A few observations:
1. It's quite dull and far, far too long.
2. It's weirdly edited and they often seem to trail off from her interview slots just as she is about to say something interesting/revealing about her position.
3. The way she has been treated is clearly appallingly disproportionate to what she has done/said even if you disagree with her (which in part I do). Nobody should get hundreds of rape and death threats for stating genuinely held beliefs that are not intended to incite violence or hatred and which have been delivered in a measured and calm way.
4. She very obviously isn’t ‘transphobic’ in the sense of having any animosity towards trans people per se. It is clear though that her views go quite a long way beyond just being against self ID and having concerns about preserving single sex spaces for safeguarding reasons. It’s pretty clear she fundamentally disagrees with the idea of including transwomen in any concept of what it is to be a woman beyond the most superficial of levels. She has no problem with preferred pronouns and obviously doesn’t want trans people to be subject to abuse/violence but although she is careful in what she says there is a pretty fundamental sense that she regards gender identity as something very much subsidiary to biological sex. That is clearly ‘transphobic’ as defined by those on the opposite side of the argument.
5. I didn’t think she came across particularly well or as particularly likeable. She clearly regards herself as being something of a deep thinker/always able to see both sides of an argument but very often things she said displayed a massive lack of understanding of where the trans community/the other side of the argument is coming from.
I’ll be back in a couple of hours to check on my multi-tun. Least I deserve after sitting though the seemingly never ending length of this podcast!
1
1
Impressive Donny! Don't think anyone else on rof will listen!
1
1
people who believe in gender identity are sexists
why should anyone listen to them?
3
2
it really is fcking mad
imagine in 1999 if someone said to you "women re women because they just, like, KNOW they have an essential womanly essence like they are KIND and like NURTURING and they like pretty THINGS and I just, like, know I am a woman and the hate speech that says I'm not a woman and that women can't have penises it's just like... do they want us all to kill ourselves? because that is what is going to happen."
IMAGINE IT
2
1
meanwhile
"it was really hard to come OUT to my parents as non-binary, I just knew they really wouldn't get it? you know? like, I know I am neither a man nor a woman because I just feel in my heart that I don't have like that aggressive masculine energy but equally I don't have that caring or that bitchy side that women have so I am like this in-between state? they really didn't understand I am thinking about going NC to be honest"
5
1
Who cares what this monomaniac has to say about a niche issue?
3
1
it's not a niche issue, dux, it is fundamental to how we are all treated in society
1
1
Meh.
2
1
you won't be mehing in ten years mark my words
mark them!
0
1
Marked.
4
0
MARK THEM! IN GREEN INK!
5
1
*insert long and tedious strawperson argument*
There were trans people in 1999, you just hadn't been whipped into a frothy hate climax by the right wing press back then.
2
1
What RR said.
5
2
Yes there are trans people
They exist because of sexist ideas about what men and women are and do
A man who behaves in a way that is stereotypically female by the measures of our society is not female. The label only exists to parse the concept of a male who prefers to do what we have badged female.
2
1
GENDER LOONS ARE SO MISOGYNIST WITH THEIR REGRESSIVE STEREOTYPES OH LOOK THAT PERSON DOESN’T LOOK LIKE WHAT THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION SAY A WOMANtm LOOKS LIKE STOP THEM USING THE LAV!
4
1
This is insane
3
1
Why haven't you included these important points?
What does this mean?
"displayed a massive lack of understanding of where the trans community/the other side of the argument is coming from"
How so?
As for this:
"It’s pretty clear she fundamentally disagrees with the idea of including transwomen in any concept of what it is to be a woman beyond the most superficial of levels."
False. She simply, like most of the world, adheres to the sexed scientific definition, because of the implications for the safety, dignity and privacy of females. Not a superficial issue at all. A very serious issue for females, owing to the danger males pose to them.
1
2
oh we doing another jkr / trans thread?
some interesting stuff the last couple of days
jkr has spoken out to defend posie parker (and it appears offer to fund a lawsuit on her behalf). this is interesting insomuch as it legitimises parker’s activism - i think a couple of gc posters (including anna) were uncomfortable with her approach previously, i imagine going forward she will be more mainstreamed
https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1663265027783049223
if you’re interested in feminism, catherine mackinnon has done a piece on transgender issues - this is interesting as mackinnon (along with andrea dworkin) are probably the most prominent radical feminists and much of their work was drawn on and misapplied by early “terfs” (and i use the word descriptively, not as a pejorative). the gender critical movement has now largely given up on the idea that they’re feminists (posie parker for example literally says she’s not a feminist) but - while of course i disagree with much of what mackinnon says - it’s of note that even the radical feminism movement is now distancing themselves from gender critical believers, leading to the question of where they can fit within any kind of mainstream or semi-mainstream feminism these days
https://signsjournal.org/exploring-transgender-law-and-politics/
1
1
Of course it was JKR's podcast ffs. The clue is in the name of the podcast. She is 99% at least of the pull factor for it. There is no way she didn't have absolute final editorial control.
