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

LLMMLL

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

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.

Trans women are women. Your perception that they are not is false.

hatrickpatrick

LLMMLL wrote: »

Do you really think someone sees a woman and goes "that Is an individual that has an xx chroMosome".

YES. Not consciously and in those specific terms, but that is exactly what one's brain does, because one's brain is hard wired to differentiate between the two sexes for the purposes of mate selection. This is true regardless of whether an individual is straight, gay, or bi - to the vast, vast majority of people, the terms "man" and "woman" refer to a genetic attribute of other humans. Nothing more, nothing less. And to call people bigoted for refusing to change this at extremely short notice and with absolutely no discussion permitted, is insane and ridiculous. Never mind disturbing and chillingly authoritarian.

OscarMIlde

LLMMLL wrote: »

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.

So would you think it would be exclusionary and therefore wrong if someone said a six year old child is defined as a human who was born between six and seven years ago as people not of those ages would not be allowed define themselves as a six year old if they so wished?

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

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

Haha. Good one.

Nah obviously you are right. When someone says woman, I immediately think that it is a person with long hair, with makeup and a dress who may or may not have a flapping penis.

It's be ridiculous to think of a woman as a person who was born with a vagina. You know, the actual defining characteristic of a woman.

But yeah...naked receptacle... Great term

oyvey

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".

That's precisely what they picture. And if they're not picturing that it's because they're assuming they're there.

LLMMLL

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

YES. Not consciously and in those specific terms, but that is exactly what one's brain does, because one's brain is hard wired to differentiate between the two sexes for the purposes of mate selection. This is true regardless of whether an individual is straight, gay, or bi - to the vast, vast majority of people, the terms "man" and "woman" refer to a genetic attribute of other humans. Nothing more, nothing less. And to call people bigoted for refusing to change this at extremely short notice and with absolutely no discussion permitted, is insane and ridiculous. Never mind disturbing and chillingly authoritarian.

that's just completely wrong. At no stage does your brain have any awareness of chromosomes as part of the mating process.

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

Trans women are women. Your perception that they are not is false.

And the wheel goes round and round.

OscarMIlde

LLMMLL wrote: »

Trans women are women. Your perception that they are not is false.

What is your understanding of a woman then? You must have one to be so adamant that trans women are women.

LLMMLL

OscarMIlde wrote: »

What is your understanding of a woman then? You must have one to be so adamant that trans women are women.

trans women and cis women.

OscarMIlde

LLMMLL wrote: »

trans women and cis women.

But why? People are struggling to understand your reasoning. Are people women if they decide they are women?

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

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.

So, just so I am not mistaken, you are saying that you believe men can be women because you don't want to exclude them?

So are there also straight gay people?

You really are making no sense.

LLMMLL

OscarMIlde wrote: »

But why? People are struggling to understand your reasoning. Are people women if they decide they are women?

Trans women don't decide they are women any more than gay people decide they are gay. They just are gay.

OscarMIlde

LLMMLL wrote: »

Trans women don't decide they are women any more than gay people decide they are gay. They just are gay.

Ok than who decided they are women? What are the criteria? Are gay males women?

CtevenSrowder

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.

Definitions don't exist in general in your opinion. And I gave you a sourced definition. Here is the source again:

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

LLMMLL wrote: »

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?

Yes because black people have darker skin then white people. There is nothing controversial about that at all. Ofcourse you'll invent controversy because, as per usual, you want to slander me. We're not far of you claiming me to be a racist. Here is the source again. https://www.scienceabc.com/humans/melanin-pigment-definition-meaning-skin-color.html

Why don't you email Science abc to let them know how astounding ridiculous their definition is.

LLMMLL wrote: »

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.

"Anti-trans". More slurs. The irony of you calling something I've stated as ridiculous will be forever lost on you. You don't even know what a women is.

LLMMLL wrote: »

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.

You don't do it for anything seemingly. How can something exist in the natural world if you can't even begin to describe what that thing is. Truly bizarre.

There is a saying in Science that something is so ridiculous that it's not even wrong. Paul Dirac I believe the man who first uttered it. That saying perfectly sums up your position. You don't even have a position. Your position is exclusionary because it doesn't even exist. You can't belong to something that doesn't exist or be defined.

One eyed Jack

OscarMIlde wrote: »

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.''

I never said she was being offensive, I said she was an asshole. I said it because she chose to bait people by attempting to undermine the work of an organisation whose aim is to educate people in terms of menstrual healthcare. I also stand by what I said - there are people who menstruate who do not identify themselves as women.

OscarMIlde wrote: »

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.

They would fall under the biological Venn diagram of female surely, if you’re referring to biology? They would fall outside the sociological Venn diagram of gender, if you’re referring to women and non-binary people. As a biologist I’m sure you’re aware of the various theories and models -


Sociological theory
Social theory
Medical model of disability
Social model of disability
Biopsychosocial model


Accordingly, I would actually expect they would be listed alongside women as a separate sociological category, as they were, alongside girls, women, and non-binary people, as opposed to referring solely to females, using biological terminology.

OscarMIlde wrote: »

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.

I never once claimed JK was wrong? I did say she was an asshole, and I stand by that. In terms of the people the organisation was referring to, there was nothing wrong with their terminology. There is nothing wrong in JK or anyone else pointing out that they disagree with the use of the terminology either, or critiquing it as fundamentally flawed from a biological perspective of how humans are classified. But it was never framed in a biological context in the first place, so the idea that it is the wrong language to use would simply be incorrect. It’s the correct language. It’s simply language that is used in a different context.

JK didn’t do any of that though. Immediately she took to Twitter knowing the unholy shìtstorm that she was capable of generating, that would undermine the work of an organisation trying to educate people in underdeveloped countries about the importance of access to appropriate menstrual health, an organisation which hadn’t gone after JK, but she took it upon herself to use them to make her point. That’s why I said she was an asshole.

LLMMLL

OscarMIlde wrote: »

Ok than who decided they are women? What are the criteria? Are gay males women?

I don't require that anyone or any body "decide" whether someone is a woman or not. I don't provide exclusionary criteria.

Gatling

LLMMLL wrote: »

Trans women don't decide they are women any more than gay people decide

But many change their minds and revert to being male and vice versa,

So they do decide ?

Where your born gay , straight or bi or male or female

LLMMLL

Gatling wrote: »

But many change their minds and revert to being male and vice versa,

So they do decide ?

Where your born gay , straight or bi or male or female

no they don't decide. They may come to a realisation.

FVP3

Aren't LLMMLL's theories shockingly totalitarian. They pretend to be the opposite, something liberating for trans people, something that overcomes the conditioning of society and of science. But by turning science into one narrative amongst many the truth is then just something, apparently, that we all agree on, or rather that a certain section of elites impose on us, or at least on their sheep.

The ending of 1984 (2+2 -5) isnt a warning in this sinister worldview. In LLMMLL's world 2+2=5 is fact if we can all be made agree to it, there is no truth to mathematics or science, these are just symbols and sounds people make. 2+2=5, a man is a woman, a dog is a cat. Just linguistics innit.


Orwell's protagonist, Winston Smith, uses the phrase to wonder if the State might declare "two plus two equals five" as a fact; he ponders whether, if everybody believes it, that makes it true. The Inner Party interrogator of thought-criminals, O'Brien, says of the mathematically false statement that control over physical reality is unimportant; so long as one controls one's own perceptions to what the Party wills, then any corporeal act is possible, in accordance with the principles of doublethink ("Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once").[1]

As for double think, the idea that transwomen are women and gender fluidity exist at the same time is a perfect example.

ceadaoin.

LLMMLL wrote: »

that's just completely wrong. At no stage does your brain have any awareness of chromosomes as part of the mating process.

Its a wonder that the human race has survived this long given that we apparently have no way to tell which humans we can reproduce with.

Lol. Even children can generally assess what sex a person is at a glance. Its an innate ability that humans have.

Girly Gal

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".

As you say most people would imagine a clothed woman and not their genitalia, however, in order for most transwomen to look like this, they need to at least take hormones and in some cases have varying degrees of surgery,
Regarding self declaring gender, in theory a man can declare themselves female without having to make any effort to transition physically or socially to female; do you consider these to be transwomen and therefore women?

Self declaring gender is ridiculous as the acceptance standard is too low and it's doing more damage to genuine transwomen. In order for someone to be considered trans they should at least make a genuine effort to live as their new gender.

FVP3

LLMMLL wrote: »

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.

And thats wrong too. Whites on average have 0.7% black ancestry in the US. But they aren't black. Of course there are limits. In the example I gave of the native american tribes they are 25%-50% native american ancestry.

CtevenSrowder

ceadaoin. wrote: »

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

Precisely. And ofcourse the stereotype excludes those women that don't fit the stereotype obviously, which is exclusionary and apparently unacceptable.

