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

TuringBot47

Truthvader wrote: »

The internet is awash with loons... Sinn Fein psychos, sexual deviants of every hue etc etc

Those two groups aren't mutually exclusive.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

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?

They won’t. None of what they say stands up to even mild scrutiny and they know it.

Gatling

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/

They can't,

They have a keyboard in one hand and a flaming torch in the other ,
Screaming ahhhhhhhhhhhhh i can't hear you because I'm so offended.

LiquidZeb

Gatling wrote: »

They can't,

They have a keyboard in one hand and a flaming torch in the other ,
Screaming ahhhhhhhhhhhhh i can't hear you because I'm so offended.

Maybe they're offended because they realized an author they once idolized holds opinions of an oppressed minority group that wouldn't be out of place amongst the Tommy Robinson brigade. I know I'm disappointed.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

Your argument is not comparable. It's not dehumanising to describe a trans person by their sex. It's very humanising. It's actually accurate humanising. Telling anyone they can be whatever sexuality they feel is dehumanising.

McFly85

LiquidZeb wrote: »

Maybe they're offended because they realized an author they once idolized holds opinions of an oppressed minority group that wouldn't be out of place amongst the Tommy Robinson brigade. I know I'm disappointed.

Can I ask where in her latest piece is anything remotely similar to something Tommy Robinson would say?

Gatling

LiquidZeb wrote: »

Maybe they're offended because they realized an author .

What oppressed minority .

I wouldn't call women a repressed minority

ceadaoin.

LiquidZeb wrote: »

Maybe they're offended because they realized an author they once idolized holds opinions of an oppressed minority group that wouldn't be out of place amongst the Tommy Robinson brigade. I know I'm disappointed.

Which opinions? Can you give specific quotes that are like something from the "Tommy Robinson brigade."

Again, I'll link to her statement

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

Surely if she holds such abhorrent opinions then you should be able to provide some examples from that?

McFly85

McFly85 wrote: »

Can I ask where in her latest piece is anything remotely similar to something Tommy Robinson would say?

It's a well versed tactic.

Might as well be someone saying "I hate vegetarians and they're all as bad as their vegetarian leader Hitler."

"Or look at all these trans defenders saying stuff like they are part of the Jessica Yaniv mob."

When they can't argue about what's being said, take a person of questionable character who holds the same view and make it out that both are the same.

LiquidZeb

LiquidZeb wrote: »

Maybe they're offended because they realized an author they once idolized holds opinions of an oppressed minority group that wouldn't be out of place amongst the Tommy Robinson brigade. I know I'm disappointed.

Disappointed that the person who wrote your wizard stories doesn't believe in magically changing sex?

Oppression. Jesus, seems everyone is oppressed these days.

LiquidZeb

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Which opinions? Can you give specific quotes that are like something from the "Tommy Robinson brigade."

Again, I'll link to her statement

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

Surely if she holds such abhorrent opinions then you should be able to provide some examples from that?

What you're quoting there is a heavily sanitized glamoured up version of what she said. She basically put a big partition between women who menstruate and those who don't. It's clear what the insinuation was and if you think it's okay it says a lot about you

ceadaoin.

LiquidZeb wrote: »

What you're quoting there is a heavily sanitized glamoured up version of what she said. She basically put a big partition between women who menstruate and those who don't. It's clear what the insinuation was and if you think it's okay it says a lot about you

So you're unable to provide evidence of her transphobia or Tommy robinson esque statements. Ok, Thanks

LiquidZeb

LiquidZeb wrote: »

What you're quoting there is a heavily sanitized glamoured up version of what she said. She basically put a big partition between women who menstruate and those who don't. It's clear what the insinuation was and if you think it's okay it says a lot about you

No she didn't. She pointed out the fact (which is baffling that people are even arguing if it's true or not) that ONLY women menstruate.

If you disagree with that fact, then good luck to you.

LiquidZeb

[Deleted User] wrote: »

No she didn't. She pointed out the fact (which is baffling that people are even arguing if it's true or not) that ONLY women menstruate.

If you disagree with that fact, then good luck to you.

What about women who are post menopause? Or women who've undergone hysterectomies? Or transwomen?

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Your argument is not comparable. It's not dehumanising to describe a trans person by their sex. It's very humanising. It's actually accurate humanising. Telling anyone they can be whatever sexuality they feel is dehumanising.

Again you’re ignoring the point volchista was making and the scenario she presented. The point being made was that now because the GRA, if a woman felt intimidated by the presence of someone else she thought wasn’t a woman, then she might be reluctant to make a complaint for fear of being called a transphobe.

It is dehumanising if the other person is presented as intimidating by virtue of nothing more than their physical appearance.

ceadaoin.

the activists have somewhat moved on to harrassing campaigners against female genital mutilation now. Its transphobic to call it what it is. Yes, I'm sure those girls were asked their gender identity before they had their clitoris sliced off. Whats important when they talk about their horrific ordeal is not to offend anyone. Once again, the word 'female' is being erased and considered offensive. How is this in any way defensible? I'm sure the usual suspects will be along shortly though to instruct women on how to just be "nicer" and erase ourselves completely.

https://mobile.twitter.com/HiboWardere/status/1269999207030669313

Gatling

LiquidZeb wrote: »

What about women who are post menopause? Or women who've undergone hysterectomies?

But previous did menstruate from 8-12 years old onward


Seems be be more people with penises and testicles are upset rather than women

LiquidZeb

Gatling wrote: »

But previous did menstruate from 8-12 years old onward


Seems be be more people with penises and testicles are upset rather than women

So you don't consider trans women 'real' women then?

Gatling

LiquidZeb wrote: »

So you don't consider trans women 'real' women then?

They can believe what ever they want ,but i don't have to believe their feelings .


Can two gay men be called straight ?

Dante7

LiquidZeb wrote: »

So you don't consider trans women 'real' women then?

Bingo.

Gruffalux

ceadaoin. wrote: »

the activists have somewhat moved on to harrassing campaigners against female genital mutilation now. Its transphobic to call it what it is. Yes, I'm sure those girls were asked their gender identity before they had their clitoris sliced off. Whats important when they talk about their horrific ordeal is not to offend anyone. Once again, the word 'female' is being erased and considered offensive. How is this in any way defensible?

https://mobile.twitter.com/HiboWardere/status/1269999207030669313

It is part of the logical conclusion. If saying women menstruate or women bear children or saying that women are adult human females is transphobic, then saying the phrase female genital mutilation is by extension transphobic.

It is quite disgusting, all this narcissistic gaslighting.

LiquidZeb

LiquidZeb wrote: »

What about women who are post menopause? Or women who've undergone hysterectomies? Or transwomen?

None of that changes the fact that only women can menstruate. Not all biological women menstruate. But only biological women can.

So post menopause women are women. Only women can go through the menopause.

Hysterectomy? Yup only women can do that too.

Transwomen - physically impossible that they ever have or ever will menstruate, by virtue of the fact they aren't women.

Your grasp of the English language isn't great if you need that explained to you.

LiquidZeb

LiquidZeb wrote: »

So you don't consider trans women 'real' women then?

Of course not.

Dante7

LiquidZeb wrote: »

What about women who are post menopause? Or women who've undergone hysterectomies? Or transwomen?

Oh FFS. Only women menstruate does not mean that all women menstruate.

"Only humans have an IQ over 100" does not mean that someone with an IQ lower than 100 is not human.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Again you’re ignoring the point volchista was making and the scenario she presented. The point being made was that now because the GRA, if a woman felt intimidated by the presence of someone else she thought wasn’t a woman, then she might be reluctant to make a complaint for fear of being called a transphobe.

It is dehumanising if the other person is presented as intimidating by virtue of nothing more than their physical appearance.

No it's not.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

No it's not.

It really is. Judging someone as intimidating based upon nothing more about them than their physical appearance, is ignoring the reality of the fact that they are another human being. They cannot be held responsible if another person finds their physical appearance intimidating.

It would be no different if someone were intimidated by my physical appearance, should I then be the person to suffer because they feel I’m intimidating to them?


That’s how ideas like “rape culture” gain a foothold in society -


Dr Cliona Saidlear said young girls need to be made aware that young boys who sit with them in the classroom can also be a danger.


'A boy in class could be a danger' - girls warned of sex abuse

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It really is. Judging someone as intimidating based upon nothing more about them than their physical appearance, is ignoring the reality of the fact that they are another human being. It’s not their responsibility if another person is intimidated by their physical appearance.

It would be no different if someone were intimidated by my physical appearance, should I then be the person to suffer because they feel I’m intimidating to them?


That’s how ideas like “rape culture” gain a foothold in society -


Dr Cliona Saidlear said young girls need to be made aware that young boys who sit with them in the classroom can also be a danger.


'A boy in class could be a danger' - girls warned of sex abuse

If a man is in a woman only changing area and the woman is afraid to highlight the fact because of transphobia, it's a problem.

If there are segregated changing areas based on sex, a man has no right to be in a women's area.

Gatling

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I, is ignoring the reality of the fact that they are another human being.

And human beings are split in two categories with both with distinct physical and internal physical difference's.,

Not feeling the same as one or the other doesn't make you one of them,your either physically one or the other

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

If a man is in a woman only changing area and the woman is afraid to highlight the fact because of transphobia, it's a problem.

If there are segregated changing areas based on sex, a man has no right to be there.

You’re missing the point - the observer doesn’t know whether it’s a man or a woman. To them, the person doesn’t look like a woman, which is intimidating to them.

If a woman is afraid to make a complaint because she feels she might be called a transphobe, then yes, that is a problem - hers.

I wouldn’t call her a transphobe, it’s not a term I’d use against anyone. I know what I would call her though.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You’re missing the point - the observer doesn’t know whether it’s a man or a woman. To them, the person doesn’t look like a woman, which is intimidating to them.

If a woman is afraid to make a complaint because she feels she might be called a transphobe, then yes, that is a problem - hers.

I wouldn’t call her a transphobe, it’s not a term I’d use against anyone. I know what I would call her though.

You are missing the point.

It's because of "self identify" policies that women could feel intimidated because they know it is possible a man is in their changing room.