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

Tired Gardener

Twitter is a platform that can enforce its own rules how it sees fit.

What is a bit odd is that the likes of Trump and the threats that JK Rowling received go on unchecked.

Graham Linehan made a comment based on his views that wasn't inciting hate or violence, and get's his account removed.

As someone who is very left leaning I am getting a bit fed up/concerned with how the left are the ones calling for censorship and no platforming.... that is what the right have historically done. This seems like a very weird time for the left.

Bonniedog

Tired Gardener wrote: »

As someone who is very left leaning I am getting a bit fed up/concerned with how the left are the ones calling for censorship and no platforming.... that is what the right have historically done. This seems like a very weird time for the left.

You seemed to have missed the 20th century!

jam_mac_jam

BarnardsLoop wrote: »

We must have very different ideas of "runs well", if that's the case. Oh and I'd be interested to see what ad hominems you think I'm engaging in.



Calm down, petal, no one's "shouting" anything, especially not "all over the gaff" considering I only said it once.

And no, I'm not reading through hundreds of pages of back and forth guff. Medical experts disagree with transphobes (oops! sorry! I hope the text isn't too large for you!), I've no real interest in trying to convince people otherwise when they've already made up their minds.

Which medical experts? You keep saying this.

Gruffalux

BarnardsLoop wrote: »

We must have very different ideas of "runs well", if that's the case. Oh and I'd be interested to see what ad hominems you think I'm engaging in.



Calm down, petal, no one's "shouting" anything, especially not "all over the gaff" considering I only said it once.

And no, I'm not reading through hundreds of pages of back and forth guff. Medical experts disagree with transphobes (oops! sorry! I hope the text isn't too large for you!), I've no real interest in trying to convince people otherwise when they've already made up their minds.

To be clear, you think men menstruate? Because transmen are men?

The thread is long but most have civilly agreed in the end that the campaign on menstruation can quite peaceably say ''girls, women and transmen who have periods''. Saying ''people who have periods'' is a deliberate action in support of PC gender theory ideology that has no substance in reality. The fact is only people who menstruate are females and erasure of language is an ideological sport. We have been civil except for a few who have used authoritarian words like terf and transphobe.

And you called arguments here ''dull-witted'' - I can presume you won't mind that phrase being directed at your own arguments in the future. Since there is no ad hominem involved.

One eyed Jack

FVP3 wrote: »

Ok, so worldwide outside China,which has its own problems with censorship.

Thats a strange strange argument. Of course anti-government voices are silenced in China on social media, US and domestic.

No, nowhere in the world do American corporations have a monopoly on how speech is transmitted (I gather you’re referring to the expression of ideas rather than just speech). The Government of China does try to silence anti-Government ideas on all mediums used to transmit ideas, but they’re not very successful at it.

FVP3 wrote: »

If any statement shows the precariousness of free speech, this does.

It’s as though you imagine a right to free speech trumps a responsibility towards other people to use that right responsibly, or lose it. The right to freedom of speech and freedom of expression are not some free for all to say whatever you like, they were originally intended as a way to criticise Government and be protected from being punished by the State, in order to maintain freedom in a democracy.

For reasons which are as yet unclear, some people appear to imagine free speech gives only them the right to say whatever they like about whoever they like, and when they are prevented from doing so, they cry censorship and persecution for expressing an opinion held by the majority?

Sittingpretty

Also some points for what they are worth.

Twitter is not the place to make an allegation of grooming minors. If there was any substance to that claim GL should have dealt with it through the proper channels and not online.

I have absolutely no issue with how trans people live their lives as consenting adults or the decisions they make about how they live. That’s entirely their own choice and I’ll respectfully refer to any trans person as their new chosen name and whatever pronoun is now their preferred one. Absolutely no issue with any of that whatsoever.

What I do have an issue with is being told that I must be complicit in believing that because trans people Want it to be so that I must equate them with biological men/women which in my opinion is absolute fantasy.

Rodin

Gruffalox wrote: »

To be clear, you think men menstruate? Because transmen are men?

The thread is long but most have civilly agreed in the end that the campaign on menstruation can quite peaceably say ''girls, women and transmen who have periods''. Saying ''people who have periods'' is a deliberate action in support of PC gender theory ideology that has no substance in reality. The fact is only people who menstruate are females and erasure of language is an ideological sport. We have been civil except for a few who have used authoritarian words like terf and transphobe.

And you called arguments here ''dull-witted'' - I can presume you won't mind that phrase being directed at your own arguments in the future. Since there is no ad hominem involved.

''''girls, women and transmen who have periods''.

Let's call them 'females'.

FVP3

And no, I'm not reading through hundreds of pages of back and forth guff.

]

Of course not.

Medical experts disagree with transphobes (oops! sorry! I hope the text isn't too large for you!), I've no real interest in trying to convince people otherwise when they've already made up their minds.

The claim that "medical experts disagree with transphobes" is one that has been debated on this thread of course. The general discussion here is about self identification, and the idea that a transwoman is woman indistinct from "cis" women. Generally most people are in favour of trans rights except where it interferes with the rights of "cis" women. As for the medical realities of a transwoman getting medical procedures, a transwoman with penile cancer will be treated for that, and not the same as a woman. For other forms of medication and so on, the medics will apply what the biological reality suggests.

Anyway, Ill put you on ignore for now as I dont think I am going to find you sympathetic to reason, logic or sense.

FVP3

Sittingpretty wrote: »

Also some points for what they are worth.

Twitter is not the place to make an allegation of grooming minors. If there was any substance to that claim GL should have dealt with it through the proper channels and not online.

He was using it in a different sense to sexual grooming. That said if that is the reason for his banning ( and we dont know) then it has some merit.

Gruffalux

Tired Gardener wrote: »

Twitter is a platform that can enforce its own rules how it sees fit.

What is a bit odd is that the likes of Trump and the threats that JK Rowling received go on unchecked.

Graham Linehan made a comment based on his views that wasn't inciting hate or violence, and get's his account removed.

As someone who is very left leaning I am getting a bit fed up/concerned with how the left are the ones calling for censorship and no platforming.... that is what the right have historically done. This seems like a very weird time for the left.

My Dad called me ''the communist'' since I was a kid. But what is called the ''left'' is unbearable now. I don't know what I would have to do to my mind to be able to sit peaceably among such self-righteous unthinking authoritarians. It is an awful pity what has happened.

Sittingpretty

FVP3 wrote: »

He was using it in a different sense to sexual grooming. That said if that is the reason for his banning ( and we dont know) then it has some merit.

Ah ok, thanks.

I was familiar with his stance on trans activism but not that he had made unsubstantiated accusations.

One eyed Jack

Rodin wrote: »

''''girls, women and transmen who have periods''.

Let's call them 'females'.

Well you could, and nobody could stop you, in the same way as you cannot stop anyone who menstruates from referring to themselves as men.

Myself I prefer to imagine there’s more to womanhood than just whether or not a person menstruates. I don’t imagine I’m alone in that view either given the number of people who are also of the same view.

FVP3

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No, nowhere in the world do American corporations have a monopoly on how speech is transmitted (I gather you’re referring to the expression of ideas rather than just speech). The Government of China does try to silence anti-Government ideas on all mediums used to transmit ideas, but they’re not very successful at it.

Google has a monopoly in search, between them facebook and twitter have a monopoly in electronic speech. A monopoly is not 100%.

It’s as though you imagine a right to free speech trumps a responsibility towards other people to use that right responsibly, or lose it. The right to freedom of speech and freedom of expression are not some free for all to say whatever you like, they were originally intended as a way to criticise Government and be protected from being punished by the State, in order to maintain freedom in a democracy.

No I don't agree with total free speech, but we have always have had laws against slander etc. Given that you defend the Chinese, it's clear you are on the side of any clampdown on political opinions.

If the banning on Glinner were related to the use of the term "groomer" then it is a legitimate reason to ban someone, but not for his general opposition to some of the more extreme trans ideologies.

BarnardsLoop

Gruffalox wrote: »

To be clear, you think men menstruate? Because transmen are men?

The thread is long but most have civilly agreed in the end that the campaign on menstruation can quite peaceably say ''girls, women and transmen who have periods''. Saying ''people who have periods'' is a deliberate action in support of PC gender theory ideology that has no substance in reality. The fact is only people who menstruate are females and erasure of language is an ideological sport. We have been civil except for a few who have used authoritarian words like terf and transphobe.

And you called arguments here ''dull-witted'' - I can presume you won't mind that phrase being directed at your own arguments in the future. Since there is no ad hominem involved.

I really don't care what someone who speaks in thought-terminating cliches like "PC gender theory ideology" and "erasure of language is an ideological sport" has to say about anything, so talk away! :pac:

FVP3 wrote: »

]

Of course not.

Because life is, frankly, too short to read through hundreds of pages of any of the bigoted ****e that gets posted on this forum, daily. Even if it is couched in civility.

The claim that "medical experts disagree with transphobes" is one that has been debated on this thread of course.

I'm sure it has been "debated".

The general discussion here is about self identification, and the idea that a transwoman is woman indistinct from "cis" women. Generally most people are in favour of trans rights except where it interferes with the rights of "cis" women. As for the medical realities of a transwoman getting medial procedures, a transwoman with penile cancer will be treated for that, and not as a woman.

Anyway, Ill put you on ignore for now as I dont think I am going to find you sympathetic to reason, logic or sense.

Ah, how typical. I provide sources that demonstrate you're talking out your behind as regards why Linehan was banned and you put me on ignore rather than just admit you're wrong (or have already made up your mind).

Can't say I'm surprised but I'm still disappointed.

Gruffalux

The grooming term, if used (as I have never read Graham Linehan's tweets) is a term being directly connected to the radical trans lobby's activity of encouraging children who are gender non-conforming that they are in actual fact a member of the opposite sex. Rather than simply allowing that child to be a gender non-conforming boy or girl.
Worse still this is being done with respect to homosexual children in particular, as has been backed up recently by the BBC Newsnight investigation of the Tavistock situation. Medical personnel there said homophobia is directing many parents. So in this case I can actually understand why the word grooming may have been used as it is a perverse dangerous and subversive activity for organisations like Mermaids et al to engage in with minors. And likewise for any academics who may have influential positions with respect to young people.

Gruffalux

BarnardsLoop wrote: »

I really don't care what someone who speaks in thought-terminating cliches like "PC gender theory ideology" and "erasure of language is an ideological sport" has to say about anything, so talk away! :pac:

.

Sorry Barnard. I thought you were on a discussion board. My bad. Ignored.

FVP3

BarnardsLoop wrote: »

Ah, how typical. I provide sources that demonstrate you're talking out your behind as regards why Linehan was banned and you put me on ignore rather than just admit you're wrong (or have already made up your mind).

I clearly said that if the use of grooming was the reason I was ok with it. I am putting you on ignore because you have come into a thread which was running with civility, which has plenty of diverse opinions, which has no true "transphobes" in it, where the opinions are diverse, and decided "yez are all transphobes".

Rodin

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Well you could, and nobody could stop you, in the same way as you cannot stop anyone who menstruates from referring to themselves as men.

Myself I prefer to imagine there’s more to womanhood than just whether or not a person menstruates. I don’t imagine I’m alone in that view either given the number of people who are also of the same view.

Those who menstruate can refer to themselves as men all they want.

They would be biologically incorrect to refer to themselves as males.

Males do not menstruate. Ever.

I believe people should have an official biological identity. They can have whatever other social/gender identity they want too.

BarnardsLoop

FVP3 wrote: »

"yez are all transphobes".

Who are you quoting? My posts are, once again, publicly viewable so anyone can see I didn't say that.

Sittingpretty

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Myself I prefer to imagine there’s more to womanhood than just whether or not a person menstruates. I don’t imagine I’m alone in that view either given the number of people who are also of the same view.

I don’t think anyone implied there wasn’t more to woman hood than menstruation. What was said was a person who menstruates is a woman, an adult female.

What isn’t a part womanhood is manhood.

Bonniedog

Linehan's comment on men not being women was what got him banned.

The grooming reference - an unfortunate term to use - was in reference to indoctrinating people, not in the sense most people understand it as sexual exploitation.

But of course those who got him banned don't give a fk about that. It was convenient faux pas on his part to have him banned.

Now they are mocking him over his attempts to get back.

I imagine that given his professional background that being shut down is going to interfere with getting work etc.

Ironic to think that Father Ted was once regarded by the same people who now hate him as some sort of subversive movement against the Catholic Church!

One eyed Jack

FVP3 wrote: »

Google has a monopoly in search, between them facebook and twitter have a monopoly in electronic speech. A monopoly is not 100%.

No I don't agree with total free speech, but we have always have had laws against slander etc. Given that you defend the Chinese, it's clear you are on the side of any clampdown on political opinions.

If the banning on Glinner were related to the use of the term "groomer" then it is a legitimate reason to ban someone, but not for his general opposition to some of the more extreme trans ideologies.

The point I’m making is that corporations simply don’t have a monopoly on how ideas are shared worldwide. Surely the fact that we are discussing a famous author who wrote best selling books is testament to that fact? Also Graham Linehan, who wrote a hugely successful comedy series poking fun at the Church before social media was ever a thing, and it’s STILL talked about 20 years later, is also testament to that fact? Newspapers, books, television, portable media, all these things are used to transmit ideas worldwide. American corporations don’t have anything even close to a monopoly.

I’m not defending the Chinese either btw, I’m making the point that it’s their jurisdiction, their standards. There’s so much more to China than Communism and bat soup, but not enough that I would consider taking up residence there permanently. That’s the thing - if I’m visiting China, I’m expected to abide by their policies, same as if Graham Linehan is on twitter, he has agreed to their policies, and just because you see no reason to ban him does not mean he hasn’t violated the terms and conditions he signed up to. Twitter have given their reason. Graham is still free to use one of the other many social media platforms like Telegram and the new kid on the block founded by Dave Rubin and Jordan Peterson -

thinkspot.com

Sir Oxman

BarnardsLoop wrote: »

His opinion hasn't been silenced, he's been banned for hurling abuse at people. That's a very common rule on any website that allows people to comment, including this one.

Amazingly, normal adults are capable of not screeching abuse at anyone different from them. Graham has no one to blame for himself for not even being capable of that incredibly basic standard of behaviour.

He may not have been totally beholden to the 'you've offended meee' brigade (that isn't harassment or abuse)

He may have tagged some of his fellow blue ticks onto discussions they had already rolled over on

(that isn't harrassment or abuse)
He may have hit back at hundreds of truly abusive & harrassing posts and sock puppets sent to every tweet he posted every day


I can only remember once he stepped over the line.

I believe the one that got the suspension was replying 'Men are not women' to the Women's Institute who have fallen to gender ideology



Anyhow, the actual concentration of so much power in the hands of so few (sound familiar) is not good in any sense whatsoever for humanity.


The good thing - finally the childish shouts of 'he's their leader' :rolleyes: crap is over.
Because, no.

He never was.

Bonniedog

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Myself I prefer to imagine there’s more to womanhood than just whether or not a person menstruates. I don’t imagine I’m alone in that view either given the number of people who are also of the same view.

Of course there is "more to womanhood" than having periods. Otherwise we would have to invent a new makey up gender for Granny.

Not sure how that applies to lads with peckers who take a whim to be a wimmin.

Rodin

Bonniedog wrote: »

Of course there is "more to womanhood" than having periods. Otherwise we would have to invent a new makey up gender for Granny.

Not sure how that applies to lads with peckers who take a whim to be a wimmin.

Can call themselves women all they want.
Just tell 'cervical check' their services will not be required.

And get their prostates checked

BarnardsLoop

In spite of the fact that it's now been revealed that he engaged in manipulating the site?

A spokesperson for Twitter told Metro.co.uk: ‘The account has been permanently suspended after repeated violations of our rules against hateful conduct and platform manipulation.’

Twitter defines platform manipulation as ‘using Twitter to engage in bulk, aggressive, or deceptive activity that misleads others and/or disrupts their experience’.

But no, of course not, it was Graham who was the real victim all along!

Oh well, I think it's clear at this point that abuse against the right kind of people is acceptable to some here. Nice to see that "civility" apparently includes insulting trans people but after what I've seen over the last couple of pages, I'm not really surprised that the transphobes here have to lie about what they're doing.

One eyed Jack

Sittingpretty wrote: »

I don’t think anyone implied there wasn’t more to woman hood than menstruation. What was said was a person who menstruates is a woman, an adult female.

What isn’t a part womanhood is manhood.

I got that much, but what I’m saying is that in just the same way as you’re entitled to refer to people who menstruate however you prefer, the reality is that everyone in society has that same right. Referring to something other than what it is commonly known as, doesn’t change the way it functions. I can refer to a biro as a pen, and it doesn’t change the way it functions. I could refer to women as guys (and I often do), and it doesn’t change the way they function.

Nobody can take the definition of woman away from you, you have no ownership over how anyone defines anything in the first place, nor do people who refer to the same thing as something else.

Anyone who claims, as JK does, that they need specific words to be able to talk about their experiences, is doing nothing more than trying to claim a right to limit people’s vocabulary to the terms they prefer to use themselves. Other people are entitled to point out that nobody has that right, and if one is claiming to value free speech, then it is expected that they would value other people’s right to use vocabulary which suits them to describe and define their experiences. That’s what most people would understand of the term free speech. JK appears to have a different standard that suits her, but doesn’t appear to believe other people should have the same right to freedom of expression that she has.

One eyed Jack

Bonniedog wrote: »

Of course there is "more to womanhood" than having periods. Otherwise we would have to invent a new makey up gender for Granny.

Not sure how that applies to lads with peckers who take a whim to be a wimmin.

There’s no need to play dumb, it doesn’t become you.

Sittingpretty

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I got that much, but what I’m saying is that in just the same way as you’re entitled to refer to people who menstruate however you prefer, the reality is that everyone in society has that same right. Referring to something other than what it is commonly known as, doesn’t change the way it functions. I can refer to a biro as a pen, and it doesn’t change the way it functions. I could refer to women as guys (and I often do), and it doesn’t change the way they function.

Nobody can take the definition of woman away from you, you have no ownership over how anyone defines anything in the first place, nor do people who refer to the same thing as something else.

Anyone who claims, as JK does, that they need specific words to be able to talk about their experiences, is doing nothing more than trying to claim a right to limit people’s vocabulary to the terms they prefer to use themselves. Other people are entitled to point out that nobody has that right, and if one is claiming to value free speech, then it is expected that they would value other people’s right to use vocabulary which suits them to describe and define their experiences. That’s what most people would understand of the term free speech. JK appears to have a different standard that suits her, but doesn’t appear to believe other people should have the same right to freedom of expression that she has.

A biro and a pen are two words for what is essentially the same non sentient item with the same function.

Woman and transwoman/man and trans man are not interchangeable because they are not two words for the same thing.

Sittingpretty

BarnardsLoop wrote: »

In spite of the fact that it's now been revealed that he engaged in manipulating the site?



But no, of course not, it was Graham who was the real victim all along!

Oh well, I think it's clear at this point that abuse against the right kind of people is acceptable to some here. Nice to see that "civility" apparently includes insulting trans people but after what I've seen over the last couple of pages, I'm not really surprised that the transphobes here have to lie about what they're doing.

Who has been transphobic?