Gender Identity in Modern Ireland (Mod warnings and Threadbanned Users in OP)

Frankie Machine

One eyed Jack wrote: »

and trying to disguise their efforts in “concern” for women they previously would never have given a second thought to, such as women in shelters, women in prisons, etc.

So JK Rowling would 'previously would never have given a second thought to' women in prison.

Yet in 2008 we find that

Harry Potter author JK Rowling gave prisoners in Edinburgh learning to read a "real boost" when she visited them in jail.

The millionaire author presented awards to inmates at the city's Saughton Prison earlier this month.

Rowling, whose writing has brought her millions of fans worldwide, was invited to carry out the honours by the Shannon Trust.

The London-based charity helps prisoners across the UK learn to read.

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12461255.jk-rowling-in-surprise-prison-visit/

Just in case anyone doubted that you are making it all up on the hoof, for effect...

Gatling

One eyed Jack wrote: »

so that people are not discriminated against on the basis of their sex (or in equality legislation - gender).

What discrimination .

They have access to housing , employment, education ,medical , welfare like every man or woman

jam_mac_jam

Frankie Machine wrote: »

So JK Rowling would 'previously would never have given a second thought to' women in prison.

Yet in 2008 we find that



https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12461255.jk-rowling-in-surprise-prison-visit/

Just in case anyone doubted that you are making it all up on the hoof, for effect...

She also gave away lots of her money to charity but I suppose that's probably another reason not to like her.

Gatling

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

She also gave away lots of her money to charity but I suppose that's probably another reason not to like her.

Some men just can't handle a successful woman

ceadaoin.

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

She also gave away lots of her money to charity but I suppose that's probably another reason not to like her.

Its estimated that she has given around 160 million in charitable donations. What an evil bitch :rolleyes:

One eyed Jack

Frankie Machine wrote: »

So JK Rowling would 'previously would never have given a second thought to' women in prison.

Yet in 2008 we find that

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12461255.jk-rowling-in-surprise-prison-visit/

Just in case anyone doubted that you are making it all up on the hoof, for effect...

Did you actually read what you quoted? Where in that sentence do i specifically refer to JK Rowling? I’m well aware that she has experienced difficult circumstances in her own life -


Living in a cramped apartment with her daughter, jobless and penniless, Rowling fell into a deep depression and admits she even considered suicide. She was forced to rely on state benefits and spent much of her time writing "Harry Potter" in cafés with Jessica sleeping in the pram next to her.

"An exceptionally short-lived marriage had imploded, and I was jobless, a lone parent, and as poor as it is possible to be in modern Britain, without being homeless ... By every usual standard, I was the biggest failure I knew," Rowling said during a 2008 Harvard University commencement speech.


I was referring to the fact that the people who use the caricature of women in prisons don’t appear to give a second thought as to how those women ended up in prisons and shelters, because those women’s experiences are so distant from their own, in the same way as the experiences of people who are transgender are so distant from their own.

That’s why I had nothing but contempt for the nebulous concept of “the female experience”. Incarceration and what I see as further incarceration by holing women up in shelters further depriving them of equal participation in society and hiding them out of sight of the public consciousness is not, generally speaking, a component of “the female experience” if “the female experience” means “circumstances peculiar to the female of the species”.

JK wasn’t being incarcerated against her will.

Gruffalux

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Its estimated that she has given around 160 million in charitable donations. What an evil bitch :rolleyes:

Wow! That is impressive.

One eyed Jack

Gatling wrote: »

What discrimination .

They have access to housing , employment, education ,medical , welfare like every man or woman

They do now, on an equal basis as everyone else, and they are protected from discrimination in those areas on the same grounds as everyone else. Their unique needs are also recognised on an equal basis as everyone else. Your effort is like arguing that there was no necessity for marriage equality because men and women could already enter into marriage if they wanted. It ignores the fact that their circumstances are unique which is why a referendum was required to allow for homosexual couples to enter into marriage.

There are still some areas in family law which present difficulties in terms of discrimination against people who are gay, lesbian or transgender, which is why campaigns are ongoing to address those circumstances where they are not treated equally as their heterosexual counterparts or non-transgender counterparts, areas like parental rights and so on.

political analyst

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Suzanne Moore, JK Rowling, etc can easily be summed up as -





They were pushing what was then the “progressive” narrative, competing in the Oppression Olympics, etc, for their generation. They laid the foundations for the current generation of women whose views they don’t share. They campaigned for women to have a voice. Now they don’t like what women are saying and they are attempting to portray themselves as “victims”, “outcasts”, when confronted with the reality that they’re no longer “with it” or “brave” because their views are no longer considered progressive, but rather the opposite of everything they’ve spent their lives rallying against, and they’re having to look for support from the very people they once condemned as the gate-keepers and authoritarians of society.

It’s an embarrassing climbdown for them, nothing more. It’s pretty disingenuous to claim from their positions of enormous influence that they are somehow being “suppressed” or any of the rest of it. They’re clearly not, as evidenced by the fact that they still imagine they represent the views of the majority of women and their voices still appear in mainstream media. Their “plight” reminds me of this rather acute observation from a while back -

https://images.app.goo.gl/Laiu4SyFrQXecNVN6

It’s difficult to take their claims about wanting to protect women seriously when it’s painfully obvious from the way they talk about “protecting women”, what they mean is “protecting women like meeee”, and trying to disguise their efforts in “concern” for women they previously would never have given a second thought to, such as women in shelters, women in prisons, etc. The women who are represented by their caricatures aren’t there by chance, they are there because of the circumstances which led to their being housed in shelters and prisons. Their conditions were pretty shìt before they were being used in arguments against recognising that people who are transgender have equal rights as everyone else in society. Protection from discrimination on the grounds of sex is just ONE of the nine grounds of discrimination. Were it not for their being protected from discrimination it’s a certainty that women like Suzanne and JK wouldn’t have the platforms they do now to take a dump from a height on the people below them.

Suzanne Moore and JK Rowling assume these women would agree with them, but the reality is a far cry from their idealistic Ivory Tower perspective where Suzanne Moore and JK are quite literally sticking their heads above the parapet, and appealing to the peasants at the gates below to “be reasonable, let’s talk about this”.

People who are trying to make a thing out of pointing out the fact that there are circumstances where women’s rights are in conflict with the rights of people who are transgender appear to be of the belief that this is anything new. At the “women’s march” there were plenty of women who were excluded and condemned on the basis that they did not share the views of the prevailing majority present at the march.

The most memorable for all the wrong reasons moment though was when the President of Planned Parenthood (second largest provider in the US of hormone treatments for people who are transgender on an informed consent basis), urged an audience of predominantly white middle class women that they had to “do better”. It’s pretty shìt to be told you need to “do better” when you’re attending a rally which aims to highlight ways in which you perceive you are being oppressed. One of the ways in which one PP NY have chosen to “do better” I suppose, is to disavow acknowledgement of the founder of the organisation from their history (I guess she was on the right side of history, now she’s on the wrong side of history, but that position has always been dependent upon who’s driving the narrative). In any case it was a smart business decision for PP when they broadened the services they offer. It had nothing to do with the narrative of abortion being portrayed very differently among the black community and everything to do with the fact that if PP want to keep bringing in Government funding of over $500m ANNUALLY, they would have to diversify and appeal to a different market.

This is no different than any of the “journalists” or people who are claiming they “lost their jobs” or they were “fired”, or they were “cancelled”, for merely “expressing an opinion” or “standing up for women’s rights”, or “just thinking we should have a debate”. Because they always perceived themselves as “the oppressed”, they’re struggling to convince anyone they are still oppressed in a society where they are among it’s elites. They’re clutching at straws and invoking all sorts of stereotypes they clearly haven’t had to think about before, in order to claim that they still belong to the oppressed and underrepresented in society.

I’m not going to gloat about it as I would never take pleasure in someone else’s misfortune, but Bambi does have a point that the very people who set the rules of the game are now being beaten at their own game by the people they taught how to play their game of playing the victim.

What evidence is there to substantiate your claim that Suzanne and JK don't care about women who are not like them? They have disagreed with the 'gate-keepers and authoritarians of society' but that doesn't mean that they had any intention of causing harm to that group.

Suzanne and JK are not just speaking for themselves - they're speaking for women who have difficulties and are either unable or unwilling to express those concerns. Just type the following names into Google: Karen White, Katie Dolatowski.

One eyed Jack

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

She also gave away lots of her money to charity but I suppose that's probably another reason not to like her.

She could give away her whole personal wealth in charitable donations, is that supposed to make her immune from criticism? Even Mother Teresa and the Queen aren’t immune from criticism, and they’ve done a hell of a lot more for charitable causes than JK? Plenty of people have donated billions to charitable causes, it doesn’t buy them immunity from criticism. How is that even an argument?

Frankie Machine

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Did you actually read what you quoted? Where in that sentence do i specifically refer to JK Rowling?

Allow me to remind everyone of the associations that you are making throughout.

Suzanne Moore, JK Rowling, etc can easily be summed up as -

They were pushing what was then the “progressive” narrative, competing in the Oppression Olympics, etc, for their generation. They laid the foundations for the current generation of women whose views they don’t share. They campaigned for women to have a voice. Now they don’t like what women are saying and they are attempting to portray themselves as “victims”, “outcasts”, when confronted with the reality that they’re no longer “with it” or “brave” because their views are no longer considered progressive, but rather the opposite of everything they’ve spent their lives rallying against, and they’re having to look for support from the very people they once condemned as the gate-keepers and authoritarians of society.

It’s an embarrassing climbdown for them, nothing more. It’s pretty disingenuous to claim from their positions of enormous influence...

It’s difficult to take their claims about wanting to protect women seriously when it’s painfully obvious from the way they talk about “protecting women”, what they mean is “protecting women like meeee”, and trying to disguise their efforts in “concern” for women they previously would never have given a second thought to, such as women in shelters, women in prisons, etc. The women who are represented by their caricatures aren’t there by chance, they are there because of the circumstances which led to their being housed in shelters and prisons. Their conditions were pretty shìt before they were being used in arguments against recognising that people who are transgender have equal rights as everyone else in society. Protection from discrimination on the grounds of sex is just ONE of the nine grounds of discrimination. Were it not for their being protected from discrimination it’s a certainty that women like Suzanne and JK wouldn’t have the platforms they do now to take a dump from a height on the people below them.

Suzanne Moore and JK Rowling assume these women would agree with them, but the reality is a far cry from their idealistic Ivory Tower perspective where Suzanne Moore and JK are quite literally sticking their heads above the parapet, and appealing to the peasants at the gates below to “be reasonable, let’s talk about this”.

Your whole screed is littered with the association that you were attempting to make, and now want to worm out of.

Just own it.

LLMMLL

Frankie Machine wrote: »

So JK Rowling would 'previously would never have given a second thought to' women in prison.

Yet in 2008 we find that



https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12461255.jk-rowling-in-surprise-prison-visit/

Just in case anyone doubted that you are making it all up on the hoof, for effect...

And here's a photo of JK on that visit demonstrating her concern for women prisoners lol

One eyed Jack

political analyst wrote: »

What evidence is there to substantiate your claim that Suzanne and JK don't care about women who are not like them? They have disagreed with the 'gate-keepers and authoritarians of society' but that doesn't mean that they had any intention of causing harm to that group.

The overwhelming evidence is in the fact that they occupy an elite status in society which the vast majority of women do not, and historically have never occupied that equal status in society, and JK and Suzanne don’t appear to have taken any interest in raising the status of the vast majority of women in society, until their own status as elites is threatened.

political analyst wrote: »

Suzanne and JK are not just speaking for themselves - they're speaking for women who have difficulties and are either unable or unwilling to express those concerns. Just type the following names into Google: Karen White, Katie Dolatowski.

Well that’s who they claim to speak for anyway, instead of encouraging everyone to speak for themselves. I’m well aware of who those people are without googling, and if I’m criticised for using extreme examples to represent women like Ghislaine Maxwell and Alison Mack, then shouldn’t the same standards apply to everyone who uses extreme examples to bolster their arguments? This is why I would never suggest that JK is a representative example of women’s experiences either - she is very much an exception in terms of her status in society.

One eyed Jack

Frankie Machine wrote: »

Allow me to remind everyone of the associations that you are making throughout.

Your whole screed is littered with the association that you were attempting to make, and now want to worm out of.

Just own it.

I have to take responsibility for your choosing to take what I’ve written out of context?

No, I don’t think I will.

Frankie Machine

LLMMLL wrote: »

And here's a photo of JK on that visit demonstrating her concern for women prisoners lol

I didn't claim that, because neither did the article.

Nevertheless, it was an unfounded, spiteful suggestion without any basis, by OEJ. A petty character assassination.

I know that reasonable and sensible people will have no problem believing that a person supporting prison literacy work would not be discriminatory on the grounds of male or female. (As though such a person would be conscious of male prisoners, but never 'have given a thought to' women prisoners.)

People who want to score cheap political points, well, I know what they will do as well.


I'm almost surprised you can bring yourself to assume the gender of the people in the picture.

Anything for a cheap 'LOL', I supppose.


.

Frankie Machine

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I have to take responsibility for your choosing to take what I’ve written out of context?

No, I don’t think I will.

People aren't depending on you to do so.

We can all see for ourselves what the game is.

LLMMLL

Frankie Machine wrote: »

I didn't claim that, because neither did the article.

Nevertheless, it was an unfounded, spiteful suggestion without any basis, by OEJ. A petty character assassination.

I know that reasonable and sensible people will have no problem believing that a person supporting prison literacy work would not be discriminatory on the grounds of male or female.

People who want to score cheap political points, well, I know what they will do as well.

I'm almost surprised you can bring yourself to assume the gender of the people in the picture.

Anything for a cheap 'LOL', I supppose.


.

Let's be honest here. You thought you found a "gotcha argument" and posted too quickly before checking if she visited women prisoners or not.

One eyed Jack

Frankie Machine wrote: »

I didn't claim that, because neither did the article.

Nevertheless, it was an unfounded, spiteful suggestion without any basis, by OEJ. A petty character assassination.

I know that reasonable and sensible people will have no problem believing that a person supporting prison literacy work would not be discriminatory on the grounds of male or female.

People who want to score cheap political points, well, I know what they will do as well.

I'm almost surprised you can bring yourself to assume the gender of the people in the picture.

Anything for a cheap 'LOL', I supppose.

Do you even listen to yourself or think before you write the first thing that comes into your head? Because I’m beginning to wonder are you accusing others of doing the very thing you’re doing yourself - making it up on the hoof, or scrolling google searches with a few keywords which will confirm your own bias.

Invoking the no true Scotsman fallacy (you may have to google that) doesn’t make your argument any stronger btw - the idea that anyone who disagrees with you is not a reasonable and sensible person.

EDIT: I’ve just read the article Frankie linked to as evidence that JK gives a thought to women in prison...

Bit awkward alright.

Gatling

One eyed Jack wrote: »

They do now,

They have rights like the rest of us

What special rights do they need,or you think they need

Frankie Machine

LLMMLL wrote: »

Let's be honest here. You thought you found a "gotcha argument" and posted too quickly before checking if she visited women prisoners or not.

You wish.

But if you want to now pretend, for the sake of your diatribe, that JKR 'never gave a second thought to women in prison', because there are no women in a picture of her giving literacy awards to prisoners, on behalf of The Shannon Trust which claims her as a supporter...

go ahead, we can all have a laugh at the absurdity the effort.

:rolleyes:

Frankie Machine

LLMMLL wrote: »

Let's be honest here. You thought you found a "gotcha argument" and posted too quickly before checking if she visited women prisoners or not.

Is irrelevant.

The issue is whether OEJ's notion that never a second thought was given to women in prison is believable.

It is not.

Support for a prison literacy charity that helps men and women - The Shannon Trust* - is ample evidence.

The article provides that evidence.

We might as well ask OEJ for evidence to back up the assertion that JKR never gave a second thought to women prisoners -

but its such a fatuous thing to say, we know that no such evidence can exist.


*Still claims her as a supporter, in fact.

LLMMLL

Frankie Machine wrote: »

You wish.

But if you want to now pretend, for the sake of your diatribe, that JKR 'never gave a second thought to women in prison', because there are no women in a picture of her giving literacy awards to prisoners, on behalf of The Shannon Trust which claims her as a supporter...

go ahead, we can all have a laugh at the absurdity the effort.

:rolleyes:

I'm very confident that anyone who assesses the evidence you've presented of JK Rowlings male prison visit being evidence of her concern for female prisoners will not find my argument absurd

One eyed Jack

Gatling wrote: »

They have rights like the rest of us

What special rights do need

I don’t know what you mean by special rights? Specific needs based upon their circumstances is it?

Everyone in society has those rights too? For example I often need special consideration in circumstances where other people do not, or someone else needs special consideration in circumstances where other people do not. It depends on people’s circumstances whether they need greater assistance, protection or recognition in areas where other people do not.

A good example are programs and initiatives aimed at assisting women in areas where they are underrepresented or unequal to men. It’s not taking away anything from men or impeding upon men’s rights in any way (some people argue that initiatives such as positive discrimination do just that, but the objective is equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome). It’s no different than consideration for people with disabilities - introducing changes to the way society functions to allow everyone to have equal opportunities to participate equally in society. It’s not taking any rights away from people, it’s acknowledging that groups and individuals in society sometimes have greater need of assistance, protection and recognition in order for them to have equal opportunity to participate in society as everyone else.

Gatling

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don’t know what you mean by special rights? Specific needs based upon their circumstances is it?

Again we have women's rights and mens rights.

What else is required .

I'd rather see places of worship built for our Jedi's who are wholly underrepresented but make up several thousand individuals
we've 44 trans here covered by various mens's and women's rights

Frankie Machine

LLMMLL wrote: »

I'm very confident that anyone who assesses the evidence you've presented of JK Rowlings male prison visit being evidence of her concern for female prisoners will not find my argument absurd

Overconfident, more like.

It's not a 'male prison'.

The prison also holds a female population in its Ratho hall

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HM_Prison_Edinburgh

Did you in your hurry to post... ? etc etc



Some of you might need a picture to have everything confirmed to you, but the rest of us can use our commonsense. I'm very confident about that.

LLMMLL

Frankie Machine wrote: »

Overconfident, more like.

It's not a 'male prison'.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HM_Prison_Edinburgh

I'm well aware of that as I actually researched before I posted.

Which is why I posted ACTUAL evidence of her visit.

No women I'm afraid.

Gatling

LLMMLL wrote: »

I'm well aware of that as I actually researched before I posted.

Yeah no .

Nothing like an egg facial

LLMMLL

Gatling wrote: »

Yeah no .

Nothing like an egg facial

That's what I been saying.

CtevenSrowder

LLMMLL wrote: »

Let's be honest here. You thought you found a "gotcha argument" and posted too quickly before checking if she visited women prisoners or not.

How do you know those prisoners aren't women? Do they not meet your examplars criteria?

CtevenSrowder

LLMMLL wrote: »

I'm very confident that anyone who assesses the evidence you've presented of JK Rowlings male prison visit being evidence of her concern for female prisoners will not find my argument absurd

It is clear evidence. She is a supporter of the Shannon Trust which is a literacy programme for prisoners, regardless of sex.