Cont: Transwomen are not women - part XI

Status
Not open for further replies.
d4m10n said:
Nothing says "pride" quite like drubbing a woman 2-3x your age while an antifa flag waves proudly in the background.

[emoji304]

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

So it was an antifa person who did it?
 
As Hannah Barnes says at the end of the book "snyone who speaks up (about young people facing gender non-comformity) from any viewpoint faces attacks"

She talks about "the toxicity of public debate" about this subject.

We should not pretend that the toxicity comes from one side.
 
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...

Did you read that article?

Yes TRAs see transphobia simply everywhere, but this article is a joke. Firstly the author defines transphobia to mean anything they dislike, poisoning the well completely.

Then her support of Maya Forstater. I suggest you read about this. Forstater won her law suit over unfair dismissal, which is ignored by the author.

On a roll, the author criticises Rowling’s distaste for the term “people who menstruate” rather than women. Really? Transphobia? Far from it.

Then the author moves on the book Troubled Blood, where one of the characters is a man who dresses like a woman and commits a crime, not a transwoman. You can read the book or watch the TV series to confirm this.

The rest are a few tweet likes, some of which were withdrawn.

This is it? This is evidence of unforgivable transphobia?

And to address a post by Robin, the fact that he may have been threatened by violence is not in the same ballpark as a celebrity whose movements (to book launches etc) are publicised and where unhinged people are enraged by inaccurate and sometimes completely wrong reports like those linked by Upchurch.

I have no idea why some people in this thread have been completely taken in by “Rowling is a transphobe/TERF” ********.
 
Last edited:
Robin said:
I'm just alluding to the reference to the antifa flag in the background.
Click to expand...
We can only make weak inferences from the banner these folks had gathered under in order to oppose free speech.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk
 
lionking said:
Firstly the author defines transphobia to mean anything they dislike, poisoning the well completely.
Click to expand...
…you’re referring to the Merriam-Webster definition linked and referenced, which is not remotely what you just described?

lionking said:
Then her support of Maya Forstater. I suggest you read about this. Forstater won her law suit over unfair dismissal, which is ignored by the author.
Click to expand...
I was not aware bigotry had to be illegal to be bigotry. This changes everything. Jim Crow was so unfairly maligned

lionking said:
On a roll, the author criticises Rowling’s distaste for the term “people who menstruate” rather than women. Really? Transphobia? Far from it.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it is. It goes to the very heart of denying the existence of transgenderism. Some trans men can menstruate. Some gender-fluid people can menstruate. I mean, are you sure you read the article?
.

lionking said:
I have no idea why some people in this thread have been completely taken in by “Rowling is a transphobe/TERF” ********.
Click to expand...
I’m sure you don’t.
 
OK, for a start, as we saw from the retweet, JK Rowling wants to break up the alliance between the lesbian, gay an bisexual community. The alliance between gay man, lesbians and tran gender communities goes back at least 40.years to my knowledge. That is about 30 years before bisexuals were welcomed into the fold.

So what is the purpose of someone trying to break it up and who retweets someone saying this in a very malicious way? That's friendly?

And now I see she wants to re-weaponise the word "queer" as an insult. Even though some of us have thought of ourselves as queer for forty years and it has been used freely in LGBTQIA.circles for about as long. Why the concern now?
 
Not particularly addressed to you, but the recent back and forth brings to mind a few things.


Upchurch said:
…you’re referring to the Merriam-Webster definition linked and referenced, which is not remotely what you just described?
Click to expand...
What qualifies as transphobia or bigotry? What I mean is, if someone supports trans-rights, but believes that something like sports leagues are segregated by sex, not gender, are they transphobic or bigots?

Can someone disagree with any plank of a trans-rights platform someone has put forth without being transphobic or a bigot? Bear in mind, that I don't believe the trans community to be monolithic. I've read trans people who agree with at least some of the things that the gender critical side says.

I was not aware bigotry had to be illegal to be bigotry. This changes everything. Jim Crow was so unfairly maligned


Yeah, it is. It goes to the very heart of denying the existence of transgenderism. Some trans men can menstruate. Some gender-fluid people can menstruate. I mean, are you sure you read the article?
.
Click to expand...
What you are suggesting here is that every broadly generalized term must be pin-point accurate. We can no longer say that breast cancer primarily affects women. Women's health can no longer be an area of focus.

