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

Shelga

There's a woman my own age (early 30s) who I follow on Twitter because I think she's very funny and seems like a good laugh. She also considers herself an LGBT ally and trans-activist. I have had a couple of interactions with her about other things and she's always been cool.

But I have no doubt whatsoever that if I was to reply to one of her tweets saying I thought JK Rowling's piece was well thought through and raised very valid points, I'd be called a TERF and blocked. It's absolutely insane how these people have this cognitive dissonance around this issue. She's currently ranting about how Rowling has "weaponised her trauma"- who does this person think she is? JK Rowling can write about whatever she wants and share whatever experience she wishes. She makes it abundantly clear that she is not blaming trans women for having this experience, even to suggest she is is ridiculous.

This Twitter user is trying to make the point that "if men impersonate women, this isn't the fault of trans people, and if you think it is, you're a ****ing idiot"- I don't blame trans people, I blame extremist trans activists like yourself who have no issue whatsoever with eroding sex-based rights, who block out and abuse any dissenting voices.

Joeytheparrot

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Ah speak for yourself and dont assume all men are like you. I'm a feminist trans inclusive cis man.

Hahaha.

I'm a man.

Sheep_shear

Silentcorner wrote: »

While it is unpleasant to see what is happening to JK Rowling, she has been flirting with the woke crowd for a few years, she was happy with the adoration then...until she hit the wrongthink button.

She also believes that we are living in the most misogynistic era...which is patently untrue and divisive in and of itself.

What are men supposed to do but give this whole mess a wide berth.

Pretty much. From what I've seen of it, I've just laughed. But in the real world, the wife told me not to buy her anymore stuff from The Body Shop. Apparently they laid into JKR piece on her experiences with domestic abuse and all that, on Twitter. I asked where's acceptable to pick up a "set" that usually bulk out my Christmas gifts to her and was told that Boots is acceptable. I go for the nicest looking boxes. Last Christmas I noticed one had elbow cream. What a world

Dante7

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Ah speak for yourself and dont assume all men are like you. I'm a feminist trans inclusive cis man.

storker

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

But you can never be fully woke. That’s the major problem with social media, there’s always a crowd who are more extreme than you so everyone feels like their fundementalist opinions are reasonable and achievable in comparison. The more extreme crowd will probably come for you sooner or later too.

It seems to me to be pretty competitive too...each individual have to up the ante on the others. It reminds me of the "Glorious Loyalty Oath Crusade" in Catch-22.

"To Captain Black, every officer who supported his Glorious Loyalty Oath Crusade was a competitor, and he planned and plotted twenty-four hours a day to keep one step ahead. He would stand second to none in his devotion to country. When other officers had followed his urging and introduced loyalty oaths of their own, he went them one better by making every son of a bitch who came to his intelligence tent sign two loyalty oaths, then three, then four; then he introduced the pledge of allegiance, and after that ''The Star-Spangled Banner,'' one chorus, two choruses, three choruses, four choruses. Each time Captain Black forged ahead of his competitors, he swung upon them scornfully for their failure to follow his example. Each time they followed his example, he retreated with concern and racked his brain for some new stratagem that would enable him to turn upon them scornfully again[...] The more loyalty oaths a person signed, the more loyal he was; to Captain Black it was as simple as that, and he had Corporal Kolodny sign hundreds with his name each day so that he could always prove he was more loyal than anyone else."

Mitch Connor

randomchild wrote: »

Members of the oppressing class cannot be part of the struggle to free the oppressed, only as allies. You can no more be a feminist than Prince Charles can be a member of the working proletariat.

Surely you can be a feminist, just not a woman (according to J.k!).

Gruffalux

As of June 11th 2020 unless you are kneeling in the streets, washing feet, wearing shackles and tee shirts made in the far east by indentured workers that say "So Sorry", you are not REALLY woke.
There may be further requirements tomorrow or in the future, like bearing surrogate babies in your implanted trans womb for infertile extinction activists, so just being a mere feminist cisman who says anyone can identify as male simply does not cut the mustard. It 's easy to be so privileged.
As a good pal of mine from Eastern Europe said dead pan to me yesterday, "I miss Greta." Oh the little scallywag. More innocent times, aye.

TheValeyard

I think at this stage a global thermo nuclear war might not be a bad idea.

deaddonkey15

Shelga wrote: »

There's a woman my own age (early 30s) who I follow on Twitter because I think she's very funny and seems like a good laugh. She also considers herself an LGBT ally and trans-activist. I have had a couple of interactions with her about other things and she's always been cool.

But I have no doubt whatsoever that if I was to reply to one of her tweets saying I thought JK Rowling's piece was well thought through and raised very valid points, I'd be called a TERF and blocked. It's absolutely insane how these people have this cognitive dissonance around this issue. She's currently ranting about how Rowling has "weaponised her trauma"- who does this person think she is? JK Rowling can write about whatever she wants and share whatever experience she wishes. She makes it abundantly clear that she is not blaming trans women for having this experience, even to suggest she is is ridiculous.

This Twitter user is trying to make the point that "if men impersonate women, this isn't the fault of trans people, and if you think it is, you're a ****ing idiot"- I don't blame trans people, I blame extremist trans activists like yourself who have no issue whatsoever with eroding sex-based rights, who block out and abuse any dissenting voices.

That’s ironic as weaponising trauma is straight from the trans extremists’ playbook. Any valid and rational objection or criticism of the groupthink is met with suicide stats and bullying sob stories. JKR even addressed this mistruth in her well-written blog post.

y0ssar1an22

emma watson as inciteful as ever:

Trans people are who they say they are and deserve to live their lives without being constantly questioned or told they aren’t who they say they are.

i wonder does her opinion only extend to trans?

whatever they say they are? whats the natural outcome to holding an opinion like that?

Shelga

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

emma watson as inciteful as ever:

Trans people are who they say they are and deserve to live their lives without being constantly questioned or told they aren’t who they say they are.

i wonder does her opinion only extend to trans?

whatever they say they are? whats the natural outcome to holding an opinion like that?

The natural outcome is what is already happening, an increasingly unravelling grip on logic, reality and science. It has been made quite clear to me by the likes of Jameela Jamil, Daniel Radcliffe and Emma Watson, that I am no longer entitled to sex-based rights, and how dare I voice any protestations, I'm a disgusting TERF.

CrankyHaus

storker wrote: »

It seems to me to be pretty competitive too...each individual have to up the ante on the others. It reminds me of the "Glorious Loyalty Oath Crusade" in Catch-22.

"To Captain Black, every officer who supported his Glorious Loyalty Oath Crusade was a competitor, and he planned and plotted twenty-four hours a day to keep one step ahead. He would stand second to none in his devotion to country. When other officers had followed his urging and introduced loyalty oaths of their own, he went them one better by making every son of a bitch who came to his intelligence tent sign two loyalty oaths, then three, then four; then he introduced the pledge of allegiance, and after that ''The Star-Spangled Banner,'' one chorus, two choruses, three choruses, four choruses. Each time Captain Black forged ahead of his competitors, he swung upon them scornfully for their failure to follow his example. Each time they followed his example, he retreated with concern and racked his brain for some new stratagem that would enable him to turn upon them scornfully again[...] The more loyalty oaths a person signed, the more loyal he was; to Captain Black it was as simple as that, and he had Corporal Kolodny sign hundreds with his name each day so that he could always prove he was more loyal than anyone else."

Irish writer Angela Nagle analysed it quite well as a market where the currency is virtue. If everyone online merely posts good things and gets likes then the currency gets devalued. So the negative element of witch hunts against the unvirtuous to control the virtue supply is a necessary part of the market.

the purple tin

CrankyHaus wrote: »

Irish writer Angela Nagle analysed it quite well as a market where the currency is virtue. If everyone online merely posts good things and gets likes then the currency gets devalued. So the negative element of witch hunts against the unvirtuous to control the virtue supply is a necessary part of the market.

It sounds like that Black Mirror episode where everyone had a popularity rating. You had to be nicey nicey to everyone to keep your number up.
4's were great and 2's were scumbags basically.

suicide_circus

Appealing to biology, logic and reason in a debate only works if both sides stick to it.

This debate is like an athiest trying to argue the intricacies of scripture with a person of faith, it just goes round in circles.

suicide_circus

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

emma watson as inciteful as ever:

Trans people are who they say they are and deserve to live their lives without being constantly questioned or told they aren’t who they say they are.

i wonder does her opinion only extend to trans?

whatever they say they are? whats the natural outcome to holding an opinion like that?

what do you expect from a "self partnered" individual.

If a man called himself "self partnered" it would be rightly assumed to be a euphemism for "wanker"

The White Wolf

Gatling wrote: »

The vitrol abuse of jk Rowling is pretty pathetic and sick,
She hasn't attacked or abused anyone , claiming hate speech against her and any one who supporters her ,

You are always going to have your headcases on social media taking things too far, but JK Rowling should really stop poking the bear by quoting research that has been discredited such as the one as young peer groups pressuring each other to transition.

The platform that JK Rowling has is quite simply massive, and it's not an exaggeration to say that what she says online can reach every corner of the world, effecting both young and old.

Taking this into account it wouldn't kill her to take a bit more care in what she's saying by informing herself with an open mind.

CrankyHaus

the purple tin wrote: »

It sounds like that Black Mirror episode where everyone had a popularity rating. You had to be nicey nicey to everyone to keep your number up.
4's were great and 2's were scumbags basically.

The difference is that in this case to be a 4 you have to drive others down to a 0 because if everyone's a 4 then being a 4 is meaningless. It's why even the most inoffensive people can get cast into the flames of moral outrage; see Terry Crews and the criticism he's received for balanced comments on issues like Liam Neeson and BLM.

seamus

mohawk wrote: »

For me the most troubling aspect of this is how there is no discussion allowed on most social media platform. You either agree or your a TERF.

There's plenty of discussion allowed. JKR and others aren't discussing though. They're declaring and only in a very narrow sense.

That is, they're demanding a special category of rights that exist solely for the protection of a single class of individual. And with only a passing statistical basis for it.

Feminism isn't about greater rights for women. It's about equal rights for women. As soon as you start demanding special protections for women, you've strayed beyond equal rights and you've strayed outside of feminism and into bigotry.

Why should their focus be exclusively on women? Why not the physically disabled? Why not the mentally disabled? Why not male children? Why not trans men? Why not trans women? These are all classes of people who are at least, if not more vulnerable as women to physical and sexual assault.

Why is that JKR and the other TERFS only care about protecting women from men? They are not interested in equal rights. They are calling for special rights, and special rights at the expense of others.

Why are they not calling for all humans to have the right to access spaces where they can be safe?

This is why they get piled-on, online. Because they're not trying to help. They're privileged individuals trying to create a walled compound to protect themselves from "undesirables" outside and declaring it as a reasonable solution to protect vulnerable people, while leaving the vulnerable people outside the compound to fend for themselves.

Shelga

seamus wrote: »

There's plenty of discussion allowed. JKR and others aren't discussing though. They're declaring and only in a very narrow sense.

That is, they're demanding a special category of rights that exist solely for the protection of a single class of individual. And with only a passing statistical basis for it.

Feminism isn't about greater rights for women. It's about equal rights for women. As soon as you start demanding special protections for women, you've strayed beyond equal rights and you've strayed outside of feminism and into bigotry.

Why should their focus be exclusively on women? Why not the physically disabled? Why not the mentally disabled? Why not male children? Why not trans men? Why not trans women? These are all classes of people who are at least, if not more vulnerable as women to physical and sexual assault.

Why is that JKR and the other TERFS only care about protecting women from men? They are not interested in equal rights. They are calling for special rights, and special rights at the expense of others.

Why are they not calling for all humans to have the right to access spaces where they can be safe?

This is why they get piled-on, online. Because they're not trying to help. They're privileged individuals trying to create a walled compound to protect themselves from "undesirables" outside and declaring it as a reasonable solution to protect vulnerable people, while leaving the vulnerable people outside the compound to fend for themselves.

JK Rowling is a woman. She's defending women's rights. I don't understand your point. Why don't gay men champion the rights of blind people?

Gruffalux

suicide_circus wrote: »

what do you expect from a "self partnered" individual.

If a man called himself "self partnered" it would be rightly assumed to be a euphemism for "wanker"

Now now I would not go so far as to call people like Emma ****. Some may be masterful baiters, however.

Shelga

seamus wrote: »

Feminism isn't about greater rights for women. It's about equal rights for women. As soon as you start demanding special protections for women, you've strayed beyond equal rights and you've strayed outside of feminism and into bigotry.

Do you think it's bigoted if I, as a biological female, object to having biological males compete in sports with me?

conorhal

The White Wolf wrote: »

You are always going to have your headcases on social media taking things too far, but JK Rowling should really stop poking the bear by quoting research that has been discredited such as the one as young peer groups pressuring each other to transition.

The platform that JK Rowling has is quite simply massive, and it's not an exaggeration to say that what she says online can reach every corner of the world, effecting both young and old.

Taking this into account it wouldn't kill her to take a bit more care in what she's saying by informing herself with an open mind.

What discredited research? Or do you mean banned reasearh, because that absolutely happens, there are forums dedicated to it.


Go google trans egg and 'hatching' and see what kind of depraved nonsense goes on. There are a lot of vunerable people being preyed on by this ideology.

One eyed Jack

seamus wrote: »

They're privileged individuals trying to create a walled compound to protect themselves from "undesirables" outside and declaring it as a reasonable solution to protect vulnerable people, while leaving the vulnerable people outside the compound to fend for themselves.

We don’t agree on a whole pile Seamus but that’s a cracking analogy that reminds of the many accounts from women of their Convent education.

‘Twas an education alright, the difference I suppose was they took in the most vulnerable, and then abused them horrendously.

Gruffalux

One eyed Jack wrote: »

We don’t agree on a whole pile Seamus but that’s a cracking analogy that reminds of the many accounts from women of their Convent education.

‘Twas an education alright, the difference I suppose was they took in the most vulnerable, and then abused them horrendously.

It is hyperbole. Emotional blackmail. The vulnerable weeping at the fences. Silliness. Many on this thread have advocated for third spaces as a rational compassionate compromise that respects both women and transwomen, men and transmen.

Silentcorner

suicide_circus wrote: »

what do you expect from a "self partnered" individual.

If a man called himself "self partnered" it would be rightly assumed to be a euphemism for "wanker"

What the f##k is self partnered....split personality?

Are all these "empowered ones" riddled in personality/anxiety issues?

One eyed Jack

Gruffalox wrote: »

It is hyperbole. Emotional blackmail. The vulnerable weeping at the fences. Silliness. Many on this thread have advocated for third spaces as a rational compassionate compromise that respects both women and transwomen, men and transmen.

The equivalent hyperbole and emotional blackmail is used to advocate for third spaces?

I wouldn’t consider it particularly respectful or any sort of a compromise if I was being told that I should adhere to my designated space by someone who appointed themselves an authority over me, when I didn’t agree that they had any authority to do so in the first place, they just assumed it!

If I were ever to dare to suggest to a woman that she stay in her designated space as I didn’t give her permission to be in my space, I’d expect she would give me a swift kick in the balls and carry on about her business.

mohawk

seamus wrote: »

There's plenty of discussion allowed. JKR and others aren't discussing though. They're declaring and only in a very narrow sense.

That is, they're demanding a special category of rights that exist solely for the protection of a single class of individual. And with only a passing statistical basis for it.

Feminism isn't about greater rights for women. It's about equal rights for women. As soon as you start demanding special protections for women, you've strayed beyond equal rights and you've strayed outside of feminism and into bigotry.

Why should their focus be exclusively on women? Why not the physically disabled? Why not the mentally disabled? Why not male children? Why not trans men? Why not trans women? These are all classes of people who are at least, if not more vulnerable as women to physical and sexual assault.

Why is that JKR and the other TERFS only care about protecting women from men? They are not interested in equal rights. They are calling for special rights, and special rights at the expense of others.

Why are they not calling for all humans to have the right to access spaces where they can be safe?

The clue is in the word feminist. They campaign on issues relating to females. There are many who works in fighting for rights or the disabled, people who fight against racism, people who work to reduce the divide between rich and poor etc. Trans activists rightly fight for Trans rights. The post reads like feminists should be righting all the wrongs in the world.

I don’t believe that women need special treatment with regard jobs, education or any of your normal day to day activities. Once we have equal access and opportunities we can succeed. But if you take issues like domestic violence then yes woman deserve protection. It’s mostly woman at receiving end of domestic violence. In murder cases who is most often the culprit of a murdered woman? Her partner or ex partner that is who. Rarely does a woman murder her partner or ex partner. Generally toilets in shopping centres, workplaces, amenities could be unisex and it probably wouldn’t matter to most people. In case of pubs and nightclubs I have reservations. From experience most unwanted sexual harassment happens in those environments and a man physically harassing a woman is more of a threat to her then a woman physically harassing a man. Neither should occur but unfortunately that is not the case. A reasonable person knows that a trans person isn’t trans so they can start attacking women but why does the discussion get so ugly when women express their opinions/feelings? Why not address the concerns?

Gruffalux

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The equivalent hyperbole and emotional blackmail is used to advocate for third spaces?

I wouldn’t consider it particularly respectful or any sort of a compromise if I was being told that I should adhere to my designated space by someone who appointed themselves an authority over me, when I didn’t agree that they had any authority to do so in the first place, they just assumed it!

If I were ever to dare to suggest to a woman that she stay in her designated space as I didn’t give her permission to be in my space, I’d expect she would give me a swift kick in the balls and carry on about her business.

Hahaha sorry I cannot take this stretching seriously enough to attempt responding. You adhere to things all the time where people have appointed themselves in authority over you. Its called the social contract. Or do you regularly kick police, politicians, librarians, folk festival stewards etc etc in their non specific genitals?

One eyed Jack

Gruffalox wrote: »

Hahaha sorry I cannot take this stretching seriously enough to attempt responding. You adhere to things all the time where people have appointed themselves in authority over you. Its called the social contract. Or do you regularly kick police, politicians, librarians, folk festival stewards etc etc in their non specific genitals?

You missed the part where I was making the point that I didn’t agree they had any authority over me. Those who I agree have authority over me aren’t a problem. It’s the self-appointed authoritarians which are an issue.

Gruffalux

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You missed the part where I was making the point that I didn’t agree they had any authority over me. Those who I agree have authority over me aren’t a problem. It’s the self-appointed authoritarians which are an issue.

In this libertarian fantasy of a social contract of yours does everyone get to make individual personal requests all the time? If so, I have a nice long list.