2 humourless, talentless literalists policing the world. There's never been a more opportune moment in world history for such types.
Transgender rights discussion
- Thread starter crappycraperson
- Start date
2 humourless, talentless literalists policing the world. There's never been a more opportune moment in world history for such types.
Glinner isn't too happy with Dan by the looks of it..
Oh. Good.
You really do come across as an incredibly patronising person. It's not a great look.
Glinner isn't too happy with Dan by the looks of it..
That's fecking nuts. To view the issue as a test of loyalty is pretty incredible. What cause worth a damn would want to build their troops out of feeble deference.
You just knew he would be angry but that argument is pretty wild even by his deranged standards.
That's because I am?
Glinner isn't too happy with Dan by the looks of it..
the other day he was bemoaning why some of Rowling's celeb friends hadn't come out and supported her. this makes me laugh.
No, ´cause of the DNA found inside Her Majesty would give us the necessary proof + numerous of other physiological differences.
I'm white and I support BLM and I'm quite willing to become black if it proves my sincerity.
This thread has gone weird.
Harry Potter was my shit when I was growing up. I read all the books a few times as a teenager and never had a clue it would later bring so much controversy. 
I hope he's struck off as well.
Imagine if he were actually a doctor?
*shivers*
I strongly disagree with him but should we be banning people who have differing and albeit odd views? How much of the population in the US/UK would agree with this sort of line of thought? A small right wing fringe or a good chunk of those who voted for your governments?
It could be that he has a history of poor behaviour/posting, mate, and maybe this latest stuff put him over the edge disciplinary-wise? Just a guess - I've no info about him.
It's not that clear cut anymore isn't it? Or rather according to some international sports organizations.
Otherwise the issue of Caster Semenya would not be an issue. She was born a female and has no male sexual organs yet she can't run as a female.
Good guess.
No they shouldn't.
Anyone else think she’s spot on?
I don't think you really get to spend a few hundreds words parroting the talking points people use routinely to accuse trans people and their advocates of being apologists for rape, child abuse and paedophilia and then say you care about how trans people are treated in society.
Thanks for pointing yourself out.
A good twitter threat dismantling Rowling's latest statement.
The problem with the age of celebrity is that people get to a certain level of fame and then their opinions on all subjects get the same amount of attention as their opinions on the area of life that they have excelled at enough to obtain that fame. She writes cracking kids books, her opinions on gender, race or the price of milk are largely irrelevant.
On the plus side, at least she's expressing her opinions in a more appropriate form than a series of tweets.
The immediate problem I have with her post though is her early description of the Maya Forstater situation, which even I as someone with only a passing interest in this topic know to be inaccurate. Which immediately means I can't trust anything else she subsequently cites either. So it just becomes more opinion. Opinion which I'm also not inclined to trust given it comes off the back of a series of tweets that I know misrepresented the opposing argument.
This is a problem generally but particularly on this topic. I often see people on both sides referring to different studies, professionals and scientific evidence as proof that they're right and I have zero faith that that evidence is reliable, or that they themselves fully understand it, or they're not using it as justification for a bad faith argument they'd be making even if the evidence disagreed with them. Though that's not to say the use of false information is equal on both sides, or that scientific and medical consensus doesn't lean in one particular direction.
The immediate problem I have with her post though is her early description of the Maya Forstater situation, which even I as someone with only a passing interest in this topic know to be inaccurate. Which immediately means I can't trust anything else she subsequently cites either. So it just becomes more opinion. Opinion which I'm also not inclined to trust given it comes off the back of a series of tweets that I know misrepresented the opposing argument.
This is a problem generally but particularly on this topic. I often see people on both sides referring to different studies, professionals and scientific evidence as proof that they're right and I have zero faith that that evidence is reliable, or that they themselves fully understand it, or they're not using it as justification for a bad faith argument they'd be making even if the evidence disagreed with them. Though that's not to say the use of false information is equal on both sides, or that scientific and medical consensus doesn't lean in one particular direction.
Last edited:
In terms of studies, one that they like to dismiss is the one alluding to suicidal attempts/thoughts by trans youth. The claim is that it isn't as high as the study claimed and that it wasn't peer reviewed. Within the past month a new separate study has been released, it's been peer reviewed and concluded near enough the same figures. To know that over 70% of trans youth have either considered or attempted suicide isn't something that I enjoy knowing. There are so many tropes in this essay it's almost comical.
Going by *Forum censors the J and the K when together* Rowling and using a male pen name don't signify much about her at all to be fair. If anything I'd say the first example reflects the views of the society of the time throwing up barriers to women.
I mostly copied that because of the excerpt from her book in the second tweet, I kinda feel like she has some trans obsession.
I don't plan to get involved in this thread but the impact of her intervention has been very clear in my personal life. I've had three people I've had a lot of love and respect for over the years come out in support of her transphobia. It's upsetting but not desperately surprising.
God, she's an horrendously vile person.
This is key: for her, it's essentially a mere opinion and a concern; for others, it's their lives.
Having read her piece, I still can’t understand why she is so strongly invested in this topic. The crux of her argument seems to be that biological sex is being eroded, a consequence being that ‘men’ will flock en masse to women’s toilets to abuse women now that toilets aren’t ‘sexxed’. Seems sensationalist to me.
What relevance is the fact that she has faced abuse? Is anyone actually trying to diminish the ‘lived reality’ of biological women? Is anyone stating that biological sex should be abolished?
I would be interested to see the ‘detransitioning’ figures she references, though. To each one’s own regarding transition, sure, but it mustn’t be easy - or fast - to transition. A proper assessment must occur from the requisite specialists. I agree with her on that front.
What relevance is the fact that she has faced abuse? Is anyone actually trying to diminish the ‘lived reality’ of biological women? Is anyone stating that biological sex should be abolished?
I would be interested to see the ‘detransitioning’ figures she references, though. To each one’s own regarding transition, sure, but it mustn’t be easy - or fast - to transition. A proper assessment must occur from the requisite specialists. I agree with her on that front.
I'm honestly confused on issues here. Tried to google up but nothing satisfactory.
What's the difference between Transgender women vs women?
Do anyone not women or transgender women menstruate?
I just googled transgender women and get " A trans woman is a woman who was assigned male at birth." which frankly doesn't help understand the issue.
What's the difference between Transgender women vs women?
Do anyone not women or transgender women menstruate?
I just googled transgender women and get " A trans woman is a woman who was assigned male at birth." which frankly doesn't help understand the issue.
In general, people are born with either male or female reproductive organs and are classified as such due to certain societal norms and humanity's unique need to label and order things. There are exceptions to this but we won't get into that here.
Occasionally, some males feel more like females deep inside, or vice-versa, and these people sometimes undertake a number of different of approaches to live a happier life as the man or woman they feel like rather than the man or woman they appear to be on the outside (and have been told they are by the rest of us for longer than they care to remember). These people are considered transgender. Those who started with male reproductive organs transition to become transgender women and those who start with female reproductive organs transition to become transgender men. Although transitioning is a long and involved process, as far as I know, transgenders do not magically adopt the reproductive functions of the men and women they have transitioned into.
Now the issue, as I understand it, is that some people who were born with female reproductive organs and are not inclined to be transgender feel threatened by transgender women but exactly why they do is unclear as their reasons do not appear to stand up to scrutiny and, as a result, it seems like plain old discrimination.
Thanks Dwazza. It's like what I mostly thought it would be.
I think my confusion originates from transgender vs transsexual definitions.
When you say transgender women, I presume it is women trans-gendering (for lack of better word I know) into men, but still retain female traits (a la menstruation). So people like Rowling are concerned that trans-gendered women menstruate?
I mentioned in a previous post that a second study has qualified the results with regards the suicidal thoughts/attempts among trans youth quite recently, prior to that those against trans rights and leading this campaign had quoted a UK study of a couple of years back. With regards the detransition rate, they like to refer to a study which was based in the Netherlands, which was flawed in many ways. I know that the those that carried out the survey decided that if someone stopped being interviewed or responding to the survey they were considered to have detransitioned. The results suggested that up to 80% may have detransitioned, but from my own knowledge is that very few people do detransition if they seek medical intervention.
People may choose not to go down that route and that's fine, and may be for many different reasons, they may never start to transition. However, that shouldn't stop them exploring who they are.
As for the treatment side of things, the last figures I saw which were only released a month or so ago suggested that waiting times for the first appointment only at the GID clinics were on average 28 months long. This isn't some really quick fix thing, to get to surgery if that is indeed what you want can take anything up to 4 to 5 years minimum at the moment, that's going to be considerably longer post covid.
A transgender woman is someone who was born with the male sex that transitions to female, not the other way around.
Telling people the type of person they're attracted to is prejudicial, absolutely mental.
What I really don't understand about trans rights activists is their problem isn't about being allowed to do what they want, wear what they want, sleep with who they want be treated equally in terms of opportunities, it's that they seem to want to force other people to think what they want them to think. If alls you care about is what other people think of you then I'm sorry to break it to you but you have mental health issues.