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

One eyed Jack

mohawk wrote: »

Why not address the concerns?

Their concerns are not a valid reason to deny any group in society the same rights as everyone already has. By that standard women and men would be denied rights for fear of what they might do if they got them, which ignores the fact that people who act with malice towards others don’t care a whole pile for anyone’s rights.

Nobody has the right to commit violence for example, and so the argument that rights must be withheld for fear of anyone committing violence against another person is nothing more than a distraction. People who commit violence against another person are already dealt with by our existing judicial system.

iptba

mohawk wrote: »

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.

On average about seven women and two men are killed by their current or former partner every month in England and Wales.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-22610534

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Their concerns are not a valid reason to deny any group in society the same rights as everyone already has. By that standard women and men would be denied rights for fear of what they might do if they got them, which ignores the fact that people who act with malice towards others don’t care a whole pile for anyone’s rights.

Nobody has the right to commit violence for example, and so the argument that rights must be withheld for fear of anyone committing violence against another person is nothing more than a distraction. People who commit violence against another person are already dealt with by our existing judicial system.

That's why you're generally expected to prove you have rights that are restricted to specific groups. Someone may have to prove they're over 18 to get into a nightclub, that they have a full driver's licence in order to hire a car, that they're a member of staff in order to get into a particular building, etc.

The GRA, self declaration and allegations of transphobia flying around mean it's impossible to challenge someone who declares they're a trans woman, even when they have a full beard and of course, fully functioning male genitals. Oh and they're quite likely to be a lesbian trans woman too - which afaics is exactly the same as a hetero man.

MoonUnit75

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Their concerns are not a valid reason to deny any group in society the same rights as everyone already has. By that standard women and men would be denied rights for fear of what they might do if they got them, which ignores the fact that people who act with malice towards others don’t care a whole pile for anyone’s rights.

Nobody has the right to commit violence for example, and so the argument that rights must be withheld for fear of anyone committing violence against another person is nothing more than a distraction. People who commit violence against another person are already dealt with by our existing judicial system.

They have the same rights as everyone else already? You can enter a communal changing room where people who have the same genitals as you are likely to be undressed.

One eyed Jack

Gruffalox wrote: »

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.

Hardly a libertarian fantasy when everyone does indeed get to make as many individual personal requests as they like? Fire away with your list, same as Maya Forstater did when her contract of employment with her former employer was not renewed and she sought to have them held accountable. Didn’t work out so well for her, but you might have better luck depending upon your demands.

volchitsa

iptba wrote: »

On average about seven women and two men are killed by their current or former partner every month in England and Wales.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-22610534

That quote doesn't say that who the killers of the male victims were though.

AFAIAA men murdered by their partners were mostly in homosexual relationships.

suicide_circus

Silentcorner wrote: »

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

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

Child stars rarely end up the full shilling in later life.

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

That's why you're generally expected to prove you have rights that are restricted to specific groups. Someone may have to prove they're over 18 to get into a nightclub, that they have a full driver's licence in order to hire a car, that they're a member of staff in order to get into a particular building, etc.

The GRA, self declaration and allegations of transphobia flying around mean it's impossible to challenge someone who declares they're a trans woman, even when they have a full beard and of course, fully functioning male genitals. Oh and they're quite likely to be a lesbian trans woman too - which afaics is exactly the same as a hetero man.

Nobody generally has to prove anything to other ordinary members of the public.

volchitsa

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.

I don't think we generally get to pick and choose many of the rules of everyday life though. If I don't want to queue up to get on the bus, because I'm in a hurry, are the other passengers just a bunch of self appointed authoritarians if they object?

One eyed Jack

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

They have the same rights as everyone else already? You can enter a communal changing room where people who have the same genitals as you are likely to be undressed.

This is a bit like the argument that everyone already has the right to get married, so there’s no need for marriage equality.

SouthWesterly

1 sheep2 wrote: »

Yikes. Radcliffe's was softer.

I'm supportive of trans people and have adapted my sense of woman to include those whose sex at birth was male, and vice versa. But I think it so naive and dogmatic to say, Trans women are women. They just are. Etc.

If that's his quote( assume it is) it's absolute tripe.

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Nobody generally has to prove anything to other ordinary members of the public.

No, but you can report infractions that infringe on your rights to those in authority. Like pushing to the front of the queue, as I said. Or a customer who sees kids buying alcohol, or stealing - are they being self appointed authoritarians or just civic-minded if they report that?

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

I don't think we generally get to pick and choose many of the rules of everyday life though. If I don't want to queue up to get on the bus, because I'm in a hurry, are the other passengers just a bunch of self appointed authoritarians if they object?

Well, yes, because they do not have the authority to stop you. The person who is most likely to have the authority to ensure you follow the rules in those circumstances is either the bus conductor or the bus driver, or the security officers or the Gardaí. Other ordinary members of the public though who take it upon themselves to stop you simply do not have the authority to do so.

Gruffalux

God you would be worn to a nub with the dogged tirelessness of it all.

suicide_circus

Gruffalox wrote: »

God you would be worn to a nub with the dogged tirelessness of it all.

If you say it enough times, it will become true...

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

No, but you can report infractions that infringe on your rights to those in authority. Like pushing to the front of the queue, as I said. Or a customer who sees kids buying alcohol, or stealing - are they being self appointed authoritarians or just civic-minded if they report that?

They can be both - both civic-minded and self-appointed.

If someone were minding their own business and they are approached by another member of the public and asked to produce their original birth certificate to verify their identity to the person demanding to see it, then that person making demands might well be regarded as anything other than civic-minded.

Indeed the person making demands could find themselves being charged with committing an offence against the other person which could constitute harassment.

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

They can be both - both civic-minded and self-appointed.

If someone were minding their own business and they are approached by another member of the public and asked to produce their original birth certificate to verify their identity to the person demanding to see it, then that person making demands might well be regarded as anything other than civic-minded.

And nobody is saying that this should happen, or need to happen. Talk about straw manning.

ceadaoin.

So,can anyone highlight the transphobia in Rowlings latest piece? Where does she display hatred towards trans people?


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

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Well, yes, because they do not have the authority to stop you. The person who is most likely to have the authority to ensure you follow the rules in those circumstances is either the bus conductor or the bus driver, or the security officers or the Gardaí. Other ordinary members of the public though who take it upon themselves to stop you simply do not have the authority to do so.

Whereas - and this is the point here - a woman who sees someone who is physically a man in a women's dressing room may well feel she can no longer complain to the attendants, becaseu she may fear being called a transphobe.

A bit like hesitating to tell someone who's really fat that she's in the disabled parking space in case she's actually pregnant (I've seen that happen!)

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

And nobody is saying that this should happen, or need to happen. Talk about straw manning.

Hold on a second, you’re accusing me of strawnanning after you made the point that it’s impossible with the GRA to challenge someone who declares they’re a trans woman? That’s why I used the example of an ordinary member of the public demanding that someone produce their birth certificate to verify their identity, because what you’re suggesting was never possible for ordinary members of the public to do in the first place.

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Hold on a second, you’re accusing me of strawnanning after you made the point that it’s impossible with the GRA to challenge someone who declares they’re a trans woman? That’s why I used the example of an ordinary member of the public demanding that someone produce their birth certificate to verify their identity, because what you’re suggesting was never possible for ordinary members of the public to do in the first place.

Not literally impossible, but effectively so for many women, as I explained.
Like someone hesitating to complain about a person who appears not to be pregnant or disabled taking up a disabled space, in case they actually are.

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

Whereas - and this is the point here - a woman who sees someone who is physically a man in a women's dressing room may well feel she can no longer complain to the attendants, becaseu she may fear being called a transphobe.

A bit like hesitating to tell someone who's really fat that she's in the disabled parking space in case she's actually pregnant (I've seen that happen!)

There is still nothing to prevent her from making a complaint to the authorities though, is there? Just like there is nothing to prevent anyone from making a complaint to an authority if they perceive that someone is violating the policy around disabled parking spaces.

Or are you arguing that ordinary members of the public should have the right to intimidate and harass people? With that attitude towards other people, one is likely to be on the receiving end of far more harassment than they can dish out.

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There is still nothing to prevent her from making a complaint to the authorities though, is there? Just like there is nothing to prevent anyone from making a complaint to an authority if they perceive that someone is violating the policy around disabled parking spaces.

Or are you arguing that ordinary members of the public should have the right to intimidate and harass people? With that attitude towards other people, one is likely to be on the receiving end of far more harassment than they can dish out.

Yeah sure, that's totally what I'm saying. FFS.

deaddonkey15

ceadaoin. wrote: »

So,can anyone highlight the transphobia in Rowlings latest piece? Where does she display hatred towards trans people?


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

She doesn’t.

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

Yeah sure, that's totally what I'm saying. FFS.

That’s what it sounds like you’re suggesting, and I’m asking because I’d rather take it as my misunderstanding of what you’re saying, than thinking you could possibly be serious.

It sounds very much like you’re suggesting that people should have the right to behave like an asshole towards other people on the basis that they are intimidated by that persons presence, but they also reserve the right to be protected from being called an asshole by anyone else?

It sounds very much like this -


I’m not racist, I just don’t think black people should have the same rights as me. It’s not fair that I get branded a racist for expressing an opinion they can’t handle because it hurts their feelings.


I have to be reading that wrong, surely?

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That’s what it sounds like you’re suggesting, and I’m asking because I’d rather take it as my misunderstanding of what you’re saying, than thinking you could possibly be serious.

It sounds very much like you’re suggesting that people should have the right to behave like an asshole towards other people on the basis that they are intimidated by that persons presence, but they also reserve the right to be protected from being called an asshole by anyone else?

It sounds very much like this -


I’m not racist, I just don’t think black people should have the same rights as me. It’s not fair that I get branded a racist for expressing an opinion they can’t handle because it hurts their feelings.


I have to be reading that wrong, surely?

I read it as:

I do not hate anyone who wishes to live their lives as they wish but I do draw the line at where I am expected to agree with their demonstrably false belief that they are the opposite sex.

They should not be given access to spaces and services which are exclusive to a specific sex based on their belief.

They should have the same rights as anyone of the same sex that they are, just not the rights of the sex they wrongly think they are.

Gruffalux

Emma Watson starred in "Little Menstruators"...

ceadaoin.

deaddonkey15 wrote: »

She doesn’t.

Yeah but there are people on here saying she does and that she's an arsehole, a bigot. So surely they can highlight the specific parts so we can all see?

Truthvader

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Yeah but there are people on here saying she does and that she's an arsehole, a bigot. So surely they can highlight the specific parts so we can all see?

The internet is awash with loons, women who think they are men, men who think they are women, white people Supremacists, Sinn Fein psychos, sexual deviants of every hue etc etc . It is a boiling cauldron of impotent rage and sullen frustration licensed to express themselves without restraint. Were you expecting rationality?

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I read it as:

I do not hate anyone who wishes to live their lives as they wish but I do draw the line at where I am expected to agree with their demonstrably false belief that they are the opposite sex.

They should not be given access to spaces and services which are exclusive to a specific sex based on their belief.

They should have the same rights as anyone of the same sex that they are, just not the rights of the sex they wrongly think they are.

That’s not the scenario that was presented at all though. The scenario volchista presented was that the GRA now prevents people from making a complaint if they feel intimidated by the presence of someone who they don’t believe to be of the same sex as themselves. They might feel they can’t make a complaint because they might be called a transphobe.

That’s why I used the analogy of the person who thinks it’s not fair that they’re called a racist when they behave like a racist.

volchista’s example also presents something of a conundrum for females who aren’t particularly aesthetically pleasant to the observer, in that they may possess the external features more commonly associated with the male physique. Using volchista’s rationale, they have a right to be there, even though the person in volchista’s example would just as likely be intimidated by their presence.

It’s exactly like was previously suggested to advocates of marriage equality - everyone has an equal right to marry already, the rules are they have to marry someone of the opposite sex. Every single argument against marriage equality was based upon prejudice, and this is more of the same. It’s exactly like suggesting that black people should be denied equal rights because “look at them lootin’ ‘n’ shootin’, we civilised white folks ain’t like that, we need to be protected from them”.

Arguments like that in order to dehumanise people and deny them equal rights have been used throughout history. I don’t know why anyone would imagine they should be immune from criticism for even attempting to use such arguments to justify ongoing discrimination.