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

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Stark wrote: »

There's a lot of people on this thread who I've been disagreeing with but I can respect that it's just a difference of views, or that some people are uncomfortable with the world becoming too "woke" or whatever.

But it just seems to post after post of venomous bile from you.

Is my post asking about why the NHS made a false claim about the effects of puberty blockers “venomous”?

One eyed Jack

suicide_circus wrote: »

This sentence has become more sinister on re-reading. Encouraging a society to break the link between the hard sciences (such a biology) and reality cannot fail to have wider reaching consequences, foreseen or not.

There was never anything more than a tenuous link between biology and society in the first place tbh which every group could argue was based upon reality. The whole basis of law and in particular human rights law and bioethics is to temper just what can be done to overcome biology, just because it can be done.

Any course of action has far reaching consequences for society. Consider for example that bastion of feminism and equality Sweden, contained in it’s laws that in order to be eligible for sex change surgery (as it was known at the time and still is to some extent), one of the conditions was that the person had to undergo sterilisation. This was codified in Swedish law up until as recently as 2012 when it was ruled unconstitutional by the Administrative Court of Appeal in Stockholm -


Until 2012, sterilisation was mandatory before sex change. This last mandatory sterilisation has been criticised by several political parties in Sweden and since 2011 the Parliament of Sweden was expected to change the law but ran into opposition from the Christian Democrat party. After efforts to overturn the law failed in parliament, the Stockholm Administrative Court of Appeal overturned the law on 19 December 2012, declaring it unconstitutional after the law was challenged by an unidentified plaintiff.


Compulsory sterilisation in Sweden


Anyone who wants to, providing they have the means to do so, could mount a legal challenge to the Gender Recognition Act in Ireland if they wanted to see it overturned on the grounds that it inhibits or impedes upon women’s sex based rights.

John Waters and Gemma O’ Doherty aren’t up to a whole pile these days, could approach them and ask them if they’d be prepared to support your case, should you choose to mount said legal challenge to the legislation in it’s current form, or as it is undoubtedly soon to be reformed to prohibit discrimination against people who identify themselves as non-binary and extend to them the same protections of the various equal status acts -


Equal Status Acts

ceadaoin.

Stark wrote: »

There's a lot of people on this thread who I've been disagreeing with but I can respect that it's just a difference of views, or that some people are uncomfortable with the world becoming too "woke" or whatever.

But it just seems to post after post of venomous bile from you.

Can you quote some example of this "venomous bile"? Or is it just that you don't agree with it so therefore ODB is clearly a hysterical bitter woman?

suicide_circus

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There was never anything more than a tenuous link between biology and society

No, that's nonsense i'm afraid. Our biology plays an enormous role in everything we do and create; our biological need for food, shelter, procreation, kinship - these are what build civilisations.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Can you quote some example of this "venomous bile"? Or is it just that you don't agree with it so therefore ODB is clearly a hysterical bitter woman?

Same old, same old. :pac:

Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m late for my weekly neighbourhood witch TERF meeting.

Stark

Tit for that. I call you transphobe, you call me sexist. Fair enough I guess.

As a gay man, I've grown up listening to all the "arguments" about how my behaviour was "unnatural", how it "went against biology", how I "was a danger to children", how I was "statistically more likely to be a pedophile", how my behaviour was "a lifestyle choice" etc. I don't have a lot of time for seeing the same arguments being levelled against another minority group.

One eyed Jack

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

I'm fully aware of science works thanks. I'm involved in the field myself. None of that invalidates what I said. What is defined as a female and/or woman won't (or shouldn't) change just because a minority say they feel like one, or to suit ones political World-view. I'm sure you already fully agree with this.

You’re another scientist? That makes four now I’ve counted in total who have alluded to their being in possession of scientific credentials as if that’s supposed to validate or lend their opinions an air of credibility. It does the exact opposite tbh as I’m only interested in your opinions. Your scientific credentials are your own business. That’s not being smart or anything but genuinely simply having qualifications in science doesn’t mean a whole pile. You should know this if you have studied science because you’d be familiar with the fallacy of an argument from authority, and the correlation causation fallacy that you’re using to support your argument that men are dangerous to women solely by virtue of their physiology. You’d also be familiar with the association fallacy.

That’s why I would completely disagree the underlying assumption of your argument that the scientific standard by which male and female of the human species are defined has ever been rigid in the first place. In fact how people have been defined and the rights to which they are entitled has been based more upon the alternative facts of politics influence on what became the scientific facts of science.

As a scientist you don’t need me to point out the monumental cock-ups that arguing “scientific facts” have been responsible for. They were used in Victorian times to justify ill treatment of people and abuse of all sorts carried out in the name of science. Though Jenner violating the milk maid did give us vaccines, so there’s that I suppose. I’m not sure he’d have gotten away with the same sort of behaviour in the current political and social climate.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Stark wrote: »

Tit for that. I call you transphobe, you call me sexist. Fair enough I guess.

As a gay man, I've grown up listening to all the "arguments" about how my behaviour was "unnatural", how it "went against biology", how I "was a danger to children", how I was "statistically more likely to be a pedophile", how my behaviour was "a lifestyle choice" etc. I don't have a lot of time for seeing the same arguments being levelled against another minority group.

Well, sadly for transgender women, they are in the biological class far more predisposed to violence and it’s not something they get to identify out of. Nobody is saying transgender women are more likely to be violent than other biological males, they are saying they are as likely. There is a physical strength differential that also can’t be ignored. And most of those physical differences are permanent.

AND if transgender women say that they don’t want to use the men’s facilities because they are worried for their safety, then the concerns of women in allowing biological men (which a transgender woman will be, with or without surgery) to their spaces can’t be dismissed. Well, women’s concerns can be dismissed but it’s very telling if they are.

Third spaces or self-contained unisex facilities are the way to go. If transgender women object to the idea of a third space, why would that be?

And thank you to Neyite for pointing out how easy it is to gain a GRC in Ireland.

suicide_circus

Stark wrote: »

Tit for that. I call you transphobe, you call me sexist. Fair enough I guess.

As a gay man, I've grown up listening to all the "arguments" about how my behaviour was "unnatural", how it "went against biology",

I know it may seem like there is a direct comparison here but there really isnt. The gay rights campaigners of the 70s and 80s (and beyond) never demanded that the public deny what was in fron of their eyes or deny biological reality, all they asked was to be allowed walk down the street without getting their heads kicked in by neanderthals - a very reasonable request.
The biological reality that only women can menstruate is not a morality call, it's the truth.

One eyed Jack

suicide_circus wrote: »

No, that's nonsense i'm afraid. Our biology plays an enormous role in everything we do and create; our biological need for food, shelter, procreation, kinship - these are what build civilisations.

Knowledge, is what is responsible for the development of civilisations, not biology.

Put very simply - you’ll starve to death very quickly if you don’t know where to get food or how to feed yourself when you get it, or what will or won’t kill you.

suicide_circus

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Knowledge, is what is responsible for the development of civilisations, not biology.

Put very simply - you’ll starve to death very quickly if you don’t know where to get food or how to feed yourself when you get it, or what will or won’t kill you.

and what is the driving force to accumulate that knowledge?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

suicide_circus wrote: »

I know it may seem like there is a direct comparison here but there really isnt. The gay rights campaigners of the 70s and 80s (and beyond) never demanded that the public deny what was in fron of their eyes or deny biological reality, all they asked was to be allowed walk down the street without getting their heads kicked in by neanderthals - a very reasonable request.
The biological reality that only women can menstruate is not a morality call, it's the truth.

Yup.

CtevenSrowder

Stark wrote: »

Tit for that. I call you transphobe, you call me sexist. Fair enough I guess.

As a gay man, I've grown up listening to all the "arguments" about how my behaviour was "unnatural", how it "went against biology", how I "was a danger to children", how I was "statistically more likely to be a pedophile", how my behaviour was "a lifestyle choice" etc. I don't have a lot of time for seeing the same arguments being levelled against another minority group.

Nobody has any of that. Noone has trans-sexualism 'goes against biology'. Noone has said they are more likely to be paedophiles. Noone has said it is unnatural. Noone has said it is a lifestyle choice.

I suggest you consider the arguments put forward more carefully if that is all you have garnered from them so far.

Gruffalux

Stark wrote: »

Tit for that. I call you transphobe, you call me sexist. Fair enough I guess.

As a gay man, I've grown up listening to all the "arguments" about how my behaviour was "unnatural", how it "went against biology", how I "was a danger to children", how I was "statistically more likely to be a pedophile", how my behaviour was "a lifestyle choice" etc. I don't have a lot of time for seeing the same arguments being levelled against another minority group.

How are sexual orientation and gender identity related?

I can never figure it out. They are QUALITATIVELY different. What does transgenderism have to do with who one has sex with? Which is what L G and B is about. Why does the movement not randomly adopt transracial or transspecies rights advocacy also?

Tagging radical transactivism onto gay rights has been a political coup. How did so many gay and lesbian people ending up screaming at people about the human rights of children to have puberty blocked and dangerous cross sex hormones administered? It must feel incredibly uncomfortable to have been supporting terrible medical experimentation on juveniles.

One eyed Jack

suicide_circus wrote: »

and what is the driving force to accumulate that knowledge?

Human endeavour.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Nobody has any of that. Noone has trans-sexualism 'goes against biology'. Noone has said they are more likely to be paedophiles. Noone has said it is unnatural. Noone has said it is a lifestyle choice.

I suggest you consider the arguments put forward more carefully if that is all you have garnered from them so far.

Well, that’s the thing. Anything that expresses concerns or doubt is filed as transphobic in some people’s minds.

As I said, my interest in this was bioethics-related. I’ve been interested in it since college, I’ve read what damage ambitious research doctors looking to make a name for themselves can do and I was utterly shocked at certain powerful drugs being doled out off-label to preteens to block their puberty. OMG, what a transphobe I am! Except vindication has come in the last few weeks on that score. And anyone who was on the “They’re fully reversible!” train needs to take a good hard look at themselves and realise that people saw through their emotive weaponisation of suicide. Who really cares about children here?

suicide_circus

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Human endeavour.

alrighty, we'll agree to disagree

CtevenSrowder

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You’re another scientist? That makes four now I’ve counted in total who have alluded to their being in possession of scientific credentials as if that’s supposed to validate or lend their opinions an air of credibility. It does the exact opposite tbh as I’m only interested in your opinions. Your scientific credentials are your own business. That’s not being smart or anything but genuinely simply having qualifications in science doesn’t mean a whole pile. You should know this if you have studied science because you’d be familiar with the fallacy of an argument from authority, and the correlation causation fallacy that you’re using to support your argument that men are dangerous to women solely by virtue of their physiology. You’d also be familiar with the association fallacy.

Eh no, you were said the following:

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Science is based upon validating theories which if there is a broad consensus, they are regarded as scientific fact. Being recognised as scientific fact doesn’t mean they aren’t subject to change as new evidence presents itself through scientific inquiry...

All I was pointing out is I don't need an explanation as to how Science works. I know fully well how Science works and evolves. I don't need you to tell me. Nothing to do with trying to somehow validate my opinions. And I'm a student of, not quite a professional just yet.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That’s why I would completely disagree the underlying assumption of your argument that the scientific standard by which male and female of the human species are defined has ever been rigid in the first place. In fact how people have been defined and the rights to which they are entitled has been based more upon the alternative facts of politics influence on what became the scientific facts of science.

We've reached a stage were the definition can be rigid. It's rigid now, that's the point. If someone finds something so brilliant that it usurps the biological definition of male and female to the extent where one can become the other then they will no doubt win the Nobel Prize in Medicine and Physiology and we will all have to accept and adapt to this new biological reality. I won't hedge my bets though.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

As a scientist you don’t need me to point out the monumental cock-ups that arguing “scientific facts” have been responsible for. They were used in Victorian times to justify ill treatment of people and abuse of all sorts carried out in the name of science. Though Jenner violating the milk maid did give us vaccines, so there’s that I suppose. I’m not sure he’d have gotten away with the same sort of behaviour in the current political and social climate.

All totally irrelevant, and ofcourse, in keeping with your "sides" continuing attempt to undermine Science itself.

0xzmro3n4y7lb5

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Nobody has any of that. Noone has trans-sexualism 'goes against biology'. Noone has said they are more likely to be paedophiles. Noone has said it is unnatural. Noone has said it is a lifestyle choice.

I suggest you consider the arguments put forward more carefully if that is all you have garnered from them so far.

That’s exactly what every anti-trans argument on this page is built on and it’s the same old tropes that’s been pushed out against interracial marriages, gay people, adoption.

Get some new material because this is so old we can see through it.

Sir Oxman

Stark wrote: »

That was my first reaction when I read JK Rowling's blog post. The oppression and persecution complex. It reminded me immediately of the marriage equality debates where the likes of Breda O'Brien and Patricia Casey would go TV and be almost in tears talking about how victimised and oppressed they were because people disagreed with their views. How they were being "silenced" despite their privileged positions of having dedicated newspaper column inches and prime time TV slots.

I'm genuinely sorry for the bad experiences JK Rowling has had in her life. But it was the dregs of the male community who did those things to her. (I'm male myself but have to admit, there are a lot of ****ty men out there). Not the transgender community.

I also think whoever threatened her with misogynistic abuse for her views were wrong. But that doesn't validate her views. Just as I'm sure folks in Iona probably got a few death threats and genuinely vile abuse for their views, but that didn't make their views any more valid.

BiB
You have switched that bit around in relation to this debate or 'no debate' as authoritarian ideology would have it.

One eyed Jack

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

All totally irrelevant, and ofcourse, in keeping with your "sides" continuing attempt to undermine Science itself.

How, with the greatest of respect, am I trying to undermine science by pointing out that there is no correlation whatsoever between biology, and what society considers immoral behaviours and attitudes towards others? I’m speaking of people who are making the point that apparently, solely by virtue of their physiology, men present a danger to women’s safety?

The very idea itself is straight from the gender theorists playbook where they use backwards rationalisation to justify all sorts of opinions on human behaviour that simply cannot be regarded as universal, let alone be explained by associating the behaviour with one sex or the other. It’s why the social sciences are a mess, because they’re being influenced by politics, which is seeping into the sciences such as in this case biology.

I’m not on any “side” either btw, but as I said earlier if I was on a side, it wouldn’t be the side that thinks it’s acceptable to humiliate another person or discriminate against them on the basis of immutable traits or characteristics while at the same time pointing out that because they cannot change these traits or characteristics, they shall be associated with ill behaviour towards others, and if they point out that there is no correlation, they’re the people who are incapable of being rational and they’re being disrespectful and all the rest of it?

Sure with that solid concrete having everything your own way sort of logic based upon nothing more than a feeling of fear of the unknown, how can anyone else possibly argue that the foundations upon which your arguments are based, are looking pretty shìte because they’re not even coming close to anything resembling reality, let alone objectivity?

Sir Oxman

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Why are people so quick to lash out on this topic. Nothing of substance to say, everything can be easily countered and so you lash out. Knock yourself out, it only shows up your paucity of knowledge on the topic.

Oh, and I’ll post as often as I like. Ta.

Because, that is all they have.

CtevenSrowder

One eyed Jack wrote: »

How, with the greatest of respect, am I trying to undermine science by pointing out that there is no correlation whatsoever between biology, and what society considers immoral behaviours and attitudes towards others? I’m speaking of people who are making the point that apparently, solely by virtue of their physiology, men present a danger to women’s safety?

The very idea itself is straight from the gender theorists playbook where they use backwards rationalisation to justify all sorts of opinions on human behaviour that simply cannot be regarded as universal, let alone be explained by associating the behaviour with one sex or the other. It’s why the social sciences are a mess, because they’re being influenced by politics, which is seeping into the sciences such as in this case biology.

I’m not on any “side” either btw, but as I said earlier if I was on a side, it wouldn’t be the side that thinks it’s acceptable to humiliate another person or discriminate against them on the basis of immutable traits or characteristics while at the same time pointing out that because they cannot change these traits or characteristics, they shall be associated with ill behaviour towards others, and if they point out that there is no correlation, they’re the people who are incapable of being rational and they’re being disrespectful and all the rest of it?

Sure with that solid concrete having everything your own way sort of logic based upon nothing more than a feeling of fear of the unknown, how can anyone else possibly argue that the foundations upon which your arguments are based, are looking pretty shìte because they’re not even coming close to anything resembling reality, let alone objectivity?

I agree with you re social sciences. Im aware you are not on a side as such, which is why I put it in inverted commas, I didn't know how else to phrase it.
Noone is humuliating anyone.

Sir Oxman

https://twitter.com/hashtag/AskDanielRadcliffe?src=hashtag_click

Women ask Daniel Radcliffe a few questions as he has availed of his right to free speech, fair play to him.

*This is Twitter but note the lack of threats, violence, no platforming, no debate yada yada
Of course, similar to a few posters here this is immediately being branded 'exclusionary', 'denial of humanity', 'LITERALLY!! killing', 'TRANSPHOBIA!!'

volchitsa

Stark wrote: »

That was my first reaction when I read JK Rowling's blog post. The oppression and persecution complex. It reminded me immediately of the marriage equality debates where the likes of Breda O'Brien and Patricia Casey would go TV and be almost in tears talking about how victimised and oppressed they were because people disagreed with their views. How they were being "silenced" despite their privileged positions of having dedicated newspaper column inches and prime time TV slots.

I'm genuinely sorry for the bad experiences JK Rowling has had in her life. But it was the dregs of the male community who did those things to her. (I'm male myself but have to admit, there are a lot of ****ty men out there). Not the transgender community.

I also think whoever threatened her with misogynistic abuse for her views were wrong. But that doesn't validate her views. Just as I'm sure folks in Iona probably got a few death threats and genuinely vile abuse for their views, but that didn't make their views any more valid.

The difference being that J K Rowling was actually beaten and victimised. Breda O'Brien just threw a wobbly because she was no longer being allowed to tell everyone else how to live their lives.

Not the same thing, you know.

Stark

Gruffalox wrote: »

How are sexual orientation and gender identity related?

I can never figure it out. They are QUALITATIVELY different. What does transgenderism have to do with who one has sex with? Which is what L G and B is about. Why does the movement not randomly adopt transracial or transspecies rights advocacy also?

Tagging radical transactivism onto gay rights has been a political coup. How did so many gay and lesbian people ending up screaming at people about the human rights of children to have puberty blocked and dangerous cross sex hormones administered? It must feel incredibly uncomfortable to have been supporting terrible medical experimentation on juveniles.

And us gays were told we were tagging our activism on to the black civil rights movement and the two things were "qualitatively different". Despite it being same ****, different target group.

One eyed Jack

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

I agree with you re social sciences. Im aware you are not on a side as such, which is why I put it in inverted commas, I didn't know how else to phrase it.
Noone is humuliating anyone.

Not for the lack of trying anyway :pac:

Keep in mind that Ms. “Defender of Free Speech” JK, posted on a public medium taking the piss out of the language used in a global charity organisations literature which she took offence to, where there was absolutely none intended. This was after she had felt she was being humiliated by another party entirely, so what does she do? JK punches down hard on an organisation which had nothing whatsoever to do with her.

If nobody were trying to humiliate anyone, then what’s behind the “you can’t change your sex”, as though it’s some benign public service announcement? That’s disingenuous and you know it. The purpose of it is simply to humiliate other people and wind them up.

And that’s even before we get to the part where men are to be perceived as vicious brutes determined to persecute defenceless wallflower type women who apparently are so dense they’re unable to determine the difference between a man and a woman, but they’re somehow able to perceive that the person might be a threat to them because they think they spotted a pair of testicles?

According to this piece in an article purporting to be scientific, they would have had trouble determining whether Hitler was either one or the other or neither -


The Science Behind Hitler's Possible Micropenis


That’s a legit Godwin btw so it doesn’t count :pac:

Joe Columbo

The big thing about this situation that really stands out for me is what complete slime bags Daniel Radcliffe and Emma Watson are.Without JK Rowling they would be nothing and yet as soon as they could they turned on her when they easily could have just said nothing .The lack of loyalty from them is pathetic.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Joe Columbo wrote: »

The big thing about this situation that really stands out for me is what complete slime bags Daniel Radcliffe and Emma Watson are.Without JK Rowling they would be nothing and yet as soon as they could they turned on her when they easily could have just said nothing .The lack of loyalty from them is pathetic.

Harry Potter is over and they want to keep getting work, I guess. Their words won’t age well though.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Stark wrote: »

And us gays were told we were tagging our activism on to the black civil rights movement and the two things were "qualitatively different". Despite it being same ****, different target group.

It’s funny that some gay people seem happy to ignore the homophobia of some transgender rights activists. That doesn’t bother you? The most unsavoury place it has revealed itself is in parents with apparent transgender children saying that they are happy that the child’s gender now matches their behaviour. Regressive, sexist, deeply conservative and possibly homophobic too.