TERFs crash London Pride

Are you aware of what "argumentum ad hominem" means? You spurn a source that presents actual statistics and give me one (from the USA, when this thread is about Britain) which actually states "advocates say" in the actual title.

Do you happen to have an unbiassed source that doesn't rely on wild guesstimates from a trans-activist lobby group?
 
Rolfe said:
Are you aware of what "argumentum ad hominem" means?
Click to expand...
Apparently you don't.

luchog isn't saying, "you're a bigot therefore you're wrong." That would be an ad hom.


You spurn a source that presents actual statistics and give me one (from the USA, when this thread is about Britain) which actually states "advocates say" in the actual title.

Do you happen to have an unbiassed source that doesn't rely on wild guesstimates from a trans-activist lobby group?
Click to expand...
The issue with your article is exactly what luchog said: cherry-picked and manipulated [statistics]. The stats are linked from a pro-trans site which tries to track homicides against trans persons and very explicitly states that the numbers are difficult to find in the first place; the anti-trans site you linked to, however, takes some of the numbers and massages them to fit into their pre-determined conclusion (that transpeople in the UK are either the same or less likely to be murdered) and the comments at the end all provide further evidence that the site you linked to is simply just anti-trans.
 
The Norseman said:
The issue with your article is exactly what luchog said: cherry-picked and manipulated [statistics]. The stats are linked from a pro-trans site which tries to track homicides against trans persons and very explicitly states that the numbers are difficult to find in the first place; the anti-trans site you linked to, however, takes some of the numbers and massages them to fit into their pre-determined conclusion (that transpeople in the UK are either the same or less likely to be murdered) and the comments at the end all provide further evidence that the site you linked to is simply just anti-trans.
Click to expand...


And this is hardly the first time Rolfe has brought up this particular anti-trans hate site and it's misrepresented statistics, bogus "science", and woo conspiracy theories in this thread; run by a rabid anti-trans crusader and conspiracy theorist. Some of the anti-trans CTs that were posted earlier are unintentionally hilarious.

Rolfe said:
Are you aware of what "argumentum ad hominem" means?
Click to expand...


Yes, but you're clearly not, as The Norseman noted above.

You spurn a source that presents actual statistics and give me one (from the USA, when this thread is about Britain) which actually states "advocates say" in the actual title.


That's hilarious. You were perfectly happy to rely on "advocates" data when it was filtered through your pet hate site. Do you go to Stormfront for to get information on black people and Jews?

And that's a nice concise combinations of fallacies there as well: moving the goalposts, then the Texas sharpshooter.

Regardless of whether murders of transpeople are up in Britain (they are), they are rising precipitously worldwide, particularly in the US. All of which has been noted already, with reliable news sources.

Do you happen to have an unbiassed source that doesn't rely on wild guesstimates from a trans-activist lobby group?
Click to expand...


Nice bit of well-poisoning there as well, or do you consider the New York Times, a bastion of reliable, center-conservative-leaning mainstream journalism for well over a hundred years, to be another of of those agencies that's secretly run by a shadowy cabal of trans activists? You know, like the woo-meisters you constantly parrot claim.

You're fully aware what information and sources I have, having seen them posted in this thread and others on the same subject where you saw fit to spew your anti-trans bigotry. All my sources have been from reliable, fact-checking, mainstream news sources. Yours have exclusively been from anti-trans hate and conspiracy-theory woo sites, including the religious right nonsense you posted in support of your bigotry earlier in this thread. Your disingenuous evasions are becoming quite tiresome; and the only reason I even bother responding to your hate-filled rhetoric is that there are still some decent people here who are unaware of the sheer scope of the problems that transpeople face. But keep it up, you're doing a good job illustrating exactly how hard it is for transpeople to survive, under attack from the far right and far left, and how many people are out there trying desperately to erase their existence. Guess what, they're not going anywhere, they'll still be here when you and all the other bigots are dead and gone.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Way to not get it. Argumentum ad hominem is when you dismiss the article that actually delves into the figures and links to its sources by posting a foam-flecked rant against the author and the web site. In contrast, while the NYT is indeed a respectable newspaper, relying on an article where it explicitly states that it's reporting the trans activist position is dishonest.

Oh, and "erase their existence". Give us a break. Have you swallowed the entire trans activist play-book? Challenging their claims and their rhetoric is not "erasing their existence".
 
Last edited:
How about rolling back a step or two to the original claim that trans people are murdered in disproportionately high numbers? The article was merely trying to test that, and actually has to bend the figures to get the numbers even as as high as the rate for the general population. The author doesn't seem to have any interest in proving that the rate is lower, merely looking to see if it's higher, which it clearly isn't.
 
Here's where you get to when you capitulate supinely to the trans activist dogma that "transwomen are women" who can do no wrong and must be pandered to in every respect, even when they're violent rapists.

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/09/why-was-a-transgender-rapist-put-in-a-womens-prison/

You can circumvent that paywall if you have to just by using "view source".

And this is pretty nasty too.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...nd-smear-campaign-against-academics-f2zqbl222

That article was free for a limited time and is available in screencaps taken from the free version.

https://twitter.com/FeministRoar/status/1038229315828236289
 
It's also worth nothing that the sources linked to in luchog's rants all agree with the data provided by Rolfe. That's 3 different sources of statistics all agreeing with each other.
 
Just came across this YouTube video and it reminded me of this thread (because the topic is the same of course).
Now, I don't expect anyone to watch it, and I'm not trying to make any kind of argument by posting this link, but I thought I'd leave it here anyway
 
Rolfe said:
Way to not get it. Argumentum ad hominem is when you dismiss the article that actually delves into the figures and links to its sources by posting a foam-flecked rant against the author and the web site.

<snip>
Click to expand...


Nope. You still don't get it. You're just kicking your can filled with error down the road a bit farther.

He's not saying they are wrong because they are hate-filled bigots.

He's saying they are wrong and they are hate-filled bigots.
 
kellyb said:
That's because basically no heterosexual women lives their lives with a strong sense of self-identity with the "gender non-conformer" label.

I'm about as gender non-conforming as women come, but because I'm straight, it's just a personal quirk and not some thing I have ever had to identify with.
Click to expand...

But now is now, and then was then. Lister adopted just about as many facets of what were seen to be exclusively male aspects of behaviour at the time, short of actually living incognito as a man. She didn't get the local nickname "Gentleman Jack" just for not riding side-saddle.
 
Porpoise of Life said:
Just came across this YouTube video and it reminded me of this thread (because the topic is the same of course).
Now, I don't expect anyone to watch it, and I'm not trying to make any kind of argument by posting this link, but I thought I'd leave it here anyway
Click to expand...


Yeah, you could just play that on a loop and that's the thread. The deadpan presentation of the stock arguments on both sides is so well done it's hilarious. I've seen at least one other video in that series too. They're very good.
 
Information Analyst said:
But now is now, and then was then. Lister adopted just about as many facets of what were seen to be exclusively male aspects of behaviour at the time, short of actually living incognito as a man. She didn't get the local nickname "Gentleman Jack" just for not riding side-saddle.
Click to expand...


That's entirely the point. Anyone should be free to live as they wish without having to "identify" as the opposite sex to do so.

Oh, and don't get me started on side-saddle riding. A more ridiculous example of the oppression of women by men projecting the idea of "unladylike" on to the normal, sensible way to ride a horse would be difficult to imagine. A woman can't ride astride because men can only think of one thing when they imagine a woman with her legs apart over a horse? So they have to use this preposterous pommelled saddle that makes it about ten times more difficult to ride, because doing it the normal way looks salacious to men? And bear in mind the side-saddle was an improvement on the earlier solution to the modesty issue, which was women sitting on a horse with both legs on one side the way you'd sit on a chair, with their feet on a sort of shelf. That isn't riding at all, you have to be led. And women had to travel that way because God forbid a man should see them with their legs apart. Jesus wept.
 
Last edited:
Darat said:
You've misread the article then.
Click to expand...

Nope. Out of the 6 transgender people murdered between 2008 and 2016 3 were killed for being prostitutes (supporting JihadJane's first claim) and none were killed for being transgender. And the murder rate is lower than for women in general, supporting JihadJane's second claim.

How about you support your assertion that the data presented (which, I'll again point out, agrees with the data from two other independent sources which can be found through luchog's link) "pretty much demolish JilhadJane's claim"?
 
Porpoise of Life said:
Just came across this YouTube video and it reminded me of this thread (because the topic is the same of course).
Now, I don't expect anyone to watch it, and I'm not trying to make any kind of argument by posting this link, but I thought I'd leave it here anyway
Click to expand...

And let's not forget the classic:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom