Why is JK Rowling suddenly evil?

All things Rugby
User avatar
MungoMan
Posts: 13358
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Coalfalls

Re: Why is JK Rowling suddenly evil?

Post by MungoMan »

Floppykid wrote:
EverReady wrote:Problem for Linehan is trans people are often autistic and good at computerz so Twitter was bound to ban him again and again and again. He himself noted loads of the Twitter staff are trans so why he thought he could ever win that fight is a mystery. It is very very sinister though and a great example of the chasm that is opening up between the centre and the left. Real Bush you are either or with us or against us stuff and annoys me immensely that any opposition paints you as conservatively minded
Trans people on twitter can be ridiculous/militant, desperate to cancel people over anything
And here we have a marvellous example of a term the worth of which has has degraded to nothing. Specifically, in post after post you’ve used ‘cancel’ to mean no more than criticise.

Yet a decade or so ago, that word took its dictionary meaning: i.e. a flood of critical emails, letters etc could be sufficient cause to reneg on an agreement regarding someone’s engagement for an appearance or whatever.

Pfft.

Best you withdraw from public debate before your fragile ego is compromised beyond repair.
User avatar
EverReady
Posts: 32974
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Why is JK Rowling suddenly evil?

Post by EverReady »

Nolanator wrote:
EverReady wrote:He's at war and he really believes in this. We need people who kick back against this stuff though he is a salutary lesson in what will happen. Along with the anti vaxxers the trans crew are astonishingly effective online when you consider what they are selling
Those two things aren't the same, FFS. :lol:
I didn't say they were the same. I didn't say Israel killed George Floyd. I said both groups, separate, have rabid online presences. I should add ably backed by young millennials like yourself who can't see the wood for the cocks
User avatar
Floppykid
Posts: 30162
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: SOB>Todd

Re: Why is JK Rowling suddenly evil?

Post by Floppykid »

MungoMan wrote:
Floppykid wrote:
EverReady wrote:Problem for Linehan is trans people are often autistic and good at computerz so Twitter was bound to ban him again and again and again. He himself noted loads of the Twitter staff are trans so why he thought he could ever win that fight is a mystery. It is very very sinister though and a great example of the chasm that is opening up between the centre and the left. Real Bush you are either or with us or against us stuff and annoys me immensely that any opposition paints you as conservatively minded
Trans people on twitter can be ridiculous/militant, desperate to cancel people over anything
And here we have a marvellous example of a term the worth of which has has degraded to nothing. Specifically, in post after post you’ve used ‘cancel’ to mean no more than criticise.

Yet a decade or so ago, that word took its dictionary meaning: i.e. a flood of critical emails, letters etc could be sufficient cause to reneg on an agreement regarding someone’s engagement for an appearance or whatever.

Pfft.

Best you withdraw from public debate before your fragile ego is compromised beyond repair.
Image
User avatar
MungoMan
Posts: 13358
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Coalfalls

Re: Why is JK Rowling suddenly evil?

Post by MungoMan »

Floppykid wrote:
MungoMan wrote:
Floppykid wrote: Trans people on twitter can be ridiculous/militant, desperate to cancel people over anything
And here we have a marvellous example of a term the worth of which has has degraded to nothing. Specifically, in post after post you’ve used ‘cancel’ to mean no more than criticise.

Yet a decade or so ago, that word took its dictionary meaning: i.e. a flood of critical emails, letters etc could be sufficient cause to reneg on an agreement regarding someone’s engagement for an appearance or whatever.

Pfft.

Best you withdraw from public debate before your fragile ego is compromised beyond repair.
Image
Blah blah cancel.
Wibble wibble cancel.
Gif.

You don’t do grownup very well, do you?
User avatar
Floppykid
Posts: 30162
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: SOB>Todd

Re: Why is JK Rowling suddenly evil?

Post by Floppykid »

Having a big Saturday evening yeah?
User avatar
Big Nipper
Posts: 9290
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 »

Floppykid wrote:Having a big Saturday evening yeah?
I particularly like how he is instructing you withdraw from public debate.

:lol:
User avatar
Uncle Fester
Posts: 19964
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Why is JK Rowling suddenly evil?

Post by Uncle Fester »

BlueThunder wrote:I've always felt like a handsome man trapped in an ugly man's body.
Think that's crazy? There's Irish people out there who identify as British.
my 2 cents
Posts: 809
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Why is JK Rowling suddenly evil?

Post by my 2 cents »

I have a degree of sympathy for Linehan.

He has clearly decided that it is a cause he wants to take a stand on. Like Rowling.

I think it is important that famous people use their celebrity to put forward alternative views, as politicians and other leaders clearly aren’t. There is a huge vacuum between the vociferous trans lobby and the general population, with a diverse range of views on the issue in the middle

The danger is that only the lobby’s voice will be heard.

I walked away from twitter having tested out a couple of alternative, and moderate, viewpoints on the trans issue. It was like a “turkey shoot”. I can imagine it would be very easy to slip down the rabbit hole. It’s like planet rugby times a million. Really bad for people’s mental health. Linehan is/was in the throes

Probably the best thing for him.

But debate gets stifled and trans lobby “wins”

I can’t stress how important it is for a silent majority not to acquiesce to remaining silent under threat of punishment. That’s what cancelling, doxxing, shaming, etc is.

That’s what happened in Germany in the 30s.

A different outcome and issue obviously, but the quelling of free speech and thought is exactly the same

That’s how the argument is being framed and it’s terrifying

This is not saying that trans rights are not important. They are and worthy of proper, informed debate
User avatar
Big Nipper
Posts: 9290
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 »

my 2 cents wrote:That’s what happened in Germany in the 30s.
Image
User avatar
Floppykid
Posts: 30162
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: SOB>Todd

Re: Why is JK Rowling suddenly evil?

Post by Floppykid »

Big Nipper wrote:
my 2 cents wrote:That’s what happened in Germany in the 30s.
Image
:lol:
That's a quality gif.
User avatar
MungoMan
Posts: 13358
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Coalfalls

Re: Why is JK Rowling suddenly evil?

Post by MungoMan »

Floppykid wrote:Having a big Saturday evening yeah?
We’re still doing the whole COVID 19 thing here. That’s why so many of us are still alive and so many of you aren’t.

But carry on carrying on, meathead :lol:.
User avatar
fatcat
Posts: 14484
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Why is JK Rowling suddenly evil?

Post by fatcat »

Strange thing to get pissed off about.
User avatar
Floppykid
Posts: 30162
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: SOB>Todd

Re: Why is JK Rowling suddenly evil?

Post by Floppykid »

MungoMan wrote:
Floppykid wrote:Having a big Saturday evening yeah?
We’re still doing the whole COVID 19 thing here. That’s why so many of us are still alive and so many of you aren’t.

But carry on carrying on, meathead :lol:.
Image
User avatar
MungoMan
Posts: 13358
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Coalfalls

Re: Why is JK Rowling suddenly evil?

Post by MungoMan »

Floppykid wrote:
MungoMan wrote:
Floppykid wrote:Having a big Saturday evening yeah?
We’re still doing the whole COVID 19 thing here. That’s why so many of us are still alive and so many of you aren’t.

But carry on carrying on, meathead :lol:.
Image
Is this what cancelled looks like, Mummy? Am I cancelled by that silly picture?

Let’s catch up in 12 months. We can chat about how many people we know died of the plague.

SPOILER

You’ll win that round
User avatar
fatcat
Posts: 14484
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Why is JK Rowling suddenly evil?

Post by fatcat »

Image
bimboman
Posts: 66455
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Why is JK Rowling suddenly evil?

Post by bimboman »

And here we have a marvellous example of a term the worth of which has has degraded to nothing. Specifically, in post after post you’ve used ‘cancel’ to mean no more than criticise.
Nope, what he means is driven off of media social or public, driven out of work, not interviewed etc. He means cancelled not criticised.
User avatar
Floppykid
Posts: 30162
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: SOB>Todd

Re: Why is JK Rowling suddenly evil?

Post by Floppykid »

MungoMan wrote:
Floppykid wrote:
MungoMan wrote:
Floppykid wrote:Having a big Saturday evening yeah?
We’re still doing the whole COVID 19 thing here. That’s why so many of us are still alive and so many of you aren’t.

But carry on carrying on, meathead :lol:.
Image
Is this what cancelled looks like, Mummy? Am I cancelled by that silly picture?

Let’s catch up in 12 months. We can chat about how many people we know died of the plague.

SPOILER

You’ll win that round
Image
my 2 cents
Posts: 809
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Why is JK Rowling suddenly evil?

Post by my 2 cents »

That’s how twisted things have become.

Indoctrinate, not educate.
User avatar
Boobs not Moobs
Posts: 6437
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Why is JK Rowling suddenly evil?

Post by Boobs not Moobs »

Just looked at that, her fundraising effort has been taken down on the site

https://twitter.com/BluskyeAllison

This was in the Graun today https://www.theguardian.com/society/202 ... ncy-kelley
User avatar
Gavin Duffy
Posts: 15201
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Why is JK Rowling suddenly evil?

Post by Gavin Duffy »

So what are we looking at here? Lezzers vs trannies?
User avatar
fatcat
Posts: 14484
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Why is JK Rowling suddenly evil?

Post by fatcat »

Gavin Duffy wrote:So what are we looking at here? Lezzers vs trannies?
Logic and rationality vs illogic and hysteria.
User avatar
Bokkom
Posts: 4299
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Why is JK Rowling suddenly evil?

Post by Bokkom »

fatcat wrote:
Gavin Duffy wrote:So what are we looking at here? Lezzers vs trannies?
Logic and rationality vs illogic and hysteria.
Who's winning?
User avatar
CM11
Posts: 59534
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Why is JK Rowling suddenly evil?

Post by CM11 »

Bokkom wrote:
fatcat wrote:
Gavin Duffy wrote:So what are we looking at here? Lezzers vs trannies?
Logic and rationality vs illogic and hysteria.
Who's winning?
Them*

*works for everyone
User avatar
Pat the Ex Mat
Posts: 5637
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2016 1:50 am

Re: Why is JK Rowling suddenly evil?

Post by Pat the Ex Mat »

Gavin Duffy wrote:So what are we looking at here? Lezzers vs trannies?
Surprised to not see Yeeb posting the usual.....
Gwenno
Posts: 7755
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Why is JK Rowling suddenly evil?

Post by Gwenno »

I do feel that this subject is overdue an emperor’s new clothes debunking. Castrating a man, amputating most of his penis, putting the glans inside out into a hole in his perineum, and giving him breast implants does not make him female. You can say he is in the eyes of the law, but that doesn’t make it so. You could pass a law repealing the law of gravity, but people would still fall to their deaths if they jumped off a cliff. I sympathise with those that identify with the opposite sex (I will probably be imprisoned for using such an outdated term), and I think that the hijacking of the term gender to mean what sex you ‘are’ in your head is useful (bearing in mind that almost nobody uses it in the grammatical sense anymore) but using gender and sex as synonyms is unhelpful, because of the problems it causes, such as making women feel vulnerable in their traditionally segregated places, and giving transsexuals unfair advantages in some sports. Also, officialdom is not really keeping up with the changes in form filling. In most cases, where the forms used to say ‘Sex - F/M’ they now just say ‘Gender - F/M’ If we are going to do this properly, our forms should be ‘Sex - F/M/Intersex (for the very rare true cases) and Gender - F/M/etc.’ People are of course entitled to withhold any or all of this information when not relevant, but would be encouraged to disclose it when it is to their advantage, for example a woman in labour.
User avatar
Duff Paddy
Posts: 36598
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Why is JK Rowling suddenly evil?

Post by Duff Paddy »

Gwenno wrote:I do feel that this subject is overdue an emperor’s new clothes debunking. Castrating a man, amputating most of his penis, putting the glans inside out into a hole in his perineum, and giving him breast implants does not make him female. You can say he is in the eyes of the law, but that doesn’t make it so. You could pass a law repealing the law of gravity, but people would still fall to their deaths if they jumped off a cliff. I sympathise with those that identify with the opposite sex (I will probably be imprisoned for using such an outdated term), and I think that the hijacking of the term gender to mean what sex you ‘are’ in your head is useful (bearing in mind that almost nobody uses it in the grammatical sense anymore) but using gender and sex as synonyms is unhelpful, because of the problems it causes, such as making women feel vulnerable in their traditionally segregated places, and giving transsexuals unfair advantages in some sports. Also, officialdom is not really keeping up with the changes in form filling. In most cases, where the forms used to say ‘Sex - F/M’ they now just say ‘Gender - F/M’ If we are going to do this properly, our forms should be ‘Sex - F/M/Intersex (for the very rare true cases) and Gender - F/M/etc.’ People are of course entitled to withhold any or all of this information when not relevant, but would be encouraged to disclose it when it is to their advantage, for example a woman in labour.

We get it, you’ve made numerous posts like this over the years here. As you have also disclosed your profession it is probably quite unwise but you know that yourself. You are entitled to your personal views, and so are others. A lot of your language in the above post - using the male pronouns and outdated terms like transsexuals - well it just makes you sound like a bit of an arsehole.
my 2 cents
Posts: 809
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Why is JK Rowling suddenly evil?

Post by my 2 cents »

I don’t see why the term “trans-woman” or “trans-man” can’t be owned by the movement like gay or queer is in sexuality terms.

Male
Female
Trans-man
Trans-woman
Intersex

I mean, 99% of the time everyone can tell your biological sex anyway.
my 2 cents
Posts: 809
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Why is JK Rowling suddenly evil?

Post by my 2 cents »

Duff Paddy wrote:
Gwenno wrote:I do feel that this subject is overdue an emperor’s new clothes debunking. Castrating a man, amputating most of his penis, putting the glans inside out into a hole in his perineum, and giving him breast implants does not make him female. You can say he is in the eyes of the law, but that doesn’t make it so. You could pass a law repealing the law of gravity, but people would still fall to their deaths if they jumped off a cliff. I sympathise with those that identify with the opposite sex (I will probably be imprisoned for using such an outdated term), and I think that the hijacking of the term gender to mean what sex you ‘are’ in your head is useful (bearing in mind that almost nobody uses it in the grammatical sense anymore) but using gender and sex as synonyms is unhelpful, because of the problems it causes, such as making women feel vulnerable in their traditionally segregated places, and giving transsexuals unfair advantages in some sports. Also, officialdom is not really keeping up with the changes in form filling. In most cases, where the forms used to say ‘Sex - F/M’ they now just say ‘Gender - F/M’ If we are going to do this properly, our forms should be ‘Sex - F/M/Intersex (for the very rare true cases) and Gender - F/M/etc.’ People are of course entitled to withhold any or all of this information when not relevant, but would be encouraged to disclose it when it is to their advantage, for example a woman in labour.

We get it, you’ve made numerous posts like this over the years here. As you have also disclosed your profession it is probably quite unwise but you know that yourself. You are entitled to your personal views, and so are others. A lot of your language in the above post - using the male pronouns and outdated terms like transsexuals - well it just makes you sound like a bit of an arsehole.
What does trans stand for then? Trans-?
User avatar
Duff Paddy
Posts: 36598
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Why is JK Rowling suddenly evil?

Post by Duff Paddy »

my 2 cents wrote:
Duff Paddy wrote:
Gwenno wrote:I do feel that this subject is overdue an emperor’s new clothes debunking. Castrating a man, amputating most of his penis, putting the glans inside out into a hole in his perineum, and giving him breast implants does not make him female. You can say he is in the eyes of the law, but that doesn’t make it so. You could pass a law repealing the law of gravity, but people would still fall to their deaths if they jumped off a cliff. I sympathise with those that identify with the opposite sex (I will probably be imprisoned for using such an outdated term), and I think that the hijacking of the term gender to mean what sex you ‘are’ in your head is useful (bearing in mind that almost nobody uses it in the grammatical sense anymore) but using gender and sex as synonyms is unhelpful, because of the problems it causes, such as making women feel vulnerable in their traditionally segregated places, and giving transsexuals unfair advantages in some sports. Also, officialdom is not really keeping up with the changes in form filling. In most cases, where the forms used to say ‘Sex - F/M’ they now just say ‘Gender - F/M’ If we are going to do this properly, our forms should be ‘Sex - F/M/Intersex (for the very rare true cases) and Gender - F/M/etc.’ People are of course entitled to withhold any or all of this information when not relevant, but would be encouraged to disclose it when it is to their advantage, for example a woman in labour.

We get it, you’ve made numerous posts like this over the years here. As you have also disclosed your profession it is probably quite unwise but you know that yourself. You are entitled to your personal views, and so are others. A lot of your language in the above post - using the male pronouns and outdated terms like transsexuals - well it just makes you sound like a bit of an arsehole.
What does trans stand for then? Trans-?
The term used now is obviously transgendered. His use of transsexual sounds like your batshit old granny calling black people coloured
User avatar
Torquemada 1420
Posts: 29067
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Hut 8

Re: Why is JK Rowling suddenly evil?

Post by Torquemada 1420 »

Duff Paddy wrote:
Gwenno wrote:I do feel that this subject is overdue an emperor’s new clothes debunking. Castrating a man, amputating most of his penis, putting the glans inside out into a hole in his perineum, and giving him breast implants does not make him female. You can say he is in the eyes of the law, but that doesn’t make it so. You could pass a law repealing the law of gravity, but people would still fall to their deaths if they jumped off a cliff. I sympathise with those that identify with the opposite sex (I will probably be imprisoned for using such an outdated term), and I think that the hijacking of the term gender to mean what sex you ‘are’ in your head is useful (bearing in mind that almost nobody uses it in the grammatical sense anymore) but using gender and sex as synonyms is unhelpful, because of the problems it causes, such as making women feel vulnerable in their traditionally segregated places, and giving transsexuals unfair advantages in some sports. Also, officialdom is not really keeping up with the changes in form filling. In most cases, where the forms used to say ‘Sex - F/M’ they now just say ‘Gender - F/M’ If we are going to do this properly, our forms should be ‘Sex - F/M/Intersex (for the very rare true cases) and Gender - F/M/etc.’ People are of course entitled to withhold any or all of this information when not relevant, but would be encouraged to disclose it when it is to their advantage, for example a woman in labour.

We get it, you’ve made numerous posts like this over the years here. As you have also disclosed your profession it is probably quite unwise but you know that yourself. You are entitled to your personal views, and so are others. A lot of your language in the above post - using the male pronouns and outdated terms like transsexuals - well it just makes you sound like a bit of an arsehole.
Help me out here Duff. Where has he used a male pronoun at all?

Also (I may be wrong here) but wasn't transsexual the term widely adopted by that group themselves?
User avatar
flaggETERNAL
Posts: 6284
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Why is JK Rowling suddenly evil?

Post by flaggETERNAL »

Duff Paddy wrote:
Gwenno wrote:I do feel that this subject is overdue an emperor’s new clothes debunking. Castrating a man, amputating most of his penis, putting the glans inside out into a hole in his perineum, and giving him breast implants does not make him female. You can say he is in the eyes of the law, but that doesn’t make it so. You could pass a law repealing the law of gravity, but people would still fall to their deaths if they jumped off a cliff. I sympathise with those that identify with the opposite sex (I will probably be imprisoned for using such an outdated term), and I think that the hijacking of the term gender to mean what sex you ‘are’ in your head is useful (bearing in mind that almost nobody uses it in the grammatical sense anymore) but using gender and sex as synonyms is unhelpful, because of the problems it causes, such as making women feel vulnerable in their traditionally segregated places, and giving transsexuals unfair advantages in some sports. Also, officialdom is not really keeping up with the changes in form filling. In most cases, where the forms used to say ‘Sex - F/M’ they now just say ‘Gender - F/M’ If we are going to do this properly, our forms should be ‘Sex - F/M/Intersex (for the very rare true cases) and Gender - F/M/etc.’ People are of course entitled to withhold any or all of this information when not relevant, but would be encouraged to disclose it when it is to their advantage, for example a woman in labour.

We get it, you’ve made numerous posts like this over the years here. As you have also disclosed your profession it is probably quite unwise but you know that yourself. You are entitled to your personal views, and so are others. A lot of your language in the above post - using the male pronouns and outdated terms like transsexuals - well it just makes you sound like a bit of an arsehole.
It really doesn't. This is part of the problem, someone uses an incorrect term and suddenly that's the issue instead of the actual issue. It just bogs down any chance of a reasonable discussion and almost always ends up in a shitfight.
bimboman
Posts: 66455
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Why is JK Rowling suddenly evil?

Post by bimboman »

Duff Paddy wrote:
Gwenno wrote:I do feel that this subject is overdue an emperor’s new clothes debunking. Castrating a man, amputating most of his penis, putting the glans inside out into a hole in his perineum, and giving him breast implants does not make him female. You can say he is in the eyes of the law, but that doesn’t make it so. You could pass a law repealing the law of gravity, but people would still fall to their deaths if they jumped off a cliff. I sympathise with those that identify with the opposite sex (I will probably be imprisoned for using such an outdated term), and I think that the hijacking of the term gender to mean what sex you ‘are’ in your head is useful (bearing in mind that almost nobody uses it in the grammatical sense anymore) but using gender and sex as synonyms is unhelpful, because of the problems it causes, such as making women feel vulnerable in their traditionally segregated places, and giving transsexuals unfair advantages in some sports. Also, officialdom is not really keeping up with the changes in form filling. In most cases, where the forms used to say ‘Sex - F/M’ they now just say ‘Gender - F/M’ If we are going to do this properly, our forms should be ‘Sex - F/M/Intersex (for the very rare true cases) and Gender - F/M/etc.’ People are of course entitled to withhold any or all of this information when not relevant, but would be encouraged to disclose it when it is to their advantage, for example a woman in labour.

We get it, you’ve made numerous posts like this over the years here. As you have also disclosed your profession it is probably quite unwise but you know that yourself. You are entitled to your personal views, and so are others. A lot of your language in the above post - using the male pronouns and outdated terms like transsexuals - well it just makes you sound like a bit of an arsehole.


Biological facts scare Duff.
User avatar
Duff Paddy
Posts: 36598
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Why is JK Rowling suddenly evil?

Post by Duff Paddy »

Yeah I’m the scared one here :lol:
my 2 cents
Posts: 809
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Why is JK Rowling suddenly evil?

Post by my 2 cents »

Duff Paddy wrote:
my 2 cents wrote:
Duff Paddy wrote:
Gwenno wrote:I do feel that this subject is overdue an emperor’s new clothes debunking. Castrating a man, amputating most of his penis, putting the glans inside out into a hole in his perineum, and giving him breast implants does not make him female. You can say he is in the eyes of the law, but that doesn’t make it so. You could pass a law repealing the law of gravity, but people would still fall to their deaths if they jumped off a cliff. I sympathise with those that identify with the opposite sex (I will probably be imprisoned for using such an outdated term), and I think that the hijacking of the term gender to mean what sex you ‘are’ in your head is useful (bearing in mind that almost nobody uses it in the grammatical sense anymore) but using gender and sex as synonyms is unhelpful, because of the problems it causes, such as making women feel vulnerable in their traditionally segregated places, and giving transsexuals unfair advantages in some sports. Also, officialdom is not really keeping up with the changes in form filling. In most cases, where the forms used to say ‘Sex - F/M’ they now just say ‘Gender - F/M’ If we are going to do this properly, our forms should be ‘Sex - F/M/Intersex (for the very rare true cases) and Gender - F/M/etc.’ People are of course entitled to withhold any or all of this information when not relevant, but would be encouraged to disclose it when it is to their advantage, for example a woman in labour.

We get it, you’ve made numerous posts like this over the years here. As you have also disclosed your profession it is probably quite unwise but you know that yourself. You are entitled to your personal views, and so are others. A lot of your language in the above post - using the male pronouns and outdated terms like transsexuals - well it just makes you sound like a bit of an arsehole.
What does trans stand for then? Trans-?
The term used now is obviously transgendered. His use of transsexual sounds like your batshit old granny calling black people coloured
I didn’t know that. Thanks

It’s funny the way these terms change. For example you saying “coloured”. Is that different from “people of colour” which is currently acceptable. It is fascinating
User avatar
Rinkals
Posts: 17659
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Why is JK Rowling suddenly evil?

Post by Rinkals »

Gwenno wrote:I do feel that this subject is overdue an emperor’s new clothes debunking. Castrating a man, amputating most of his penis, putting the glans inside out into a hole in his perineum, and giving him breast implants does not make him female. You can say he is in the eyes of the law, but that doesn’t make it so. You could pass a law repealing the law of gravity, but people would still fall to their deaths if they jumped off a cliff. I sympathise with those that identify with the opposite sex (I will probably be imprisoned for using such an outdated term), and I think that the hijacking of the term gender to mean what sex you ‘are’ in your head is useful (bearing in mind that almost nobody uses it in the grammatical sense anymore) but using gender and sex as synonyms is unhelpful, because of the problems it causes, such as making women feel vulnerable in their traditionally segregated places, and giving transsexuals unfair advantages in some sports. Also, officialdom is not really keeping up with the changes in form filling. In most cases, where the forms used to say ‘Sex - F/M’ they now just say ‘Gender - F/M’ If we are going to do this properly, our forms should be ‘Sex - F/M/Intersex (for the very rare true cases) and Gender - F/M/etc.’ People are of course entitled to withhold any or all of this information when not relevant, but would be encouraged to disclose it when it is to their advantage, for example a woman in labour.
If I can venture in where all but fools fear to tread, I do think that, rationally and scientifically, the points you make are good.

JKRowling, too, is with her rights to point out that, without experiencing the specific traits and hazards of the biology implicit in being female, it's presumptuous to claim that, because you feel you are a woman, a surgical procedure can make it so.

However, I don't think this is a rational issue.

It's driven by an underlying mental condition which makes someone who was born male identify as female (and vice-versa) and it's a effort to help them feel comfortable in that and to suggest that it's nobody's business but their own.

So, while you may have a point, as does JKRowling, raising it is bound to release a backlash.
User avatar
slick
Posts: 8257
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Why is JK Rowling suddenly evil?

Post by slick »

Duff Paddy wrote:
Gwenno wrote:I do feel that this subject is overdue an emperor’s new clothes debunking. Castrating a man, amputating most of his penis, putting the glans inside out into a hole in his perineum, and giving him breast implants does not make him female. You can say he is in the eyes of the law, but that doesn’t make it so. You could pass a law repealing the law of gravity, but people would still fall to their deaths if they jumped off a cliff. I sympathise with those that identify with the opposite sex (I will probably be imprisoned for using such an outdated term), and I think that the hijacking of the term gender to mean what sex you ‘are’ in your head is useful (bearing in mind that almost nobody uses it in the grammatical sense anymore) but using gender and sex as synonyms is unhelpful, because of the problems it causes, such as making women feel vulnerable in their traditionally segregated places, and giving transsexuals unfair advantages in some sports. Also, officialdom is not really keeping up with the changes in form filling. In most cases, where the forms used to say ‘Sex - F/M’ they now just say ‘Gender - F/M’ If we are going to do this properly, our forms should be ‘Sex - F/M/Intersex (for the very rare true cases) and Gender - F/M/etc.’ People are of course entitled to withhold any or all of this information when not relevant, but would be encouraged to disclose it when it is to their advantage, for example a woman in labour.

We get it, you’ve made numerous posts like this over the years here. As you have also disclosed your profession it is probably quite unwise but you know that yourself. You are entitled to your personal views, and so are others. A lot of your language in the above post - using the male pronouns and outdated terms like transsexuals - well it just makes you sound like a bit of an arsehole.
Quite an odd reply there, Duff
Gwenno
Posts: 7755
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Why is JK Rowling suddenly evil?

Post by Gwenno »

Duff Paddy wrote:
Gwenno wrote:I do feel that this subject is overdue an emperor’s new clothes debunking. Castrating a man, amputating most of his penis, putting the glans inside out into a hole in his perineum, and giving him breast implants does not make him female. You can say he is in the eyes of the law, but that doesn’t make it so. You could pass a law repealing the law of gravity, but people would still fall to their deaths if they jumped off a cliff. I sympathise with those that identify with the opposite sex (I will probably be imprisoned for using such an outdated term), and I think that the hijacking of the term gender to mean what sex you ‘are’ in your head is useful (bearing in mind that almost nobody uses it in the grammatical sense anymore) but using gender and sex as synonyms is unhelpful, because of the problems it causes, such as making women feel vulnerable in their traditionally segregated places, and giving transsexuals unfair advantages in some sports. Also, officialdom is not really keeping up with the changes in form filling. In most cases, where the forms used to say ‘Sex - F/M’ they now just say ‘Gender - F/M’ If we are going to do this properly, our forms should be ‘Sex - F/M/Intersex (for the very rare true cases) and Gender - F/M/etc.’ People are of course entitled to withhold any or all of this information when not relevant, but would be encouraged to disclose it when it is to their advantage, for example a woman in labour.

We get it, you’ve made numerous posts like this over the years here. As you have also disclosed your profession it is probably quite unwise but you know that yourself. You are entitled to your personal views, and so are others. A lot of your language in the above post - using the male pronouns and outdated terms like transsexuals - well it just makes you sound like a bit of an arsehole.
I accept that I can’t keep up with change of usage - languages evolve after all - but if my inability to follow trends makes you infer something about my attitude, that is a shame. For all you know about me, I may be very sympathetic to those that are unhappy with their situation - it is, as you have said my job after all - and by and large I am. I take no pleasure however in telling people the truth when it is bad news, but I don’t shy from it either. I believe that it is impossible for people to change their sex - not immoral, or against god’s wishes, just impossible. Introducing the concept of gender in its current sense has meant it is possible for people to change their gender, but you could hardly say that it has gone smoothly worldwide, looking at all the controversy it generates. As I have also suggested in previous posts, far better for the world to be ‘gender-blind’ the way we try to be ‘colour-blind’, and just treat people as individuals, rather than trying to bolt on a new set of conventions to the pre-existing ones of sex segregation, with all their caveats and respect for for their right to privacy and non-disclosure of identified gender. I think it has become unworkable because of the confusion of gender (which can change in its current understanding) and sex, which cannot change. In the non internet world, because having an opinion on this tends to generate so much ill will I usually keep my mouth shut, for fear of being called transphobic for simply making an observation. I assumed that this thread gave us a chance to to discuss things objectively. Yes, I have repeated myself a lot on this and other threads, for which I apologise.
bimboman
Posts: 66455
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Why is JK Rowling suddenly evil?

Post by bimboman »

Duff Paddy wrote:Yeah I’m the scared one here :lol:

Was it the Glans being pushed in bit?
sockwithaticket
Posts: 6352
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2018 11:35 am
Location: England

Re: Why is JK Rowling suddenly evil?

Post by sockwithaticket »

flaggETERNAL wrote:
Duff Paddy wrote:
Gwenno wrote:I do feel that this subject is overdue an emperor’s new clothes debunking. Castrating a man, amputating most of his penis, putting the glans inside out into a hole in his perineum, and giving him breast implants does not make him female. You can say he is in the eyes of the law, but that doesn’t make it so. You could pass a law repealing the law of gravity, but people would still fall to their deaths if they jumped off a cliff. I sympathise with those that identify with the opposite sex (I will probably be imprisoned for using such an outdated term), and I think that the hijacking of the term gender to mean what sex you ‘are’ in your head is useful (bearing in mind that almost nobody uses it in the grammatical sense anymore) but using gender and sex as synonyms is unhelpful, because of the problems it causes, such as making women feel vulnerable in their traditionally segregated places, and giving transsexuals unfair advantages in some sports. Also, officialdom is not really keeping up with the changes in form filling. In most cases, where the forms used to say ‘Sex - F/M’ they now just say ‘Gender - F/M’ If we are going to do this properly, our forms should be ‘Sex - F/M/Intersex (for the very rare true cases) and Gender - F/M/etc.’ People are of course entitled to withhold any or all of this information when not relevant, but would be encouraged to disclose it when it is to their advantage, for example a woman in labour.

We get it, you’ve made numerous posts like this over the years here. As you have also disclosed your profession it is probably quite unwise but you know that yourself. You are entitled to your personal views, and so are others. A lot of your language in the above post - using the male pronouns and outdated terms like transsexuals - well it just makes you sound like a bit of an arsehole.
It really doesn't. This is part of the problem, someone uses an incorrect term and suddenly that's the issue instead of the actual issue. It just bogs down any chance of a reasonable discussion and almost always ends up in a shitfight.
Ding ding ding. I've had this argument with a champgne socialist former friend of mine. Barely worked a day in his life, family money enabled him to be a perpetual student into his late 20s so he got puruse all the political and sociological theory he wanted while the rest of us got jobs and had to worry about things like food and rent. He would verbally dress you down if using what was considered in academic circles to be the wrong terminology. I got both barrells for dropping off a letter from the LGBTQIA+ acronym (or whatever it is now, I swear it changes every other time I see it), got accused of diminishing the visibility of that particular group, so invited him to step out of his ivory tower and assess whether I'd said anything with malice or it might have been a genuine mistake because not all of us are immersed in the bleeding edge of this stuff since we've actually had to join the adult world. It's a very small percentage of people deciding the terminology and nomenclature and there seems to be this misconception that once they do a memo is sent out to everyone as opposed to how it actually works, which is gradual dissemination through usage and contact. By the time it reaches a lot of people the terms have been refined or altered again. Picking people up on that aggressively, when they like as not had no way of knowing better, is hugely alienating and a problem for those on the further ends of the left.

Transsexual not being permitted anymore is far from widely accepted, so Duff can climb off his high horse. It's a deliberate attempt to keep the debate away from the issue of sex (classification, not bedroom fun) and biology, yet as the issue of trans athletes is still a prominent one this would seem premature since both topics are somewhat key to the debate.
Post Reply