• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: Trans women are not women (IX)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vixen said:
The misogynists surely are the men desperate to cling onto male supremacy. Sure, there is an element of gay men who vehemently hate women. However, I don't see how women can be labelled 'misogynist' in the same way just because they aren't violently pro-Women's toilets, like Braverman, Badenough and Truss.

The question boils down to are you with:

  • Trans people are who they say they are and deserve to live their lives without being constantly questioned or told they aren't who they say they are. ~ Emma Watson
  • my life has been shaped by being female. I do not believe it’s hateful to say so. ~ JK Rowling

Of Braverman, Badenough, Truss and Rowling, Emma Watson is probably the least misogynist.
Click to expand...
Watson is objectively the most misogynist, because trans-inclusionist activism is objectively misogynist.

The only men clinging to male supremacy in this debate are the transsexual males who wish to be counted as women for the purposes of women's sports and women's representation in commerce and government. They, and the women who support their cause (even if, like Emma Watson, they don't really understand what they're supporting) are on the misogynistic side of the debate.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
The misogynists surely are the men desperate to cling onto male supremacy.
Click to expand...
Yes well cancelling and outlawing the existence of female only settings is definitely that. Isn't it?

The question boils down to are you with:
[. . . ] Emma Watson [ . . . ] JK Rowling
[ . . . ]
Click to expand...
As above I think it is instructive to consider which of them is receiving the rape threats / death threats and fatwas over the issues in order to divine where the tyrannical misogyny is being directed, and accordingly from whom. Hint--it isn't being hurled at Watson.

(Conversely, it has been in the past when she has publicly taken an anti-misogynistic stance on stuff)
 
theprestige said:
Watson is objectively the most misogynist, because trans-inclusionist activism is objectively misogynist.

The only men clinging to male supremacy in this debate are the transsexual males who wish to be counted as women for the purposes of women's sports and women's representation in commerce and government. They, and the women who support their cause (even if, like Emma Watson, they don't really understand what they're supporting) are on the misogynistic side of the debate.
Click to expand...

Just because women can be sexist towards other women, or blacks hate on other blacks, the social impact of being an oppressor is not the same as male / white oppression. The question to ask is 'cui bono?', and the answer of course, is the status quo. Women/blacks/gays/transgenders are not the oppressors, merely enablers, rather like someone who lives with an alcohol abuser or domestic violence abuser. Sure, they collude and enable but they are not the alcoholic, the sex fiend or the wife beater.

It is rather stupid to stick the same label on the oppressed even if they do show compliance with the Man.
 
Francesca R said:
Yes well cancelling and outlawing the existence of female only settings is definitely that. Isn't it?


As above I think it is instructive to consider which of them is receiving the rape threats / death threats and fatwas over the issues in order to divine where the tyrannical misogyny is being directed, and accordingly from whom. Hint--it isn't being hurled at Watson.

(Conversely, it has been in the past when she has publicly taken an anti-misogynistic stance on stuff)
Click to expand...

Problem with people like JK Rowling, they have a bit of success and fame and they think that gives them authority to spout off on social issues. (For example, Rowling's campaign to refuse Scotland's independence in the referendum.) She thinks her experience and opinion is the only valid one, just because she has enjoyed success in her chosen field of writing novels.
 
Vixen said:
Problem with people like JK Rowling, they have a bit of success and fame and they think that gives them authority to spout off on social issues.
Click to expand...
Yeah it's not like she wrote a series of anti-fascist allegories.

Sent from my Sarcastigator 9001 using Tapatalk
 
d4m10n said:
Yeah it's not like she wrote a series of anti-fascist allegories.

Sent from my Sarcastigator 9001 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Is that what they are supposed to be? Maybe that is just another version of the same problem. Is that a topic that she has anything deeper than a generic wine mom take on? It certainly isn't the best part of the books.
 
Vixen said:
Problem with people like JK Rowling, they have a bit of success and fame and they think that gives them authority to spout off on social issues. (For example, Rowling's campaign to refuse Scotland's independence in the referendum.) She thinks her experience and opinion is the only valid one, just because she has enjoyed success in her chosen field of writing novels.
Click to expand...
I'm puzzled how else this could work. Should there be some vetting process before people are allowed to campaign to make sure they are sufficiently informed? It would very much change public life if only some kind of intelligentsia had a public voice. Also, I'm puzzled where you are getting the highlighted part from. Has she really said that her opinion is the only valid one?
 
Vixen said:
Problem with people like JK Rowling, they have a bit of success and fame and they think that gives them authority to spout off on social issues.
Click to expand...

The authority to spout off on social issues is a basic human right. It's kind of disturbing that you see it a problem.

Which people do you believe have legitimate authority to spout off the on social issues? How do is that authority earned? Who grants it? Who has the authority to dissent from the authorities who legitimately spout off?
 
Vixen said:
(For example, Rowling's campaign to refuse Scotland's independence in the referendum.)
Click to expand...


That is actually a very good example of the way reasonable people can separate others from the opinions they hold, and appreciate that we are not our opinions and neither are our opinions some sort of monolith.

You can imagine what sort of a fan I was of Joanne Rowling in 2014. Now, however, I'm right in there on team Rowling. As far as I know her unionist opinions haven't changed and I still oppose these opinions, but I'm hardly going to say, oh well, since Joanne Rowling, who opposes independence, also opposes self-ID, I have to support self-ID.
 
theprestige said:
The authority to spout off on social issues is a basic human right. It's kind of disturbing that you see it a problem.

Which people do you believe have legitimate authority to spout off the on social issues? How do is that authority earned? Who grants it? Who has the authority to dissent from the authorities who legitimately spout off?
Click to expand...

You have to be higher up on the progressive stack, then you get to spout off.

As a rich white heterosexual cis woman, Rowling is low on the stack. Not the bottom, that's for rich white heterosexual cis men, but it's pretty low. But a rich white heterosexual cis man can leapfrog Rowling on the stack by declaring himself to be a homosexual woman.
 
shuttlt said:
Is that what they are supposed to be?
Click to expand...
Obviously.

Is that a topic that she has anything deeper than a generic wine mom take on?
Click to expand...
Your everyday wine mom doesn't harp on about how everyday folks could easily slide into quiet acquiescence of a new totalitarian regime.

My own kids' mom does that, but it doesn't go over well at parties. [emoji58]

Matthew Best said:
What is it that gives any of us authority to spout off on social issues?
Click to expand...
Inalienable rights exist timelessly in the mind of the providential creator. ;)
 
Last edited:
shuttlt said:
I'm puzzled how else this could work. Should there be some vetting process before people are allowed to campaign to make sure they are sufficiently informed? It would very much change public life if only some kind of intelligentsia had a public voice. Also, I'm puzzled where you are getting the highlighted part from. Has she really said that her opinion is the only valid one?
Click to expand...

It should be self-evident that if you take a stance on Twitter to state, 'I am opposed to single-sex marriage/veganism/climate change advocates/[insert your own cause célèbre here]', then you can expect a backlash from people passionate about those causes. Why did JK Rowling take that stance on transgender at all as it doesn't affect her?

Maybe she should go into politics or social campaigning if she has a genuine cause other than to be unbearable.
 
theprestige said:
The authority to spout off on social issues is a basic human right. It's kind of disturbing that you see it a problem.

Which people do you believe have legitimate authority to spout off the on social issues? How do is that authority earned? Who grants it? Who has the authority to dissent from the authorities who legitimately spout off?
Click to expand...

People can spout off but should have the savvy to know when discretion is the better part of valor.
 
Rolfe said:
That is actually a very good example of the way reasonable people can separate others from the opinions they hold, and appreciate that we are not our opinions and neither are our opinions some sort of monolith.

You can imagine what sort of a fan I was of Joanne Rowling in 2014. Now, however, I'm right in there on team Rowling. As far as I know her unionist opinions haven't changed and I still oppose these opinions, but I'm hardly going to say, oh well, since Joanne Rowling, who opposes independence, also opposes self-ID, I have to support self-ID.
Click to expand...

When someone shows you who they are...can you take them seriously again, if they have shown themselves to have values you can't agree with?

For example, I am sure I could agree with Katie Hopkins on some issue somewhere but why would I trust her judgement if in the past she has shown herself to have held deliberately outrageous opinions merely designed to shock and court self-publicity?
 
Ziggurat said:
You have to be higher up on the progressive stack, then you get to spout off.

As a rich white heterosexual cis woman, Rowling is low on the stack. Not the bottom, that's for rich white heterosexual cis men, but it's pretty low. But a rich white heterosexual cis man can leapfrog Rowling on the stack by declaring himself to be a homosexual woman.
Click to expand...

I like this 'progressive stack'. It makes sense. Wind back to the 1950's and imagine some guy declaring, 'I am a heterosexual man and I am strongly opposed to recognising homosexual men the right to lead their preferred life style without being criminalised'.

Of course he should step back in the debate as to whether homosexuals should be decriminalised. Let's hear the voice of people like Tom of Finland who had to spend his youth cruising dark streets in secret and had he been caught, he would have been kicked out of the army, convicted of immorality and likely castrated.

So step back, Clint Eastwood and John Wayne, (and JK Rowling), let's hear what the downtrodden have to say for a change. You've had your say. Now it is their turn.
 
Vixen said:
When someone shows you who they are...can you take them seriously again, if they have shown themselves to have values you can't agree with?

For example, I am sure I could agree with Katie Hopkins on some issue somewhere but why would I trust her judgement if in the past she has shown herself to have held deliberately outrageous opinions merely designed to shock and court self-publicity?
Click to expand...


Reasonable people can disagree. Unreasonable people cancel and ostracise others over a difference of opinion.
 
Vixen said:
It should be self-evident that if you take a stance on Twitter to state, 'I am opposed to single-sex marriage/veganism/climate change advocates/[insert your own cause célèbre here]', then you can expect a backlash from people passionate about those causes. Why did JK Rowling take that stance on transgender at all as it doesn't affect her?

Maybe she should go into politics or social campaigning if she has a genuine cause other than to be unbearable.
Click to expand...

Vixen said:
People can spout off but should have the savvy to know when discretion is the better part of valor.
Click to expand...

That's nice, now please answer the questions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom