• 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.
Rolfe said:
I'm not disagreeing with you, but I also refer you to my previous posts pointing out why allowing men who have had genital surgery into women's single-sex spaces is neither desirable or practical.

It doesn't apply to schoolchildren, because thankfully nobody is as yet allowing school-age boys to have their penises lopped off, but it most certainly applies in the adult world.
Click to expand...

Why? Why is it neither desirable or practical...?
 
theprestige said:
I'm saying the outcomes of the policies being advocated are substantially anti-women, regardless of the intent of the advocates.

Similar to how the outcomes of the pacifist policies being advocated in Great Britain during WW2 would have been effectively pro-fascist, even though the advocates were not themselves pro-fascist.

I've explained as much more than once. I'm running out of novel ways to say the same thing I've already said. I'm also kind of surprised I need to explain it at all.

ETA: I'm saying that if you support transsexual accommodations in public policy, the outcomes you're supporting are effectively anti-woman. Even though I'm sure you would never think of yourself as being anti-woman, and have never had a reasoned anti-woman idea in your adult life.
Click to expand...

Trying to link 'misogyny' to 'transsexual accommodations' is tenuous to say the least.
 
d4m10n said:
Yes.

Advocating policies which are substantially anti-women (regardless of one's feelings about it) is literally sexism.
Click to expand...

It amuses me that the same men who are anti-transgender (not you, personally) and labelling anyone who can't see anything wrong with transgender rights as 'misogynist' are often the very same men who use the terms '****' and other offensive misogynistic terms, elsewhere. Or use the epithet 'horsecock!' at a female.

How very non-misogynist they are.
 
Vixen said:
What do you mean 'behaves himself'? They are not children.
Click to expand...

Christ, follow this thread. These issues have been discussed many times. There are many, many cases of intact males not behaving themselves in women’s safe places including changing rooms, women’s shelters and prisons. This not behaving includes assault and rape. It’s up to you to familiarise your self with reported and verified events.
 
Last edited:
Francesca R said:
"That TERF bitch Rowling needs a good raping"

How did I do?
Click to expand...

Spare us the faux tears.

So an illiterate troll - probably aged 14 and typing from his parent's basement when he should have been doing his homework - made a horrible comment to JK Rowling for a childish giggle so that makes everything RK Rowling says right.
 
Vixen said:
So an illiterate troll - probably aged 14 and typing from his parent's basement when he should have been doing his homework - made a horrible comment to JK Rowling for a childish giggle [ . . .]
Click to expand...
Faultless research as ever there, keep it up.

JKR said:
Yes, but now hundreds of trans activists have threatened to beat, rape, assassinate and bomb me I’ve realised that this movement poses no risk to women whatsoever.
https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1417067152956399619?lang=en
Click to expand...

She's just making it up and over dramatising no doubt. No misogyny to see there, move on, you're right again! So tenuous . . .
 
Vixen said:
I can go into my workplace and tell my transgender work colleagues - if I had any - they must not enter my space, demote them, deny them promotion, hound them out of their job, and you know what? The law is on my side!!!
Click to expand...
British law is not on your side for any of those things. You need to look at the ruling itself. There are some resources available on the relevant wiki.

Vixen said:
People spouting hatred of transgender people are a 'protected class' and can sue you under the to-be-revised Equality Act!
Click to expand...
What would be a good example of Forstater spouting hatred, in your view?

Vixen said:
Forstater . . . was arguing with medical researchers.
Click to expand...
Okay, so? Instead of appealing to authority, can you talk about what Forstater argued and why it was factually incorrect?
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
What would be a good example of Forstater spouting hatred, in your view?
Click to expand...
Just going from Vixen's posts from the last few pages of this thread, I would speculate that if Maya Forstater has threatened to rape, beat, kill or bomb some folks, that would not count as hatred, because Vixen would brush it aside as going for childish giggles.

So Forstater must have done something a lot more serious than that. I'm sure we will be given the evidence any minute.
 
Lplus said:
I'm not sure what you were saying, though it looked like one of those "tell me you're mysoginistic by refusing to agree that the word mysoginistic means much more than its dictionary definition" attempted gotchas.



Seems reasonable.
Click to expand...

