOlogical definiton of what a woman is. I believe they would be 100% unaware of the definiton you proposed invoving terms like "gamete".

Do you think they would imagine that these clothed women with 'stereotypical female characteristics such as long hair, female specific clothing, makeup etc' have a penis under their clothes if asked. Or would they presume a vagina?

Do you define a female as someone with long hair, female specific clothing and makeup? Does that make Ru Paul or dame Edna a woman while dressed like that. Is a biological female no longer a woman if she has short hair, wears a suit and shuns makeup?

Do you think womanhood is some kind of performative costume and anyone who dresses and acts a certain way is a woman and people who don;t are not?

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

If there was any doubt that you were incredibly misguided, it left once you said that.

well I guess some people do view women as basically a sex.object they can use. I guess if yubsay to these people "woman" they think of some naked receptacle. The rest of us are a little more civilised

CtevenSrowder

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.

Science is not used to describe the peoples perceptions of the World. It is used to describe how the World actually is.

Watch any video on Quantum Mechanics to get an understanding of what I mean by this is you don't already. Your perception is that trans women are women. but they aren't, no matter how much you perceive that to be the case.

LLMMLL

OscarMIlde wrote: »

Do you think they would imagine that these clothed women with 'stereotypical female characteristics such as long hair, female specific clothing, makeup etc' have a penis under their clothes if asked. Or would they presume a vagina?

Already answered this. If asked I would think they'd say vagina as it has a much higher probability. I also think if you asked was this woman Gaynor straight they'd say straight.

Do you define a female as someone with long hair, female specific clothing and makeup? Does that make Ru Paul or dame Edna a woman while dressed like that. Is a biological female no longer a woman if she has short hair, wears a suit and shuns makeup?

No I do not define a female as someone with long hair and makeup.

Do you think womanhood is some kind of performative costume and anyone who dresses and acts a certain way is a woman and people who don;t are not?

No I do not believe that either.