Hello and thank you for being a DL contributor. We are changing the login scheme for contributors for simpler login and to better support using multiple devices. Please click here to update your account with a username and password.

Hello. Some features on this site require registration. Please click here to register for free.

Hello and thank you for registering. Please complete the process by verifying your email address. If you can't find the email you can resend it here.

Hello. Some features on this site require a subscription. Please click here to get full access and no ads for $1.99 or less per month.

SJW apologizes to J.K. Rowling after libel lawsuit threat

Now she's using her billions against these helpless activists!

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 454October 12, 2021 1:28 AM

Get em!

by Anonymousreply 1September 10, 2021 1:58 AM

Grovel before JK Rowling, bitch!

I am team Rowling all the way.

by Anonymousreply 2September 10, 2021 1:59 AM

"Homina, homina, homina"

by Anonymousreply 3September 10, 2021 2:05 AM

You can tell he's a Brit because he spells "apologize" the wrong, un-American way.

by Anonymousreply 4September 10, 2021 6:21 AM

I disagree with her anti Trans stance, but anyone, including her, has the right to defend himself from slander.

by Anonymousreply 5September 10, 2021 6:54 AM

Any sane government would ban twitter. Everyone involved in this story is pathetic.

by Anonymousreply 6September 10, 2021 7:10 AM

R5 remember folks, her "anti trans stance" is just that certain sex segregated areas in society, like women's/female prisons, serve a function and should exist--that's it. But everyone lies nonstop about trans issues, so don't trust anyone and read what she said for yourself.

by Anonymousreply 7September 10, 2021 7:25 AM

According to R5, women exist = anti-trans stance

But, of course, the use of 'himself' shows me he's a sexist piece of crap anyway, so it's not surprising.

by Anonymousreply 8September 10, 2021 7:43 AM

Exactly, R7. Which I would venture to guess 95% of the population agrees with. These are maladjusted immature adult children who can’t handle that the person who created their childhood memories doesn’t share their absolutely insane point of view and believe she should be destroyed over it.

It’s not working. She won’t ever be cancelled and Harry Potter is a global blockbuster franchise that countless families will enjoy and not feel a moment of guilt over.

I’ve never had any interest in Potter but I’m a fan of Rowling now.

by Anonymousreply 9September 10, 2021 7:45 AM

I remember when this garbage about Rowling's "transphobia" blew up one very earnest, very woke guy agonizing on twitter about how to tell his little kids, who love Harry Potter, that evil people (Rowling) can sometimes make things you might enjoy. Her now toxic books had to removed from the house. Attention sought, virtue signalled. One person told him to get a grip, it's Harry Potter, not Mein Kamp.

Anyway, crush them JKR!

by Anonymousreply 10September 10, 2021 8:29 AM

JK Rowling is NOT anti-trans. She is simply speaking a lot of common sense and making important points about the marginalisation of women’s rights, which need to be made. The way she’s been treated by the radical trans brigade will ultimately harm them far more than her.

by Anonymousreply 11September 10, 2021 8:51 AM

Fuck you, R4.

The fucking cheek..

by Anonymousreply 12September 10, 2021 8:51 AM

JK spends a lot of time whining about being criticized so she doesn't have to address her ignorant views. She's a big crybaby and so is every one of her defenders.

by Anonymousreply 13September 10, 2021 8:54 AM

R13 please don’t accuse other people of being ignorant when you, yourself, are ignorant of basic grammar.

by Anonymousreply 14September 10, 2021 9:04 AM

R5, JK has stated over and over and over that she is NOT anti trans. She's very pro trans. But she's also sensitive to the unique needs of bio women. One can be both pro trans and pro bio woman, as long one understands that there will be times when the two pro-isms might mean having to make an unfortunate choice between two things. Not an ideological, but a practical choice.

It's so frustrating that otherwise intelligent liberals can't seem to grasp this distinction.

by Anonymousreply 15September 10, 2021 9:04 AM

There are so many people who base their entire existence on how many likes and retweets they get, and JK Rowling is an easy target.

What she's shown is that if you lie and make deliberately dishonest statements about her, she will take action.

The hysteria from the they/thems trying to push a narrative that a "billionaire targeted a queer "also removes one fact. A woman stood up to man.

by Anonymousreply 16September 10, 2021 9:50 AM

Fuck off back to twitter freak R5

by Anonymousreply 17September 10, 2021 10:04 AM

It's right that he apologised because he knew what he was doing.

That said, I always find these apologies to be completely pointless because they're obviously crafted by a lawyer and posted on the account owner's behalf. They don't believe it, they just don't want to get sued or lose anymore money.

I mostly keep off Twitter these days because it's a cesspit mostly populated by people on the extreme end of both sides.

by Anonymousreply 18September 10, 2021 10:10 AM

They quoted her word-for-word. There wasn't any reason Rowling couldn't have clarified what she meant and moved on, because she's got a huge social media platform that dwarfs the platform of the person who quoted her out of context.

Instead, she sued someone for quoting her, i.e. used her money and power to silence someone who said something she didn't like.

Every person here who shrieks non-stop about their "freedom of speech" being infringed upon if Datalounge deletes a thread is cheering her on, of course, because it's not about the freedom of speech at all.

by Anonymousreply 19September 10, 2021 10:11 AM

R19 Oh come on, that's completely disingenuous. He deliberately took something she said completely out of context and made her look terrible.

by Anonymousreply 20September 10, 2021 10:14 AM

For the "the anti-trans trolls have nothing to do with the Meghan Markle trolls or the right wing trolls" crowd, a selection of the posts this OP has started:

[quote]Harry & Meghan "will become bit players" like Wallis & Edward

[quote]Brits are calling for Biden's impeachment

[quote]The Whitest Man Wo Ever Lived

[quote]AOC searches for herself on twitter

[quote]Meghan's BFF has plates with Queen's portrait and "Hail Satan" written on them

Another reminder to all that the anti-trans trolls are also the race-bait trolls, the right wing trolls, and the Meghan Markle trolls.

by Anonymousreply 21September 10, 2021 10:15 AM

[quote]They quoted her word-for-word. There wasn't any reason Rowling couldn't have clarified what she meant and moved on, because she's got a huge social media platform that dwarfs the platform of the person who quoted her out of context.

She was clearly talking about the abuse directed at her on Twitter and went on to clarify that every account who had posted porn into a thread sharing kids drawings for her new book were reported and blocked by her.

The defence used by the anti JK Rowling trolls is straight out of the Trump playbook.

Imagine someone saying this in an interview

[quote]I've had abuse directed at me because people think I'm gay - I've had people come up to my face and scream I FUCKING HATE QUEERS

The imagine the headline

CELEBRITY: "I FUCKING HATE QUEERS"

That's what they've done to JK Rowling..

by Anonymousreply 22September 10, 2021 10:19 AM

It's been shown over and over again how she retweets tweets from ANTI GAY activists. Yeah, those JK Rowling defenders are SUCH allies of the Gay Community. *eyeroll*

by Anonymousreply 23September 10, 2021 10:57 AM

Those bad Trans made Rowling go TERF. Bad Trans, BAD TRANS!

by Anonymousreply 24September 10, 2021 11:00 AM

Wait, she sued someone who quoted something out of context? Can Stephen Dorff sue social media users for quoting his Scarlet Johannsson comment dissing the Marvel franchise?

by Anonymousreply 25September 10, 2021 11:04 AM

[quote]He deliberately took something she said completely out of context and made her look terrible.

She worded what she said very poorly. She makes millions (billions?) for writing so, I mean, this is kind of on her. As I said, she could have clarified, but instead she used her millions to sue someone who was dunking on her for saying something stupid.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 26September 10, 2021 11:08 AM

R23 Receipts please?

by Anonymousreply 27September 10, 2021 11:12 AM

Good for her - the trans and supporters misread everything she wrote and turned it into a holy war because someone famous had the balls to question the trans movement.

Hope she continues. And more of this type of slander and lies needs to be fought against.

by Anonymousreply 28September 10, 2021 11:19 AM

I shit on anti-trans retards on the regular but I wish she sued all the unstables on twitter, maybe I'm wrong but I dont ever remember her saying transphobic shit, just underage mongs twisting her words.

by Anonymousreply 29September 10, 2021 11:19 AM

I like that, ‘mong’ - do you know I do?

by Anonymousreply 30September 10, 2021 11:21 AM

Rowling said women menstruate and Twitter went mad. One must not use the W word.

by Anonymousreply 31September 10, 2021 11:26 AM

Gotcha now, Tina Fey & SNL.

by Anonymousreply 32September 10, 2021 11:35 AM

[quote] [R23] Receipts please?

Right on.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 33September 10, 2021 11:37 AM

The courts decided in her favor. There's evidence of libel in that alone.

by Anonymousreply 34September 10, 2021 11:38 AM

She could have taken the easy way out. She could have stayed quiet and enjoyed her billions and her status as a liberal icon.

Instead she spoke out when it wasn’t easy. Stood up for those women without a voice. That is what a hero does.

by Anonymousreply 35September 10, 2021 11:39 AM

[quote] JK Rowling is NOT anti-trans.

Sure, sure.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 36September 10, 2021 11:39 AM

GLAAD has a good list about how LGBT friendly J.K. is these days.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 37September 10, 2021 11:42 AM

R37 there is no longer anything “Gay” or “Lesbian” in GLAAD.

by Anonymousreply 38September 10, 2021 11:44 AM

There was no ruling, r34. This didn't go to court.

by Anonymousreply 39September 10, 2021 11:52 AM

Under threat of libel suit then, R39, and under lawyer's advice? Even better. They knew they didn't have a leg to stand on.

by Anonymousreply 40September 10, 2021 11:55 AM

It doesn't even make sense for her to have said she "ignored porn tweeted at kids" when she later made it clear she DIDN'T ignore porn, she reported it, so what was this award-winning millionaire author DOING by saying she "ignored" it if she didn't? She misspoke and she got dunked on for it and then used her millions to scare some kid into apologizing.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 41September 10, 2021 11:56 AM

[quote]Under threat of libel suit then, [R39], and under lawyer's advice? Even better. They knew they didn't have a leg to stand on.

Keep moving those goalposts, I guess, but you don't have any evidence for THIS, either. You're making it all up. Can't you tell the truth or are you clinically unable to?

by Anonymousreply 42September 10, 2021 11:57 AM

Why was the lawyerish apology issued,R42?

by Anonymousreply 43September 10, 2021 11:58 AM

r43, you said that the apology was mandated by the court after the tweeter lost a lawsuit, and also said that a lawsuit has been filed and that the tweeter knew that they would lose so they apologized.

Either back up your statements with some kind of proof or go away.

by Anonymousreply 44September 10, 2021 12:02 PM

Her thoughts are spot-on

by Anonymousreply 45September 10, 2021 12:06 PM

The people who call her "transphobic" are the same ones who freak out with the 'OMG YOU HAVE TO USE THESE EXACT WORDS AND PHRASES OR YOU ARE AGAINST US!" CANCEL THEM ALL!!!

by Anonymousreply 46September 10, 2021 12:09 PM

What the fuck. There's plenty of real reasons to be sour on J.K.

by Anonymousreply 47September 10, 2021 12:11 PM

Any view that is not my own is literal violence and should not be tolerated.

by Anonymousreply 48September 10, 2021 12:12 PM

R41 So what if she scared someone into apologizing using her money. Better than scarying someone to apologize using violence and mod style threats.

by Anonymousreply 49September 10, 2021 12:13 PM

Where do women's groups like NOW stand on all this?

by Anonymousreply 50September 10, 2021 12:13 PM

So, only the 'Select' are allowed to defend themselves from slander. Now the ?? is, Who is on the committee that decides who are the, "Select" & who are just the serfs, the lowlifes, the evil doers, devils Do you have to submit your name in writing to the committee? Are you automatically reviewed by the committee.. Or do the KGB just refer you? Or is it the Gestapo internet users?

Shame education has eliminated the study of history in its unadulterated form. All this silencing of opposition, how does it happen? Because history repeats itself. If we forget or don't even know we are doomed to repeat.

by Anonymousreply 51September 10, 2021 12:14 PM

I've been here 20 years and people like R1 who'll take the time to stalk someone across Datalounge are always, always the creepiest to me.

by Anonymousreply 52September 10, 2021 12:20 PM

Rowling and OP Boris are both pieces of shit.

by Anonymousreply 53September 10, 2021 12:23 PM

R33 You said "Anti-gay". I want receipts for that.

by Anonymousreply 54September 10, 2021 12:31 PM

She doesn't have an "anti-trans stance", r5. She simply believes that biological women have unique experiences that should not be erased.

by Anonymousreply 55September 10, 2021 12:38 PM

She doesn't have a problem with trans people, she has a problem with autogynephiles and other assorted fetishists who use the kindness granted to actual trans people to predate on woman.

by Anonymousreply 56September 10, 2021 12:38 PM

JK isn't transphobic and has made that abundantly clear. She just thinks biological women should be allowed their rights, and who really would disagree with that?

I think the issue is that a lot of transphobic people have allied themselves with her, so the nuttier side of Twitter is pretending she agrees with everything they say.

by Anonymousreply 57September 10, 2021 2:19 PM

R37 if GLAAD is publishing who to hate lists based on tangential relationships and likes or retweets on Twitter than I'm not giving any money to GLAAD.

Not that I ever had, mind you .

by Anonymousreply 58September 10, 2021 2:57 PM

The problem is not enough people who have been bullied have the resources to sue and shut these bullies down.

Hmmm. I see a great opportunity for a new organization. I think even Keira Bell had to crowdsource. The money is with the wrong side.

by Anonymousreply 59September 10, 2021 3:17 PM

R33, what does that link have to do with JK being anti-gay (which was the claim made and the receipts asked for)?

(oh, also, ssshh don't tell anyone, but one can follow someone on Twitter without being a devotee to everything that followed person might believe.)

by Anonymousreply 60September 10, 2021 5:43 PM

[quote]They quoted her word-for-word. There wasn't any reason Rowling couldn't have clarified what she meant and moved on, because she's got a huge social media platform that dwarfs the platform of the person who quoted her out of context.

No clarity was needed because anyone who read her actual post knew what she meant.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 61September 10, 2021 7:47 PM

It's clear that Trans Twitter was working a smear campaign. By making the Tweeter apologize, her lawyers make it clear that there's a real risk in spreading the smear. For far too long, the woke crowd has used social media to destroy people's lives without consequences because they held a different opinion. Ironically, it's not the right wingers who take the brunt of it, but moderates like Rowling who understand why women, as a class, need certain protections.

by Anonymousreply 62September 10, 2021 7:54 PM

Regardless of how people feel about JK Rowling's stance on trans people, she did tweet what the dude was apologizing for under duress and the threat of a lawsuit. Remember, the UK has no free speech protections and the libel laws are strongly in favor of rich people with money. She can bully people into silence in her domain, but she certainly can't fucking do it in the US, where, if it hadn't been for buyers in this country, she'd still be broke and on unemployment to this day. Her aggressive behavior is going to come back to bite her in the snatch, to the tears of her fanbase here on the DL.

by Anonymousreply 63September 10, 2021 8:02 PM

[quote] Sure, sure.

R36 links to an article portraying one of Rowling's books as transphobic but if the premise is "a 944-page tome in which the killer, Dennis Creed, is described as a cisgender man who occasionally dresses as a woman—sometimes, to get closer to his victims. His propensity for donning dresses and jewelry is framed as both fetishization and the result of trauma,

How is that transphobic? Trans women are women, right? Trans people aren't just playing dress up. They don't identify as cisgender. So how is her book remotely about a trans individual?

by Anonymousreply 64September 10, 2021 8:47 PM

[quote]Regardless of how people feel about JK Rowling's stance on trans people, she did tweet what the dude was apologizing for under duress and the threat of a lawsuit. Remember, the UK has no free speech protections and the libel laws are strongly in favor of rich people with money. She can bully people into silence in her domain, but she certainly can't fucking do it in the US, where, if it hadn't been for buyers in this country, she'd still be broke and on unemployment to this day. Her aggressive behavior is going to come back to bite her in the snatch, to the tears of her fanbase here on the DL.

Invoking sexual violence to make a point about a woman standing up to a man. Trumpian.

by Anonymousreply 65September 10, 2021 8:47 PM

R65 Your pussy smells so bad, I can smell it through my computer screen.

Trumpian my ass. Rowling is the Trumpian one, not me.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 66September 11, 2021 12:19 AM

And then R66 links to The Hill. Moron.

by Anonymousreply 67September 11, 2021 12:27 AM

^ Ok, Rowling stan. Here's the Hollywood Reporter.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 68September 11, 2021 12:28 AM

Here's a whole list of times Trump has threatened to or actually filed libel lawsuits against people. Very much like JK Rowling.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 69September 11, 2021 12:30 AM

R68, now go look up the differences between America and the UK when it comes to libel suits. Like I said, you're a fucking moron.

by Anonymousreply 70September 11, 2021 12:31 AM

^ It's like you are illiterate and can't read.

[Quote] Remember, the UK has no free speech protections and the libel laws are strongly in favor of rich people with money.

by Anonymousreply 71September 11, 2021 12:32 AM

R50 Now has gone all Trans as has the ACLU, Planned Parenthood, the Green party, and many other orgs.

by Anonymousreply 72September 11, 2021 12:37 AM

R71, you seem to have a hard time telling the difference between fact and opinion, so I wouldn't talk to anyone about literacy if I were you.

by Anonymousreply 73September 11, 2021 12:43 AM

Fuck the trans mob and their anti-woman hatred, they bully women because they know they can get away with it.

by Anonymousreply 74September 11, 2021 12:43 AM

Fuck the retard hate spammer ^^ with 97 accounts, Boris fucktard, Dejure, Cinesnatch, etc.

by Anonymousreply 75September 11, 2021 3:11 AM

Ha, funnily enough I vaguely know 'Juan Mac', the SJW in the OP., we were both members of a small left-wing political party once upon a time. He means well more or less but is pretty limited politically and intellectually and his politics are mainly idpol liberal. His idea of activism is pasting big rainbows everywhere and acting like every day is Pride Day, while also keeping blogs laboriously accusing all sorts of people and institutions of sexism, homophobia, biphobia and transphobia. When it comes to the economic side of political activism he doesn't really understand much and covers it up by pivoting back to his comfort zone. I remember one cringey blogpost in which he stated that he wasn't a Marxist because 'Marxists are homophobic' because they 'love production'.

I'm not a JKR fan by any means but it is amusing to see that she has swatted him like a bug. I agree though it's not very edifying to see her bully people by throwing her money around. I get her stance on trans issues has won her fans here but she is well-known in Scotland for hyping increasingly politically compromised Blairite stances and using her costly lawyers to attack everyone to her left. She also does chum around with some unsavoury characters, like the sectarian groups behind 'Scotland in Union' and the misogynist twitter account 'Brian Spanner', as well as various right-wing and unionist journalists.

If anything good has come out of the trans furore it is that she has been compromised at least somewhat and that many more people look at her a little more critically now. She had far too much power - at one point the HuffPost used to reproduce every tweet and make an article out of each one.

by Anonymousreply 76September 11, 2021 4:21 AM

"She doesn't have a problem with trans people, she has a problem with autogynephiles and other assorted fetishists who use the kindness granted to actual trans people to predate on woman."

So, she doesn't have a problem with trans people, she just re-iterates the transphobic memes that transphobes use to justify their bigotry?

Wait, I have a whole bunch of hairs that need splitting. Let me just get my Dumbeldore wig. You know, the character she said was gay when a filmmaker wanted to insert a non-canonical scene in a movie and she objected by making a half-assed gay-baiting reason (also non-canonical) to make the filmmaker do what she wanted. Which by the way did not include a flashback to Dumbledore and his alleged boyfriend.

Meanwhile, nothing gay about Dumbledore in the subsequent cash grab movies starring Johnny Depp as Dumbledore's alleged lover? Jude Law wearing an earring or anything? Or is Dumbledore gay because Michael Gambon borrowed a knitting magazine from Horace Slughorn?

Yeah, that was the big gay pride in the Harry Potter universe.

Meanwhile, all sorts of minorities at Hogwarts, but not a single gay or lesbian let alone anyone else there.

Magic is for straight people only.

by Anonymousreply 77September 11, 2021 5:01 AM

ConcernedBoris sucks

How many sock puppets do you run?

by Anonymousreply 78September 11, 2021 6:07 AM

J.K. Rowling for Prime Minister

by Anonymousreply 79September 11, 2021 6:09 AM

[quote]Remember, the UK has no free speech protections

Good. Let's get rid of it here, too. I'm tired of these misogynistic breeder sons of bitches not being locked up for their hate speech.

by Anonymousreply 80September 11, 2021 6:11 AM

That's not quite true but you can read around and find a lot of articles on it.

Essentially the UK has felt that there was no such right under common law to free speech as there was to property or reputation (hence the libel laws). In the past 30 or 40 years there have been increasing case law in the UK that suggest that the common law did recognize freedom of speech and the right to invoke it in interpreting and expanding common law and statutory law. There is pending recently proposed legislation to expand it and provide for recourse when one has suffered loss based on speech (eg you get fired for expressing your opinion). Also free speech on campuses has seen recent legislative action.

by Anonymousreply 81September 11, 2021 6:29 AM

Sorry ^^^ is in reference to the "UK has no free speech protections."

It's late.

by Anonymousreply 82September 11, 2021 6:30 AM

Why should ANY nation have freezepeach "protections"? What about the people murdered because of unregulated hate speech?

by Anonymousreply 83September 11, 2021 6:34 AM

R78, none.

How many daddies did your ma introduce you to before the age of five?

by Anonymousreply 84September 11, 2021 6:40 AM

R82, the people who were murdered were murdered because someone decided to kill them - not because someone said something unpopular or even hateful. The responsibility lies with the killer, not the speaker.

by Anonymousreply 85September 11, 2021 6:41 AM

There can't be murder without some form of verbal incitement.

by Anonymousreply 86September 11, 2021 6:42 AM

Your right as a human on this earth is to talk; anyone trying to usurp that right should be viewed as the detestable snakes that they are. Real liberals are NOT afraid of words. If words scare you, move to nazi Germany where some men with guns will help comfort your anxiety by completely controlling your speech, which is obviously what you want it freedom of speech is too difficult a concept for you.

by Anonymousreply 87September 11, 2021 7:03 AM

There seems to be an idea that anyone in the UK can sue anyone for libel. There are obvious limitations as to what people can take legal action for.

Jeremy Corbyn sued a newspaper because they ran a story that he'd been recruited by the Czechs as an informant. Corbyn has never sued anyone who called him a virulent obsessive antisemite, not only because it's true but because the wealth of evidence of a lifetime of racism would confirm what everyone knows. In fact Corbyn is currently being sued for libel himself by a Jewish man Corbyn made derogatory comments about in a BBC interview.

Before they bonded over trans inclusive misogyny Owen Jones threatened to sue fox killing pompous QC Jolyon Maugham after Maugham tweeted Owen Jones "suggested it was fine to celebrate anti Jewish terrorism". Jones never went through with it because Maugham would have been able to show the extensive receipts.

Jack Monroe bankrupted Katie Hopkins after Katie Hopkins confused Monroe for Owen Jones' awful friend Laurie Penny and refused to apologise and smeared her Monroe's character. And a young muslim sued and won his case against Stephen Yaxley Lennon - the far right racist also known as Tommy Robinson.

by Anonymousreply 88September 11, 2021 7:04 AM

R87 is a reactionary posting anti-socialist propaganda.

by Anonymousreply 89September 11, 2021 7:04 AM

[quote]If anything good has come out of the trans furore it is that she has been compromised at least somewhat and that many more people look at her a little more critically now. She had far too much power - at one point the HuffPost used to reproduce every tweet and make an article out of each one.

Imagine writing that and thinking it makes JK Rowling look bad and not the awful and desperate Huffington Post running clickbait articles.

by Anonymousreply 90September 11, 2021 7:05 AM

Huffandpuff Post is a hate site as is any site that uses the anti-gay q-word to refer to gays.

by Anonymousreply 91September 11, 2021 7:06 AM

[quote]if GLAAD is publishing who to hate lists based on tangential relationships and likes or retweets on Twitter than I'm not giving any money to GLAAD.

GLAAD and other gay and lesbian organisations stopped representing us years ago - they're all about the T now, whose values and needs are diametrically opposed to ours.

by Anonymousreply 92September 11, 2021 7:18 AM

GLAAD = Gays and Lesbians Are Absent, Distressingly

by Anonymousreply 93September 11, 2021 7:21 AM

R77 Didn't read/Learn to quote

by Anonymousreply 94September 11, 2021 10:53 AM

Boris the incel again. 😞😞😞😞

by Anonymousreply 95September 11, 2021 1:09 PM

Asshole R66 blocked. Thread much smaller. Life greatly improved. Would recommend.

by Anonymousreply 96September 11, 2021 1:52 PM

The problem with blocking Boris is that with all his sock puppets he is all over this site. To bad he won’t follow Nero’s lead.

by Anonymousreply 97September 11, 2021 2:09 PM

[quote] it's not very edifying to see her bully people by throwing her money around.

What are you talking about? Hiring an attorney to protect your right to speak without being harmed or being defamed?

How come the Ts can sue someone for stating the scientific reality that there are only 2 sexes? How come they can claim reality "harms" them? Is that throwing their money around to bully people? How come you can lose your job by refusing to comply with someone else's "beliefs" - beliefs that are pretty much religious-like as in not based on scientific reality?

by Anonymousreply 98September 11, 2021 7:19 PM

R98 Boris go drown in a river!!!! Bayonne River.

by Anonymousreply 99September 11, 2021 8:27 PM

R95 is Ling-Ling the Chinese troll trying to distract from his homophobic warmongering.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 100September 11, 2021 9:10 PM

[quote] How come the Ts can sue someone for stating the scientific reality that there are only 2 sexes?

Link to a report on this lawsuit pls?

by Anonymousreply 101September 12, 2021 4:08 PM

Rowling threatens to sue people for all sorts of things on Twitter, entirely divorced from the trans issue.

She threatened to sue a UK Member of Parliament for, entirely accurately, accusing her of supportively retweeting and amplifying the misogynist twitter account Brian Spanner (which makes a habit of calling various Scottish female politicians 'cunts', mocks them for going through 'the change' and so on). Rowling supports this account and has accepted donations from it to her charities.

However, since she has more money than God, Rowling can take vexatious and long-shot lawsuits without any difficulty, because if she loses she can pay the costs without blinking. For her rivals/opponents, the calculation is very diffierent. Simply going toe to toe with her in a libel court, even if you have right on your side, can bankrupt you, because her expensive lawyers can spin the process out and win through the unacceptable multiplication of costs.

That's what I mean by bullying people by throwing her money around. Whatever she was like originally, wealth and fame have transformed her into a vile bully and no mistake.

by Anonymousreply 102September 12, 2021 4:14 PM

[quote]She threatened to sue a UK Member of Parliament for, entirely accurately, accusing her of supportively retweeting and amplifying the misogynist twitter account Brian Spanner (which makes a habit of calling various Scottish female politicians 'cunts', mocks them for going through 'the change' and so on). Rowling supports this account and has accepted donations from it to her charities.

Except that's not what happened. And the MP in question, Natalie McGarry, was found guilty of embezzlement of money raised for the independence cause and went to prison, and is awaiting a further trial. McGarry is a typically low calibre unhingled SNP MP, branding random opponents of independence "holocaust deniers" before apologising.

And if you're going to hold JK Rowling to account for being friendly with a twitter troll who posted vile stuff, are you going to hold the entire SNP to account for their associations with Janey Godley who a long track record of anti black racism, including using the N word freely?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 103September 12, 2021 4:40 PM

Actually R103 that 100% is what happened, we know that because you didn't try and quibble with any of the particulars.

[quote] Natalie McGarry, was found guilty of embezzlement of money

So? Whatever else she has done she was right about Rowling and Rowling did try and bully her.

[quote] are you going to hold the entire SNP to account for their associations with Janey Godley

Whataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhatabout!

I'm not an SNP member, go take Janey Godley up with them if she upsets you that much.

by Anonymousreply 104September 12, 2021 9:16 PM

[quote] JK has stated over and over and over that she is NOT anti trans.

And Greg Abbott will tell you he’s not misogynistic. Speaking of Greg, as always it is straight men that are the real danger to women. These threads are just propaganda that allows men to continue to get away with wholesale discrimination and mistreatment of women smh

by Anonymousreply 105September 12, 2021 9:25 PM

R96 Blocked for the telling the truth? Ok, whatever. Continue to worship a rich asshole who abuses libel laws to silence her critics. It only makes you look pathetic, not me.

[Quote] JK Rowling is NOT anti-trans.

Sure Jan.

by Anonymousreply 106September 13, 2021 1:27 AM

The Rowling threads always seem to attract far reich nazis from sites like Breitbart who love to pit various oppressed groups against each other and then spam the WW button to make their opinions seem more popular than they really are. It's so pathetic and I see this in a lot of other threads too, like the Meghan Markle threads and any thread on Black people. It's so pathetic.

by Anonymousreply 107September 13, 2021 1:35 AM

Food for thought for those of you who are so obsessed with shitting on the trans community that they aren't thinking about the larger freedom of speech consequences here. It's especially applicable to a website (this one) which is notorious for all sorts of threads that could be considered libelous.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 108September 13, 2021 1:58 AM

Angus Johnston is an idiot.

Here is someone he supports and retweets because an obituary and death and crime stats want to record accuracy.

Mx. D. E. Anderson @diannaeanderson History/memoir of nonbinary gender due out Fall 2022. Author of books. Nonbinary lesbian. Cat Parent. they/them.

Re criticism of self ID as the only criteria for gender change recognition: [quote] this is nonsense. Self-identification is literally how the current system works - no one is checking genitals at bathroom doors. Again: GCs are the ones arguing to change the status quo.

More nonsense [quote] She’s arguing that trans women, killed likely because they are trans, should not have dignity in death of being recognized as the gender they are. Think about that. She wants to deny dignity even in death.

more [quote] Such stances entirely undermine ANY compassion Duffield might garner for saying trans people have a right to live as we choose - it’s completely meaningless to say that when you’re also saying that murdered trans women should be reported as being men. Fuck you.

They's finale [quote] You don’t get to claim that you respect trans people when you are saying that trans women and men should not be afforded the dignity of proper identification in death.

IN DEATH.

Jesus Christ.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 109September 13, 2021 2:25 AM

Boris GIVE IT a REST YOU FUCKHEAD ASSHOLE

by Anonymousreply 110September 13, 2021 2:30 AM

R29's language tells me he is trash.

by Anonymousreply 111September 13, 2021 2:37 AM

Go J.K. Go J.K.!!

by Anonymousreply 112September 13, 2021 2:40 AM

R23, are you kidding with that link? Magdalen Berns was not anti-gay; she was a lesbian feminist, and a brilliant one.

by Anonymousreply 113September 13, 2021 2:40 AM

Facts aren't important when bashing JK Rowling, R113. Just like actually reading what she wrote about the rights of women, and her concerns about self-identification aren't important when criticizing her, either.

Remember, we live in a post-fact world now. Things are true, or not true because you believe them to be, or because of how you FEEL.

by Anonymousreply 114September 13, 2021 2:44 AM

I agree with JK on the tranny issue, submitting law suits against random Twitter nobody’s is pathetic though.

by Anonymousreply 115September 13, 2021 2:45 AM

What unbraindamaged person did not appreciate Magdalen Berns?

Berns saw right through the homophobia and misogyny in Transville and called it out for what it was.

So, R33, fuck right off.

by Anonymousreply 116September 13, 2021 2:47 AM

She’s very thin skinned, I’m glad I live in a country with freedom of expression.

by Anonymousreply 117September 13, 2021 2:47 AM

It's not pathetic; it's a remedy against that person's use of social media to spread irresponsible lies. I don't care how rich she is; money doesn't protect you from viral lies.

by Anonymousreply 118September 13, 2021 2:48 AM

Harry Potter = LITERAL VIOLENCE

by Anonymousreply 119September 13, 2021 2:50 AM

She's lucky my estate turned a blind eye to all the similarities to that little book I wrote about a correspondence college of witchcraft years ago.

by Anonymousreply 120September 13, 2021 3:21 AM

I find it funny that the pro-trans-activist types here are wailing on about free speech, given the trans movement's love of no-platforming of people who don't share their views. Rowley's called in her lawyers because she's aware that trans activists have cost people jobs, tenure, publishing contracts, etc.

Honestly, if the trans activist crowd were actually open to hearing differing viewpoints, I'd have a less harsh view of them, but they've been horrible for a while. They deserve every lawyer's letter they get.

by Anonymousreply 121September 13, 2021 4:03 AM

The medical industrial complex is complicit in all this shit, too, R121, for even offering this as a service. It's not civil rights, it's eugenics.

by Anonymousreply 122September 13, 2021 4:06 AM

JK isn’t anti-trans. She said she worries that many young trans kids would actually grow up to be gay as adults, so allowing them to alter their gender as youngsters is a form of gay erasure.

by Anonymousreply 123September 13, 2021 6:02 AM

She's right, and if that's hate then sign me up for the GayKK.

by Anonymousreply 124September 13, 2021 6:04 AM

[quote] She’s very thin skinned, I’m glad I live in a country with freedom of expression.

You live in the country famous for KellyAnne Conway and her alternative facts.

Freedom of expression is nothing if you can lie, lie and lie without consequence.

by Anonymousreply 125September 13, 2021 7:06 AM

R123 people used to worry about gay people “converting” kids if there was any education about or even mention of homosexuality in schools. Those people were homophobic. JK is transphobic.

by Anonymousreply 126September 15, 2021 5:17 AM

R126, but there was no proof of that. We have proof and multiple examples of trans doing it. And trans doing it on a systemic basis.

JK is not transphobic. She is just not stupid.

You cannot change your sex.

by Anonymousreply 127September 15, 2021 5:24 AM

R127 ‘proof’ in these instances is anecdotes fulfilling bias more often than objective evidence. JK aid transphobic, she had dedicated her life to it. She argues with trans people all the time. Trans people detest her. You might as well tell the gays that Anita Bryant didn’t hate them, she was just being smart haha. Get a grip bb.

by Anonymousreply 128September 15, 2021 5:54 AM

*is not aid 🙄

by Anonymousreply 129September 15, 2021 5:55 AM

[quote] She said she worries that many young trans kids would actually grow up to be gay as adults, so allowing them to alter their gender as youngsters is a form of gay erasure

I agree with her 100%. Screaming ‘transphobia’ isn’t going to shut down the discussion around this issue. I hope she keeps bringing it up.

by Anonymousreply 130September 15, 2021 6:28 AM

To the T activists on here, I have a new question to add to the other two I usually ask that none of you will answer:

If women are now "people who menstruate" instead of simply women, what are men now?

I'll throw out my two other questions here in case any of you are feeling particularly intelligent tonight...

1. Why is transgender possible but transracial isn't?

2. What is the definition of "woman"?

I'll wait here for an answer to any one of these. Come on, just one.

by Anonymousreply 131September 15, 2021 7:04 AM

NO, R28, the proof of the trans community actively and systemically working to convince minors they are trans and working to make that happen is right before your eyes. See school curriculum all over the country, see Planned Parenthood (wasting time & resources on this rather than protecting a woman's right to reproductive freedom), see "gender clinics' like Tavistock, see social media protecting open child predators (MAPS, et al) while banning those seekng to safeguard children, see lobbyists successfully changing laws at every level to promote trans ideology about children "changing sex" and trying to stop anyone questioning this including parents & psychologists, see those back from the NAMBLA-P.I.E. wars once again trying to lower ages of consent for related issues (sex & medical consent).

The list is endless. The above just scratches the surface of what is going on SYSTEMICALLY and too often with the blind approval of the powers that be.

What the trans extremists have achieved is actually systemic.

by Anonymousreply 132September 15, 2021 1:26 PM

Wonder if a lot of people even knows the fairy tale, "The Emperor's New Clothes"? This is the age we are living in The Emperor's New Clothes. All the scared sycophant sheep bleating, yeah its all true oh mighty Crazy Trans(I don't mean all trans., just the crazies & the dopes who ass lick them). Maybe cause she has spent years writing for kids she is well acquainted with fairy tales, she knows the power of that tale. JK. is that little kid in the midst of the crowd sent in to adore him in his new clothes, looking at the asshole Emperor prancing around in the nude, saying but he's go no clothes on.

by Anonymousreply 133September 15, 2021 1:54 PM

A woman is whoever identifies as a woman. That's all it boils down to, any male predator can claim womanhood on their passport and have the king's welcome into every female prison/homeless shelter/violence shelter. I've never heard a good justification why women and girls should see dick in the changing room, whenever it comes up mainstream leftism defaults to protecting the intruder like the Guardian did for the Wii Spa flasher. Flashing your dick is apparently immoral, except if you do it in a women's changing room. I spin from the cognitive dissonance, not least of which is people calling J.K. the bad guy when your receding hairline warriors spammed porn on a children's art thread.

by Anonymousreply 134September 15, 2021 3:20 PM

OK, so let's say we send all trans-identified persons with penises back to the men's room, because they might be predators, though of course the vast majority will not be, and so should not be around little girls..

Does it therefore follow that they should be around little boys? After all, there are many, many cases of predators with penises abusing boys, and pre-pubescent boys aren't really any less vulnerable than similarly aged girls. How does this solve the problem that the TERFS/radfems claim to have identified?

Is the problem simply that adults who might be predators shouldn't be allowed to change with children? Or, rather, should we focus on keeping out people who have been accused of sex offences (like the person in WiSpa apparently) rather than making the decision based on someone's genitalia?

by Anonymousreply 135September 16, 2021 5:59 AM

[quote] Does it therefore follow that they should be around little boys?

Which is why little boys get taken into women's bathrooms by women.

But really you men need to do a better job protecting little boys. But Noooooo we women are supposed to do everything.