No gotcha. Misogyny seems like the reasonable word for the thing, to me, and so I use it.
 
d4m10n said:
British law is not on your side for any of those things. You need to look at the ruling itself. There are some resources available on the relevant wiki.

What would be a good example of Forstater spouting hatred, in your view?

Okay, so? Instead of appealing to authority, can you talk about what Forstater argued and why it was factually incorrect?
Click to expand...

As I said before, I am sure Forstater has a strong belief in her views and she has a right to hold them. If you want to see her arguments against the BMJ article you can look it up on wiki.

What is insidious is that with crowd-funding and the help of JK Rowling, she was able to set a legal precedent of anti-transgender rights advocacy as being a 'protected class' under the Equality Act, together with Women, Ethnic Minorities, Sexual Orientation and Religious Belief.

It is one thing to be protected as, say, a Vegetarian, or a Muslim, but quite another IMV because you hold some political belief, and as Judge Tayler ruled, she was not a 'protected class' as per the Equality Act because her aim was to oppress another class of oppressed persons.

It is the act of making hate speech of the anti-transexual protected in law which is concerning, and in fact par for the course of a government aiming for facist totalitarianism, wherein former Human Rights are torn up and hatred is free for all under the guise of 'free speech'. Think back to kristallnacht when it became legal to smash up shops belonging to Jews.
 
Francesca R said:
Faultless research as ever there, keep it up.



She's just making it up and over dramatising no doubt. No misogyny to see there, move on, you're right again! So tenuous . . .
Click to expand...

I am crying and sobbing.

<fx peers through fingers to see if there is any effect>

Can you not see that emotional blackmail is one of the most annoying forms of logical fallacy? 'You made me cry. Now you must agree with my POV.'
 
theprestige said:
It's objectively the case that the accommodations being advocated for transsexual men, especially those premised on fiat self-id, must necessarily come at the expense of women.
Click to expand...

So anything that 'necessarily comes at the expense of women' is misogyny? Is that what you are saying? Misogyny is a word that we should back away from in horror, yet we are not told what you mean by it? So all you have to do is hold up the word 'MISOGYNIST' like you would a crucifix and garlic, and we are all supposed to recoil in great fright before slinking away and shrivelling back into the ground before sunset, like Dracula?
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Can you not see that emotional blackmail is one of the most annoying forms of logical fallacy?
Click to expand...
Not quite following this I'm afraid (I am slow sometimes).

I think you may be saying that JK Rowling is manipulating us with emotional blackmail because she is objecting to a couple of kids enjoying a childish giggle.

Is that your summary of 1) her twitter message I put in above, to 2) the myriad threats of violence, rape and murder she gets?

I am glad we have you to clarify who the bad people are.
 
Francesca R said:
Not quite following this I'm afraid (I am slow sometimes).

I think you may be saying that JK Rowling is manipulating us with emotional blackmail because she is objecting to a couple of kids enjoying a childish giggle.

Is that your summary of 1) her twitter message I put in above, to 2) the myriad threats of violence, rape and murder she gets?

I am glad we have you to clarify who the bad people are.
Click to expand...

I really cannot stand people like JK Rowling. Devious, manipulative and exploitative. Then acts the wounded innocent, when she is the agent provocateur of the brouhaha she herself whipped up in the first place.
 
Oops, you forgot to answer. Can you?

Again I am a bit slow here but:
Vixen said:
[JK Rowling] is the agent provocateur of the brouhaha she herself whipped up in the first place.
Click to expand...
This is you saying that Rowling is asking for / deserves the violence, rape and death threats she receives. She is the bad guy. Not the violence / rape / murder threateners, who are kids having a childish giggle.

Right?
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Can you not see that emotional blackmail is one of the most annoying forms of logical fallacy? 'You made me cry. Now you must agree with my POV.'
Click to expand...

I agree, appeals to emotion and emotional blackmail are fallacies.

Small problem: basically the entire trans activist platform is built on emotional blackmail, often with explicit threats of suicide. You can't deny chemical castration to children, they'll kill themselves!

And while you have perhaps avoided the blackmail part of it yourself, you're hardly innocent of having used appeal to emotion fallacies.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom