Cont: Transwomen are not women - part XI

Status
Not open for further replies.
Matthew Best said:
Yes, the last thing you want is hate-fuelled rhetoric.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Look what such rhetoric resulted in on January 6, 2021 - five dead, hundreds injured. I am happy so see people such as Posie Parker, Lauren Southern and Stefan Molyneux deplatformed in this country. Their speech has no place here and only causes strife and unrest. The deaths and maiming we all saw in Washington 6/1 is too high a price to pay for allowing it.
 
smartcooky said:
Indeed. Look what such rhetoric resulted in on January 6, 2021 - five dead, hundreds injured. I am happy so see people such as Posie Parker, Lauren Southern and Stefan Molyneux deplatformed in this country. Their speech has no place here and only causes strife and unrest. The deaths and maiming we all saw in Washington 6/1 is too high a price to pay for allowing it.
Click to expand...
In this instance after redacting the real or imagined aura around this woman, what she says aligns closely with what I see as the concensus on this thread. That concensus would repeal the gender laws here and start again.
 
Upchurch said:
I mean, I just looked at her twitter feed since yesterday and she re-tweeted this:



Which is followed by several tweets/re-tweets about and in support of Kellie-Jay Keen, who distinctly anti-trans, not merely anti-anti-woman, as Rowling claims to be.

As I said initially, The Witch Hunts of J. K. Rowling is a rather transparent propaganda piece, not unlike Musk's Twitter Files.
Click to expand...

That’s it? A re-tweet about words on a flag?

You do realise that Rowling received death threats, don’t you? She must surely have said or done something far more egregious than this. Give me examples.
 
lionking said:
That’s it? A re-tweet about words on a flag?
Click to expand...
Heck, that wasn’t even the only thing I pointed to in that post.

lionking said:
You do realise that Rowling received death threats, don’t you? She must surely have said or done something far more egregious than this. Give me examples.
Click to expand...

I didn’t realize every single anti-trans thing she tweeted needed to meet with your approval before it counted as anti-trans enough, especially if you get to cherry-pick like that.

Of course, that wasn’t what you asked. You asked what she has said that was transphobic in my view. I gave you 2-3 examples from the last 24ish hours (probably more than that now) without even looking hard. It clearly wasn’t even intended to be exhaustive. Now, you’re cherry-picking and moving the goal posts.
 
Upchurch said:
Heck, that wasn’t even the only thing I pointed to in that post.



I didn’t realize every single anti-trans thing she tweeted needed to meet with your approval before it counted as anti-trans enough, especially if you get to cherry-pick like that.

Of course, that wasn’t what you asked. You asked what she has said that was transphobic in my view. I gave you 2-3 examples from the last 24ish hours (probably more than that now) without even looking hard. It clearly wasn’t even intended to be exhaustive. Now, you’re cherry-picking and moving the goal posts.
Click to expand...

Rowling has been criticised most vehemently (with copious threats) for saying biological sex is real. She was labelled a transphobe and TERF because of this tweet. Fair or not?
 
Elaedith said:
To follow on, Jerry Coyne has just written a good blog entry on this too.

Steve Novella gets sex wrong; gets corrected twice

"Novella’s distortion of biology in the service of ideology does nobody any good, for it involves the fallacious idea that what you think is ideologically correct is what must be seen in nature. Sadly, nature does not conform to gender ideology, and sex is not a spectrum, nor even binary. It’s ineffably sad that Science-Based Medicine, a real goldmine of attacks on quackery, is now succumbing to a form of ideological quackery."
Click to expand...

The trouble is that society at large does not and never has treated sex as a binary.

The meaning of words comes from usage.

So if we can convince Ben Shapiro and his millions of followers that having a penis does not come with the obligation to dress and act in a certain way then we will have made some progress towards getting society to regard sex as binary.

It is not Novella who is confusing sex and gender. It is that human societies confuse sex with whatever Dawkins and Coyne imagine they mean by "gender".

If society actually regarded sex as a binary (or near binary) b based on genitalia or whatever then nobody would ever think of themselves as a trans man or trans woman.
 
Last edited:
lionking said:
Rowling has been criticised most vehemently (with copious threats) for saying biological sex is real. She was labelled a transphobe and TERF because of this tweet. Fair or not?
Click to expand...
Threats of violence are never fair.

If that were the whole story, of course the rest of it would not be fair either.
 
smartcooky said:
While I am not too pleased with the methodology - what would have been better is if the minister for immigration had shown some balls and barred this bigoted piece of human trash from even entering the country in the first place - IFAIC the end justifies the means.
Click to expand...

Exactly! Michael Wood asleep at the wheel.
 
Upchurch said:
Too late for me to edit. The episode is actually a little better than 70 minutes, including commercials. 20 minutes of "Golly, the pro-trans community is crazy/mean", about 15 minutes of substantive, if emotional, criticism of Rowling. The rest was an interview with a 17 year old trans' experience in transitioning, countering a lot of the anti-trans talking points, who was unable to actually criticizing Rowling herself. Instead, he blamed anti-trans advocates for taking her words out of context for their own purposes.
eta: Oh, and it turns out, in this episode anyway, the interviewer is actually capable of challenging what the interviewee says.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Nobody (including yourself) can come up with anything even mildly transphobic said or done by Rowling.
 
lionking said:
That’s it? A re-tweet about words on a flag?

You do realise that Rowling received death threats, don’t you? She must surely have said or done something far more egregious than this. Give me examples.
Click to expand...
Even I have received death threats and I'm a nobody and only had about 100 followers when I was on twitter. Death threats are common on social media and emails. My old school friend is slightly famous and used to get trolled by the likes of Tim Blair and his followers. He alway got a sinking feeling when he opened up his email in the morning. He frequently got death threats or threats of violence.

Ask any woman on twitter who has any kind of profile and expresses opinions, conservative or liberal. She will tell you that threats of death, violence or rape are common.

So death threats are an unfortunate inevitability of the modern media age.

It is only the very dishonest who pretend that the people who threaten death, violence or rape are typical of the people who disagree with them.
 
Robin said:
Even I have received death threats and I'm a nobody and only had about 100 followers when I was on twitter. Death threats are common on social media and emails. My old school friend is slightly famous and used to get trolled by the likes of Tim Blair and his followers. He alway got a sinking feeling when he opened up his email in the morning. He frequently got death threats or threats of violence.

Ask any woman on twitter who has any kind of profile and expresses opinions, conservative or liberal. She will tell you that threats of death, violence or rape are common.

So death threats are an unfortunate inevitability of the modern media age.

It is only the very dishonest who pretend that the people who threaten death, violence or rape are typical of the people who disagree with them.
Click to expand...
On reflection, I only mess with posting on ISF, and am still waiting for a good old death threat.
I guess I just don't matter enough.
 
Upchurch said:
How do you draw that conclusion? Is this just more cherry-picking?

Here is an article, for example, that assembled a timeline, with links, going back as far as 2014.
Click to expand...

You are like a scientologist who claims that everyone who disagrees with scientology is a bigot who wants to harm religious minorities, so that you can justify cancelling critics of scientology.
When asked to provide evidence that critics of scientology are bigots who want to harm people, you provide evidence that they are critics of scientology.
 
Elaedith said:
You are like a scientologist who claims that everyone who disagrees with scientology is a bigot who wants to harm religious minorities, so that you can justify cancelling critics of scientology.
When asked to provide evidence that critics of scientology are bigots who want to harm people, you provide evidence that they are critics of scientology.
Click to expand...

Well, that is a lot.

I’m pretty sure the definition of bigot does not require wanting to actually harm a group, only that they be prejudiced against them (paraphrased, not a formal definition). As far as that goes, I feel like believing that being trans-women aren’t women and should not be treated like women probably fits the bill. Spreading fear-mongering misinformation helps.
 
The thing is, no-one has ever claimed that people can change their chromosomes and it is disingenuous to imply that they are.

So we all agree that we cannot change chromosomal sex.

But people who get bullied for being sissies are not being bullied for having the wrong chromosomes. They are being bullied for not following the arbitrary sex behaviour rules.

What we really need to do is to convince society at large that either sex based behaviour rules are irrational or else sex is a concept that goes beyond chromosomes.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom