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

Gruffalux

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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:

Ejaculate - verb - (of a man or male animal) eject semen from the body at the moment of sexual climax.

You think I need to add male to clarify the word?

Sittingpretty

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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

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

I’m lacking in cognitive capacity. Jesus, yet another issue I’ve to deal with so. I’ve a lot on my plate already to be honest.

I had asked for an elaboration and thus far I’m none the wiser, now clearly this is owing to my lack of cognitive capacity so maybe you, as someone who clearly is blessed with a surplus in that regard could once again clarify how biological male and biological female “aren’t really a thing”.

One eyed Jack

Gruffalox wrote: »

Ejaculate - verb - (of a man or male animal) eject semen from the body at the moment of sexual climax.

You think I need to add male to clarify the word?

Personally, I don’t care whether you do or you don’t, I thought you were messing, but since you ask, and I really didn’t want to go there, but here we are.


Scientists Think They Know Where Female Ejaculation Comes From, And What It's Made Of


When it used happen I figured they might want to get their bladder seen to, I’m just not into that sort of thing :pac:

Gruffalux

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Personally, I don’t care whether you do or you don’t, I thought you were messing, but since you ask, and I really didn’t want to go there, but here we are.


Scientists Think They Know Where Female Ejaculation Comes From, And What It's Made Of


When it used happen I figured they might want to get their bladder seen to, I’m just not into that sort of thing :pac:

Okay, inseminator.

One eyed Jack

Sittingpretty wrote: »

I’m lacking in cognitive capacity. Jesus, yet another issue I’ve to deal with so. I’ve a lot on my plate already to be honest.

I had asked for an elaboration and thus far I’m none the wiser, now clearly this is owing to my lack of cognitive capacity so maybe you, as someone who clearly is blessed with a surplus in that regard could once again clarify how biological male and biological female “aren’t really a thing”.

I said anyone with the capacity to understand opposites. I’ve no doubt you’ve had that capacity since you were born. It helps you discriminate between things based upon characteristics they have in common or not.

We’re talking in this thread about humans, so there’s no need to preface either male or female with the word ‘biological’. You can still do it if you like, but it’s just unnecessary, most people will understand what you mean.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Gruffalox wrote: »

Okay, inseminator.

I prefer sperm-dispenser.

Gruffalux

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I prefer sperm-dispenser.

Humans of the female type could be called blood-dispensers that would put the scarers on a few that might need it.

KiKi III

Gruffalox wrote: »

Humans of the female type could be called blood-dispensers that would put the scarers on a few that might need it.

We could be called human dispensers.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Tired Gardener wrote: »

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

Why, thank you.

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Personally, I don’t care whether you do or you don’t, I thought you were messing, but since you ask, and I really didn’t want to go there, but here we are.


Scientists Think They Know Where Female Ejaculation Comes From, And What It's Made Of


When it used happen I figured they might want to get their bladder seen to, I’m just not into that sort of thing :pac:

Wow, this is poor. You're arguing at the level of someone who has evidence that the theory of evolution is a myth on the strength of a link to a couple of scientific studies that discuss some of its inconsistencies.

Look. Skene glands are "the female prostate" in the way that men have breasts and the clitoris is "the female penis". In other words, not really.

And your link even says that it is actually urine, with - in a few cases - some liquid which has seeped out from the skene glands. Since the skene glands drain into the urethra that's unsurprising. There is zero evidence of a sudden "ejaculate" from the skene glands at the moment of orgasm. Which is unsurprising because the prostate doesn't actually contain, nor pump out, the male ejaculate, does it?

(I know it participates in both those functions, but the remainder of the ejaculate is not urine!)

There's really no point in trying to discuss this with you, any more than I could convince someone the earth was not flat, so I think I'l leave you to your delusions.

Quantum Erasure

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.

So trans women are male, but not men, and trans men are female but not women..... Fair enough

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

There's really no point in trying to discuss this with you, any more than I could convince someone the earth was not flat, so I think I'l leave you to your delusions.

What we’re discussing here is whether or not JK Rowling has the authority to demand that people who are not her, should use the language that she prefers them to use. At the same time she is portraying herself as some sort of a victim, because she maintains that the language she uses is somehow “being eroded” even though it’s still in daily use by the vast, vast majority of people. That’s the deluded thought processes right there, which you seem to be at pains to defend.

You thought I was actually being serious with the female ejaculate stuff? No, it was in response to characterising people as distinct from each other on the basis that they ejaculate - tenuous, at best. I genuinely don’t think women need be concerned about developing prostate cancer any time soon, just like I don’t think women need be concerned about being attacked by a man in the bathroom any time soon. It’s rare, and when it happens there are no laws which could be written could have prevented it from happening. Have we not just spent the last 20 years debunking nonsense about rape and sexual assault, only for some people to try and use the same myths to argue that it’s “for women’s protection”?

There’s only two ways that could go, and women would not be the victors where men would feel compelled to stay at home out of politeness and regard for women’s safety so women could navigate public spaces in complete safety. Far more likely it would be women would be expected to stay at home to protect themselves, and dare they venture out, they’ll be got by the bogeyman. People who think like that will always be right eventually - it’s what moral panics and myths are based upon.

JohnnyFlash

It’s funny when people try to use science to argue for something that is so fundamentally based on beliefs.

CtevenSrowder

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What we’re discussing here is whether or not JK Rowling has the authority to demand that people who are not her, should use the language that she prefers them to use. At the same time she is portraying herself as some sort of a victim, because she maintains that the language she uses is somehow “being eroded” even though it’s still in daily use by the vast, vast majority of people. That’s the deluded thought processes right there, which you seem to be at pains to defend.

You thought I was actually being serious with the female ejaculate stuff? No, it was in response to characterising people as distinct from each other on the basis that they ejaculate - tenuous, at best. I genuinely don’t think women need be concerned about developing prostate cancer any time soon, just like I don’t think women need be concerned about being attacked by a man in the bathroom any time soon. It’s rare, and when it happens there are no laws which could be written could have prevented it from happening. Have we not just spent the last 20 years debunking nonsense about rape and sexual assault, only for some people to try and use the same myths to argue that it’s “for women’s protection”?

There’s only two ways that could go, and women would not be the victors where men would feel compelled to stay at home out of politeness and regard for women’s safety so women could navigate public spaces in complete safety. Far more likely it would be women would be expected to stay at home to protect themselves, and dare they venture out, they’ll be got by the bogeyman. People who think like that will always be right eventually.

None of this is a reason not to keep current protections in place.

Gruffalux

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I genuinely don’t think women need be concerned about developing prostate cancer any time soon, just like I don’t think women need be concerned about being attacked by a man in the bathroom any time soon. It’s rare....

No. Prostrate cancer in women is not rare. It is non-existent.
Attacks in unisex facilities are not rare. They are statistically significant.

Of 134 complaints over 2017-2018, 120 reported incidents took place in gender-neutral changing rooms and just 14 were in single-sex changing areas.

In a further 46 cases, sexual assault allegations were made about attacks in other areas such as in the pool, in a sports hall or corridors.

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/women/sexual-assault-unisex-changing-rooms-sunday-times-women-risk-a8519086.html

One eyed Jack

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

None of this is a reason not to keep current protections in place.

What? It’s the double negative in that sentence that’s confusing as I wasn’t putting forward any argument to dismantle what you perceive to be ‘current protections’. I’ve already said by all means have your little safe spaces and all the rest of it, you too Cteven, preferably as far away as possible, from anyone really. It’s for your own safety, we want to keep you safe. You might see it as restricting your liberty for no good reason but no, for your own safety. You’re that important (JK thinks she is anyway :pac:).

One eyed Jack

Gruffalox wrote: »

No. Prostrate cancer in women is not rare. It is non-existent.

I beg to differ -


Can women develop prostate cancer?

Cancer of the female prostate is rare. One older study estimates that cancer of the Skene’s glands accounts for 0.003 percent of cancers in the female genital-urinary tract. It’s also possible that cancer of nearby organs, like the urethra, can originate in the Skene’s glands.

In one case, painless long-term blood in the urine prompted a woman to seek medical attention. The cancer in her prostate gland was treated with radiation and her symptoms cleared. Surgery also may be used to treat cancer of the Skene’s glands, depending on the type of cancer and how far it has spread.


https://www.healthline.com/health/women-health/female-prostate-cancer

Gruffalox wrote: »

Attacks in unisex facilities are not rare. They are statistically significant.
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/women/sexual-assault-unisex-changing-rooms-sunday-times-women-risk-a8519086.html

But how statistically significant are they? Expressed as a percentage of the female population, attacks on women in public facilities by men are equally as rare as the chances of them developing prostate cancer. Hell if you want you can even express it as a percentage of the number of women who have been attacked by men, and STILL, the number of women who are attacked by men in bathrooms and changing facilities, would be rare by comparison to where women are actually more likely to be attacked.

Gruffalux

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I beg to differ -


Can women develop prostate cancer?

Cancer of the female prostate is rare. One older study estimates that cancer of the Skene’s glands accounts for 0.003 percent of cancers in the female genital-urinary tract. It’s also possible that cancer of nearby organs, like the urethra, can originate in the Skene’s glands.

In one case, painless long-term blood in the urine prompted a woman to seek medical attention. The cancer in her prostate gland was treated with radiation and her symptoms cleared. Surgery also may be used to treat cancer of the Skene’s glands, depending on the type of cancer and how far it has spread.


https://www.healthline.com/health/women-health/female-prostate-cancer





But how statistically significant are they? Expressed as a percentage of the female population, attacks on women in public facilities by men are equally as rare as the chances of them developing prostate cancer. Hell if you want you can even express it as a percentage of the number of women who have been attacked by men, and STILL, the number of women who are attacked by men in bathrooms and changing facilities, would be rare by comparison to where women are actually more likely to be attacked.

The Skene's glands are located in the general area of the vulva, on the anterior wall of the vagina around the lower end of the urethra. The Skene's glands are homologous with the prostate gland in males, containing numerous microanatomical structures in common with the prostate gland, such as secretory cells.[2][3] Skene's glands are not, however, explicit prostate glands themselves. (Wikipedia)

Homologous - In biology, homology is similarity due to shared ancestry between a pair of structures or genes in different taxa. A common example of homologous structures is the forelimbs of vertebrates, where the wings of bats and birds, the arms of primates, the front flippers of whales and the forelegs of four-legged vertebrates like dogs and crocodiles are all derived from the same ancestral tetrapod structure. (Wikipedia)

My skenes glands can be likened to your prostate in the same way my arms can be likened to bird wings.

Tell the NGOs all over the world that they should stop campaigning for safe single sex facilities for women and girls in order that they might complete education, because you as an inseminator have decreed they are just as likely to be unsafe as get ''prostate cancer''.

One eyed Jack

Gruffalox wrote: »

Tell the NGOs all over the world that they should stop campaigning for safe single sex facilities for women and girls in order that they might complete education, because you as an inseminator have decreed they are just as likely to be unsafe as get ''prostate cancer''.

I’ll tell them ****all, because they’re not interfering in my life in any way, shape or form whatsoever. They weren’t interfering in JK’s life either until the celebrity billionaire took it upon herself to mock an organisation for doing nothing more than trying to educate people in developing countries about the need for the provision of adequate and appropriate menstrual healthcare, “because they didn’t use the right word”.

It’s JK you need to aim your ire at if you want to criticise anyone for their petty, paranoid, small-minded, first world problems mentality.

Stark

Funny thing about all of this is the people most in need of education on menstrual issues are probably girls as opposed to grown women. So the word "women" wouldn't actually cover all the bases unless you expand the definition to include female children as well as adults. But we can't do that, because words are sacrosanct immutable things gifted to us by biology and Mother Nature.

Gruffalux

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’ll tell them ****all, because they’re not interfering in my life in any way, shape or form whatsoever. They weren’t interfering in JK’s life either until the celebrity billionaire took it upon herself to mock an organisation for doing nothing more than trying to educate people in developing countries about the need for the provision of adequate and appropriate menstrual healthcare, “because they didn’t use the right word”.

It’s JK you need to aim your ire at if you want to criticise anyone for their petty, paranoid, small-minded, first world problems mentality.

The words for ''people who menstruate'' are girls and women.
That's all.

Stark

Gruffalox wrote: »

The words for ''people who menstruate'' are girls and women.
That's all.

Girls, women and transmen.
That's all.

CtevenSrowder

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What? It’s the double negative in that sentence that’s confusing as I wasn’t putting forward any argument to dismantle what you perceive to be ‘current protections’. I’ve already said by all means have your little safe spaces and all the rest of it, you too Cteven, preferably as far away as possible, from anyone really. It’s for your own safety, we want to keep you safe. You might see it as restricting your liberty for no good reason but no, for your own safety. You’re that important (JK thinks she is anyway :pac:).

If you knew what I was saying why did you start your post with 'what'? Though congratulations in responding to me in less than 4 paragraphs.

Gruffalux

Stark wrote: »

Girls, women and transmen.
That's all.

Transmen menstruate, if they do, because of they are female. It is the shedding of the lining of the female womb through the female vagina if a female gamete has not been fertilised by a male gamete and implanted. This is biological reality.

One eyed Jack

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

If you knew what I was saying why did you start your post with 'what'? Though congratulations in responding to me in less than 4 paragraphs.

Because I wasn’t sure what you were saying. I’m still not sure what you were saying or why you were saying it because I was full sure we had clarified earlier that I have no issue whatsoever with people wanting their safe spaces, I would absolutely and fully encourage them to have their little safe space where they could be sheltered and cosseted from society and huddle up to each other for protection from the outside world that they imagine is so hostile to them. I wouldn’t want to be around any sort of person with that kind of mentality. They’re more than welcome to isolate themselves from the rest of society as far as I’m concerned.

Stark

Gruffalox wrote:

Transmen menstruate, if they do, because of they are female. It is the shedding of the lining of the female womb through the female vagina if a female gamete has not been fertilised by a male gamete and implanted. This is biological reality.

The point is the organisation providing the education felt it would be useful for people who didn't identify as women and girls despite having female biology so they decided to use more inclusive language and there's nothing wrong with that. Most transmen seeing an advertisement saying "this event is for women and girls" would feel they were not welcome to such an event, despite having the requisite body parts.

Let's be honest, it's not exactly generally easy for someone sporting short hair, beard and male musculature to walk into a "women only" event, "biological reality" or no "biological reality". We make judgements based on expressed gender rather that biological sex history more often than we might realise. No-one at such and event is going to say "genital check please".

By insisting that they should have used "women" instead of anyone who can menstruate, JK was specifically seeking to have such people excluded.

Gruffalux

Stark wrote: »

The point is the organisation providing the education felt it would be useful for people who didn't identify as women and girls despite having female biology so they decided to use more inclusive language and there's nothing wrong with that. Most transmen seeing an advertisement saying "this event is for women and girls" would feel they were not welcome to such an event, despite having the requisite body parts.

Let's be honest, it's not exactly generally easy for someone sporting short hair, beard and male musculature to walk into a "women only" event, "biological reality" or no "biological reality". We make judgements based on expressed gender rather that biological sex history more often than we might realise. No-one at such and event is going to say "genital check please".

By insisting that they should have used "women" instead of anyone who can menstruate, JK was specifically seeking to have such people excluded.

It is perfectly simple to use the words women and transmen. That way everyone is respectfully included. Nobody at any event for girls, women and transmen is going to question the presence of girls, women and transmen. People who menstruate have female biology.
There does not need to be any erasure of woman as adult human female or of transgender people. The question you should ask is why would there ever be the need to be so disrespectful to girls and women that they must accept erasure of their meaningful language, or their ontological category in order to facilitate anyone?
I have always argued for both to be respected, the safe enclosed third space facilitating biological needs for example. The word woman or girl or man etc means something. A transwoman is a transwoman. That is fine. They are not a woman. A transman is a transman. They are not a man.There is room for all.

Gruffalux

Stark wrote: »

By insisting that they should have used "women" instead of anyone who can menstruate, JK was specifically seeking to have such people excluded.

No, she was not seeking to exclude transmen, in my opinion. She was seeking to protect the word woman as meaningful. Perhaps she should have advised the expansion of the words used to include women, girls and transmen. But to exclude the words girls and women is deconstruction of language and meaning for a purpose.

Sittingpretty

Gruffalox wrote: »

No, she was not seeking to exclude transmen, in my opinion. She was seeking to protect the word woman as meaningful. Perhaps she should have advised the expansion of the words used to include women, girls and transmen. But to exclude the words girls and women is deconstruction of language and meaning for a purpose.

Do we now have to provide “Women, girls and trans men” in order to appease those women that have eschewed their sex at birth in order to live as men?

Really?

One eyed Jack

Gruffalox wrote: »

No, she was not seeking to exclude transmen, in my opinion. She was seeking to protect the word woman as meaningful. Perhaps she should have advised the expansion of the words used to include women, girls and transmen. But to exclude the words girls and women is deconstruction of language and meaning for a purpose.

I get that’s what she was at, and she simply overlooked the fact that the leaflet was including people who menstruate who do not identify themselves as women or girls. That may not suit your preferences, it may not suit JK’s preference, but attacking people for appealing to people who do not identify themselves as women, does nothing to protect the word ‘woman’.