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

FVP3

One eyed Jack wrote: »

We can define our own terms? We do it every day? Like the example I gave earlier that I can think of at least 50 different names for my John Thomas without breaking a sweat. And that’s just in one language of over 7,000 languages used across the known world.

That doesn't change the reality of your penis. Nor is it changing reality. Nor is it really your own terms, unless you came up with a name for your johnson on your own.

The fact there is more than one name for some objects in some languages doesn't change the point about language. There is consistency.

You’re honestly either overthinking this or purposely making it appear more difficult than it is in reality.

Maybe you are under thinking it.

If you didn’t know any of the number of languages besides English spoken in Uganda for example, you’d struggle to make yourself understood, and the locals would struggle to understand you if they didn’t have a word of English. If you’re having a medical emergency it undoubtedly presents something of an issue, but not a difficulty that’s impossible to overcome. Might be best to avoid China altogether but if you ever do find yourself there, Mandarin Chinese is going to sound like Double Dutch if you’re not familiar with it.

Of course different languages exist. Did you think that anybody doesn't know that? All of these languages have some kind of agreement on what the language means when it refers to different nouns, and have agreed upon grammar rules. If they didn't nobody would understand anybody.

The question is based upon a false premise, either through a misunderstanding of the practice of medicine, or through a deliberate misrepresentation. I figured I’d give mowhawk the benefit of the doubt and point out that each case is determined on its own merits. The best answer I could give you is that I wouldn’t imagine any two patients are treated exactly the same in medical terms.

You clearly haven't answered the question about whether a transwoman should be treated the same as a biological woman based on her beliefs. In fact you have deferred to the very authority you decry elsewhere who would follow best practice, which of course would be treating a transwoman as a biological man if she has penis cancer.

You also ignored my points about creationism, transubstantiation and the flat earth as I expected you would.

One eyed Jack

FVP3 wrote: »

Of course different languages exist. Did you think that anybody doesn't know that? All of these languages have some kind of agreement on what the language means when it refers to different nouns, and have agreed upon grammar rules. If they didn't nobody would understand anybody.

Unless, they developed a way to communicate with each other that both of them could understand and relate to each other, which is exactly how language develops.

FVP3 wrote: »

You clearly haven't answered the question about whether a transwoman should be treated the same as a biological woman based on her beliefs. In fact you have deferred to the very authority you decry elsewhere who would follow best practice, which of course would be treating a transwoman as a biological man if she has penis cancer.

They’d be treating a person who identifies themselves as transgender for cancer of the penis, or do you imagine that the fact the patient is transgender wouldn’t be a relevant consideration in determining a course of treatment which the medical team and the patient would have determined would lead to the best possible outcomes for the patient? That’s why the question is silly - because the medical professionals involved would try and get as much information as they can on every individual case. They do that anyway, regardless of whether the patient is male or female.

FVP3 wrote: »

You also ignored my points about creationism, transubstantiation and the flat earth as I expected you would.

I failed to see what you were driving at tbh. You merely declaring that someone is wrong doesn’t change the reality that they’re free to hold and to express beliefs which you disagree with? You have that right too, everyone has that right. It’s already established in Irish and International law.

FVP3

One eyed Jack wrote: »

They’d be treating a person who identifies themselves as transgender for cancer of the penis, or do you imagine that the fact the patient is transgender wouldn’t be a relevant consideration in determining a course of treatment which the medical team and the patient would have determined would lead to the best possible outcomes for the patient?.

I do in fact imagine the fact that the patient is transgender is irrelevant to the treatment of the cancer of the penis.

I failed to see what you were driving at tbh.

Of course you understood it, a child could understand.

You merely declaring that someone is wrong doesn’t change the reality that they’re free to hold and to express beliefs which you disagree with? You have that right too, everyone has that right. It’s already established in Irish and International law.

I never said they didn't have that right. Why bring that up? Typical straw man response..

Is there an objective reality or not. Is the Earth flat or not. Yes, or no.

One eyed Jack

FVP3 wrote: »

Is there an objective reality or not.

There isn’t, no.

CtevenSrowder

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There isn’t, no.

Oh my.

One eyed Jack

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Oh my.

Well there isn’t, in the context in which we’re speaking here where everyone has their own idea of reality which they imagine is objective. It’s only objective from their perspective which makes it a subjective reality. There are plenty of subjective realities and merely because they’re commonly shared doesn’t make a commonly shared reality any more objective. Objectivity requires an outside neutral observer, not simply someone who says “It is so because I say it is so”. That’s just being self-centred. Nothing inherently wrong with that perspective, as long as they don’t try to inflict it on people whom they know don’t agree with them and try to compel those people to behave as though they share that person’s perspective.

Freedom to hold, express, and share ideas is fine. Attempting to compel others to behave as though they share your ideas in violation of their own conscience, that’s not right. It doesn’t matter that it’s the popular view held by the majority, that still doesn’t give anyone in the majority the right to inflict their standards they deem to be objective reality, on other people.

That’s wrong think territory, and has been used against people throughout history to justify the status quo and cause other people inhumane suffering. In this case it’s the idea of it being somehow acceptable to tell people who are transgender that they are not entitled to equal treatment unless they conform to the ideas shared by the majority. I just don’t accept that. Other people are entitled to hold that belief, they’re not entitled to have it protected by law, no matter how much they argue that theirs is the one and only objective reality. That’s quicker to come back to bite them in the arse than acknowledging that their perspective of reality in the context of how they perceive other people, is entirely subjective.

Joe Columbo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Well there isn’t, in the context in which we’re speaking here where everyone has their own idea of reality which they imagine is objective. It’s only objective from their perspective which makes it a subjective reality. There are plenty of subjective realities and merely because they’re commonly shared doesn’t make a commonly shared reality any more objective. Objectivity requires an outside neutral observer, not simply someone who says “It is so because I say it is so”. That’s just being self-centred. Nothing inherently wrong with that perspective, as long as they don’t try to inflict it on people whom they know don’t agree with them and try to compel those people to behave as though they share that person’s perspective.

Freedom to hold, express, and share ideas is fine. Attempting to compel others to behave as though they share your ideas in violation of their own conscience, that’s not right. It doesn’t matter that it’s the popular view held by the majority, that still doesn’t give anyone in the majority the right to inflict their standards they deem to be objective reality, on other people.

That’s wrong think territory, and has been used against people throughout history to justify the status quo and cause other people inhumane suffering. In this case it’s the idea of it being somehow acceptable to tell people who are transgender that they are not entitled to equal treatment unless they conform to the ideas shared by the majority. I just don’t accept that. Other people are entitled to hold that belief, they’re not entitled to have it protected by law, no matter how much they argue that theirs is the one and only objective reality. That’s quicker to come back to bite them in the arse than acknowledging that their perspective of reality in the context of how they perceive other people, is entirely subjective.

But thats how the trans movement wants us to behave.


So I'm glad to know you don't support people being compelled to call transwomen women or treat them as biological women and you support JK Rowling in what she said.


You could have saved yourself a lot of time if you just posted that at the beginning rather than tying yourself up in knots with all the nonsense you've posted in this thread when you actually agree with JK Rowling and the people who support her.

One eyed Jack

Joe Columbo wrote: »

But thats how the trans movement wants us to behave.

Drop the persecution complex. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression the same as you do. Neither Irish nor UK law compels you to behave as though you agree with those you don't. In Irish law there are specific provisions for discrimination which is not regarded as unlawful if it is intended to achieve a legitimate aim. UK law is no different in this respect -

Section 29: Provision of services, etc.
Schedule 3, Part 7: Separate and single services

Joe Columbo wrote: »

So I'm glad to know you don't support people being compelled to call transwomen women or treat them as biological women and you support JK Rowling in what she said.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't intentionally conflate those two separate ideas as though they are related. I don't support people being compelled to violate their conscience in any respect, the law does not compel people to do so either. In fact the law protects people from being forced to behave in a way which violates their conscience, which is why in just the same way it recognises the rights of men, women, children and now, whereas it didn't before, it now extends recognition of these rights to people who are transgender - thereby affording them the right to be protected from being compelled to behave in ways which violate their conscience.

Whether or not I support JK Rowling is a different matter entirely, and I have already said that I do not. How you could possibly have concluded from anything I've written that I support JK Rowling, is because you wanted to, not because I actually expressed any such idea. That's entirely on you, not me, but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that wasn't your intent, rather than assuming you had any malicious intent in misrepresenting my opinions.

I do not support JK Rowling in what she said, because then I would be joining her in displaying a complete lack of understanding of law, biology, history, philosophy, psychology, sociology, anthropology and a few other violations of years of education and experiences which have informed my opinions. JK's position relies on appealing to people who wish to remain ignorant. That's not a position I was ever comfortable with, although sometimes I wish I was comfortable with being a lazy, ignorant prick - far easier time of it by all accounts, low expectations of themselves and quite satisfied to wallow in their own ignorance. Normally their ignorance isn't an issue for most people, but for the few that they tend to pick on to make themselves feel superior to somebody, anybody - they present as something of an issue, who have no right to have their ignorance accommodated in a civilised and democratic society.

The judgement in the case of Maya Forstater before the Employment Tribunal is well worth a read for a condensed version of UK and International Human Rights Law in this respect - Case Number: 2200909

Joe Columbo wrote: »

You could have saved yourself a lot of time if you just posted that at the beginning rather than tying yourself up in knots with all the nonsense you've posted in this thread when you actually agree with JK Rowling and the people who support her.

That would have required me to pretend that i agree with JK Rowling and those who support her, which, while it would certainly have saved all of us some time, it would have been a violation of not only my conscience, but a violation of a number of principles which I am of the belief are worth protecting. It's not quite the same as JK claiming to martyr herself or portray herself as being persecuted for expressing opinions which are held by the majority in society, when the minority in society express their disagreement with her beliefs grounded in identity politics as opposed to reality. It's equally ridiculous to suggest JK is transphobic, as it is for her to suggest that anyone who disagrees with her claims is misogynistic.

Don't suggest you wish to debate the issues involved if all you actually want to do is get people who disagree with you into a space to fire shít at them. That's just uncivilised behaviour. On twitter though, one should know to expect that sort of behaviour - social media pile-ons are a tactic that JK has tended to use which have greatly benefitted her in the past. On this occasion (and on five previous occasions according to herself), it has blown back in her face. One would think after the first time it happens, they would be more careful. JK at this stage appears to want people to fling shít at her, so she goes looking for it. I'd feel sympathetic if it happens to someone once. If it keeps happening to them, as in the case of JK it has happened five times now, then I begin to question whether it's just a series of unfortunate coincidences, or if the person given to constantly portraying themselves as a victim, in spite of all evidence to the contrary, has something more sinister going on.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Drop the persecution complex. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression the same as you do. Neither Irish nor UK law compels you to behave as though you agree with those you don't. In Irish law there are specific provisions for discrimination which is not regarded as unlawful if it is intended to achieve a legitimate aim. UK law is no different in this respect -

Section 29: Provision of services, etc.
Schedule 3, Part 7: Separate and single services





I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't intentionally conflate those two separate ideas as though they are related. I don't support people being compelled to violate their conscience in any respect, the law does not compel people to do so either. In fact the law protects people from being forced to behave in a way which violates their conscience, which is why in just the same way it recognises the rights of men, women, children and now, whereas it didn't before, it now extends recognition of these rights to people who are transgender - thereby affording them the right to be protected from being compelled to behave in ways which violate their conscience.

Whether or not I support JK Rowling is a different matter entirely, and I have already said that I do not. How you could possibly have concluded from anything I've written that I support JK Rowling, is because you wanted to, not because I actually expressed any such idea. That's entirely on you, not me, but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that wasn't your intent, rather than assuming you had any malicious intent in misrepresenting my opinions.

I do not support JK Rowling in what she said, because then I would be joining her in displaying a complete lack of understanding of law, biology, history, philosophy, psychology, sociology, anthropology and a few other violations of years of education and experiences which have informed my opinions. JK's position relies on appealing to people who wish to remain ignorant. That's not a position I was ever comfortable with, although sometimes I wish I was comfortable with being a lazy, ignorant prick - far easier time of it by all accounts, low expectations of themselves and quite satisfied to wallow in their own ignorance. Normally their ignorance isn't an issue for most people, but for the few that they tend to pick on to make themselves feel superior to somebody, anybody - they present as something of an issue, who have no right to have their ignorance accommodated in a civilised and democratic society.

The judgement in the case of Maya Forstater before the Employment Tribunal is well worth a read for a condensed version of UK and International Human Rights Law in this respect - Case Number: 2200909





That would have required me to pretend that i agree with JK Rowling and those who support her, which, while it would certainly have saved all of us some time, it would have been a violation of not only my conscience, but a violation of a number of principles which I am of the belief are worth protecting. It's not quite the same as JK claiming to martyr herself or portray herself as being persecuted for expressing opinions which are held by the majority in society, when the minority in society express their disagreement with her beliefs grounded in identity politics as opposed to reality. It's equally ridiculous to suggest JK is transphobic, as it is for her to suggest that anyone who disagrees with her claims is misogynistic.

Don't suggest you wish to debate the issues involved if all you actually want to do is get people who disagree with you into a space to fire shít at them. That's just uncivilised behaviour. On twitter though, one should know to expect that sort of behaviour - social media pile-ons are a tactic that JK has tended to use which have greatly benefitted her in the past. On this occasion (and on five previous occasions according to herself), it has blown back in her face. One would think after the first time it happens, they would be more careful. JK at this stage appears to want people to fling shít at her, so she goes looking for it. I'd feel sympathetic if it happens to someone once. If it keeps happening to them, as in the case of JK it has happened five times now, then I begin to question whether it's just a series of unfortunate coincidences, or if the person given to constantly portraying themselves as a victim, in spite of all evidence to the contrary, has something more sinister going on.

That's lovely.

But are you still under the impression that actual biological men can have periods?

Because if you do, you are wrong and if you dont, you agree with jk Rowling

randomchild

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Oh my.

It's essentially the dreams/reality lecture from Father Ted.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

That's lovely.

But are you still under the impression that actual biological men can have periods?

Because if you do, you are wrong and if you dont, you agree with jk Rowling

I was never under that impression in the first place and you know it.

Secondly, that wasn’t the claim that JK was attempting to counter on this particular occasion. She was attempting, albeit rather clumsily, to counter the point that people who identify themselves as non-binary, menstruate. She didn’t even address the central point of the claim she was attempting to refute, let alone demonstrate that the claim was incorrect.

All she did in reality was demonstrate a poor understanding of the English language in order to incite a pile-on on social media. I don’t think JK actually has a poor understanding of the English language and therefore I can only conclude that not only did she know what she was doing, she did it on purpose, specifically with malicious intent.

suicide_circus

Jacko you post like Nyan Cat sings. never change dude

Lefty Bicek

One eyed Jack wrote: »

All she did in reality was demonstrate a poor understanding of the English language in order to incite a pile-on on social media. I don’t think JK actually has a poor understanding of the English language and therefore I can only conclude that not only did she know what she was doing, she did it on purpose, specifically with malicious intent.

This is par for the course with your overall contribution.

People 'in reality' can demonstrate that which they do not 'actually' have...

I mean, it's just gobbledygook stuff.

One eyed Jack

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

This is par for the course with your overall contribution.

People 'in reality' can demonstrate that which they do not 'actually' have...

I mean, it's just gobbledygook stuff.

Her behaviour is commonly referred to as feigning ignorance, or being disingenuous. On this occasion provably so, when a cursory glance over the literature she used to make her point, contained this distinction -


An estimated 1.8 billion girls, women, and gender non-binary persons menstruate, and this has not stopped because of the pandemic. They still require menstrual materials, safe access to toilets, soap, water, and private spaces in the face of lockdown living conditions that have eliminated privacy for many populations.


Any one of her estimated 14 million followers on twitter who appear to be of the age when they might be thinking about these things would have been able to read and understand what JK appears to struggle with. I had a gander at her public twitter profile, appears to be mostly JK showering children with praise for their artistic endeavours, with a sprinkling of her opinions on people who are transgender in between (rather insidious but hey ho :pac:). A real eyebrow raiser however was her tagline underneath her name:

‘Writer sometimes known as Robert Galbraith’


Ohhhk then

Lefty Bicek

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Her behaviour is commonly referred to as feigning ignorance, or being disingenuous. On this occasion provably so, when she a cursory glance over the literature she used to make her point, contained this distinction -

One can not 'demonstrate'...

1. give a practical exhibition and explanation of (how a machine, skill, or craft works or is performed).

2.
clearly show the existence or truth of (something) by giving proof or evidence.

... anything by feigning ignorance, or being disingenuous.

They are mutually exclusive terms.

Were you not so adept at flashing your scholarship at others with dictionary definitions and hot-linked Latin phrases, I might not have bothered pointing it out.

One eyed Jack

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

One can not 'demonstrate'...
... anything by feigning ignorance, or being disingenuous.

They are mutually exclusive terms.

Were you not so adept at flashing your scholarship at others with dictionary definitions and hot-linked Latin phrases, I might not have bothered pointing it out.

Point out whatever you like, I don’t see how anything you’ve posted contradicts my assertion that JK is demonstrating a poor understanding of the English language by feigning ignorance with the following tweet -


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


It would be ridiculous to suggest that upon reading that tweet, one still has to give JK the benefit of the doubt that she might just have a poor grasp of the English language.

KiKi III

My most strongly held opinion on trans issues remains that it gets way more discussion than other issues that effect a lot more people a lot more directly.

Joe Columbo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Point out whatever you like, I don’t see how anything you’ve posted contradicts my assertion that JK is demonstrating a poor understanding of the English language by feigning ignorance with the following tweet -


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


It would be ridiculous to suggest that upon reading that tweet, one still has to give JK the benefit of the doubt that she might just have a poor grasp of the English language.

So now you've just stated that one of the most successful authors of all time has a poor understanding of the english language.


You've really jumped the shark at this stage.

Stark

Joe Columbo wrote: »

So now you've just stated that one of the most successful authors of all time has a poor understanding of the english language.


You've really jumped the shark at this stage.

He's spent about 3 pages saying the exact opposite of that :rolleyes:

Joe Columbo

Stark wrote: »

He's spent about 3 pages saying the exact opposite of that :rolleyes:

so he's just contradicted himself again.


Honestly seems like Jack doesn't have a clue anymore, he's just tied himself in knots with all the nonsense he's been posting.

Stark

Joe Columbo wrote: »

so he's just contradicted himself again.


Honestly seems like Jack doesn't have a clue anymore, he's just tied himself in knots with all the nonsense he's been posting.

Or you're just being deliberate obtuse by pretending to not understand what he just said in his post just as JK Rowling was pretending not to know the word "woman".

Tired Gardener

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

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

Wait, so gay conversion is wrong, but in the same segment we get told that people should work on their genitalia preference.

And that is said without any hint of irony.

https://youtu.be/zTRnrp9pXHY

Wait, wasn't this essentially what Graham Linehan was warning about? Untested puberty blockers being used on children?

So, he wasn't a bigot... well I never.

suicide_circus

KiKi III wrote: »

My most strongly held opinion on trans issues remains that it gets way more discussion than other issues that effect a lot more people a lot more directly.

i 100% agree

but there reasons for that

Stark

Tired Gardener wrote: »

Wait, so gay conversion is wrong, but in the same segment we get told that people should work on their genitalia preference.

And that is said without any hint of irony.

https://youtu.be/zTRnrp9pXHY

It's one person's opinion.

There are plenty of internet bloggers who will say it's racist to not want to date black people or Asian people, or discriminatory to not want to date fat or disabled people etc. Is that justification for racism or fat-shaming people or is it possible to simply accept it as the views of a handful of extremists and not use it as an excuse to direct hate against the entire community?

Tired Gardener

Stark wrote: »

It's one person's opinion.

There are plenty of internet bloggers who will say it's racist to not want to date black people or Asian people, or discriminatory to not want to date fat or disabled people etc. Is that justification for racism or fat-shaming people or is it possible to simply accept it as the views of a handful of extremists and not use it as an excuse to direct hate against the entire community?

Yes, one person's opinion... which is bloody extreme. However that is the point, extreme views similar to this are now being gobbled up as truth. Hence people saying men can menstruate... the Transgender Rights movement seems to be hijacked by a collection of these extremists, and they are turning the movement sour.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

KiKi III wrote: »

My most strongly held opinion on trans issues remains that it gets way more discussion than other issues that effect a lot more people a lot more directly.

That’s true. Which is why it tends to be a bad political move for any politician to embrace it. It just ends up alienating people.

The erosion of sex-based rights affects 50% of the population.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Tired Gardener wrote: »

Wait, so gay conversion is wrong, but in the same segment we get told that people should work on their genitalia preference.

And that is said without any hint of irony.

https://youtu.be/zTRnrp9pXHY

Wait, wasn't this essentially what Graham Linehan was warning about? Untested puberty blockers being used on children?

So, he wasn't a bigot... well I never.

Linehan has lost the plot a bit but I truly believe he will be vindicated.

A Newsnight report the other night touched on the subject of the Tavistock Centre and homophobia.

And many people have been pointing out for ages that puberty blockers are not tested for the way they are being used on children and the NHS has recently changed its guidance from saying that the blockers are fully reversible to admitting they don’t if that’s the case because the research isn’t there. So Linehan has already been somewhat vindicated, not that anyone was lining up to congratulate him.

Sir Oxman

This is but just the latest example from the UK.
This is one example of pure indoctrination, not factualities, not aids to helping children develop critical faculties (Critical Theory does NOT alone count) - the next step (or concurrent step) to dismantle the censoring micro monoculture which has invaded all UK institutions is an absolute imperative.


And affects everyone.
Ireland needs to take a deep, due diligent look at itself as well.

https://twitter.com/MForstater/status/1274425963594559488?s=20

JP Liz V1

Deleted User wrote: »

I wish Irish people would f*ck off using hysterical Yankee lingo.

I need a dictionary thesaurus for some threads here, I'm way behind on the lingo

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I was never under that impression in the first place and you know it.

Secondly, that wasn’t the claim that JK was attempting to counter on this particular occasion. She was attempting, albeit rather clumsily, to counter the point that people who identify themselves as non-binary, menstruate. She didn’t even address the central point of the claim she was attempting to refute, let alone demonstrate that the claim was incorrect.

All she did in reality was demonstrate a poor understanding of the English language in order to incite a pile-on on social media. I don’t think JK actually has a poor understanding of the English language and therefore I can only conclude that not only did she know what she was doing, she did it on purpose, specifically with malicious intent.

You are trying to argue that a multi million selling author has a bad grasp of the English language while arguing that people should not say that only women menstruate...

Good lad.