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

Gruffalux

JoannaJag wrote: »

I think that’s a no

Oh lordy

Gruffalux

Wombatman wrote: »

What do you mean by sex? Would I suck their toes, enjoy them rimming me, would glory holes be involved, manual stimulation, communal masturbation? What parts are being kissed, licked, sucked, penetrated, stimulated.....?

What difference does it make to anything what answer I give to your question? Really??

You seem confused about biological sex, sexual orientation, eroticism and gender identity my dear. Maybe you are hoping to place restrictions on others to fit in with your restricted mindset.

I think you are evasive. With a female bodied transman there would be clitoris, lots of lovely vagina, maybe breasts - so.....the question stands? You still there sucking?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

seamus wrote: »

The story says the exact opposite, that the nurse excused herself and left because she wasn't happy.

She probably should have stuck around. However she may have felt that the mental gymnastics required of her may have distracted her from her work. Very understandable. Many labours are fraught and treacherous and people need to be able to stay focused. I have no doubt somebody will be along with a faux naif “What mental gymnastics?”. The having to correct herself in addressing the female in labour in front of her.

Wombatman

Gruffalox wrote: »

I think you are evasive. With a female bodied transman there would be clitoris, lots of lovely vagina, maybe breasts - so.....the question stands? You still there sucking?

Would I still have "settle down in a relationship" with them? Do people who settle down have to be sexually attracted to each other in your world view? Does your mindset allow us to settle down in a relationship and have casual sex with others?

mohawk

Wombatman wrote: »

You seem confused about biological sex, sexual orientation, eroticism and gender identity my dear. Maybe you are hoping to place restrictions on others to fit in with your restricted mindset.

The poster is not confused. Either biological sex and gender identity are separate things or they are the same.

If biological sex and gender are separate then it would be normal for a straight female born person to only want to have sex with a straight male born person. Or for a gay male born person to only want to have sex with another male born gay man.

If biological sex is irrelevant and only gender matters aka we accept TW is a W and a TM is a M then a lesbian female born woman shouldn’t care if the person she is in a intimate physical relationship with has a penis or a vagina. Some consider that viewpoint to be erasing sexual orientation.

Gruffalux

Wombatman wrote: »

Would I still have "settle down in a relationship" with them? Do people who settle down have to be sexually attracted to each other in your world view? Does your mindset allow us to settle down in a relationship and have casual sex with others?

Hahaha. I don't give a sugaring shyte who shags who how where why or when. I would like clarity however on whether or not gay men who say transmen are men will be erotically entertaining vaginas and clitoris esss. Same re hetero men who repeat transwomen ARE women - is that truth extended for them to sexual intercourse and erotic relationships. So I am still looking at you, wombatperson - I answered you about what hole is off limits and you have not answered me truthfully. Can I pencil you in for vagina and clitoris?

Sudden Valley

I have great sympathy for Rowling and don't she has said anything wrong but dothink she was very naive to get into a Trans argument on Twitter again. I think it will hurt her financiallly and socially this time more than last time. She should look at Graham Linehan and basically how it has destroyed his career and how that is he seems to be known for now, battling trans activists on twitter.
Sad to see all the Harry Potter actors come out against her and don't think her latest confessions have changed anyones position. Very sad.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Sudden Valley wrote: »

I have great sympathy for Rowling and don't she has said anything wrong but do think she was very naive to get into a Trans argument on Twitter again. I think it will hurt her financiallly and socially this time more than last time. She should look at Graham Linehan and basically how it has destroyed his career and how that is he seems to be known for now, battling trans activists on twitter.
Sad to see all the Harry Potter actors come out against her and don't think her latest confessions have changed anyones position. Very sad.

She was. I think she thought her very measured tweets would be met with a measured response. Hope springs eternal.

I think she’ll be grrrraaand financially though. As for socially, anyone who ditches her over this was only ever a fair weather friend. She’s well rid.

She and Linehan will be vindicated. I truly believe that. Note that none of their tweets on the topic are ever ratioed. As far as I know. They enjoy more support than it appears from the comments.

The White Wolf

It's actually quite staggering how The S*n never ceases to provoke a recoil in disgust out of me.

Wombatman

Gruffalox wrote: »

Hahaha. I don't give a sugaring shyte who shags who how where why or when. I would like clarity however on whether or not gay men who say transmen are men will be erotically entertaining vaginas and clitoris esss. Same re hetero men who repeat transwomen ARE women - is that truth extended for them to sexual intercourse and erotic relationships. So I am still looking at you, wombatperson - I answered you about what hole is off limits and you have not answered me truthfully. Can I pencil you in for vagina and clitoris?

You can pencil me in for whatever is on your list. Never say never, right? Could be a whole lot of fun.

JimmyVik

Am I the only one totally confused with reading the last 3 pages of this thread?

Gruffalux

Wombatman wrote: »

You can pencil me in for whatever is on your list. Never say never, right? Could be a whole lot of fun.

Excellent! A man of principle.

Wombatman

Gruffalox wrote: »

Excellent! A man of principle.

Could be a woman for all you know.

Gruffalux

Wombatman wrote: »

Could be a woman for all you know.

Or even a wombat.

JimmyVik

Wombatman wrote: »

Could be a woman for all you know.

Or both. On a Tuesday an Friday.

Dyr

Sudden Valley wrote: »

I have great sympathy for Rowling and don't she has said anything wrong but dothink she was very naive to get into a Trans argument on Twitter again. I think it will hurt her financiallly and socially this time more than last time. She should look at Graham Linehan and basically how it has destroyed his career and how that is he seems to be known for now, battling trans activists on twitter.
Sad to see all the Harry Potter actors come out against her and don't think her latest confessions have changed anyones position. Very sad.

Yeah, Hopefully others will learn to keep their mouths shut if they know whats good for them, eh? :rolleyes:

Wombatman

Gruffalox wrote: »

Or even a wombat.

This is difficult enough without bring species into it.

Gatling

The midwife was asked leave the birthing suite because she used the wrong pronoun ,
a woman gave birth ,
And is the mother/mom to the newborn baby,
On the Child's birth certificate the person who had the baby identified as the childs mother,for schools and everything going forward she will be identified as the childs mother .

So why should the nurse/midwife have to leave ?

Beasty

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

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

Beasty wrote: »

Threadbanned

Following discussion from user and assurances given this threadban is now lifted

suicide_circus

Sudden Valley wrote: »

I have great sympathy for Rowling and don't she has said anything wrong but dothink she was very naive to get into a Trans argument on Twitter again. I think it will hurt her financiallly and socially this time more than last time. She should look at Graham Linehan and basically how it has destroyed his career and how that is he seems to be known for now, battling trans activists on twitter.
Sad to see all the Harry Potter actors come out against her and don't think her latest confessions have changed anyones position. Very sad.

The truth shall set you free.

Sudden Valley

suicide_circus wrote: »

The truth shall set you free.

Or miserable, in the case of Graham Linehan. I think its good to have these discussions but I think both sides are entrenched in their positions and that the Transactivist have painted Rowling successfully as a Terf/transphobic. I dont't think she is one but I think this has damaged Rowling in whatever she says about the subject in the future.

Gruffalux

Sudden Valley wrote: »

Or miserable, in the case of Graham Linehan. I think its good to have these discussions but I think both sides are entrenched in their positions and that the Transactivist have painted Rowling successfully as a Terf/transphobic. I dont't think she is one but I think this has damaged Rowling in whatever she says about the subject in the future.

It has brought her a lot of abuse. Narcissistic rage it is called in this arena. Very poisonous.
It may have affected her public standing - she may miss opportunities, awards, media appearances etc. The brilliant female animator Nina Paley - whose work I just love - has been cancelled, as it is known. It is hard for Nina has she had not made her money. But Rowling is financially independent which gives her power.
But mostly JK has brought the matter into focus for more people and given it solid publicity and that is welcome. A lot of people had been complacent. I am glad she has willingly paid whatever temporary price has to be paid until the muddy water clears in the future.

suicide_circus

Sudden Valley wrote: »

Or miserable, in the case of Graham Linehan. I think its good to have these discussions but I think both sides are entrenched in their positions and that the Transactivist have painted Rowling successfully as a Terf/transphobic. I dont't think she is one but I think this has damaged Rowling in whatever she says about the subject in the future.

Both are wealthy enough never to have to work again so they are in a position to give voice to the truths which would leave mere mortals destitute. In some sense i have limited sympathy as both were/are purveyors of wokery pokery but both have reached their line in the sand - objective reality.

CrankyHaus

Sudden Valley wrote: »

Or miserable, in the case of Graham Linehan. I think its good to have these discussions but I think both sides are entrenched in their positions and that the Transactivist have painted Rowling successfully as a Terf/transphobic. I dont't think she is one but I think this has damaged Rowling in whatever she says about the subject in the future.

Linehan's a far more divisive figure.
Before being known for tangling with trans activists he was mainly known as the acerbic guy who set his woke-mob of Twitter followers on anyone who's Tweets he disliked.
Who was going to run to his assistance after PC culture turned on him?

The most divisive thing JK Rowling ever did before this was dip a toe into the Scottish Independence debate.

Fleetwoodmac

Sudden Valley wrote: »

I have great sympathy for Rowling and don't she has said anything wrong but dothink she was very naive to get into a Trans argument on Twitter again. I think it will hurt her financiallly and socially this time more than last time. She should look at Graham Linehan and basically how it has destroyed his career and how that is he seems to be known for now, battling trans activists on twitter.
Sad to see all the Harry Potter actors come out against her and don't think her latest confessions have changed anyones position. Very sad.

Perhaps she was naïve, in believing that most humans are inherently good and not capable of the volume of vitriol heaped on her. It was relentless and I, too have the utmost of sympathy for someone who has been largely private and not sought out likes for her house/clothes/lifestyle etc and to have to divulge painful private episodes in order to justify her opinion. it still didn't soften the abuse directed at her. This has shown a glaring light on the social justice bullies and shown that a large proportion of celebs lack authenticity. have always admired Rowling for her talent and even greater admiration now. Her wealth wont be dented, that's solid by now but her emotional well being must be quite fragile at the moment

Gruffalux

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1270878790881734656.html

Laura, a transexual, shares her views.
Good read.

One eyed Jack

Gruffalox wrote: »

No evasion like when I asked if people like you, Jack or Zeb make any distinction between male bodied transwomen and women when it comes to sex and intimate relationship since according to you TW ARE W.

There was no evasion on my part when you asked that question. I didn’t answer it because I didn’t know you were including me in a class of people for something I have never done?


(Come on, you have to appreciate the irony of that one given the context of the thread? )

Gruffalox wrote: »

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1270878790881734656.html

Laura, a transexual, shares her views.
Good read.

It’s a good read alright, and I’d agree with most of it except for their views on children. I don’t support the politicisation, pathologisation or medicalisation of children under the age of 18 in the context in which Laura has written.

ceadaoin.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

If the female tradesperson or black taxi driver were sticking their hands into your intimate places, either things took a bizarre turn or you actually stumbled onto the set of a porno.

Yeah, loving the false equivalence between someone working on your patio or driving you somewhere and someone putting instruments and hands inside your body while you lie completely exposed on a table. Yeah totally comparable.

Are they actually telling people that to have a preference about who sees and examines your intimate areas is prejudicial? Nice.

ceadaoin.

Gatling wrote: »

The midwife was asked leave the birthing suite because she used the wrong pronoun ,
a woman gave birth ,
And is the mother/mom to the newborn baby,
On the Child's birth certificate the person who had the baby identified as the childs mother,for schools and everything going forward she will be identified as the childs mother .

So why should the nurse/midwife have to leave ?

In fairness, the article says that the nurse excused herself because she wasn't able to keep using the preferred terms. Thats fair enough. Its common courtesy to address someone in the way they prefer. I can also see how that may be difficult in the moment of a person giving birth , when the midwife probably is used to their "script" being exclusively female terms, so she did the right thing and left. I'm sure it wasn't malicious, just force of habit and one that she couldn't override.

If the person was demanding that no one use those terms to others giving birth either then that would be different but he was only asking to not to be referred to personally as mum or whatever.

One eyed Jack

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Are they actually telling people that to have a preference about who sees and examines your intimate areas is prejudicial? Nice.

Well, it is, they’re stating the obvious though, so it’s really a moot point.

For example I tend to be prejudiced against proctologists with hands like shovels.