Why is JK Rowling suddenly evil?

All things Rugby
User avatar
DOB
Posts: 19105
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Why is JK Rowling suddenly evil?

Post by DOB »

Big Nipper wrote:
mdaclarke wrote:I wonder if Daniel Radcliffe and Emma Watson will return all the money they made off Rowling and refuse any further residuals.
Jesus you are thick - did they go beg Rowling to be in the movie, or were they cast just by the producing studio like in any other film?
I thought Rowling supposedly had a big say-so in the casting of the movies? The studio had some input too, obviously, but she had to be onside.
mdaclarke
Posts: 3441
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 7:53 pm

Re: Why is JK Rowling suddenly evil?

Post by mdaclarke »

Where is Unseenwork? I thought they would be all over this
User avatar
Mahoney
Posts: 4097
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Why is JK Rowling suddenly evil?

Post by Mahoney »

Big Nipper wrote: To become trans, especially in the US, can take up to two years. It requires doctor diagnosis, and many other hurdles to overcome

It is not a case of deciding one day you are now trans and can just go hang out in another bathroom
Rowling is in the UK. In the UK some of the debate is about whether or not you should legally be able gain access to all women-only facilities, including refuges, changing rooms, sports teams & women's prisons, by self-identification. Without a doctor diagnosis or two year wait.

Which is one of the reasons why it's not just a twitter thing; it's a current political debate about changing laws that have real world consequences for both trans-women and non-trans women.

There's no legal formula that doesn't have innocent losers, which is why it's highly charged.
User avatar
Jim Lahey
Posts: 9767
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2012 8:29 pm

Re: Why is JK Rowling suddenly evil?

Post by Jim Lahey »

mdaclarke wrote:Where is Unseenwork? I thought they would be all over this
Banned for acting the cvnt?
User avatar
Mullet 2
Posts: 29305
Joined: Sun May 22, 2016 9:43 am

Re: Why is JK Rowling suddenly evil?

Post by Mullet 2 »

Nolanator wrote:Any discourse involving trans rights is completely devoid of nuance and full of emotion.

There's an unpleasant "debate" on whether it's ok to differentiate between trans women and people born as women (people who menstruate).

Personally I have no issue with full rights being extended to trans women and them being considered entirely as women in society, but it's daft to completely discount basic biology in certain circumstances. There are some fundamental differences that can't be changed by modern medicine.

Those being that they aren't women
User avatar
MrDominator
Posts: 4399
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 3:14 am

Re: Why is JK Rowling suddenly evil?

Post by MrDominator »

Mullet 2 wrote:
Nolanator wrote:Any discourse involving trans rights is completely devoid of nuance and full of emotion.

There's an unpleasant "debate" on whether it's ok to differentiate between trans women and people born as women (people who menstruate).

Personally I have no issue with full rights being extended to trans women and them being considered entirely as women in society, but it's daft to completely discount basic biology in certain circumstances. There are some fundamental differences that can't be changed by modern medicine.

Those being that they aren't women
:lol:

Bingo.
User avatar
feckwanker
Posts: 7158
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Why is JK Rowling suddenly evil?

Post by feckwanker »

Trans people represent a tiny, tiny minority of populations - why the fuck is this getting so much air time when there is other far, far more important shit going on? Are the vast majority of populations now going to be forced to go along with whatever whim the next marginalised group demand?
User avatar
happyhooker
Posts: 23124
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Why is JK Rowling suddenly evil?

Post by happyhooker »

DOB wrote:
Big Nipper wrote:
mdaclarke wrote:I wonder if Daniel Radcliffe and Emma Watson will return all the money they made off Rowling and refuse any further residuals.
Jesus you are thick - did they go beg Rowling to be in the movie, or were they cast just by the producing studio like in any other film?
I thought Rowling supposedly had a big say-so in the casting of the movies? The studio had some input too, obviously, but she had to be onside.
Also, they've both made statements recently pretty much disagreeing with Rowling
User avatar
hermes-trismegistus
Posts: 3250
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Why is JK Rowling suddenly evil?

Post by hermes-trismegistus »

DOB wrote:
hermes-trismegistus wrote:
CM11 wrote:
Gwenno wrote:It’s all basically an argument over definitions. It would be simpler if we were humans with the pronoun it, and then are further differentiated into humans that menstruate, humans with penises, humans with vaginas etc. Essential to this is more cubicle toilets, and urinals are for any human that wants to use them.
Indeed. Biggest issue I have with this is with kids. Oh, you like dresses and you're a boy? You must be trans. You have short hair and are a girl? Tomboy. You're a boy and don't like sports? Weird. And so on. Which leads to a huge amount of confusion and people are trying to simplify it by changing the child's gender instead of preaching that we all come in different shapes and sizes. No child should be coerced against medical and parental opinion into a sex change yet that's exactly what's happening currently and if you oppose it, you're transphobic.
This whole trans issue crossed a major line in the sand when people realised some minors were being chemically sterilised in pursuit of an identity that was by no means settled or certain. Any who's a parent would have been appalled when they first heard of it.
When has this actually happened? it's the first I've heard of it.
Dishing out puberty blockers to kids as young as 11 has been going on for a few years now. Beeb gives a broad brush outline here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-49036145 Seems that in the UK between 2012 and 2018, 267 kids under the age of 15 were given them.
User avatar
DOB
Posts: 19105
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Why is JK Rowling suddenly evil?

Post by DOB »

happyhooker wrote:
DOB wrote:
Big Nipper wrote:
mdaclarke wrote:I wonder if Daniel Radcliffe and Emma Watson will return all the money they made off Rowling and refuse any further residuals.
Jesus you are thick - did they go beg Rowling to be in the movie, or were they cast just by the producing studio like in any other film?
I thought Rowling supposedly had a big say-so in the casting of the movies? The studio had some input too, obviously, but she had to be onside.
Also, they've both made statements recently pretty much disagreeing with Rowling
Them and Eddie Redmayne.

I want Hagrid’s opinion, though. What’s Robbie Coltraine said?
User avatar
lorcanoworms
Posts: 11721
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Why is JK Rowling suddenly evil?

Post by lorcanoworms »

I have the body of a Greek God, if he finds out what I've done to it he will kill me.
User avatar
Sandstorm
Posts: 28599
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Chickenrunning...

Re: Why is JK Rowling suddenly evil?

Post by Sandstorm »

CM11 wrote:No child should be coerced against medical and parental opinion into a sex change yet that's exactly what's happening currently and if you oppose it, you're transphobic.
Whoa! Has that happened? I thought no-one under the age of 18 was allowed to have a sex change? :?
tc27
Posts: 4837
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Why is JK Rowling suddenly evil?

Post by tc27 »

feckwanker wrote:Trans people represent a tiny, tiny minority of populations - why the fuck is this getting so much air time when there is other far, far more important shit going on? Are the vast majority of populations now going to be forced to go along with whatever whim the next marginalised group demand?
Because once you have forced someone to say that a man is a woman on the basis of a self certification you can basically force them to say anything.
User avatar
happyhooker
Posts: 23124
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Why is JK Rowling suddenly evil?

Post by happyhooker »

DOB wrote:
happyhooker wrote:
DOB wrote:
Big Nipper wrote:
mdaclarke wrote:I wonder if Daniel Radcliffe and Emma Watson will return all the money they made off Rowling and refuse any further residuals.
Jesus you are thick - did they go beg Rowling to be in the movie, or were they cast just by the producing studio like in any other film?
I thought Rowling supposedly had a big say-so in the casting of the movies? The studio had some input too, obviously, but she had to be onside.
Also, they've both made statements recently pretty much disagreeing with Rowling
Them and Eddie Redmayne.

I want Hagrid’s opinion, though. What’s Robbie Coltraine said?
He's waiting for martin Bayfield to voice an opinion
User avatar
Big Nipper
Posts: 9349
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: The Fountain of Running Rugby

Re: Why is JK Rowling suddenly evil?

Post by Big Nipper »

DOB wrote:
Big Nipper wrote:
mdaclarke wrote:I wonder if Daniel Radcliffe and Emma Watson will return all the money they made off Rowling and refuse any further residuals.
Jesus you are thick - did they go beg Rowling to be in the movie, or were they cast just by the producing studio like in any other film?
I thought Rowling supposedly had a big say-so in the casting of the movies? The studio had some input too, obviously, but she had to be onside.
I do think one can be allowed to disagree with someone and still derive income from your labour. One could easily twist it to ask whether the films would have been as successful without them in the film
User avatar
Mahoney
Posts: 4097
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Why is JK Rowling suddenly evil?

Post by Mahoney »

feckwanker wrote:Trans people represent a tiny, tiny minority of populations - why the fuck is this getting so much air time when there is other far, far more important shit going on? Are the vast majority of populations now going to be forced to go along with whatever whim the next marginalised group demand?
That argument cuts both ways; the opposite view would be to ask why the law shouldn't make life a bit easier for them, since they are such a tiny, tiny minority that doing so can hardly affect the vast majority at all.

It gets air time because people feel strongly about it in both directions.

Baffles me that people don't get this, but the amount of discussion generated on a topic is not relative to the importance of the topic but to the amount of disagreement about the topic. Take it to rugby terms - someone eye gouges and blinds a player, and is sent off & banned for life. Everyone agrees with the verdict. That thread will actually end pretty quickly, because once everyone's expressed their disgust & condemnation there's nothing further to say.

In contrast a controversial tackle which had no immediate consequences, towards the end of a game where the result was no longer in doubt, but where people disagree about whether it was a no arms hit to the head that should be red or a hit to the shoulder with an attempt to wrap that shouldn't even be a penalty, may last a huge number of pages - not because it was more important, but because there are sufficient people with a different view on it to keep the discussion going.

This won't stop someone popping up on page 30 with a " :lol: 30 pages on something so trivial - you lost/won, get over it" post.
de_Selby
Posts: 3792
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2014 5:47 pm

Re: Why is JK Rowling suddenly evil?

Post by de_Selby »

Sandstorm wrote:
CM11 wrote:No child should be coerced against medical and parental opinion into a sex change yet that's exactly what's happening currently and if you oppose it, you're transphobic.
Whoa! Has that happened? I thought no-one under the age of 18 was allowed to have a sex change? :?
There was a Louis Theroux doc about this subject a few years ago where he was meeting a few different families in the US. They were all under 18 and it was very disturbing.
mdaclarke
Posts: 3441
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 7:53 pm

Re: Why is JK Rowling suddenly evil?

Post by mdaclarke »

Big Nipper wrote:
DOB wrote:
Big Nipper wrote:
mdaclarke wrote:I wonder if Daniel Radcliffe and Emma Watson will return all the money they made off Rowling and refuse any further residuals.
Jesus you are thick - did they go beg Rowling to be in the movie, or were they cast just by the producing studio like in any other film?
I thought Rowling supposedly had a big say-so in the casting of the movies? The studio had some input too, obviously, but she had to be onside.
I do think one can be allowed to disagree with someone and still derive income from your labour. One could easily twist it to ask whether the films would have been as successful without them in the film
Yes
User avatar
nardol
Posts: 19960
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Why is JK Rowling suddenly evil?

Post by nardol »

Who disagreed to warrant a billion posts about Umaga deliberately trying to kill BOD?
User avatar
nardol
Posts: 19960
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Why is JK Rowling suddenly evil?

Post by nardol »

mdaclarke wrote:
Big Nipper wrote:
DOB wrote:
Big Nipper wrote:
mdaclarke wrote:I wonder if Daniel Radcliffe and Emma Watson will return all the money they made off Rowling and refuse any further residuals.
Jesus you are thick - did they go beg Rowling to be in the movie, or were they cast just by the producing studio like in any other film?
I thought Rowling supposedly had a big say-so in the casting of the movies? The studio had some input too, obviously, but she had to be onside.
I do think one can be allowed to disagree with someone and still derive income from your labour. One could easily twist it to ask whether the films would have been as successful without them in the film
Yes
Not even in doubt.
User avatar
Mahoney
Posts: 4097
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Why is JK Rowling suddenly evil?

Post by Mahoney »

nardol wrote:Who disagreed to warrant a billion posts about Umaga deliberately trying to kill BOD?
Roughly 4,000,000 people, as I recall.
User avatar
happyhooker
Posts: 23124
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Why is JK Rowling suddenly evil?

Post by happyhooker »

Mahoney wrote:
nardol wrote:Who disagreed to warrant a billion posts about Umaga deliberately trying to kill BOD?
Roughly 4,000,000 people, as I recall.
That's just the ones still in the country
User avatar
CM11
Posts: 60087
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Why is JK Rowling suddenly evil?

Post by CM11 »

Sandstorm wrote:
CM11 wrote:No child should be coerced against medical and parental opinion into a sex change yet that's exactly what's happening currently and if you oppose it, you're transphobic.
Whoa! Has that happened? I thought no-one under the age of 18 was allowed to have a sex change? :?
Puberty blockers as above to stop boys becoming men. They then lie about it being reversible.
User avatar
hermes-trismegistus
Posts: 3250
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Why is JK Rowling suddenly evil?

Post by hermes-trismegistus »

Big Nipper wrote:
DOB wrote:
Big Nipper wrote:
mdaclarke wrote:I wonder if Daniel Radcliffe and Emma Watson will return all the money they made off Rowling and refuse any further residuals.
Jesus you are thick - did they go beg Rowling to be in the movie, or were they cast just by the producing studio like in any other film?
I thought Rowling supposedly had a big say-so in the casting of the movies? The studio had some input too, obviously, but she had to be onside.
I do think one can be allowed to disagree with someone and still derive income from your labour. One could easily twist it to ask whether the films would have been as successful without them in the film
Yes. No question of that. The books were a massive global phenomenon. As long as the movies had the budget to create the Potter world, they were always going to tear it up at the box office. And for what it's worth, the kids were pretty poor actors throughout. Radcliffe in particular was about as wooden as a ventriloquist's dummy. The other two slowly improved.
User avatar
msp.
Posts: 1707
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Why is JK Rowling suddenly evil?

Post by msp. »

Mahoney wrote:
feckwanker wrote:Trans people represent a tiny, tiny minority of populations - why the fuck is this getting so much air time when there is other far, far more important shit going on? Are the vast majority of populations now going to be forced to go along with whatever whim the next marginalised group demand?
That argument cuts both ways; the opposite view would be to ask why the law shouldn't make life a bit easier for them, since they are such a tiny, tiny minority that doing so can hardly affect the vast majority at all.

It gets air time because people feel strongly about it in both directions.

Baffles me that people don't get this, but the amount of discussion generated on a topic is not relative to the importance of the topic but to the amount of disagreement about the topic. Take it to rugby terms - someone eye gouges and blinds a player, and is sent off & banned for life. Everyone agrees with the verdict. That thread will actually end pretty quickly, because once everyone's expressed their disgust & condemnation there's nothing further to say.

In contrast a controversial tackle which had no immediate consequences, towards the end of a game where the result was no longer in doubt, but where people disagree about whether it was a no arms hit to the head that should be red or a hit to the shoulder with an attempt to wrap that shouldn't even be a penalty, may last a huge number of pages - not because it was more important, but because there are sufficient people with a different view on it to keep the discussion going.

This won't stop someone popping up on page 30 with a " :lol: 30 pages on something so trivial - you lost/won, get over it" post.
To take you analogy one step further, it amazing what become the new social norm, take Sam Warburton take in 2011, at the time there was massive debate with most people saying it was not a red card and what going on etc. (because it was one of the first high profile red cards after the tackle laws were modified), a few years latter (with the new social norm being set), it clearly a red card and if it had happend in the last world cup the debate would be much shorter.
User avatar
camroc1
Posts: 41420
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Why is JK Rowling suddenly evil?

Post by camroc1 »

Nolanator wrote:Any discourse involving trans rights is completely devoid of nuance and full of emotion.

There's an unpleasant "debate" on whether it's ok to differentiate between trans women and people born as women (people who menstruate).

Personally I have no issue with full rights being extended to trans women and them being considered entirely as women in society, but it's daft to completely discount basic biology in certain circumstances. There are some fundamental differences that can't be changed by modern medicine.
Including in sports ?
Nolanator
Posts: 38830
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Dublin

Re: Why is JK Rowling suddenly evil?

Post by Nolanator »

Mullet 2 wrote:
Nolanator wrote:Any discourse involving trans rights is completely devoid of nuance and full of emotion.

There's an unpleasant "debate" on whether it's ok to differentiate between trans women and people born as women (people who menstruate).

Personally I have no issue with full rights being extended to trans women and them being considered entirely as women in society, but it's daft to completely discount basic biology in certain circumstances. There are some fundamental differences that can't be changed by modern medicine.

Those being that they aren't women
I always find the South Park episodes about Mr/Mrs Garrison's sex changes pretty funny and on the nose. Espeically the bit where Mrs Garrison realises that she can't have periods or get pregnant.
camroc1 wrote:Including in sports ?
Good fuck, no! That's one of the areas that fundamental biological differences become very pronounced.
Shouting "TRANS RIGHTS ARE HUMAN RIGHTS" at anyone who disagrees doesn't change the basic facts and how that affects sporting performance. Lots of sports are segragated by age and weight grades in the interest of safety and fairness. Gender is no different in that regard.
Nolanator
Posts: 38830
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Dublin

Re: Why is JK Rowling suddenly evil?

Post by Nolanator »

hermes-trismegistus wrote:Dishing out puberty blockers to kids as young as 11 has been going on for a few years now. Beeb gives a broad brush outline here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-49036145 Seems that in the UK between 2012 and 2018, 267 kids under the age of 15 were given them.
I wasn't aware of the extent of trand kids stuff. That's absolutely fucked. :uhoh:
User avatar
camroc1
Posts: 41420
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Why is JK Rowling suddenly evil?

Post by camroc1 »

CM11 wrote:There are men out there who identify as women and there are men out there who fetishise the idea of being a woman. My understanding is that the former are reasonable and understand that unless (and even) if they have a sex change they are still not biologically women. The latter go about calling lesbians transphobic if they don't want to have sex with a man identifying as a woman who has a penis. They also have a fanatic movement going to shame anyone who won't treat them exactly the same as biological women, even though there are clearly areas where they will have to be treated differently (mostly medical but again I don't think women should be forced to accept women with penises as the exact same, especially with self identification).

But the worst part is the gender reassignment for children and the lies, misinformation surrounding that.

It's a really sad part of current society where people looking to be offended and sick individuals are creating a situation that didn't need to be created and IMO it's harming the reasonable transgender people who are being lumped in with the crazy.
Very much this.

Hormones are very powerful bio-chemicals whose sole purpose is to really affect peoples id, that is their perception of themselves, and prescribing them to children, whose brains have not fully formed is sexual abuse of children in my mind.
User avatar
CM11
Posts: 60087
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Why is JK Rowling suddenly evil?

Post by CM11 »

Nolanator wrote:
hermes-trismegistus wrote:Dishing out puberty blockers to kids as young as 11 has been going on for a few years now. Beeb gives a broad brush outline here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-49036145 Seems that in the UK between 2012 and 2018, 267 kids under the age of 15 were given them.


I wasn't aware of the extent of trand kids stuff. That's absolutely fucked. :uhoh:
They actively try to suppress media coverage about this and I think even on twitter you can be muted (?) for talking about it. It's a really devious aspect of the situation. Donal O'Shea, to give a rugby link, is on the 'right' side of this in Ireland.
robmatic
Posts: 204
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 9:11 pm

Re: Why is JK Rowling suddenly evil?

Post by robmatic »

Nolanator wrote:
hermes-trismegistus wrote:Dishing out puberty blockers to kids as young as 11 has been going on for a few years now. Beeb gives a broad brush outline here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-49036145 Seems that in the UK between 2012 and 2018, 267 kids under the age of 15 were given them.
I wasn't aware of the extent of trand kids stuff. That's absolutely fucked. :uhoh:
Some parents would rather have their kids be trans than gay.

And with the younger children it's fairly obviously driven by the parents.
User avatar
msp.
Posts: 1707
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Why is JK Rowling suddenly evil?

Post by msp. »

Nolanator wrote:
Good fuck, no! That's one of the areas that fundamental biological differences become very pronounced.
Shouting "TRANS RIGHTS ARE HUMAN RIGHTS" at anyone who disagrees doesn't change the basic facts and how that affects sporting performance. Lots of sports are segragated by age and weight grades in the interest of safety and fairness. Gender is no different in that regard.
That is where the debate is gone, men have an advantage in sport being stronger and faster (on average and at an elite level), but that fact appears to be argued against, and anyone who brings it up is hounded. (the only elite female athletes who will discuss it are those who are retired as the current athletes feel unable to...

Sporting governing bodies are struggling to come to a solution that satisfies everyone..
Nolanator
Posts: 38830
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Dublin

Re: Why is JK Rowling suddenly evil?

Post by Nolanator »

CM11 wrote:
Nolanator wrote:
hermes-trismegistus wrote:Dishing out puberty blockers to kids as young as 11 has been going on for a few years now. Beeb gives a broad brush outline here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-49036145 Seems that in the UK between 2012 and 2018, 267 kids under the age of 15 were given them.


I wasn't aware of the extent of trand kids stuff. That's absolutely fucked. :uhoh:
They actively try to suppress media coverage about this and I think even on twitter you can be muted (?) for talking about it. It's a really devious aspect of the situation. Donal O'Shea, to give a rugby link, is on the 'right' side of this in Ireland.
I'm not really arsed going down a rabbit hole reading about it all. What's the precis, kids are being pushed towards gender reassigment treatments by parents? Or parents are accomodating kids who raise the subject themselves.

The idea that a kid who's not fully sexually developed undergoing gender reassignment is just insane.
Nolanator
Posts: 38830
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Dublin

Re: Why is JK Rowling suddenly evil?

Post by Nolanator »

robmatic wrote:Some parents would rather have their kids be trans than gay.
Hadn't considered that. Jesus.

Should have occurred to me, I know that in Iran there have been cases of men being forced to undergo gender changing therapies and surgery because they're gay or girlie or whatever. They don't fit in with the narrow straight man definition. Horrible stuff.

Doing it with kids, though. :uhoh:
User avatar
CM11
Posts: 60087
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Why is JK Rowling suddenly evil?

Post by CM11 »

Nolanator wrote:
CM11 wrote:
Nolanator wrote:
hermes-trismegistus wrote:Dishing out puberty blockers to kids as young as 11 has been going on for a few years now. Beeb gives a broad brush outline here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-49036145 Seems that in the UK between 2012 and 2018, 267 kids under the age of 15 were given them.


I wasn't aware of the extent of trand kids stuff. That's absolutely fucked. :uhoh:
They actively try to suppress media coverage about this and I think even on twitter you can be muted (?) for talking about it. It's a really devious aspect of the situation. Donal O'Shea, to give a rugby link, is on the 'right' side of this in Ireland.
I'm not really arsed going down a rabbit hole reading about it all. What's the precis, kids are being pushed towards gender reassigment treatments by parents? Or parents are accomodating kids who raise the subject themselves.


The idea that a kid who's not fully sexually developed undergoing gender reassignment is just insane.
I haven't fully gone down the hole myself. But I have heard of groups out there encouraging children to go against parental and medical advice and giving them the tools to do so.
Nolanator
Posts: 38830
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Dublin

Re: Why is JK Rowling suddenly evil?

Post by Nolanator »

msp. wrote:
Nolanator wrote:
Good fuck, no! That's one of the areas that fundamental biological differences become very pronounced.
Shouting "TRANS RIGHTS ARE HUMAN RIGHTS" at anyone who disagrees doesn't change the basic facts and how that affects sporting performance. Lots of sports are segragated by age and weight grades in the interest of safety and fairness. Gender is no different in that regard.
That is where the debate is gone, men have an advantage in sport being stronger and faster (on average and at an elite level), but that fact appears to be argued against, and anyone who brings it up is hounded. (the only elite female athletes who will discuss it are those who are retired as the current athletes feel unable to...

Sporting governing bodies are struggling to come to a solution that satisfies everyone..
The argument in the sporting context seems, to me, to be an example of people arguing on ideology rather than accounting for reality. They've created a stance in their head and won't accept any simple facts which counter this.
On the face of it, allowing trans women to compete with biological (??? I don't know what the term is) women is mental, but people take that position purely on the basis of dogma rather than stopping and thinking. Restrictions on sporting events has no bearing on someone's fundamental human rights.
User avatar
camroc1
Posts: 41420
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Why is JK Rowling suddenly evil?

Post by camroc1 »

Nolanator wrote:
Mullet 2 wrote:
Nolanator wrote:Any discourse involving trans rights is completely devoid of nuance and full of emotion.

There's an unpleasant "debate" on whether it's ok to differentiate between trans women and people born as women (people who menstruate).

Personally I have no issue with full rights being extended to trans women and them being considered entirely as women in society, but it's daft to completely discount basic biology in certain circumstances. There are some fundamental differences that can't be changed by modern medicine.

Those being that they aren't women
I always find the South Park episodes about Mr/Mrs Garrison's sex changes pretty funny and on the nose. Espeically the bit where Mrs Garrison realises that she can't have periods or get pregnant.
camroc1 wrote:Including in sports ?
Good fuck, no! That's one of the areas that fundamental biological differences become very pronounced.
Shouting "TRANS RIGHTS ARE HUMAN RIGHTS" at anyone who disagrees doesn't change the basic facts and how that affects sporting performance. Lots of sports are segragated by age and weight grades in the interest of safety and fairness. Gender is no different in that regard.
Well then, they are not biological women.
User avatar
CM11
Posts: 60087
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Why is JK Rowling suddenly evil?

Post by CM11 »

Nolanator wrote:
msp. wrote:
Nolanator wrote:
Good fuck, no! That's one of the areas that fundamental biological differences become very pronounced.
Shouting "TRANS RIGHTS ARE HUMAN RIGHTS" at anyone who disagrees doesn't change the basic facts and how that affects sporting performance. Lots of sports are segragated by age and weight grades in the interest of safety and fairness. Gender is no different in that regard.
That is where the debate is gone, men have an advantage in sport being stronger and faster (on average and at an elite level), but that fact appears to be argued against, and anyone who brings it up is hounded. (the only elite female athletes who will discuss it are those who are retired as the current athletes feel unable to...

Sporting governing bodies are struggling to come to a solution that satisfies everyone..
The argument in the sporting context seems, to me, to be an example of people arguing on ideology rather than accounting for reality. They've created a stance in their head and won't accept any simple facts which counter this.
On the face of it, allowing trans women to compete with biological (??? I don't know what the term is) women is mental, but people take that position purely on the basis of dogma rather than stopping and thinking. Restrictions on sporting events has no bearing on someone's fundamental human rights.
The sporting thing is terrible for the girls/women put at a disadvantage but in general it's just unfair as opposed to being devious. If it was just that, it wouldn't be so bad.
User avatar
hermes-trismegistus
Posts: 3250
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Why is JK Rowling suddenly evil?

Post by hermes-trismegistus »

Nolanator wrote:
hermes-trismegistus wrote:Dishing out puberty blockers to kids as young as 11 has been going on for a few years now. Beeb gives a broad brush outline here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-49036145 Seems that in the UK between 2012 and 2018, 267 kids under the age of 15 were given them.
I wasn't aware of the extent of trand kids stuff. That's absolutely fucked. :uhoh:
It's unforgivable.
robmatic
Posts: 204
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 9:11 pm

Re: Why is JK Rowling suddenly evil?

Post by robmatic »

Nolanator wrote:Any discourse involving trans rights is completely devoid of nuance and full of emotion.

There's an unpleasant "debate" on whether it's ok to differentiate between trans women and people born as women (people who menstruate).

Personally I have no issue with full rights being extended to trans women and them being considered entirely as women in society, but it's daft to completely discount basic biology in certain circumstances. There are some fundamental differences that can't be changed by modern medicine.
I consider myself to be fairly socially liberal and spent most of my 20s hanging out on the Edinburgh gay scene, and even I'm being left behind by the trans activism discourse.

In no way do I wish to deny trans people their human rights.

And it's a simple mantra - trans women are women. Fine.

But then, some women have penises... hmm.

If you disagree with this, you're denying their humanity.

If your sexual preferences don't tend towards the female penis then you're a transphobe :roll:
Post Reply