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

Gatling

Woodsie1 wrote: »

Not so much the adults but the children,children who arent allowed to smoke,drink,gamble or vote are being allowed to permanetly change their bodies and if anyone has any objections are subject to the same abuse JK Rowling has gotten.

Exactly .

And then people will quote children first and or the rights of the child ,now I work with children and understanding children first especially in a professional manner and use it everyday in your profession is totally different from saying children first and the rights of the child, because you seen It on Google ,but along side children first comes the role of the adult this is very important,
Children new protection not just from stranger who might want to do something repugnant to them , but they need protection from others who might try to influence them to cause themselves irriputable physical and chemical damage .
Children need protection from themselves and it's up to the adults to do that.

Woodsie1

Gatling wrote: »

Exactly .

And then people will quote children first and or the rights of the child ,now I work with children and understanding children first especially in a professional manner and use it everyday in your profession is totally different from saying children first and the rights of the child, because you seen It on Google ,but along side children first comes the role of the adult this is very important,
Children new protection not just from stranger who might want to do something repugnant to them , but they need protection from others who might try to influence them to cause themselves irriputable physical and chemical damage .
Children need protection from themselves and it's up to the adults to do that.

Im extremely close to someone who works with children and deals with child protection issues on a daily basis and the blatant disregard for all the safeguards that have been implemented since the scandals this country has been through is quite simply shocking.....hats off to you pal you re threading a very fine line through no fault of your own

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Woodsie1 wrote: »

Are you sure you cant?
Strangers things have already happened

I believe a case was taken in Canada in the ‘00s by a transgender women who wanted to work as a counsellor at a woman’s rape crisis centre. The centre wanted to hire a woman for the job as it’s their policy. It seems there are certain exemptions in Canada to the prohibition of sex-based discrimination in employment because thankfully the plaintiff did not win her case. Just imagine the sense of entitlement required to initiate that case? It’s perfectly understandable for a women who has been sexually assaulted to only want to speak to another (biological) woman about the ordeal. The assaulted women’s feelings are the only ones that matter here.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kimberly_Nixon_Rape_Relief_case

Woodsie1

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I believe a case was taken in Canada in the ‘00s by a transgender women who wanted to work as a counsellor at a woman’s rape crisis centre. The centre wanted to hire a woman for the job as it’s their policy. It seems there are certain exemptions to the prohibition of sex-based discrimination in employment because thankfully the plaintiff did not win her case. Just imagine the sense of entitlement required to initiate that case? It’s perfectly understandable for a women who has been sexually assaulted to only want to speak to another (biological) woman about the ordeal. The assaulted women’s feelings are the only ones that matter here.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kimberly_Nixon_Rape_Relief_case

Women fought against men for years for equal rights...now they are finally getting somewhere(not saying it equal just yet btw)...women have another battle on their hands against more men,only this time its men who want what women have.
Ordinary decent men who support this are being crucified...the men who dont care about being crucified and keep up the fight are being labelled as all sorts,nazis,transphobes,bigots,,whatever.

I cant think of a way to not sound preachy but there is a lot of men who stand with all the women on this issue,I just wish we could speak up without being shamed into silence.

I wont be shamed into silence(im nearly 40 and care not what anyone thinks of me:D) but there is a lot of men who wont bother because if the hassle it will cause

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Woodsie1 wrote: »

Women fought against men for years for equal rights...now they are finally getting somewhere(not saying it equal just yet btw)...women have another battle on their hands against more men,only this time its men who want what women have.
Ordinary decent men who support this are being crucified...the men who dont care about being crucified and keep up the fight are being labelled as all sorts,nazis,transphobes,bigots,,whatever.

I cant think of a way to not sound preachy but there is a lot of men who stand with all the women on this issue,I just wish we could speak up without being shamed into silence.

I wont be shamed into silence(im nearly 40 and care not what anyone thinks of me:D) but there is a lot of men who wont bother because if the hassle it will cause

That’s why the TERF slogan is so stupid. In reality, it’s actually a mix of people who support sex-based rights: feminists, non-feminists, women, men, gay people, straight people, right-wing, centrist and left-wing. Even some transgender people support sex-based rights and they get dismissed as self-hating.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

An idiot.

And that would be after my eye was done rolling back in it’s socket.

........

Will keep that one on file for victim blaming when you guys come up with

......

There is no actual reason for acknowledging trans lives are any more legitimate as someone who identifies as a unicorn.

ceadaoin.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I believe a case was taken in Canada in the ‘00s by a transgender women who wanted to work as a counsellor at a woman’s rape crisis centre. The centre wanted to hire a woman for the job as it’s their policy. It seems there are certain exemptions in Canada to the prohibition of sex-based discrimination in employment because thankfully the plaintiff did not win her case. Just imagine the sense of entitlement required to initiate that case? It’s perfectly understandable for a women who has been sexually assaulted to only want to speak to another (biological) woman about the ordeal. The assaulted women’s feelings are the only ones that matter here.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kimberly_Nixon_Rape_Relief_case

That shelter was eventually stripped of city funding after a years long campaign because they continued to have a policy of only biological females being able to access some services such as group counseling and housing. This is because, as you said, in those situations, female victims of violence might not feel safe or comfortable with a male, regardless of their identity.