LLMMLL

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Definitions don't exist in general in your opinion. And I gave you a sourced definition. Here is the source again:

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




Yes because black people have darker skin then white people. There is nothing controversial about that at all. Ofcourse you'll invent controversy because, as per usual, you want to slander me. We're not far of you claiming me to be a racist. Here is the source again. https://www.scienceabc.com/humans/melanin-pigment-definition-meaning-skin-color.html


Why don't you email Science abc to let them know how astounding ridiculous their definition is.

Providing a reason as to why some people have darker skin is not defining blackness. Many non balck people have darker skin than many white people. Does this make them black? Your definition shoukd provide a clear criteria around who is balck and who isn't. So how do I decide using your definition. Are you saying if I measure these two kinds of melanin and find a certain ratio I can tell a person they are not black? I don't need to email science abc. They would be absoljtely horrified to think their article is being used as a decided for who can say they're black or not. Madness.

Gatling

LLMMLL wrote: »

no they don't decide. They may come to a realisation.

They decide ,one could argue they were possibly influenced in a secure echo chamber so others helped them decide before coming to the realisation that they made the wrong decision that they were trans when in fact they are male or female .

LLMMLL

FVP3 wrote: »

And thats wrong too. Whites on average have 0.7% black ancestry in the US. But they aren't black. Of course there are limits. In the example I gave of the native american tribes they are 25%-50% native american ancestry.

and this is not used for deciding whether or not that are native American. It's deciding whether they can claim membership of a tribe. And some tribes have a cut off of 6.25%.

6.25-50%. Hardly a scientific definition.

OscarMIlde

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I never said she was being offensive, I said she was an asshole. I said it because she chose to bait people by attempting to the work of an organisation whose aim is to educate people in terms of menstrual healthcare. I also stand by what I said - there are people who menstruate who do not identify themselves as women.






They would fall under the biological Venn diagram of female surely, if you’re referring to biology? They would fall outside the sociological Venn diagram of gender, if you’re referring to women and non-binary people. As a biologist I’m sure you’re aware of the various theories and models -


Sociological theory
Social theory
Medical model of disability
Social model of disability
Biopsychosocial model


Accordingly, I would actually expect they would be listed alongside women as a separate sociological category, as they were, alongside girls, women, and non-binary people, as opposed to referring solely to females, using biological terminology.





I never once claimed JK was wrong? I did say she was an asshole, and I stand by that. In terms of the people the organisation was referring to, there was nothing wrong with their terminology. There is nothing wrong in JK or anyone else pointing out that they disagree with the use of the terminology either, or critiquing it as fundamentally flawed from a biological perspective of how humans are classified. But it was never framed in a biological context in the first place, so the idea that it is the wrong language to use would simply be incorrect. It’s the correct language. It’s simply language that is used in a different context.

JK didn’t do any of that though. Immediately she took to Twitter knowing the unholy shìtstorm that she was capable of generating, that would undermine the work of an organisation trying to educate people in underdeveloped countries about the importance of access to appropriate menstrual health, an organisation which hadn’t gone after JK, but she took it upon herself to use them to make her point. That’s why I said she was an asshole.

So in essence J.K. Rowling is NOT wrong, but is an asshole because they said that only women can menstruate, in a statement which you admit was not excluding non-binary people who can menstruate as they fall under the venn diagram of biological women.

A charity attempting to educate on a biological function which only effects biological women should use biologically correct terminology, such as woman for biological female, which even LLMMLL admits is how the term is generally understood by society.

That this statement causes a '****storm' in your words surely says more about the misguided priorities of those ****storming, than it does about J.K. Rowling, who does, as you acknowledge, have the right to question their use of contentious and unclear sociological categories when referring to biological functions of natal women.

OscarMIlde

LLMMLL wrote: »

I don't require that anyone or any body "decide" whether someone is a woman or not. I don't provide exclusionary criteria.

Do you think a 56 year old can define themselves as a six year old? Would contesting such a claim be exclusionary and wrong in your view?

One eyed Jack

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Its a wonder that the human race has survived this long given that we apparently have no way to tell which humans we can reproduce with.

Lol. Even children can generally asses what sex a person is at a glance. Its an innate ability that humans have.

Children can do what now? :eek:

I’m joking of course, I understand the word you meant. You’re not using predictive text too?

LLMMLL

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Its a wonder that the human race has survived this long given that we apparently have no way to tell which humans we can reproduce with.

Lol. Even children can generally asses what sex a person is at a glance. Its an innate ability that humans have.

do you think a straight male who Has a sexual preference to not sleep with a trans woman has ever seen a trans woman on the street and been attracted to her? Or do you think this is impossible.