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

[Emily's Cat]

Nope, It doesn't work like that.



THIS! ponderingturtle's argument is false.

- If you are born with the necessary plumbing to produce ova, you are female regardless of if, when or how long during you life that you produce them.

- If you are born with the necessary plumbing to produce sperm, you are male regardless of if, when or how long during you life that you produce them.

- If you are born with neither, then whatever sex you were assigned at birth is what you are, unless the doctor concerned made a certifiable, genuine error.
The above applies to well over 99.9% of humans. Any of the miniscule percentage of cases that don't apply can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, if its even necessary.

Interesting side note: if a fetus does NOT develop ANY reproductive anatomy at all, that fetus is nonviable, and it dies.

It's possible for a very few humans to be born with ambiguous external anatomies, which can make it difficult to tell whether they're male or female without further examination. This only means that sometimes it's challenging to identify an individual's sex, it in no way at all suggests that sex is anything other than binary.

Also, just a reminder (not to you, smartcooky)...
PEOPLE'S GENUINE AND DELETERIOUS MEDICAL CONDITIONS ARE NOT A PAWN TO SUPPORT THE BELIEFS OF GENDER IDENTITY. THE TWO THINGS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH EACH OTHER, SO KINDLY LEAVE THESE MEDICAL CONDITIONS OUT OF YOUR BICKERING.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I'm trying to make sense out of that in relation to what I posted. Are you saying that scenario is implausible because a person couldn't be attracted to a trans person to begin with? I don't know what definition of "sex based" you're using, but I'm pretty sure people can be very attracted to other people even without seeing their genitals or doing a chromosome check on them.

In rare situations, sure. But let's be realistic. Most transgender identified people don't effectively pass. Most transgender people are fairly easily identified as their actual real sex, and there's no confusion about it.

 

[Hercules56]

Question: is there a significant difference between the fight for Gay Rights and the fight for Transgender rights?

 

[Emily's Cat]

If you can find a less delusional argument for why lesbians need to take a long, hard look at girldick, I'm here for it.

I can find a lot of non-delusional arguments... they just all happen to be misogynistic arguments that boil down to "She's only a lesbian because she hasn't tried the right dick yet".

That used to be called homophobic. Now it's "the right side of history".

 

[Emily's Cat]

Its a random example thing to say along the line of "its not you, its me".

Well, except it's not "me".

The problem isn't the lesbian who isn't willing to try some dick. The problem is the person with the dick who thinks that lesbians ought to be open to trying some dick in the first place.

 

[Elaedith]

Question: is there a significant difference between the fight for Gay Rights and the fight for Transgender rights?

Wouldn't it be quicker to ask if there are any significant similarities?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Violence against a romantic interest when a person discovers they are trans is sadly a very real thing.

I'd like to point out that it's violence against transgender identified males, by other males, who the transgender identified males tried to trick into taking some penis.

 

[Emily's Cat]

It can be depending on the motivation.

1) Dating/Mating preference is a choice
2) Some choices are made based on prejudiced or bigoted motive

I mean if the guy stops dating her because he feels trans person are not real or not equal or somehow worse that binaries, then it is based on prejudice and bigotry. There are however other possibilities too.

If there is no more info then the planet x is the only viable choice.

I'm still scratching my head that we're now in a world where if a female lesbian is categorically not into dick, they are a "bigot". If a gay male is categorically not into vag, they are a "bigot".

It's seriously "Lesbians are only lesbians until they sample MY MAGNIFICANT COCK"...

 

[Emily's Cat]

Fortunately I have no fear of being sued by Rowling, as I'm not a resident of TERF island.

In the US, ascribing someone as a bigot based on publicly available information is considered an opinion and protected 1A speech. Calling Rowling a TERF is not something that you really need worry about being sued about in the US.

FYI, Rowling has not brought suit against anyone who merely calls them names. They have brought suit against people who have engaged in actual libel.

Rowling also, in an abundance of generosity, has also not pressed charges against the huge number of people who have felt righteously justified in issuing death threats against them.

 

[lobosrul5]

FYI, Rowling has not brought suit against anyone who merely calls them names. They have brought suit against people who have engaged in actual libel.

Rowling also, in an abundance of generosity, has also not pressed charges against the huge number of people who have felt righteously justified in issuing death threats against them.

Curious: why are you using the pronoun them instead of her in this case?

 

[Emily's Cat]

https://www.themarysue.com/j-k-rowling-appears-to-sic-lawyers-on-queer-critic/

Regardless of if you agree with the assessment that Rowling's views put her into alignment with Nazis, this would be unambiguously considered an opinion in the US, and in states with SLAPP laws any frivolous defamation litigation based on this would result in Rowling paying all the legal fees associated with the defense.

Welles claimed that Rowling called transgender people "violent duplicitous rapists", something that Rowling never did.

That constitutes a libelous claim, and it is actionable. Pretty sure it would be actionable in the US as well.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Don't play dumb, do you really believe this person removed the claim because they had an honest mea culpa, or because they realized that, even if they ultimately were victorious, they could not afford an expensive defamation lawsuit?

Rowling already had a non-censorious option. She could criticize the criticism as being overheated or badly reasoned. Hell, a lot of people would agree with her.

I'm not sure that the suits are as costly in the UK as they are in the US.

 

[lobosrul5]

I'm not sure that the suits are as costly in the UK as they are in the US.

I don't think well qualified barristers (KC's) are known for being cheap.

 

[Emily's Cat]

It's often quite embarrassing to be known as the person who casually and wrongly throws around such insults.

 

[Emily's Cat]

yes, it's opinion based on disclosed facts, it's obviously non-defamatory.

This specific kind of thing has been tested, the ACLU cites three different similar examples:



https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/theres-no-such-thing-right-not-be-called-nazi

There's a difference between saying that someone's views are racist and saying they're aligned with Nazis.

Similarly, there's a difference between saying someone's views are fundamentalist religious horsecrap... and saying they're aligned with ISIS.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Essentially the pro-LGBTQ. . . community which doesn't tolerate any opinion outside their own extreme views. I think that's been the gist of this entire thread.

It's not the pro-LGBTQETC community. It's the pro-TQETC community.

 

[Emily's Cat]

"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.

It's nice to see someone else who understands the difference!

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

Such as... ? Can you provide ANY polices at all that Rowling supports, which are advocated for by actual Nazis?

 

[Matthew Best]

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.

I’m not familiar with this either - please can you supply more details? I take it there was a legal case (libel?) because Gary Lineker said some MPs were like Nazis? What was the result?

 

[lionking]

TurkeysGhost, would you mind outlining the statements or actions by JKR which justify her being referred to as a Nazi (or even a TERF for that matter). I’ll bet you can’t.