Imagine campaigning for years to try and force the one rape shelter for women and children which didn't allow males to capitulate or be defunded. Fair enough if it was the only option and was leaving trans people with no place to go, but it wasn't (and even they said, no one was turned away. They would refer a trans woman to an alternative location). I just don't get that mentality at all.

https://www.vancourier.com/news/vancouver-rape-relief-targeted-with-vandalism-threats-over-transgender-controversy-1.23929856

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

They don’t need extra women’s rights?

They need recognition in human rights law because they experience discrimination in healthcare, education, family law, welfare and so on, all the areas where people who are not transgender generally take their rights for granted.

What sex are you? What genitals were you born with?

Define what makes you your sex.

Answer me these questions and we can continue.

Gruffalux

https://twitter.com/OkBiology/status/1271119443465207808?s=19


When this little boy grows up will he be allowed to say to the person who gave birth to him, you are my mother?

When in labour midwives, who are supernatural magicians in my experience, get invòlved in a very intimate intense experience with the woman in labour. They are completely on your side and constantly saying encouraging things like good woman you are doing brilliant, you're a great girl look how far along we are, good woman one more big push etc etc. It is a submersive experience for them also. Really intense and concentrated.
To have to switch to say good lad your cervix is fully dilated, you are nearly there thats a great man just keep on bearing down, and congratulations you're a daddy, at the far end of things...oh I just don't know. They have an obvious woman in front of them giving birth which is a completely overwhelming edge of the world experience for all in the room and they have to speak words that deny what their eyes are seeing?
And how many women who are pregnant have their tits in the pics in the Sun normally?

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

........

Will keep that one on file for victim blaming when you guys come up with

......

By all means like. What would you call someone who felt they had a right to intimidate and humiliate you to feel better about themselves? Same thing as the lads I mentioned earlier coming complaining to me because they claimed the another group speaking among themselves in their own language was making those lads uncomfortable. They wanted the other group to be compelled to speak English. I knew well what they were at. I’d think the same of anyone who thought of themselves as the pronoun police btw - like literally go and shìte. Same of spelling and grammar police, y’know, anyone who thinks it’s acceptable for them to humiliate another person or other people, doesn’t matter what sex they are.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What sex are you? What genitals were you born with?

Define what makes you your sex.

Answer me these questions and we can continue.

Male, born with balls, and quite big ones too by all accounts :pac:

What makes me my sex is simply what characteristics and traits I share in common with other individuals as distinct from those traits and characteristics I do not share in common with other individuals of the same species that are classified as Homo Sapiens.

Gruffalux

One eyed Jack wrote: »

By all means like. What would you call someone who felt they had a right to intimidate and humiliate you to feel better about themselves? Same thing as the lads I mentioned earlier coming complaining to me because they claimed the another group speaking among themselves in their own language was making those lads uncomfortable. They wanted the other group to be compelled to speak English. I knew well what they were at. I’d think the same of anyone who thought of themselves as the pronoun police btw - like literally go and shìte. Same of spelling and grammar police, y’know, anyone who thinks it’s acceptable for them to humiliate another person or other people, doesn’t matter what sex they are.





Male, born with balls, and quite big ones too by all accounts :pac:

What makes me my sex is simply what characteristics and traits I share in common with other individuals as distinct from those traits and characteristics I do not share in common with other individuals of the same species that are classified as Homo Sapiens.

So your big balls are uncharacteristic of men or males?
I will inform the medical profession for their future teaching programs.

chopperbyrne

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Of course people were talking about crippling people with fear because that’s precisely where the question comes from - a fear that males are inherently predatory and will abuse females at the first opportunity, using equality legislation to do so.

Again, deliberately missing the point.

It is not in any way a fear that males are inherently predatory.

It's a fear that predatory males, can self ID, and be given a cert that gives them legal access to female only spaces.

It is a genuine concern, and needs to be examined.

One eyed Jack

Gruffalox wrote: »

So your big balls are uncharacteristic of men or males?
I will inform the medical profession for their future teaching programs.

Apparently so, in the opinions of those individuals who have viewed them who weren’t medical professionals. Medical professionals were never unduly concerned, I’ve no doubt they’re a lot more used to seeing all sorts uncharacteristic anomalies than people who aren’t medical professionals. Depends upon their specialisation too of course I suppose, an orthopaedic consultant deals with bones, a urologist or an endocrinologist deals with boners.