Step up your game, slackers.

by Anonymousreply 136September 16, 2021 5:21 PM

^^^^Clumsy dodge. We're talking about changing rooms, like in the WiSpa. Little boys generally don't change in the women's changing rooms.

by Anonymousreply 137September 16, 2021 5:32 PM

[quote]To the T activists on here

There aren't any. We dont' get any trans threads except this anti-trans stuff, if we had trans activists we'd have pro trans threads. I see the OP is also posting threads about those gross immigrants getting four-star hotel rooms, and he's got a lot of Meghan Markle threads under his belt, looks like r107 was right on.

by Anonymousreply 138September 16, 2021 5:46 PM

I've been thinking up a metaphor for this r135. Why do you wear a mask on public transport if you know you don't have COVID? Why not just take it off and have people take you at your word you don't have COVID? Because those people cannot magically sense whether or not you are a true danger. You could be lying, you could be mistaken and the sight of you there with no mask is enough to cause disruption and anxiety to everyone in that space. It's the same with trans. 99% of predators are male and nobody has the mind-reading power to ascertain whether or not you're trans or male pretending to be trans or trans with a predatory streak because trans is something totally independent of appearance or presentation. Danielle Muscato is a beast of a man and he calls himself a woman, him getting into a women's spaces is like someone with a fever and coughing up entering your tram with no mask on, and insisting he's COVID-free. That sensation you feel is what it almost feels like to be a homeless or imprisoned woman trapped alone with a male stranger. Except you can leave.

Transwomen can easily be relegated to handicap rooms preserving everyone's safety, it's never been about safety but satiating the narcissism of a few troons.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 139September 16, 2021 6:37 PM

Boris needs his ass kicked.👊🏻

by Anonymousreply 140September 16, 2021 6:43 PM

[quote]Little boys generally don't change in the women's changing rooms.

Yes they do. And, when they are a little older, they either go into the men's changing room with their father or the mother is standing right outside the door waiting for them after telling them to hurry and not talk to anyone and yell if something happens. Do you even know anyone with any children?

by Anonymousreply 141September 16, 2021 6:56 PM

R139 useless analogy, you can’t be 100% sure you don’t have covid. And your covid surety can only be as far back as a result from a PCR test (with 24-48hrs typically in between testing and results) so you can be reasonably certain but not absolutely sure.

Not all venues have ‘handicapped’ (who says this anymore?) facilities, and also what about disabled children? You keep pushing what you seem to be a problem to other areas.

It’s simple, you identify as a woman you use the women’s changing rooms. You identify as a man you use the men’s.

by Anonymousreply 142September 16, 2021 7:22 PM

Isn't it typical how "Concerned European" turns the issue around from the abuse of females to abuse of males.

BUT WHAT ABOUT THE LITTLE BOYS!

by Anonymousreply 143September 16, 2021 8:07 PM

Isn't it typical of what, R143? I'm just trying to follow the tortured logic here, If these people are inherently dangerous, they are surely dangerous to all children?

R139, What's a 'troon'?

by Anonymousreply 144September 16, 2021 8:39 PM

The troll comes projectile vomiting 'Boris' on any view that isn't approved by the woke Taliban.

Are you for mask wearing?

Are you for airport security?

Are you for background checks on gun-owners?

All these come from assuming some non-zero percent of the population being dangerous and safeguarding the more vulnerable. Transwomen are just as likely as other males to be some kind of dangerous. I could dip into my purse of Terfisms and say how transwomen are more dangerous based on British prison statistics but I'm not in the mood. "you identify as a woman you use the women’s changing rooms" Well thank you for spelling out your lunacy so clearly like that.

by Anonymousreply 145September 16, 2021 8:40 PM

btw you know if someone with a penis goes to the swimming pool or wherever with the intent to commit sexual assault, they're just going to walk into the womens' rooms or wherever they feel like anyway, right? They aren't going to stay out if they are not 'invited' in....

by Anonymousreply 146September 16, 2021 8:46 PM

[quote]btw you know if someone with a penis goes to the swimming pool or wherever with the intent to commit sexual assault, they're just going to walk into the womens' rooms or wherever they feel like anyway, right? They aren't going to stay out if they are not 'invited' in....

People with dicks who like getting their dicks out in public - lets call them flashers - have been deterred from entering sex segregated spaces in the passes because they're sex segregated. If they enter a women's space the flasher will generally get chased out and prosecuted and banned.

But now all a flasher with a dick has to do is grow their hair, dye it green and they have a right to be in a sex segregated space where they can get their dick out in front of women and have far left people defending them, arguing women who notice the flasher's dick are rude and invasive and not respecting the flasher's privacy.

by Anonymousreply 147September 16, 2021 9:23 PM

Y'know, flashers aren't subtle. They aren't going to be mistaken for someone just getting changed.

by Anonymousreply 148September 16, 2021 9:44 PM

Before women could ask the security guard to remove them, but now the security guards asks the women to leave.

by Anonymousreply 149September 16, 2021 9:46 PM

[quote]OK, so let's say we send all trans-identified persons with penises back to the men's room, because they might be predators, though of course the vast majority will not be, and so should not be around little girls..

The vast majority of people aren't thieves, so let's leave bank vaults open, homes unlocked, and keys in unattended vehicles. The vast majority of people aren't terrorists, so let's change airport security to an honor system.

Some things need protection. Allowing men into women-only spaces, for any reason, is complete insanity. Anyone advocating for this is woefully naive or a predator themselves, and you sound like the latter.

by Anonymousreply 150September 16, 2021 10:36 PM

R150: menopausal but STILL terrified of all forms of male sexuality.

by Anonymousreply 151September 16, 2021 10:45 PM

Such sophisticated reasoning and debate skills, R151.

by Anonymousreply 152September 16, 2021 11:01 PM

Who cares? Rowling has been canceled.

by Anonymousreply 153September 17, 2021 12:40 AM

Boris never saw a hate crime, anti gay movement or protestor that he doesn’t love.

by Anonymousreply 154September 17, 2021 12:42 AM

R150 have you never used a same sex / all gender bathroom? Or changing facility? Also if men are so dangerous why are there not sex segregated elevators? You sound like a dumb bitch. Haha.

by Anonymousreply 155September 17, 2021 12:50 AM

People with male genitalia are not women in any fucking way. I mean you've really got to be severely damaged to think this. OK you feel like you're a woman. Well sorry you could think your the Queen of England but you're not. And all the sickos enabling them really are beyond help and are dangerous.

Read Rowling's essay. There isn't one thing offensive in it. And if you think there is you're making stuff up and are a shit stirrer.

by Anonymousreply 156September 17, 2021 12:51 AM

R156 please find a different site for your rancid vibes please.

by Anonymousreply 157September 17, 2021 12:54 AM

Stop and drop the T! The T has nothing to do with GLB

by Anonymousreply 158September 17, 2021 1:12 AM

R157, r156 is right . You stinky cock

by Anonymousreply 159September 17, 2021 1:13 AM

R155 and Concerned European are idiots. That is all.

All this debate about changing rooms is fine and everything, but let’s not forget we’re essentially upending society to placate a tiny fraction of the population who have a mental illness. We never should’ve gotten to this point. It’s only been made worse thanks to the “gender” cult which insists self-ID is all that’s required for a person to be accepted as a member of the opposite sex. If you say you’re a woman, you are a woman. OF COURSE there will be perverts taking advantage of that policy.

Truly gender-dysphoric people deserve compassion and pity. They’ve got it tough. They almost never “pass” as the opposite sex, especially the MTFs. They don’t feel comfortable in their own bodies. Are they really “born in the wrong body”? Maybe? But it is literally impossible to change one’s sex. They can take hormones and get cosmetic surgery and try to make themselves as comfortable as possible, and people should be polite to them, not offend them by insisting to their faces that they’re not the sex they now identify as, etc. They shouldn’t be denied work, housing, etc.

But that’s as far as it should ever go. Everything that’s come in the last 15 years has been insanity. Male bodied persons with intact genitalia should not be allowed in women’s changing rooms, or prisons, or shelters. Sorry, but them’s the breaks. You can’t always get what you want. You cannot demand that society honor your delusions. You can’t insist that women give up their right to not have to be naked and vulnerable in a space with a male-bodied person.

This should not be difficult for anyone to accept.

And of course males should not compete in women’s sports (Jesus fucking Christ), and proto-gay kids should not be allowed to go on puberty blockers when that vast, vast majority of gender non-confirming kids grow up to be gay and desist in their gender dysphoria (if they’re even experiencing dysphoria at all).

And there is no such thing as non-binary.

by Anonymousreply 160September 17, 2021 1:29 AM

[quote] [R139] useless analogy, you can’t be 100% sure you don’t have covid. And your covid surety can only be as far back as a result from a PCR test (with 24-48hrs typically in between testing and results) so you can be reasonably certain but not absolutely sure.

I’m not the person who came up with that analogy. But it works well enough. “Just take our word for it that any transgender people in the women’s changing room aren’t predators.” “Just take my word for it that I don’t have COVID.”

The metaphor works perfectly. What does being “100% sure you don’t have COVID” have to do with anything? It’s about convincing someone (who feels vulnerable) that they have nothing to worry about, when you can’t make that guarantee. And has been said in other replies, it’s why we have laws in general, and why we don’t just keep bank vaults open all the time. This can’t be that difficult to understand.

by Anonymousreply 161September 17, 2021 1:35 AM

And of course no trans activist can answer R131’s questions.

by Anonymousreply 162September 17, 2021 1:35 AM

I am Napoleon Bonaparte! Questioning my identity as Napoleon Bonaparte is committing violence against me, and trying to destroy my existence.

I must be validated, and given sovereignty over Elba. I also demand possession of Longwood House on Saint Helena.

Refusal to cooperate will be met with public shaming and cancellation.

by Anonymousreply 163September 17, 2021 1:44 AM

Good for Rowling. Most people would not have the resources nor the patience to stand up to these psychotic bullies. She's saying what most intelligent, sane people are thinking.

by Anonymousreply 164September 17, 2021 1:56 AM

R157 and R159 go wave your cocks in somebody else's face and scream you're a woman. You're incapable of doing anything else.

by Anonymousreply 165September 17, 2021 2:03 AM

R5, she's not anti-trans. She's pro-woman.

by Anonymousreply 166September 17, 2021 2:17 AM

I'd also like to see an answer to R131's questions.

I also have a philosophical issue with transgenderism. I'm not religious and I don't believe in a mind/body split--you can't be a woman in a man's body because you *are* your body. You may not be comfortable in your body or expressing yourself with the traits assigned to your gender role, but you aren't separate from your body. I respect Buck Angel for understanding this.

So if you want to be atypical in your gender expression, have at it, but let's be a little more honest about the biological differences in those bodies and what that means--women should be a protected class in things like sports and where safety is a concern--changing rooms aren't elevators and sexual assault of women by men is a serious and ongoing problem. And, yes, the small percentage of trans people that are out there should also have protections--private bathrooms, special prison/jail spaces--but not at the expense of women's well-being.

And enough with the fucking bullying, deplatforming of women less powerful than Rowling.

by Anonymousreply 167September 17, 2021 2:19 AM

Perfectly said, R167.

And I mentioned this in another thread, but I highly recommend everyone interested in this topic listen to Helen Joyce or buy her new book, Trans. She’s given a bunch of interviews for podcasts recently to promote her book, and she is brilliant. I’d love to see a trans activist try to refute her points to her face.

by Anonymousreply 168September 17, 2021 2:34 AM

R 167 So, Rowling has to eat some less powerful woman's shit, just cause the bitch is less powerful than her. Rrright gotcha. So, the laws of slander apply to who exactly? Only 'certain' people? Which people? Who gets to decide which people? You? There is still this wonderful thing called The Rule Of Law. Wonder why Justice is pictured as blindfolded? The ideal is that it needs to be the same for all. Rich or Poor, Powerful or Weak. Isn't always perfectly administered, but should be, even for rich powerful J.K. Rowling.

by Anonymousreply 169September 17, 2021 2:37 AM

Boris fuck off back to Russia

by Anonymousreply 170September 17, 2021 2:44 AM

'The ideal is that it needs to be the same for all. Rich or Poor, Powerful or Weak. Isn't always perfectly administered, but should be, even for rich powerful J.K. Rowling.'

What world do you live in? Not in your ideal world. No one does. We have always had to have the powerful fight for the less powerful.

by Anonymousreply 171September 17, 2021 2:44 AM

Of course not, R162. Just look at the reply to my post at R150. Attacking at the first sign of someone pointing out reality. No argument or case to make, just juvenile outbursts. It’s a lot like trying to reason with a religious nutbag, cult member, or cluster-b personality disorder. Just detached from reality.

by Anonymousreply 172September 17, 2021 2:46 AM

Boris are you badly crossdressed now?

by Anonymousreply 173September 17, 2021 2:52 AM

Not one person has answered my question of what does it feel like to be a woman discounting all external superficial stereotypical features while still sporting male genitalia as well as not answering R131's questions. They can't so all they discuss is Boris's smegma.

by Anonymousreply 174September 17, 2021 3:00 AM

I've been asking those questions for over a year now and not once has any T activist even tried to answer them because they know that the answers cancel all their arguments and stances. Simple, simple questions refute their entire existence. Tells you all you need to know about the strength of their side.

by Anonymousreply 175September 17, 2021 3:21 AM

R169 Not sure what you think you're trying to say. My point is that Rowling has the money and clout to challenge the Twitter bullies who slander her. Women without that kind of financial power have been bullied, deplatformed and lost jobs because they disagree with Trans ideology. Trans activists keep trying to cancel Rowling, but she's beyond their reach.

Please don't try to talk about the Rule of Law when your basic grasp of logic and English are in question.

by Anonymousreply 176September 17, 2021 3:22 AM

R 176. So, now you are a lawyer, English grammar teacher & arbiter of who is allowed to protect themselves from slander. The part where you panties really show is your personal insults to anyone's opposition. Best to remember O Superior One "Personal insults are the last refuge of the intellectual coward."

by Anonymousreply 177September 17, 2021 3:29 AM

LOL OP was redtagged.

by Anonymousreply 178September 17, 2021 3:41 AM

Thanks hall monitor

by Anonymousreply 179September 17, 2021 3:43 AM

Just finished Helen Joyce’s book. Excellent indeed.

by Anonymousreply 180September 17, 2021 5:13 AM

For all the people blabbering about self ID, how do you identify as gay? Is there some self evident biological essentialism feature to you or do you……(whisper)…..self ID?

by Anonymousreply 181September 17, 2021 5:46 AM

R181, how do you identify as straight? Do you get it now? Both straight and gay are come to the exact same way. On the other hand, biological sex is determined by your chromosomes while pretending you are the other biological sex is based on nothing.

by Anonymousreply 182September 17, 2021 7:15 AM

To the moron at r181, I don't "identify" as gay, I am gay, a lesbian more specifically. I am a biological woman exclusively attracted to my own sex. I only fall in love with and am attracted to people of my own sex. That makes me gay, a lesbian, a homosexual woman. It's nothing to do with "identifying as" anything, it's about being.

Same with being a man or a woman, it's not about identifying as anything, it's literally about being that sex (which is another word in the English language for gender - gender is what you are on the basis of your physical being, it's not an abstract "identity").

by Anonymousreply 183September 17, 2021 7:28 AM

Concerned European, I am a bit surprised that you don't see validity in the Covid analogy (I am not that poster, btw). The point of rules/laws aren't in place just to protect against the obvious crime. It's also there to protect the stealth crime. And also the crime that might rarely happen.

Also, somebody upthread asked about being transracial (Rachel Dolezal). What are your thoughts on that issue? I always like your posts, even if I disagree (slightly) and am curious to know your take.

by Anonymousreply 184September 17, 2021 7:43 AM

A question for Concerned European and the other anti TERFS.

Do you agree with Jessica Yaniv that women working in beauty salons are breaking equality laws by declining a trans customer who wants a bikini wax on their penis and testicles?

Do you think women who work in or run beauty salons should face legal action for refusing to touch a penis and testicles or should there be some exemptions that protects women who won't want to touch a penis and testicles?

by Anonymousreply 185September 17, 2021 9:22 AM

R185, "Concerned" European isn't "anti-TERF", he's anti-woman.

[quote]If anything good has come out of the trans furore it is that she has been compromised at least somewhat and that many more people look at her a little more critically now.

Who exactly are you referring to, r76? Because probably at least 99% of people fully agree with JK Rowling. She hasn't been compromised in any way but has been widely praised for not being cowed by the Transtapo. What she has achieved is to have the spotlight shone on the crazy Transtapo demands and to have them scrutinised more. We've seen this effect already in England - and thanks too to the Keira Bell ruling - where plans to introduce a gender self-id law have been dropped as have "guidelines" to treat "gender non-conforming children" as trans have also been abandoned. There's still a problem in Scotland, where the crazed SNP-Green government is adamant about pushing such laws through, but whereas previously the SNP was planning to sneak them through the Scottish parliament they will now have to vigorously defend them and this issue will be right in the public eye.

This is the problem with people who are too caught up in the rhetoric of the "LGBTQ+ community", you really have no fucking clue how the rest of society thinks and you also have no idea what very many gay people and 99.9% of women think. Women are horrified by trans demands that they be dehumanised and in fact misgendered with terms such as "pregnant people", "menstruators" and "chest feeders". They are outraged at efforts to completely erase them as women from experiences that are central to being a woman and disgusted by the idea that any biological man with full penis can simply "identify" as a woman and then be legally considered a woman with the right to enter women's changing areas and the suchlike.

by Anonymousreply 186September 17, 2021 10:10 AM

R183 but if someone asked you to prove how you are gay what would you tell them? It’s your word. And everyone accepts that. You’re self identifying it.

by Anonymousreply 187September 17, 2021 5:26 PM

R187, a man who “self-identifies” as gay and needed to prove it (for some reason) could say “okay, show me some lesbian porn. Measure my tumescence. Then show me some gay porn and measure it again.” It’s sexual arousal, which is a biological function. It’s not some nebulous, spiritual “feeling” that one is the opposite sex.

Those spooky feelings are always based on body dysmorphia and ideas about gender stereotypes.

by Anonymousreply 188September 17, 2021 5:38 PM

[quote]If women are now "people who menstruate" instead of simply women, what are men now?

"People who don't menstruate"! C'mon, it's catchy--let's all start using it!

by Anonymousreply 189September 17, 2021 5:41 PM

R187 it's the easiest thing in the world to prove gayness: Measure the sexual responses in an individual after viewing images of men or woman in various states of undress and/or sexual positions.

All be revealed in a very clean, scientific manner.

You're welcome!

by Anonymousreply 190September 17, 2021 6:08 PM

R190 the easiest thing in the world? A series of complex laboratory tests supervised by medical experts? Lol you’re stupid. Also that could be faked via imagination. Gay people self ID as gay. Nothing else to it sorry.

by Anonymousreply 191September 17, 2021 6:20 PM

R191, do straight people self ID as straight?

How are you now understanding this? When both sides are determined the exact same way, there is no controversy. When it comes to T, one side is reality based in facts and science while the other side is made up bullshit based on feelings. If you come back again with the same stupid reply, we'll know you are simply a dumb troll. For now, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you are just a simpleton.

by Anonymousreply 192September 17, 2021 6:24 PM

You are a total fucking retard, R191. Nothing else to it sorry.

by Anonymousreply 193September 17, 2021 6:25 PM

R177 And you're still not making any sense. Seriously, it's not clear what you're trying to say. All I'm getting is that you're emotional and lash out.

by Anonymousreply 194September 17, 2021 6:27 PM

I actually feel bad for R191. Dude, you really think measuring whether or not an erection took place is difficult?

Btw, I don't even care about self ID as a construct. I'm totally fine with it.

But we just have to then call it like it is: An opinion about one's self. Not any sort of scientific truism. Hell, NB basically say this: I don't know what I am gender wise. Check with me in the morning, and I'll let you know. Might change by the evening, Stay tuned!

That's totally cool. It's very punk rock. I love it.

But it doesn't deserve any special recognition like sex, race, sexual orientation and ethnicity.

I still want to hear what R191 and Concerned European feels about transracialism. But I guess that question will be ignored. Too sticky.

by Anonymousreply 195September 17, 2021 6:34 PM

[quote]I don't know what I am gender wise. Check with me in the morning, and I'll let you know. Might change by the evening, Stay tuned!

The saddest thing is, this is where decades of feminism were finally getting us before the trans crap was brought on scene by straight white males seeking attention. We feminists have fought forever for gender to lose its meaning. You can be a man or woman and wear a dress or pants and love a man or woman and have any job. We should be moving toward a genderless society but the regressive T are reinforcing those old gender stereotypes instead.

The worst part of it is that they've almost succeeded in fully conflating sex and gender. Sex is a dimorphic male/female state. Gender has always been fluid because it's a social construct, a fucking sexist social contruct at that.

by Anonymousreply 196September 17, 2021 6:43 PM

“Non-binary gender” is completely and utterly ridiculous. It deserves less consideration and recognition than gender dysphoria. It’s total nonsense.

by Anonymousreply 197September 17, 2021 6:51 PM

Non-binary gender is literally just being a human. It's a meaningless phrase. Everyone is literally non-binary gender. This is why the conflation of gender and sex is so ridiculous. Sex is biological while gender is something assigned to you by other people. That's the definition of gender. Societies determine what actions and looks, etc., belong to a certain sex. It's stereotyping at its finest and we're supposed to believe that the people embracing this non-binary bullshit are the enlightened ones?? The "woke" are not just asleep, they're fucking unconscious, if they think we're buying their bullshit.

by Anonymousreply 198September 17, 2021 7:05 PM

LOL I had said earlier upthread that the same trolls who swarm threads about JK Rowling also swarm the Meghan Markle threads. Turns out the redtagged OP also started a bunch of Markle threads. What a coincidence!

by Anonymousreply 199September 17, 2021 7:25 PM

Exactly, R198. How would a non-binary person differentiate between someone who is DEFINITELY *binary* and someone who’s not? Is there like a questionnaire one can fill out to see if they’re binary or non-binary? I cannot believe western society has let this bullshit get as far as it has. It is like a religion or ideology with non-falsifiable tenets.

It’s so dumb it makes my brain feel like it’s going to explode. It’s also utterly regressive, conservative, and sexist.

by Anonymousreply 200September 17, 2021 7:31 PM

R187, if someone asked me to "prove" I'm gay I'd tell them to fuck off. I don't need to "prove" my sexuality to anyone. I'm not like the insecure trannies, who demand that the whole world constantly validate them.

by Anonymousreply 201September 17, 2021 7:41 PM

R195 feel badly all you like. Your reasoning is totally illogical. I can’t think of any situation in real life where if someone asked if you were gay that you would strip down to watch varying porn videos and have your erection response measured 🤭.gender discrimination happens so why wouldn’t it be protected?

As to your comment about ‘transracialism’ that just marks you out as a Reddit / Twitter troll, not much more.

by Anonymousreply 202September 17, 2021 7:45 PM

R201 aye aye aye that’s the whole fucking point. Nobody questions your being gay, trans people get questioned and interrogated about their identity non stop. Look at this thread.

by Anonymousreply 203September 17, 2021 7:46 PM

When does identifying as gay infringe on members of a protected class’s rights, R203?

Why are you afraid to engage on the topic of transracialism?

Dunning-Krueger on display in your posts.

by Anonymousreply 204September 17, 2021 7:49 PM

R204 where did I say that it does? A trans person identifying as a woman doesn’t infringe on women’s rights just because you’re transphobic and feel like it should.

Why are you so determined to troll about ‘transracialism’?

by Anonymousreply 205September 17, 2021 7:52 PM

[quote] A trans person identifying as a woman doesn’t infringe on women’s rights just because you’re transphobic and feel like it should.

It mostly certainly does, in numerous situations discussed in this thread.

And that’s the first time I’ve mentioned transracialism here. Interesting that you have no comment on it, as it is every bit as valid as an obviously male person identifying as a woman.

Though at this point it’s clear you have nothing but weak deflections, so there’s no need for further response from you.

by Anonymousreply 206September 17, 2021 7:55 PM

R202? You're just being willfully obtuse.

Of course no one has asked you or anyone to prove your gayness. But IF THEY DID...it's easy to prove in a valid and reliable testing situation. The same can't be said for transgendered people. It's just their word. And for 99% of trans people? That is certainly good enough for me. But the problem is that pesky 1% who use it as a way to do bad things. It sucks. I wish we could mind read. I do. For reasons much bigger than the trans conversation! But we can't. And simply admitting this isn't anti-trans. It's the very step in trying to figure out a solution that is respectful to transpeople and women who might feel threatened in a few unfortunate scenarios.

Another reason people question some trans people is because, over the past ten years or so, TRA have been constantly moving the goal posts. Is it gender dysmorphia? Is it pronouns? Is it a non binary daily choice? Is getting surgery important? Is it not? Is taking hormones important in defining trans? There's not a clear line. And because of that? It leaves huge gaps in logic.

R205, I am not R204, but is it interesting no one will answer a very basic question: Is transracialism something you support? If not, why? If yes, why?

For me, it's not trolling at all. I really want to hear opinions about it.

by Anonymousreply 207September 17, 2021 7:59 PM

R203, you are incredibly stupid. I said I don't care if people believe I'm gay or not. If anyone is that desperate to confirm my sexuality, they can look to my long-term relationship with another woman and the fact that all my relationships and sexual encounters have been with women, i.e. my own sex. I don't need to state my sexuality on my profile, in the way the trans do with their self-declared pronouns.

Trans can identify as they want, but that doesn't make them what they identify as. A man doesn't become a woman just because he identifies as one. No one questions or interrogates trans about their identity - most trans in fact go on about it all the time. I have no interest in a trans person's self-declared identity. It's irrelevant to me. Identity when used in this sense is a meaningless concept.

by Anonymousreply 208September 17, 2021 8:03 PM

R207 and you are being fallacious re ‘transracialism’. As I have showed earlier, it is not easy to test someone’s being gay in a real life situation, it’s actually beyond the bounds of reasonability and / or practicality. Or do you have a clinic in your house with doctors and specialists on hand?

Your suggestions are not respectful to trans people in the slightest, they’re explicitly transphobic.

Listen I know you’re either 1) a bad actor or 2) have been taken in by bad actors to fight against other less fortunate members of the LGBTQ community in order to make our advances against the systems that oppress us more difficult to achieve, but think about what you’re actually doing here and ask yourself is it helpful (it’s not) or damaging (it is) to the LGBTQ community. And then think about why you’re doing it. You and the rest of the anti trans trolls incl. in this.

I don’t want to talk about false arguments like ‘transracialism’ because it’s in bad faith. Maybe try Reddit?

by Anonymousreply 209September 17, 2021 8:13 PM

R209, how is anything I've said in bad faith?

I am not a bad actor nor do I want to fight for or against anyone. Fortunate or not.

My goal, during a spirited debate, is most certainly not to worry about helpfulness. My goal, as should be the goal of any debate, is to achieve, or get closer to, some semblance of a truth. Helpfulness can come later.

I am not now, nor ever have been, anti trans. I will always vote to protect a trans persons rights, so long as those rights don't infringe upon someone else's rights. Thankfully, that rarely happens.

As to transracialism, again, I am very, very curious about it. If transgenderism exists (and it most certainly does), then why can't transracialism exist? I don't understand why this question is such a sore spot in terms of examination and discussion.

(And I don't frequent Redditt. It's not my cup of tea.)

by Anonymousreply 210September 17, 2021 8:38 PM

[quote] I am not now, nor ever have been, anti trans

Equating transgenderism with ‘transracialism’ is transphobic lol. You’re literally being transphobic in the same moment as you’re claiming not to be.

I don’t really care what your priorities are in ‘debate’ (?), your priorities in life are clearly shot. I think this whole anti trans thing will blow over soon and you’ll all be embarrassed by the stuff you wrote on here.

If you’re going to keep pressing the ‘transracial’ thing I’m not going to go back and forth it’s not worth my (or anyone else’s) time. Maybe try Reddit again, it might be more your thing now than you remember.

by Anonymousreply 211September 17, 2021 8:42 PM

R211, you are not a serious person, and you refuse to engage on the topic using specifics. Why did you bring up the notion of gay self-ID vs trans self-ID anyway?

by Anonymousreply 212September 17, 2021 8:52 PM

“I’m not answering that question, it’s transphobic.”

“Why are you so anti-trans?”

“You’re all going to look really stupid in a few years when all this anti-trans stuff is gone.”

“How can anyone believe you if you say you’re gay?”

Zero substance to any of that. You’re behaving exactly like a religious person asked to defend their merits of their dogma.

by Anonymousreply 213September 17, 2021 8:56 PM

[quote]You’re behaving exactly like a religious person asked to defend their merits of their dogma.

Precisely, because transgenderism, like all cults, is nothing but fantasy driven by narcissism that asserts, [italic][bold]we[/bold] are oppressed because [bold]you[/bold] won't play our fantasy game[/italic].

by Anonymousreply 214September 17, 2021 9:31 PM

[quote]gender discrimination happens so why wouldn’t it be protected?

There is no such thing as gender discrimination. There is sex discrimination. Sex is a scientific term with an actual meaning. Gender is a sociological term with varying meaning between different cultures and even within the same culture at different times in history.

by Anonymousreply 215September 17, 2021 9:37 PM

R214 I think you seem a bit narcissistic in that trans people face discrimination other than what you think of them. Of course that’s part of it but it’s mainly to do with employment, access to healthcare, housing and long life. Bit self centered of you.

R212 I brought up gay self id to show how onerous and discriminatory the arguments against trans self id are, I thought that was fairly obvious x

by Anonymousreply 216September 17, 2021 9:49 PM

R216, then explain why racial self ID isn't okay. Sex is much more biologically concrete than race.

by Anonymousreply 217September 17, 2021 9:54 PM

[quote]You’re all going to look really stupid in a few years when all this anti-trans stuff is gone.

I think you'll find it's the other way around. Everyday people are finally wising up to this shit and it won't be long until it's universally seen as regressive, misogynistic and clearly the product of mental illness.

by Anonymousreply 218September 17, 2021 10:15 PM

r216 you're welcome to justify why women and girls should see cock in the changing room.

by Anonymousreply 219September 17, 2021 10:17 PM

How in the world is asking about transracialism transphobic?? I don't really get how one could be ideologically for one and against the other. Unless I'm missing something? Thus, me wanting to know your take! I really, really don't understand why you won't simply answer.

I'm legitimately interested in this subject. I recently watched the doc on Rachel Dolezal from a few years ago. And I assumed I'd find her take ridiculous at best, offensive at worst. Quite the opposite. It was actually enlightening and I walked away with a new understanding of her and her situation.

I sincerely don't get why this subject matter is verboten. Super weird to me. But whatever.

by Anonymousreply 220September 17, 2021 11:14 PM

It's verboten just like everything else they can't justify, which is why they'll scream 'TERF!, BORIS!, TRUMPSTER!' at anyone who asks, rather than give an actual answer.

by Anonymousreply 221September 17, 2021 11:19 PM

R205, they do infringe on protected classes, every time they want to use a women's restroom, or a women's shelter. Wanting to compete in women's sports infringes as well., as does wanting access to funds for women's causes. Gay men don't want to do any of that.

by Anonymousreply 222September 18, 2021 2:19 AM

Many Gay men publicly advocate for women. Never heard of a trans. advocating anything for women. The fact that many call women all these weird things is demeaning, insulting & at times even threatening. Many of the unhinged trans hate women quite openly because they know in the heart of heart & tiny heads that they aren't & will never be women.

by Anonymousreply 223September 18, 2021 2:33 AM

R216, since you know everything about the T, what is the equivalent of "people who menstruate" being used instead of women when talking about men? Here, just finish this sentence...

Don't say men, say "people who ______".

Fill in that blank. If the Transtapo isn't an attack on women.

Maybe you can answer those other questions I've continually asked:

1. The transracial one you've been tapdancing around because you know any answer you give nullifies your stance.

2. What is the definition of "woman"?

Go ahead, answer just one of these if three is too taxing.

by Anonymousreply 224September 18, 2021 2:38 AM

He won’t answer any of them, R224, but they’re all VERY good questions.

by Anonymousreply 225September 18, 2021 2:41 AM

There have been thousands upon thousands of posts on DL on trans and not one bio male who claims he identifies as a woman has been able to explain why. Not one. If you like to wear women's accoutrements then you're a transvestite. And there's nothing wrong with that. Just be honest about it. But the pro trans movement today is spearheaded by pathological liars.

by Anonymousreply 226September 18, 2021 3:15 AM

R223 you are weird. I was a member of feminist conference collective with women and trans.

by Anonymousreply 227September 18, 2021 3:25 AM

J.K Eowling is shit to me. That Bitch is cancelled!!!

by Anonymousreply 228September 18, 2021 3:26 AM

For those who truly have gender dysphoria — better described as a body dysmorphia — persisting well into adulthood or until death, it’s basically a mental illness/pathology. It sounds unfortunate. It’s also pretty rare. It’s not uncommon for sufferers to have other mental illnesses, like bipolar or schizophrenia or to have borderline personality disorder. And no, those illnesses aren’t caused by society’s refusal to accept them as the opposite sex (a common claim made by TRAs).

Of course there’s no way for a person to know what it feels like to be a member of the opposite sex; there’s no such thing as having a female brain in a male body. They just see themselves as a member of that sex and are deeply uncomfortable with their own bodies.

Blaire White, of whom I am not generally a fan (her politics are odious), said she’d rather take medication that would make her dysphoria desist, instead of being on hormones and having cosmetic surgery. I don’t know how many other trans people feel the same way, but I’d like to think if I were in their shoes, I’d rather take the pill and feel comfortable with my body instead of taking hormones and carving myself up and never quite “passing”, all the while hoping that society changes for me.

by Anonymousreply 229September 18, 2021 3:28 AM

[quote] R223 you are weird. I was a member of feminist conference collective with women and trans.

What does that prove? What were the transsexuals fighting for there, exactly?

by Anonymousreply 230September 18, 2021 3:29 AM

Boris wants to lick JK’s labia.

by Anonymousreply 231September 18, 2021 3:38 AM

At least JK has labia r231, unlike your "transwomen" friends.

by Anonymousreply 232September 18, 2021 6:08 AM

Boris will never get Jk’s labia or any other labia because of his acne scarred face, unruly hair and fat body. A real winner.

by Anonymousreply 233September 18, 2021 10:29 AM

Another question for the Transtapo:

How is wanting to cut off your dick different than wanting to cut off your arm or leg? Wouldn't you classify someone who wanted to cut off their arm or leg as mentally ill?

by Anonymousreply 234September 18, 2021 2:56 PM

R220 it’s transphobic in the way talking about gay people and pedophilia in the same sentence is homophobic.

I cannot emphasize enough to you people the importance in meeting a trans person in real life and not getting all your info online. As R227 said, trans people are very involved in feminism and promoting equality for all, they have to be concerned about their own rights primarily because they suffer so much discrimination. Honestly put your phones down and look outside in the real world.

by Anonymousreply 235September 18, 2021 4:45 PM

[quote] It’s simple, you identify as a woman you use the women’s changing rooms. You identify as a man you use the men’s.

It's simple, you are an idiot.

You cannot "identify" out of reality. Sorry.

by Anonymousreply 236September 18, 2021 5:01 PM

R236 the irony in your signing that post as ‘mother nature’ 😂.

by Anonymousreply 237September 18, 2021 5:28 PM

I've met plenty of trans people in real life r235 and in every single case it's obvious why they think they're trans/the opposite sex. They have either shitty family lives, had trouble coming to terms with their (gay) sexuality, have depression, or feel their lives are at a dead end. The worst cases now are butch lesbians who are under horrendous peer pressure to consider themselves trans. Young gay kids today are presented with a whole bunch of confusing images and messages about being "LGBTQ+", "queer", "non-binary", there are very few positive gay role models, especially for young lesbians. As a result, youth today don't come out so much as gay but as "queer" or "part of the LGBTQ+ community". It's also not "cool" these days to be a lesbian.

I've never met a single trans person who was trans because they had a genuine gender dysphoria. I can say in every case that their dysphoria and discomfort with themselves and their body was caused by other factors in their lives. This is why we especially need to protect children with problems (in particular gay and autistic) who then get misdiagnosed as "gender dysphoria" and placed on a conveyor belt of ruining their bodies. There is nothing wrong with people's bodies, the problem is psychological/emotional.

Trans people being involved in feminism is bullshit though. They are invariably biological males who "identify" as women, i.e. "transwomen". They call themselves feminists in order to dictate to women what being a woman is. They never give a shit about real issues of concern to women, whether they be everyday sexism, abortion rights, domestic violence, women's health or victims of prostitution, or wider issues such as the education of women in places like Afghanistan. Their version of "feminism" is only about transwomen.

by Anonymousreply 238September 18, 2021 7:43 PM

That’s why I asked what exactly these transwomen are doing and saying at these feminist gatherings. Didn’t get a straight answer on that.

When the Million Women March happened after Trump’s inauguration, there were feminist groups who were selling pins that had a drawing of a uterus on them; the idea was to draw attention to women’s reproductive rights and women’s health issues. Young transwomen complained, saying those pins were insensitive to those women (like themselves) who didn’t have uteruses. It felt “exclusionary” to them.

I’m sorry, but those groups had every right to raise awareness of issues that are specific to WOMEN—i.e. people with actual uteruses, and actual health and body-rights concerns that are specific to them. To say that 50+% of the population shouldn’t have the right to organize around these issues because .5% of the MALE population thinks it’s insensitive, was fucking INSANITY.

That’s why I question the involvement of transwomen in feminist groups. Give me a fucking break.

[quote] [R220] it’s transphobic in the way talking about gay people and pedophilia in the same sentence is homophobic.

Please explain how.

by Anonymousreply 239September 18, 2021 8:03 PM

Transactivists are pushing for children to be allowed to make decisions as to whether they want to go on puberty blockers. If they are arguing that children are able to give consent to taking life-altering medication, it's opening the door to saying they are fit to make other decisions about consent (which they aren't).

Gay people aren't opening the doors for pedos, but the transtapo are.

by Anonymousreply 240September 18, 2021 8:19 PM

I couldn't care less about the trans thing. It's a tiny movement, yet some hysterical tools who spend their lives on Twitter work themselves into a frenzy about it taking over the world. Chill the fuck out.

by Anonymousreply 241September 18, 2021 8:44 PM

We couldn't care less about your opinion, r241.

by Anonymousreply 242September 18, 2021 8:45 PM

Trans are far less irritating than TERFs.

by Anonymousreply 243September 18, 2021 8:51 PM

R241 you are a very very stupid person. Do not fucking post.

by Anonymousreply 244September 18, 2021 8:52 PM

R241 Have you been reading any of the posts on how Trans today are threatening LGB and women's rights?

by Anonymousreply 245September 18, 2021 10:04 PM

The doctor who is the head of the CDC said "pregnant people". Always gives me the giggles and reminds me of the Arnold Schwarzenegger movie.

by Anonymousreply 246September 18, 2021 10:11 PM

It’s not a tiny movement, R241, it’s extremely pervasive and powerful. Where I live, Scotland, they were or are pushing through legislation for kids AS YOUNG AS FOUR YEARS OLD to change gender or sex or whatever. Four years old! Kids don’t know shit at that age.

by Anonymousreply 247September 18, 2021 10:14 PM

R240 another major issue is that due to the "NO DEBATE!!!" mantra and bullying of the trans activists, they refuse to self-police the members of their community who abuse the self identification rules.

So you end up with trans vehemently defending a convicted sex offender who exposed his erection to women and an underage girl in an L.A. spa, even accusing the victims of making the whole thing up to make trans people look bad, or the person wasn't "really" trans, etc. Whatever happened to "believe women?" It's thrown out the window the instant a trans person is under scrutiny.

It's ridiculous that men can self identify into a protected class like women and then access their same-sex facilities, but the trans cry "be nice!!" and call everyone a bigot and a transphobe (or the new word since "transphobic" has been so overused, "anti-trans".

So of course, pedos are slipping onto the movement, pushing for younger and younger age of consent laws, and when they get exposed, the trans activists say "not REALLY trans!" and pretend it's just a rare outlier, when they have thrown the door wide open for these people to not only enter, but also be protected in the name of trans. It's crazy town.

by Anonymousreply 248September 18, 2021 10:22 PM

It's a tiny fragment of the feminist movement. Most feminists consider TERFs to be loathsome, bigoted people. They're just not welcomed by other women nor by Gays, nor by anyone. They have no money, they have no voting block, they have no power.

They are online. There is a small demonstration where they try to get some publicity for themselves. It's all ridiculous. They've been interlopers trying to run (and ruin) the Datalounge for years. They are annoying but they've failed, thank heavens.

JK Rowling? Oh for fuck's sake. Who cares what a children's book author says or feels about anything? She disappointed the children when she outed herself as a bigot but they're fine. They'll forget who she is and her bigotry over time and just remember those terrific Harry Potter books they read when they were kids. It's fine. JK can be as obnoxious and prejudiced as she wants, so can her fellow TERFs. They're a minute portion of the world and we'll forget all about them soon enough.

by Anonymousreply 249September 18, 2021 10:27 PM

Rowley's bigotry over what? Can you quote something bigoted she has written? I've come across nothing.

by Anonymousreply 250September 18, 2021 10:30 PM

They can't prove anything. All they can do is post whiny Pink News articles and overlong Twitter threads by people using every distortion, outright lies, pseudoscience, and every logical fallacy in the book to strain to somehow "prove" that the progressive philanthropist JK Rowling is somehow a bad person.

They've labeled her a "right-wing transphobic anti-trans homophobic bigot" (they even throw in "misogynist" too sometimes, because why the hell not since words apparently have no meaning?) and they refer to her as that enough times so the useful idiots and people not paying attention repeat it like it's gospel. And if you disagree, you'll be bullied too, until you recant.

Sort of like the "trans women are women" mantra.

by Anonymousreply 251September 18, 2021 10:40 PM

It's pretty easy to read what she's said on her website and what she has posted on Twitter. It's not much, and it's pretty succinct. She states the issues she has with self-id calmly and clearly.

The trans activists act like she spends all day every day campaigning against them, though. I doubt very much she spends much time thinking about them, but they sure as hell are obsessed with her.

There's nothing more the trans misogynists hate than having a woman not doing as she's told and shutting up when a man is speaking. Even if that man happens to be pretending to be a woman.

by Anonymousreply 252September 18, 2021 10:45 PM

R245 Nope. Doesn't impact me. Don't care.

by Anonymousreply 253September 18, 2021 10:46 PM

R249 you may be big on twitter, but nobody in the real world gives a shit - you're a nobody desperate for attention. Rowling's doing just fine.

by Anonymousreply 254September 18, 2021 10:56 PM

A very smart woman who is not someone you want to sling mud and inflammatory insults and accusations at unless you are very sure of your grounds.

by Anonymousreply 255September 18, 2021 11:04 PM

R254, I'm "big on twitter" since when?

I don't have a twitter account. I had one for about a week once, it was stupid and boring. Like facebook, instagram and I haven't even bothered to look at tick tock, it was all stupid and boring. I'm not a social media whore like some people, it simply doesn't interest me.

I live in the real world. That's where I can see exactly how small and insignificant the TERFs are in the grand scheme of things. People may or may not understand the Trans but they don't hate them the way the TERFs pretend they do. People mostly don't deal with Trans or TERFs in their daily lives.

These hysterical, bigoted screechers are old women that no one cares about or listens to anymore. I suppose their loneliness drove them to seek attention by becoming TERFs online. The only time I ever see them howling into the void is on the Datalounge. In the real world, they barely exist at all.

by Anonymousreply 256September 18, 2021 11:13 PM

R256 he means you're fat.

by Anonymousreply 257September 18, 2021 11:18 PM

So where are all the trans women's outrage over the new abortion laws in Texas restricting womans rights to abortion even in the cases of rape?

You'd think all those new "real" women would stand up for a womans right to choose.

by Anonymousreply 258September 18, 2021 11:20 PM

R258 oh, some of them are outraged over it, believe me! But not for the reason you might think.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 259September 18, 2021 11:25 PM

....

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 260September 18, 2021 11:37 PM

....

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 261September 18, 2021 11:37 PM

....

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 262September 18, 2021 11:38 PM

What's really important is trans feelings about the abortion ban, not the abortion ban itself. Because they could come for trans rights next!

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 263September 18, 2021 11:43 PM

Where are the TERFs out there fighting the Texas ban? One would think with all their "power" they would jump right on that to help the sisterhood.

TERFs are nowhere to be found in the fight, they're too busy worrying about bathrooms and howling at Trans.

by Anonymousreply 264September 18, 2021 11:47 PM

WTF is Piliinx? Mentioned in R263. I googled, but only got Pilinix, which is an ugly quilted tote bag from Aldo.

Is zhe a trans-totebag? Do trans-totebags need abortions? Can you just dump them out?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 265September 18, 2021 11:52 PM

r264 Lots of women or terfs as you call many of them are out there fighting and protesting for the right to choose and opposing the new law in Texas. I have seen them on the news and all over the internet.I dont know how you could have missed that.

by Anonymousreply 266September 19, 2021 12:07 AM

R264 is a loon. Ignore.

by Anonymousreply 267September 19, 2021 12:12 AM

Women are out there, r266, normal feminists (who have NO patience for TERFs) are out there.

TERFs are not there. TERFs only care about Trans, 24/7. It's as if their brains are so limited or obsessed that they can't fit more than one issue inside. All Trans, all the time. Just look at them here on the DL too, all Trans all the time.

by Anonymousreply 268September 19, 2021 12:12 AM

r267 Cheers thank you.

by Anonymousreply 269September 19, 2021 12:13 AM

Go dilate your frankencunt r268.

by Anonymousreply 270September 19, 2021 12:18 AM

You think the only people who could possibly find you TERFs to be hateful, twisted bigots are Trans?

Hahahahahahahahahaha! Guess again, sugar tits.

by Anonymousreply 271September 19, 2021 12:22 AM

uh... "TERFS" are usually known as "women"

by Anonymousreply 272September 19, 2021 12:43 AM

No, women are usually known as women.

Not all women are Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists.

All TERFs happen to be women but not all women (by any stretch) happen to be TERFs. It takes a special talent for bigotry and hatred to be a TERF, not all women have that kind of rot inside them the way you gals do.

by Anonymousreply 273September 19, 2021 12:57 AM

Just block that radical TRA loon. Don’t waste your time.

by Anonymousreply 274September 19, 2021 1:01 AM

R273, as a superficial gay man, I have noticed the unfortunate trend of only moderately unattractive men transitioning into butt-ugly women who can never get laid. Seems counterproductive.

by Anonymousreply 275September 19, 2021 1:07 AM

"Pilinx" must be an attempt to remove the gender which is always assigned to nouns in most languages except English. The "x" must replace an -o or an -a. So a Pilino or Pilina whatever the fuck that is.

by Anonymousreply 276September 19, 2021 1:20 AM

Shockingly, the piliinx is a sex worker he/they:

Black|Kapampangan, FinDom, Kinky BF for hire & Sadistic Daddy, $50 tribute to DM

by Anonymousreply 277September 19, 2021 1:43 AM

r277 how tempting!

by Anonymousreply 278September 19, 2021 1:50 AM

I strongly suggest against visiting they's profile! Unless you like fat black trans men findom sadists.

by Anonymousreply 279September 19, 2021 1:55 AM

The kids had no problem with JK Rowling's Tweets--the losers on Twitter who have never managed to grow up had issues with Rowling.

R249 deems anyway who doesn't buy into its religion a TERF. I'm kind of amused at the way, it and other Trans activist get huffy about questions about transexuality v. transracialism, but absolutely can't say why group should be protected above all others and the other scorned. Both are about denying basic biological realities.

by Anonymousreply 280September 19, 2021 2:38 AM

R280 that's why they name-call and bully and gaslight - anything to avoid having to discuss the issue logically.

by Anonymousreply 281September 19, 2021 2:40 AM

Jeff aka Boris you are a house of cards and a hateful asshole as well. It would be mercy to the world if you kicked the bucket.

by Anonymousreply 282September 19, 2021 3:05 AM

R282 You are nuts, Jean Paul aka Hitler.

by Anonymousreply 283September 19, 2021 3:26 AM

R282 so you admit you are Boris, Fat Jeffrey?

Why are you spamming 24/7. Tell us why?

by Anonymousreply 284September 19, 2021 3:28 AM

Are you drunk?

by Anonymousreply 285September 19, 2021 3:31 AM

R285 Boris you seem psychotic. Are you off your meds Jeffrey?

by Anonymousreply 286September 19, 2021 3:33 AM

R235, so you're saying transracialism is the same thing as pedophilia? Really? I sincerely was not aware of that. That seems completely unfair to somebody who identifies as transracial. Right?

To be clear: According to you, an adult who feels they were born a different race than what was assigned at birth, and simply wants that distinction respected, is the same as an adult who desires and seeks out sex with children. Am I understanding this correctly?

If I am? Wow. That feels like a very, very big leap.

But okay. Let's go with your supposition.:

Calling a gay guy a pedophile is just like comparing a transgender person to a transracial person.

I can easily distinguish why the former would be offensive to a gay man: Having sex with children has nothing to do with having sex with adults. A very fundamental difference is at the root of the desired sexual act: age and consent. Those two distinctions are legally, morally and practically oceans apart.

Further, the "slur" is in conflating the two very different realties (gay adult sex and pedophilia) as one as the same when they clearly aren't related at all.

But with transgender and transracial, no one is saying one exists within, or because of, the other (which is exactly what people are saying when they conflate gayness to pedophilia). One can be transgender and not transracial. And vice versa. In fact, it would be very rare for both to exist within the same person (I assume).

Plus, being transracial is not illegal (unlike pedophilia) and, theoretically, does not hurt innocent children. Therefore, their need be no stigma attached to it in the way there justifiably is with a pedophile. (Unless, you disagree? If so, I'd love to know why...)

The comparison is made between transgender and transracial (I posit quite fairly) because both seemingly have the same underlying principle at their respective core tenets: An individual feels like a seemingly immutable part of them (race, sex) is, in fact, very mutable. This is done mostly through a rigorous self identification process. And it is to be respected by the greater society.

I agree with this sentiment. I do believe we can be born in the wrong body - I just don't understand why it should be limited to just sex.

I truly feel we can't accept one without accepting the other. Unless there is a real difference, in your mind, between biological sex and biological race. In great faith, I can't seem to find a reason where a thoughtful difference between those two construct exists as it relates to the feeling that what was assigned at birth isn't what FEELS assigned in the hearts and minds of a given person.

by Anonymousreply 287September 19, 2021 5:37 AM

R263, it's not that the trans are worried about trans rights. Trans' only interest in the abortion issue is to stop it from being understood as a women's rights issue. Long-used phrases such as "men shouldn't make laws about women's bodies" must be abandoned because they're "transphobic". We have to believe that it's not only women who get pregnant, "transmen" can also get pregnant. And we also have to stop marginalising "women" who can't get pregnant, such as "transwomen". Basically, we should stop seeing abortion as a women's issue and see it instead as a trans issue, where the main priority is to stop saying evil things such as "women's bodies" or "women's choice".

by Anonymousreply 288September 19, 2021 6:14 AM

The trans crowd trying to make the abortion laws all about them simply exemplifies the rampant narcissism and attention-seeking that seems prevalent with so many.

by Anonymousreply 289September 19, 2021 9:09 AM

R287 but you literally can't be "born into the wrong body". Did you know trans activists have decided that isn't their thing anymore and are telling people not to say that?

A sense of disconnection from your body is a mental disorder, full stop. It's also scientifically documented that there has been a large increase in gender dysphoria since the wide adoption of social media. People who have depression are more likely to be gender dysphoria as well.

And the reason trans activists are telling people to stop saying "born in the wrong body" is because gender dysphoria used to be a required diagnosis in order to get any kind of gender change surgery in some countries such as the UK. Now, over half of the "new trans" don't even have gender dysphoria; they are narcissists, autogynephiles, crossdressers, sexual fetishists. A lot of them are heterosexual. And trans activists have intentionally opened the door to them.

Part of the fucked up thing is that gender change surgery is being pushed as the ONLY solution to gender dysphoria, which isn't necessarily the case, and in adolescents that feeling of disconnection from your body usually goes away by adulthood. The whole area needs more reaearch, but for whatever reason trans activism has decided "nope, trying to fix this mental disorder is transphobic! Gender surgery is the only option!" so any new research into better treating gender dysphoria is squelched and cancelled off the face of the planet.

You can't "become" homosexual through social contagion, not really. You're either sexually attracted to your own sex, or not. But you CAN become trans through social contagion, partially because there are no barriers to proclaiming oneself trans, not even a diagnosis of gender dysphoria is required anymore. And partially because it's now become trendy to be "queer".

If you can self-identify yourself into any protected class, then protected classes lose all meaning. Yet instead of backing off and saying "well, that's not right", trans activists use that to say there shouldn't BE any protected classes - except trans. Women's only spaces? No, they're transphobic. They must now be open to men. Women's only sports competitions? Women's only legislation, designed to protect women? All transphobic. All must go because men have decided they are now part of the protected class of "women".

This is what happens when you prize intersectionality and victimhood over all; when having something that makes you "different", any label really, mental disorders, sexuality, trans, a sexual fetish, a physical condition - all are now labels that can be affixed to a person's profile to make them more "special" because God forbid anyone just be "normal" anymore. Social media has seen to that!

by Anonymousreply 290September 19, 2021 12:46 PM

r90 Your line if you can self identify yourself into any protected class then protected classes lose all meaning articulates the problem and danger with self I'd perfectly. Why oh Why have any senior ranking politicians fell for this nonsense?? Parties captured by activists on particular issues are not going to produce sensible good policy and workable laws.

by Anonymousreply 291September 19, 2021 6:32 PM

[quote] She said she worries that many young trans kids would actually grow up to be gay as adults, so allowing them to alter their gender as youngsters is a form of gay erasure.

I agree with her 100%. ‘Erasure’ is too mild. It’s a form of genocide.

[quote] Your right as a human on this earth is to talk; anyone trying to usurp that right should be viewed as the detestable snakes that they are. Real liberals are NOT afraid of words

So it’s okay for someone to call you a pedophile or serial killer (or Republican?). Do you have any idea how stupid you sound. Ruining someone’s reputation has been seen as harmful since Shakespeare’s time at least.

[quote] She argues with trans people all the time. Trans people detest her.

That’s not saying much. They CONSTANTLY attack their own allies, without a word for their true far-right enemies (because they’d be ignored!)

[quote] Nobody questions your being gay, trans people get questioned and interrogated about their identity non stop. Look at this thread.

Because you’re A MAN, with A PENIS, who wants access to women’s spaces, where they feel especially vulnerable.

I don’t really care what your priorities are in ‘debate’ (?), your priorities in life are clearly shot. I think this whole anti trans thing will blow over soon and you’ll all be embarrassed by the stuff you wrote on here

by Anonymousreply 292September 19, 2021 6:35 PM

Oops! I missed a quote above:

[quote] I don’t really care what your priorities are in ‘debate’ (?), your priorities in life are clearly shot. I think this whole anti trans thing will blow over soon and you’ll all be embarrassed by the stuff you wrote on here

It won’t, because it’s not ‘anti-trans,’ it’s ‘pro-women’ and ‘pro-reality!’ On the issue of ‘transitioning children, it’s also ‘pro-gay!’ Reality always wins out in the end.

by Anonymousreply 293September 19, 2021 6:39 PM

If you'll notice, women don't have any problems with these men in dresses shopping in the women's section of stores, shopping at lingerie stores for their size 14 kitten heels, or going to the clearance section of the local wig store. Women only start having issues when the men in dresses want to go into their bathroom and changing room with them.

The Transtapo literally fucked over their best defenders, actual women, by pushing it too far. And, the few sane T, the ones who realize they are not real women but still want to act and be treated like women by others because it's there "thing", needed to speak up against the takeover of their group by autogynephiles, but they didn't and now it's too late.

by Anonymousreply 294September 19, 2021 7:04 PM

There's a wannabe politician in Austin, a BernieBro who keeps running for office and never getting elected. He's got a couple of sons under the age of 7 except he announced last time he ran that one of his sons was now his daughter. Cornering that trans vote!

by Anonymousreply 295September 19, 2021 7:43 PM

I sure as hell was born in the wrong body. I was supposed to be born in Tony Sansone's body.

by Anonymousreply 296September 19, 2021 11:28 PM

R294 the few who speak up now are shunned and called some variant of "Terf" I can't remember.

by Anonymousreply 297September 20, 2021 6:12 PM

JK Rowling is a BITCH just like Boris and she is Late AF.

by Anonymousreply 298September 20, 2021 7:28 PM

JK Rowling likes and retweets comments from homophobes who support "ex-gay" therapy

by Anonymousreply 299September 20, 2021 7:30 PM

R299 you are full of shit

by Anonymousreply 300September 20, 2021 8:23 PM

Boris is an incel named Jeffrey.

by Anonymousreply 301September 20, 2021 8:38 PM

It's weird how all they have are faux (and misogynistic) ad hominem attacks. You'd think if idiots like r298 knew anything at all about the current trans movement or thought they had a defensible position, they'd be able to at least attempt defending it on its merits. Yet they never do...

by Anonymousreply 302September 20, 2021 8:44 PM

Boris. Jeffrey: you are a troll. You aren not in earnest. Trolls get trolled.

Do you still harass that old crossdresser, Stephanie (can’t remember the name)?

by Anonymousreply 303September 20, 2021 8:48 PM

It's also funny how insane idiots like r303 think they know who someone is on an anonymous message board. You've called multiple people Jeffrey so far, r303, so which is it? Is there some herd of "incel Jeffreys" that roam the internet, or are you nuts?

by Anonymousreply 304September 20, 2021 8:51 PM

Jeff, you know you use sock puppets. You aren’t clever.

by Anonymousreply 305September 20, 2021 8:53 PM

R299 - who supports the gay conversion therapy known as transgenderism - is trotting out an old, tired lie that the gender cultists keep trying to throw at JK Rowling but which they've never managed to make stick because everyone knows it's bullshit.

JK Rowling supports same-sex attraction, the trannies do not. "If sex isn’t real, there’s no same-sex attraction."

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 306September 20, 2021 8:57 PM

And multiple accounts.

by Anonymousreply 307September 20, 2021 8:59 PM

I'm fascinated by this "Jeffrey" person, r303. How did you two meet? Did he wrong you in some way? Does he owe you money? Why do you think he's an incel? You seem pretty angry at this person.

by Anonymousreply 308September 20, 2021 9:18 PM

OK, I'm back. Jeez, turn your back for a fun weekend and there's been over 100 posts of, umm, civil debate since I've gone.

The comparison between wearing a mask to protect yourself from COVID and a hypothetical danger posed by a transwoman in a changing room doesn't quite get at what I was trying to say.

Yes, the random person who just boarded the bus COULD have COVID, there's no way to say. Similarly, the person with a penis who just entered the changing room COULD be a dangerous predator. Anyone who has gone through a male puberty might be able to subdue at least some women and probably most children, though I understand the hormones kill your upper body strength, but eh. So yes, that transwoman is a *theoretical* risk, just like the coughing stranger is a theoretical risk.. OK.

But why is the locus of danger *only* on the woman's changing room? After all, a potential predator could assault little boys as well as little girls. Similarly, why should the elevator point be dismissed? A predator - man or transwoman - who wanted to assault a woman would probably find it much easier in an elevator, there would be nowhere to get away and probably no-one else around, unlike in a changing room. Yet we do not segregate elevators, or subway cars, or lines at the bank, If you are going to define any man or any transwoman as a theoretical predator, then you have to be consistent in that approach and engage in far more widespread gender segregation than we actually have, like the Iranians do - and they use women's safety as a justification too.

by Anonymousreply 309September 20, 2021 10:06 PM

R309, we don't want to see men's dicks in the women's section of the spa.

by Anonymousreply 310September 20, 2021 10:14 PM

Ok , breaking my post into 2 chunks again.

I want to think out loud a little about the transracial question, partly because I like a challenge, partly because R184 asked nicely (unlike some of the other obsessive hysterics on here) and partly because I followed the Dolezal case and found it really fascinating.

Firstly I don't agree with the way that R131 framed this: 'why is transgender possible but transracial is not?'/

These things are a matter of public debate, there is no one authority that can deem either or both of these things 'possible'. Clearly many on this thread think neither are possible, while I've also heard of some good faith academic work *=(eg by Rebecca Tuvel 'In Defence of Transracialism') which absolutely did seek to make a good faith case for transracialism on the same basis as transgenderism.

I'm not sure this is a good hook for the anti-trans side to choose though, since 'race' is a much fuzzier concept than sex, and the quality of being 'mixed race' is far more obvious and understood that the quality of being intersex. Further, it's a commonly accepted fact that people can change their nationality: indeed, the right to change one's nationality is enshrined in the UN charter. No, nationality is not the same as race, but the concepts do bear some relation to origins and to ethnicity.

When trying to assess someone like Rachel Dolezal (interesting woman but clearly has many issues) we have to first decide what 'race'is, what kind of concept is it?

Is it biological, cultural, perceptual, political? Let's think about biological. The United States used to follow the 'one-drop' concept, according to which, anyone with one black ancestor (perhaps one black great-grandparent and seven white ones) was black, regardless of what they looked like and whether they passed as white. Nowadays we seem to have moved away from simply using heritage to judge someone's race. Indeed, contemporary geneticists (see eg the work of Luigi Cavalli-Sforza) will argue that in the mass of human genetic variation, there are no discreet 'groups' which we could name 'races' - the genetic and heritable differences within so-called races are as great or greater than the differences between them.

So if that's not how we define race, do we define is as what others perceive us as? I have a student who passes as white, I've have called him Mediterrenean. But his father is black (probably mixed race) and this student clearly has pride in that side of his heritage. He has been sharing a picture on social media, one of those attempts to celebrate and raise up a group identity (eg: we are black men - let's build each other up rather than tear each other down! send to 10 other black men you admire, etc). You know the thing.

Is he justified in sending that picture? He clearly identifies as black but he doesn't really look black. Does the perception of others determine his race? SHould he be told not to post such a thing on his profile?

I recall an interview with Dolezal on The View or something like that. She was confronted by one of her critics, a black woman. That woman told her that her main objection was that, in a racist USA, she, as a black woman, would always be at risk of racism and police brutality, while Dolezal could go back to being a white woman tomorrow. So is race really a political concept? Is a black person a person who experiences racism? I'm not sure if and how much racism my student has experienced, but probably a lot less than his father (but perhaps not none).

Or, is race essentially cultural? Should we more properly describe it as ethnicity? I think there's no doubt Dolezal genuinely and sincerely identified with African-American culture. I think some of the criticisms of her for her hairstyles and clothes were that she was 'dressing up in blackface' and this misses the mark for me.

by Anonymousreply 311September 20, 2021 10:30 PM

Next Part::

Depending on how we define race, we can perhaps then judge transracialism. If race is primarily cultural, then perhaps some kind of transracialism is possible. If it is biological, then perhaps not. Or, perhaps the concept of race is simply not useful, and we should talk about ethnicity instead: meaning 'the fact or state of belonging to a group that has a common national and cultural tradition'.

Obviously most here will never be satisfied with any answer which doesn't take in the 'transwomen are crazed nonces' style of rhetoric they favour, but for R184 who liked my posts I wonder what you think about these thoughts and what you think 'race' really is?

by Anonymousreply 312September 20, 2021 10:31 PM

As mentioned before, women take their young sons into the women's room with them, for precisely that reason. I see it all the time at my place of work.

by Anonymousreply 313September 20, 2021 10:34 PM

Now then, I have some questions of my own, for R184 R131 and whoever else wants sincerely to play. They too are inspired by Dolezal.

You will remember that Dolezal's immediate family (non-estranged) was all black, There was the man she said was her father, her ex-husband, her two biological kids, and her adopted son, who was originally her adopted brother (Isaiah), who had been adopted by her parents.

Why isn't this as much a problem for you as her transracialism?

She has no biological link to the black man who was first her brother, then her son. The only link she has is a legal link created by a court on paper.

Yet adoption is widely accepted in most human societies. When a woman adopts, you don't call her delusional when she says 'my child' about a child she didn't give birth to. Why not?

When couples adopt, should they be seen as theoretical predators? After all, why would they spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to get a stranger's child into their house? Remember that theoretically (that COVID analogy again) they could easily overpower said child.... you can make anything seem sinister, you know.

If the iron strictures of biology and heredity are so important to you, why aren't these families-on-paper (many of which are transracial) not a problem?

by Anonymousreply 314September 20, 2021 10:43 PM

R313 have you ever ridden in an elevator with a man?

by Anonymousreply 315September 20, 2021 10:44 PM

I AM a man, so I guess the answer is yes. Why do you just assume I'm a woman because i don't agree with you. Convenience?

by Anonymousreply 316September 20, 2021 10:52 PM

Did you feel safe? Men can be raped too.

by Anonymousreply 317September 20, 2021 10:54 PM

I felt like i was going from one floor to another, but that is the basic premise of using an elevator, isn't it.

You're grasping at straws.

by Anonymousreply 318September 20, 2021 10:55 PM

I'm really not. Tell me why we shouldn't have a male elevator and a female elevator? Or a male one, a female one and a trans one?

Women would seem to me to be much more vulnerable to assault in an elevator (I don't know why I am mirroring you Yanks, we call them lifts) than they are in a changing room.

by Anonymousreply 319September 20, 2021 10:57 PM

R319 also more vulnerable to be murdered in an elevator. I saw Dressed to Kill too.

by Anonymousreply 320September 20, 2021 11:50 PM

Along with "gender-confirming" surgery for adolescents we ought to fund weight-loss clinics for anorexic teens. They suffer terrible from being trapped in "the wrong body" too, you know.

by Anonymousreply 321September 20, 2021 11:52 PM

I suffer from not having been born into Paul Newman's body (though he should have been born in 1970).

by Anonymousreply 322September 21, 2021 12:01 AM

ConcernedEuropean, you’re really annoying on this issue, I have to say. I’m going to answer you in good faith however.

First of all, a lot of elevators have security cameras in them. Including the ones that don’t appear to. There are no security cameras watching a changing room. That’s one way that women might feel safer in an elevator with a man than in a women’s locker room with one.

Second, people don’t get naked in elevators. A woman may have had a traumatic sexual experience—rape, or not quite rape, but some sort of sexual harassment— where the sight of a penis on a stranger is triggering to her. Again, people don’t get naked in elevators. They do in changing rooms.

Your post at r314 is nonsense. I truly cannot make out what you think we’re objecting to, re: Dolezal or giving a pass to, or what. The comparison to transracialism is made because it’s another sort of self-ID that’s based strictly on an individual’s inner feeling and the culture around that person that may influence that feeling. But people cannot change their race in a physical sense. A Caucasian person can’t *really* be black if they have no African heritage, or darker skin. Just like a man can feel that he’s a woman and be legally recognized as one, he cannot literally become a woman—he will always be XY.

by Anonymousreply 323September 21, 2021 12:09 AM

I feel duly chastened for being really annoying R323. Nevertheless, here's another post.

If I go into a changing room, strip naked, and shower or change into fresh clothes, there's a possibility someone might see my penis. That someone might be a victim of child sexual abuse and be triggered by it. That doesn't make me a pervert or a predator. Your argument seems to have subtly shifted from 'this stranger could be a pervert or sex offender' to 'even someone with absolutely no evil intention might be triggering so should not get into this room'. I'm not sure that 'triggering others' through no fault of your own is sufficient grounds for exclusion from a space.

i do take the point on video cameras. When I holidayed in Iran, I found the subway cars segregated by sex, and on long-distance buses there was a rule that men and women could never sit together, so much so that the driver had to ask some young Iranian guy to shift his seat and sit next to me so that a women would have a seat to herself. Would you like to see these rules brought in in your country?

by Anonymousreply 324September 21, 2021 12:17 AM

Let me try to explain R314 better.

Since an inner feeling does not trump a biological fact, does that principle hold true when it comes to adoption?

An adoptive mother may truly feel inside she is a mother to this child she cares for. But she never gave birth to it and she shares none of its DNA. Biologically, they are strangers. Conception, gestation and giving birth are biological processes, after all.

Should her delusion be condemned? Should she be suspected of predatory behaviour for wanting to create this fake family relationship with a helpless child? Will you start a campaign against adoption for harming the rights of children?

Or do you share the view of most human socieites that the familial bond between adoptive mother and adopted child means something more than a mere legal fiction on paper?

by Anonymousreply 325September 21, 2021 12:20 AM

R309 women fought for a long time to get single sex spaces because the majority of crimes and sexual assaults are committed by men. This isn't about some man overpowering a woman in the ladies' room; it's about allowing any jackhole who says "I'm a woman" to self identify their way into a protected space.

Why, you may ask? A large amount of the new wave trans are cross dressers who get off on the validation they get from being seen as a woman, and that includes hanging out in female-only spaces. It is their fetish. The validation they get from females is their turnon.

Another large segment of these men are getting off on the power of being IN a womens' only space as a man, and they may even (as in the case of the Wi Spa incident) get a hardon because part of their fetish is the invasion.

Women in general don't want to be unwilling sexual accomplishes to men. In order to accommodate a small percentage of men, they are being told they must allow them into their most intimate areas, and if they complain, it's called transphobic.

The percentage of trans who have gender dysphoria is less than half of them. And when did we accommodate mental illness by pretending to deny reality? These people know, deep down, they aren't REALLY women. The rest of society should not be forced to pretend otherwise. They need professional help, not remaking the entire world to lie to them.

by Anonymousreply 326September 21, 2021 12:25 AM

Your argument re: adoption is dubious as a good faith one, but here goes:

A woman who adopts a child is under no illusion that she really is the biological mother of that child, and generally the child is under no such delusion, either. If she wants to be a mother and she’s fit for the job, of course she can do it. Just like a transwomen can live as a woman, shop women’s clothing racks, adopt a female name, etc., all of that is fine. Adoption doesn’t seek to reorder society the way certain trans people and their ideology does.

by Anonymousreply 327September 21, 2021 12:31 AM

It also seems that you think those of us who have problems with this ideology are “anti-Trans”. There’s a lot to find fault with, in the ideology, but it doesn’t mean we’re “anti-Trans”.

by Anonymousreply 328September 21, 2021 12:33 AM

[quote] A large amount of the new wave trans are cross dressers / The percentage of trans who have gender dysphoria is less than half of them.

Do you have a source for that? I sometimes see on the GC side a distinction being made between 'real' and 'fake' trans. Presumably the crossdressers and autogynephiles fall into the latter category. Does that mean there should be any kind of difference in how society should treat them? I find the argument tends to slide around a bit because one GC tweeter will make this real/fake distinction in one minute, yet demand that all trans people should not receive any reassignment surgery the next.

by Anonymousreply 329September 21, 2021 12:35 AM

[quote] Your argument re: adoption is dubious as a good faith one

I don't think you should accuse me of not acting in good faith - I never made that accusation at the people who brought up transracialism. R327

She may not believe she is the biological mother but she *does* believe she is the *mother* which is the important part. She could choose to refer to herself as the guardian, and still get to raise that child with all the responsibility attached. However, that's not how the institution of adoption has grown up.

Of course adoption seeks to 'reorder society' at least in the sense that it creates families where no families existed before, and via court order rather than naturally.

Naturally I take it as truth that you are not anti-trans. R328. Honestly, as I've said before I find some of what the GCs say convincing. But as a human being I can't ignore the real, obsessive, raging hatred that I can detect in the internet presence of so many of them. Not you, but I'm sure you've seen it elsewhere. As a human being, I find it a little difficult to stomach.

by Anonymousreply 330September 21, 2021 12:40 AM

Like, Graham Linehan. He let this issue destroy his *own* life, finish his career and his marriage and he's STILL creating profiles of himself in lipstick on lesbian dating sites, seemingly to make a point.

What gives with this guy? Where does this all-consuming obsession with this particular argument come from?

by Anonymousreply 331September 21, 2021 12:42 AM

[quote] Of course adoption seeks to 'reorder society' at least in the sense that it creates families where no families existed before, and via court order rather than naturally.

There is no comparison between adopting a child and “creating a new family” and doing away with sex-based rights and laws. One is entirely confined to a family unit; the other affects all women living in the place where laws and rules no longer protect them.

by Anonymousreply 332September 21, 2021 12:44 AM

Right, it's not "anti-trans" to say "no, you cannot take established rights away from women for yourself."

R329 I didn't bookmark the source but it was a recent study from a different country that tested to see what common mental problems trans people might have. Half had narcissistic personality disorder. Many had at least three mental issues, including things like depression. Less than half had gender dysphoria.

If I can locate it again I'll post it here. I posted it in another thread on the DL awhile back so it's not coming out of nowhere.

Regarding the "real" trans and "fake" trans - current trans ideology holds that they are ALL trans if they say they are. Even the autogynephiles and transvestites. Usually the only time I have ever seen someone's transness denied by other trans is when they have committed some crime around their transness, often a sexual crime, and made the trans movement as a whole look bad. Then they trot out the "No TRUE Scotsman!" fallacy.

The simple truth though, with self-id and the desire to force the world to treat trans people as the sex (not just gender!) they claim to be, opens the door for these types of people. There's a reason a growing number of criminals, in (for example) California, are suddenly claiming to be trans and being transferred to womens' prisons. They don't need a diagnosis of gender dysphoria to do that.

That diagnosis used to be required in many areas before things like gender change surgeries would be performed on a person. That is no longer the case.

by Anonymousreply 333September 21, 2021 12:44 AM

R333, if we returned to the era which some labelled as 'gatekeeping': in which a trans person needed a diagnosis from a doctor after a lengthy period of therapy before they could legally change sex, and if this solution was only offered to people who could convince the doctor they suffered from genuine gender dysphoria, would you change your position at all? For example, would you accept the 'real trans' could be allowed into any female spaces, or could change their sex marker on their passport or birth certificate?

by Anonymousreply 334September 21, 2021 12:47 AM

R331 You'd have to ask him. I doubt very much he thinks he has "destroyed" his life. And I'm pretty sure he has many articles on his site explaining his thought process. I suggest you check there.

I would like to point out though that if you throw a stone on Twitter, which represents about 20% of people, you will find a large number of trans activists whose lives seem "consumed" with the quest to do things like eliminate all sex-separated spaces, eliminate all sex-separated sports, etc. You could ask them the same question. The big difference with Graham is that he is going against the orthodoxy.

by Anonymousreply 335September 21, 2021 12:47 AM

R332 Not at all, it also affects the child's original, biological family for a start.

by Anonymousreply 336September 21, 2021 12:47 AM

[quote] [R332] Not at all, it also affects the child's original, biological family for a start.

Well, are we saying the adoptive mother forcibly removed the child from the biological family, or was it given up by the mother? Even if we say, okay, it affects two families—those two families do not represent society as a whole.

Are you a religious person, by the way?

by Anonymousreply 337September 21, 2021 12:51 AM

R334 there SHOULD be gatekeeping. There WAS gatekeeping. There is not such any longer. Now the only holdup to actually getting medical gender intervention is getting through the healthcare system which is backlogged for everyone, both in the US and the UK. The difference in the UK is that the government will pay for it whereas in the States it usually depends on the insurer (some states are exceptions).

And no, I wouldn't change my stance that men should be allowed in womens' sex-restricted spaces, because they are still not men. They can legally live as women, but they are not and never will be men, so it doesn't really matter what mutilation they do to their bodies.

by Anonymousreply 338September 21, 2021 12:53 AM

R337 I'm an agnostic.

It depends: sometimes the authorities remove the child, sometimes the mother gives it up, but regrets her decision. Some Family Preservation activists argue that if only a fraction of the money spent on arranging adoptions was instead spent on providing support for women to keep their babies, adoption wouldn't be necessary.

Not saying I agree or disagree, just presenting it as a point of view.

by Anonymousreply 339September 21, 2021 12:53 AM

Re: your reply at R334, yes I think opponents of the new trans ideology would feel a lot better if ‘trans’ only meant people who had actually transitioned and lived full-time as the opposite sex. This whole thing only spiraled out of control once *gender self-ID* sort of became the norm, and when gender activists started pushing for recognition of ‘gender’ and not sex.

There are many other issues with the state of ‘trans’ today—I realize we’re focusing on just the part where gender self-ID allows men to access women’s changing rooms, which I guess is Rowling’s issue with it (and perhaps women’s sport), but there is A LOT going on in the trans world that is raising people’s hackles.

by Anonymousreply 340September 21, 2021 12:55 AM

I see. I am not unsympathetic to the return of a degree of 'gatekeeping', to be clear.

by Anonymousreply 341September 21, 2021 12:56 AM

Again, ConcernedEuropean, none of that re: adoption seeks to reorder society. Let’s drop it.

by Anonymousreply 342September 21, 2021 12:57 AM

Nah, I don't just 'drop' things because I'm told to, buddy. Here if anyone else wants to discuss the comparison.

by Anonymousreply 343September 21, 2021 12:59 AM

You’ve failed to make a compelling case for adoption as an analogy to this issue, so if I were you I would drop it. Go on ahead with your bad self, though—and good luck. For me it’s an eye-roller and a waste of time.

by Anonymousreply 344September 21, 2021 1:02 AM

R344 with my 'bad self'???

You sound a little overwrought.

by Anonymousreply 345September 21, 2021 1:03 AM

I didn’t mean ‘bad self’ to sound dramatic, or however you perceived it. I took a Xanax 3 hours ago; I couldn’t possibly be less ‘wrought’.

by Anonymousreply 346September 21, 2021 1:05 AM

OK. What did you mean by it?

by Anonymousreply 347September 21, 2021 1:07 AM

‘Go on with your bad self’ is like a somewhat old-fashioned way of saying ‘You do you.’ Must be an Americanism you’re not familiar with?

by Anonymousreply 348September 21, 2021 1:09 AM

I'm not r346, but R347 what did you mean by "I don't drop things because I'm told to, buddy"? Seems kind of unnecessarily aggressive.

Do you have Oppositional Defiant Disorder?

by Anonymousreply 349September 21, 2021 1:10 AM

I was a little taken aback by that, R349. I didn’t mean to silence him, just that I didn’t want to discuss it any further because it was going nowhere, hence the “Let’s drop it” instead of “You better drop it, buddy, or we’re gonna have problems,” or something like that. Whatever.

by Anonymousreply 350September 21, 2021 1:13 AM

R348, yes, that's one I wasn't familiar with.

R349 Umm, no, do you have a highly developed sense of melodrama? I don't particularly like being told not to discuss things on a discussion board, that's all. I'm sure the poster in question was able to shrug off my 'aggression'.

by Anonymousreply 351September 21, 2021 1:13 AM

R350, That's fine, and not to belabor the point, but you and I aren't the only 2 people here, I originally wrote that post as part of a dialogue with other posters upthread who may well wish to come back on it, indeed I hope they might.

by Anonymousreply 352September 21, 2021 1:15 AM

R351 whoa there! No need to be crazy now. Let's all just take a deep breath and remain calm.

by Anonymousreply 353September 21, 2021 1:17 AM

"Honestly, as I've said before I find some of what the GCs say convincing. But as a human being I can't ignore the real, obsessive, raging hatred that I can detect in the internet presence of so many of them."

Hey, Concerned European, see if you can detect any hate here:

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 354September 21, 2021 1:46 AM

Yes, there is hateful content there and I disapprove of those messages. Did you really think I would say otherwise?

by Anonymousreply 355September 21, 2021 1:57 AM

Here's that study about mental disorders mentioned above:

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 356September 21, 2021 2:04 AM

R355 that is mainstream trans activism. It's not an outlier. That is what you are defending.

by Anonymousreply 357September 21, 2021 2:05 AM

R356 Thanks

R357 You'll struggle to find words from me defending that., please give your straw men a rest.

by Anonymousreply 358September 21, 2021 2:14 AM

R358 you didn't understand what I said.

You are defending it by arguing against the gender critical who seek to retain women's sex only spaces.

You are defending it by supporting trans dogma as it exists today.

Because all of that stuff in r354 - THAT is MAINSTREAM trans activism. You have cast your ballots with THOSE people. You are defending THEIR arguments, when they make one beyond "no debate!".

by Anonymousreply 359September 21, 2021 2:21 AM

R358 Are you able to demonstrate that that is 'mainstream' trans activism? For example, now that Stonewall has been taken over by the trans agenda (according to GCs), are you able to show me similar quotes put out by them?

I said upthread I had some sympathy for a 'more gatekeeping' position. But of course you'll read whatever you like into what I write.

by Anonymousreply 360September 21, 2021 2:28 AM

R356 are you sure you've posted the right thing? All subjects in that study's sample were diagnosed with Gender Identity Disorder. This does not support the point you were making about how more than half are merely crossdressers.

by Anonymousreply 361September 21, 2021 2:32 AM

Hopefully this Zoomer brat will be sued next

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 362September 21, 2021 2:43 AM

Someone should do a study on the links between trans people and anime fandom.

by Anonymousreply 363September 21, 2021 2:46 AM

[quote] Someone should do a study on the links between trans people and anime fandom.

Yeah, that’s an odd one, isn’t it? There’s also a weird link between anime fandom and being a far-lefty/Bernie Bro on Twitter.

A lot of those ‘anime’ trans kids are autistic. There’s definitely a link between autistic young people and sudden onset gender dysphoria. The autism link might be easier to explain than the anime fandom thing.

by Anonymousreply 364September 21, 2021 2:49 AM

R361 that's one study, specifically about mental disorders amongst people seeking sex reassignment surgery. The other studies showing who is self identifying as trans are scattered all over the place and I don't have one readily at my fingertips.

by Anonymousreply 365September 21, 2021 2:53 AM

R360 Why don't you clarify exactly what you are defending then? Spell it out for us. You keep meandering around with these side arguments like the one about adoption so perhaps you can be specific as to what argument you are making in regards to trans people.

by Anonymousreply 366September 21, 2021 2:56 AM

I'm raising points which I find interesting. I'm trying to explore the issue so as to better understand it. I don't necessarily have a clearly thought through position yet.

I don't know what really causes some people to be trans (please do not interject with your theories here). Much more research on this point is needed. I have never experienced gender dysphoria myself, and don't know what it would be like. I believe trans people when they describe it as a very distressing condition however. I do think there are some interesting changes in the brain that need studied.

I think the GCs have a strong argument for scepticism in the face of the notion of an inner 'gendered feeling' more valid than your body. I'm not sure what 'feeling like a man' feels like. I am comfortable with my body and don't feel in any way alienated from any of its sexed characteristics, perhaps if I didn't feel that way I wouldn't feel like a man.. On the other hand, I also feel that GCs have a series of poor explanations for why people transition, verging from the paranoid (to win gold medals!), to hysterical sex negativity (it's a fetish!), to their rather patronising attitude to transmen. For the latter, GCs claim that transmen are the unwitting victims of society's sexism and are trying to escape their own condition as women. If this were true though, what explains the significant increase in the number of openly-declared transmen lately? Society, especially in how it relates to children and young people, is far, far less sexist now than when I was growing up. I have limited time for 2nd wave radfems and lesbian separatists who are the mothers of the current GC movement. Perhaps you'd expect that as a man - after all their arguments are not aimed at me - but I just see it as a movement trapped in simplistic and essentialist notions of the conflict between the sexes and with no workable solutions.

by Anonymousreply 367September 21, 2021 3:48 AM

Part 2

More catastrophically from the GCs is their attempt to explain the gradual conversion of mainstream organisations to trans rights. For GCs, this proves that trans activists have somehow subverted or captured organisations as diverse as Stonewall, the UK NHS, the US military, big corporations like Proctor + Gamble, political parties all around the democratic world, and so on. How did such a small and hitherto weak group accomplish this? GCs tell us they are using the fear of being cancelled on the internet to win these organisations over to their will. This is fucking stupid. These institutions get cancelled on the inter net every day. They do not care.

So, to summate, not sure about the origins of transgenderism, feel sceptical about an 'inner gendered feeling', but also feel that the GC's explanations for the phenomenon are either highly contestable or simply powered by extreme demonisation of this group, which is something I don't have sympathy with. Where I live, Ireland, Self-ID has been the law of the land since 2015, and the wave of assaults on women simply haven't happened, which I think is a point that needs to be emphasised. I could be persuaded over to requiring more involvement of a physician before a change of legal sex, but I don't believe it is possible to have that conversation with people who are now claiming mainstream and respected gay rights organisations are introducing paedophilia by the back door. I will never have any truck with false or malicious allegations such as those.

Finally, I have something of a fascinated horror for this debate because I've seen people I am acquainted with utterly consumed by it. One former friend I hadn't seen for 5-6 years, a gay man, got into it about a year ago (on the GC side) . I remember him being fairly sceptical about trans people when I knew him, but he did not have a strong interest in the issue. Now he sits on twitter and posts (i have counted) over a hundred tweets a day, from dawn to dusk, about detransitioners, the supposed genocide against gay kids, Gillick competences, the LGB alliance, attacking politicians who said supportive things to trans people, etc. To me, it looks like full-fledged mental illness and I really ask myself why this argument consumes people (on both sides) in this way. Is it the impact of twitter and social media rather than the matter at dispute, or vice versa?

I wonder if anyone else will be willing to post a full and unvarnished account of their back and forths on this issue, as I have?

by Anonymousreply 368September 21, 2021 3:49 AM

[quote] Someone should do a study on the links between trans people and anime fandom.

That's easy. They believe in fantasy.

by Anonymousreply 369September 21, 2021 4:35 AM

OH MY GOD!

ConcernedEuropean, just how many cups of coffee did you guzzle down today?

by Anonymousreply 370September 21, 2021 4:38 AM

Not.... coffee exactly.

by Anonymousreply 371September 21, 2021 4:39 AM

R368, there's an irony in you dragging people who tweet profusely while writing reams and reams on DL.

by Anonymousreply 372September 21, 2021 7:21 AM

Also r368, fuck off. It's not for you to decide what makes us women feel unsafe or dictate to us what it means to be a woman.

by Anonymousreply 373September 21, 2021 7:23 AM

Concerned, I am SO glad your brought up adoption! (I haven't read subsequent posts, I jumped right down to respond. I apologize if I end up repeating something that's been discussed in the interim.)

Let's put aside transracialism for a moment and compare adoption to transgender, if you'll indulge me. This is exactly where, I contend, that the trans community jumped the shark, so to speak. This is where they began to lose the support of many otherwise supportive liberals/Democrats.

No mother or father who adopts a child ever claims that the adopted child is their bio child. They love, protect, care for the child as if it was a bio child, hell, maybe even more, the FEEL like the child is theirs, and the child IS theirs, but it would be a falsehood, and a damn big one, to try and pass off an adopted child as a bio child. So much so, that when that does occur, however rarely, it's considered a grievous act committed by the lying adoptive parent/s. An act of betrayal.

Firstly, because we know it's not true. An adopted child probably looks different. Maybe thinks a little different. Walks a little different. And no amount of love, even pure parental love, can turn an adopted child brown eyes into a bio child's blue. Genes can't be changed. It's just not possible. Again, this doesn't mean the child is loved any less! Nor should an adopted child feel less than. Not by any means. Ever. But the adopted child should know that he or she is, in fact, adopted.

Why? Why don't we just lie to the adopted kid? Who cares, right? Who gets hurt by it? Why make the child feel anymore "other" than need be? A child is a child and the parents are the parents. Why label the child as adopted?

Well, of course, we don't lie about this because we know that it's important for the adopted child to be fully aware they have different genetic markers and genetic realities than their adopted parents. These realities might come into play at some point, for a myriad of health reasons, mental and physical, as the child ages.

Therefore, the consequence of knowing that one is adopted is larger than just the idea of a "truth" itself. The feelings of the adopted child that aren't always paramount. Feelings are great and should be a big deal; but so is biological honesty. In fact, that might just be life or death!

A transgender person, in many ways, is asking society to treat him/her as "adopted" by a sex in which they were not born into. This seems reasonable. This is reasonable! She (or he) wants to be treated with all the bells and whistles a woman (or man) "gets". Great! No issues there for most common sense/non fear based people. Maybe it's hard to fully understand or grasp by us non trans, but it seems like a live and let live sort of thing.

But now it seems the trans community wants to be seen exactly as a bio woman. No difference. A transwoman is a woman. Not LIKE a woman. IS a woman. And because of that relatively simple little change in tactic? It's upended, at least for me, the whole movement.

Why? Because it's a lie. It's a clear lie. Transwomen are transwomen - which is fucking rad! We can treat them like a woman in just about every way possible. But a transwoman is not a woman. Like an adopted child is not a bio child. But in the case of adoption? We don't fight reality! In fact, if an adopted child thinks they are a a bio child, for whatever reason? It usually causes instant dissonance to those who know the truth. Eventually, the truth comes out. However, when a transwoman claims she's a woman, it also causes dissonance. But expressing that is transphobic. Which feels like lunacy!

That's the difference between adoption and transgenderism. One is treated honestly. One isn't.

At least, it's my take.

by Anonymousreply 374September 21, 2021 7:24 AM

R373 nowhere in this thread did I do either of those things. But let's be honest, at best you skimmed my posts right? You skipped straight to the end for your little performative denunciation. You are exactly the kind of person I wish *would* hurry up and separate, and soon please.

R374. Thanks for those interesting thoughts. Yes, 'transwomen are transwomen', I believe iI wrote that on some other thread. Looks like we have common ground.

If anyone read all of my posts, well done, I owe you a chocolate bar.

by Anonymousreply 375September 21, 2021 7:32 AM

I can't see that Concerned European answered my question. There's been a lot of long posts about gender theory but I'd like to ask him a specific question about legal protection.

Do you agree with Canadian trans woman Jessica Yaniv that women working in beauty salons are breaking equality laws by declining a request from a trans woman who wants a bikini wax on their penis and testicles?

Do you think women who work in or run beauty salons should face legal action for refusing to touch a penis and testicles as part of a bikini wax, as per Yaniv's legal cases in Canada, or should there be some legal exemptions under equality law that protects women who don't want to touch a penis and testicles as part of their role as a beautician?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 376September 21, 2021 7:49 AM

'Please' goes a long way, R375.

a) I cannot answer this question as I know nothing about Canadian equality law.

b) Tricky one. I'm vaguely aware of Yaniv: a quick glance at her Wikipedia page suggests she is something of a vexatious litigator. To my knowledge however, she has not acted sexually inappropriately while being waxed. I don't know how it is with these businesses in Canada. However in the UK and Ireland I've sometimes had occasion to get hair removed (not from my genitals - heaven forbid - but from much less private areas of my body) and based on my conversations in these salons, 'intimate waxing' for both men and women seems a fairly standard service that every beautician trains in, though they may not all go on to offer it. Perhaps individual beauticians could opt out of the waxing provided the establishment has at least one person prepared to offer that kind of service. Certainly in the salons I am aware of there are always therapists, usually women, prepared to do so.

Hope that wasn't too long for you.

by Anonymousreply 377September 21, 2021 8:25 AM

[quote] Perhaps individual beauticians could opt out of the waxing provided the establishment has at least one person prepared to offer that kind of service. Certainly in the salons I am aware of there are always therapists, usually women, prepared to do so.

A very vague waffly response. Some more information on the differences between waxing a penis and testicles and a vagina.

[quote]The respondents brought in an expert on waxing services who testified that Brazilian waxing is contingent on the customer having a vulva, while waxing a scrotum was called a “brozilian” or “manzilian.” The two procedures are different in technique and Cousineau added that a person “must actively and specifically consent” to provide a service which requires handling a “stranger’s genitals for a prolonged period of time.”

It's a simple question. If a woman isn't comfortable touching a penis and testicles and has not been trained to do so, should she face legal action for offering bikini wax service and turning down requests from trans women with a penis and testicles?

The answers are as below.

1. Yes, there should be a legal exemption - no woman should ever face legal action because she doesn't want to touch a penis and testicles, and waxing a penis and testicles requires different training to a vagina.

2. No, trans women are women - if a person offers bikini waxes as part of their business, they should offer them to women with a penis and testicles as well as woman with a vagina. They should lose their job and face a financial penalty if they don't offer their service to trans women.

Which one do you support? There's no third option.

by Anonymousreply 378September 21, 2021 8:36 AM

This thread is interesting, but exhausting.

by Anonymousreply 379September 21, 2021 8:41 AM

I appreciate that you have provided your own answers to your own question R378, since you didn't like my effort. Perhaps you could just go ahead and pick one of them yourself?

For me, I'm not quite sure that you are accurate on every point of detail. For example, it would be the business which would be sued, rather than the individual woman, and I'm not aware that the court can sack an individual employee from their job if the ruling goes against here employer.

I guess one possible solution would be for the business to temporarily contract someone in who would be prepared to provide the service to Yaniv.

by Anonymousreply 380September 21, 2021 9:14 AM

R375, when you are telling us to accept transwomen in our spaces and telling us that being in a lift is more dangerous than being in public toilets so we should just shut up and accept biological men in our loos and changing rooms.

Again, you fail to understand just what you are saying and how you come across. Men should fuck off out of women's spaces and women's activities, full stop.

I read what you said and, quite frankly, it's full of shit.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 381September 21, 2021 9:28 AM

[quote]For me, I'm not quite sure that you are accurate on every point of detail. For example, it would be the business which would be sued, rather than the individual woman, and I'm not aware that the court can sack an individual employee from their job if the ruling goes against here employer.

Because you know that there are women who work for themselves and provide services as a self employed beautician.

So I'll ask again - if a self employed beautician is asked to wax a trans woman's penis and testicles and she declines because she has only been trained in vaginal waxing and doesn't wish to touch a penis and testicles, should she be protected under equality law from any potential legal action?

by Anonymousreply 382September 21, 2021 9:34 AM

R382 I told you before I don't know Canadian law. There might be a case to be made that 'reasonable accommodation' was impossible for a one-woman business given the extra training requirement. Perhaps ask someone with expertise in the field?

R375 Ironic, considering that Datalounge is a gay male space and Ovarit really ought to fulfill your needs better.

by Anonymousreply 383September 21, 2021 9:52 AM

"Concerned European" thinks a woman should lose her job and her business if she doesn't want to touch someone's penis and testicles.

by Anonymousreply 384September 21, 2021 10:10 AM

R384 is a lame failed troll. If you're going to lie about what someone said don't do it in the very next post, my actual words are kind of impossible to ignore.

by Anonymousreply 385September 21, 2021 10:12 AM

"Reasonable accommodation" isn't "No woman should ever risk a financial penalty for not touching a penis and testicles".

by Anonymousreply 386September 21, 2021 10:18 AM

[quote]This thread is interesting, but exhausting.

This thread is exhausting, but not remotely interesting.

by Anonymousreply 387September 21, 2021 10:24 AM

R368 can you ever just fucking get to the point? Your posts are beyond aggravating because you ramble, and then you get super sensitive about anyone not appreciating your supposed nuance, which is just there to make your opinion seem more reasonable than it is.

To summarize - you think generally gender critical feminists are full of shit and because you, a man, haven't experienced gender dysphoria it means no one and science can't understand what it's like and so we should just give the trans lobby what they say they need. And you think women shouldn't be concerned about men in their private areas because some mass amount of assaults you imagined the gender critical are afraid of (which is your reductive retelling of their argument) haven't happened in Ireland, as far as you know.

You can nitpick nuance but that's essentially what you are saying, boiled down from multiple overlong posts. Adding lots of qualifiers doesn't mean what you are saying is any more palpable when you are, in a nutshell, advocating for biological men to be in womens' spaces, in womens' sports, in womens' prisons, in all the places that the trans lobby is insisting they be now allowed, lest they commit suicide or generally be miserable.

by Anonymousreply 388September 21, 2021 11:28 AM

Lol at the moron poster at r383/r377/r375 replying to himself. He just can't get it into his stupid little brain that he does not have the right to tell us what to think about ourselves, our experiences, our lives and who we are and what our gender is. All his reams of drivel achieve is to demonstrate what an arrogant man he is, who thinks he knows all the answers just because he's a man. Even when the issue is women, which is one area he knows absolutely nothing about.

by Anonymousreply 389September 21, 2021 11:36 AM

R368 you seem to be patting yourself on the back for your "complete account of the issue" like you did some new and unique thing in this thread and deserve a pat on the back. As if rambling and not actually answering the question directly is something to be praised. You sound more like a politician who is avoiding directly answering questions they don't want to answer.

Other people in this thread have posted their complete accounts of the issue too, you just haven't treated them as such.

What you did is post a bunch of issues you have with the gender critical movement with your own boiled-down summary (some might say "strawman") of what those issues are (e.g. gender critical are concerned about men in womens' spaces primarily due to the risk of sexual assault) and then dismissed them as trivial.

You also blew off other people concerned about the issue - which is in effect eliminating sex-segregated spaces - as if they have some mental imbalance or obsession. It's a civil rights issue and you seemingly can't understand why someone would be that concerned about it. Yet here you are camped on this thread for days, writing many lengthy posts about your opinions on the pro "men in womens' spaces" side. The hypocrisy and/or total lack of self-awareness is quite clear.

by Anonymousreply 390September 21, 2021 11:48 AM

This is a good thread on the issue, focusing on Owen Jones, however his viewpoint is sadly shared by much of the mainstream left:

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 391September 21, 2021 11:57 AM

R391, that's an excellent thread. It's absolutely true that a lot of leftists have completely lost all perspective on Islam and trans ideology. The irony is that those two pet issues are largely at odds - radical Muslims despise trans people far more than any "TERF" does. But people like Owen Jones are bullies who go after easy targets: it's not as though TERFs are going to cut off Owen's head, are they?

by Anonymousreply 392September 21, 2021 12:20 PM

R392 I think that Islam actually welcomes trans people. It's gay people and Lesbians they can't stand. Iran actually pays for gender reassignment surgery.

Which does tie back in with the transgender movement being homophobic.

by Anonymousreply 393September 21, 2021 12:42 PM

He's mansplaining, r390.

by Anonymousreply 394September 21, 2021 1:13 PM

Yep. ConcernedEuropean has shown her colours, all right.

by Anonymousreply 395September 21, 2021 2:30 PM

ConcernedEuropean’s posts are unreadable. I mean, who has the time? Brevity is your friend, my friend.

by Anonymousreply 396September 21, 2021 2:41 PM

TL;DR

ConcernedEuropean’s posts = #WaxMyBalls

by Anonymousreply 397September 21, 2021 2:48 PM

I see a lot of cats in the future of many posters here.

by Anonymousreply 398September 21, 2021 5:11 PM

And just by the by, R394, it's a little rich to accuse me of 'mansplaining' when in fact it was you and other posters here who followed me around the thread demanding I answer your questions about all your different scenarios, then, not liking my answers (because they avoided falling into some rather obvious traps?) proceeded to tell me what the only possible answers were, then proceeded to tell me what I 'really' think, then finally performatively denounced me on the basis of the words you had just finished shoving into my mouth.

I mean guys, really, who do you think this is impressing or convincing? Time to go outside for some fresh air?

by Anonymousreply 399September 21, 2021 6:00 PM

Sorry R396, in my defense, I was a little high during that posting jag, and people kept asking me questions which I was good enough to answer, not that the posters concerned had any real and genuine interest in a proper dialogue of course, with one or two honorable exceptions.

by Anonymousreply 400September 21, 2021 6:02 PM

[quote]I think that Islam actually welcomes trans people. It's gay people and Lesbians they can't stand. Iran actually pays for gender reassignment surgery.

Does Islam welcome only men transing to women, though? I can't imagine the Islamic world would be okay with women pretending to be men.

by Anonymousreply 401September 21, 2021 6:14 PM

From that thread at R391

Julie Scott 🍒 🇮🇹impenitente bastarda femmina @judgejules75 · Sep 19 If there’s a spike in crime (murders/rape) post GRA, it doesn’t matter as ‘it can be fixed’? How many women’s lives does this male think are worth ruining?

Also how do we ‘fix’ them? Wasn’t aware it was possible to be un-murdered or un-raped. Women are worthless to these males.

serialsockthief @serialsockthief Sep 19 That’s the quiet thing that people only say out loud from time to time, isn’t it? Women being collateral damage is actually fine, because pandering to males with complex gender feels and giving them exactly what they want is simply more important.

Time to stop this nonsense and close the door. You cannot change sex. You cannot take women's right's away to satisfy the unreasonable and unnecessary demands of men based on the feels of those men.

As someone once said, you do not have to be nice or polite to pervs.

by Anonymousreply 402September 21, 2021 6:32 PM

Followed you around the thread, ConcernedEuropean? You wanted people to engage with you. WTF!

by Anonymousreply 403September 21, 2021 6:34 PM

And by the way, you’ve posted in this thread as much as if not more than anyone, and I don’t know how many minds you’ve changed or impressed, either, so maybe it’s time for YOU to go outside? Fuck’s sake, man.

by Anonymousreply 404September 21, 2021 6:35 PM

R399, read the room. You're the one who has been completely unable to convince anyone here.

by Anonymousreply 405September 21, 2021 6:38 PM

And i answered didn't I, R403? Quite (too?) comprehensively in fact. But then I get fuckwits like R388 misrepresenting me and claiming I had said the exact opposite of what I said.

I've never presented a dishonest summary of any other poster here.

by Anonymousreply 406September 21, 2021 6:38 PM

r403, he didn't want to engage with anyone, he wanted to state the one and unquestionable truth, which can never be disputed.

by Anonymousreply 407September 21, 2021 6:41 PM

r401 I have no idea, but I could guess it's likely as you said.

by Anonymousreply 408September 21, 2021 7:55 PM

r406 no, what you're doing is giving evasive answers to direct questions, then complaining when someone uses logic to extrapolate what you actually are committing to. You're using weasel-words and lots of conditionals so that when someone calls you on something you say that looks bad, you can claim that it wasn't what you REALLY meant and accuse the poster of misinterpreting your screeds.

You're not debating, you're being a politician and refusing to be direct and answer questions. Meanwhile based on what you are saying we have a pretty good idea of where you stand, even though when pressed on any one aspect of it, you'll weasel around and won't commit. Then when you get the predictable negative response, you switch to ad hominem attacks and bemoan everyone's obsession with this topic.

You're basically a much less erudite version of Judith Butler.

Heads up - the trans activists are not shy about what they want. Give them an inch, they have taken a mile, and then said the mile is actually a kilometer on Tuesdays and a furlong on Thursdays but it's also a mile if it wants to be.

That is to say their ultimate claim is: sex does not exist. Therefore sex-restricted spaces should not exist. Therefore homosexuality does not exist. Men can be women if they say they are. Women can be men. Sex-restricting bathrooms is anti-trans, so sex-restrictions on bathrooms have to go. All to soothe the feelings of aggressive men who threaten to kill themselves (and encourage this result in teens and children by putting it in their heads) if they don't get what they want.

by Anonymousreply 409September 21, 2021 8:07 PM

🤔

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 410September 22, 2021 11:18 PM

R410 I wanna slap them bad!

by Anonymousreply 411September 22, 2021 11:31 PM

R409 is Boris aka Jeffrey aka Master Damian Dark😹😹😹😹🧟‍♂️

by Anonymousreply 412September 22, 2021 11:55 PM

…. Oh my, r410

by Anonymousreply 413September 23, 2021 1:31 AM

Hmmm

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 414September 23, 2021 3:15 AM

Did anyone see how the ACLU censored RBG talking about abortion to remove the word women? From standing up for free speech to literally implementing Orwellian Newspeak.

It's now:

[quote]“The decision whether or not to bear a child is central to a [person's] life, to [their] well-being and dignity. It is a decision [they] must make for [themselves]. When the government controls that decision for [them], [they are] being treated as less than a full adult human responsible for [their] own choices.”

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 415September 23, 2021 6:55 AM

It's crazy how far the ACLU has fallen. Brings the whole "institutional capture" concept into focus. They're ostensibly for free speech, yet they employ Ch-se Stra?gio, who seems to go out of his way to silence people through bullying and intimidation on Twitter.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 416September 23, 2021 7:34 AM

Oh, I see that many trans people are into

[quote]promoting equality for all,

*eyeroll*

Haven't you heard? “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” -- George Orwell

I'm glad someone's brave enough to fight for the equality of "everyone." Hint: you only need to fight for the equality of those who don't have it. The others, like "some animals" in the quotation above, already have it.

by Anonymousreply 417September 23, 2021 6:50 PM

Huh? ^^

by Anonymousreply 418September 23, 2021 7:28 PM

In other words, R418, in the present context, "fighting for equality for all" is like "All Lives Matter." It's so inclusive as to be meaningless, just like the ACLU's editing RBG's words to remove the word "woman."

by Anonymousreply 419September 24, 2021 1:32 AM

Team Rowling!!! Suck it SJWs trying to erase naturally born women.

by Anonymousreply 420September 24, 2021 1:33 AM

^thats EXACTLY it, r419.

They’re All Lives Mattering this.

by Anonymousreply 421September 24, 2021 3:17 AM

Concerned, I hope you're still around! Even though we don't agree, I like you. Verbosity isn't a bad thing in my book. My guess is we agree on everything except this one issue. And if you'd asked my take on trans a few years ago, I'd have been all for it (and I still am. Mostly.)

That said, what is your take on the RBG misquote?

What do you feel about the word woman now being a word that must be lined out?

Please tell me that's weird to you. That should make anyone's spidey sense feel...tingly. Right?

by Anonymousreply 422September 25, 2021 8:10 AM

The [people] at The Lancet feels it is appropriate to use the term "bodies with vaginas" to discuss why female reproductive health is largely ignored in medicine.

Another reason why it's going to be so easy for the far right to roll back women's rights in the US - if people like AOC refuse to use the word women, they can't defend women's rights effectively.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 423September 25, 2021 8:20 AM

I wonder if The Lancet refer to “bodies with prostates”.

by Anonymousreply 424September 25, 2021 3:49 PM

This is the future for a lot of trans kids and their parents.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 425September 25, 2021 4:15 PM

Re: 425, I feel it’s odd for a parent to be that informed and ‘involved’ in their child’s sex life, even if it is a trans child.

I wonder if that’s even a post from an actual parent of a trans child.

I don’t doubt that trans kids experience that awful stuff, and many if not most of them who have reconstructive surgery on their genitals will not be pleased with the results, but something about that post just seems ‘off’ to me.

by Anonymousreply 426September 25, 2021 7:10 PM

That's horrible. I don't doubt it's true. It's pretty much exactly what happened to that Jazz Jennings kid (puberty blockers -> micropenis -> no good surgical options and little hope for a fulfilling sex life).

And that idiot Makarosc in the comments has completely misread the post, getting all righteous and thinking the problem is that the parents can't afford the surgery.

by Anonymousreply 427September 25, 2021 7:40 PM

I've seen people outraged at the Lancet who tried to "both sides" the abuse JK Rowling got when she spoke about "menstruators".

The ACLU censoring Ruth Bader Ginsburg's speech on abortion and now "bodies with vaginas" is really opening people's eyes, and quite simply proving JK Rowling was right about

by Anonymousreply 428September 25, 2021 8:34 PM

Thanks R422 and I do agree that that quote should not have had such extensive alterations.

i don't find the term 'pregnant women' objectionable.

by Anonymousreply 429September 25, 2021 10:02 PM

That quote shouldn't have had any alterations.

by Anonymousreply 430September 25, 2021 10:10 PM

How gracious of you not to find the term "pregnant women" objectionable, r429. I feel the need to bow down to your condescension.

by Anonymousreply 431September 25, 2021 10:12 PM

R431 is a perfect example of how some TERFs are incapable of arguing in good faith. This is why you're finding it so difficult to make headway amongst the younger generations, just FYI.

by Anonymousreply 432September 25, 2021 10:33 PM

There the misogynist goes again, miffed that we're not bowing down to his male superiority and greatness. Perhaps you're right r432, they could have made a few changes to RBG's quote about women, that would be ok, and, yeah, you might be right that there are circumstances in which "pregnant women" could be used to describe those people who are pregnant, who are all women, always, every time.

The younger generation know that they're male or female. The ones who go through the trans phase are the usual moody/woke adolescents that every generation has. They grow out of it. The real problem is for the gay kids, who are being constantly pumped with the message that if they're "different" then they must be trans.

by Anonymousreply 433September 25, 2021 10:50 PM

R432 = non-sequiter

by Anonymousreply 434September 25, 2021 11:27 PM

r429 for someone who thought it was weird that some people were "obsessed" with this in another thread, you sure do love to haunt these threads.

Also I doubt very much the female population cares if you're okay with women being denied the virtue of a word for themselves, and instead reduced to various body parts and functions.

It's also totally hypocritical of the Lancet because they refer to "men" multiple times both before and after that release, yet women are "bodies with vaginas". Of course the reason is that "trans women" are men, so they are the ones shouting loudest for this shit. And some very confused women. The article that the Lancet pulled the quote from refers to "women" and "girls", but the Lancet decided to pull that specific quote, clearly to make a point.

It's unbelievable that anyone thinks it's appropriate to redefine an entire sex class because of a tiny, tiny percentage of the populations' delusions.

On the plus side, overreaches and nonsense like this are just causing more and more people to reach Peak Trans every day.

by Anonymousreply 435September 25, 2021 11:36 PM

r433 it's not just the gay kids. It's any kids who are being given puberty blockers and encouraged to identify as the opposite gender from their sex, through social contagion and "well meaning" people amplifying the message that if you aren't happy with yourself, just pretend to be someone else, and get hormones! Teen girls aren't happy with their bodies (there's a reason this affects teen girls disproportionately)? Wear binders and claim to be "nonbinary" and "queer", or that you're actually male. Don't want to be gay? Trans yourself and become straight!

by Anonymousreply 436September 25, 2021 11:39 PM

R435 [quote] Also I doubt very much the female population cares

Well maybe not, apart from the person who explicitly asked my opinion, whom I believe to be female. Did you miss that part? Or is the presence of a man on these threads (on this site mainly aimed at gay men) just too triggering to cope with?

[quote] you sure do love to haunt these threads.

Actually I'm trying to limit my engagement with the trans threads more now, as they just turn into this vortex of despair and anger and resentment, and I DO think that's a generational thing.

This one's different because I actually vaguely know the 'SJW' tagged in the OP (and am not a huge fan, in case you hadn't guessed) and am also not a fan of Rowling for reasons unrelated to her stance on trans issues.

No doubt I'll get pulled back in again by someone asking my opinion on something else though, so I'll look forward to having this conversation again shortly.

by Anonymousreply 437September 26, 2021 12:41 AM

I have found Datalounge to be less irritating after blocking Concerned European. I highly recommend it.

by Anonymousreply 438September 26, 2021 12:53 AM

r438 somehow manages to guess very precisely when I've just posted in a 400+ reply thread, for someone who has blocked me.

by Anonymousreply 439September 26, 2021 12:55 AM

I don't understand why everyone has to attack Concerned. Most of us on this thread have tons of issues with certain aspects of the trans movement, Concerned doesn't share those concerns (ha!).

That's okay.

Concerned seems to be honest, level headed. That's more than most blindly pro trans "debaters" usually bring to the table.

At the end, changing his mind, if we're able to do so, won't occur from attacks. At least, that tactic never worked for me in my own life.

by Anonymousreply 440September 26, 2021 1:00 AM

R440 He's not arguing totally in good faith, but you are welcome to keep trying to fuck that chicken, though. It won't work. It's like trying to argue with an anti-vaxxer. They just double down the more good points you make. Blocking and/or ridicule are the only real options, unless you want to continue driving yourself crazy.

by Anonymousreply 441September 26, 2021 5:07 AM

R437, the only one who cares about your opinion is the other crank who goes on about transracialism all the time but at least he's amusing because he, perhaps inadvertently, shows up the shallowness and hypocrisy of your opinions.

Indeed, if people can claim to be transgender then why they can claim to be transracial too.

by Anonymousreply 442September 26, 2021 3:47 PM

I pray for the day I have one of these MF's flash me in a ladies room. After I point & laugh at his shriveled dick, I'll pull my Glock out of my chest holster & give him his personal sexual reassignment for free.

by Anonymousreply 443October 7, 2021 2:58 AM

'I'm Team TERF': Dave Chappelle sides with JK Rowling in transgender spat and slams the trans community for canceling the Harry Potter author

'𝑰'𝒎 𝑻𝒆𝒂𝒎 𝑻𝑬𝑹𝑭. 𝑰 𝒂𝒈𝒓𝒆𝒆. 𝑰 𝒂𝒈𝒓𝒆𝒆, 𝒎𝒂𝒏. 𝑮𝒆𝒏𝒅𝒆𝒓 𝒊𝒔 𝒂 𝒇𝒂𝒄𝒕,' 𝑪𝒉𝒂𝒑𝒑𝒆𝒍𝒍𝒆.

In his standup routine, Chappelle said women view transwomen the way black people people view white people wearing blackface, and said that women have a right to be angry at transwomen, citing the fact that Caitlyn Jenner won Glamour magazine's 2015 Woman of the Year award.

'I'd be mad as sh*t if I was a woman,' Chappelle said.

Rowling was not the only victim of cancel culture that Chappelle mentioned, as he brought up the case of East Coast rapper DaBaby, Jonathan Lyndale Kirk.

Chappelle criticized the public's push to cancel Kirk after he made transphobic comments at a recent Miami music festival about people with HIV and AIDS, rather than choosing to cancel him for his alleged involvement in a 2018 shooting that left a 19-year-old dead.

by Anonymousreply 444October 7, 2021 3:38 AM

Yeah Twitter is pissed about that ^.

Chappelle misstates Rowling's position but the operative word is "I'm team TERF".

Of course now people on Twitter are saying he's an awful person, probably a murderer/pedo, etc., for no reason other than he disagrees with them about their nonsense. They're trying to cancel him but it's not going to work.

Curious if Netflix will be forced to issue a statement about it.

by Anonymousreply 445October 7, 2021 3:44 AM

I read an article about Chapelle’s latest special and they mentioned his bit about getting the J&J vaccine, and it sounded pretty hilarious. Looking forward to watching this.

by Anonymousreply 446October 7, 2021 4:07 AM

I was a sissy. If I had been born just a few years ago, no doubt my liberal parents would have insisted I was a girl in a boy's body and I would have grown up to be a butt-ugly, unfuckable transwoman.

by Anonymousreply 447October 7, 2021 3:18 PM

"Curious if Netflix will be forced to issue a statement about it."

Nah, they'll stand behind him with silence, something I highly doubt they'd do if a female comedian said the exact same words, and thus proving Chappelle's (and Rowling's) point.

by Anonymousreply 448October 7, 2021 6:09 PM

R447, I have the exact same concerns. I'm a very happy effeminate man, but if I was a Generation Z instead of a millennial, I'm sure the harmful trans ideology would have been pushed on me.

by Anonymousreply 449October 7, 2021 6:39 PM

Thank you Dave Chapelle. Between Him and Marci Bowers actually expressing some tiny bit of hesitation, there's some hope here of a return to sanity.

by Anonymousreply 450October 7, 2021 10:29 PM

It really wasn’t “pushed” and it’s not necessarily harmful. I had to sneak into the adult section of my public library as a preteen to see if what I was was normal and to find out more about Christine Jorgunson. Later I found a support group via PFLAG. It’s not as nefarious s Boris makes it seem. But I guess that is his job.

by Anonymousreply 451October 11, 2021 10:28 PM

[quote] But really you men need to do a better job protecting little boys. But Noooooo we women are supposed to do everything.

Your crotch fruit, your problem, frau.

by Anonymousreply 452October 11, 2021 10:37 PM

You must be 100 years old r451 and you're nuts if you really believe that the trans thing isn't being relentlessly pushed right now.

by Anonymousreply 453October 12, 2021 12:32 AM

r453 that poster is, in fact, nuts.

by Anonymousreply 454October 12, 2021 1:28 AM
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.

Yes indeed, we too use "cookies." Take a look at our privacy/terms or if you just want to see the damn site without all this bureaucratic nonsense, click ACCEPT. Otherwise, you'll just have to find some other site for your pointless bitchery needs.

×

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!