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

FVP3

Tired Gardener wrote: »

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.

It's not an extreme position within the movement. It is the logical position of believing that:

A transwoman is a woman.

If that is true then a lesbian is in fact discriminating with the class of all women when refusing to "suck dick" , or "trans vagina" ( in the parlance of the day). And that discrimination is at least trans-averse if not transphobic.

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.

Also not an extreme example within the movement. I mean, this is literally what this thread is about, JK not believing that men can menstruate.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

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.

In very simple terms - JK tried to make a funny, JK failed. Her attempt to be clever just wasn’t particularly clever. On every other occasion when she got called out on her bullshìt, she had one excuse or another to excuse it - senior moment, copy paste goof, and this time she tried to suggest that the reason for her latest effort was because... well, she threw everything but the kitchen sink at this one.

That’s the reason why I can respect someone like Maya Forstater even though I disagree with her on principle. She actually did fight for the right to have her beliefs protected in law. JK has done nothing to help anyone only herself, by using any means to increase her own public profile, and as another poster suggested earlier - it works! Sales of her books are up, people will just buy her shìt because they want to support her, whereas they might not have bothered before. JK isn’t saying anything that millions before her haven’t been saying already.

You don’t keep a word alive or a concept alive by telling people they can’t use it, that’s the opposite of free speech, which JK claims to be in favour of! Free speech has always been understood as free to criticise the State and Government and their policies without fear of being sanctioned by the State or Government. JK and some other people who regard themselves as intellectuals appear to be of the opinion that free speech is the freedom to be a cùnt.

I’ve never argued that people shouldn’t say anything. It’s JK by her own example is trying to argue that people who menstruate can only be called women. By JK’s standards, if we are only to limit our understanding of anything to JK’s standards, then there are no words can be used to describe when shìt like this happens -


A 46-year-old pregnant woman had visited his clinic at the Royal Melbourne Hospital in Australia to hear the results of an amniocentesis test to screen her baby's chromosomes for abnormalities. The baby was fine — but follow-up tests had revealed something astonishing about the mother. Her body was built of cells from two individuals, probably from twin embryos that had merged in her own mother's womb. And there was more. One set of cells carried two X chromosomes, the complement that typically makes a person female; the other had an X and a Y. Halfway through her fifth decade and pregnant with her third child, the woman learned for the first time that a large part of her body was chromosomally male. “That's kind of science-fiction material for someone who just came in for an amniocentesis,” says James.


Sex redefined

KiKi III

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

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.

But is the erosion of sex based rights a problem here in Ireland (if it is I would be concerned) and if not whyyyy do we talk about it so much?

FVP3

KiKi III wrote: »

But is the erosion of sex based rights a problem here in Ireland (if it is I would be concerned) and if not whyyyy do we talk about it so much?

We tend to discuss the US, the UK and Ireland on boards as you know. Many of your posts are US centered.

You are right that the introduction of self ID hasn't had much effect here, maybe because there's not as strong a trans movement here as in some other countries.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

In very simple terms - JK tried to make a funny, JK failed. Her attempt to be clever just wasn’t particularly clever. On every other occasion when she got called out on her bullshìt, she had one excuse or another to excuse it - senior moment, copy paste goof, and this time she tried to suggest that the reason for her latest effort was because... well, she threw everything but the kitchen sink at this one.

That’s the reason why I can respect someone like Maya Forstater even though I disagree with her on principle. She actually did fight for the right to have her beliefs protected in law. JK has done nothing to help anyone only herself, by using any means to increase her own public profile, and as another poster suggested earlier - it works! Sales of her books are up, people will just buy her shìt because they want to support her, whereas they might not have bothered before. JK isn’t saying anything that millions before her haven’t been saying already.

You don’t keep a word alive or a concept alive by telling people they can’t use it, that’s the opposite of free speech, which JK claims to be in favour of! Free speech has always been understood as free to criticise the State and Government and their policies without fear of being sanctioned by the State or Government. JK and some other people who regard themselves as intellectuals appear to be of the opinion that free speech is the freedom to be a cùnt.

I’ve never argued that people shouldn’t say anything. It’s JK by her own example is trying to argue that people who menstruate can only be called women. By JK’s standards, if we are only to limit our understanding of anything to JK’s standards, then there are no words can be used to describe when shìt like this happens -


A 46-year-old pregnant woman had visited his clinic at the Royal Melbourne Hospital in Australia to hear the results of an amniocentesis test to screen her baby's chromosomes for abnormalities. The baby was fine — but follow-up tests had revealed something astonishing about the mother. Her body was built of cells from two individuals, probably from twin embryos that had merged in her own mother's womb. And there was more. One set of cells carried two X chromosomes, the complement that typically makes a person female; the other had an X and a Y. Halfway through her fifth decade and pregnant with her third child, the woman learned for the first time that a large part of her body was chromosomally male. “That's kind of science-fiction material for someone who just came in for an amniocentesis,” says James.


Sex redefined

Seriously,. Why do you put up a wall of bull**** text.

Jk said women are the only ones who menstruate. She is right. Get over it.

Quantum Erasure

One eyed Jack wrote: »

...It’s JK by her own example is trying to argue that people who menstruate can only be called women. By JK’s standards, if we are only to limit our understanding of anything to JK’s standards, then there are no words can be used to describe when shìt like this happens -

Sex redefined

I think she'd be happy enough to be called a woman.

I'm sure JK has no problem with terms like intersex or chimera either, if we're getting scientific

FVP3

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Sex redefined

You keep reposting the inter sex stuff. At this stage it has been pointed out to you that intersex has no relationship at all to transgenderism, particularly to self identification, at least dozens of times, if not more.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Seriously,. Why do you put up a wall of bull**** text.

Jk said women are the only ones who menstruate.
She is right. Get over it.

She wasn’t right, she wasn’t even close to being right. That’s the point. I don’t need to get over anything. It’s JK needs to get over the fact that she cannot compel people to describe themselves as she would prefer them to. I don’t think anyone has suggested to JK that she cannot use the word woman if she wants to.

sid waddell

One eyed Jack wrote: »

She wasn’t right, she wasn’t even close to being right. That’s the point. I don’t need to get over anything. It’s JK needs to get over the fact that she cannot compel people to describe themselves as she would prefer them to. I don’t think anyone has suggested to JK that she cannot use the word woman if she wants to.

I'd prefer JK Rowling to describe herself as a transphobe but I can't compel her to do so.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

She wasn’t right, she wasn’t even close to being right. That’s the point. I don’t need to get over anything. It’s JK needs to get over the fact that she cannot compel people to describe themselves as she would prefer them to. I don’t think anyone has suggested to JK that she cannot use the word woman if she wants to.

Well then chief I think it is quite clear that she DOES have a better grasp of the English language than you do.

Women are women, men are men. Call yourself what you like, but you are either lying to yourself, ignorant to biology or mentally ill if you think you are anything other than your biological state.

sid waddell

Deleted User wrote: »

Well then chief I think it is quite clear that she DOES have a better grasp of the English language than you do.

Women are women, men are men. Call yourself what you like, but you are either lying to yourself, ignorant to biology or mentally ill if you think you are anything other than your biological state.

Arseholes are arseholes

One eyed Jack

FVP3 wrote: »

You keep reposting the inter sex stuff. At this stage it has been pointed out to you that intersex has no relationship at all to transgenderism, particularly to self identification, at least dozens of times, if not more.

It simply goes to the fact that you keep referring to “biological males” and “biological females”. The example I gave was exactly what you are referring to, to show you the limitations of your definitions.

I know that transgenderism has no relationship to intersex and developmental disorders, and that’s why I have always argued that a person cannot change their sex.

I don’t use terms like “biological male”, “biological female”, “trans man” or “trans woman”, simply because I don’t see a need to. I have no issue referring to a male, female, man, woman, and I don’t even bother with the non-binary nonsense. Some people do, because it’s important to them. I have no interest in controlling how anyone describes themselves, and if they want a safe space to do so, even better, preferably as far away from me as possible.

sid waddell

sid waddell wrote: »

Arseholes are arseholes

Everyone has one of those though.

Penises are penises. Men are born with those

Vaginas are vaginas. Women are born with those.

Arseholes are for everyone.

FVP3

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It simply goes to the fact that you keep referring to “biological males” and “biological females”. The example I gave was exactly what you are referring to, to show you the limitations of your definitions.

Only in that tiny minority of cases. As for the claim that biologists created multiple sexes from these supposed inter sex differences which we have known about for generations, that is not true at all. They didn't name any new sexes.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Well then chief I think it is quite clear that she DOES have a better grasp of the English language than you do.

Women are women, men are men. Call yourself what you like, but you are either lying to yourself, ignorant to biology or mentally ill if you think you are anything other than your biological state.

Well that’s why I presented you with the example I did. That’s their biological state. How would you describe them? Or this -


Last year, for example, surgeons reported that they had been operating on a hernia in a man, when they discovered that he had a womb. The man was 70, and had fathered four children.

FVP3

sid waddell wrote: »

Arseholes are arseholes

This thread wasis running very politely for such a controversial topic, on all sides.

Unfortunately the standard has lowered.

One eyed Jack

FVP3 wrote: »

Only in that tiny minority of cases. As for the claim that biologists created multiple sexes from these supposed inter sex differences which we have known about for generations, that is not true at all. They didn't name any new sexes.

Where was any reference to that claim made in the article? It doesn’t suggest that there were any new sexes created, it suggests that sex determination is more nuanced than had been previously understood.

One eyed Jack

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

I think she'd be happy enough to be called a woman.

I'm sure JK has no problem with terms like intersex or chimera either, if we're getting scientific

We’re not getting scientific at all (that’s part of the problem :pac:)

“Biological male” and “biological female” aren’t really a thing. Male and female are - traits commonly associated with either one, then they are designated either male or female. I’m cool with that. I don’t need to use qualifiers that straddle two different spheres like referring to “biological man” and “biological woman”, or “trans man” and “trans woman”.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

KiKi III wrote: »

But is the erosion of sex based rights a problem here in Ireland (if it is I would be concerned) and if not whyyyy do we talk about it so much?

Again with somebody questioning the discussion of things outside the boundaries of our jurisdiction. When has that ever been an issue on boards.ie?

And as of October 2019, a male sex offender was housed in the women’s prison in Limerick. A clear example of the erosion of sex-based rights here due to self-ID. I had little time for No campaigners in the eighth referendum citing the rareness of pregnancy through rape as a reason not to legalise abortion and I have little time for rareness arguments here either. Are we going to wait for something bad to happen?

Ireland is a low population country so problems will take longer to become apparent. AND we all know that many women and especially many girls won’t say if something distressing happened to them at the hands of men. Sex-based spaces were created for a reason. AND if transgender women’s fears of using men’s facilities are taken seriously, it is then hypocritical to dismiss women’s concerns about male-bodied people using their facilities. You can’t take one seriously and dismiss the other.

Finally, we know that people have trained for years in professions that will bring them close to children in order to abuse them. The naivety of the notion that nobody will ever exploit self-ID laws for similar reasons is something I find deeply irritating, I have to say. Most people won’t harm anyone. We try to protect against the small minority who will.

And note, I’m saying that self-ID laws can be exploited. That shows that I don’t think it’s people who are transgender who will be the problem. It’s that people will be able to pretend they are transgender and nobody will be able to tell them they are wrong. With self-ID, how will we be able to differentiate? People are missing that distinction.

Tired Gardener

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Again with somebody questioning the discussion of things outside the boundaries of our jurisdiction. When has that ever been an issue on boards.ie?

And as of October 2019, a male sex offender was housed in the women’s prison in Limerick. A clear example of the erosion of sex-based rights here due to self-ID. I had little time for No campaigners in the eighth referendum citing the rareness of pregnancy through rape as a reason not to legalise abortion and I have little time for rareness arguments here either. Are we going to wait for something bad to happen?

Ireland is a low population country so problems will take longer to become apparent. AND we all know that many women and especially many girls won’t say if something distressing happened to them at the hands of men. Sex-based spaces were created for a reason. AND if transgender women’s fears of using men’s facilities are taken seriously, it is then hypocritical to dismiss women’s concerns about male-bodied people using their facilities. You can’t take one seriously and dismiss the other.

Finally, we know that people have trained for years in professions that will bring them close to children in order to abuse them. The naivety of the notion that nobody will ever exploit self-ID laws for similar reasons is something I find deeply irritating, I have to say. Most people won’t harm anyone. We try to protect against the small minority who will.

And note, I’m saying that self-ID laws can be exploited. That shows that I don’t think it’s people who are transgender who will be the problem. It’s that people will be able to pretend they are transgender and nobody will be able to tell them they are wrong. With self-ID, how will we be able to differentiate? People are missing that distinction.

I couldn't have said it better. Spot on!

Gruffalux

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Again with somebody questioning the discussion of things outside the boundaries of our jurisdiction. When has that ever been an issue on boards.ie?

And as of October 2019, a male sex offender was housed in the women’s prison in Limerick. A clear example of the erosion of sex-based rights here due to self-ID. I had little time for No campaigners in the eighth referendum citing the rareness of pregnancy through rape as a reason not to legalise abortion and I have little time for rareness arguments here either. Are we going to wait for something bad to happen?

Ireland is a low population country so problems will take longer to become apparent. AND we all know that many women and especially many girls won’t say if something distressing happened to them at the hands of men. Sex-based spaces were created for a reason. AND if transgender women’s fears of using men’s facilities are taken seriously, it is then hypocritical to dismiss women’s concerns about male-bodied people using their facilities. You can’t take one seriously and dismiss the other.

Finally, we know that people have trained for years in professions that will bring them close to children in order to abuse them. The naivety of the notion that nobody will ever exploit self-ID laws for similar reasons is something I find deeply irritating, I have to say. Most people won’t harm anyone. We try to protect against the small minority who will.

And note, I’m saying that self-ID laws can be exploited. That shows that I don’t think it’s people who are transgender who will be the problem. It’s that people will be able to pretend they are transgender and nobody will be able to tell them they are wrong. With self-ID, how will we be able to differentiate? People are missing that distinction.

Also to mention MORE than 100 children were sent from Ireland to the Tavistock gender clinic in the past 3 years and some are being treated from there and some now from Our Lady of Lourdes hospital in Dublin. With experimental hormone treatments that are beginning to be seriously questioned in the recent past and will be more and more, especially among the medical consultants who are administering them. 100 plus Irish children with stunted brain development and stunted physiology, increased cancer and cardiovascular risk, loss of bone density plus other adverse side effects, in pursuit of the ludicrous ideology that they were "born in the wrong body".

No effect here indeed!

Some people argue til they are blue in the face about a mythical gender pay gap as if we are still in the trenches in the 1970s but will sneer and handwave serious issues like erasure of language and meaning in present days, erosion of sex based protections, creeping biological denialism and this barbarism to youth. I have no time for that kind of lazy PC laissez faire.

PreparationH

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Well that’s why I presented you with the example I did. That’s their biological state. How would you describe them? Or this -


Last year, for example, surgeons reported that they had been operating on a hernia in a man, when they discovered that he had a womb. The man was 70, and had fathered four children.

Roll up Roll up! See the best example in history of someone clutching at straws!

Sittingpretty

One eyed Jack wrote: »

“Biological male” and “biological female” aren’t really a thing..

Please, can you elaborate as to how you can even type this with even the slightest modicum confidence in your train of thought.

It’s the equivalent to saying night and day aren’t really a thing.

One eyed Jack

PreparationH wrote: »

Roll up Roll up! See the best example in history of someone clutching at straws!

Clutching at straws are arguments that amount to nothing more than.trying to incite moral panic for things which people never had any control over in the first place (a good thing for themselves too when it comes to their recognition and protection in Irish law).

Pointing out that if anyone were to restrict themselves on JK’s orders (free speech me hole), we wouldn’t have the language to describe those sorts of phenomena, is not clutching at straws. We would have to invent a new word. There is nothing to suggest we can’t use the old word, the new word or words just describes it better. I’m simply pointing out the obvious limitations of the language that JK would prefer we all use.

Gruffalux

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There is nothing to suggest we can’t use the old word, the new word or words just describes it better. I’m simply pointing out the obvious limitations of the language that JK would prefer we all use.

Okay, ejaculator.

nthclare

Sittingpretty wrote: »

Please, can you elaborate as to how you can even type this with even the slightest modicum confidence in your train of thought.

It’s the equivalent to saying night and day aren’t really a thing.

Some of these people think that they can turn wet into dry, I wouldn't even waste my breath debating about gender and politics with anyone who isn't aligned with common sense and practicality.

Most people when they're either married working on a future and have a mortgage or doing grown up thing's like trying to save money build a career or a life and have responsibility in their lives gain wisdom and understanding and have wisdom to know the difference... between male and female.

I think letting be what they think they are is easier than trying to reason with them, because nobody can reason with the unreasonable.

It's like trying to tell someone that you could use a hairdryer underneath water or it's ok to use a chocolate fire guard in the middle of the winter and the fire is in full bore...





I actually don't come across people who cannot differentiate between male and female in the real world.
I only see it on board's and YouTube etc.

Mind you some transsexuals are more attractive than the average women when they're all dressed up, have their boob's done and dressed in their attire of choice and I wouldn't feel less a man for saying to myself WOW, you look great.
Because in fairness I was in a café in Galway a few years ago, and there was no seats left besides one and the person sitting down said you can sit here if you like..as there was a spare chair on a table for two...

Turns out they were a Brazilian transexual, and we had a great chat and a laugh about how busy Galway was coming up to Christmas etc

They were around the same height as me, very attractive looking, long legs, maybe size 8 to 10 and I'm man enough to say yes the thought of wondering what it would be like to kiss them or go on a date didn't freak me out...

One eyed Jack

Sittingpretty wrote: »

Please, can you elaborate as to how you can even type this with even the slightest modicum confidence in your train of thought.

It’s the equivalent to saying night and day aren’t really a thing.

I already did? Male and female.

It’s understood they are biological as opposed to synthetic. Synthetic appendages do not change a persons sex. Synthetic hormones undoubtedly have an effect on their physiology, still won’t change anyone’s sex.

One eyed Jack

Gruffalox wrote: »

Okay, ejaculator.

That’s male ejaculator to you G, we want to use accurate language like or we won’t be able to communicate our lived experiences :pac:

Sittingpretty

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I already did? Male and female.

It’s understood they are biological as opposed to synthetic. Synthetic appendages do not change a persons sex. Synthetic hormones undoubtedly have an effect on their physiology, still won’t change anyone’s sex.

It is understood by whom?

It is a bold statement open to dissection to suggest that biological male and biological female don’t exist.

I’m not sure how anyone could stand over such factually incorrect statement.

One eyed Jack

Sittingpretty wrote: »

It is understood by whom?

It is a bold statement open to dissection to suggest that biological male and biological female don’t exist.

I’m not sure how anyone could stand over such factually incorrect statement.

It’s understood by anyone with the cognitive capacity to understand opposites - male/female, biological/synthetic.

Nothing factually incorrect about it. They’re classifications as they relate to biology, that’s why it’s understood they are organisms already that you’re referring to, language which relates to biology.