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

CtevenSrowder

Delaney Nice Salesclerk wrote: »

You read as angry, just an observation.

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

And still you can't get it right. I said nature has evolved so that there are biological men and biological women. And one cannot become the other. I didn't say "biologically nature evolved men and women".

Delaney Nice Salesclerk wrote: »

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

Apologise for misrepresenting what I said, and proclaiming that I see no place "at the table" for trans people. If one is denying trans-people a space at the table then they are engaging in trans-phobia. Do you disagree with this assertion? And if so, why?

Delaney Nice Salesclerk wrote: »

“ 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.

It doesn't. I covered why in an earlier post to you. Maybe you missed it, so here it is again:

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

But I'm not doing that, you are wrong. I did not set up a binary. I wrote 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.

0xzmro3n4y7lb5

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

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”.

It’s in no way weird but reducing a person to their body parts, cocks, broad shoulders etc is objectification. You’re reducing a person to their body parts.

Heterosexuality is so fixed. Femme lesbians can be attracted to butch lesbians because they are attracted to masculinity. This can be because of societal roles.

Sexuality is so much more fluid than posters here present it. I’m lucky in my life to have known a wide range of people who lived very diverse sexual lives.

I don’t see sexual attraction as discrimination that’s reductive.

I don’t worry for the next generation I think they are very vocal and able to assert what they want for their lives.

I worry that the trans debate like gay debates before it is just reducing gender and sex to trans or not trans, like gay/straight/bi before it.

People aren’t just gay straight or bi
People aren’t just male or female
People aren’t just feminine or masculine.

The very existence of people living these lives proves it. Just because it’s not part of your world doesn’t make it less real.

CtevenSrowder

Delaney Nice Salesclerk wrote: »

It’s in no way weird but reducing a person to their body parts, cocks, broad shoulders etc is objectification. You’re reducing a person to their body parts.

Heterosexuality is so fixed. Femme lesbians can be attracted to butch lesbians because they are attracted to masculinity. This can be because of societal roles.

Sexuality is so much more fluid than posters here present it. I’m lucky in my life to have known a wide range of people who lived very diverse sexual lives.

I don’t see sexual attraction as discrimination that’s reductive.

I don’t worry for the next generation I think they are very vocal and able to assert what they want for their lives.

I worry that the trans debate like gay debates before it is just reducing gender and sex to trans or not trans, like gay/straight/bi before it.

People aren’t just gay straight or bi
People aren’t just male or female
People aren’t just feminine or masculine.

The very existence of people living these lives proves it. Just because it’s not part of your world doesn’t make it less real.

If they are attracted to masculinity why aren't they attracted to men then? What makes them like women?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Delaney Nice Salesclerk wrote: »

It’s in no way weird but reducing a person to their body parts, cocks, broad shoulders etc is objectification. You’re reducing a person to their body parts.

Then pretty much everyone in the world is an objectifier. The only people who maybe aren’t are asexual people. Everyone else - yup. Forgive me for not being in the list bit bothered by that label.

0xzmro3n4y7lb5

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

If they are attracted to masculinity why aren't they attracted to men then? What makes them like women?

I can’t speak for all femme lesbian women but from what I know while being attracted to a butch lesbian one can be attracted to the representation of masculinity, the stereotypes of feeling protected or feeling smaller, it boils down to gender roles.

It’s going to be different for every person.

CtevenSrowder

Delaney Nice Salesclerk wrote: »

I can’t speak for all femme lesbian women but from what I know while being attracted to a butch lesbian one can be attracted to the representation of masculinity, the stereotypes of feeling protected or feeling smaller, it boils down to gender roles.

It’s going to be different for every person.

If that 'butch' lesbian goes on to identify as a man are they still then lesbians?

0xzmro3n4y7lb5

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Then pretty much everyone in the world is an objectifier. The only people who maybe aren’t are asexual people. Everyone else - yup. Forgive me for not being in the list bit bothered by that label.

Not at all. People don’t reduce people to their body parts not in my experience of the world.

What I’m referring to is sayings like ‘any port in a storm’ for example. This reduces a person to just an object.

So many factors come into play in attraction that heterosexual Or people whose gender/sexuality align don’t even recognise, whereas non-heterosexual Or gender/sexuality divergent people confront these because they are often used to mock non-heterosexual people.

0xzmro3n4y7lb5

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

If that 'butch' lesbian goes on to identify as a man are they still then lesbians?

I don’t know I haven’t asked them.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Delaney Nice Salesclerk wrote: »

Not at all. People don’t reduce people to their body parts not in my experience of the world.

My experience of the world is the diametric opposite. When it comes to who you want to sleep with, genitals are of utmost importance. And nobody needs to apologise for that, what with both sexual relations and dating being inherently discriminatory activities.

0xzmro3n4y7lb5

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

My experience of the world is the diametric opposite. When it comes to who you want to sleep with, genitals are of utmost importance. And nobody needs to apologise for that, what with both sexual relations and dating being inherently discriminatory activities.

I believe you are confusing things. The first thing you will look for going by your posts are signifiers of masculinity, broad shoulders, facial hair perhaps etc etc

Then a guy approaches you and he’s the image of everything you want and he opens his mouth and says would you like a drink. This could cause arousal because he’s kind or you are looking for someone to protect you.

Or he could open his mouth and say I have a huge cock and that could arouse you or it could be a complete turn off.

Heterosexuality is fixated on penetration whereas in the gay community you could have two passive [bottom) partners have long lasting fulfilling relationships.

Everything heterosexuality sees as fixed is broken down by queer sexualities.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

lawred2 wrote: »

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

It’s something of interest to her. We all have things that pique our interest, for whatever reason. Sometimes we don’t even know why. They just do. And none of us have to justify our interests to anybody. It also seems lost on some that a person can care about more than one thing at a time. To some, apparently all she’s allowed to care about right now are the George Floyd demonstrations.

0xzmro3n4y7lb5

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

It’s something of interest to her. We all have things that pique our interest, for whatever reason. Sometimes we don’t even know why. They just do. And none of us have to justify our interests to anybody. It also seems lost on some that a person can care about more than one thing at a time. To some, apparently all she’s allowed to care about right now are the George Floyd demonstrations.

I think the criticism is more about her intent, power, platform and privilege. Plus the way she framed it as if she’s researched it in the same way an academic would and then the highly problematic idea that men are such predators they will en masse abuse trans rights to abuse women.

Predators don’t need rights to abuse.

Let’s get rid of cars, researchers have linked three dozen vehicular ramming incidents since George Floyd’s death to the far right. How many people have died in the last 5 years because of deliberate vehicular ramming incidents?

How many people have used the internet to stalk or sexually exploit others in the last week? Ban the internet?

Gruffalux

Delaney Nice Salesclerk wrote: »

Heterosexuality is fixated on penetration whereas in the gay community you could have two passive [bottom) partners have long lasting fulfilling relationships.

Everything heterosexuality sees as fixed is broken down by queer sexualities.

This is heterophobic bullsh1t straight out of a weak essay by a graduate from Gender Theory Studies - Queering the World. A lot of what I have read these past few pages is cerebral aspirational shallow gender theory imagining it is ground breaking or something shocking for the poor cis- heteronormatives who barely know how to get up on each other when to be honest it is boringly passè. The sixties were that way <

---

ie 60 years ago now and the 20s before them, and the raunchy empires of yore, nothing is new.

Heterosexuality is not fixated on penetration, or at least is only as fixated on penetration as honosexuality. It is very important for some, less important for others and impossible for a percentage whose partners may be unwell etc. Gay straight no matter - same sh1t for everyone. Thats life.Two old ladies who crochet together and exchange the odd whiskery kiss and have a long lasting fulfilling relationship are breaking down the world and queering the fixed norms about as much as the pair of passive bottoms cuddling to Netflix....ie not all that much at all.

You never mentioned the compromises you suggest?

0xzmro3n4y7lb5

Gruffalox wrote: »

This is heterophobic bullsh1t straight out of a weak essay by a graduate from Gender Theory Studies - Queering the World. A lot of what I have read these past few pages is cerebral aspirational shallow gender theory imagining it is ground breaking or something shocking for the poor cis- heteronormatives who barely know how to get up on each other when to be honest it is boringly passè. The sixties were that way <

---

ie 60 years ago now and the 20s before them, and the raunchy empires of yore, nothing is new.

Heterosexuality is not fixated on penetration, or at least is only as fixated on penetration as honosexuality. It is very important for some, less important for others and impossible for a percentage whose partners may be unwell etc. Gay straight no matter - same sh1t for everyone. Thats life.Two old ladies who crochet together and exchange the odd whiskery kiss and have a long lasting fulfilling relationship are breaking down the world and queering the fixed norms about as much as the pair of passive bottoms cuddling to Netflix....ie not all that much at all.

You never mentioned the compromises you suggest?

I always find it amusing that the people who dismiss gender and/or sexuality theory are the first to use the language of it.

I have yet to meet people in real life outside an academic conference use the words cisgender heteronormative with the same vigour online posters.

If it’s not obsession with genitalia it’s with language.

Heterosexuality is built around penetration because of its obsession with reproduction. And it’s the argument used to deny divergent sexualities and genders rights while also isolating heterosexuals, we saw this with the marriage referendum and repeal referendum.

There’s also no such thing as heterophobia.

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

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.

I never presented it as a study? It was ODB who claimed that gender has nothing to do with violence, and alluded to the idea that it was due to biological sex. I asked what about biological sex on the other hand, because as the article makes the point -

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

volchitsa wrote: »

For instance you missed this part:

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.

I didn’t miss any part of the article. You’d have a point if the facts suggested that 90% of men commit murder, then there would be strong evidence of a biological influence on male behaviour that causes 90% of them to commit murder, but the fact that 90% of murders are committed by men is clearly not the same thing as saying that 90% of men commit murder. The vast majority of men clearly do not commit murder, or violence.

You’re responsible for imagining that I was using the article to argue for the removal of female spaces in favour of gender neutral ones, because I never made any such argument. I have no interest in arguing that female only spaces should be removed? I couldn’t care less if everyone demands their own individual safe spaces. I even made the point earlier when I said that every organisation which wants to can define their own policies about who they claim to represent or protect, and I used the example that the National Women’s Council of Ireland could claim to represent females only if they wanted. Turns out that as it happens they appear to want to represent everybody! There’s nobody twisting their arms and saying they have to or trying to force them to represent or campaign for people they don’t want to. I certainly have no interest in arguing that they should either.

Stark

Delaney Nice Salesclerk wrote: »

I always find it amusing that the people who dismiss gender and/or sexuality theory are the first to use the language of it.

I have yet to meet people in real life outside an academic conference use the words cisgender heteronormative with the same vigour online posters.

If it’s not obsession with genitalia it’s with language.

Heterosexuality is built around penetration because of its obsession with reproduction. And it’s the argument used to deny divergent sexualities and genders rights while also isolating heterosexuals, we saw this with the marriage referendum and repeal referendum.

There’s also no such thing as heterophobia.

Wtf. It may not be heterophobia but it certainly displays a level of ignorance/arrogance. Don't have to be in a same sex relationship to enjoy a diverse range of sexual experiences.

Gruffalux

Delaney Nice Salesclerk wrote: »

I always find it amusing that the people who dismiss gender and/or sexuality theory are the first to use the language of it.

I have yet to meet people in real life outside an academic conference use the words cisgender heteronormative with the same vigour online posters.

If it’s not obsession with genitalia it’s with language.

Heterosexuality is built around penetration because of its obsession with reproduction. And it’s the argument used to deny divergent sexualities and genders rights while also isolating heterosexuals, we saw this with the marriage referendum and repeal referendum.

There’s also no such thing as heterophobia.

I used that language on purpose as a trope because it is the language used in gender theory which is what you are preaching. And heterophobia is a thing. Why? Because I said so. Gender theorists do that all the time. Say it and it is so. Welcome to your world.

Gruffalux

Delaney Nice Salesclerk wrote: »

Heterosexuality is built around penetration because of its obsession with reproduction.

I believe the old fashioned way of expressing that heterophobia was more succinct - breeders.

Silentcorner

Delaney Nice Salesclerk wrote: »

I always find it amusing that the people who dismiss gender and/or sexuality theory are the first to use the language of it.

I have yet to meet people in real life outside an academic conference use the words cisgender heteronormative with the same vigour online posters.

If it’s not obsession with genitalia it’s with language.

Heterosexuality is built around penetration because of its obsession with reproduction. And it’s the argument used to deny divergent sexualities and genders rights while also isolating heterosexuals, we saw this with the marriage referendum and repeal referendum.

There’s also no such thing as heterophobia.

There is also the offspring of all that penetration that heterosexuals have to consider...a safe and secure upbringing for children...because you know, it's kind of important.

jam_mac_jam

Heterosexual sex is based on reproduction? Really. I think we would all have way more kids if that was true.

What an odd argument.

0xzmro3n4y7lb5

Silentcorner wrote: »

There is also the offspring of all that penetration that heterosexuals have to consider...a safe and secure upbringing for children...because you know, it's kind of important.

Of course because most abuse of children is opposite sex abuse happening with people known to the children.

It’s not the transgender woman at the end of the street just getting on with her life.

Silentcorner

Delaney Nice Salesclerk wrote: »

Of course because most abuse of children is opposite sex abuse happening with people known to the children.

It’s not the transgender woman at the end of the street just getting on with her life.

OK, I didn't pick up on your anger originally.

You can't be reasoned with clearly.

0xzmro3n4y7lb5

Silentcorner wrote: »

OK, I didn't pick up on your anger originally.

You can't be reasoned with clearly.

Don’t let facts get in your way

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/articles/abuseduringchildhood/findingsfromtheyearendingmarch2016crimesurveyforenglandandwales


https://web.archive.org/web/20161208203148/http://www.ptsd.va.gov/professional/trauma/other/child_sexual_abuse.asp

Silentcorner

Delaney Nice Salesclerk wrote: »

Don’t let facts get in your way

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/articles/abuseduringchildhood/findingsfromtheyearendingmarch2016crimesurveyforenglandandwales


https://web.archive.org/web/20161208203148/http://www.ptsd.va.gov/professional/trauma/other/child_sexual_abuse.asp

You clearly have issues with heterosexual relationships, I can't reason with that...I refuse to engage in which type of relationships are more abusive or dysfunctional it doesn't matter...it's got nothing to do with my original point.

0xzmro3n4y7lb5

Silentcorner wrote: »

You clearly have issues with heterosexual relationships, I can't reason with that...I refuse to engage in which type of relationships are more abusive or dysfunctional it doesn't matter...it's got nothing to do with my original point.

A series of posters have just called trans people groomers and others aligned transgender people as predators nothing is further from fact.

I’m sorry you can’t engage in a debate with facts but I urge you to take away your emotions and calm down.

Silentcorner

Delaney Nice Salesclerk wrote: »

A series of posters have just called trans people groomers and others aligned transgender people as predators nothing is further from fact.

I’m sorry you can’t engage in a debate with facts but I urge you to take away your emotions and calm down.

Ha ha...good try.

You'll find I made no such accusations, thanks.

0xzmro3n4y7lb5

Silentcorner wrote: »

Ha ha...good try.

You'll find I made no such accusations, thanks.

I never said you did I said a series of posters.

CtevenSrowder

Delaney Nice Salesclerk wrote: »

A series of posters have just called trans people groomers and others aligned transgender people as predators nothing is further from fact.

I’m sorry you can’t engage in a debate with facts but I urge you to take away your emotions and calm down.

A series of posters? I think you'll find it was one poster who did that. So not a 'series'. Another lie.

Silentcorner

Delaney Nice Salesclerk wrote: »

I never said you did a said a series of posters.

So that would explain your anger, look, good luck with it...I'm having nothing to do with a conversation about who is abusing kids.

0xzmro3n4y7lb5

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

A series of posters? I think you'll find it was one poster who did that. So not a 'series'. Another lie.

There’s the posts that were deleted but there is also a post still on the page which clearly aligns to that same ideology.