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

CtevenSrowder

LLMMLL wrote: »

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

A white person is one who is not black they are white, and a black person is one who is not white they are black.

So, can a white person identify as a black person?

CtevenSrowder

JoannaJag wrote: »

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.

:pac::pac::pac:

LLMMLL

oyvey wrote: »

You are slippery aren't you.

Nah I just don't answer questions which misrepresent my beliefs. Especially from someone who misreoresents a scientific reason for some people having darker skin as a scientific definition of blackness.

CtevenSrowder

LLMMLL wrote: »

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.

You may not be arrogant, but you are very, very ignorant (with respect).

OscarMIlde

LLMMLL wrote: »

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

I'm not discussing the qualities of tables. We're discussing what makes a woman. I've been very precise in this thread what I consider the exemplars of womanhood. You on the other hand have been highly evasive, which I find odd, as surely you must have some basis for your strident assertions that trans women are women. It shouldn't be hard to list this, and by definition it wouldn't be exclusionary, as it wouldn't fit your description of an exemplar if it was.

Educate me.

One eyed Jack

OscarMIlde wrote: »

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?

Females.

Where did she refer to females in the tweet?


‘People who menstruate.’ I’m sure there used to be a word for those people. Someone help me out. Wumben? Wimpund? Woomud?


She quoted the headline of the article which was written in a sociological context, which clarifies in the same literature that they refer to -


An estimated 1.8 billion girls, women, and gender non-binary persons menstruate, and this has not stopped because of the pandemic. They still require menstrual materials, safe access to toilets, soap, water, and private spaces in the face of lockdown living conditions that have eliminated privacy for many populations.


The article itself, does not use the term female, so where did you come up with the idea that they should refer specifically to females? That’s something I’d expect from an incel type tbh that has a hard-on for bastardising science because they imagine it makes them an intellectual.

LLMMLL

JoannaJag wrote: »

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.

Ah Jonna. Are you ever going to follow up on which of the sex pests you posted were self id? I wonder why not.....

OscarMIlde

LLMMLL wrote: »

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.

Well you're arrogant enough to tell this biologist that she is incorrect in her categorisation of women.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

OscarMIlde wrote: »

I'm not discussing the qualities of tables. We're discussing what makes a woman. I've been very precise in this thread what I consider the exemplars of womanhood. You on the other hand have been highly evasive, which I find odd, as surely you must have some basis for your strident assertions that trans women are women. It shouldn't be hard to list this, and by definition it wouldn't be exclusionary, as it wouldn't fit your description of an exemplar if it was.

Educate me.

Not at all. The ‘transwomen are women’ mantra stands up to zero scrutiny. Whenever anyone is questioned on it, watch them prevaricate.

LLMMLL

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

A white person is one who is not black they are white, and a black person is one who is not white they are black.

So, can a white person identify as a black person?

That's science ladies and gentlemen.

SouthWesterly

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Ok so now you don’t want to be called a brick? Fair enough. You can call yourself a brick or Superman or whatever else you like, you’re not interfering in my life simply by seeking to be called Superman, so what if you can’t fly? Plenty of people have all sorts of disabilities and it doesn’t mean they’re any less human? If you want to call yourself Superman, you go right ahead. If you want Irish law to recognise you as Superman, then you have a 20 year fight on your hands -


Lydia Foy


Good luck with that.

Why am I not surprised that you wouldn't see it as a ludicrous idea.

LLMMLL

OscarMIlde wrote: »

Well you're arrogant enough to tell this biologist that she is incorrect in her categorisation of women.

Isn't it a bit more arrogant for a scientist to claim infallibility?

OscarMIlde

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Females.

Where did she refer to females in the tweet?


‘People who menstruate.’ I’m sure there used to be a word for those people. Someone help me out. Wumben? Wimpund? Woomud?


She quoted the headline of the article which was written in a sociological context, which clarifies in the same literature that they refer to -


An estimated 1.8 billion girls, women, and gender non-binary persons menstruate, and this has not stopped because of the pandemic. They still require menstrual materials, safe access to toilets, soap, water, and private spaces in the face of lockdown living conditions that have eliminated privacy for many populations.


The article itself, does not use the term female, so where did you come up with the idea that they should refer specifically to females? That’s something I’d expect from an incel type tbh that has a hard-on for bastardising science because they imagine it makes them an intellectual.

You think asserting that only biological females menstruate makes me an incel who is bastardising science? Woman is a term for adult females. I'm sure you are aware of this.

hatrickpatrick

LLMMLL wrote: »

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

The brain has an inherent awareness of primary sex characteristics. Same difference. You're trying to use semantic arguments to skirt around the issue which is that, to the vast, vast, vast majority of people, biological sex and gender are entirely synonymous.

JoannaJag

LLMMLL wrote: »

Ah Jonna. Are you ever going to follow up on which of the sex pests you posted were self id? I wonder why not.....

I was very clear that self ID aids these type of people in accessing women’s spaces. I wouldn’t dare suggest which of them self Ids - because there’s no way to tell. Since anyone can now self ID without so much as shaving their lady balls.

OscarMIlde

LLMMLL wrote: »

Isn't it a bit more arrogant for a scientist to claim infallibility?

I don't claim infallibility. I never have. I do however believe in the widely accepted biological definition of male and female.

CtevenSrowder

LLMMLL wrote: »

Nah I just don't answer questions which misrepresent my beliefs. Especially from someone who misreoresents a scientific reason for some people having darker skin as a scientific definition of blackness.

It's a scientific definition of why people are black. Stop trying to change the parameters of what you were looking for an explanation for. Here is my source again:

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

And here is what you asked for:

LLMMLL wrote: »

Please give me the scientific definition of black people.

Black people are those who:

primarily produce eumelanin.

whilst white people are those who:

produce a majority of pheomelanin

There is nothing controversial there at all, it is from a scientific website, and you said nothing of "blackness". You said black people.

Here is my source AGAIN: https://www.scienceabc.com/humans/melanin-pigment-definition-meaning-skin-color.html

It is a website dedicated to science.

LLMMLL

OscarMIlde wrote: »

I'm not discussing the qualities of tables. We're discussing what makes a woman. I've been very precise in this thread what I consider the exemplars of womanhood. You on the other hand have been highly evasive, which I find odd, as surely you must have some basis for your strident assertions that trans women are women. It shouldn't be hard to list this, and by definition it wouldn't be exclusionary, as it wouldn't fit your description of an exemplar if it was.

Educate me.

The point is exemplars do not rely on having a common property. If they did you would just be able to provide a definiton. And providing a definition of soemthing as simple as a table is notoriously hard. Which is why you won't do it.

You're not asking for exemplars of womanhood. As I've said the exemplars are the actual women trans and cis. You are asking for an exclusionary definition. And I repeat. I do not provide exclusionary definitions for women or balck people or native Americans. I don't think it's possible.

LLMMLL

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The brain has an inherent awareness of primary sex characteristics. Same difference. You're trying to use semantic arguments to skirt around the issue which is that, to the vast, vast, vast majority of people, biological sex and gender are entirely synonymous.

As ceadoin says, plenty of straight men have been attracted to trans women.

CtevenSrowder

LLMMLL wrote: »

That's science ladies and gentlemen.

Stop dodging the question. I've given you a definition, now why not answer the question?

Beasty

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

You may not be arrogant, but you are very, very ignorant (with respect).

Threadbanned

LLMMLL

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

It's a scientific definition of why people are black. Stop trying to change the parameters of what you were looking for an explanation for. Here is my source again:

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

And here is what you asked for:



Black people are those who:

whilst white people are those who:



There is nothing controversial there at all, it is from a scientific website, and you said nothing of "blackness". You said black people.

Here is my source AGAIN: https://www.scienceabc.com/humans/melanin-pigment-definition-meaning-skin-color.html

It is a website dedicated to science.

Let's do a poll. Most people on this Thread would.love to support you if it proved me wrong. Does ANYONE believe that cteven has defined black people In a scientific way?

OscarMIlde

LLMMLL wrote: »

The point is exemplars do not rely on having a common property. If they did you would just be able to provide a definiton. And providing a definition of soemthing as simple as a table is notoriously hard. Which is why you won't do it.

You're not asking for exemplars of womanhood. As I've said the exemplars are the actual women trans and cis. You are asking for an exclusionary definition. And I repeat. I do not provide exclusionary definitions for women or balck people or native Americans. I don't think it's possible.

