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

oyvey

What happens if a trans woman identifies as a cis woman? Are they a cis woman then?

ceadaoin.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Children can do what now? :eek:

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

haha you got me back. Fixed

ceadaoin.

LLMMLL wrote: »

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.

of course this has happened.

LLMMLL

FVP3 wrote: »

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.

that's a very wordy misrepresentation of my views. Can't believe you spent that much time on it haha.

oyvey

oyvey wrote: »

What happens if a trans woman identifies as a cis woman? Are they a cis woman then?

Or even more unusual what if a cis woman identified as a trans woman...

CtevenSrowder

LLMMLL wrote: »

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

It isn't. It is a scientific fact. You can't argue otherwise, as you refuse to even define what a women is. You laughably suggest that this is to not be exclusionary. As such, anyone can claim to be anything, and in your view, it must be so.

So a clearly evident white person, with ALLLL the privilege that that fact automatically disposes upon them, can claim to be black and take the place of an actual black person, in for example, a University place reserved for black people. Or obtain a scholarship that the likes of Skepta have that are reserved for black people, and as such continue the cycle of White privilege and oppression of black people.

And who would you be to say no, since anyone can identify as anything since nothing has a definition.

Or a biological male, can just decide they are female, and claim anyone of the business grants that exist for female entrepreneurs only, or plant themselves on a female only shortlist for election, or obtain one of the numerous college scholarships that exist only for women. This ofcourse enabling the continuation of the bastard patriarchal society and oppression of women (a word that includes everyone and no-one since it's undefined).

And who would you be to say no, that's not right, since anyone can identify as anything since nothing has a definition, including sex and skin colour.

LLMMLL

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

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

nope. You don't have to use stereotypes at all. Exemplars for women can be very inclusive. I think you're just imagining Jessica rabbit or something.

LLMMLL

Gatling wrote: »

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 .

you could argue that. In some cases you might be right. In others wrong. What of it?

Fr D Maugire

Just popped into this thread for a gander, and my head is exploding.

Let see if I get this, the poster is arguing that trans-women are women, but at the same time has no definition what a woman actually is?

How can you be something if you cannot define what is?

LLMMLL

OscarMIlde wrote: »

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.
.

Not what I said at all. If you have to misrepresent me to make a point it can't be much of a point.

OscarMIlde

LLMMLL wrote: »

nope. You don't have to use stereotypes at all. Exemplars for women can be very inclusive. I think you're just imagining Jessica rabbit or something.

What are these inclusive exemplars? You've only listed the stereotypical ones so far.

LLMMLL

OscarMIlde wrote: »

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?

if a large number of people ever do that I'll be very interested in finding out more. Until that happens though.....

Gatling

LLMMLL wrote: »

you could argue that. In some cases you might be right. In others wrong. What of it?

Ah the good old contradictory statement from they don't decide to this

LLMMLL

ceadaoin. wrote: »

of course this has happened.

Yes so clearly human sexual attraction doesn't have some sort of secret chromosomal knowledge to work off. Whether someone is trans or not is not the primary determiner of sexual attraction.

OscarMIlde

LLMMLL wrote: »

if a large number of people ever do that I'll be very interested in finding out more. Until that happens though.....

Well, Stefoknee Wolscht claimed to be a six year old, despite being 52 at the time. Were people who objected to this claim wrong as that is an exclusionary position?

LLMMLL

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

It isn't. It is a scientific fact. You can't argue otherwise, as you refuse to even define what a women is. You laughably suggest that this is to not be exclusionary. As such, anyone can claim to be anything, and in your view, it must be so.

So a clearly evident white person, with ALLLL the privilege that that fact automatically disposes upon them, can claim to be black and take the place of an actual black person, in for example, a University place reserved for black people. Or obtain a scholarship that the likes of Skepta have that are reserved for black people, and as such continue the cycle of White privilege and oppression of black people.

And who would you be to say no, since anyone can identify as anything since nothing has a definition.

Or a biological male, can just decide they are female, and claim anyone of the business grants that exist for female entrepreneurs only, or plant themselves on a female only shortlist for election, or obtain one of the numerous college scholarships that exist only for women. This ofcourse enabling the continuation of the bastard patriarchal society and oppression of women (a word that includes everyone and no-one since it's undefined).

And who would you be to say no, that's not right, since anyone can identify as anything since nothing has a definition, including sex and skin colour.

I never claimed anyone can identify as anything. That's just your misrepresentation of what I said. Not going to argue points about white people identifying as black that I never made.

And none of this changes the fact that you still have been unable to provide a definition of blackness. And nobody in this thread agrees with you. Apart from maybe FVP. Hard to tell.

oyvey

LLMMLL wrote: »

OscarMIlde wrote:

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?

if a large number of people ever do that I'll be very interested in finding out more. Until that happens though.....

...I think that means no, a 56 yr old is not 6 yr old.

LLMMLL

Fr D Maugire wrote: »

Just popped into this thread for a gander, and my head is exploding.

Let see if I get this, the poster is arguing that trans-women are women, but at the same time has no definition what a woman actually is?

How can you be something if you cannot define what is?

Can you define black people please?

If not, do you believe black people do not exist?

CtevenSrowder

Fr D Maugire wrote: »

Just popped into this thread for a gander, and my head is exploding.

Let see if I get this, the poster is arguing that trans-women are women, but at the same time has no definition what a woman actually is?

How can you be something if you cannot define what is?

Exemplars apparently.

OscarMIlde

LLMMLL wrote: »

I never claimed anyone can identify as anything. That's just your misrepresentation of what I said. Not going to argue points about white people identifying as black that I never made.

And none of this changes the fact that you still have been unable to provide a definition of blackness. And nobody in this thread agrees with you. Apart from maybe FVP. Hard to tell.

I think you'll find most people in the thread agree with him.

LLMMLL

OscarMIlde wrote: »

What are these inclusive exemplars? You've only listed the stereotypical ones so far.

I have listed nonstereotypical exemplars. I said trans women and cis women. Are exemplars.

You must be mixing up when I said that an average person if asked to imagine a woman would imagine something stereotypical.

OscarMIlde

LLMMLL wrote: »

Yes so clearly human sexual attraction doesn't have some sort of secret chromosomal knowledge to work off. Whether someone is trans or not is not the primary determiner of sexual attraction.

We're not discussing human sexual attraction. We're trying to gain an understanding of what you think a woman is. Is a gay man a woman?

LLMMLL

OscarMIlde wrote: »

I think you'll find most people in the thread agree with him.

You said blackness couldn't be defined. Why are you now contradicting yourself.

CtevenSrowder

LLMMLL wrote: »

if a large number of people ever do that I'll be very interested in finding out more. Until that happens though.....

So you are going to exclude the minority that do? How some-sort-of-phobic of you.

Poor aul Emile Ratelband.

LLMMLL

OscarMIlde wrote: »

We're not discussing human sexual attraction. We're trying to gain an understanding of what you think a woman is. Is a gay man a woman?

Which gay man?

OscarMIlde

LLMMLL wrote: »

I have listed nonstereotypical exemplars. I said trans women and cis women. Are exemplars.

You must be mixing up when I said that an average person if asked to imagine a woman would imagine something stereotypical.

Can you explain to me what an exemplar is precisely? I'm not familiar with this term.

LLMMLL

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

So you are going to exclude the minority that do? How some-sort-of-phobic of you.

Poor aul Emile Ratelband.

No I haven't passed comment on this whataboutery example. I haven't excluded anyone.

OscarMIlde

LLMMLL wrote: »

Which gay man?

Any gay man. Are they a woman?

LLMMLL

OscarMIlde wrote: »

Any gay man. Are they a woman?

Why don't you ask them?

LLMMLL

OscarMIlde wrote: »

Can you explain to me what an exemplar is precisely? I'm not familiar with this term.

In linguistics/logic a concept or property can only be defined by stating all individuals or objects that exemplify that property.