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

0xzmro3n4y7lb5

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

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.

So Intersex people don’t exist?

CtevenSrowder

Delaney Nice Salesclerk wrote: »

So Intersex people don’t exist?

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Can you point to me where I said they didn't?

0xzmro3n4y7lb5

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Can you point to me where I said they didn't?

You said nature evolved so that there are either men or women, you set up a binary, either or. We know that’s wrong.

CtevenSrowder

Delaney Nice Salesclerk wrote: »

You said nature evolved so that there are either men or women, you set up a binary, either or. We know that’s wrong.

No I said men and women. It's literally written in front of you and you have invented that I put or in your own head. I wonder why that is. I have not set up a binary. Must try harder.

But Nature has evolved so that there are biological men and biological women

This does not imply that intersex people don't exist no matter how you try to spin it. So come off it.

Dante7

Delaney Nice Salesclerk wrote: »

You said nature evolved so that there are either men or women, you set up a binary, either or. We know that’s wrong.

It's not wrong. People born with with DSDs (intersex) are not non-binary. They are either male or female with developmental disorders. You haven't a clue what you are talking about. And for the record, Intersex people do not appreciate being used as some sort of gotcha by idiot trans activists trying to conflate the two. Anyway, even if DSDs did constitute some firm of third sex, (which they don't), it is irrelevant to the trans debate. The existence of green doesn't mean that yellow can become blue.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Delaney Nice Salesclerk wrote: »

So Intersex people don’t exist?

Intersex people can’t change their karyotype either. Next.

0xzmro3n4y7lb5

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

No I said men and women. It's literally written in front of you and you have invented that I put or in your own head. I wonder why that is. I have not set up a binary. Must try harder.



This does not imply that intersex people don't exist no matter how you try to spin it. So come off it.

You seem really angry and I am sorry you feel that way.

You set up a binary by excluding intersex people to further your argument to deny trans people space at the table.

Intersex people are often assigned at birth based on characteristics people believe to be male and female. This is the same for trans people but it is only now as thought has evolved that we understand that in terms of feeling.

Like intersex people may not be comfortable with the sex they are assigned, trans people should be afforded the opportunity to decide how to align their sex and gender.

In no way does trans identities take away from the idea of masculinity or femininity in some cases it reinforces dominant ideas of these.

What the ‘trans debate’ highlights to me is people’s obsession with genitalia and how people treat each others and hold power over others based on their genitals.

0xzmro3n4y7lb5

Dante7 wrote: »

It's not wrong. People born with with DSDs (intersex) are not non-binary. They are either male or female with developmental disorders. You haven't a clue what you are talking about. And for the record, Intersex people do not appreciate being used as some sort of gotcha by idiot trans activists trying to conflate the two. Anyway, even if DSDs did constitute some firm of third sex, (which they don't), it is irrelevant to the trans debate. The existence of green doesn't mean that yellow can become blue.

Do you speak for all intersex people?

0xzmro3n4y7lb5

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Intersex people can’t change their karyotype either. They have a disorder but their chromosomes are also immutable.

Intersex people have nothing to do with transgender people unless an intersex person identifies as transgender.

If you think there is more than two sexes, can you name more than two gametes?

I don’t measure a persons worth on their ability to reproduce.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Delaney Nice Salesclerk wrote: »

What the ‘trans debate’ highlights to me is people’s obsession with genitalia and how people treat each others and hold power over others based on their genitals.

Obsession with gentalia is what makes the world go round. Damn straight that people are obsessed with genitalia. That’s what sexual attraction comes down to. Anyone who likes both male and female genitalia is bisexual.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Delaney Nice Salesclerk wrote: »

I don’t measure a persons worth on their ability to reproduce.

That’s not what I asked. If biological sex isn’t binary, can you name more than two gametes?

0xzmro3n4y7lb5

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Obsession with gentalia is what makes the world go round. Damn straight that people are obsessed with genitalia. That’s what sexual attraction comes down to. Anyone who likes both male and female genitalia is bisexual.

