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

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

Why don't you ask them?

Are you a woman?

OscarMIlde

LLMMLL wrote: »

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

Most people agree with him that a man shouldn't be able to just announce they are a woman and be eligible for women only sports scholarships, grants etc.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Are you a woman?

No I'm not

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

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

Mad how dictionary definitions sometimes mean something...

CtevenSrowder

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.

But you disagree with exclusionary definitions do you not? So can you tell me, do you think a white person can identify as a black person? And if not why not?

And if you refuse to acknowledge that there is any way to differentiate between what a white and black person look like, then surely a white person can identify as black since there is no way to tell that they aren't. As such they can obtain all the grants, scholarships meant for actual black people that I listed.

LLMMLL

OscarMIlde wrote: »

Most people agree with him that a man shouldn't be able to just announce they are a woman and be eligible for women only sports scholarships, grants etc.

Wow. We haven't debated that at all and that's what you took me to be referring to. LOL.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

oyvey wrote: »

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

Well, that’s where attempts are now being made to say that sex is a spectrum.

This is an article by a lawyer for the ACLU in a pretty big publication, saying that there is no such thing as a male body. For real:

https://slate.com/human-interest/2016/07/theres-no-such-thing-as-a-male-body.amp

OscarMIlde

LLMMLL wrote: »

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

So a property can be defined then. Great. What facets of a trans woman exemplifies the properties of a woman?

OscarMIlde

LLMMLL wrote: »

Why don't you ask them?

What do you think their answer would be?

One eyed Jack

OscarMIlde wrote: »

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.

No, that’s not what I said, and I specifically questioned your use of “biological women”, because I’m almost certain you’re aware that you’re conflating biological and sociological terms. Either biological females in a biological context, or girls, women and non-binary people in a sociological context.

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.

They weren’t just trying to educate people on the biological function that only applies to females of the human species though. They were attempting to educate everyone in underdeveloped countries about the importance of access to appropriate menstrual healthcare.

You’re also ignoring the fact that people also refers to girls, as well as women, and indeed non-binary people. Why would they use the term woman to refer to a biological female who is not a woman?

OscarMIlde wrote: »

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.

Contentious and unclear social categories? You’re having a laugh surely with your attempting to conflate terms like biological women and now natal women? The terms girls, women and non-binary people aren’t nearly as confusing as your efforts.

The point I was making and I’m fairly certain you know it by now is that JK had to have known the controversy she would cause by using literature from an organisation which had absolutely nothing to do with her twitter spat. She could just as easily have made her point without any reference to the organisations literature. She could have easily questioned the use of the terminology without ever referring to any literature.

LLMMLL

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

But you disagree with exclusionary definitions do you not? So can you tell me, do you think a white person can identify as a black person? And if not why not?

And if you refuse to acknowledge that there is any way to differentiate between what a white and black person look like, then surely a white person can identify as black since there is no way to tell that they aren't. As such they can obtain all the grants, scholarships meant for actual black people that I listed.

Not at all. I Have not presented any criteria for deciding who should avail of scholarships aimed at black people. That's up to the awarding body.

What I have said is that there is no scientific definition of blackness. And I'm right. And everyone agrees with me except your good self.

OscarMIlde

LLMMLL wrote: »

Wow. We haven't debated that at all and that's what you took me to be referring to. LOL.

Do you think it is fair if a biological male decides he is a woman and is thus eligible for female only sports scholarships and business grants?

oyvey

Deleted User wrote:

Are you a woman?

LLMMLL wrote: »

No I'm not

Ironically we're none the wiser since woman can't be defined apparently.

LLMMLL

OscarMIlde wrote: »

So a property can be defined then. Great. What facets of a trans woman exemplifies the properties of a woman?

Only if you can find a.common property among all exemplars.

As I've said I will not provide a definiton that excludes women from being women. No.matter how many ways you try to slip the question in or disguise it.

LLMMLL

OscarMIlde wrote: »

Do you think it is fair if a biological male decides he is a woman and is thus eligible for female only sports scholarships and business grants?

You mean realises she is a woman?

OscarMIlde

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No, that’s not what I said, and I specifically questioned your use of “biological women”, because I’m almost certain you’re aware that you’re conflating biological and sociological terms. Either biological females in a biological context, or girls, women and non-binary people in a sociological context.





They weren’t just trying to educate people on the biological function that only applies to females of the human species though. They were attempting to educate everyone in underdeveloped countries about the importance of access to appropriate menstrual healthcare.

You’re also ignoring the fact that people also refers to girls, as well as women, and indeed non-binary people. Why would they use the term woman to refer to a biological female who is not a woman?





Contentious and unclear social categories? You’re having a laugh surely with your attempting to conflate terms like biological women and now natal women? The terms girls, women and non-binary people aren’t nearly as confusing as your efforts.

The point I was making and I’m fairly certain you know it by now is that JK had to have known the controversy she would cause by using literature from an organisation which had absolutely nothing to do with her twitter spat. She could just as easily have made her point without any reference to the organisations literature. She could have easily questioned the use of the terminology without ever referring to any literature.

And which biological sex do you think requires access to appropriate menstrual healthcare? Which biological sex do you think this biological (not social) function is restricted to? How is she an asshole for referring to the correct biological sex. Why is this controversial?

Fr D Maugire

LLMMLL wrote: »

Can you define black people please?

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

Personally, I would define a black person as someone with darker skin and/or specific features to their race , but this can vary due to several factors.

I don't think a white person can claim to be black or vice versa, ditto for other races.

OscarMIlde

LLMMLL wrote: »

You mean realises she is a woman?

No, I mean decides, as a biologist I know it is not possible for a biological male to realise he is a woman, as he is not.

Gatling

LLMMLL wrote: »

You mean realises she is a woman?

No man decides he can get an advantage by self identifying as a woman to gain access to scholarships for women or beat women in a woman's event

CtevenSrowder

LLMMLL wrote: »

Not at all. I Have not presented any criteria for deciding who should avail of scholarships aimed at black people. That's up to the awarding body.

What I have said is that there is no scientific definition of blackness. And I'm right. And everyone agrees with me except your good self.

You didn't answer my question, do you think a white person can identify as a black person?

OscarMIlde

LLMMLL wrote: »

Only if you can find a.common property among all exemplars.

As I've said I will not provide a definiton that excludes women from being women. No.matter how many ways you try to slip the question in or disguise it.

But you must have found a common property amongst all the exemplars them to list them. What is/are these properties? Why don't you want to educate people about this subject?

LLMMLL

Fr D Maugire wrote: »

Personally, I would define a black person as someone with darker skin and/or specific features to their race , but this can vary due to several factors.

I don't think a white person can claim to be black or vice versa, ditto for other races.

What are these specific features? This doesn't sound very scientific.

LLMMLL

OscarMIlde wrote: »

No, I mean decides, as a biologist I know it is not possible for a biological male to realise he is a woman, as he is not.

I don't believe anyone decides to be a woman so the answer to your question is "no man decides to be a woman.

Gatling

Can a Ben Shapiro video be posted ?

LLMMLL

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

You didn't answer my question, do you think a white person can identify as a black person?

Define white person and black person and I'll let you know.

OscarMIlde

LLMMLL wrote: »

I don't believe anyone decides to be a woman so the answer to your question is "no man decides to be a woman.

So womanhood is not a question of choice. At least we've narrowed that down slightly. Is it down to biology then? Or is it psychology? Maybe cultural. What makes someone a woman?

LLMMLL

OscarMIlde wrote: »

But you must have found a common property amongst all the exemplars them to list them. What is/are these properties? Why don't you want to educate people about this subject?

Nope. What is the common property of tables that would allow.you to list them?

oyvey

LLMMLL wrote: »

Define white person and black person and I'll let you know.

You are slippery aren't you.

JoannaJag

Chair: a piece of furniture with a flat top and one or more legs, providing a level surface for eating, writing, or working at. Sometimes with a penis, if it feels like a table.

LLMMLL

OscarMIlde wrote: »

So womanhood is not a question of choice. At least we've narrowed that down slightly. Is it down to biology then? Or is it psychology? Maybe cultural. What makes someone a woman?

IM.nkt arrogant enough to tell women I have a definition which excludes them. Just as I would.not provide a definition that excludes black people from being black.