This is not adding people to the term women, but rather denying the use of the term to the portion of the population the term has historically applied to.

Breast cancer has always been termed a woman's disease, yet men (biological males) can get it. It has never been necessary that generalized terms be 100 percent accurate as to the population it is trying to describe.

Is abortion no longer a plank of "women's rights" because some men can get abortions (and some women can't)?

Objecting to a demographic being referred to by a bodily function (one culturally seen as unpleasant at that) is not the same as being against trans people.
 
katy_did said:
It's an interesting division into sports that matter and sports that don't, isn't it. Never mind that those "minor" sports are no doubt very important to the women taking part in them. They have to take second place to the transwomen who must at all costs be affirmed, fairness and competitiveness be damned.
Click to expand...


So would I be correct to think that your preferred "solution" is to ban trans women and trans girls from all competitive sport at every level (from primary school sports days upwards)?


I did see yesterday that, following the announcement from World Athletics, the English Schools Athletic Association restated its policy that their girls events are reserved for biological females. I hope that with more and more sports bodies making the decision to exclude transwomen from women's sports at the top level, this will increasingly become the norm at the lower levels too.
Click to expand...


It won't. Thankfully.

(Except, of course, where there are obvious matters related to physical injury in contact sports, eg contact forms of rugby)
 
katy_did said:
Ah ok, thanks! I guess her crime then is one of "promoting" lesbianism!
Click to expand...


No. Her crime is one of promoting animus and hate towards transgender people (in particular, it appears, trans women).

There's a huge difference between a) having valid concerns about certain aspects of transgender rights when they come into conflict with cis women's rights, and b) fundamentally denying the reality & validity of transgender identity, promoting discrimination, hatred, vilification (eg effectively equating trans women with sexual deviancy at best, and rape/paedophilia at worst) of transgender people, and displaying reactionary bigotry that aligns neatly with extremist right-wing and religious organisations.

See... people such as Keen-Minshull like to pretend that they are strictly in the (a) category. But they're not. Their words and deeds make it crystal clear that they're firmly in the (b) category.

The cartoon in the NZ Herald (the biggest national newspaper in New Zealand, and one which has a progressive slant) got it spot on. In fact, I've previously used the exact same reference to a Trojan Horse with regard to bigots such as Keen-Minshull - perhaps the Herald's cartoonist reads ISF occasionally......
 
Samson said:
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.
Click to expand...

It's not whether you matter or not. As I daid I'm nobody and only had about a hundred followers but I got at least two death threats.

Anyone who has any sort of profile and posts an opinion on social media will get death threats. It's one of the bad things about social media

But to use these and pretend they typify anyone who disagrees with you is dishonest.
 
TomB said:
What qualifies as transphobia or bigotry? What I mean is, if someone supports trans-rights, but believes that something like sports leagues are segregated by sex, not gender, are they transphobic or bigots?
Click to expand...
I think there are plenty of conversations to have and I’m not claiming to have many answers at all. What Rowling is doing is denying that trans gender is a real thing.

TomB said:
What you are suggesting here is that every broadly generalized term must be pin-point accurate. We can no longer say that breast cancer primarily affects women. Women's health can no longer be an area of focus.
Click to expand...
What’s wrong with uterine health being a focus? Or prostate health?

FWIW, I’m currently dealing with a medical issue that every resource describes as typically occurring in women of childbearing years. Does that mean I have a women’s health issue or am I having an ocular neurology issue?

TomB said:
This is not adding people to the term women, but rather denying the use of the term to the portion of the population the term has historically applied to.
Click to expand...
Words change and evolve all the time. What’s wrong with greater accuracy?

TomB said:
Is abortion no longer a plank of "women's rights" because some men can get abortions (and some women can't)?
Click to expand...
It’s already being recategorized as basic healthcare.

TomB said:
Objecting to a demographic being referred to by a bodily function (one culturally seen as unpleasant at that) is not the same as being against trans people.
Click to expand...
Maybe not, but denying that transgender people who are not women also menstrate kinda is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom