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

One eyed Jack

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I asked you if transgender men were aware they were female. We were talking about menstruation public awareness campaigns. What does at have to do with certain spaces?

Not really the point, the literature mentioned gender non-binary people who menstruate. Gender non-binary people would be unlikely to identify themselves as transgender, let alone as transgender men. It’s a political designation which is a rejection of the binary gender paradigm. Of course they’re still likely to menstruate, no matter how they refer to themselves, which is the point being missed by so many.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Transgender people need their own space. If self-contained separate units are possible, that’s another alternative. I can’t see why any transgender person would object to the third space idea unless it’s about validation rather than safety.

Of course it’s about validation and acceptance, recognition and equality! You can’t only be getting that now? Safety concerns of anyone are literally clutching at straws to deny people equal rights based upon the behaviour of another group entirely.

How does it make any sense to punish one group for the crimes of another?

Stark

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Oh, the dramatics. A very common theme amongst the most vocal trans rights activists - which does a disservice to transgender people who are much more measured and sensible (and those transgender people tend to get called self-haters and other such charming epithets. It’s all very dignified).

You've spent the guts of 200 pages arguing passionately for the protection of women's spaces but then you feign ignorance when asked to comprehend why someone who looks like a man might feel uncomfortable showing up to an event that's marketed "for women"? I mean you must be trolling at this point.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Stark wrote: »

You've spent the guts of 200 pages arguing passionately for the protection of women's spaces but then you feign ignorance when asked to comprehend why someone who looks like a man might feel uncomfortable showing up to an event that's marketed "for women"? I mean you must be trolling at this point.

Yes, I have indeed. You think that shows aggression towards transgender people?

I was also talking about menstruation and general public health information. What event are you talking about? A... menstruation conference or something? I’ve been to public health events marketed to women but men were generally welcome too as they might have needed the information for themselves or a significant other. Why do you imagine a transgender man will be turned away?

I’m not trolling at all. If I was, I’d be banned by now as no doubt some delicate doilies have reported my posts.

KiKi III

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It wasn’t a false dichotomy, it was simply to show you that the differences between those two realities are more than just biology. You’ve taken what I said and used yourself as an example of how you can be concerned about both, when that was never the comparison I made in the first place.

I’ve met very few women who spent time navel gazing about ‘the erasure of women’, not to suggest they don’t exist, but I’ve met far more women who have practical, real world concerns, as opposed to academic fanny fluffing.

Given the amount of time you’ve spent arguing about trans identity here I think you’re throwing stones from glass houses in a serious way here.

How can trans women’s identity be so important but “cis” women’s identity is “navel gazing” and “academic fanny fluffing”.

You make no sense. Both are important or neither are.

One eyed Jack

KiKi III wrote: »

Given the amount of time you’ve spent arguing about trans identity here I think you’re throwing stones from glass houses in a serious way here.

How can trans women’s identity be so important but “cis” women’s identity is “navel gazing” and “academic fanny fluffing”.

You make no sense. Both are important or neither are.

I haven’t been arguing about “trans identity” at all, let alone do I give a fiddlers for the term “cis” either. Neither are important to me personally, but they are important to other people who are not me. I don’t care for identity politics, I do care for human rights.

If it helps make any better sense to you - JK doesn’t get to define womanhood for anyone else but herself. Other people are just as entitled to define what womanhood means to them, as JK is entitled to define what it means to her.

On this occasion, JK took a swipe at a group of people whom it appears were being appealed to on the basis that they presented no threat whatsoever to womanhood!

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Sean Daly wrote: »

With all this gender changing crap, what's to stop a sex offender claiming he's now a woman and creating a new identity?

With self-ID, nothing. A male sex offender (offences against a child, unknown if child male or female) with a GRC was, as of October 2019, housed in the women’s prison in Limerick. So when people say “Nothing has happened in Ireland post self-ID”, that is simply not true. But who cares about female prisoners, right? They’re not a fashionable cause.

One eyed Jack

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

With self-ID, nothing. A male sex offender (offences against a child, unknown if child male or female) with a GRC was, as of October 2019, housed in the women’s prison in Limerick. So when people say “Nothing has happened in Ireland post self-ID”, that is simply not true. But who cares about female prisoners, right? They’re not a fashionable cause.

You don’t either :pac:

PreparationH

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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

What I do know is that you deny objective reality in one hand and in the next you are saying that, objectively there is no such thing as biological males and biological females. You MASSIVE hypocrite.



The only thing that I have gained from reading your comments is that, objectively speaking, there really are no lengths a trans activist will go to in order to be the gift that keeps on giving.



Personally, I'm just looking forward to about 10 years from now when all of the people who were lied to by mermaids and Tavistock and had their lives utterly destroyed, bring their law suits and deal mortal blow to the current trans movement. It's already started to happen with some of the mothers and fathers support, but when the current stock of kids become adults, it will become a tidal wave.

Annasopra

PreparationH wrote: »

What I do know is that you deny objective reality in one hand and in the next you are saying that, objectively there is no such thing as biological males and biological females. You MASSIVE hypocrite.



The only thing that I have gained from reading your comments is that, objectively speaking, there really are no lengths a trans activist will go to in order to be the gift that keeps on giving.



Personally, I'm just looking forward to about 10 years from now when all of the people who were lied to by mermaids and Tavistock and had their lives utterly destroyed, bring their law suits and deal mortal blow to the current trans movement. It's already started to happen with some of the mothers and fathers support, but when the current stock of kids become adults, it will become a tidal wave.

You cant seriously think One Eyed Jack is a trans activist?

Tired Gardener

PreparationH wrote: »

Personally, I'm just looking forward to about 10 years from now when all of the people who were lied to by mermaids and Tavistock and had their lives utterly destroyed, bring their law suits and deal mortal blow to the current trans movement. It's already started to happen with some of the mothers and fathers support, but when the current stock of kids become adults, it will become a tidal wave.

That is going to be so painful to watch.

Another big blow that is going to hit the current Gender Identify Ideology is this.

'A very important concern regarding the elimination of sex is in the area of medical research. It is well known that men and women have different health concerns, but also we have different reactions to medication and present with different symptoms for the same issue. How can this critical research continue if we ignore the biological realities of sex differences?


Replacing biological sex markers with self-ID in research statistics would skew this relevant research effort hopelessly, to the detriment of the vast majority of people who recognize, for good or for worse, their original biologic entity.
Moreover, once the current tendency of refining drugs according to biological sex begins to influence treatments, trans people will face the tough decision between being treated according to the gender they identify with – risking inefficiency – and recognizing a biological origin they have paid so dearly to leave behind. Much harder than choosing which toilet room to use.'

Also bare in mind that men and women display having a heart attack in different ways.

One eyed Jack

PreparationH wrote: »

What I do know is that you deny objective reality in one hand and in the next you are saying that, objectively there is no such thing as biological males and biological females. You MASSIVE hypocrite.

Couple of things - I was asked earlier about whether I believe there is such a thing as objective reality. I understood it to mean they were speaking of people’s perception. That’s why I said no, because people’s perceptions are entirely subjective. It’s why when the discussion regards moral standards, some people will appeal to a higher authority again such as God or Mother Nature to suggest that God or Mother Nature shares their point of view and therefore any other opinions are just wrong.

Secondly, I said that “biological male” and “biological female” aren’t really a thing, and I explained why, and if you actually were bothered to read my posts, you would have known I was referring to the terms, not the objects. That’s why I said the descriptor “biological” before the terms male or female was unnecessary, because it’s understood we’re talking about humans as opposed to synthetic androids.

PreparationH wrote: »

The only thing that I have gained from reading your comments is that, objectively speaking, there really are no lengths a trans activist will go to in order to be the gift that keeps on giving.

That would be you subjectively speaking seeing as you’re talking about what you have gleaned, not what can be gleaned. As Joey points out - I’m as much an advocate of people who are transgender as JK is, the difference between us though is that I don’t seek to interfere in the lives of people who are transgender and then try and play the victim when she gets called on her bullshìt. Claiming to have been a victim of domestic violence doesn’t excuse her attitudes and behaviours towards others. Claiming that she always thought of women and people who are transgender as “natural allies” as both are victims of “male violence“, while making it obvious that she thinks of women like her as being just that teeny bit beneath people who are transgender on the victim scale, so women like her are still entitled to claim greater victimhood status than people who are transgender? That’s hypocrisy.

PreparationH wrote: »

Personally, I'm just looking forward to about 10 years from now when all of the people who were lied to by mermaids and Tavistock and had their lives utterly destroyed, bring their law suits and deal mortal blow to the current trans movement. It's already started to happen with some of the mothers and fathers support, but when the current stock of kids become adults, it will become a tidal wave.

Maybe it’s just me, but the attitude of waiting for bad shìt to happen to other people seems kinda spiteful, if you don’t mind my saying so? It’s almost as spiteful as positioning oneself as the gatekeeper of language and thinking one has the authority to demand other people use terms that suit her, and not to be inventing terms that suit themselves. For a writer who made her name writing children’s fantasy novels, to be criticising other people who are even more creative? An advocate for free speech, but only so that she can say what she likes and abuse others? She’s looking for her ability to abuse, insult and humiliate other people to be be protected in law? That’s hypocrisy. The woman would be a menace to society if people actually took her seriously.

JoannaJag

Why do women have to accept a name foisted upon us by others (cis/menstruators) speaking of inventing terms that suit others?

We already have a name for ourselves - Women. Since people don’t listen to us we can only wait for the fallout. Of course it would be preferable for our children to remain unharmed.

Tell me, why IS it women’s responsibility to validate someone else’s delusion by stripping in front of them? Losing to them at sport, changing our language, surrendering our boundaries, teaching our children lies and Knowing Our Place.

JK Rowling has shone a light on an area that most people didn’t think about until it was their own children Or families directly affected and it was too late to take action. People are talking now - not just the four or five people on boards or the ones screaming “shut up” on Twitter or Facebook. People who can hold a civil rational conversation without cancelling each other for disagreeing on different areas of a real and complex issue. For that, she has my sincere gratitude.

I’ve donated to her charity, Lumos and to the Transgender Trend fundraiser in the UK as they are a great source of information for families in Ireland too. If anyone knows of a similar Irish based charity do let us know.

Tired Gardener

One eyed Jack wrote: »

.

"Personally, I'm just looking forward to about 10 years from now when all of the people who were lied to by mermaids and Tavistock and had their lives utterly destroyed, bring their law suits and deal mortal blow to the current trans movement. It's already started to happen with some of the mothers and fathers support, but when the current stock of kids become adults, it will become a tidal wave."




Maybe it’s just me, but the attitude of waiting for bad shìt to happen to other people seems kinda spiteful, if you don’t mind my saying so?

You've taken that way out of context. It isn't about wanting to see bad **** happen to people, but wanting to see hurtful institutions that are abusing children come crashing down. That is what the thrust or that was. It wasn't even my comment, and the intention was quite clear.

mohawk

JoannaJag wrote: »

Knowing Our Place.

I feel those three words. The purpose of most of the abuse directed at JK or any woman who speaks out on this issue is to put them back in their place.

One eyed Jack

Tired Gardener wrote: »

You've taken that way out of context. It isn't about wanting to see bad **** happen to people, but wanting to see hurtful institutions that are abusing children come crashing down. That is what the thrust or that was. It wasn't even my comment, and the intention was quite clear.

I got the intent of it alright, it was essentially saying nothing more than “I can’t wait for the day when I’m proven right”. Well waiting and hoping for misfortune to befall others so one can say they were right, is the very definition of spiteful.

Annasopra

Tired Gardener wrote: »

You've taken that way out of context. It isn't about wanting to see bad **** happen to people, but wanting to see hurtful institutions that are abusing children come crashing down. That is what the thrust or that was. It wasn't even my comment, and the intention was quite clear.

Of course it is all about wanting to see bad **** happen to people.

JoannaJag

The bad **** is already happening. We look forward to justice for the victims of this harmful ideology.

CtevenSrowder

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

You cant seriously think One Eyed Jack is a trans activist?

I don't, he doesn't openly dehuminise people like you admitted to doing.

CtevenSrowder

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Of course it is all about wanting to see bad **** happen to people.

No, it's about trying to prevent it happening in the first place.

KiKi III

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I haven’t been arguing about “trans identity” at all, let alone do I give a fiddlers for the term “cis” either. Neither are important to me personally, but they are important to other people who are not me. I don’t care for identity politics, I do care for human rights.

If it helps make any better sense to you - JK doesn’t get to define womanhood for anyone else but herself. Other people are just as entitled to define what womanhood means to them, as JK is entitled to define what it means to her.

On this occasion, JK took a swipe at a group of people whom it appears were being appealed to on the basis that they presented no threat whatsoever to womanhood!

Womanhood has an agreed definition that 98% of the population are agreed on. You’re acting like it’s JK who is trying to redefine it and that’s totally disingenuous.

Now, I’m open to the definition of womanhood being broadened to include trans people, which is a huge change in itself, but no I’m not okay with the erasure of womanhood.

If we all get to define it for ourselves it means nothing. What does the phrase “trans women are women” mean if it doesn’t mean anything in particular to be a woman?

One eyed Jack

KiKi III wrote: »

Womanhood has an agreed definition that 98% of the population are agreed on. You’re acting like it’s JK who is trying to redefine it and that’s totally disingenuous.

Now, I’m open to the definition of womanhood being broadened to include trans people, which is a huge change in itself, but no I’m not okay with the erasure of womanhood.

If we all get to define it for ourselves it means nothing. What does the phrase “trans women are women” mean if it doesn’t mean anything in particular to be a woman?

Womanhood certainly does not have an agreed definition, let alone an agreed definition by 98% of the population, so it’s not me is trying to say JK is trying to redefine anything, because I know that she never got to define womanhood in the first place! She’s trying to define womanhood now with the image of herself at the centre of that concept - “adult human female who is the victim of male violence”.

I know far too many women who would disagree with how JK is trying to define womanhood. I can ask a hundred different women what womanhood or being a woman means to them, and I’d get back at least 500 different answers, and no doubt each woman would be telling the truth about what she imagines is a “real woman”, you may remember real women from popular social media sites, showing off their bare wares, telling everyone this is what a real woman looks like, and raking in likes.

We’ve talked about Lizzo. Remember her? Not many people do, but essentially she was doing the same as JK - telling people that they could define themselves, but no skinny bitches cuz dey only jealous. So no, there’s been no 98% agreement among anyone of womanhood, and because JK cannot copyright the concept of womanhood, it doesn’t belong to her, or to anyone. Manhood is the very same btw - few have tried to define it, real men and all the rest of it, but there’s been no consensus among the population as to what constitutes manhood. Do you really think men wouldn’t have tried to copyright the concept of manhood if they could? Ok Gillette tried, but we all know how that worked out :pac:

I just don’t know where you go from one extreme to the other to say if we all get to define it for ourselves it means nothing. Everyone already does define these concepts for themselves, and that’s where they have meaning - to the individual themselves. They gravitate towards other individuals who share their ideas, and that’s how their ideas are reinforced and solidified, which is why well educated middle class white feminism is suffering from a bit of an identity crisis as the public’s attention is being diverted away to other matters.

In related news this morning, I see Katie Hopkins, the less respectable version of JK, has been banned from twitter-


Katie Hopkins permanently banned from Twitter for ‘hateful conduct’ after years of vile attacks on trans people


‘Bout time tbh.

CtevenSrowder

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Womanhood certainly does not have an agreed definition, let alone an agreed definition by 98% of the population, so it’s not me is trying to say JK is trying to redefine anything, because I know that she never got to define womanhood in the first place! She’s trying to define womanhood now with the image of herself at the centre of that concept - “adult human female who is the victim of male violence”.

In which one of your realities was this what she was trying to do?

FVP3

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I just don’t know where you go from one extreme to the other to say if we all get to define it for ourselves it means nothing. Everyone already does define these concepts for themselves, and that’s where they have meaning - to the individual themselves.

No they don't. You keep saying that but it is clearly untrue. People do not get to define their own realities. I asked you earlier to comment on the flat earth fallacy for a reason, you were forced to say that "reality is not objective" and have subsequently backtracked on that. You never specifically answered the question though.

They gravitate towards other individuals who share their ideas, and that’s how their ideas are reinforced and solidified, which is why well educated middle class white feminism is suffering from a bit of an identity crisis as the public’s attention is being diverted away to other matters.

This is an an example of your incoherent argumentative style. Firstly you make a claim about people and ideas that is not true; people don't just group together by ideology, unless you are talking about political parties or politicalised groups. Friends have different ideologies within their group, as do families, work colleagues, volunteer groups and so on.

Then there is the non-sequitor: because of this unproved grouping by ideology "well educated middle class white feminism is suffering from a bit of an identity crisis", but that makes no sense. The former wouldn't affect the latter.

And then

as the public’s attention is being diverted away to other matters.

But it is not, this is a major issue which is why we are talking about it. JK's tweet is a major story. So the attention is not being diverted from this issue.

That's fairly common of your posting style. Unproven statement, falled by non-sequitur, followed by incorrect statement, ( often then followed by statistical misunderstanding, followed by link to something unrelated to trans genderism)

Repeat ad infinitum.

One eyed Jack

FVP3 wrote: »

No they don't. You keep saying that but it is clearly untrue. People do not get to define their own realities.

...

Repeat ad infinitum.

I’ll keep saying it too while you keep trying to insinuate that people agreed to adhere to anyone else’s set standards and definitions of how to describe or define themselves. Essentially all you’re arguing is that people have to conform to your standards, and if they don’t, then they don’t deserve equal treatment in law.

That’s why I maintain the point that legal recognition is more important than social recognition - because when they’re recognised in law, nobody has to give a fcuk about asking for your opinions, or anyone else’s. They are entitled to equal treatment in law without having to conform to yours, or to my standards.

FVP3

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’ll keep saying it too while you keep trying to insinuate that people agreed to adhere to anyone else’s set standards and definitions of how to describe or define themselves. Essentially all you’re arguing is that people have to conform to your standards, and if they don’t, then they don’t deserve equal treatment in law.

I am defending biology, not "my" opinion, nor general opinion. Both of which are irrelevant to facts. The earth was not flat when most people thought it was, even though it was their sincere belief that it was. You have yet to opine on whether it is true or not.

That’s why I maintain the point that legal recognition is more important than social recognition - because when they’re recognised in law, nobody has to give a fcuk about asking for your opinions, or anyone else’s. They are entitled to equal treatment in law without having to conform to yours, or to my standards.

Of course a legal fact can be a falsehood, like when someone is legally guilty but actually innocent, or vice versa.

And the mask has certainly slipped here because you were, until you started that sentence, presenting yourself as supporting myriad positions, now you only support legal facts. Now you need the power of the law to suppress all opinions except what just so happens to be yours.

To a certain extent you are right, though, just as John could be legally innocent while actually guilty ( or vice versa), the law can uphold the legal fact but actual falsehood that a "transwoman is a woman" etc.

This has problematic effects on the existing biological class of female. Which is where we come back to. This is the discussion. On whether those laws are sane.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

JoannaJag wrote: »

Why do women have to accept a name foisted upon us by others (cis/menstruators) speaking of inventing terms that suit others?

We already have a name for ourselves - Women. Since people don’t listen to us we can only wait for the fallout. Of course it would be preferable for our children to remain unharmed.

Tell me, why IS it women’s responsibility to validate someone else’s delusion by stripping in front of them? Losing to them at sport, changing our language, surrendering our boundaries, teaching our children lies and Knowing Our Place.

JK Rowling has shone a light on an area that most people didn’t think about until it was their own children Or families directly affected and it was too late to take action. People are talking now - not just the four or five people on boards or the ones screaming “shut up” on Twitter or Facebook. People who can hold a civil rational conversation without cancelling each other for disagreeing on different areas of a real and complex issue. For that, she has my sincere gratitude.

I’ve donated to her charity, Lumos and to the Transgender Trend fundraiser in the UK as they are a great source of information for families in Ireland too. If anyone knows of a similar Irish based charity do let us know.

I think that Rowling is playing the long game here, astute woman that she is. I think she recognised that she was, at least materially, insulated enough to draw attention to this. Painful for her in the short-term but hopefully better for women and their hard-won rights in the long-term. I, like you, am full of admiration.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

PreparationH wrote: »

What I do know is that you deny objective reality in one hand and in the next you are saying that, objectively there is no such thing as biological males and biological females. You MASSIVE hypocrite.



The only thing that I have gained from reading your comments is that, objectively speaking, there really are no lengths a trans activist will go to in order to be the gift that keeps on giving.



Personally, I'm just looking forward to about 10 years from now when all of the people who were lied to by mermaids and Tavistock and had their lives utterly destroyed, bring their law suits and deal mortal blow to the current trans movement. It's already started to happen with some of the mothers and fathers support, but when the current stock of kids become adults, it will become a tidal wave.

I can’t say I feel any glee about that myself. Just makes me feel sad. I mean, I get what you mean but I can’t extract anything positive from such a travesty. It’s trite but health truly is wealth and those children are having their health damaged.

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Of course it is all about wanting to see bad **** happen to people.

To the people feeding questionable drugs to children? Abso-bally-lutely. Bring it. That day can’t come fast enough.

One eyed Jack

FVP3 wrote: »

And the mask has certainly slipped here because you were, until you started that sentence, presenting yourself as supporting myriad positions, now you only support legal facts. Now you need the power of the law to suppress all opinions except what just so happens to be yours.

...

This has problematic effects on the existing biological class of female. Which is where we come back to. This is the discussion. On whether those laws are sane.

There’s been no mask slippage on my part at least. My position has always been based in human rights law as opposed to arguing anything about science or biology or any of the rest of whatever you could throw at it in an attempt to justify denying any group in society human rights. What do you imagine human rights are predicated upon? It certainly isn’t science or biology or the thought that if people’s human rights were protected in law, then imagine the danger other people could present to society!

I don’t need the power of law to suppress anyone, and you can’t use the law to suppress anyone either by claiming that affording people recognition in law has a negative effect on other people, when it doesn’t. Women still have women’s rights, men still have men’s rights, children still have children’s rights, people with disabilities still have rights, and now people who are transgender, also have equal rights as everyone else, which afford them legal recognition and protection from discrimination, same as everyone else, so that people who hold your opinions cannot discriminate against them.

That’s why I suggested you examine the judgement in the case of Maya Forstater when she took her case to the Equality Tribunal. The Judge so much as told her that her beliefs about other people are an infringement upon their dignity, and her beliefs are simply not worthy of respect or protection in law in a democratic society. I also linked to the parts of UK law in which discrimination is not unlawful if it is intended to achieve a legitimate aim. I said that the same exists in Irish law.

Those are the parts which you continue to overlook in your continuing quest to present your opinions as reality, when in reality, your opinions aren’t being suppressed, they’re just not protected by law.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

No, it's about trying to prevent it happening in the first place.

I really hope the Newsnight report has an impact.

Bonniedog

One eyed Jack wrote: »

... adhere to anyone else’s set standards and definitions of how to describe or define themselves.

They are entitled to equal treatment in law without having to conform to yours, or to my standards.

The biological difference between men and women is not a socially constructed standard! No more than is the difference between a dog and a bitch, or a ram and a ewe.

Of course men who for whatever reasons believe they are women should be entitled to legal protection where they do not harm others.

They should not however be entitled to make a tiny minority psychological defect into a legally defining standard.