• 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: Transwomen are not women part XII (also merged)

Status
Not open for further replies.
TurkeysGhost said:
At least 2, which strikes me as a lot. Any number of threats to sue is a lot, it's a very strange thing to do.
Click to expand...

Can you offer up another avenue one could take when false claims against you are published?
 
qayak said:
Can you offer up another avenue one could take when false claims against you are published?
Click to expand...

When it's an opinion? No. Why should anyone have the power to compel another to suppress an opinion?
 
Last edited:
Elaedith said:
It's what people do when they have no argument (as well as trying to make people too frightened to say what they think through fear of punitive consequences).
Click to expand...

It's the chilling effect of threatened harassment, censure, and ostracism. It's the chilling effect of reputational assassination.

And it seems to get used far more against females than against males.
 
TurkeysGhost said:
When it's an opinion? No. Why should anyone have the power to compel another to suppress an opinion?
Click to expand...

Not sure you grasp how this works. You, or the opinion expresser, aren't the end all, and be all on whether something is an opinion or defamation. When there is a disagreement the courts decide.

Which brings us back to your earlier statement. The opinion expressed was either an opinion, or meant to defame. A lawsuit is only a threat in the case of defamation. If calling Rowling a Nazi is merely an opinion then there is no threat. So what are you on about
 
TurkeysGhost said:
yes, it's opinion based on disclosed facts, it's obviously non-defamatory.
Click to expand...
The fact/opinion distinction is for the court to decide, but I'm not buying your argument here.

"Rowling is a disgusting fascist" is a statement of opinion, since it cannot be shown to be true or false. It is too vague and is basically a hyperbolic expression of personal disgust.

"Rowling is Nazi-aligned" sounds much more like a statement of fact, since we could prove it by showing that she substantively supports (for example) National Action UK by sending them money and promoting their ideas.

The general rule is that if the statement suggests underlying facts which could be proven, then it is not a matter of pure opinion.

All that said, maybe you are correct. Maybe public figures should just take it on the chin when people falsely accuse them of promoting Nazism. I'm a bit past caring, since you've failed to show that Rowling has gone on some sort of spree of siccing solicitors on those who do such things.

A more interesting question for a thread like this one is why her critics have become so unhinged that they compare the idea of preserving hard-fought sex-based rights (e.g. spaces and leagues reserved just for natal females) with a particularly murderous form of totalitarian fascism.
 
qayak said:
Not sure you grasp how this works. You, or the opinion expresser, aren't the end all, and be all on whether something is an opinion or defamation. When there is a disagreement the courts decide.

Which brings us back to your earlier statement. The opinion expressed was either an opinion, or meant to defame. A lawsuit is only a threat in the case of defamation. If calling Rowling a Nazi is merely an opinion then there is no threat. So what are you on about
Click to expand...

Thats not how defamation works in the US. An opinion cannot be defamation.

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclop... False Statement,they like about other people.

ETA: and given JKR's status as a public figure things would get even tougher for her:

The public has a right to criticize the people who govern and influence them, so public figures have less protection from defamation than private individuals. Public figures must show that they were defamed with actual malice. In other words, they must show that the person who defamed them made the false statement knowing it was false, or with reckless disregard for the truth. Public figures include politicians, movie stars, professional athletes, and celebrities.

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclop...ic Figures Have More to Prove,-The public has

Saying JKR shouldn't be left alone with children: Opinion, absolutely no basis for a case.
Saying JKR wants to molest children: not possible to prove its a false statement.
Saying JKR molests children... basis for a case is still weak. She'd need to prove that the the person KNOWS this is false.
Saying JKR molested an actual child on a certain date, and I have video proof: that would probably be defamation.

We have such strong protections against defamation suits in the US that I saw some legal scholars arguing that there was a good chance that Dominion would lose against Fox News.
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
The fact/opinion distinction is for the court to decide, but I'm not buying your argument here.