JoannaJag

Are 14 year old girls idiots for not wanting to strip in front of a 14 year old Boy who says he’s actually a girl and therefore entitled to change in the same room as them?

What about 10 year old girls? 25 year old women? At what age do women’s feelings of discomfort about changing in front of - and seeing - a male body they are not related to, start mattering/not mattering?

Is there actually any objection to a third space, other than practicalities? And if so, what is it? That it fails to validate the “truth” that trans women are women? Or that they don’t just want to change away from men (like women do) but with the women? Regardless of the feelings of the category to which they feel they belong?

What’s actually the issue with a third space?

One eyed Jack

chopperbyrne wrote: »

Again, deliberately missing the point.

It is not in any way a fear that males are inherently predatory.

It's a fear that predatory males, can self ID, and be given a cert that gives them legal access to female only spaces.

It is a genuine concern, and needs to be examined.

I’m not missing the point at all, you just don’t have one.

If your concern is about predatory males using the law to commit violence against people, then you may want to take a harder look at marital and family law, because they offer people of that mindset even easier access and opportunities to commit violence against people.

My point is that self-ID has nothing whatsoever to do with enabling people to violate the law. When they do, we have laws that address those circumstances.

Danzy

JoannaJag wrote: »

Are 14 year old girls idiots for not wanting to strip in front of a 14 year old Boy who says he’s actually a girl and therefore entitled to change in the same room as them?

What about 10 year old girls? 25 year old women? At what age do women’s feelings of discomfort about changing in front of - and seeing - a male body they are not related to, start mattering/not mattering?

Is there actually any objection to a third space, other than practicalities? And if so, what is it? That it fails to validate the “truth” that trans women are women? Or that they don’t just want to change away from men (like women do) but with the women? Regardless of the feelings of the category to which they feel they belong?

What’s actually the issue with a third space?

Whether its tearing down statues, insisting that trans women with penises change with girls, go to women's prison, gave episodes of Fawlty Towers pulled, movies,book, art locked away.

The modern left activist thrives on discomfort and annoying people, the satisfaction is in judging others, castigation, the feeling of pure righteousness.

Slowyourrole

Shelga wrote: »

Tomorrow's cover of the Sun: https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1271201178781712388?s=20

The abuse JK Rowling is receiving is utterly sickening.

The Sun really has no limit to how low it will go.

Gatling

"ceadaoin. wrote: »

Imagine campaigning for years to try and force the one rape shelter for women and children which didn't allow males to capitulate or be defunded. Fair enough if it was the only option and was leaving trans people with no place to go, but it wasn't (and even they said, no one was turned away. They would refer a trans woman to an alternative location). I just don't get that mentality at all.

Tuesday morning (Aug. 27) staff and volunteers arrived to find threats — “Kill TERFS, Trans Power,” “TERFS go home. You are not welcome,” “F*** TERFS” and “Trans women are women”

Sounds awfully familiar.

chopperbyrne

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’m not missing the point at all, you just don’t have one.

If your concern is about predatory males using the law to commit violence against people, then you may want to take a harder look at marital and family law, because they offer people of that mindset even easier access and opportunities to commit violence against people.

My point is that self-ID has nothing whatsoever to do with enabling people to violate the law. When they do, we have laws that address those circumstances.

Straw man, after straw man, after straw man.

There's no point discussing anything with someone who will just deflect and refuse to acknowledge anything someone else says.

nullzero

The most logical course of action is to go into hibernation for ten years and hopefully all this nonsense will be over by the time you wake up.

Gruffalux

JoannaJag wrote: »

Is there actually any objection to a third space, other than practicalities? And if so, what is it? That it fails to validate the “truth” that trans women are women?

This. That it fails to validate the ideology. No distinction must be made. As we have seen from the posters on here who repeat again and again that transwomen are women or transmen are men.

There are no practicalities issues. We can send rockets into space. We do not have to hew third spaces out of the rock with bone tools.

JoannaJag

So if I capitulate and say OK, I can’t take it any more, Trans Women are Women - can we still talk about the differences between male and female bodies? Menstruated And ejaculators? The fact that ejaculator-on-mentruator rape can result in pregnancy, for example? Am I still allowed to feel uncomfortable with my teenagers undressing in front of someone with a completely different body? Are they allowed to feel discomfort? Or are we also to consider ourselves idiots for feeling discomfort being naked around penises. Even if we have been assaulted by one at some time on our lives?

And have we to wait until we are assaulted before we can feel unsafe? What if someone with a penis just smacked us about a bit and called us whore but never actually raped us? Is it ok to fee uncomfortable then?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

nullzero wrote: »

The most logical course of action is to go into hibernation for ten years and hopefully all this nonsense will be over by the time you wake up.

Nullzero, your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

statto25

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Nullzero, your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’d love to know why your point is here because to be honest I wouldn’t teach any child to be suspicious of anyone in the first place?

Do manners suddenly fcuk off out the window or do you not teach children it’s rude to stare at other people? In my experience adults tend to stare a lot more than children do. Children are curious because of their lack of experience, but an adult staring, what’s that about?

I wouldn’t be happy in the least if my child were such a small-minded tool that he didn’t understand the concept of variation in the human species. I would expect any adult bleating about science and biological realities to understand that much.

It’s a loaded question and you know it, because it’s predicated on the predjudiced presumption that males are perceived in your mind at least, as sexual predators. Not only is the presumption ignorant, it’s just daft.

Probably has been responded to but had to hit reply before I read the rest of the thread.

I assume you are not a parent jack. I at least hope you aren't with that mindset.

You wouldn't teach a child to be suspicious of anyone?

Your child would be a "small minded tool" if he didn't understand the concept of variation in the human species yet you want to teach "him" that variation is meaningless as it's all up to the individual?

You've jumped the shark mate.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

JoannaJag wrote: »

Is there actually any objection to a third space, other than practicalities? And if so, what is it? That it fails to validate the “truth” that trans women are women? Or that they don’t just want to change away from men (like women do) but with the women? Regardless of the feelings of the category to which they feel they belong?

What’s actually the issue with a third space?

Gruffalox wrote: »

This. That it fails to validate the ideology. No distinction must be made. As we have seen from the posters on here who repeat again and again that transwomen are women or transmen are men.

There are no practicalities issues. We can send rockets into space. We do not have to hew third spaces out of the rock with bone tools.

Well, I proposed a thought experiment earlier in the thread. I’d really like to stress to the men reading this thread that this isn’t what I think should actually happen but it’s interesting to ponder:

In the event of space for facilities being at a premium, why not have unisex facilities and women’s facilities? The unisex facilities could have a mix of users: all those women who don’t feel unsafe using the same facilities as male-bodied people, transgender women who might feel unsafe in men’s facilities, transmen who might feel vulnerable using men’s facilities.

Now in reality, I believe that men deserve their sex-segregated spaces too but it’s interesting to ponder because every instance I’ve seen of one sex’s facilities being made gender neutral, it’s always been the women’s facilities. If feeling safe is the goal, unisex should work, shouldn’t it? And if there would be objections, why then are women’s objections on the same grounds laughed off?

The Floyd p

The Floyd p wrote: »

It appears that a lot of people on boards aren't ready to have a sincere conversation about trans rights (which are just human rights) and so jump on the likes of sporting competitions instead to muddy the waters.

The simple fact of the matter is that there are millions of people who struggle with their identity, and who have very little legal and social protection from abuses, or just from uncomfortable situations that are taken for granted by people who never have to experience them. The use of a bathroom may sound trivial, but coming from someone who hasn't ever considered it, that speaks to the issue at hand.

Affording people who are going through such transitions and personal struggles compassion does not take away from your rights or ultimately, your existence. The backlash seems more rooted in the cynicism that's taken hold in Irish society. It can be seen against POC speaking out about their personal experiences of racism, the Direct Provision system and how it's painted as a holiday resort etc. This is just another way for some people to express a want to put others down.

Any other soundbytes or phrases needed for your virtue signal bingo? You have trans, you have direct provision, POC is a good one (best use that until it's make unacceptable).

Ready to have the conversation? Nope not at all. Are people ready to stop acting like ****ing idiots and stop denying basic biology?

JoannaJag

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Well, I proposed a thought experiment earlier in the thread. I’d really like to stress to the men reading this thread that this isn’t what I think should actually happen but it’s interesting to ponder:
In the event of space for facilities being at a premium, why not have unisex facilities and women’s facilities? The unisex facilities could have a mix of users: all those women who don’t feel unsafe using the same facilities as male-bodied people, transgender women who might feel unsafe in men’s facilities, transmen who might feel vulnerable using men’s facilities.

Now in reality, I believe that men deserve their sex-segregated spaces too but it’s interesting to ponder because every instance I’ve seen of one sex’s facilities being made gender neutral, it’s always been the women’s facilities. If feeling safe is the goal, unisex should work, shouldn’t it? And if there would be objections, why then are women’s objections on the same grounds laughed off?

I think the problem with this is that Trans women as a group are also at higher risk from penis wielders (I’m getting the hang of this) and want a safe place to change away from them. But maybe an actual trans person could come and tell me if I’m wrong.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

JoannaJag wrote: »

I think the problem with this is that Trans women as a group are also at higher risk from penis wielders (I’m getting the hang of this) and want a safe place to change away from them. But maybe an actual trans person could come and tell me if I’m wrong.

But the thing transgender women have in their favour is male strength if they are attacked. Women don’t have that if attacked by a male bodied person. That vulnerability has been recognised in law but now apparently is just being disregarded by TWAW absolutists.