I'm not looking for an exclusionary definition. I am asking for definite reasons trans women are women. There must be some or you wouldn't be so sure they are women.

OscarMIlde

LLMMLL wrote: »

The point is exemplars do not rely on having a common property. If they did you would just be able to provide a definiton. And providing a definition of soemthing as simple as a table is notoriously hard. Which is why you won't do it.

You're not asking for exemplars of womanhood. As I've said the exemplars are the actual women trans and cis. You are asking for an exclusionary definition. And I repeat. I do not provide exclusionary definitions for women or balck people or native Americans. I don't think it's possible.

So can I, an Irish woman with no native American ancestry realise I am in fact a native American and apply for a scholarship exclusively for native Americans?

LLMMLL

OscarMIlde wrote: »

I'm not looking for an exclusionary definition. I am asking for definite reasons trans women are women. There must be some or you wouldn't be so sure they are women.

Definite reasons are exclusionary definitions. If you ask me to prove someone is definitely black you are saying that those who don't meet criteria I provide are not black by my definition

I repeat: I will not provide you with an exclusionary definition of women, black people, native Americans etc. I don't believe they can be provided.

LLMMLL

OscarMIlde wrote: »

So can I, an Irish woman with no native American ancestry realise I am in fact a native American and apply for a scholarship exclusively for native Americans?

You would have to ask the scholarship providers I assume.

One eyed Jack

OscarMIlde wrote: »

You think asserting that only biological females menstruate makes me an incel who is bastardising science? Woman is a term for adult females. I'm sure you are aware of this.

No, I know you’re a biologist. I was referring to James Damore types who use the term female to refer to women. I’m very much aware that woman is a term for adult females.

Woman is not a term for adolescent females, I’m sure you’re aware of that too. What’s it they’re called again? Girls, that’s it.

I will admit I know far too many adult females who also refer to themselves as girls, but they have never said to me I’m not using the correct terms when I refer to them as lads and guys either when I’m speaking to them as a group.

They often refer to me as being on my period when they know I’m not in good form too. I know there’s no malice intended in it, they just think it’s funny.

These are normal everyday interactions for most people, we’re not in a biology class now where it would matter that we would use biological terminology in that context.

Beasty

LLMMLL wrote: »

Let's do a poll. Most people on this Thread would.love to support you if it proved me wrong. Does ANYONE believe that cteven has defined black people In a scientific way?

And you are also threadbanned

OscarMIlde

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No, I know you’re a biologist. I was referring to James Damore types who use the term female to refer to women. I’m very much aware that woman is a term for adult females.

Woman is not a term for adolescent females, I’m sure you’re aware of that too. What’s it they’re called again? Girls, that’s it.

I will admit I know far too many adult females who also refer to themselves as girls, but they have never said to me I’m not using the correct terms when I refer to them as lads and guys either when I’m speaking to them as a group.

They often refer to me as being on my period when they know I’m not in good form too. I know there’s no malice intended in it, they just think it’s funny.

These are normal everyday interactions for most people, we’re not in a biology class now where it would matter that we would use biological terminology in that context.

Right, but since you know I am a biologist and a woman you knew full well I wasn't using the term in a James Damore type manner (whoever that is, I refuse to listen to toxic misogynists).

I also wasn't conflating biological and sociological terms at all. I was very clear in defining what I meant, indeed I clarified what you understood non-binary to be. I think it is perfectly correct to use the biological definition of a female when referring to menstruation, as only biological females can menstruate.

You disagree with this position for idealogical reasons not because it is factually incorrect and call someone who holds these factually correct views an asshole as a direct consequence of airing them.

You are free to think that and others are free to disagree with you in a respectful and courteous manner. J.K. Rowling was not debated in a respectful and courteous manner. She was called a bigot, and TERF, and an asshole, the latter insult which you yourself repeatedly referred to her as.

ceadaoin.

I wonder if any of the people who agree that rowling is transphobic and an arsehole have read her latest statement? If they have maybe they could they highlight to us which parts specifically are transphobic and indicative of being an arsehole because honestly, I'm not seeing it.

https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-rowling-writes-about-her-reasons-for-speaking-out-on-sex-and-gender-issues/