That’s a really reductive definition of bisexuality. Human sexuality is fascinating, men who have sex with men but only have relationships with women. Women who have relationships with women after failed relationships with men. Bisexuality is not just a category on your porn site.

0xzmro3n4y7lb5

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

That’s not what I asked. If biological sex isn’t binary, can you name more than two gametes?

It’s not a question worth answering because by answering it it aligns my world view with yours and we obviously see the world very different.

It’s a variant of should gay people be allowed to adopt. Your placing worth in society on the production of offspring.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Delaney Nice Salesclerk wrote: »

That’s a really reductive definition of bisexuality. Human sexuality is fascinating, men who have sex with men but only have relationships with women. Women who have relationships with women after failed relationships with women. Bisexuality is not just a category on your porn site.

I disagree. You’re attracted to both biological males and biological female, you’re bisexual to me. Now, people can knock themselves out describing it however they want but thankfully the thought police don’t exist so I will continue to consider it bisexuality. If that’s “reductive”, so be it. I’ll live with that. Everything will be okay.

Oh and I don’t watch porn. Not for me. I’m guessing you are assuming I’m a man. Women watch porn too but I think less women watch it than men. Are you pigeonholing me? Tsk tsk.

volchitsa

Delaney Nice Salesclerk wrote: »

So Intersex people don’t exist?

People are born with extra fingers and toes. That doesn't make it wrong to say that humans are a five fingered species. Nor does it mean the person doesn't believe that people can be born with 6 fingers.

It does mean that we can predict what number of fingers a child will have and if it is born with more, or fewer, we can try to identify what caused that abnormality.

Like intersex conditions. And nothing like someone born with 5 fingers insisting that really they have 6 but that the sixth is invisible.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Delaney Nice Salesclerk wrote: »

It’s not a question worth answering because by answering it it aligns my world view with yours and we obviously see the world very different.

It’s a variant of should gay people be allowed to adopt. Your placing worth in society on the production of offspring.

That’s convenient.

I. Am. Shocked. That. Your. Claims. Do. Not. Stand. Up. To. Scrutiny.

CtevenSrowder

Delaney Nice Salesclerk wrote: »

You seem really angry and I am sorry you feel that way.

Don't feel sorry for me, no need. I am not angry, you deliberately mis-represented what I said. I am going to fiercely object to that as it is highly disingenuous to do so. But why, why would you do that?

Delaney Nice Salesclerk wrote: »

You set up a binary by excluding intersex people to further your argument to deny trans people space at the table.

Oh look, here's why. To proclaim that I am denying trans people a "space at the table". I am engaging in transphobia. Ofcourse! If ever there was a clear and obvious example of strawmanning this is it.

But I'm not doing, you are wrong. I did not set up a binary. I men and women not or like you proclaimed.

Nature involved so there are cats and dogs. This does not imply that horses don't exist. I can't make it any more simple then that. And no, I am not comparing anyone to animals before you try and engage that strawman.

Delaney Nice Salesclerk wrote: »

Intersex people are often assigned at birth based on characteristics people believe to be male and female. This is the same for trans people but it is only now as thought has evolved that we understand that in terms of feeling.

Like intersex people may not be comfortable with the sex they are assigned, trans people should be afforded the opportunity to decide how to align their sex and gender.

In no way does trans identities take away from the idea of masculinity or femininity in some cases it reinforces dominant ideas of these.

What the ‘trans debate’ highlights to me is people’s obsession with genitalia and how people treat each others and hold power over others based on their genitals.

Hold power how, like a biological man sexually assaulting females in a female prison?

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/oct/11/karen-white-how-manipulative-and-controlling-offender-attacked-again-transgender-prison

0xzmro3n4y7lb5

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I disagree. You’re attracted to both biological males and biological female, you’re bisexual to me. Now, people can knock themselves out describing it however they want but thankfully the thought police don’t exist so I will continue to consider it bisexuality. If that’s “reductive”, so be it. I’ll live with that. Everything will be okay.

Oh and I don’t watch porn. Not for me. I’m guessing you are assuming I’m a man. Women watch porn too but I think less women watch it than men. Are you pigeonholing me? Tsk tsk.

People are attracted to of course genitals but you are getting into the realms of fetishisation. People are attracted to gender the production of masculinity or femininity, eg gay men and their attraction to masculine stereotypes. Or why is there such a massive transvestite population of sex workers in Ireland, not transgender but specifically transvestite? It’s because people are attracted to femininity.

People and sexualities are complex, it can’t be boiled down to man/woman and gay/straight/bi there’s a much bigger spectrum of identities out there living their lives you might not be even aware of?

The last point is just an own goal. I presumed nothing. You presumed I was talking to a man. I didn’t even consider your sex/gender/sexuality.

0xzmro3n4y7lb5

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I disagree. You’re attracted to both biological males and biological female, you’re bisexual to me. Now, people can knock themselves out describing it however they want but thankfully the thought police don’t exist so I will continue to consider it bisexuality. If that’s “reductive”, so be it. I’ll live with that. Everything will be okay.

Oh and I don’t watch porn. Not for me. I’m guessing you are assuming I’m a man. Women watch porn too but I think less women watch it than men. Are you pigeonholing me? Tsk tsk.

People are attracted to of course genitals but you are getting into the realms of fetishisation. People are attracted to gender the production of masculinity or femininity, eg gay men and their attraction to masculine stereotypes. Or why is there such a massive transvestite population of sex workers in Ireland, not transgender but specifically transvestite? It’s because people are attracted to femininity.

People and sexualities are complex, it can’t be boiled down to man/woman and gay/straight/bi there’s a much bigger spectrum of identities out there living their lives you might not be even aware of?

The last point is just an own goal. I presumed nothing. You presumed I was talking to a man. I didn’t even consider your sex/gender/sexuality.

0xzmro3n4y7lb5

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Don't feel sorry for me, no need. I am not angry, you deliberately mis-represented what I said. I am going to fiercely object to that as it is highly disingenuous to do so. But why, why would you do that?


Oh look, here's why. To proclaim that I am denying trans people a "space at the table". I am engaging in transphobia. Ofcourse! If ever there was a clear and obvious example of strawmanning this is it.

But I'm not doing, you are wrong. I did not set up a binary. I men and women not or like you proclaimed.

Nature involved so there are cats and dogs. This does not imply that horses don't exist. I can't make it any more simple then that. And no, I am not comparing anyone to animals before you try and engage that strawman.


Hold power how, like a biological man sexually assaulting females in a female prison?

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/oct/11/karen-white-how-manipulative-and-controlling-offender-attacked-again-transgender-prison

I can’t make out a lot what your saying here because of phrasing and spelling.

What I do see is you accuse me of mis-representing you, which I didn’t.

But ironically you go on to claim I called you transphobic which is a word i have never uttered.

CtevenSrowder

Delaney Nice Salesclerk wrote: »

I can’t make out a lot what your saying here because of phrasing and spelling.

What I do see is you accuse me of mis-representing you, which I didn’t.

But ironically you go on to claim I called you transphobic which is a word i have never uttered.

I left out two words. Now edited in.

You did misrepresent what I said. Here is the conversation:

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

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.

Delaney Nice Salesclerk wrote: »

So Intersex people don’t exist?

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Can you point to me where I said they didn't?

Delaney Nice Salesclerk wrote: »

You said nature evolved so that there are either men or women, you set up a binary, either or. We know that’s wrong.

But I did not say "nature evolved so that there are either men or woman". I never used the wrod either or the word or. What I said was:

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

...But Nature has evolved so that there are biological men and biological women...

So you did misrepresent what I said. You just don't want to admit it because you have been caught out. You then went on to proclaim I have done this to deny trans people a place at the table so to speak. A complete misrepresentation in order to build a strawman.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Delaney Nice Salesclerk wrote: »

People are attracted to of course genitals but you are getting into the realms of fetishisation. People are attracted to gender

Aaahhh speak for yourself there. I love dick (oh, what a fetishist I am) and I am attracted to male physiques. If a guy self IDs as a woman and doesn’t make any cosmetic changes at all (as some don’t), I could still potentially find them attractive. Because they are male. They would not be a woman to me in any way. They’d be a piss-taking man.

0xzmro3n4y7lb5

Wrong. You said nature evolved so there’s biological men and biological women. You forgot intersex people rendering them invisible from the discussion to further your argument.

Instead of accepting the correction you doubled down, became antagonistic instead of compromising. Exactly what’s wrong with this whole discussion.

When someone corrects you accept it, move on.

In the interest of compromise I’m willing to let go you stating I called you transphobic. See compromise it’s easy and better for your blood pressure.

Try it.

0xzmro3n4y7lb5

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Aaahhh speak for yourself there. I love dick (oh, what a fetishist I am) and I am attracted to male physiques. If a guy self IDs as a woman and doesn’t make any cosmetic changes at all (as some don’t), I could still potentially find them attractive. Because they are male. They would not be a woman to me in any way. They’d be a piss-taking man.

This is just weird, I don’t know what age you are and don’t want to assume but there’s a level of immaturity to this.

A lot of people love cock but they also love the rest of the package forgive the pun that comes with it.

If you only love cock absent of other factors then it is a fetish. There’s straight me happily married that love to suck cock, they don’t want anything else from that persons body.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Delaney Nice Salesclerk wrote: »

Wrong. You said nature evolved so there’s biological men and biological women. You forgot intersex people rendering them invisible from the discussion to further your argument.

Oh... my... god. The science illiteracy is astounding. Intersex people have recognised disorders. If there are more than two sexes, there will be more than two gametes. Name them. You won’t be able to. Some people, again because of malfunctioning reproductive systems or the need to remove reproductive organs don’t produce either of the gametes, but two gametes is all there is. Nobody is ignoring people with intersex or reproductive disorders. They just don’t see the need to use people with those conditions to advance the idea that sex is a spectrum. It isn’t.

And guess what? People with intersex disorders also have immutable karyotypes.

CtevenSrowder

Delaney Nice Salesclerk wrote: »

Wrong. You said nature evolved so there’s biological men and biological women. You forgot intersex people rendering them invisible from the discussion to further your argument.

Instead of accepting the correction you doubled down, became antagonistic instead of compromising. Exactly what’s wrong with this whole discussion.

When someone corrects you accept it, move on.

In the interest of compromise I’m willing to let go you stating I called you transphobic. See compromise it’s easy and better for your blood pressure.

Try it.

I didn't 'forget'. As another poster pointed out they do not have a relevancy in the trans-debate. There was no need for me to include them, so I didn't. They are two separate issues. And I am not angry, you keep trying to suggest I am. It seems to be you who is angry. You quite evidently mis-represented what I said. Pointing this out, using the exact words both of used, words which clearly show you misrepresenting my position is not doubling down.

You do understand that for compromise to happen the other person has to accept, yes? I turn-down your compromise, as you blatantly put words in my mouth to build a strawman:

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

...But Nature has evolved so that there are biological men and biological women, and one cannot become the other...

Delaney Nice Salesclerk wrote: »

You said nature evolved so that there are either men or women, you set up a binary, either or. We know that’s wrong.

I never used the word or. I never used the word either. I never used the phrase either or. A complete fabrication on your part.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Delaney Nice Salesclerk wrote: »

This is just weird, I don’t know what age you are and don’t want to assume but there’s a level of immaturity to this.

A lot of people love cock but they also love the rest of the package forgive the pun that comes with it.

If you only love cock absent of other factors then it is a fetish. There’s straight me happily married that love to suck cock, they don’t want anything else from that persons body.

I’m 36.

I can’t believe it’s in any way controversial to say that I love male physiques and male genitalia. To pick a person to spend my life with, other things are added into the mix. But if the person isn’t male and isn’t packing, they will be a friend and nothing more. Male attributes are the constant. Every single person factors in physical attributes when deciding who to sleep with. Everyone is a genital fetishist basically. You’re trying to paint that as a pejorative. I just think it’s how it is.

I actually do worry for teenagers entering the transition process. They are so young and so idealistic and perhaps too young to realise that dating and sexual relations are by their very nature discriminatory. We all discriminate when it comes to who we sleep with. Nobody has to justify their preferences to anybody. The only acceptable response to “I don’t want to sleep with you” is “Okay”.

peddlelies

Part of the debate for me is, what's stopping me from going to the doctor in the morning claiming to be the opposite sex and walking out of that office with a piece of paper proclaiming that to be true.

Why if I did it for disingenuous reasons? What if someone is struggling socially and they see an opportunity to join a protected group where they cannot be criticized. What if someone is doing it for notoriety and just to be different? What if someone has mental health issues and isn't thinking clearly and does the same?

The point I'm making isn't that there isn't genuine people out there that truly believe they are the wrong sex, because there is. The point I'm making is that human nature is not to be trusted and there will always be people who see an opportunity and take advantage of it with zero guilt.

We're supposed to just sit back and not question any of it, and those who do are labeled as transphobes - sport is one example that it's obvious this is going on, but there are many others, some of which are extremely worrying where parents are mistreating very young children.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

peddlelies wrote: »

Part of the debate for me is, what's stopping me from going to the doctor in the morning claiming to be the opposite sex and walking out of that office with a piece of paper proclaiming that to be true.

Why if I did it for disingenuous reasons? What if someone is struggling socially and they see an opportunity to join a protected group where they cannot be criticized. What if someone is doing it for notoriety and just to be different? What if someone has mental health issues and isn't thinking clearly and does the same?

The point I'm making isn't that there isn't genuine people out there that truly believe they are the wrong sex, because there is. The point I'm making is that human nature is not to be trusted and there will always be people who see an opportunity and take advantage of it with zero guilt.

We're supposed to just sit back and not question any of it, and those who do are labeled as transphobes - sport is one example that it's obvious this is going on, but there are many others, some of which are extremely worrying where parents are mistreating very young children.

Absolutely. The No True Scotsman fallacy is often put forth, like “Oh but no real transgender person would do that” but the problem with that is if you advocate for self ID, you cannot exclude anybody. Anybody who says they want to transition has to be allowed to because you can’t discriminate. And apparently it’s transphobic to question how this could go wrong. People have spent years training as priests or doctors in order to get close to children. Why do some believe that self ID won’t be exploited in the same way? There’s a naivety to it all that I find deeply irritating.

0xzmro3n4y7lb5

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

I didn't 'forget'. As another poster pointed out they do not have a relevancy in the trans-debate. There was no need for me to include them, so I didn't. They are two separate issues. And I am not angry, you keep trying to suggest I am. It seems to be you who is angry. You quite evidently mis-represented what I said. Pointing this out, using the exact words both of used, words which clearly show you misrepresenting my position is not doubling down.

You do understand that for compromise to happen the other person has to accept, yes? I turn-down your compromise, as you blatantly put words in my mouth to build a strawman:





I never used the word or. I never used the word either. I never used the phrase either or. A complete fabrication on your part.

You read as angry, just an observation.

Intersex is relevant to the debate if you state biologically nature evolved for men and women.

It’s great your admit your unwillingness to compromise. Therefore can you apologise for stating I called you transphobic.

“ But Nature has evolved so that there are biological men and biological women, and one cannot become the other”.

It’s clear in the world view you present here that there is no space for intersex people. Your use of and as conjunction like salt and pepper, excludes other seasonings.