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

Annasopra

2u2me wrote: »

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?

I would question why she is doing what she is doing. She is intelligent enough to know that her intervention unleashes vitriolic hate on both sides. She goes out of her way to claim concern about trans people. If she is so concerned, why is she basicslly opening up a torrent of abusive hate?

Annasopra

Gruffalox wrote: »

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?

The lgb alliance is basically a hate group. Nothing much else to it.

2u2me

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

I would question why she is doing what she is doing. She is intelligent enough to know that her intervention unleashes vitriolic hate on both sides. She goes out of her way to claim concern about trans people. If she is so concerned, why is she basicslly opening up a torrent of abusive hate?

That's one way of putting it.

Let's say you have two people need an operation, but there is only one theatre to do it. One person getting an operation does deny the other person getting it, but really all they want to do is get an operation themselves.

Annasopra

2u2me wrote: »

That's one way of putting it.

Let's say you have two people need an operation, but there is only one theatre to do it. One person getting an operation does deny the other person getting it, but really all they want to do is get an operation themselves.

I dont get your point. Why are you sugggesting the hate and vitriolic abuse on this is only 1 sided though? Its absolutely not.

Gruffalux

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

The lgb alliance is basically a hate group. Nothing much else to it.

I am sure they are accustomed to being called hateful. As am I. It is something anyone who holds the supposedly wrong opinion on these issues is called and to which we must become accustomed along with the other vile names. Carerhomeless and Stark have both permitted genital preference, which is considered discriminatory and prejudiced by activists, are they part of the hate group?

Gruffalux

Simon Fanshawe co founder of the "hate group" LGB Alliance was an original founding member of Stonewall UK.

Annasopra

Gruffalox wrote: »

Simon Fanshawe co founder of the "hate group" LGB Alliance was an original founding member of Stonewall UK.

So. The lgb alliance only exists to do hateful things againat trans people. Thats its sole purpose.

Gruffalux

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

So. The lgb alliance only exists to do hateful things againat trans people. Thats its sole purpose.

So. You are disowning that growing part of the gay community that is objecting to gender theory. Especially now that it is being used to bully gay people.
That is fine. You are allowed to do that.
Calling legitimate people who disagree with you a hate group is childish and incorrect, however.

Annasopra

Gruffalox wrote: »

So. You are disowning that growing part of the gay community that is objecting to gender theory. Especially now that it is being used to bully gay people.
That is fine. You are allowed to do that.
Calling legitimate people who disagree with you a hate group is childish and incorrect, however.

Its true. The LGB alliance has no other purpose than hate of trans people.

Dyr

Gruffalox wrote: »

So. You are disowning that growing part of the gay community that is objecting to gender theory. Especially now that it is being used to bully gay people.
That is fine. You are allowed to do that.
Calling legitimate people who disagree with you a hate group is childish and incorrect, however.

Remember:

Contradiction equals hate
Facts equals hate
Hate does not equal hate so long as its coming from an approved group

Funny old world full of loony tunes

Gruffalux

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Its true. The LGB alliance has no other purpose than hate of trans people.

That is a lot of gay people you are calling haters.
But okay. Your choice.

And on the medical experimentation on children Joey?

ceadaoin.

I've actually never seen a statement before that it's "both sides" who are being abusive, so thats progress I guess. I would be interested to see examples of the vitriol from "terfs" though. Something that isn't just a woman expressing an ideologically problematic opinion being labeled as such, but actual threats of violence and sexual assault against trans people, to the same extent that women receive.

I think the whole JK Rowling thing has really shone a light on this. Woman expresses dissent and receives multiple threats involving being forced to "suck dick", or the more benign, "shut the **** up bitch". Like, thats the default reaction, business as usual. But, uh oh, suddenly the world is watching and the tactics and misogyny is laid out for all to see. People were able to read what she actually said and don't see where the hatred is. So now its "both sides", when previously the party line was that it was hateful women and the activists were totally justified.

So I'm glad that some can apparently now see that this abuse is wrong. Maybe it can usher the way for an actual discussion?

One eyed Jack

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

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

No no, I was just saying the way in which we used to determine sex when mothers gave birth was simply whether the baby had a penis or not - visual inspection. Nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not a person is or isn’t transgender as there’s simply no way to make that determination at birth.

volchitsa wrote: »

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

I’d love to know what you imagine a person’s education or knowledge of history or biology, has to do with their sex? I wouldn’t suggest a person was stupid either if they weren’t aware of something. That refers to their intellect, and just because a person doesn’t know something is no reason to think they’re stupid. That assumption is entirely on you.

An example of someone I would think was stupid is the type of person who would suggest that because they couldn’t determine the difference between a man and a woman and this caused them to feel uncomfortable, this was a legitimate argument to deprive other people of their freedom to be in that space.

That was the argument you tried to make earlier and not only did it have me thinking how must you imagine people who are blind cops with everyday life, but your argument also reminded me of being back in secondary school. Upon hearing a lad was gay, some idiots would chant “arses to the wall” when he’d be passing, as though solely by virtue of the fact a lad was gay, they automatically assumed he must be interested in them, or that their safety was somehow at risk, and the lad who was gay was the problem.

Their assumptions were based upon sheer ignorance and paranoia, a debilitating combination which they projected onto other people as though anyone else but themselves, was responsible for their stupidity and paranoid delusions.

That’s exactly what you were suggesting earlier - that people should be deprived of their rights because some people are paranoid and refuse to educate themselves to the fact that not only is everyone not out to get them, very few people, if any, take even the slightest bit of interest in them. Those kind of thought processes only ever occur to people who imagine they are the centre of their own universe and everything else orbits around them.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Gruffalox wrote: »

That is a lot of gay people you are calling haters.
But okay. Your choice.

And on the medical experimentation on children Joey?

You won’t get a reply on that. Joeytheparrot was passionately on the “puberty blockers are fully reversible” train when others here knew that was blatant nonsense because there was no data to support that claim. Now that the NHS has rowed back on the “fully reversible” assertion, Joey should admit he was wrong, but he won’t. Anyone who still thinks giving puberty blockers to children to “pause” puberty is fine is admitting that they are okay with children being treated as guinea pigs. I think doctors are even reluctant to prescribe them for precocious puberty. And there have been documented problems with their use for that condition.

Gruffalux

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

You won’t get a reply on that. Joeytheparrot was passionately on the “puberty blockers are fully reversible” train when others here knew that was blatant nonsense because there was no data to support that claim. Now that the NHS has rowed back on the “fully reversible” assertion, Joey should admit he was wrong, but he won’t. Anyone who still thinks giving puberty blockers to children to “pause” puberty is fine is admitting that they are okay with children being treated as guinea pigs. I think doctors are even reluctant to prescribe them for precocious puberty. And there have been documented problems with their use for that condition.

I remember.
I also remember the long weary debates re poor exploited Desmond Napoles and even later Glitter Hole redeploying as frumpy librarians. Who can believe it.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

ceadaoin. wrote: »

I've actually never seen a statement before that it's "both sides" who are being abusive, so thats progress I guess. I would be interested to see examples of the vitriol from "terfs" though. Something that isn't just a woman expressing an ideologically problematic opinion being labeled as such, but actual threats of violence and sexual assault against trans people, to the same extent that women receive.

I think the whole JK Rowling thing has really shone a light on this. Woman expresses dissent and receives multiple threats involving being forced to "suck dick", or the more benign, "shut the **** up bitch". Like, thats the default reaction, business as usual. But, uh oh, suddenly the world is watching and the tactics and misogyny is laid out for all to see. People were able to read what she actually said and don't see where the hatred is. So now its "both sides", when previously the party line was that it was hateful women and the activists were totally justified.

So I'm glad that some can apparently now see that this abuse is wrong. Maybe it can usher the way for an actual discussion?

Yup, they’ve been caught rapid! :pac:

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Gruffalox wrote: »

I remember.
I also remember the long weary debates re poor exploited Desmond Napoles and even later Glitter Hole redeploying as frumpy librarians. Who can believe it.

Urgh, little Desmond. That poor child enters my thoughts quite often. He often looks unhappy in interviews.

ceadaoin.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

You won’t get a reply on that. Joeytheparrot was passionately on the “puberty blockers are fully reversible” train when others here knew that was blatant nonsense because there was no data to support that claim. Now that the NHS has rowed back on the “fully reversible” assertion, Joey should admit he was wrong, but he won’t. Anyone who still thinks giving puberty blockers to children to “pause” puberty is fine is admitting that they are okay with children being treated as guinea pigs. I think doctors are even reluctant to prescribe them for precocious puberty. And there have been documented problems with their use for that condition.

I'll post this again for those who may not be aware, but there is already a class action lawsuit against the makers of Lupron by girls who were given it to delay precocious puberty. They are experiencing many health issues now.

This is the same drug that now is being used to delay puberty in trans children in much higher numbers than it was ever used before. They know it is harmful. Yet not too long ago there were people on here saying its merely "pressing pause" on normal development and it can be resumed at any time, totally harmless, right? Can you imagine the lawsuits down the road?

https://www.statnews.com/2017/02/02/lupron-puberty-children-health-problems/#:~:text=Women%20who%20used%20Lupron%20a,people%20much%20later%20in%20life.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

This is a New York Times article which, in one section, calls JK Rowling's essay a "screed".

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/16/opinion/scotus-lgbt-jk-rowling-trans.html?smtyp=cur&smid=tw-nytopinion

Last week, the author J.K. Rowling felt it necessary to unveil a screed against trans folks that ran to nearly 4,000 words, and read like a greatest-hits list of false statements and groundless fears.

She stated that trans men transition because being a woman is hard; they do not. She stated that trans women pose a threat to others in the ladies’ room; we do not. In fact, more Republican congressmen have been busted for causing trouble in public lavatories than trans women. But no one wants to throw them out of the Coast Guard.

The effect of Ms. Rowling’s manifesto was immediate and passionate — I heard from many young L.G.B.T.Q. people who’d grown up reading her books who responded to her words with sadness and fury. Surely Ms. Rowling was familiar with a series of books about a group of outcasts who were treated differently simply because of who they were?

It was nice that Emma Watson, Daniel Radcliffe and Rupert Grint all have released eloquent and unambiguous statements in support of trans people. I was especially cheered to see Mr. Grint join the fray — surely, Ms. Rowling, when you’ve lost Ron Weasley, you’ve lost everybody.

What is interesting though is the discrepancy in the comment section between the NYT picks for best comments which mostly criticise Rowling and the comments that are most recommended by readers which are far more in support of Rowling. It's heartening to see and interesting to observe.

One eyed Jack

2u2me wrote: »

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?

For a lot of people, these things are personal to who and what they are and how they define themselves. In just the same way as JK wouldn’t appreciate anyone telling her who she is or she isn’t, or what she is or she isn’t, other people are no different in that respect at least.

That’s why when JK deliberately goes out of her way to provoke people, she does so precisely because she knows people are going to react, and they’ll react strongly, and they won’t be civil, and they absolutely and undoubtedly will make a show of themselves. Even Pope Francis who isn’t someone I often agree with, suggested that it was justified that if someone insults your mother, it’s ok to take a pop at them. I don’t agree with that, I think maintaining their dignity in the face of provocation is the measure of a persons class.

That’s why I see JK as having no class - not only did she fail to maintain her dignity in the face of being provoked by others, but she took it upon herself to drag a charity organisation who had nothing to do with her into her social media spat with someone else. She decided to make her issues someone else’s problem, in the same way as the people attacking her are making their issues her problem. JK is no different than the worst of her vitriolic critics in that particular respect either. She is bringing the issues she has with other people to an even wider audience and attempting to portray herself as the innocent victim after she went out of her way to seek people to abuse and argue with her so people would perceive “poor JK, isn’t it terrible how those people are piling on and picking on her”, without being aware of JK having provoked them by taking the piss out of them in the first place.

That’s why I say JK has no class, and I don’t think for a minute she hates people who are transgender either. That would require that I imagine she actually cares at all about anyone other than herself.

I don’t think she does, I think she just provoked people she knew she would get a reaction from in order to further her ultimate objective of “free speech”, which appears to me to amount to nothing more than people having a right protected in law to say what they like about people they don’t like, and there to be no consequences for them of their actions and attitudes towards other people or their opinions of other people, dressed up with a veneer of “legitimate criticism of other people’s beliefs”, as if it were ever so benign. It’s simply an excuse to weaponise words, and nobody knows better how to do that than JK, who has the education, the money and the power to be able to reach a far greater audience than the confused teenager questioning their identity in the relative safety of their bedroom, until they turn on the laptop and read their favourite authors latest musings on twitter. It’s understandable that they would take it personally. That doesn’t excuse or grant anyone the right to take their frustrations out on anyone else.

Stephen Fry tried the same craic as JK with his argument for “free speech”, and he too took aim at a target he knew could be easily provoked to react, and they did, and they made themselves look like awful people and Stephen Fry the perpetual victim for “just wanting to have a rational debate”. He could have had a rational debate on free speech if that’s what he actually wanted, he didn’t have to do this -

Stephen Fry apologises for telling pitying abuse victims to 'grow up'


Like JK, he’s just another one of the “sorry not sorry” brigade that want free speech... when they’re the people who stand to benefit the most from having the right to cause injury to other people by deliberately provoking them and then playing the victim.

Dante7

Gruffalox wrote: »

Simon Fanshawe co founder of the "hate group" LGB Alliance was an original founding member of Stonewall UK.

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

So. The lgb alliance only exists to do hateful things againat trans people. Thats its sole purpose.

This is the level of debate that is involved when trying to discuss this serious issue with trans activists. FFS. Like talking to a child.

Annasopra

ceadaoin. wrote: »

I've actually never seen a statement before that it's "both sides" who are being abusive, so thats progress I guess. I would be interested to see examples of the vitriol from "terfs" though. Something that isn't just a woman expressing an ideologically problematic opinion being labeled as such, but actual threats of violence and sexual assault against trans people, to the same extent that women receive.

I think the whole JK Rowling thing has really shone a light on this. Woman expresses dissent and receives multiple threats involving being forced to "suck dick", or the more benign, "shut the **** up bitch". Like, thats the default reaction, business as usual. But, uh oh, suddenly the world is watching and the tactics and misogyny is laid out for all to see. People were able to read what she actually said and don't see where the hatred is. So now its "both sides", when previously the party line was that it was hateful women and the activists were totally justified.

So I'm glad that some can apparently now see that this abuse is wrong. Maybe it can usher the way for an actual discussion?

I have never abuse of either side. You know well that I got labelled a groomer and paedophile supporter in these discussions in the last few weeks.

ceadaoin.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

For a lot of people, these things are personal to who and what they are and how they define themselves. In just the same way as JK wouldn’t appreciate anyone telling her who she is or she isn’t, or what she is or she isn’t, other people are no different in that respect at least.

That’s why when JK deliberately goes out of her way to provoke people, she does so precisely because she knows people are going to react, and they’ll react strongly, and they won’t be civil, and they absolutely and undoubtedly will make a show of themselves. Even Pope Francis who isn’t someone I often agree with, suggested that it was justified that if someone insults your mother, it’s ok to take a pop at them. I don’t agree with that, I think maintaining their dignity in the face of provocation is the measure of a persons class.

That’s why I see JK as having no class - not only did she fail to maintain her dignity in the face of being provoked by others, but she took it upon herself to drag a charity organisation who had nothing to do with her into her social media spat with someone else. She decided to make her issues someone else’s problem, in the same way as the people attacking her are making their issues her problem. JK is no different than the worst of her vitriolic critics in that particular respect either. She is bringing the issues she has with other people to an even wider audience and attempting to portray herself as the innocent victim after she went out of her way to seek people to abuse and argue with her so people would perceive “poor JK, isn’t it terrible how those people are piling on and picking on her”, without being aware of JK having provoked them by taking the piss out of them in the first place.

That’s why I say JK has no class, and I don’t think for a minute she hates people who are transgender either. That would require that I imagine she actually cares at all about anyone other than herself.

I don’t think she does, I think she just provoked people she knew she would get a reaction from in order to further her ultimate objective of “free speech”, which appears to me to amount to nothing more than people having a right protected in law to say what they like about people they don’t like, and there to be no consequences for them of their actions and attitudes towards other people or their opinions of other people, dressed up with a veneer of “legitimate criticism of other people’s beliefs”, as if it were ever so benign. It’s simply an excuse to weaponise words, and nobody knows better how to do that than JK, who has the education, the money and the power to be able to reach a far greater audience than the confused teenager questioning their identity in the relative safety of their bedroom, until they turn on the laptop and read their favourite authors latest musings on twitter. It’s understandable that they would take it personally. That doesn’t excuse or grant anyone the right to take their frustrations out on anyone else.

Stephen Fry tried the same craic as JK with his argument for “free speech”, and he too took aim at a target he knew could be easily provoked to react, and they did, and they made themselves look like awful people and Stephen Fry the perpetual victim for “just wanting to have a rational debate”. He could have had a rational debate on free speech if that’s what he actually wanted, he didn’t have to do this -

Stephen Fry apologises for telling pitying abuse victims to 'grow up'


Like JK, he’s just another one of the “sorry not sorry” brigade that want free speech... when they’re the people who stand to benefit the most from having the right to cause injury to other people by deliberately provoking them and then playing the victim.

Oh ffs. Sure you haven't even read what she said. You admitted as much when you made a huge long post about how she is uninformed because she didn't address the issue of the amount of young girls identifying out of being female, when actually she did. A lot.

I've only skim read the above contribution, but it strikes me that the sign of a good writer is that a 3000+ word essay still seems shorter than one of your posts. Sorry

Will we be treated to a thesis about how she actually is not a good writer now? Can't wait.

ceadaoin.

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

I have never abuse of either side. You know well that I got labelled a groomer and paedophile supporter in these discussions in the last few weeks.

Yes, that was out of line. I fully agree. the same as how I dont agree with the horrible actual transphobic posts that pop up now and again.

Ive never said you abuse anyone. You said the abuse comes from "both sides" which is a step forward.

Annasopra

Gruffalox wrote: »

That is a lot of gay people you are calling haters.
But okay. Your choice.

And on the medical experimentation on children Joey?

I'm not quite sure what you mean by experimentation. This journal article is well worth reading on it.

It sets out exactly why provision of puberty blockers is not experimental.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/26895269.2020.1747768

Its not yet clear why the NHS changed their guidelines either to be honest.

Puberty blockers are not used lightly under any circumstances. They are given when there is a strong and persistent gender dysphoria. If the clinicians feel that having discussed the issue in full with with parents and children concerned and that there is a clear understanding of it all I have no problem with that.

Annasopra

Gruffalox wrote: »

That is a lot of gay people you are calling haters.
But okay. Your choice.

And on the medical experimentation on children Joey?

Its amazing to me that people who generally oppose lgb rights suddenly think the lgb alliance are great. :pac:

Gruffalux

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

I'm not quite sure what you mean by experimentation. This journal article is well worth reading on it.

It sets out exactly why provision of puberty blockers is not experimental.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/26895269.2020.1747768

Its not yet clear why the NHS changed their guidelines either to be honest.

Puberty blockers are not used lightly under any circumstances. They are given when there is a strong and persistent gender dysphoria. If the clinicians feel that having discussed the issue in full with with parents and children concerned and that there is a clear understanding of it all I have no problem with that.

They have changed their guidance for the same reason a lot of UK Councils are beginni g to withdraw plans for self ID access to facilities - the avalanche of legal claims that are coming that is going to take a whole lot of money out of the public pocket.
Note Tavistock finds it hard to hold onto Directors and senior medical people - because they have seen the reality of the abuse that is going on.

Gruffalux

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Its amazing to me that people who generally oppose lgb rights suddenly think the lgb alliance are great. :pac:

Where do you get the libelous notion that I oppose lgb rights? I have same sex married people in my immediate family. Withdraw your accusation immediately.

Annasopra

Gruffalox wrote: »

Where do you get the libelous notion that I oppose lgb rights? I have same sex married people in my immediate family. Withdraw your accusation immediately.

I didnt actually name any particular person there.

Gruffalux

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

I didnt actually name any particular person there.

I am the only person who has mentioned LGB Alliance. Your implication is clear. Withdraw it.