"Rowling is a disgusting fascist" is a statement of opinion, since it cannot be shown to be true or false. It is too vague and is basically a hyperbolic expression of personal disgust.

"Rowling is Nazi-aligned" sounds much more like a statement of fact, since we could prove it by showing that she substantively supports (for example) National Action UK by sending them money and promoting their ideas.

The general rule is that if the statement suggests underlying facts which could be proven, then it is not a matter of pure opinion.

All that said, maybe you are correct. Maybe public figures should just take it on the chin when people falsely accuse them of promoting Nazism. I'm a bit past caring, since you've failed to show that Rowling has gone on some sort of spree of siccing solicitors on those who do such things.

A more interesting question for a thread like this one is why her critics have become so unhinged that they compare the idea of preserving hard-fought sex-based rights (e.g. spaces and leagues reserved just for natal females) with a particularly murderous form of totalitarian fascism.
Click to expand...

"Nazi" as a term has become "ipso-facto" in the USA a synonym for "fascist". Rightly or wrongly it has.

Just like someone on the left calling someone on the right a Nazi is protected speech so is calling a Democrat a socialist, or a communist. I've heard right wing pundits use both, the latter mostly when referencing Obama. Also, that he was a Muslim.

ETA: just for the sake of clarity I don't believe JKR is a Nazi, given either meaning of the term (literal or figurative). But I think we should have the legal freedom to call people whatever we want.
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
The fact/opinion distinction is for the court to decide, but I'm not buying your argument here.

"Rowling is a disgusting fascist" is a statement of opinion, since it cannot be shown to be true or false. It is too vague and is basically a hyperbolic expression of personal disgust.

"Rowling is Nazi-aligned" sounds much more like a statement of fact, since we could prove it by showing that she substantively supports (for example) National Action UK by sending them money and promoting their ideas.

The general rule is that if the statement suggests underlying facts which could be proven, then it is not a matter of pure opinion.

All that said, maybe you are correct. Maybe public figures should just take it on the chin when people falsely accuse them of promoting Nazism. I'm a bit past caring, since you've failed to show that Rowling has gone on some sort of spree of siccing solicitors on those who do such things.

A more interesting question for a thread like this one is why her critics have become so unhinged that they compare the idea of preserving hard-fought sex-based rights (e.g. spaces and leagues reserved just for natal females) with a particularly murderous form of totalitarian fascism.
Click to expand...

Nazi aligned could also mean that Rowling supports some policies that are in alignment with what Nazis advocate, which seems the most obvious interpretation given the context of the criticism made against TERFs generally and Rowling specifically.

TurkeysGhost said:
I trust you're getting around to holding up your end of this exchange any time now.
Click to expand...

Any minute now, I'm sure.
 
TurkeysGhost said:
No, the daily mail would make 3. I honestly don't know much about that one and have no opinion about it.
Click to expand...


Ok, so 2 it is (plus one you don’t care about).

I wonder how many times MRAs have lied about Rowling? Probably a bit more than two times - likely millions. Seems like there’s more or less 100% chance of them getting away with it. I think you can stop clenching your buttocks.
 
lobosrul5 said:
"Nazi" as a term has become "ipso-facto" in the USA a synonym for "fascist". Rightly or wrongly it has.
Click to expand...
I don't believe JKR has tried suing anyone for defamation in the USA. A more relevant precedent would be the Labour MP who was accused of doing some Nazism.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk
 
TurkeysGhost said:
In the case of these dating apps, it's even less of an issue. Generally the way these things work is that users can't talk to one another unless both have already signaled interest in eachother's profile. If this Giggle app works anything like Tinder or the other mainstream apps, the solution for lesbians who don't want to date transwomen is to never swipe right on trans women, and the trans women will never even know that the rejection even occurred.

The fact that this sorting is happening behind the scenes may well be the objection. I imagine there's more than a few TERFs miffed by missing an opportunity to openly reject trans women with an insult.
Click to expand...

Giggle is not explicitly a dating app. It's a female-only social app. It allows for a male-free virtual space where females can interact with one another in a variety of ways. The potential for romance is only ONE of the ways the app gets used be females.

At the end of the day, it's not a "lesbian" app, nor is it a "women only" app. It's very explicitly a FEMALE only app.

On the other hand, the app "HER" was designed to be a lesbian dating app. That's how it started. Females who are same-sex attracted have reported a significant challenge in finding other females on the app, as there is a large number of transgender identified males on the site who are seeking relationships with females. This is generally something that many females who are same sex attracted are not interested in. There's been some... mmm... interesting discussion about how HER has evolved. It now markets itself as a "queer" dating app. Many females who are same sex attracted no longer use the app as a result.
 
ponderingturtle said:
If we focused on gamete type then after menopause they are no longer female, and no one who is infertile has a sex. That simple definition always seems to be rejected despite the biological clear basis.
Click to expand...

Sex is DEFINED based on the type of reproductive anatomy the individual has or had, and whether that's the anatomy that evolved to produce large gametes, or the anatomy that evolved to produce small gametes.

The definition does not require that the individual actually produce any gametes at all. It doesn't even require that the individual has every single piece of that anatomy at all times. The definition applies just as well to a fetus as it does to a 90 year old female who has had a complete hysterectomy.

Under this definition, a gelding is just as much of a male as a stallion - it is just an infertile male. A spayed female cat is just as much of a female as an unaltered queen. They functional fertility of the individual is not relevant, it is based around which evolutionary pathway the individual's development has taken.

Among anisogmously reproductive species, there are only two pathways, as there are only two gametes. This definition holds true for all mammals, all birds, the overwhelming majority of vertebrates, and even for a large chunk of plants. That's why the definition was adopted - it's species agnostic. It depends only on the evolutionary method of reproduction that a specific species has evolved. Isogamously reproductive species have a different definition of sex, I think they mostly get referred to as "female" but realistically they're sexless. Other species, like many bacteria, aren't sexually reproductive at all, they reproduce by division. Viruses aren't sexually reproductive, they essentially manufacture other viruses.

To rehash: Sex is not dependent on whether an individual actually produces viable gametes; it is defined based on whether they have the reproductive anatomy that has evolved in that species to produce large gametes, or whether they have the one that evolved to produce small gametes.
 
arthwollipot said:
Okay, I'm catching up on this thread, and I wanted to start by saying - again - this:

The correct terms are "trans man" and "trans woman", not "transman" and "transwoman".

"Trans" and "transgender" are adjectives. They modify the nouns. Transgender people are men and women that are transgender, not some weird separate thing by themselves. It would make as much linguistic sense to refer to a "blackman" or a "tallwoman".

The language we use matters.
Click to expand...


FYI, Trans is not an adjective, it's a prefix.

Transgender people WANT others to pretend that it's an adjective, to reinforce their narrative that transwomen are just another "type of woman", by which they mean, a female with different characteristics. But in reality, transwomen are NOT female in any way at all.
 
d4m10n said:
I don't believe JKR has tried suing anyone for defamation in the USA. A more relevant precedent would be the Labour MP who was accused of doing some Nazism.

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

Now that I read into this a bit, it seems this person is Canadian. I know zilch about Canadian defamation/libel law or their usage of Nazi/Fascist. Interestingly, and now that I think about it. I've heard the term fascist rather than Nazi much more in UK media than in American. In fact its REALLY rare in the US to hear someone being called a fascist. Nazi is far more common. I'm not sure about Canada.

I briefly read the Sun/Labour MP case. He wasn't accused of doing some Nazism, he was accused of liking Nazi Paraphernalia. That case seemed to revolve around a doctored image and leaving out a "#blacksabbath" hashtag.

Oh, and the Gary Lineker case perhaps is relevant? Though I think he was actually comparing an MP (or MP's ?) to the literal actions of literal German WW2 era Nazi's.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom