Graham Linehan banned from twitter for questioning "trans ideology"

One eyed Jack

Sorry about that wrote: »

Snide, unnecessary reference there to Arlene Foster's appearance. The perks of online anonymity.

You obviously interpreted that differently than it was intended. Of course the issue is my own perception. Arlene Foster is to the best of my knowledge a woman. I wouldn’t be so rude as to question her to her face on whether she is or she isn’t, nor would I wish to make a complaint to management if she were to walk into the men’s bathrooms. I’ll assume she’s there to use them for the same purpose I use them for.

LLMMLL

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Again, both usages have scientific underpinnings.

Female (adjective):

'of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes'.

Female (noun):

'a female person : a woman or a girl'

or

'an individual of the sex that is typically capable of bearing young or producing eggs'

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/female

Again, that is not how the vast majority of people use those words. Most people are not aware of the gametes and ova.

CtevenSrowder

LLMMLL wrote: »

Again, that is not how the vast majority of people use those words. Most people are not aware of the gametes and ova.

Ofcourse they are, don't be ridiculous. You are saying men aren't aware of sperm and women aren't aware they have eggs. Totally ludicrous. Clearly you fancy the average person as a complete retard. And btw, ova are gametes. There are only 2 types.

Again, I ask:

Ok, but how does one give examples of something unless they know what that thing is already? If someone gave me as an example of a women would that conceptualisation be correct?

AndrewJRenko

Sorry about that wrote: »

Snide, unnecessary reference there to Arlene Foster's appearance. The perks of online anonymity.

Says the anonymous poster.

LLMMLL

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Ofcourse they are, don't be ridiculous. You are saying men aren't aware of sperm and women aren't aware they have eggs. Totally ludicrous. Clearly you fancy the average person as a complete retard. And btw, ova are gametes. There are only 2 types.

Again, I ask:

You have to be aware of sperm and eggs to use the terms man and woman?

Do you think women always knew they had eggs? For example did Ancient Greek women know they had eggs? Do little children know their mothers have eggs? Are those that do not know this incapable.ofnusing the word "woman"?

CtevenSrowder

LLMMLL wrote: »

You have to be aware of sperm and eggs to use the terms man and woman?

Do you think women always knew they had eggs? For example did Ancient Greek women know they had eggs? Do little children know their mothers have eggs? Are those that do not know this incapable.ofnusing the word "woman"?

Answer my question before I answer yours. In true LLMMLL style you ignore the questions you are asked and pose your own:

Ok, but how does one give examples of something unless they know what they thing is already? If someone gave me as an example of a women would that conceptualisation be correct?

LLMMLL

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Answer my question before I answer yours. In true LLMMLL style you ignore the questions you are asked and pose your own:

I don't have access to individuals conceptualisations of women or have any information about you so the truth is I have no idea if you would fit someones conceptualisations or not.

Now would you like to answer mine?

CtevenSrowder

LLMMLL wrote: »

I don't have access to individuals conceptualisations of women or have any information about you so the truth is I have no idea if you would fit someones conceptualisations or not.

Now would you like to answer mine?

You didn't answer the first part:

Ok, but how does one give examples of something unless they know what they thing is already?

Quantum Erasure

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Answer my question before I answer yours. In true LLMMLL style you ignore the questions you are asked and pose your own:

If someone gave me as an example of a women would that conceptualisation be correct?

let me guess: she doesn't know, she hasn't met you

Edit, i was in too late

CtevenSrowder

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

let me guess: she doesn't know, she hasn't met you

Correct.

One eyed Jack

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Ofcourse they are, don't be ridiculous. You are saying men aren't aware of sperm and women aren't aware they have eggs. Totally ludicrous. Clearly you fancy the average person as a complete retard. And btw, ova are gametes. There are only 2 types.

Again, I ask:

How does one give an example of something if they don’t know it is already? They know what it is already, they just may not refer to it the same way you do is all. They use demonstrations (have you never played charades?) and many different means of communicating their ideas as possible until they’re sure that you understand what they mean. Teachers for example explain concepts to students all the time who would previously have known their penis by many different names, “private parts” being just one of the more popular euphemisms. Plenty of people will understand what a child means when they refer to their private parts, and they might never use the word penis or be familiar with science or any of the rest of it.

Science is just another tool, same as Law is just another tool. In society, Law takes precedence over science.

CtevenSrowder

One eyed Jack wrote: »

How does one give an example of something if they don’t know it is already? They know what it is already, they just may not refer to it the same way you do is all. They use demonstrations (have you never played charades?) and many different means of communicating their ideas as possible until they’re sure that you understand what they mean. Teachers for example explain concepts to students all the time who would previously have known their penis by many different names, “private parts” being just one of the more popular euphemisms. Plenty of people will understand what a child means when they refer to their private parts, and they might never use the word penis or be familiar with science or any of the rest of it.

Science is just another tool, same as Law is just another tool. In society, Law takes precedence over science.

Fantastic. So going forward when some asks LLMMLL and yourself what a woman is you can play a game of charades. I truly didn't think this could descend it even yet more farce but there you are. I'm off to bed.

LLMMLL

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

You didn't answer the first part:

Because they have learned a concept. They don't "know" what a table is in the sense that you mean it (having some sort of authority or access to objective truth). They have a conceptualization of a table from their experiences. There will be many objects they see where they will be like "I'm certain that's a table". There will be other objects where they will be like "I think it's a table but...".

So they don't have some final authorative truth on what a table is but they can give examples of their conceptualization of a table and you are free to disagree with them based on your own OPINION.

Rodin

Transmen are female and transwomen are male.

And that's the bottom line....

Quantum Erasure

is there a conceptualisation that 'people who menstruate' would fit under, but 'people with a penis' wouldn't, I wonder

One eyed Jack

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Fantastic. So going forward when some asks LLMMLL and yourself what a woman is you can play a game of charades. I truly didn't think this could descend it even yet more farce but there you are. I'm off to bed.

Well we could, but I don’t imagine it would necessarily ever come to that. Come to think of it I don’t think anyone has ever asked me what a woman is, but I’m well used to helping people understand what I mean, up to the point where like you I just can’t be arsed when I determine that they had no real wish to understand what I meant and they didn’t care. I’ll always prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt though and take responsibility for any misunderstandings as my own fault, unless like JK has done they remove all doubt as to their intent.

Quantum Erasure

One eyed Jack

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

is there a conceptualisation that 'people who menstruate' would fit under, but 'people with a penis' wouldn't, I wonder

I can’t think of one tbh, they might conceivably menstruate and have a penis. Or they might have a different understanding of menstruation altogether -


Male menstruation


Really there isn’t a definitive answer, it depends on who you ask and what they understand you mean by the question.

Gruffalux

I see overnight while most people slept there has been some serious quantum tunneling and we have breached to a fantastical plane where trans women have evolved into...dun dun dun... trans-females :eek:
All I can suggest is don't ever sleep.

KiKi III

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If you give the vast majority of people that definition in the first place, then it stands to reason that they would give you that description back when you ask them the question. You’re not even giving them multiple choices?

However if you ask most people what is a woman, I don’t know that the vast majority of people actually would answer “adult human female”, you’re likely to get a tonne of different answers because everyone has their own ideas as to how they define woman or women or what constitutes woman or women.

This is something you and LLMMLL keep saying but in my 32 years on this planet I have not found that “everyone has their own ideas as to how they define woman”. In fact, outside of boards and a few threads I’ve read on Twitter, I’ve never encountered any confusion on it.

One eyed Jack

KiKi III wrote: »

This is something you and LLMMLL keep saying but in my 32 years on this planet I have not found that “everyone has their own ideas as to how they define woman”. In fact, outside of boards and a few threads I’ve read on Twitter, I’ve never encountered any confusion on it.

Can’t speak for anyone else myself but I’d be the same as you tbh - in my 42 years, outside of a few Sheldon-like types of limited intellect, I’ve never encountered any confusion either. I’ve experienced plenty who from the way they speak of women they have a very limited idea of what a woman is. Some people do use the word ‘females’ to refer to women but I’d rarely be associating with those people, and any time I am, it’s not by choice.

There’s no confusion on my part, I understand that people often use different language differently to refer to the same thing and even refer to the same thing in different languages. The only time there’s any confusion is when I don’t understand the language they’re using. Like I said earlier though that’s not the great impediment some people here are making it out to be. It’s easy enough understand other people if you really want to.

Sorry about that

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Says the anonymous poster.

I don't use my anonymity to (bravely) insult people.

Sir Oxman

Sittingpretty wrote: »

informative reply, thank you.

It was an informative view about a small active org in Ireland alas until the slur on an LGB organisation with the source as 'Pink News'
That well known bastion of truthful journalism - it really is not.
It has one agenda (critical gender-->queer theory) and that includes promoting the inclusion of same sex attraction as being 'transphobic'.

Bannasidhe

Sir Oxman wrote: »

It was an informative view about a small active org in Ireland alas until the slur on an LGB organisation with the source as 'Pink News'
That well known bastion of truthful journalism - it really is not.
It has one agenda (critical gender-->queer theory) and that includes promoting the inclusion of same sex attraction as being 'transphobic'.

Then provide a counter- argument to what Pink New reported.
Demonstrate that the information they provided is without foundation.

The launch of LGB Alliance was not universally welcomed https://gcn.ie/lgb-alliance-slammed-anti-trans/

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/lgb-alliance-group-transphobic-alison-bailey-lesbian-gay-bisexual-a9169091.html

One eyed Jack

Sorry about that wrote: »

I don't use my anonymity to (bravely) insult people.

You do -

Sorry about that wrote: »

You only need to look at the photographs of the NHS staff who've sadly died from coronavirus, to see the risk to people who are overweight.

However, it's now taboo to name it; smokers are fair game (rightly so), but point out that obesity is a risk factor in an equally long list of diseases; it's body-shaming. It's bonkers. Instead of shouting stop, we now have fat mannequins in boutique windows, while the scrawny heroin-chic models of the '90's caused uproar. The big-bottom line is money, and fashion doesn't care what size you are, as long as the wheels keep turning (€€€€), so eat up everyone, big is beautiful!

Taboo to name it? You’re so brave though to do it anonymously.

Sir Oxman

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Why on earth would there be given the sheer level of hostility here.

The thread has evolved heavily between activists who religiously adhere to critical gender-queer theory and those that do not.
If there are any posters who have denigrated individuals, they would be dealt with by the mods.
I thought you'd know that - being a mod elsewhere.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Sir Oxman wrote: »

It was an informative view about a small active org in Ireland alas until the slur on an LGB organisation with the source as 'Pink News'
That well known bastion of truthful journalism - it really is not.
It has one agenda (critical gender-->queer theory) and that includes promoting the inclusion of same sex attraction as being 'transphobic'.

Yes, I’m amused at anyone posting a link from Pink News as a credible source. It’s a laughing stock of a publication.

Pick any organisation. I bet you’ll find someone with extreme views amongst the supporters.

Stark

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Yes, I’m amused at anyone posting a link from Pink News as a credible source. It’s a laughing stock of a publication.

How so? By "laughing stock of a publication", I presume you mean one that doesn't align with your conservative worldview.

Stark

Stark wrote: »

How so? By "laughing stock of a publication", I presume you mean one that doesn't align with your conservative worldview.

Conservative world view? Because someone thinks Pink News is a joke?

Do you honestly think pink news is credible?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Deleted User wrote: »

But thank God we have you Joey. You will always stick up for anyone as long as they believe in your narrative. A very unbiased mod who has no problem promoting or condoning the use of the word terf.

And I’d again like to highlight that Joey made a distinction between TERFs and people on this very thread. He can’t ever claim now that it isn’t a dehumanising term.

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

No. I didnt ignore that. I am observing the differences here and that in Ireland the number of terfs/people who consider themselves gender critical is really tiny and miniscule when compared to the UK. Theres a very big cultural difference.

I mean, it’s obvious to many of us that TERF is a dehumanising term but for somebody who condones its use to slip up like that is funny. To me at least.