The host is a nobody with a moderately interesting back story of having grown up in what was effectively a cult that specialised in being horrible to people at funerals. What is most significant is that she had absolutely no power whatsoever in the relationship between her and JKR.
As for your questions...
What does this mean?
"displayed a massive lack of understanding of where the trans community/the other side of the argument is coming from"
How so?
***********
Well, just as an example. When talking about hormones/surgery for children she says (broadly) that she thinks we should err on the side of not doing things which risk/cause irreversible changes because if we are wrong then at least no permanent harm has been done. That (i) misses that options for successful transition treatments are radically diminished once a person has gone through puberty; and (ii) sat rather starkly against the 17 year old transman who appeared on the podcast who made it very clear that he thought he would most likely have killed himself had been made to wait longer for treatment. For someone who claimed to have read into the topic very deeply on both sides it seemed to me very stark that she didn't even acknowledge that others would see that differently.
As for this:
"It’s pretty clear she fundamentally disagrees with the idea of including transwomen in any concept of what it is to be a woman beyond the most superficial of levels."
False. She simply, like most of the world, adheres to the sexed scientific definition, because of the implications for the safety, dignity and privacy of females. Not a superficial issue at all. A very serious issue for females, owing to the danger males pose to them.
*******
Well that's not 'false' is it. Not even remotely. I didn't say it was a superficial issue. I said she was only willing to let transwomen in the 'women club' on a superficial level which is what 'adhering to the sexed definition' means isn't it?
0
1
A lie. She spoke out about a lie posted about Kelli-Jay, a lie which you, as a solicitor presumably part of a regulatory org, have also repeated maliciously.
Kudos to Joanne Rowling for speaking out about this lie, which you too Chill have perpetuated.
There is nothing controversial in why Joanne Rowling has spoken out about this. We must, as it's a lie about Kellie-Jay, if we believe we should be ethical. We can agree with everything Kellie-Jay thinks, some of what Kellie-Jay thinks, or none of what Kellie-Jay thinks, and still must speak out about lies being perpetuated about her, which you have also posted before, Chill.
Joanne's post:
As @PatrickStrud has blocked me on here (we've never, to my knowledge, interacted on Twitter or anywhere else) I can't challenge him directly about the claim he published in iNews (see below) that a Let Women Speak event in Australia 'staged a mass Nazi salute'. This is a lie so brazen, so easily disprovable and so libellous, I'm amazed it was allowed it into print by a supposedly reputable news source. For years now, women and gay people concerned about the erosion of their rights, the dismantling of safeguarding and the escalating threats and violence of trans activists have been called 'fascists' and 'Nazis' by people like Strudwick for holding what, until five minutes ago, were solidly left-wing/feminist political positions. Nobody but useful idiots can be genuinely surprised that REAL fascists have spotted a glorious opportunity in trans activism. The homophobic, anti-feminist far-right has long held that the left is degenerate, foolish, immoral and authoritarian, and now they can point to the incoherent arguments of the gender ideologues, the bullying tactics of the no-platformers and the swarms of masked men threatening violence against women for wanting to retain single-sex spaces, and crow 'we told you so'. Actual Nazis have turned up on the fringes of Let Women Speak events for exactly the same reason aggressive, narcissistic trans activists are there. These groups closely resemble each other. Both are rife with misogynistic opportunists who're using a clash of rights to push their own agendas, both are there in the hope of violence, and neither gives a damn about the women who're there to speak out in their own voices, about their own lives, on their own behalf. It's high time those peddling lies like Strudwick's are held accountable and I sincerely hope @ThePosieParker takes action.
It goes without saying, I also hope legal action is taken, both against people like this, and against solicitors who post lies about her online, too. Again, it is inconsequential if someone agree with any of Kellie-Jay's opinions. She did not do what is alleged about her here. It is a lie.
1
0
More insanity.
1
1
donny - i have tried to listen to this but the episodes are very long and the first couple have little to do with the core trans issues and more to do with the reaction jkr received from them
is there an episode or episodes you’d suggest i listen to (knowing as you do my views on the matter)? i don’t really mind if it’s balanced or not, i’m interested in hearing the other side as it were
or - and this is why i stopped - do you think it would mostly just recap the arguments anna has already posted over the last couple of years (in which i’m aware of all that stuff)?
1
2
eh? i was (deliberately) as neutral as possible in linking to the jkr tweet - trust me i have views on it but wanted to post it up for discussion instead of inviting an argument
what “lie” are you talking about rumpole? something on another thread?
1
1
Rumpole.gpt does not respond to questions like that.
1
0
oh stop being a massive weirdo rumpole - either we discuss it or we don’t, you don’t need to be throwing around vague threats like this
1
1
Offer him out for a fight chill, it's the only way.
1
1
heh!
i’m a lover not a fighter royalty
and i certainly won’t be inviting rumpole to any of that
2
1
"That (i) misses that options for successful transition treatments are radically diminished once a person has gone through puberty"
What does this mean?
"against the 17 year old transman who appeared on the podcast who made it very clear that he thought he would most likely have killed himself had been made to wait longer for treatment."
Well, we know online forums are grooming children to weaponise suicide like this, telling them what to state in interviews and during appointments with doctors, telling them to drop this in, as it is a very successful way to bring conversations to a halt. Rof's Chill also does the same - drops suicide into conversations, because it's so emotive, and makes posters uncomfortable, makes them stop posting, makes them feel they must side with Chill. He does this despite being told repeatedly The Samaritans ask explicitly that suicide not be weaponised, that it not be speculated about, that it not be used to try to win arguments, etc.
Children do do things like this, react in extreme ways to questions about their identity. It has no basis in data. We see nothing statistically to suggest this sort of explosive claim has any basis in real-life risk. The period of adolescence to early adulthood is the period of identity formation. Children try on different identities, and take to each in extreme ways. All unremarkable. All normal.
You'll commonly hear things from adolescents like complete rejection of whatever the thing is they disagree with - their parents, meat-eaters, war, band x, singer y, clothing style a, interest in hobby b.
All these bold claims, all these complete rejections of "the other" are entirely normal, all these bold assertations of their ability to take care of themselves (overlooking their dependency on a variety of people and institutions) as they try on identities.
During early adulthood, they settle into an identity usually.
0
1
I watched the docu featuring K Stock on tv last night all I can say is she claimed at one point to ‘never wear make-up’ but in one of the talking heads bits she was definitely wearing eye shadow!
0
1
fwiw i don’t do this - very deliberately - because i have looked at the stats on trans suicide and don’t think they’re robust enough
(i actually had a long argument with anna on this at one point - there’s a couple of studies from trans clinics in europe and the usa marking a significant drop in suicidal ideation, but actual suicide rates would require multiple police forces and coroner’s offices around the world to reliably record if a victim was trans, and i simply don’t think they’re able to do that)
1
1
Since you also didn't mention it here, though it was mentioned during the podcast, what did you learn about Joanne Rowling's experiences of male on female violence Donny? Let me guess, "obvs not ideal Clive".
1
1
heh @ rumpole thinking donny is a tra because he made some light criticisms of jkr
1
1
Chill - the last two episodes are probably the most relevant to the actual trans debate. A lot of the earlier stuff is about her books being banned by religious nutters and her fairly awful early adult life. Episode 6 is the view point of two (moderate, very sensible) Potter fans who are also trans. Episode 7 is probably most enlightening on her views.
2
1
“Joanne”
1
1
Agree the first part, but not the suggestion that they are "not intended to incite violence or hatred". Trans people are themselves subject to appaling levels of violence, not to mention the psychological effects of exclusion and discrimination. JKR knows this perfectly well and knows the effect of her position. She only does not intend it as a primary object, she intends to push a view that she knows of itself will inevitably advance violence and hatred, that's just a price she's willing for other people to pay so she gets what she wants
This is an odd statement in that the first sentence is clearly contradicted by the second. Given the entire premise boils down to 'trans women are women', saying 'trans women are not women' could really not be more that straight out transphobia. Is saying gay relationships should not be recognised as legal relationships not homophobic if you don't have any animosity towards gay people, just think they should be treated differently to straight people and not have the same rights? Of course it is. Is saying Black people should have their own toilets and water fountains not racist if you have no animosity towards black people, just think that they are different to white people and should not be treated the same as whites? Of course its racism - there are white racists today who swear blind that they have no animosity towards PoC, they just think that white people should be able to go their own way and stay pure. These people are clearly racists.
Her famous letter was a case in point. A lot of her justification for her position, which she seemed to think was absolutely a killer point, was that she had been assaulted by a man once, and other women had also been assaulted by a man. As trans women were (in her head) men, this justified discriminating against all trans women as a group. This is absolutely text book 101 bigotry. To use an obvious example, the fact that you were once assaulted by a black person does not justify discrimination against a completely different black person or black people in general. That someone who pretends to be a feminist, and would no doubt implicitly understand how society discriminates against women, the lack of any apparent cognitive dissonance is startling. Same and far more so with black and lesbian TERFS like Allison Bailey. It's illustrative of the fact that JKR, and of course many TERF's, never really had any sense of higher morality, human rights or justice and fairness that underpins the classic justification for feminism (or for black or gay rights in Allison's case), they were simply motivated by bare self-interest, and that alone informs their position on all gender matters - JKR may pretend she wishes trans people well but the reality is that she just doesn't care about them (or anyone) as long as it does not affect her personally, as a woman or otherwise. Of course it goes without saying that she and those like her implicitly expect others to make accomidations for them even if it does harm their interests.
Perhaps the bottom line is this - what would JKR call any man who said "I have nothing against women and wish them well in their own spaces, but they cannot expect the same rights, status and titles as men, we are clearly physically different. Nor will we suffer for masculine terminology to be changed, and we must maintain the right to our own male spaces, especially when the physical weakness of women may put men in danger, such as in the armed forces, firefighters and police". She would, without the least hesitation call that person a msogynistic bigot, and you know what - she'd be right. The sad fact is JKR is herself exactly the same variety of bigot, and a shameless hypocrite to boot.
Rank tunsluttery, top Roffing
1
1
cheers cc, that’s useful!
2
1
"Trans people are themselves subject to appaling levels of violence, not to mention the psychological effects of exclusion and discrimination. JKR knows this perfectly well and knows the effect of her position. She only does not intend it as a primary object, she intends to push a view that she knows of itself will inevitably advance violence and hatred, that's just a price she's willing for other people to pay so she gets what she wants "
Evidence for any of this please? As usual, no evidence posted. Can you please post evidence? Where are the stat's that back up these wild claims?
"she had been assaulted by a man once"
A lie. You clearly are either willfully misleading about this, or don't know. Either way, this is a lie. She was not "assaulted by a man once".
1
0
Sealiontastic
0
2
rumpole m8
i know i shouldn’t engage with you, but since you helped me out the other day by allowing me to clarify my fallon fox comments, and cause you dragged the spectre of regulatory body lawsuits into it, could you confirm what the lie is you believe I have “maliciously repeated”?
cheers
1
1
Rumpole - to be clear, I wasn't trying to summarise the contents of the 7 hours or so of podcast in my OP. I had thought that obvious, but perhaps not to you.
She clearly had a really sh1t time in her early adult life and yes of course that feeds into her views about single sex spaces and in particular the likelihood of bad actors taking advantage of things like self ID to get access to vulnerable women. TO BE CLEAR I ALMOST ENTIRELY AGREE WITH HER ON SAME SEX SPACES as I have made clear on here many times.
In fact I had thought her almost entirely aligned with my views on the topic if I am honest. But, having listened to the podcast I don't think that is right. I am very open to accepting that trans identity is an absolutely integral part of a person that makes a trans person different in a fundamental way to a person of the same biological sex who does not hold that identity. I am not sure she really is open to accepting that. I think she thinks it is more of an aspect (a quirk?) of personality that all else being equal should be indulged/be met with kindness but isn't worthy of the same degree of respect/recognition as biological sex when the chips are really down.
2
1
Just 1 such example Chill. You have lied about Kellie-Jay over and over on multiple threads.
This above is also a lie:
jkr has spoken out to defend posie parker (and it appears offer to fund a lawsuit on her behalf). this is interesting insomuch as it legitimises parker’s activism - i think a couple of gc posters (including anna) were uncomfortable with her approach previously, i imagine going forward she will be more mainstreamed
Again, regardless of whether a person agree with everything, some things, or nothing of what Kellie-Jay cares about, we must condemn lies like your lies about her, like those mentioned in Joanne Rowling's post that Joanne Rowling rightly condemns. We condemn them because they are lies.
Kellie-Jay doesn't have an approach, as we've been over before. Like every other living human, she has some opinions a person may agree with, and some a person may not. She states over and over again, that she has no expectation that everyone agree on everything, in order that they can work together on some things that matter in-common. She expects adults to be able to work peacefully together, whatever their differences.
https://www.rollonfriday.com/discussion/jkr-doesnt-hate-trans-people
Chill
and i know you think you are a centrist here jim but it’s very obvious the way you characterize trans activists as abusive and threatening, and gender critical people as “women who want to discuss their concerns” (and ignore them - for example - quoting mein kampf and sharing their protests with neo-nazis) that you are completely biased on this issue
Me:
"sharing their protests with neo-nazis"
They didn't, but then we've been through this over and over, and no amount of Jewish organisations in Australia also speaking out against this nonsense people like you spout will stop you.
As the police forces in Australia are also captured by your dangerous rhetoric, the women were handling their own security largely by paying for it themselves, and subject to males imposing on their event, which is named, wait for it, let women speak. You know, because women are subject to cancellation these days for being concerned about their safety, privacy and dignity, so their financial resources to pay for private security only stretch so far.
Males couldn't stand the idea of letting women speak. Imagine. It's almost as if the movement came about because, wait for it, males weren't letting women speak.
It's almost, as if, you're still, in 2023, blaming women for poor male choices and conduct on public streets, and inadequate policing and captured police forces untethered to values.
1
1
“Kelly-Jay”
0
1
for whatever it’s worth i thought the mackinnon link was way more interesting than jkr’s tweet (appreciate that wasn’t the topic of the post donny) and would recommend it to anyone interested in how trans rights and feminism interact
she says a lot of stuff i disagree with (there’s a part for example where she rejects gender identity is innate, but then she doesn’t think sexuality is innate) but she goes way further than even i would on trans people in sports and single sex spaces - and all from a rabidly feminist perspective
1
1
"isn't worthy of the same degree of respect/recognition as biological sex "
What does this mean? Do you understand the significance of sex, as it pertains to the existential threat males pose to females, as is pertains to the sexed needs of females in settings such as medical settings? If you do, what relevance do respect and recognition hold?
What do you know about the danger males pose to females, Donny? Any idea of the stat's? Any idea of how many females are killed by males on average yearly? Any idea how many females are trafficked by males? Any idea how many females are subject to genital mutilation or child marriage? Any idea how many females are raped or sexually assaulted by males on average yearly, Donny? How many reports have you read on this topic, to come to the conclusion that, rather than it be necessary to shield females from males in some situations, or that it be necessary to have sexed facilities owing to biologically distinct needs in for example medical needs, that it's about "respect/recognition"?
What percentage of the world's population is female, Donny?
0
2
oh i see so you accept that neo-nazis attended the event and held a mass nazi salute (you have to i suppose as there is footage) but your contention is that parker didn’t invite them and they crashed the event?
fine i don’t think that negates what i said by “shared” and i don’t think it matters anyway - the nazis supported them, they didn’t object (there’s photos of some of the gender critical women taking pictures with the nazis, which i assume you’ve seen)
2
1
Nope. I don't accept that. I've explained my point of view, which isn't what you've claimed (once again).
Males will, for predictable reasons, continue to turn up to female only events, continue to demand attention upon themselves that was supposed to be on females, continue to ruin female-only groups and settings. Imagine, it's almost like the name "let women speak" came out of, wait for it, males constantly being a problem when, wait for it, women tried to speak.
Surprising, isn't it, that with a history of not letting women speak, males again, tried to stop women from speaking.It's almost as if, we might be able to predict, wait for it, that males will, once again, turn up to the next event determined to draw the attention upon themselves and, wait for it, stop women from being able to speak.
1
1
ffs rumpole they “turn up” because gender critical ideology is fascist and ultimately genocidal
that’s why they love it
1
1
I really shouldn't engage with someone who posts the 'existential threat males pose to females' ffs.
But I am bored.
Yes I understand the nature of male on female violence and the extent of it. Again I UNDERSTAND THE NEED FOR SINGLE SEX SPACES. Sorry for the caps but you don't seem to be willing to actually read what I write.
The question here is about a balancing of potentially conflicting rights. That will never be perfect.
For example it seems likely there would be fewer sexual assaults on children if men were banned from all jobs that involved interaction with children. But we don't do that. Because there are other rights at stake there and other benefits of having men in those roles. An elevation of the risk of even awful things happening doesn't trump all other rights/concerns in all circumstances.
Sometimes we have to take risks with one group to protect the rights of others. It is always a balance. In that balance the respect or importance we ascribe to something matters because it impacts how heavily that something weighs in the balance. It matters therefore if something is regarded as an aspect of personality, perhaps even an eccentricity rather than something of fundamental importance. We see this all the time. See e.g. being excused from wearing a motorcycle helmet if you are a Sikh but not because you are a fanatical man u fan and always wear your man u hat.
That's not a perfect analogy of course it's just an example of ordering.
1
1
this is a bit of a mic drop tbf
1
1
Yeah, that is a definite what the actual fvck and a timely reminder both sides of this debate are capable of being batsh1t mental.
1
1
Yup both sides are totes nutty
0
1
that’s the view of the auschwitz institute for genocide prevention chaps
https://www.lemkininstitute.com/statements-new-page/statement-on-the-genocidal-nature-of-the-gender-critical-movement’s-ideology-and-practice
0
1
For example it seems likely there would be fewer sexual assaults on children if men were banned from all jobs that involved interaction with children. But we don't do that. Because there are other rights at stake there and other benefits of having men in those roles. An elevation of the risk of even awful things happening doesn't trump all other rights/concerns in all circumstances.
i vaguely recall some gc person advocating this on twitter not long ago actually
1
1
"I really shouldn't engage" <<< you're doing noone an honour with such ignorant posts. It shows you don't understand these issues at all, and are the most dangerous type of casual commentator - gleefully ignorant, but desperate to be part of the conversation, so volleying your opinions in regardless.
If all this conversation does is show you how much you don't know, that's about the best we can hope for, as you're dived head-first into advocacy for something causing irreversible harm to children needlessly.
How many detransitioners do you know of? What do you know of their stories? What have you read of the data on detransitioners? What have you learnt about detransition?
Know who Sonia Appleby is? Know what happened to her at The Tavistock? What was her job there, Donny?
A declaration of "I am trans" tells us nothing about someone's cognitive health, could mean any 1 of any number of hundreds of things. Do you understand that, Donny? Do you understand why a child may come to boldly declare things they later back away from?
2
1
chill - yeah see eg Lineker and comments re Nazi Germany
a lot of the same rhetoric used
1
1
if i know rof, rumpole will now say “the auschwitz institute for genocide prevention? what do they know about genocide? please provide some peer-reviewed studies to back up this lie”
and jim will think “wait but i agree with gender critical views but am against genocide - how can i parse this so as to remove any concerns?” like he did with the warnings from the council of europe
you guys need to wake up (“get woke” if you will) to what’s actually happening and listen to those who are warning you about what’s going to happen next
0
1
What’s next. I’m on the edge of my seat here
0
1
In case anyone missed it from the other thread:
Here is a link to a puppy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAH-ixdFWFs
0
1
look at the usa hotnow
1
1
BTW - I did nothing to the Council of Europe thing other than dissect it, point out misleading statements, inaccurate conclusions and unsupported statistics and then grade it as very poor.
I’m sure there are valid concerns on both sides but when one side is saying, “males are an existential threat to women” without explaining how we’ve co-existed for millennia without wiping out the other side, and the other is saying that a belief protected by law that sex should be the more important consideration in safeguarding than self-ID gender is “fascist and ultimately genicidal” then I’ll stick to watching puppies thanks.
0
1
eh? you mean the forstater thing jim? cause if so that’s not what it says at all
the puppies are very cute i’ll grant you
1
1
Large houses, lovely weather, cool mountains and skiing, good Mexican food, people are generally cool and dare I say it have a good sense of humour.
Is that what you mean?
0
1
Aren't the Lemkin Institute for Geoncide Prevention and the Auschwitz Institute for Genocide Prevention different organisations?
1
1
“Gender-critical beliefs include the belief that sex is biological and immutable, people cannot change their sex and sex is distinct from gender-identity.”
That better Chill?
Now watch the puppies and calm down.
2
1
I refer you to the reply given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram
5
0
Feels like this classic needs re-airing after rumtrolls latest shitpost frenzy
1
1
They should have a nice calming cup of tea:
5
0
Rumpole is fvcking insane. Which is fine, so long as it is not in charge of anything more significant than deciding what type of biscuits to have in meetings. Because its potent mix of monomania, megalomania, a vastly inflated sense of its own importance and intellectual ability, and a pathological inability to hear or listen to anyone else's "voice" but its own, is toxic and quite dangerous if it has the power to influence anyone's life or career.
0
1
hey cru
i’m sure you have a similar takedown for me but if you haven’t had a chance to read the mackinnon link above i think you’d find it interesting
1
1
@ warren: could you direct me to somewhere that has recorded these appalling levels of violence, in a statistical sort of way?
1
1
here you go benj - starts on p197:
https://transequality.org/sites/default/files/docs/usts/USTS-Full-Report-Dec17.pdf
1
1
That's advocacy, not a decent, peer-reviewed source, Chill. Not possible to rely on that for anything from which one would want to know facts about matters.
No way to know, as there are hundreds of reasons why someone may temporarily or permanently state "I am trans". It doesn't tell us anything about them, and it may be incidental to other events in their lives, may be incidental to any violent events.
Children who state "I am trans" generally only do so for a short period in their development when they are experimenting with identity in adolescence (when they may also state they hate their parents, noone understands them, meat eaters are murderers, they may dress all in black or always in clothes displaying their favourite singer or band of the moment, etc). Thereafter, it's no longer relevant to their lives, unless they have been subject to irreversible pharmaceutical and cosmetic surgery interventions.
This source is also not reliable, Benj.
TVT TMM UPDATE • TRANS DAY OF REMEMBRANCE 2021
https://transrespect.org/en/tmm-update-tdor-2021/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Simply to illustrate the enormity of the problem for females, how little the 2 issues have to do with each other, and why advocacy for females is essential.
A decent, peer-reviewed source:
This report was prepared by the Research and Trend Analysis Branch, United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) and the Ending Violence Against Women Section, United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women (UN Women).
https://www.unwomen.org/en/digital-library/publications/2022/11/gender-…
Gender-related killings of women and girls (femicide/feminicide) Global estimates of gender-related killings of women and girls in the private sphere in 2021
Improving data to improve responses
0
1
Perfectly normal writing, that any living human might produce.
