Cont: Transwomen are not women - part XI

Status
Not open for further replies.
Samson said:
Is intersex the term for someone who identifies as female but is an intact male?
Intersex is not stated in the profile.
It is from 2015, I know nothing further.
Click to expand...

Allow me:

Eliana Rubashkyn (Ukrainian: Еліана Рубашкін; Russian: Элиана Рубашкин; Hebrew: אליאנה רובשקין; born 25 June 1988) is a New Zealand pharmacist and chemist, known for being the first intersex person assigned male at birth legally recognised as a woman with a UN mechanism under the international refugee statute.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliana_Rubashkyn
Click to expand...


Also: Intersex
 
Robin said:
Allow me:




Also: Intersex
Click to expand...
Ok that clarifies. After being treated with great favour in later years, this is a massive blot. This is premeditated assault on a woman legally in a public place.

I predict a discharge without conviction because New Zealand is a lost cause.
 
Samson said:
New Zealand men have a strict right to use female bathrooms.
Click to expand...

How many unisex toilets are there in NZ?

Samson said:
It is illegal to suggest to a young person they may be gay rather than trans gender.
Click to expand...

Utter nonsense. There is no law in NZ that criminalises the suggestion.

Samson said:
Young people must be given hormones and puberty blockers if they request them.
Click to expand...

NZ is behind the times on many issues, and that's one of them. UK only had a decent look at it in the past year or so.

Samson said:
Posie Parker was trying to explain these laws to New Zealanders and most women with any sense would have listened.
Click to expand...

Oh come on.

A Pommy slapper with a name so posh she had to Chav it up by using Posie Parker explain NZ law to Kiwi chicks.

What fantasy world are you living on?

Ziggurat said:
How do you tell them apart?
Click to expand...

That's the problem, and self-identification isn't the answer.

Both sides are incapable of arriving at a compromise. People like certain posters in this thread will not admit transgenderism is real, despite thousands of years of evidence, while on the trans side, anything less than being able to self-select gender and its consequent privileges is unacceptable.

The really hysterical part about it is men are to blame at every step. Women and men should be able to share bathrooms and changing rooms. Jonathan Swift said it all 300 years ago; nudity is natural, and if predators - almost all of whom are men - didn't exist, this issue wouldn't either.
 
Ziggurat said:
I don't know what your definition of "violence" is, nor do I particularly care, but at least in the US, that meets the legal definition of assault. Your dismissal of assault as unimportant is disturbing.
Click to expand...

Given my complete disgust at American laws, the fact that the act of tipping cold soup over someone in such a way that no possible injury could occur is able to be called an assault bothers me not one iota.

I repeat, a woman threw a dildo at a Member of Parliament, hitting him in the face, and no charges were laid.

We don't see a need to waste court time with trivia, but then we don't have as many private prisons to fill as America.
 
d4m10n said:
What does the podcast get wrong, in your view?
Click to expand...

In the first 5 episodes (the 6th dropped since I last posted), there had been one, maybe two, people interviewed that took a neutral or pro-trans position. The first came toward the end of episode 4 and was summarize both sides of the issue as sympathetically and objectively as possible. The second came at the end of episode 5 and is, I presume, a lead-in to the voices that will be presented in episode 6. I haven't had a chance to listen yet. The rest of the voices provided against Rowling are recordings from past situations or a really annoying de-humanized robotic text reader reading out things posted around the internet.

What the podcast is doing (rightly or wrongly, depending on what it's purpose is) is, for the last 5 episodes, largely cherry-picking the anti-Rowling voices to be just the worst and most inflammatory examples and constructing a narrative that the pro-trans backlash is just as crazy and irrational as the satanic panic that wanted to ban Harry Potter when it was first coming out. There is a pretense presented by Rowling that she is being fair and rational because she has listened to trans-people and read trans authors and told we should trust her that she has arrived at her positions entirely rationally. But at no point has she actually been directly challenged about this by the interviewer. Nor has she been asked about some of her more questionable connections in the anti-trans activists.

Now, maybe that is changed in the 6th episode. I've only listened to the introduction, which makes it sound like these interviews happened after her interviews with Rowling. Even if it is, that is one episode after a five episode build up overflowing with sympathetic descriptions and stories.
 
The Atheist said:
Given my complete disgust at American laws, the fact that the act of tipping cold soup over someone in such a way that no possible injury could occur is able to be called an assault bothers me not one iota.

I repeat, a woman threw a dildo at a Member of Parliament, hitting him in the face, and no charges were laid.

We don't see a need to waste court time with trivia, but then we don't have as many private prisons to fill as America.
Click to expand...

It's assault under New Zealand law too. The fact that not all crimes are prosecuted doesn't make them not crimes.

https://communitylaw.org.nz/community-law-manual/chapter-34-common-crimes/assault/
 
The Atheist amendment to the Criminal Code

Ziggurat said:
It's assault under New Zealand law too. The fact that not all crimes are prosecuted doesn't make them not crimes.

https://communitylaw.org.nz/community-law-manual/chapter-34-common-crimes/assault/
Click to expand...
There are many forms of assault, but excluded is hurling cold tomato soup at any person at any time in any public place.

I like it.
I am drawing up a list of my dearest enemies.

Or does it just apply to men who wish to be women?
 
Upchurch said:
Even if it is, that is one episode after a five episode build up overflowing with sympathetic descriptions and stories.
Click to expand...
I don't think you're wrong to say that the show is generally sympathetic to Rowling, but I was under the impression that it got something wrong beyond just that. There are countless podcasts out there condemning her as a transphobe, this one attempt to examine JKR's POV sympathetically isn't going to put the media machine on tilt.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk
 
Samson said:
Ok that clarifies. After being treated with great favour in later years, this is a massive blot. This is premeditated assault on a woman legally in a public place.

I predict a discharge without conviction because New Zealand is a lost cause.
Click to expand...

We don't know that it was premeditated.

She might just have thrown her tomato juice on the spur of the moment.
 
Upchurch said:
In the first 5 episodes (the 6th dropped since I last posted), there had been one, maybe two, people interviewed that took a neutral or pro-trans position. The first came toward the end of episode 4 and was summarize both sides of the issue as sympathetically and objectively as possible. The second came at the end of episode 5 and is, I presume, a lead-in to the voices that will be presented in episode 6. I haven't had a chance to listen yet. The rest of the voices provided against Rowling are recordings from past situations or a really annoying de-humanized robotic text reader reading out things posted around the internet.

What the podcast is doing (rightly or wrongly, depending on what it's purpose is) is, for the last 5 episodes, largely cherry-picking the anti-Rowling voices to be just the worst and most inflammatory examples and constructing a narrative that the pro-trans backlash is just as crazy and irrational as the satanic panic that wanted to ban Harry Potter when it was first coming out. There is a pretense presented by Rowling that she is being fair and rational because she has listened to trans-people and read trans authors and told we should trust her that she has arrived at her positions entirely rationally. But at no point has she actually been directly challenged about this by the interviewer. Nor has she been asked about some of her more questionable connections in the anti-trans activists.

Now, maybe that is changed in the 6th episode. I've only listened to the introduction, which makes it sound like these interviews happened after her interviews with Rowling. Even if it is, that is one episode after a five episode build up overflowing with sympathetic descriptions and stories.
Click to expand...

What has Rowing said or done that is transphobic in your view?
 
Robin said:
We don't know that it was premeditated.

She might just have thrown her tomato juice on the spur of the moment.
Click to expand...
It was tomato sauce and premeditated.

Below is her tweet using the classic 4 letter word for Posie.


Wellington the queerest loveliest city ever, thanks for your support for trans people, even after that **** abandoned Aotearoa (wearing a red dress just in case🥹), despite her cancelation you still gathered in masses today, I am so proud of this country💜💛 slaaaaaaay 💅🏳️*⚧️🍅🍅🍅
 
Watching the Pose Parker and other protests has made me realise, of course trans women are often aggressive in their approach, as they cannot lose all the attributes of men by being trans.
 
Samson said:
It was tomato sauce and premeditated.
Click to expand...
What are you going on for that?

I was using a story that quoted her saying it was tomato juice. However it seems I was wrong and that it was premeditated.
 
Last edited:
The Atheist said:
:dl:

"Psycho thug"

Jesus, I'd love to know what you call real violent criminals.
Click to expand...
Assaulting Posie and repeatedly saying how much she is hated by his friends persuades me to call him a psycho thug.
I don't believe a single poster on this thread is trans phobic, but I presume a normal detestation of pre meditated common assault on a woman.

And remember NZ law makes one exception for a claim to be in a women's prison, trans claimant is violent to women.
 
Last edited:
Was the woman he threw.the dildo at the politician. A psycho thug too?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom