Transgender stuff - what's going on?

[TD_LFC]

 

[Rico1304]

Just now, TD_LFC said:

 

A bit late to the party but welcome nonetheless.  AoT posted it yesterday. 

[TD_LFC]

[AngryOfTuebrook]

6 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

Didn’t read it then did you? 

I read enough to see it for what it very clearly is: people from one side of the argument putting forward their case.

 

I'm sure you could find a similar summary written by Stonewall, or someone, putting forward their side of the argument.

 

In either case, it's wrong to present it as an impartial summary of facts.

[Rico1304]

2 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

I read enough to see it for what it very clearly is: people from one side of the argument putting forward their case.

 

I'm sure you could find a similar summary written by Stonewall, or someone, putting forward their side of the argument.

 

In either case, it's wrong to present it as an impartial summary of facts.

I didn’t think you had.  Fair enough, but I think you should have made it clear.   

[AngryOfTuebrook]

Just now, Rico1304 said:

I didn’t think you had.  Fair enough, but I think you should have made it clear.   

I'm right, though, aren't I.

[Rico1304]

6 minutes ago, TD_LFC said:

David! 

[Rico1304]

Just now, AngryOfTuebrook said:

I'm right, though, aren't I.

No, it’ll only take you 10 mins to read

it.  But why bother?

 

Fundamentally you believe TW are (at the very least) a subset of women.  That has no logic or basis in reality.  They are a subset of men and will remain so.  As such they should not be allowed all the rights given to women.  We can all pretend up to a point and even create a legal fiction to support it but if women say ‘I’m sorry, not in this space’ then that is perfectly reasonable. I think toilets, prison, rape crisis centres, hospitals and sports are some obvious examples.  There’s a woman in Oz being prosecuted for setting up an all women dating app.  Go figure. 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

6 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

No

And there's your problem: I doubt that the people who wrote that thought that they were doing anything other than setting out their case; and here you are, acting as if it's established, incontrovertible truth. It's that blinkered fundamentalism that makes it a waste of time to engage with you on this thread.

 

(FWIW, I intend to go back and read that thing you linked to; it could be useful or interesting.  I won't read the rest of your post, because experience suggests it will be neither.)

[Rico1304]

2 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

And there's your problem: I doubt that the people who wrote that thought that they were doing anything other than setting out their case; and here you are, acting as if it's established, incontrovertible truth. It's that blinkered fundamentalism that makes it a waste of time to engage with you on this thread.

 

(FWIW, I intend to go back and read that thing you linked to; it could be useful or interesting.  I won't read the rest of your post, because experience suggests it will be neither.)

I’m the fundamentalist but he won’t read my posts.  Weird as fuck.  The idea that sex in human is immutable not be incontrovertible is madness.  

[Numero Veinticinco]

21 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

I’m the fundamentalist but he won’t read my posts.  Weird as fuck.  The idea that sex in human is immutable not be incontrovertible is madness.  

Why do these fundamentalists pretend gender is sex?

[Rico1304]

10 hours ago, Rico1304 said:

I’m the fundamentalist but he won’t read my posts.  Weird as fuck.  The idea that sex in human is immutable not be incontrovertible is madness.  

Who said?

 

‘Of course it doesn’t mean "letting men be women".  Trans women are NOT men. They're women.’

[A Red]

12 hours ago, Rico1304 said:

No, it’ll only take you 10 mins to read

it.  But why bother?

 

Fundamentally you believe TW are (at the very least) a subset of women.  That has no logic or basis in reality.  They are a subset of men and will remain so.  As such they should not be allowed all the rights given to women.  We can all pretend up to a point and even create a legal fiction to support it but if women say ‘I’m sorry, not in this space’ then that is perfectly reasonable. I think toilets, prison, rape crisis centres, hospitals and sports are some obvious examples.  There’s a woman in Oz being prosecuted for setting up an all women dating app.  Go figure. 

And there it is. They are a subset of men.

 

We can all be polite and call them what they want to be called up to the point that its a legal issue but when it comes to the law they are men. Its simple really.

[Jimmy Hills Chin]

6 minutes ago, A Red said:

And there it is. They are a subset of men.

 

We can all be polite and call them what they want to be called up to the point that its a legal issue but when it comes to the law they are men. Its simple really.

They’re just normal men, they’re just innocent men.

[Rico1304]

14 minutes ago, Jimmy Hills Chin said:

They’re just normal men, they’re just innocent men.

Ha ha brilliant. 

[Captain Willard]

Warner Brothers have had to apologise today after their PR people intervened live on air to stop a Sky interviewer ask one of their actors a question about JK Rowling.I am hesitant to say this but this situation is becoming Stalinist, her opponents are trying to airbrush her out of popular culture whilst the rest of the UK looks on and does nothing. The most successful female author in human history who has given hundreds of £ millions to charity yet she’s treated like nuclear waste for daring to say that only women can be women. Its very easy to see how societies slide into totalitarianism. 

[Numero Veinticinco]

4 minutes ago, Captain Willard said:

Warner Brothers have had to apologise today after their PR people intervened live on air to stop a Sky interviewer ask one of their actors a question about JK Rowling.I am hesitant to say this but this situation is becoming Stalinist, her opponents are trying to airbrush her out of popular culture whilst the rest of the UK looks on and does nothing. The most successful female author in human history who has given hundreds of £ millions to charity yet she’s treated like nuclear waste for daring to say that only women can be women. Its very easy to see how societies slide into totalitarianism. 

I’ve still to see anything that she has actually said that warrants any of the opprobrium she gets on this. That said, she also gets support. The fact the potter actors are in and around Hollywood - where you can’t really take any other position and expect a career - means they can’t support her, even if they actually did.  

[Captain Willard]

13 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

I’ve still to see anything that she has actually said that warrants any of the opprobrium she gets on this. That said, she also gets support. The fact the potter actors are in and around Hollywood - where you can’t really take any other position and expect a career - means they can’t support her, even if they actually did.  

She wrote quite a long, nuanced and intelligent essay about the debate where she talks about her own struggles with gender identity in her teens, her subsequent experiences of violence and sexual assualt and the woman’s refuges she is now funding in deprived communities in Scotland. 
 You can read it here :

https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-rowling-writes-about-her-reasons-for-speaking-out-on-sex-and-gender-issues/

 

Now imagine reading that then thinking this woman should be raped then killed for having these views. That’s the level of some of her opponents whilst others think that killing her is a tad over the top and just airbrushing her out of modern culture is enough.
 

I’m sure she has a lot of security but one day someone will at least try to kill her, I’ve no doubt. 

[Numero Veinticinco]

2 minutes ago, Captain Willard said:

She wrote quite a long, nuanced and intelligent essay about the debate where she talks about her own struggles with gender identity in her teens, her subsequent experiences of violence and sexual assualt and the woman’s refuges she is now funding in deprived communities in Scotland. 
 You can read it here :

https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-rowling-writes-about-her-reasons-for-speaking-out-on-sex-and-gender-issues/

 

Now imagine reading that then thinking this woman should be raped then killed for having these views. That’s the level of some of her opponents whilst others think that killing her is a tad over the top and just airbrushing her out of modern culture is enough.
 

I’m sure she has a lot of security but one day someone will at least try to kill her, I’ve no doubt. 

I have, of course, read that essay when she released it (it was kind of a big deal). The point I was making, I guess in an unclear fashion, was that in none of her writings have I ever seen her approach anything like transphobia or hatred. She is way less hate-fill than some of those discussing these issues. 

[Section_31]

44 minutes ago, Captain Willard said:

Warner Brothers have had to apologise today after their PR people intervened live on air to stop a Sky interviewer ask one of their actors a question about JK Rowling.I am hesitant to say this but this situation is becoming Stalinist, her opponents are trying to airbrush her out of popular culture whilst the rest of the UK looks on and does nothing. The most successful female author in human history who has given hundreds of £ millions to charity yet she’s treated like nuclear waste for daring to say that only women can be women. Its very easy to see how societies slide into totalitarianism. 

 

The mad thing, nobody actually knows what she's said, or why. It's sort of a Chinese whispers situation. 

 

"Yeah didn't she say something about trans blah blah'.

 

 She's done the right thing by sticking to her guns but that's the worst thing you can do with some of these loons. There's no compromise, they won't rest until your career and life is in ruins. 

[Rico1304]

20 minutes ago, Section_31 said:

 

The mad thing, nobody actually knows what she's said, or why. It's sort of a Chinese whispers situation. 

 

"Yeah didn't she say something about trans blah blah'.

 

 She's done the right thing by sticking to her guns but that's the worst thing you can do with some of these loons. There's no compromise, they won't rest until your career and life is in ruins. 

You’ve been radicalised etc. 

[Numero Veinticinco]

22 minutes ago, Section_31 said:

 

The mad thing, nobody actually knows what she's said, or why. It's sort of a Chinese whispers situation. 

 

"Yeah didn't she say something about trans blah blah'.

 

 She's done the right thing by sticking to her guns but that's the worst thing you can do with some of these loons. There's no compromise, they won't rest until your career and life is in ruins. 

They can try, but they won’t succeed. People overstate the importance of the screaming minority, 

[Captain Willard]

1 hour ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

I have, of course, read that essay when she released it (it was kind of a big deal). The point I was making, I guess in an unclear fashion, was that in none of her writings have I ever seen her approach anything like transphobia or hatred. She is way less hate-fill than some of those discussing these issues. 

Sorry I didn’t realise you’d read it. Nuance gets a bit lost on here. I think the point is one does not have to say anything offensive in this debate, the fact that one disagrees with the notion of gender fluidity and self identify  is offensive and marks one out as transphobic. Just disagreeing with them is enough to trigger some people. Look at the flak @Rico1304 and others get on here; “obsessed, sad, fixated on cocks” etc etc all because they won’t be bullied into accepting that big hairy blokes with cocks are women. Its the GF equivalent of Galileo, “still it moves”. 

[Rico1304]

29 minutes ago, Captain Willard said:

Sorry I didn’t realise you’d read it. Nuance gets a bit lost on here. I think the point is one does not have to say anything offensive in this debate, the fact that one disagrees with the notion of gender fluidity and self identify  is offensive and marks one out as transphobic. Just disagreeing with them is enough to trigger some people. Look at the flak @Rico1304 and others get on here; “obsessed, sad, fixated on cocks” etc etc all because they won’t be bullied into accepting that big hairy blokes with cocks are women. Its the GF equivalent of Galileo, “still it moves”. 

I’m only here for the inevitable row back and claim they didn’t ‘actually believe it’. 

[Numero Veinticinco]

41 minutes ago, Captain Willard said:

Sorry I didn’t realise you’d read it. Nuance gets a bit lost on here. I think the point is one does not have to say anything offensive in this debate, the fact that one disagrees with the notion of gender fluidity and self identify  is offensive and marks one out as transphobic. Just disagreeing with them is enough to trigger some people. Look at the flak @Rico1304 and others get on here; “obsessed, sad, fixated on cocks” etc etc all because they won’t be bullied into accepting that big hairy blokes with cocks are women. Its the GF equivalent of Galileo, “still it moves”. 

'bullied into accepting that big hairy blokes with cocks'. Red flag. 

 

You know you can talk about transpeople without being an absolute cunt. You can pretend that sums up trans people if you want. It's not though.