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

Quantum Erasure

Gruffalox wrote: »

If you wish to see what some women get on twitter by way of abuse you can google TheMialsabella and see their twitter feed.

"Trust me that skank you call a baroness who got her title through nepotism could never command a room like me. Pathetic bitch could never compare"

What the hell did Baroness Nicholson do to get into a twitter fight with someone like that?

Gruffalux

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

"Trust me that skank you call a baroness who got her title through nepotism could never command a room like me. Pathetic bitch could never compare"

What the hell did Baroness Nicholson do to get into a twitter fight with someone like that?

Baroness Nicholson called Munroe Bergdorf a weird creature. An undeniably nasty thing to do. She apologised to Bergdorf publicly and offered to meet with her, which I think they will. Now Bergdorf is no model of good behaviour. Bergdorf was dropped for a few years by l'Oreal for saying publicly that ALL white people are racist, and was recently dropped by NSPCC because of breaches of their safeguarding policies whereby they asked children to contact them directly if they had gender identity issues.

Baroness Nicholson was wrong to say what she did. But an old woman in no way deserved this tweet being publicly directed at her and that Twitter maintains it on full view 24 hours later on the platform in spite of its being reported many times is bizarre.

Quantum Erasure

googled her and came across this from last Sunday
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/are-activists-targeting-me-tory-peer-baroness-nicholsons-despair-over-booker-prize-trans-row-m6rnqxflg

Baroness Nicholson said yesterday that she was sad and surprised to be dropped as an honorary vice-president of the Booker Prize Foundation, the literary accolade founded by her late husband, Sir Michael Caine, after being accused of offending a transgender model, Munroe Bergdorf.

Asked how she felt, she said: “Sad. Very sad. Somewhat surprised to be labelled by the Booker board members as homophobic, transphobic and racist.”

Bonniedog

Sacked by the board of a foundation that is presumably getting money - as in wages - from her husband who set the thing up!

If I was her now, and there was a means to do it, these fkers would be sending off CVs tomorrow morning.

Gruffalux

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

googled her and came across this from last Sunday
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/are-activists-targeting-me-tory-peer-baroness-nicholsons-despair-over-booker-prize-trans-row-m6rnqxflg

Baroness Nicholson said yesterday that she was sad and surprised to be dropped as an honorary vice-president of the Booker Prize Foundation, the literary accolade founded by her late husband, Sir Michael Caine, after being accused of offending a transgender model, Munroe Bergdorf.

Asked how she felt, she said: “Sad. Very sad. Somewhat surprised to be labelled by the Booker board members as homophobic, transphobic and racist.”

Damian Barr, novelist, led the campaign to have Baroness Nicholson removed as Vice Pres of Booker Foundation. It seems she voted against SSM on religious grounds.
She was dismissed and -

Barr welcomed the Booker Foundation’s “decisive move”. “I think it sends a really clear message to other arts organisations that there is no room for discrimination and hatred,” he said.

But he insisted that the Booker still needs to take further action: “I hope they realise the steps they’ve taken are part of a journey and that has to include a diversity review, which is well resourced and funded and public, so that faith can be restored in the prizes.”

Later it was discovered he had written this

https://twitter.com/VictoriaPeckham/status/1278390367755345920

He apologised and has been forgiven for his indiscretions it seems as he has ''changed''.

Bonniedog

Jaysus!

These people have no shame. Barr sounds like a proper asshole.

ceadaoin.

Gruffalox wrote: »

Damian Barr, novelist, led the campaign to have Baroness Nicholson removed as Vice Pres of Booker Foundation. It seems she voted against SSM on religious grounds.
She was dismissed and -




Later it was discovered he had written this

https://twitter.com/VictoriaPeckham/status/1278390367755345920

He apologised and has been forgiven for his indiscretions it seems as he has ''changed''.

Can you imagine if JK Rowling, or any woman, had tweeted things like that? That is actual transphobia and hatred, but somehow gets a free pass. I wonder why? It couldnt be because Barr is a man....could it? I wonder how they determine who to abuse if "woman" and "man" have no definition beyond feeling like one? Somehow its always the females who get told to suck a dick/die/get raped regardless of their possible gender identity. Strange.

Bonniedog

Imagine what the likes of Barr and others would have been like had they been in a similar "cultural" position of power under Hitler or Stalin or any of the other 20th century monsters.

Historians who come across evidence in Soviet and other archives often express disbelief that writers and musicians denounced others and sent them to camps and their death out of jealousy or for careerist reasons.

Not that hard to comprehend really. Rowling business and its aftermath is certainly shedding the light on all sorts of insects.

ceadaoin.

Bonniedog wrote: »

Imagine what the likes of Barr and others would have been like had they been in a similar "cultural" position of power under Hitler or Stalin or any of the other 20th century monsters.

Historians who come across evidence in Soviet and other archives often express disbelief that writers and musicians denounced others and sent them to camps and their death out of jealousy or for careerist reasons.

Not that hard to comprehend really. Rowling business and its aftermath is certainly shedding the light on all sorts of insects.

Remember the time trans activists said that gulags were good places and having something similar to "reeducate" terfs would be a "compassionate" option? Yeah, that happened.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/09/11/soviet-labour-camps-compassionate-educational-institutions-say/

Students at a leading London university have been condemned as blind to reality after defending the system of Soviet Gulag labour camps where thousands perished as “compassionate” places of rehabilitation.

Trans rights campaigners at Goldsmiths University described the Gulags as benign places where inmates received education, training and enjoyed the opportunity to take part in clubs, sports and theatre groups.

In fact most historians agree they were a brutal network of labour camps used by Stalin’s Soviet dictatorship to incarcerate internal opponents and so-called ‘enemies of the state’, resulting in the death of more than an estimated 1.05 million people.

During a bizarre exchange on Twitter the LGBTQ group at Goldsmiths Student Union described life in the Gulags as “rehabilitatory” and “educational”.

Paradoxically the thread was written as an apparent justification for an earlier post by the same group which threatened to send a political opponent “to the gulag”.

The threat was made against Claire Graham, a special education needs teacher, who wrote objecting to LGBTQ Goldsmith’s threat to target feminist academics who they claimed were prejudiced against transgender individuals.

Tans activists refer to these women by the derogatory term TERFS, claiming they are guilty of hate crimes for their opposition to allowing men undergoing gender transition to use women’s toilets and other female only spaces.

In its Tweets, Goldsmith LGBTQ said: “The ideas of TERFS and anti-trans bigots literally kill and must be eradicated through re-education.”

Ms Graham said: “I said that I thought their choice of language, in talking about lists and purging people was intended to shut down debate about trans people and the law. I then received unpleasant and dehumanising threats about being sent to the Gulag. I feel bad for other trans people because this kind of response by some makes them seem so extreme and intolerant.”

Goldsmith LGBTQ subsequently attempted to justify the threat to send Ms Graham to the Gulag by stating that “sending a bigot to one is actually a compassionate, non-violent course of action.”

jam_mac_jam

Bonniedog wrote: »

Imagine what the likes of Barr and others would have been like had they been in a similar "cultural" position of power under Hitler or Stalin or any of the other 20th century monsters.

Historians who come across evidence in Soviet and other archives often express disbelief that writers and musicians denounced others and sent them to camps and their death out of jealousy or for careerist reasons.

Not that hard to comprehend really. Rowling business and its aftermath is certainly shedding the light on all sorts of insects.

It's starting to really look like one of societies, people losing their jobs for their opinions. It's very dark and frightening.

Gruffalux

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

It's starting to really look like one of societies, people losing their jobs for their opinions. It's very dark and frightening.

One is literally a monster for questioning any aspect of the ideology. I mean, literally. Rowling is considered subhuman. She has porn posted to children on her public platform as a form of abuse. The old lady Baroness can have vile images maintained on Twitter - a multinational global corporation that imagines itself to be progressive and socially virtuous- that is directly aimed at her. And it is not removed! Posters who I am quite sure are decent pleasant enjoyable people otherwise will go out of their way to insult and goad one on boards for simply arguing against the inconsistencies of gender theory.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Can you imagine if JK Rowling, or any woman, had tweeted things like that? That is actual transphobia and hatred, but somehow gets a free pass. I wonder why? It couldnt be because Barr is a man....could it? I wonder how they determine who to abuse if "woman" and "man" have no definition beyond feeling like one? Somehow its always the females who get told to suck a dick/die/get raped regardless of their possible gender identity. Strange.

Absolutely.

I hate cancel culture so I’ve no interest in seeing Barr sacked or whatever. However he deserves to be criticised because he spearheaded the campaign to have Ms Nicholson removed from her honorary position with the Booker Prize.

People have handwaved away his tweets and excused him but you are absolutely right that if Rowling or Nicholson has tweeted anything similar, they’d never be let forget it.

Danzy

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Absolutely.

I hate cancel culture so I’ve no interest in seeing Barr sacked or whatever. However he deserves to be criticised because he spearheaded the campaign to have Ms Nicholson removed from her honorary position with the Booker Prize.

People have handwaved away his tweets and excused him but you are absolutely right that if Rowling or Nicholson has tweeted anything similar, they’d never be let forget it.

Anyone else but a progressive Kapo and they would be facing a backlash that would destroy them.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

It's starting to really look like one of societies, people losing their jobs for their opinions. It's very dark and frightening.

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Truer now than ever.

iptba

New Children's Minister to make it easier for under-16s to change their gender

The new Children's Minister Roderic O'Gorman says children under 16 should be able to change their gender with the consent of their parents or guardians and GP.

[..]

Laws to make it easier for 16 and 17-year-olds to legally change their gender will be introduced by the new coalition under a commitment in the Programme for Government. The document also commits to examining the arrangements for children under 16 who may want to change gender.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/new-childrens-minister-to-make-it-easier-for-under-16s-to-change-their-gender-39346464.html

Bonniedog

We can expect more of this stuff you may be sure. My prediction is that one of reds backed by SF will table a private members bill to do away with parental consent and age. And eventually with the backing of Pravda and Imelda May and some woman footballer they will persuade the government that all of this would make them look so cool. Worked before after all.

As for "homophobic", if a conservative Minister had a buddy who was on the record defending the shagging of 10 year old girls, then he'd be gone like a hot snot.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

iptba wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/new-childrens-minister-to-make-it-easier-for-under-16s-to-change-their-gender-39346464.html

A few Irish doctors in relevant fields (endocrinology and psychiatry) have raised concerns about it:

A number of doctors have claimed a service under which adolescents with gender dysphoria can be given puberty-suppressing hormone blockers is "unsafe" and must be immediately stopped, but their concerns were suppressed.

...

The doctors who raised concerns are consultant endocrinologist Professor Donal O'Shea and consultant psychiatrists Dr Paul Moran and Dr Ian Schneider. All three are attached to the adult national gender service at St Columcille's Hospital in Loughlinstown, Dublin, which deals with adult referrals, including children previously treated at Crumlin.

News of their concerns comes days after it emerged a lawsuit was being taken by a former nurse, a parent, and a former patient against the trust in the London High Court. The action is challenging the clinic's practice of prescribing hormone blockers and cross-sex hormones to children under the age of 18.

The service is provided in Ireland by flying in two clinicians from an NHS trust in London to run clinics at Crumlin Children's Hospital.

https://amp.independent.ie/irish-news/health/doctors-in-row-with-hse-over-claims-childrens-transgender-care-is-unsafe-38920159.html

jam_mac_jam

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

A few Irish doctors in relevant fields (endocrinology and psychiatry) have raised concerns about it:



https://amp.independent.ie/irish-news/health/doctors-in-row-with-hse-over-claims-childrens-transgender-care-is-unsafe-38920159.html

Oh look. In Ireland.

Bonniedog

This is a form of child abuse.

If we had all been able to follow our passing whims when we were under 16 I'd imagine we would regret a lot of them. It's part of growing up.

This stuff is life altering AND irreversible.

Seriously, what sort of parent would agree to it?

But we will find that such minor details like parental consent will no longer be required and you can bet that the Warfields and Ruanes and Smiths of our sad political system will be pushing this O'Gorman yoke in that direction very soon.

Gruffalux

You know those emoji face gifs where the eyes are made out of beating love hearts.... That would be my face in real life if I ever met Ayaan.

https://twitter.com/Ayaan/status/1280716418460209152?s=19

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Gruffalox wrote: »

You know those emoji face gifs where the eyes are made out of beating love hearts.... That would be my face in real life if I ever met Ayaan.

https://twitter.com/Ayaan/status/1280716418460209152?s=19

Rowling’s grace under fire is truly admirable.

https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1280829768817049600?s=21

hetuzozaho

So JK Rowling is not against Transgender people just Trans Activists is it? What makes you a Trans Activist (people are listing it in their Twitter or there is more to it?), e.g. would she consider King one when he said Trans Women are Women? She wasn't happy with him but maybe would not consider him a Trans Activist?

And what do the "other side" to the Trans Activists refer to themselves as? I presume Trans Activists call them TERFs?

Terminology is a tricky one in every part of this discussion for me!!

Gruffalux

hetuzozaho wrote: »

So JK Rowling is not against Transgender people just Trans Activists is it? What makes you a Trans Activist (people are listing it in their Twitter or there is more to it?), e.g. would she consider King one when he said Trans Women are Women? She wasn't happy with him but maybe would not consider him a Trans Activist?

And what do the "other side" to the Trans Activists refer to themselves as? I presume Trans Activists call them TERFs?

Terminology is a tricky one in every part of this discussion for me!!

Gender Theory Critic will do for me if you must have a ''name'' to call me.

hetuzozaho

Gruffalox wrote: »

Gender Theory Critic will do for me if you must have a ''name'' to call me.

Ah I've seen GC a lot on twitter I think! cheers

And would you consider King a trans activist now?

andekwarhola

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Rowling’s grace under fire is truly admirable.

https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1280829768817049600?s=21

Apparently she's interacting with kids on her twitter as a diversionary tactic to hide her views.

Nothing of course to do with, you know, being a hugely popular children's author currently publishing a free book in instalments for children during Lockdown.

Gruffalux

hetuzozaho wrote: »

Ah I've seen GC a lot on twitter I think! cheers

And would you consider King a trans activist now?

I have not even thought one second about the man.

I also do not share common ground with a lot of people fighting against radical trans activism as I am not a feminist. I regularly see the old patriarchy blame game trotted out among ''Rad Fems'' and how it is a man's movement etc and how it is evidence of male abusiveness. I think this is a divisive line to go down as there are many men who object to this radical ideology.

I jibe with none of that rad fem stuff. My thinking is based on it is 1) dangerous if not barbaric to medicalise vulnerable kids, 2) important not to remove sex based spaces and protections, and 3) I object largely because the whole gender theory stuff is an insult to reason and a triumph of ideology and obscurantism (yep! It's my new word of the day ) over truth and biological reality.

hetuzozaho

Gruffalox wrote: »

I have not even thought one second about the man.

I also do not share common ground with a lot of people fighting against radical trans activism as I am not a feminist. I regularly see the old patriarchy blame game trotted out among ''Rad Fems'' and how it is a man's movement etc and how it is evidence of male abusiveness. I think this is a divisive line to go down as there are many men who object to this radical ideology.

I jibe with none of that rad fem stuff. My thinking is based on it is 1) dangerous if not barbaric to medicalise vulnerable kids, 2) important not to remove sex based spaces and protections, and 3) I object largely because the whole gender theory stuff is an insult to reason and a triumph of ideology and obscurantism (yep! It's my new word of the day ) over truth and biological reality.

Unfortunately these days I don't think you get to set out what you think - you are just assigned one of the two sides and not just in this discussion, most threads round here are the same

Tired Gardener

I'm Still baffled how someone like JK Rowling, who has given millions to charity... so much that she lost her billionaire status can be seen as a bigot.

All because she had the audacity to say women menstruate.

All the while a large number of those who are 'on the right side of history' calling her a bigot have sent her death and rape threats, posted pornographic material on tweets for kids about their artwork. This is even after she (JK Rowling) talked about her lived experience of being a survivor of domestic violence.

How can I honestly believe that JK Rowling is the bigot in all this. I think we have lost sight of the old expression, 'Actions speak louder than words'.

Itssoeasy

Tired Gardener wrote: »

I'm Still baffled how someone like JK Rowling, who has given millions to charity... so much that she lost her billionaire status can be seen as a bigot.

All because she had the audacity to say women menstruate.

All the while a large number of those who are 'on the right side of history' calling her a bigot have sent her death and rape threats, posted pornographic material on tweets for kids about their artwork. This is even after she (JK Rowling) talked about her lived experience of being a survivor of domestic violence.

How can I honestly believe that JK Rowling is the bigot in all this. I think we have lost sight of the old expression, 'Actions speak louder than words'.

Wait is this what all this is about ? I'll admit I'd seen the news about this but never looked into why(that's my fault) but I'd assumed the reason was for a genuine transphobic reason. Okay now I'm even more confused if that's all she said.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Tired Gardener wrote: »

I'm Still baffled how someone like JK Rowling, who has given millions to charity... so much that she lost her billionaire status can be seen as a bigot.

All because she had the audacity to say women menstruate.

All the while a large number of those who are 'on the right side of history' calling her a bigot have sent her death and rape threats, posted pornographic material on tweets for kids about their artwork. This is even after she (JK Rowling) talked about her lived experience of being a survivor of domestic violence.

How can I honestly believe that JK Rowling is the bigot in all this. I think we have lost sight of the old expression, 'Actions speak louder than words'.

I’ve come to realise that Rowling is no fool here. I think that she knows she’s too big to cancel and that such a strong, and times disgusting, reaction against her very measured comments just looks a bit mental.

There was reaction in the opposite direction yesterday to Margaret Atwood conflating sex and gender. Some of those responses were a bit mad too but I didn’t see anyone inviting Atwood to do whatever an equivalent of “suck on my lady dick” would be or posting graphic photos under her tweets.