0
1
In no way a completely bizarre mode of expression
0
1
It tells us that they are identifying as trans. And it may not be incidental to “violent events”. Very odd choice of a kind of “event”. You really are cracked
0
1
here you go rumpole:
https://twitter.com/kelly_cadigan/status/1664689953610117123
(plus she went with the taylor swift “i’m the problem, it’s me” vid on her twitter which was actually kind of funny cool)
0
1
here you go rumpole:
https://slate.com/human-interest/2021/02/detransition-movement-star-ex-gay-explained.html
1
1
Chill isn't Kelly just a transwoman?
1
1
Kudos to Elon Musk
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1664442091798159361
"This is a major problem. I will be actively lobbying to criminalize making severe, irreversible changes to children below the age of consent. Shame on those who advocate this! It is utterly contemptible."
Matt Walsh's documentary "What is a woman?" is showing for free on Twitter right now, for anyone interested in watching it. It's about 90 min's long.
Currently at circa 50 million views
0
1
well, happy pride month everyone!
♥️🧡💛💚💙💜
1
1
Kudos to Davina McCall, no doubt now subject to extreme levels of abuse from those of Chill's ilk. Let's hope she can resist the demands for an hostage video. So late to the discussion, silent for far too long, but finally speaking out.
https://twitter.com/ThisisDavina/status/1672698682007863296
This really is a very interesting and balanced podcast x highly recommend
Kudos also to John James for an important, thoughtful reply.
https://twitter.com/JohnJamesNI/status/1672749931419795456
I used to work on Big Brother as a researcher when you presented it, some of the happiest times in my life. As a gay man, can I assure you that I fully support @jk_rowling - there is nothing hateful about standing up for women’s rights and may I also add how supportive Jo has been for sticking up for lesbians and gay men like me who face abuse from trans activists on a daily basis.. Gay men like me have the audacity to state we are same-sex attracted and not attracted to the opposite sex - we are called “genital fetishists” while the CEO of Stonewall calls us “sexual racists”. Have a look at @AllianceLGB, @project_lesbian & @againstgrmrs - thousands of gay men & lesbians like me have had enough and we have also had enough of women like @jk_rowling being abused… the “LGBTQUFFEGIV+ mob” don’t speak for us and never will…. X
0
1
yes saw this - very disappointing after the groundbreaking representation of nadia’s win in 2004
would never happen today - just shows how much lgbt+ rights have come under threat in our lifetimes
0
0
As mentioned before, LGB people want nothing to do with the letters, as their needs are different. You consider LGB people to be xphobic, for wanting to be considered separate from the letters.
Your ideology is homophobic.
https://twitter.com/UpsyDaisy666_/status/1672310067285348352
This is a photograph taken in March 1983 from the march protesting the homophobic murder of gay man Declan Flynn & the suspended sentences given to his murderers. Notice the sign that reads 'The police aren't on your side either. Pic is from GCN in 2018.
https://gcn.ie/irish-lgbt-community-gather-fairview-remember-declan-fly…
Now look at how this picture has been altered on the @DublinPride website. It has been tampered with to dishonestly insert trans demands into lesbian & gay history. Nobody carried a sign saying 'Trans rights are human rights' in 1983. It is urgent to push for #LGBWithoutTheTQ
https://twitter.com/UpsyDaisy666_/status/1672311345105231873
0
1
well done for speaking for all lgb people rumpole, but this is nonsense
some gay people are transphobic - there’s nothing unusual about this, some gay people are sexist and racist as well
being lgb doesn’t mean you’re absolved from prejudice against other minorities
ah you’re just talking crap - well done
0
1
Again:
You consider LGB people to be xphobic, for wanting to be considered separate from the letters
You stated that gay people are xphobic if they want to be considered separate from the letters owing to having different needs. "Some people are..." is irrelevant to the claim you made, which was never "some people are...".
Gay man Duncan Henry on why he's against your manifesto:
https://duncanhenry.substack.com/p/tra-to-gc
Gay man Malcolm Clark on why he's against your manifesto:
https://twitter.com/TwisterFilm/status/1648824422847991809
"Gender medicine is harming young LGB people. Mengele and Hirschfeld would be overjoyed at what is being done to young people today."
https://twitter.com/FredSargeant/status/1651347091887734785
A gay man named Fred Sargeant, 1 of the founders of pride. Also against your manifesto.
Your ilk are going after GAY (the gay venue) now, because a female bouncer politely refused to pat down a male who queued in the female queue, upon which said male ranted of course, and was then predictably refused entry by the male bouncer for being a problem (kudos to the male bouncer for so succinctly and clearly handling matters)
https://twitter.com/adamjjay/status/1672608256072507392
Soho Police now apparently have deemed this worthy of the devotion of limited public funds.
Kudos to all those in the replies commenting on whether that's appropriate for Soho Police and commenting on the conduct of the ranter.
https://twitter.com/Jebadoo2/status/1672926663623974913
Police here are seriously implying they are going to go after GAY’s license because some “non binary” trouble maker has had a whinge on twitter. An unbelievable waste of resources and clear example of police political bias.
https://twitter.com/SCynic1/status/1672953819502718976
Note: discrimination is not a police matter. Threatening to use it as a licensing matter is dubious, because that’s only a police matter insofar as it relates to criminality and public order. Neither of which figure. And investigating via a twitter complaint is bizarre.
https://twitter.com/Lgb_Republic/status/1672928612255686657
How is a man being asked to queue in the men’s queue discrimination? He doesn’t have the right to be searched by females.
https://twitter.com/HenryFitzempre/status/1672814768363798529
You got kicked out of the queue because you were trouble before you even walked in. You saw the queues were separated by sex, saw a chance to make a scene, but security was a step ahead and not having a bar.
https://twitter.com/ilovepreserves/status/1672947744476917760
Why do you want to force a woman to pat you down? She has the right to refuse to pat down anyone who isn't female. That's why there are a male and a female bouncer. Your demands don't override her right to not pat down males Ffs. Get over yourself. You're not special.
https://twitter.com/VeggieBeef/status/1672899092052164608
They didn’t turn you away for being NB. They turned you away because you were clearly trying to cause a scene. You are obviously male - get in the male queue ffs! Bouncers are supposed to weed out potential trouble makers. Sounds like they did a cracking job tbh.
0
1
I'm assuming chill would support the NB individual and say that the bouncers were transphobic?
3
1
1
1
Chill, m9, that's almost Ben garrison level.
0
1
Lol Chill. You've posted that before but still excellent!
0
1
Lol who was it who used to post Benny G cartoons?
1
1
As far as I'm concerned it is far from established that transwomen should be treated EXACTLY like women.
In my view, for example, it is axiomatic, notwithstanding the current state of the debate and decisions that are currently in effect, that transwomen cannot simply be allowed to take part in sporting activities as if they were in fact women without there being substantial inequality - something which in sport is particularly problematic.
Therefore the question under consideration is, exactly what is society going to grant to transpersons by way of equality with cis persons of the sex and/or gender they have adopted.
What appears to me to be a quite lunatic degree of hostility from trans activists towards anyone who is not prepared to simply accede to their mantra "trans women are women" is causing far more problems than it solves.
I recognise that there are claims of damage to the well-being of young people who have decided they wish to transition if society does not simply accede to "trans women are women", and I am sorry to learn about this. It does not, in my view, provided a scintilla of logical justification, however, for the arguments of trans activists and still less for the ones who think it's OK to go online and make death and rape threats to those who don't adopt their viewpoint (and their families).
Attempting to win arguments by making ad hominem allegations about your opponent has always been seen as a tactic deployed by those who fear they are losing the argument, and/or who have no better arguments to make.
0
1
"I recognise that there are claims of damage to the well-being of young people who have decided they wish to transition if society does not simply accede to "trans women are women", and I am sorry to learn about this."
Claims by Chill, who also makes bold claims about "the black people!", "the disabled people!", "the gay people!", Michael Barrymore and the people in possession of green curly wigs from fancy dress shops.
There's no evidence to back any of these wild claims up. Chill is just following orders from his Twitter overlords to perform outrage.
Puberty can be a bit up and down for all children, developmentally seeking to assert their independence, all the while still entirely dependent, making bold declarations about nobody being able to understand them, hating their parents, school being a waste of time, eating meat is murder, all the while wanting to curl up on the sofa and be waited on hand and foot or chauffeured around, etc etc. Adolescents largely settle on usual adulthood trajectories by early adulthood. Most grow out of trying on identities, which is developmentally normal in adolescence (extremely vegan, going to establish world peace, anti-government, anti-parents, extremely into a band and wearing symbols to show their allegiance at all times, anti-oil). It's unremarkable that they declare themselves staunchly 1 thing, and not the other, over and over again in adolescence. It's an essential part of childhood development.
Most children stating they are trans, state that for a short period of time only, and grow out of it, as their identity testing (again all developmentally normal) settles into a more solid idea of who they are.
https://cass.independent-review.uk/publications/interim-report/
Excerpts from the Cass Review's Interim Report
2
1
Those claims are not being made solely on ROF. You should endeavour not to be so insular.
0
1
Obviously not, if I mention he's getting his orders from his Twitter overlords. Reading not your strong suit it seems.
Why would anyone place value on wild claims anywhere when the subject matter is so important, and there are decent sources available to rely upon? Better people care about decent, peer-reviewed sources, when they're available (they won't always be available, but, in this case, they are).
Join the discussion