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

Gruffalux

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.

Don't remember that happening here but anyway...
And how do us gays feel now that for the past few years the experimental medical abuse of thousands if not tens of thousands of children and young people including potential homosexual children has been a very large part of the activism for this target group as you call them?

Joe Columbo

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

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

All they had to do was pretend nothing was said and it would blow over very quickly, the trans movement that attacked her are completely overstated , there is a very loud minority of idiots and internet bullies but the vast majority of people would support Rowlings opinion . The sold her out for nothing.

CtevenSrowder

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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:

As I said previously, pointing out the biological reality that one cannot change their sex is not humiliating, nor is the intention to humiliate. It is simply the way things are.

Ahhh good aul Godwin!!

Gruffalux

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

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.

Not to mention shaming genital preference.

One eyed Jack

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

As I said previously, pointing out the biological reality that one cannot change their sex is not humiliating, nor is the intention to humiliate. It is simply the way things are.

Ahhh good aul Godwin!!

I wouldn’t claim I were a scientist, let alone a scientist with an understanding of human biology if I kept referring to “biological reality” - one relates to the study of biology, the other relates to the study of philosophy.

Apart from that, even the most rudimentary understanding of human biology acknowledges that in terms of human development, we initially develop female characteristics until the introduction of hormones which determine sex -

3 Signs You Started as a Girl!

The introduction of synthetic hormones is also biology, not quite as common as a hip replacement for example, which thankfully has meant I no longer have the gait of young girl gone Bambi legged in a pair of high heels she can’t walk in

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Gruffalox wrote: »

Not to mention shaming genital preference.

Absolutely. There are accounts of lesbians saying they were shamed for stating that they are only attracted to biological women. But that brings us back to “LOL, silly women and their hysterical concerns”. Though I should say the same thing has happened to some gay men.

This is the creepiest video I’ve ever seen on the topic of the cotton-ceiling, though it’s heartening to see how badly received it is. And yes, Riley, my dating preferences are discriminatory. Dating is inherently discriminatory. Nobody has to justify who they want to go out with or sleep with to anybody. But this joker is employed by an organisation called Everyday Feminism. Mad stuff altogether.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2X-PgHSZh6U

CtevenSrowder

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I wouldn’t claim I were a scientist, let alone a scientist with an understanding of human biology if I kept referring to “biological reality” - one relates to the study of biology, the other relates to the study of philosophy.

Apart from that, even the most rudimentary understanding of human biology acknowledges that in terms of human development, we initially develop female characteristics until the introduction of hormones which determine sex -

3 Signs You Started as a Girl!

The introduction of synthetic hormones is also biology, not quite as common as a hip replacement for example, which thankfully has meant I no longer have the gait of young girl gone Bambi legged in a pair of high heels she can’t walk in

Whatever. I'm not engaging in a game of linguistics with you. Biological reality, biological fact, you know what I mean. You can't change your sex. It's as simple as that. Also I never said I was a scientist.

One eyed Jack

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Whatever. I'm not engaging in a game of linguistics with you. Biological reality, biological fact, you know what I mean. You can't change your sex. It's as simple as that. Also I never said I was a scientist.

I think we both know what each other means Cteven, and I have no doubt you have the capacity to understand what other people mean when they say they identify however they identify without getting into a linguistic tit for tat with them about it trying to undermine them and ignore reality that although you’re unlikely ever to ever find yourself in that situation, it doesn’t mean that the reality that these people do exist and are entitled to equal rights and recognition in Irish and International human rights law, predicated upon respect for human dignity, can simply be ignored because the idea gives some people the willies.

CtevenSrowder

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I think we both know what each other means Cteven, and I have no doubt you have the capacity to understand what other people mean when they say they identify however they identify without getting into a linguistic tit for tat with them about it trying to undermine them and ignore reality that although you’re unlikely ever to ever find yourself in that situation, it doesn’t mean their the reality that these people do exist and are entitled to equal rights and recognition in Irish and International human rights law, predicated upon respect for human dignity, can simply be ignored because it gives some people the willies.

The whole concept of biology came up as some posters suggested trans-woman are women. They're not. They can say they are, others can say they are, I might go along with it in most cases, but it's not true. And Noone is trying to undermine transpeople.

Gruffalux

https://twitter.com/UN_Women/status/1272523012080885767?s=19

UN WOMEN (yes) wants to have a word with "those who do not menstruate". To tell them about periods. Righty O. All those women who menstruated for 40 years or more but now do not, all those women who have ceased menstruation due to medication, hysterectomy, or pregnancy and breastfeeding...line up I guess.

suicide_circus

Gruffalox wrote: »

https://twitter.com/UN_Women/status/1272523012080885767?s=19

UN WOMEN (yes) wants to have a word with "those who do not menstruate". To tell them about periods. Righty O. All those women who menstruated for 40 years or more but now do not, all those women who have ceased menstruation due to medication, hysterectomy, or pregnancy and breastfeeding...line up I guess.

The long march through the Institutions

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_long_march_through_the_institutions

Gruffalux

suicide_circus wrote: »

The long march through the Institutions

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_long_march_through_the_institutions

I never heard of that before. Great.

Stark

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

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.

"Trans people are bad because they're homophobic". Mask is starting to slip for you

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Stark wrote: »

"Trans people are bad because they're homophobic". Mask is starting to slip for you

No mask slippage. Firstly, I said SOME. And I am quite overtly and unashamedly pointing out the homophobia that both lesbians and gay men have reported experiencing from transgender men and women. Being admonished for only wanting to sleep with biological females if lesbian and biological males if male. This has happened. And that as a gay man, this is of no concern to you is eye-opening. Do you not believe this has happened? And if you do believe it has, are you okay with it?

What are you blathering on about talking about mask slippage? It’s very notable that people defending such regressive behaviour can only seem to lash out or misrepresent what was said. Knock yourself out. It only makes you look bad.

Stark

I believe that some bad apples does not a bad minority group make.

The whole debate over whether declaring you're not attracted to certain groups is a long running one, not just with trans people but with blacks, Asians, FEMS etc. My own opinion is it's fine to have sexual boundaries and preferences but I wouldn't make a habit of advertising it to make any particular group feel unattractive. There's something very tacky about someone having "no fats, no FEMS" or " no blacks, no Asians" in their Tinder bio when they could just politely swipe left.

Personally I find transmen attractive. I don't think that makes me bisexual, as I have no attraction to women. (I've no attraction to transwomen either). A penis is just one part of a person. That's just my preferences, I totally understand that it's a deal breaker for a lot of people.

joseywhales

Stark wrote: »

I believe that some bad apples does not a bad minority group make.

Can we somehow brain wash all international sovereign leaders with this message somehow?

Queue John Lennon

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Stark wrote: »

I believe that some bad apples does not a bad minority group make.

The whole debate over whether declaring you're not attracted to certain groups is a long running one, not just with trans people but with blacks, Asians, FEMS etc. My own opinion is it's fine to have sexual boundaries and preferences but I wouldn't make a habit of advertising it to make any particular group feel unattractive. There's something very tacky about someone having "no fats, no FEMS" or " no blacks, no Asians" in their Tinder bio when they could just politely swipe left.

Personally I find transmen attractive. I don't think that makes me bisexual, as I have no attraction to women. A penis is just one part of a person. That's just my preferences, I totally understand that it's a deal breaker for a lot of people.

How is that even up for debate? I had a gay guy tell me once that he thinks vaginas are disgusting. I just laughed. I couldn’t have been less offended. He’s under no obligation to think otherwise. Nobody has to justify their preferences. Absolutely nobody. Some people can be blunt about what they don’t like. That’s life. We’re all grown ups here.

If you are into transmen, go for it, but others have been criticised for saying that they are not into them.

Stark

Well it's a "debate" that originated within the gay community and had nothing to do whatsoever with trans people. Do I think I need to hear about it every single time the subject of my sexuality comes up? No I don't. I don't think trans people need to either. The people who feel that way are a small minority of an already small community yet they're used as a stick to beat the whole community with.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Stark wrote: »

Well it's a "debate" that originated within the gay community and had nothing to do whatsoever with trans people. Do I think I need to hear about it every single time the subject of my sexuality comes up? No I don't. I don't think trans people need to either. The people who feel that way are a small minority of an already small community yet they're used as a stick to beat the whole community with.

Well, any transgender person who questions or criticises a lesbian or gay man for stating that they don’t have an interest in anyone other than biological men/women is straight up being homophobic. It’s interesting to me that when women speak up for their sex-based rights, you make (erroneous) comparisons to the prejudices faced by gay people decades ago. But when blatant homophobia by members of the transgender community is brought up, suddenly you aren’t too concerned about gay rights. Some lesbians and gay men say they have been harassed by transgender men and women. Who cares, right?

Stark

Your concern for my rights is touching.

Only bigots tar an entire group with the actions of a few.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Stark wrote: »

Your concern for my rights is touching.

Only bigots tar an entire group with the actions of a few.

Your hypocrisy is staggering. But, like I said earlier, knock yourself out.

And yeah, I do care about people from groups that don’t include me. Even, believe it or not, transgender people. I just acknowledge that certain transgender rights are in conflict with very hard-won sex-based rights. And that factions of transgender rights activism are quite abusive - for example, a former aide for Elizabeth Warren with a pretty large Twitter following feeling quite comfortable with saying this to JK Rowling. It’s classy, classy stuff.

https://twitter.com/benjaminokeefe/status/1269407681611280386?s=21

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Stark wrote: »

Your concern for my rights is touching.

Only bigots tar an entire group with the actions of a few.

Oh and I haven’t tarred an entire group. And you well know it. The dramatics.

2u2me

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

https://twitter.com/benjaminokeefe/status/1269407681611280386?s=21

That is a lot of likes and retweets. It's always the intersectionalists.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

2u2me wrote: »

That is a lot of likes and retweets. It's always the intersectionalists.

It’s pretty shocking, isn’t it? I’ve seen people banned from Twitter for far, far less. Not that I advocate banning people. But it’s just pretty eye-opening to me what will get you banned from Twitter and what is a-ok. Let Ben there keep his aggressive tweet up. It will have been screenshotted many times by now. It won’t age well. Offence archaeology is something I hate but if it’s going to be a thing, I’ll enjoy seeing that tweet be condemned in the future.

One eyed Jack

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

And yeah, I do care about people from groups that don’t include me. Even, believe it or not, transgender people. I just acknowledge that certain transgender rights are in conflict with very hard-won sex-based rights.

And that factions of transgender rights activism are quite abusive - for example, a former aide for Elizabeth Warren with a pretty large Twitter following feeling quite comfortable with saying this to JK Rowling. It’s classy, classy stuff.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Oh and I haven’t tarred an entire group. And you well know it. The dramatics.

They actually aren’t. That’s like saying that women’s rights are in conflict with men’s rights, or children’s rights are in conflict with parents rights, or the rights of people with disabilities are in conflict with the rights of people who are not disabled. It’s nothing more than a fictional narrative predicated upon presenting a false dilemma of the entire purpose of rights which are aimed at creating an equal society for all citizens with dignity and respect for all citizens as their guiding principles.

Given, in your own words, the paucity of your knowledge of biology, it’s a paucity which is unfortunately and only equally matched by the paucity of your knowledge of history and women’s rights specifically.

All you’re actually doing in reality with that refrain of “very hard-won sex- based rights”, is invoking the politics of “respectability”, particularly when you’ve repeatedly made the point about how “classy” they are because they’re not behaving themselves as you expect them to when they’re expecting to be treated the same as the respectable JK who was only expressing her opinion in a polite and civilised fashion.

The rights you speak of were neither hard fought for, nor hard won by anyone being respectful and civil and all the rest of it. They were fought for by terrorists with a weird victimisation complex who believed they were acting in the service of God. JK gets ‘cancelled’, Emily Davison was killed when she tried to pull down the Kings horse and the horse went to town on her -

Emily Davison: the suffragette martyr

Emily was by no means a lone voice who claimed women were being suppressed of course, some of the most militant were also equally committed -

The Uses of Religion in the Women's Militant Suffrage Campaign in England


But how, in reality, have all these “hard won sex based rights” improved the lives of women in modern society?

Well, there’s plenty of evidence to suggest it has benefitted a small minority of women, but for the vast majority, who aren’t considered respectable women, these “hard won sex based rights” you speak of have achieved fannyadams in terms of women’s liberation or equality with men really, which could explain why so many modern feminist powered organisations headed up by middle class women are keen to embrace anyone within their movement, doesn’t matter how they identify, because there’s very few women and girls can actually identify with them and the ongoing struggles and persecution of JK, the billionaire celebrity author -


Women and the politics of austerity: new forms of respectability


No matter how much money she has, JK exemplifies the adage that even with all her money, the one thing she will never be able to afford, is class.

2u2me

One eyed Jack wrote: »

[...]
No matter how much money she has, JK exemplifies the adage that even with all her money, the one thing she will never be able to afford, is class.

You make a good argument there. Rights were fought hard for.

What gets me though is why all this vitriolic abuse? Surely one can disagree without all the hate. The hate doens't seem reciprocal.

I don't see why you would call Rowling classless because she's fighting for what she believes in, unless you truly believe she's doing it because she hates trans people?

Quantum Erasure

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What views exactly? That biological sex exists, or that men can't become women? They are not 'views' that need validation. They are scientific fact.

... knowledge of sex determination was for a long time based upon what could be seen with the naked eye, because we simply didn’t have the tools developed yet to be able to look beyond that and start understanding processes like genetics, endocrinology and so on.

you seem to be touching on the case of intersex people here, which has little to nothing to do with the whole trans debate, I'm sure you'll agree

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

They actually aren’t. That’s like saying that women’s rights are in conflict with men’s rights, or children’s rights are in conflict with parents rights, or the rights of people with disabilities are in conflict with the rights of people who are not disabled. It’s nothing more than a fictional narrative predicated upon presenting a false dilemma of the entire purpose of rights which are aimed at creating an equal society for all citizens with dignity and respect for all citizens as their guiding principles.

Given, in your own words, the paucity of your knowledge of biology, it’s a paucity which is unfortunately and only equally matched by the paucity of your knowledge of history and women’s rights specifically.

All you’re actually doing in reality with that refrain of “very hard-won sex- based rights”, is invoking the politics of “respectability”, particularly when you’ve repeatedly made the point about how “classy” they are because they’re not behaving themselves as you expect them to when they’re expecting to be treated the same as the respectable JK who was only expressing her opinion in a polite and civilised fashion.

The rights you speak of were neither hard fought for, nor hard won by anyone being respectful and civil and all the rest of it. They were fought for by terrorists with a weird victimisation complex who believed they were acting in the service of God. JK gets ‘cancelled’, Emily Davison was killed when she tried to pull down the Kings horse and the horse went to town on her -

Emily Davison: the suffragette martyr

Emily was by no means a lone voice who claimed women were being suppressed of course, some of the most militant were also equally committed -

The Uses of Religion in the Women's Militant Suffrage Campaign in England


But how, in reality, have all these “hard won sex based rights” improved the lives of women in modern society?

Well, there’s plenty of evidence to suggest it has benefitted a small minority of women, but for the vast majority, who aren’t considered respectable women, these “hard won sex based rights” you speak of have achieved fannyadams in terms of women’s liberation or equality with men really, which could explain why so many modern feminist powered organisations headed up by middle class women are keen to embrace anyone within their movement, doesn’t matter how they identify, because there’s very few women and girls can actually identify with them and the ongoing struggles and persecution of JK, the billionaire celebrity author -


Women and the politics of austerity: new forms of respectability


No matter how much money she has, JK exemplifies the adage that even with all her money, the one thing she will never be able to afford, is class.

Stupid women, eh? Lucky we have you here to explain all this complicated stuff to us, Jack. :rolleyes:

Ken Kezzy

Joan is cool!

Gruffalux

Stark wrote: »

Well it's a "debate" that originated within the gay community and had nothing to do whatsoever with trans people. Do I think I need to hear about it every single time the subject of my sexuality comes up? No I don't. I don't think trans people need to either. The people who feel that way are a small minority of an already small community yet they're used as a stick to beat the whole community with.

The LGB Alliance was by founded by senior gay activists in the UK in 2019 to counter the bullying you claim arises from a small minority of a small community. They stand against the TRA insistence that biological sex is not real. They disavow the mantra TW ARE W. They have been labeled transphobic. They have many members and followers.
It is a very big part of the whole debate not something that you can brush away because it is inconvenient.
https://lgballiance.org.uk/

You never replied re how it has felt to be a part of or at least a silent ally to vocal rights activism that champions puberty blockers and cross sex hormones for children?