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

Gruffalux

One eyed Jack wrote: »

These things are not decided by the general public on the basis of popular consensus.

I believe there is a word for that, somebody help me out. Elerczions? Smellectshuns? Electogs?

( And how are those going for ya? )

Silentcorner

lawred2 wrote: »

What I don't understand is why did she offer any opinion on this? I don't get it.

She has been flirting with the woke crowd for years on social media....the same crowd who are eating her up now.

She mentioned wrongthink.

lawred2

lawred2 wrote: »

What I don't understand is why did she offer any opinion on this? I don't get it.

I suppose it's like us all, we have all things we're passionate about and obviously this was one of Rowling's. The perceived erosion of womanhood was just something she wanted to speak up about in the same way people speak out about other topics.

lawred2

Deleted User wrote: »

I suppose it's like us all, we have all things we're passionate about and obviously this was one of Rowling's. The perceived erosion of womanhood was just something she wanted to speak up about in the same way people speak out about other topics.

I don't get why you'd cause trouble for yourself

CtevenSrowder

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Has anyone from the organisation asked for my opinion on what they should write in their own literature? No, they haven’t, and I never sought them out to give them my opinion either. The organisation didn’t ask for JK’s opinions, JK decided to take it upon herself to give them her opinion anyway by highlighting their literature and taking the piss out of it. If JK had an issue with what the organisation had written, she could have messaged them directly. Instead she chose to highlight publicly what she saw as their doing something wrong because she was personally offended by it.

She dragged an organisation which had done nothing wrong into her fight with someone else which they didn’t ask to be part of.

And what's this got to do with humiliation? Anyway, she wasn't offering an opinion, she was pointing out biological reality. Sex is real. A male cannot be a female, a man cannot be a woman. Only female's, women, girls menstruate. That's not opinion, it's the truth. It's reality.

You are using the same tactic that other posters use. You are trying to shame her into silence. By pointing out reality she is "humiliating" others ergo she must shut up and keep quiet.

CtevenSrowder

lawred2 wrote: »

I don't get why you'd cause trouble for yourself

Because some people aren't moral cowards, and want to stand up for not only what they believe, but what is in fact actual reality.

Hangdogroad

Wonder when will they go after Nell McCafferty? She's bound to have said something thirty years ago just waiting to be dragged up and that wont sit with todays outrage loons.

One eyed Jack

Gruffalox wrote: »

I believe there is a word for that, somebody help me out. Elerczions? Smellectshuns? Electogs?

( And how are those going for ya? )

I see what you’re driving at, that the general public gets to elect politicians, ergo the Minister for Justice is directly elected to the position by popular consensus?

That’s simply not true, I did not get to nominate Leo for Taoiseach for example, seeing as you’re asking me how the elections are going for me, but they’re going great really, seeing as Mary Lou isn’t yet Taoiseach, and the basis for her campaign amounts to Ireland needs a woman leader. Perhaps it does, just not Mary Lou :pac:

The general public are invited to make submissions to bodies which formulate legislation, but they don’t get to decide directly which policies should be implemented and which ones should not. Lydia Foy didn’t get to dictate policy to the Irish Government regarding the Gender Recognition Act, they had to go through numerous legal battles with the Irish State before the Government at the time eventually introduced the legislation.

If JK wants to stop the reform of current legislation in Scotland, then she should go through the judicial process the same as anyone else. Highlighting her objections in the public domain in order to gain public support for her cause isn’t going to make any difference to the legislation being reformed, because equally there are as many people who support the reforms, but I wouldn’t rub her nose in it and tell her “that’s reality”, because that’s just spiteful IMO.

One eyed Jack

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

And what's this got to do with humiliation? Anyway, she wasn't offering an opinion, she was pointing out biological reality. Sex is real. A male cannot be a female, a man cannot be a woman. Only female's, women, girls menstruate. That's not opinion, it's the truth. It's reality.

You are using the same tactic that other posters use. You are trying to shame her into silence. By pointing out reality she is "humiliating" others ergo she must shut up and keep quiet.

I’m not doing any such thing, as I haven’t targeted JK personally at all. I’m not saying she has to shut up and keep quiet either. She’s perfectly entitled to express an opinion, as is anyone else. Calling the people who piled onto her scumbags, is me expressing my opinion of them based upon their behaviour.

I’d say the same of anyone who thought they had a right to humiliate anyone else, whether it be the woman who knows well the reasons why she would not be granted access to a women’s shelter but tries to get in anyway, to the man who engages in the same sort of behaviour. I was critical of the Canadian idiot who engaged in the same sort of behaviour and tried to argue they were being discriminated against unlawfully. No amount of disguises were going to be effective in hiding their actual motives for what they were doing, and the Courts dismissed their cases. Being called transphobic for doing so was always a possibility, but I imagine the Judges were a bit like myself in that they didn’t give a ****e for that sort of rhetoric.

FVP3

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There were several ways given in which prejudice is defined, yourself and Cleven picked the one that suited you. There’s a word for that.

The quote I used I was directly from the post you also used to justify your own definition of prejudice, which was totally wrong. I just bodlified the parts you didn't realise undermined your arguments. Prejudice implies pre judging, clue is in the name. Words have meanings.

It’s not that I write unclearly, it’s simply that you’re choosing to infer what you want from what I’ve written. There’s a word for that too.

No, you write unclearly and incorrectly. You don't understand statistics nor understand a dictionary. When presented with the facts that contradict you don't admit or understand your initial lack of understanding

FVP3

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’m not prejudging anyone’s reactions when their argument is founded on perpetuating the belief that males are solely by virtue of their sex, inherently sexual predators. Some males are sexual predators, most males are not.
.

Nobody is saying that. Saying that men are more likely to be sexual predators than women isn't in fact saying that all men are inherently sexual predators. Clearly.

Your argument is a rehash of #notallmen

jam_mac_jam

FVP3 wrote: »

Nobody is saying that. Saying that men are more likely to be sexual predators than women isn't in fact saying that all men are inherently sexual predators. Clearly.

Your argument is a rehash of #notallmen

Exactly. The other issue is that we do not know who the predators are. We just know that we are more at risk from men then women.
However any fears that we have on this basis are dismissed as discrimination or it won't happen.

This is why there has to be separation in prisons and domestic violence shelters.

JohnnyFlash

Hangdogroad wrote: »

Wonder when will they go after Nell McCafferty? She's bound to have said something thirty years ago just waiting to be dragged up and that wont sit with todays outrage loons.

The old feminists are getting terrible abuse these days.

Gruffalux

Some old transmen too!

Here is Tranpa himself, Buck Angel, saying some facts.

https://twitter.com/BuckAngel/status/1271265232283828225?s=19

CtevenSrowder

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’m not doing any such thing, as I haven’t targeted JK personally at all. I’m not saying she has to shut up and keep quiet either. She’s perfectly entitled to express an opinion, as is anyone else. Calling the people who piled onto her scumbags, is me expressing my opinion of them based upon their behaviour.

I’d say the same of anyone who thought they had a right to humiliate anyone else, whether it be the woman who knows well the reasons why she would not be granted access to a women’s shelter but tries to get in anyway, to the man who engages in the same sort of behaviour. I was critical of the Canadian idiot who engaged in the same sort of behaviour and tried to argue they were being discriminated against unlawfully. No amount of disguises were going to be effective in hiding their actual motives for what they were doing, and the Courts dismissed their cases. Being called transphobic for doing so was always a possibility, but I imagine the Judges were a bit like myself in that they didn’t give a ****e for that sort of rhetoric.

But JK hasn't humiliated anyone.

jam_mac_jam

Gruffalox wrote: »

Some old transmen too!

Here is Tranpa himself, Buck Angel, saying some facts.

https://twitter.com/BuckAngel/status/1271265232283828225?s=19

I don't even understand the logical hoops you have to go through to believe that biological sex doesn't exist. That's scientific?

I actually don't understand the logic. There are no women and men?

CtevenSrowder

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

I don't even understand the logical hoops you have to go through to believe that biological sex doesn't exist. That's scientific?

I actually don't understand the logic. There are no women and men?

Sure we've seen the hoops one has to go through. Rubbish about tables of examplars, talk of not using 'exclusionary' definitions (I mean that's the point of defining really anything, it excludes everything else), constant obsfucation, attempts to undermine science, all lavished with a side of slurs; transphobia, anti-trans, being a TERF etc.

Gruffalux

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

I don't even understand the logical hoops you have to go through to believe that biological sex doesn't exist. That's scientific?

I actually don't understand the logic. There are no women and men?

You have seen it written innumerable times on this thread that transwomen ARE women. And transmen ARE men.
And if you contradict that statement here or in the public square you are a terf, of a certain demographic, hateful and irrelevant. Even though contradicting that statement does not mean that one disagrees with human rights and compassion and due respect for transgender people.
Yeah. It is pretty hard to comprehend.

One eyed Jack

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

Exactly. The other issue is that we do not know who the predators are. We just know that we are more at risk from men then women.
However any fears that we have on this basis are dismissed as discrimination or it won't happen.

This is why there has to be separation in prisons and domestic violence shelters.

How familiar are you with women’s prisons and women’s domestic violence shelters? Women in these places are a higher risk to each other than the average man on the street will ever be to them. Most of these women’s shelters and “family hubs” and direct provision centres I wouldn’t house a dog in them, because the conditions in them are unfit for humans, let alone animals.

It’s true that nobody knows who the predators are, nobody knows who abusers are, but we don’t deprive people of their rights on the basis of the reality that some people are a danger to others. I’m not dismissing your fears, I’m saying that your fears do not amount to a reasonable justification for depriving anyone of their rights in law.

If an organisation such as the National Women’s Council of Ireland wish to include people who are transgender in their policies regarding their campaigns, they absolutely have every right to do so. If they wish to campaign on the basis that they are an organisation solely representative of females, then they have every right to do that too. They have a right to define their own policies -


Gender mainstreaming is a well recognised approach for achieving gender equality in health. It is a method for integrating a gender perspective into policy and service delivery, in order to provide equality of access to services and equality of outcomes in health for women, men and transgender persons. It involves a process of incremental change for the organisation that enables women, men and transgender persons to benefit equally from health care policies and services. In other words, gender comes into the mainstream of health care. It seeks to give visibility to gender inequalities in health and to ensure that there is a commitment to addressing these inequalities.


TOOLKIT FOR IMPLEMENTING GENDER MAINSTREAMING IN THE HEALTH SECTOR


People have a right to criticise those policies, but nobody has a right to have their opinions protected by law under their perceived right to free speech or the idea that their opinions amount to protected beliefs that are protected by law.

jam_mac_jam

One eyed Jack wrote: »

How familiar are you with women’s prisons and women’s domestic violence shelters? Women in these places are a higher risk to each other than the average man on the street will ever be to them. Most of these women’s shelters and “family hubs” and direct provision centres I wouldn’t house a dog in them, because the conditions in them are unfit for humans, let alone animals.

It’s true that nobody knows who the predators are, nobody knows who abusers are, but we don’t deprive people of their rights on the basis of the reality that some people are a danger to others. I’m not dismissing your fears, I’m saying that your fears do not amount to a reasonable justification for depriving anyone of their rights in law.

If an organisation such as the National Women’s Council of Ireland wish to include people who are transgender in their policies regarding their campaigns, they absolutely have every right to do so. If they wish to campaign on the basis that they are an organisation solely representative of females, then they have every right to do that too. They have a right to define their own policies -


Gender mainstreaming is a well recognised approach for achieving gender equality in health. It is a method for integrating a gender perspective into policy and service delivery, in order to provide equality of access to services and equality of outcomes in health for women, men and transgender persons. It involves a process of incremental change for the organisation that enables women, men and transgender persons to benefit equally from health care policies and services. In other words, gender comes into the mainstream of health care. It seeks to give visibility to gender inequalities in health and to ensure that there is a commitment to addressing these inequalities.


TOOLKIT FOR IMPLEMENTING GENDER MAINSTREAMING IN THE HEALTH SECTOR


People have a right to criticise those policies, but nobody has a right to have their opinions protected by law under their perceived right to free speech or the idea that their opinions amount to protected beliefs that are protected by law.

It's none of your business how familiar I am with domestic violence shelters or domestic violence.

You are waffling on with loads of irrelevant points and not addressing the real point of why women need separate domestic violence shelters. More at risk from other women, yeah of course they are.

One eyed Jack

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

It's none of your business how familiar I am with domestic violence shelters or domestic violence.

You are waffling on with loads of irrelevant points and not addressing the real point of why women need separate domestic violence shelters. More at risk from other women, yeah of course they are.

It’s everyone’s business if the basis of your argument is that people should be denied rights because of your fears of what they might do if they had them.

I’m familiar with the argument as to why women need domestic violence shelters in the first place, I’d much prefer tackle the underlying causes so they were never necessary in the first place, but having spoken to women who have been in them, they weren’t telling me anything I wasn’t fully aware of already. I said women in these places were more of a risk to each other than the average man on the street is to them. There’s no need to tell me I’m not addressing anything when you’re not addressing the point I made.

They have a policy too of denying access to male children over 12 years of age, which is just another reason why mothers are reluctant to avail of their services, apart from the policy that denies women access because they present a risk to themselves or the other women there by their attitudes or behaviour towards other women, a decision which is made not on the basis of their sex, but on the basis of their attitudes and behaviours towards others.

None of that might be any of my business as far as you’re concerned, and if we were solely concerned with you, you’d have an absolutely irrefutable point. I don’t want to know your business, you made the point relating to policies, which is why I inquired about your experience of these places and policies. You hardly expected me to take your opinion at face value when it contradicts what I know of these places and the people in them, did you? Be like someone telling you they’re a woman and it’s none of your business.

Or do your own standards not apply to you?

0xzmro3n4y7lb5

Rowling's 'essay' was a joke. An attempt to present the musings of a joe soap as an academic piece of writing. Falling into stereotypes, 'my butch friend' or 'my old trans friend' showed her objectifying them and using them to further her argument that all men are predators.

Men should be very vary of this argument because it boils down to all men are predators and will do anything even change their sex to abuse women.

We all know gender has noting to do with violence, yes there may be over representation in men abusing women, but violence is about power.

The one thing that has to happen is this discussion move offline. I know people still hurting from the Marriage Referendum debate, to have your life under a microscope, to be aligned continually with something that's wrong takes it toll.

Let people live their lives, yes some issues may need to be ironed out but people need to learn the word COMPROMISE, no one owns the earth.

Gruffalux

Delaney Nice Salesclerk wrote: »

Rowling's 'essay' was a joke. An attempt to present the musings of a joe soap as an academic piece of writing. Falling into stereotypes, 'my butch friend' or 'my old trans friend' showed her objectifying them and using them to further her argument that all men are predators.

Men should be very vary of this argument because it boils down to all men are predators and will do anything even change their sex to abuse women.

We all know gender has noting to do with violence, yes there may be over representation in men abusing women, but violence is about power.

The one thing that has to happen is this discussion move offline. I know people still hurting from the Marriage Referendum debate, to have your life under a microscope, to be aligned continually with something that's wrong takes it toll.

Let people live their lives, yes some issues may need to be ironed out but people need to learn the word COMPROMISE, no one owns the earth.

What compromises would you propose?

You have to be careful answering because while I might argue with you as to degree there are others who will consider you some kind of despicable fascist bigot who can choke on their dick if you do not go all the way to where they want.
But I am interested in hearing about the compromises you propose.

Delaney Nice Salesclerk

Delaney Nice Salesclerk wrote: »

Rowling's 'essay' was a joke. An attempt to present the musings of a joe soap as an academic piece of writing. Falling into stereotypes, 'my butch friend' or 'my old trans friend' showed her objectifying them and using them to further her argument that all men are predators.

Men should be very vary of this argument because it boils down to all men are predators and will do anything even change their sex to abuse women.

We all know gender has noting to do with violence, yes there may be over representation in men abusing women, but violence is about power.

The one thing that has to happen is this discussion move offline. I know people still hurting from the Marriage Referendum debate, to have your life under a microscope, to be aligned continually with something that's wrong takes it toll.

Let people live their lives, yes some issues may need to be ironed out but people need to learn the word COMPROMISE, no one owns the earth.

What the hell does that diatribe even mean? No one owns the earth? Ok.

There is no compromise. A man is not a woman. A woman is not a man.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Delaney Nice Salesclerk wrote: »

Rowling's 'essay' was a joke. An attempt to present the musings of a joe soap as an academic piece of writing. Falling into stereotypes, 'my butch friend' or 'my old trans friend' showed her objectifying them and using them to further her argument that all men are predators.

Men should be very vary of this argument because it boils down to all men are predators and will do anything even change their sex to abuse women.

We all know gender has noting to do with violence, yes there may be over representation in men abusing women, but violence is about power.

The one thing that has to happen is this discussion move offline. I know people still hurting from the Marriage Referendum debate, to have your life under a microscope, to be aligned continually with something that's wrong takes it toll.

Let people live their lives, yes some issues may need to be ironed out but people need to learn the word COMPROMISE, no one owns the earth.

You’re absolutely right, gender has nothing to do with violence. Biological sex on the other hand...

One eyed Jack

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

You’re absolutely right, gender has nothing to do with violence. Biological sex on the other hand...

What about biological sex on the other hand? I must have missed the studies in biology which suggested that solely as a consequence of their sex, either males or females are predisposed to violence.


Neither gender is innately predisposed to violence – social environment is key

The evidence so far available suggests two important conclusions.

First, there is no conclusive evidence that men and women differ in their innate biological or psychological propensity for violence. The fact that men commit the majority of violent acts may instead be understood as arising mainly from the social environment.

Second, the fact that explanations of persistent violent behaviour are to be found to varying degrees in brain damage, psychological abnormality, childhood trauma, group peer pressure, and adverse social environments allows us to go one step further and conclude that persistent violent behaviour is an abnormality that emerges under certain circumstances.


Why are men more likely to be violent than women?


Bold emphasis my own.

suicide_circus

Compromise is an interesting word.

Is the truth something we should be prepared to compromise on?

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What about biological sex on the other hand? I must have missed the studies in biology which suggested that solely as a consequence of their sex, either males or females are predisposed to violence.


Neither gender is innately predisposed to violence – social environment is key

The evidence so far available suggests two important conclusions.

First, there is no conclusive evidence that men and women differ in their innate biological or psychological propensity for violence. The fact that men commit the majority of violent acts may instead be understood as arising mainly from the social environment.

Second, the fact that explanations of persistent violent behaviour are to be found to varying degrees in brain damage, psychological abnormality, childhood trauma, group peer pressure, and adverse social environments allows us to go one step further and conclude that persistent violent behaviour is an abnormality that emerges under certain circumstances.

Why are men more likely to be violent than women?


Bold emphasis my own.

That's a huge misrepresentation of that article - and it is only an article, an opinion piece. Not a study, never mind "studies". It's certainly not proof of your claim, which is far more simplistic than the author's was.

For instance you missed this part:

Male violence against women is one of the invisible and under-recognised pandemics of our time.

So quite apart from the fact that he didn't suggest that simply changing how we teach gender to children would get anywhere near changing the fact that 90% of murders are committed by men (another quote you missed), there's also the issue of how you imagine that the article is an argument for removing female only spaces in favour of gender neutral ones.

The author doesn't mention that at all. In fact he acknowledges that biological sex is closely correlated to violent behaviour. Sex and gender, according to him. What he queries is why that is so, amd how to remedy it. But that's not the same as saying it's not a problem. It is.

0xzmro3n4y7lb5

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What the hell does that diatribe even mean? No one owns the earth? Ok.

There is no compromise. A man is not a woman. A woman is not a man.

Thank you for your eloquent response.

Humans need to realise they don’t own the Earth. Yes you can mock me for that comment if that’s all you have.

From people asking to cull seagulls, from people policing gender to climate change, humans exerting power over others we share this earth with sickens me.

Power is rotten, the sooner people realise their race, their gender, their sexuality, doesn’t give them power over others the better.

Thought evolves. A person is more than their genitals. There is plenty of space at the table for trans men and women, it’s not either or, it’s never been either or. Nature is more evolved than some thought.

CtevenSrowder

Delaney Nice Salesclerk wrote: »

Thank you for your eloquent response.

Humans need to realise they don’t own the Earth. Yes you can mock me for that comment if that’s all you have.

From people asking to cull seagulls, from people policing gender to climate change, humans exerting power over others we share this earth with sickens me.

Power is rotten, the sooner people realise their race, their gender, their sexuality, doesn’t give them power over others the better.

Thought evolves. A person is more than their genitals. There is plenty of space at the table for trans men and women, it’s not either or, it’s never been either or. Nature is more evolved than some thought.

Ofcourse they are, and ofcourse there is space at the table. But Nature has evolved so that there are biological men and biological women, and one cannot become the other. No amount of sloganeering or talk of authoritarianism will change that fact.