Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
17576788081207

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 20,998 ✭✭✭✭Stark


    No-one gives a **** if "some of your best friends are gay" or not.

    As with most gay people, I'm painfully aware of who our enemies are and who are trying to turn hate against us and take away our rights, even in 2020. I don't need someone to do whatever the gay equivalent of "mansplaining" is and tell me that our actual enemy has been trans people all along.


  • Registered Users Posts: 41,080 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


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

    The implication wasnt clear at all to be honest. I stand by it is a general statement but fair enough you have lgb family members so it doesnt necessarily fit you. I am not withdrawing the statement no.

    The lgb alliance exists purely as a hate group against trans people and many who ordinarily oppose lgb rights ally themselves with it.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,474 ✭✭✭Obvious Desperate Breakfasts


    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.

    These drugs should not be used as puberty blockers at all. It's very clear to me why the NHS changed changed its guidance - because the long-term studies are non-existent and gathering that information and running trials would be deeply unethical. This is not like trying out drugs on children for whom certain death is the other option (spare me the emotive suicide pleas, I'm talking about things like cancer). Tentative information is out there to say that pausing puberty with these drugs is damaging. Experimenting on children with them - which is exactly what it is - is morally bankrupt.

    The question is, why did the NHS ever claim that they were fully reversible when the data did not exist to make such a claim? How many families took assurance from that falsehood? This is the health service of the UK. And they peddled a blatant lie.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,474 ✭✭✭Obvious Desperate Breakfasts


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

    Who here opposes LGB rights? Like Gruffalox said, back that up or retract it.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,023 ✭✭✭Gruffalux


    I stand by it is a general statement but fair enough you have lgb family members so it doesnt necessarily fit you. I am not withdrawing the statement no.

    .

    The LGB Alliance is not a hate group. The post above is at least an effort at a row back so I will let it pass as it is hard for people to admit they are wrong.
    Joey, I have 2 degrees in Law so for future reference do not accuse me on a public forum in a defamatory way.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,474 ✭✭✭Obvious Desperate Breakfasts


    The implication wasnt clear at all to be honest. I stand by it is a general statement but fair enough you have lgb family members so it doesnt necessarily fit you. I am not withdrawing the statement no.

    The lgb alliance exists purely as a hate group against trans people and many who ordinarily oppose lgb rights ally themselves with it.

    Only one person has mentioned the LGB Alliance. It was very clear. How stupid do you think people are?

    At least have the courage of your convictions if you're going to make an accusation and admit to whom you were referring.


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,954 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    ceadaoin. wrote: »
    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 :D

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



    I read what she said long before you posted it, as it had been posted earlier than your post in the thread. I was referring to the fact that in the particular tweet she made this time, that she made no reference to the fact that girls were identifying themselves out of being female. She made no reference to that point in any of her previous efforts either.

    When she had to have sensed that the tide of public opinion might be swaying against her, only then did she write a piece where she threw everything but the kitchen sink into her latest “sorry not sorry, oops, senior moment, oops, copy and paste error, oops, etc, etc”, prefacing her opinion piece with an acknowledgement that the issue is surrounded by toxicity and how she writes the piece without any desire to add to that toxicity... and then goes on to do just that, while still managing to elicit sympathy for herself by signalling her victimhood status.

    On that basis alone, even if I had never read the rest of her considerable body of work, I am of the opinion that not only is JK a good writer, that piece alone shows that she is a bloody brilliant writer that she is able to provoke and gain sympathy for herself at the same time, in the one piece, by writing a piece she knows will provoke all sorts of emotions and reactions from the public.

    The sign of a good writer of fiction is their ability to make their characters relatable, (Fifty Shades is a good example, once you get over the repetitive references to Ana’s Inner Goddess :pac: ). It, sold, millions. Because women the world over could relate to it... even if it was a cheap knockoff of Secretary from 20 years earlier.

    Undoubtedly JK is a good writer, it’s just a shame she uses her creative talents to intentionally insult, abuse and humiliate other people, when we know from her other works she undoubtedly has within her the ability and the capacity, and the platform, to inspire people. Instead she resorts to cheap bullying tactics on a medium where she is restricted to 140 characters or less.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,909 ✭✭✭CtevenSrowder


    I read what she said long before you posted it, as it had been posted earlier than your post in the thread. I was referring to the fact that in the particular tweet she made this time, that she made no reference to the fact that girls were identifying themselves out of being female. She made no reference to that point in any of her previous efforts either.

    When she had to have sensed that the tide of public opinion might be swaying against her, only then did she write a piece where she threw everything but the kitchen sink into her latest “sorry not sorry, oops, senior moment, oops, copy and paste error, oops, etc, etc”, prefacing her opinion piece with an acknowledgement that the issue is surrounded by toxicity and how she writes the piece without any desire to add to that toxicity... and then goes on to do just that, while still managing to elicit sympathy for herself by signalling her victimhood status.

    On that basis alone, even if I had never read the rest of her considerable body of work, I am of the opinion that not only is JK a good writer, that piece alone shows that she is a bloody brilliant writer that she is able to provoke and gain sympathy for herself at the same time, in the one piece, by writing a piece she knows will provoke all sorts of emotions and reactions from the public.

    The sign of a good writer of fiction is their ability to make their characters relatable, (Fifty Shades is a good example, once you get over the repetitive references to Ana’s Inner Goddess :pac: ). It, sold, millions. Because women the world over could relate to it... even if it was a cheap knockoff of Secretary from 20 years earlier.

    Undoubtedly JK is a good writer, it’s just a shame she uses her creative talents to intentionally insult, abuse and humiliate other people, when we know from her other works she undoubtedly has within her the ability and the capacity, and the platform, to inspire people. Instead she resorts to cheap bullying tactics on a medium where she is restricted to 140 characters or less.

    'Intentionally insult, abuse and humiliate other people. Looks like we're back to a Hobsons choice. Shut up or be wrongly accused. She has not done any of that.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,492 ✭✭✭Sir Oxman


    Bambi wrote: »
    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


    Could not have put it better.


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,954 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    'Intentionally insult, abuse and humiliate other people. Looks like we're back to a Hobsons choice. Shut up or be wrongly accused. She has not done any of that.


    Not once have I ever suggested JK should shut up. Quite the opposite in fact, I think she should speak up more. There is no difficult choice there though between making the choice to use her considerable influence and power and talents to insult, abuse and humiliate other people, or to inspire other people.

    In an earlier post I specifically made the point that I don’t believe for a minute she is transphobic. I said that would require me to believe she actually cares about anyone other than herself. I don’t think she does - she’s not transphobic or any sort of phobic, I think she just suffers from debilitating egocentricity.

    We clearly have a different view of the same tweet and it’s intended audience -


    ”People who menstruate.’ I’m sure there used to be a word for those people. Someone help me out. Wumben? Wimpund? Woomud?” Rowling tweeted.


    You really imagine JK needed help with her vocabulary?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 47 paddar


    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?

    This! I really can't get over the blatant hate and misogyny that lies behind the word TERF. It just seems to be a woke way of saying ''shut up woman'' with no consequences.

    JK is back on twitter btw, doing awful TERF like things like *reads note* giving positive feedback to children on their drawing skills.
    I can imagine any kids would be thrilled getting their picture highlighted by JK. So wholesome and positive. Then you look at the comments. It's people calling her a TERF, saying shut up, die etc under drawings of 8 year olds. WTF. Even Fallon Fox (Transwoman MMA who broke another women skull) is gloating under a kids drawing of a peacock saying how they knocked out two women and like smacking up TERFS). How is this justified?


  • Registered Users Posts: 41,080 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    Gruffalox wrote: »
    The LGB Alliance is not a hate group. The post above is at least an effort at a row back so I will let it pass as it is hard for people to admit they are wrong.
    Joey, I have 2 degrees in Law so for future reference do not accuse me on a public forum in a defamatory way.

    :pac:

    The entire existence of the LGB alliance is about trying to dismantle all rights for trans people. I never accused you of anything defamatory. Good luck if you try to take it to court that I did.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,492 ✭✭✭Sir Oxman


    ceadaoin. wrote: »
    I've actually never seen a statement before that it's "both sides" who are being abusive, so thats progress I guess.


    That would be a tactic by the ideolgically captured.
    The light has been shone, the huge abuse of women with the 'wrong' opinion in particular has been revealed to a wider audience.
    I am not simply talking about run of the mill adherents like certain posters here - I mean, where do they get their opinions from...?

    The reframing must happen, so another pointing finger is deployed.
    However, the evidence is there for all to see.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,474 ✭✭✭Obvious Desperate Breakfasts


    paddar wrote: »
    This! I really can't get over the blatant hate and misogyny that lies behind the word TERF. It just seems to be a woke way of saying ''shut up woman'' with no consequences.

    JK is back on twitter btw, doing awful TERF like things like *reads note* giving positive feedback to children on their drawing skills.
    I can imagine any kids would be thrilled getting their picture highlighted by JK. So wholesome and positive. Then you look at the comments. It's people calling her a TERF, saying shut up, die etc under drawings of 8 year olds. WTF. Even Fallon Fox (Transwoman MMA who broke another women skull) is gloating under a kids drawing of a peacock saying how they knocked out two women and like smacking up TERFS). How is this justified?

    Well, with any luck, the parents of the children whose drawings Rowling highlights will just show the children Rowling's tweet and not any of the mouth-breathing responses beneath.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,909 ✭✭✭CtevenSrowder


    Not once have I ever suggested JK should shut up. Quite the opposite in fact, I think she should speak up more. There is no difficult choice there though between making the choice to use her considerable influence and power and talents to insult, abuse and humiliate other people, or to inspire other people.

    In an earlier post I specifically made the point that I don’t believe for a minute she is transphobic. I said that would require me to believe she actually cares about anyone other than herself. I don’t think she does - she’s not transphobic or any sort of phobic, I think she just suffers from debilitating egocentricity.

    We clearly have a different view of the same tweet and it’s intended audience -


    ”People who menstruate.’ I’m sure there used to be a word for those people. Someone help me out. Wumben? Wimpund? Woomud?” Rowling tweeted.


    You really imagine JK needed help with her vocabulary?

    There is nothing insulting, abusive or humiliating in that tweet, you must have an incredibly low threshold for such things if you believe so.

    If I posted such under a comment on boards, do you think I'd be carded for being abusive, insulting or for humiliating another?

    Edit: and we're not including the LGBT forum BTW, everything is offensive there haha


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,492 ✭✭✭Sir Oxman


    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



    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.


    Merely one example of the capture of media (and that's one estate alone)

    This has all been employed in times gone by with disastrous results for humanity.


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,802 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    Fallon Fox makes a whoopsy

    https://twitter.com/FallonFox/status/1273024244956434438?s=20

    Edit: Tweet has been deleted but screenshot is attached at bottom of this post.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,492 ✭✭✭Sir Oxman


    :pac:

    The entire existence of the LGB alliance is about trying to dismantle all rights for trans people. I never accused you of anything defamatory. Good luck if you try to take it to court that I did.
    Incorrect.
    Please do better.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,474 ✭✭✭Obvious Desperate Breakfasts



    I don’t think she considers it a whoopsie. She seems very proud of herself.


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,954 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    Gruffalox wrote: »
    The LGB Alliance is not a hate group. The post above is at least an effort at a row back so I will let it pass as it is hard for people to admit they are wrong.
    Joey, I have 2 degrees in Law so for future reference do not accuse me on a public forum in a defamatory way.


    Sounds more like six degrees of separation from reality tbh.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,023 ✭✭✭Gruffalux


    paddar wrote: »
    This! I really can't get over the blatant hate and misogyny that lies behind the word TERF. It just seems to be a woke way of saying ''shut up woman'' with no consequences.

    JK is back on twitter btw, doing awful TERF like things like *reads note* giving positive feedback to children on their drawing skills.
    I can imagine any kids would be thrilled getting their picture highlighted by JK. So wholesome and positive. Then you look at the comments. It's people calling her a TERF, saying shut up, die etc under drawings of 8 year olds. WTF. Even Fallon Fox (Transwoman MMA who broke another women skull) is gloating under a kids drawing of a peacock saying how they knocked out two women and like smacking up TERFS). How is this justified?

    Seriously? Fallon Fox has posted that? Take a screenshot of it and archive.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,023 ✭✭✭Gruffalux


    Gruffalox wrote: »
    Seriously? Fallon Fox has posted that? Take a screenshot of it and archive.

    I just saw it quoted. Wow.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,023 ✭✭✭Gruffalux


    Sounds more like six degrees of separation from reality tbh.

    Oh my goodness ...That probably sounded better in your brain.


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,954 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    There is nothing insulting, abusive or humiliating in that tweet, you must have an incredibly low threshold for such things if you believe so.

    If I posted such under a comment on boards, do you think I'd be carded for being abusive, insulting or for humiliating another?

    Edit: and we're not including the LGBT forum BTW, everything is offensive there haha


    That’s like me suggesting there’s nothing vitriolic, abusive or anything else in the crap that’s being levelled at JK. It’s simply disingenuous to claim there was no ill intent as though JK genuinely struggles with her vocabulary and needed help from anyone.

    I think in any forum it would depend upon context, I’ve always said I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt rather than assume they had any ill intent. That’s why self ID laws do not assume ill intent, because of the underlying principle in law that people from the moment they’re born have the right to presumed innocent. That right applies to everyone, and in order to argue that anyone should be deprived of their liberty, the standard of proof of any wrongdoing is reasonable doubt.

    JK herself with that tweet removed any doubt from what she had previously excused as senior moments, copy and paste errors, and went on to invoke what I call “the Pete Townshend defence” in her explanation for her latest behaviour -


    Pete Townshend: I paid for child porn to prove British banks were channeling sex ring cash


    Never ceases to amaze me how many people will claim they were “only doing research” when they’re caught short :pac:

    Like JK claiming she was only doing research for a novel she was writing about a female detective who is of an age to be thinking about these things - that could be anyone from Nancy Drew to Miss Marple whom the reader would be able to relate to. She was being deliberately vague in order to appeal to as broad an audience as possible who could relate to this fictional character she had invented, rather like the bogeyman in the bathroom which she invokes to attempt to put fear in women of men.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,909 ✭✭✭CtevenSrowder


    That’s like me suggesting there’s nothing vitriolic, abusive or anything else in the crap that’s being levelled at JK. It’s simply disingenuous to claim there was no ill intent as though JK genuinely struggles with her vocabulary and needed help from anyone.

    I think in any forum it would depend upon context, I’ve always said I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt rather than assume they had any ill intent. That’s why self ID laws do not assume ill intent, because of the underlying principle in law that people from the moment they’re born have the right to presumed innocent. That right applies to everyone, and in order to argue that anyone should be deprived of their liberty, the standard of proof of any wrongdoing is reasonable doubt.

    JK herself with that tweet removed any doubt from what she had previously excused as senior moments, copy and paste errors, and went on to invoke what I call “the Pete Townshend defence” in her explanation for her latest behaviour -


    Pete Townshend: I paid for child porn to prove British banks were channeling sex ring cash


    Never ceases to amaze me how many people will claim they were “only doing research” when they’re caught short :pac:

    Like JK claiming she was only doing research for a novel she was writing about a female detective who is of an age to be thinking about these things - that could be anyone from Nancy Drew to Miss Marple whom the reader would be able to relate to. She was being deliberately vague in order to appeal to as broad an audience as possible who could relate to this fictional character she had invented, rather like the bogeyman in the bathroom which she invokes to attempt to put fear in women of men.

    Yes because saying women can menustrate is equivalent to the abuse she's received online. You clearly have a stong dislike of the women, I don't really understand why, but you do. Again only women can menustrate. That is a simple fact, it is not hateful.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,492 ✭✭✭Sir Oxman


    Interesting.
    Definitions of "What is a woman (or sometimes, a female)?"

    A collection.

    https://thehelenjoyce.com/what-is-a-woman/


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,023 ✭✭✭Gruffalux


    Sir Oxman wrote: »
    Interesting.
    Definitions of "What is a woman (or sometimes, a female)?"

    A collection.

    https://thehelenjoyce.com/what-is-a-woman/

    God there sure is a lot of shyte circulating in postmodern academia. How can these people even find their own arses to clean themselves.


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,802 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    Sir Oxman wrote: »
    Interesting.
    Definitions of "What is a woman (or sometimes, a female)?"

    A collection.

    https://thehelenjoyce.com/what-is-a-woman/
    Gobbledygook


  • Registered Users Posts: 47 paddar


    Sir Oxman wrote: »
    Interesting.
    Definitions of "What is a woman (or sometimes, a female)?"

    A collection.

    https://thehelenjoyce.com/what-is-a-woman/

    Helen Joyce is very interesting to listen to. If you have a spare hour her video on Gender, Journalism & Justice with Benjamin Boyce is well worth the time.

    https://youtu.be/xaBzGoBfcOQ


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,492 ✭✭✭Sir Oxman


    paddar wrote: »
    Helen Joyce is very interesting to listen to. If you have a spare hour her video on Gender, Journalism & Justice with Benjamin Boyce is well worth the time.

    https://youtu.be/xaBzGoBfcOQ


    Boyce is very erudite on the whole dangerous bull behind everything!
    This is his complete focus - the inherent pending current authoritarianism wrapping itself in easy labels.


    Who'd have thunk history would repeat itself?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement