FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Jk Rowling
Jk Rowling
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By *ssex_tom OP Man
over a year ago
Chelmsford |
It seems during the lockdown that her books have sold really well as people had more time on their hands.
It strikes me that despite recent criticism and polar opposites of views and the cancel culture that actually, the vast majority of buyers care not a jot and just want to read the books..
My views.. I don't really hold any..
It teaches me that extremist views on both sides are only held by the few and not the many...
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It seems during the lockdown that her books have sold really well as people had more time on their hands.
It strikes me that despite recent criticism and polar opposites of views and the cancel culture that actually, the vast majority of buyers care not a jot and just want to read the books..
My views.. I don't really hold any..
It teaches me that extremist views on both sides are only held by the few and not the many...
"
You're Jeremy aren't you?  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Yup, she’s just the first case in many where the buying people are either ignorant of, unaware of or even agree with an artist’s views and do t let it bother their purchasing habits.
Personally I can never look at Harry Potter the same way again, the is a fine line between freedom of speech and hate speech and for me steps across that fine line as do many others. I personally can’t let that go ignored else I’ll be complicit with those views but each to their own |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
God I really need to proof read my messages before I hit that send button, grrr. Hope it’s obvious what I meant though, bloody Siri and her autocorrecting lol |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ssex_tom OP Man
over a year ago
Chelmsford |
"Yup, she’s just the first case in many where the buying people are either ignorant of, unaware of or even agree with an artist’s views and do t let it bother their purchasing habits.
Personally I can never look at Harry Potter the same way again, the is a fine line between freedom of speech and hate speech and for me steps across that fine line as do many others. I personally can’t let that go ignored else I’ll be complicit with those views but each to their own "
Not sure it makes anyone complicit with those views. I still listen to Morrissey and don't give a flying monkeys about his music or even how to spell is name. I just like his tunes.
Doesn't make me right wing or vegan |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I don’t know, I guess it’s just what I would feel, I certainly wouldn’t expect anyone else to feel that way. I just know I would feel wrong ignoring views I feel fundamentally at odds with just to enjoy entertainment that they produced.
I’m not trying to guilt anyone who doesn’t feel that way, it’s just how I personally would feel. Everyone’s got to make their own choices and draw their own lines in the sand and that’s mine |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It seems during the lockdown that her books have sold really well as people had more time on their hands.
It strikes me that despite recent criticism and polar opposites of views and the cancel culture that actually, the vast majority of buyers care not a jot and just want to read the books..
My views.. I don't really hold any..
It teaches me that extremist views on both sides are only held by the few and not the many...
"
This ends up being a twitter storm and sometimes spills over into the national press for a day. The majority of people aren't on twitter so it just passes them by. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ssex_tom OP Man
over a year ago
Chelmsford |
I don't give a rat's arse what people think. I watched the first 15 mins of the first film.. bored me..
Books may be better but I stick by Tolkien...
People caught up in the twaddle need to get a life |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"People caught up in the twaddle need to get a life "
What about when you consider that twaddle to be hate speech against your life?
The things that she and other’s say on the topic directly prevent me from getting the same life any other human deserves, one free from persecution and free from the fear of violence |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Yup, she’s just the first case in many where the buying people are either ignorant of, unaware of or even agree with an artist’s views and do t let it bother their purchasing habits.
Personally I can never look at Harry Potter the same way again, the is a fine line between freedom of speech and hate speech and for me steps across that fine line as do many others. I personally can’t let that go ignored else I’ll be complicit with those views but each to their own "
This  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ssex_tom OP Man
over a year ago
Chelmsford |
"People caught up in the twaddle need to get a life
What about when you consider that twaddle to be hate speech against your life?
The things that she and other’s say on the topic directly prevent me from getting the same life any other human deserves, one free from persecution and free from the fear of violence "
My point is...
Hardly anyone cares what she says... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I don't give a rat's arse what people think. I watched the first 15 mins of the first film.. bored me..
Books may be better but I stick by Tolkien...
People caught up in the twaddle need to get a life "
if you don't give a "twaddle" why bring up the subject ?
she has a history of anti trans views and claims that she made several mistake's in "liking" a group of gay women's hate post's on social towards trans women and are fighting any rights for trans women, how ironic is that !! one of their ideas is that i am trans because i want to go into tiolet's to abuse women and children |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"My point is...
Hardly anyone cares what she says... "
I genuinely wish that were the case, but she is acting like a dog whistle at the moment for those that believe the same things she does. The Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminism movement is growing and if it were merely free speech they were indulging in I would support their right to do so and engage in healthy debate with them but I promise you that it crossed the line to hate speech a long time ago. What is happened now is nothing less than the encouragement of violence towards the trans community and she is becoming a high profile figure in that movement.
I’m sorry I don’t mean to drag it down to politics, social or otherwise but this does genuinely have a worrying impact on my life and I wish it were as simple as just name calling |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *orny PTMan
over a year ago
Peterborough |
"It seems during the lockdown that her books have sold really well as people had more time on their hands.
It strikes me that despite recent criticism and polar opposites of views and the cancel culture that actually, the vast majority of buyers care not a jot and just want to read the books..
My views.. I don't really hold any..
It teaches me that extremist views on both sides are only held by the few and not the many...
This ends up being a twitter storm and sometimes spills over into the national press for a day. The majority of people aren't on twitter so it just passes them by. "
That's called having a life. (not on faceybook either!) |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Just ignore her "
I get what you are trying to say but would you be able to ignore someone that was advocating the or at least helping to instigate harm towards you or or family ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ssex_tom OP Man
over a year ago
Chelmsford |
"Just ignore her
I get what you are trying to say but would you be able to ignore someone that was advocating the or at least helping to instigate harm towards you or or family ? "
Not sure that's the case to be fair..
That would be a criminal offence |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Not sure that's the case to be fair..
That would be a criminal offence "
No, I’m absolutely sure that she extremely careful to tread on the correct side of any legal statutes on the matter.
There’s a big difference between being legally responsible and morally responsible though.
Her actions are encouraging the TERF movement, you only have to see the comments being made by them about her to know that she is a figure head for them and that’s where the danger lies
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ssex_tom OP Man
over a year ago
Chelmsford |
"Not sure that's the case to be fair..
That would be a criminal offence
No, I’m absolutely sure that she extremely careful to tread on the correct side of any legal statutes on the matter.
There’s a big difference between being legally responsible and morally responsible though.
Her actions are encouraging the TERF movement, you only have to see the comments being made by them about her to know that she is a figure head for them and that’s where the danger lies
"
And both sides, if there are sides, probably account for less than 1% of the population.. ignore the haters and live your life in peace..
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
She is a transphobic TERF and her extremist views aren't warranted by most free thinking people. Even those actors from Harry Potter films have spoken out against her. This isn't a new thread and surely even the most ardent Potter fan can see how wrong she is. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"And both sides, if there are sides, probably account for less than 1% of the population.. ignore the haters and live your life in peace..
"
Im sorry if I sound frustrated but that is exactly the point I am trying to make. I really want to life my life in peace. I want to leave them alone and let them think whatever they want to think as long as it doesn’t effect my ability to live in peace but they are effecting that.
It doesn’t take a majority of people to put your life in jeopardy, 1% is enough to do that if you happen to come across them.
Can you imagine what it’s like to know that 1 in every 100 people you pass want to physically harm you just for being who you are? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ssex_tom OP Man
over a year ago
Chelmsford |
"She is a transphobic TERF and her extremist views aren't warranted by most free thinking people. Even those actors from Harry Potter films have spoken out against her. This isn't a new thread and surely even the most ardent Potter fan can see how wrong she is. "
My point being.. hardly anyone interested or cares.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ssex_tom OP Man
over a year ago
Chelmsford |
"She is a transphobic TERF and her extremist views aren't warranted by most free thinking people. Even those actors from Harry Potter films have spoken out against her. This isn't a new thread and surely even the most ardent Potter fan can see how wrong she is. "
Not sure that amounts to many people to be frank.. they are still buying her books |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The books do not reflect the personal life of an auther, if the books are exciting to read, get my imaginative juices flowing I'll read them, a person's personal opinions don't bother me, options are like arse holes we all have 1 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I rarely follow celebrity news, gossip columns, Hello magazine etc or recently the news, so I can't say I'm upto date with Rowlings political/gender views.
But I have never really connected a celebrities person views with their work.
There are actors I can't stand in interviews, think they are pompous twats, but I still enjoy their films. Same goes for musicians. I like her HP books and will buy her future works if they interest me. Doesn't mean I agree with her personal views, which in my opinion should have been kept personal and private. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ssex_tom OP Man
over a year ago
Chelmsford |
"The age old question. Can you seperate the 'art' from the 'artist'?
Indeed. For me it depends on how far the artist goes as a whole, or if the art is directly linked to their "controversy" "
If you like the art then you like the art.. to not like the art because you ghen dislike the artist is bonkers |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I follow this whole saga on Twitter from both sides and as anything online with millions of people able to offer their own interpretation it becomes a massive exercise in chinese whispers and misquotes and misunderstandings. As many people who will stop reading her books because of offence will start reading the books in solidarity just because.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *aitonelMan
over a year ago
Travelling |
"The age old question. Can you seperate the 'art' from the 'artist'?
Indeed. For me it depends on how far the artist goes as a whole, or if the art is directly linked to their "controversy"
If you like the art then you like the art.. to not like the art because you ghen dislike the artist is bonkers "
Very true but surely there is a crossing point that you can't view certain art because it is far too linked to their views or actions.
I highly doubt many people would still enjoy watching Jim'll fix it on reruns. TV show is a form of art.
Compared to for example, Hitler's paintings. Not really directly linked to what he did after painting them. They were just painted by... "Hateful" man. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *aitonelMan
over a year ago
Travelling |
"Are the books any good..
I thought the first film was shite "
The first 2 books, and by extension films have the target audience of 11 year olds. The writing, style and tone is on the childish younger side (with a few mature topics). The movies and books however grow with those 11 year olds, becoming much better, darker in theme and tone.
Its still down to personal tastes but yes they are good. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *rHotNottsMan
over a year ago
Dubai & Nottingham |
"And both sides, if there are sides, probably account for less than 1% of the population.. ignore the haters and live your life in peace..
Im sorry if I sound frustrated but that is exactly the point I am trying to make. I really want to life my life in peace. I want to leave them alone and let them think whatever they want to think as long as it doesn’t effect my ability to live in peace but they are effecting that.
It doesn’t take a majority of people to put your life in jeopardy, 1% is enough to do that if you happen to come across them.
Can you imagine what it’s like to know that 1 in every 100 people you pass want to physically harm you just for being who you are? "
The reality is very few people make ethical decisions when spending or voting. We teach leadership , in the future we will teach followship , I think University of York Phychology has started work in this area , people are leaders or successful due to the follower mentality , we are currently bad at following |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ssex_tom OP Man
over a year ago
Chelmsford |
"I read the books before I knew she was a massive twat.
Still adore them, but I won't read anything she publishes in future.
Agreed."
Well I am sure she will not be bothered.. if it makes you feel good then happy days..
Let's put the boot on the other foot.. would she want to sell a book to you.. ?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Twitter is a cess pit but I've seen just as much hateful speech directed towards her ("suck my lady dick") as I've seen directed at trans people. Everybody needs to chill and accept that expressing a point of view is simply that...expressing your point of view. I saw nothing in any of her posts which could be interpreted as encouraging hate speech or violence towards the trans community. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I read the books before I knew she was a massive twat.
Still adore them, but I won't read anything she publishes in future.
Agreed.
Well I am sure she will not be bothered.. if it makes you feel good then happy days..
Let's put the boot on the other foot.. would she want to sell a book to you.. ?
"
I can't imagine she would give a flying fuck, she's a millionaire, my not purchasing her future books don't impact her in the slightest.
I also can't imagine she cares who buys her books so long as people buy them, or she wouldn't have made stupid statements that would offend a lot of her fans... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
what did JK Rowling say that you consider 'hate speech' ?
"Yup, she’s just the first case in many where the buying people are either ignorant of, unaware of or even agree with an artist’s views and do t let it bother their purchasing habits.
Personally I can never look at Harry Potter the same way again, the is a fine line between freedom of speech and hate speech and for me steps across that fine line as do many others. I personally can’t let that go ignored else I’ll be complicit with those views but each to their own "
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"And as Ricky Gervais recently said, just because you are offended does not mean you are right "
Absolutely. People have a right to be offended though. Doesn't make them wrong either. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ssex_tom OP Man
over a year ago
Chelmsford |
"what did JK Rowling say that you consider 'hate speech' ?
Yup, she’s just the first case in many where the buying people are either ignorant of, unaware of or even agree with an artist’s views and do t let it bother their purchasing habits.
Personally I can never look at Harry Potter the same way again, the is a fine line between freedom of speech and hate speech and for me steps across that fine line as do many others. I personally can’t let that go ignored else I’ll be complicit with those views but each to their own "
I personally don't think what she said was in any way hateful. That's why she won damages against a newspaper. Unpopular amongst some but not hateful. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"And as Ricky Gervais recently said, just because you are offended does not mean you are right "
Which is a completely condescending and pointless thing to say.
People aren't just saying 'I'm offended'. They're giving reasons why the things that Rowling has been saying are harmful and unkind and can hurt already vulnerable people.
People like the excellent Laurie Penny have written great articles on the subject and of course Rowling hasn't read them or responded to them.
Trying to boil arguments down to 'oh you're just offended!' is a typically dishonest and disingenuous right wing tactic. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"And as Ricky Gervais recently said, just because you are offended does not mean you are right
Which is a completely condescending and pointless thing to say.
People aren't just saying 'I'm offended'. They're giving reasons why the things that Rowling has been saying are harmful and unkind and can hurt already vulnerable people.
People like the excellent Laurie Penny have written great articles on the subject and of course Rowling hasn't read them or responded to them.
Trying to boil arguments down to 'oh you're just offended!' is a typically dishonest and disingenuous right wing tactic. "
The discourse seems to have sunk to this, alas. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ssex_tom OP Man
over a year ago
Chelmsford |
"And as Ricky Gervais recently said, just because you are offended does not mean you are right
Which is a completely condescending and pointless thing to say.
People aren't just saying 'I'm offended'. They're giving reasons why the things that Rowling has been saying are harmful and unkind and can hurt already vulnerable people.
People like the excellent Laurie Penny have written great articles on the subject and of course Rowling hasn't read them or responded to them.
Trying to boil arguments down to 'oh you're just offended!' is a typically dishonest and disingenuous right wing tactic. "
It's neither right wing or left wing..
It's about two sides of a debate and one side trying to close a debate by saying it's hateful..
It's not my debate and I don't care a flying monkey but I can see a sham and call it a sham.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I agree. Nobody can ever point out what the words were that are 'hateful' There aren't any.
"what did JK Rowling say that you consider 'hate speech' ?
Yup, she’s just the first case in many where the buying people are either ignorant of, unaware of or even agree with an artist’s views and do t let it bother their purchasing habits.
Personally I can never look at Harry Potter the same way again, the is a fine line between freedom of speech and hate speech and for me steps across that fine line as do many others. I personally can’t let that go ignored else I’ll be complicit with those views but each to their own
I personally don't think what she said was in any way hateful. That's why she won damages against a newspaper. Unpopular amongst some but not hateful. "
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
The hate, exclusion and intolerance for hate, exclusion and intolerance does make me wonder..... 
If anyone wants change then they need to, well, CHANGE....!   |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I don't know if she's anti-trans or not. What I do know is that bullying someone for having different views to you is wrong. The masses aren't always right. They voted in Hitler and Trump, brought about Brexit and loved The Phantom Menace. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Not sure that's the case to be fair..
That would be a criminal offence
No, I’m absolutely sure that she extremely careful to tread on the correct side of any legal statutes on the matter.
There’s a big difference between being legally responsible and morally responsible though.
Her actions are encouraging the TERF movement, you only have to see the comments being made by them about her to know that she is a figure head for them and that’s where the danger lies
"
Tbh - the same as any person on a pedestal they are held to a higher moral standard than the rest of us on the sheer fact that they are famous.
They haven’t asked to be morally responsable for the country, they are just expected to be!
I have no issue with anyone having a their own opinions, they even have the right to say it.
There are far more dangerous individuals out there than an outspoken author.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It is good that they are reading the books, she never did anything wrong in the first place either "
I wonder if you'd feel the same if she commented on something that was offensive to you...
Imagine being told your whole life that you're a girl, a woman, even though you know you're a man. Imagine fighting for years for people to recognise you for who you are, how you feel. And then imagine one of your heroes, someone you looked up to, invalidating that.
I'm sure you'd be pretty upset and offended. I'm sure it would feel like hate to you.
She didn't need to say what she said. It wasn't kind towards a lot of people. Whether you agree it was gate speech or not, there was no need for it.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It is good that they are reading the books, she never did anything wrong in the first place either
I wonder if you'd feel the same if she commented on something that was offensive to you...
Imagine being told your whole life that you're a girl, a woman, even though you know you're a man. Imagine fighting for years for people to recognise you for who you are, how you feel. And then imagine one of your heroes, someone you looked up to, invalidating that.
I'm sure you'd be pretty upset and offended. I'm sure it would feel like hate to you.
She didn't need to say what she said. It wasn't kind towards a lot of people. Whether you agree it was gate speech or not, there was no need for it.
"
Although as a public figure it is best not to talk about politics or religion. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ssex_tom OP Man
over a year ago
Chelmsford |
"It is good that they are reading the books, she never did anything wrong in the first place either
I wonder if you'd feel the same if she commented on something that was offensive to you...
Imagine being told your whole life that you're a girl, a woman, even though you know you're a man. Imagine fighting for years for people to recognise you for who you are, how you feel. And then imagine one of your heroes, someone you looked up to, invalidating that.
I'm sure you'd be pretty upset and offended. I'm sure it would feel like hate to you.
She didn't need to say what she said. It wasn't kind towards a lot of people. Whether you agree it was gate speech or not, there was no need for it.
"
I suppose the moral is to never put people on pedestals then you will not be disappointed. I like and admire lots of people but never build them up to be an idol. Let's put the shoe on the other foot and imagine being a young person thrust into the limelight and glare because he is a talented footballer or actor. Would I change the way I think. Not on your Nellie.
Should they? Not on your Nellie.
The world is full of PR trained corporate robots and politicians who churn out the same old claptrap.
I prefer them to be themselves, warts and all, real people..
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So what has she said specifically that is hateful and incites violence?
She questioned the phrase , “people who menstruate.” She thinks it should have said women not people."
A perfectly sensible and logical statement to make. She expressed an opinion. I worry moving forward that every statement our opinion we express can be called out as hate speech if others disagree. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So what has she said specifically that is hateful and incites violence?
She questioned the phrase , “people who menstruate.” She thinks it should have said women not people.
A perfectly sensible and logical statement to make. She expressed an opinion. I worry moving forward that every statement our opinion we express can be called out as hate speech if others disagree. "
There now seems to be a push back in general. Rowling suing and winning and her book sales through the roof.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So what has she said specifically that is hateful and incites violence?
She questioned the phrase , “people who menstruate.” She thinks it should have said women not people."
That's neither hateful nor inciting violence. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So what has she said specifically that is hateful and incites violence?
She questioned the phrase , “people who menstruate.” She thinks it should have said women not people.
That's neither hateful nor inciting violence. "
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The hate, exclusion and intolerance for hate, exclusion and intolerance does make me wonder.....
If anyone wants change then they need to, well, CHANGE....! "
This bloke nailed it..... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So what has she said specifically that is hateful and incites violence?
She questioned the phrase , “people who menstruate.” She thinks it should have said women not people.
That's neither hateful nor inciting violence. "
That is right. I think that most knows it is not wrong but still want to find something against someone that dont agree with their view on it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So what has she said specifically that is hateful and incites violence?
She questioned the phrase , “people who menstruate.” She thinks it should have said women not people.
That's neither hateful nor inciting violence. "
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I don’t think her views were hateful, more harmful in the way they suggest there is a right way, the biological way, to be a woman. Her words don’t change how I view her books, but they do undermine her use of platform power to influence. I’d expect her books will continue to sell and appeal to children and teenagers for years to come. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So what has she said specifically that is hateful and incites violence?
She questioned the phrase , “people who menstruate.” She thinks it should have said women not people."
And the problem with her comment is?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So what has she said specifically that is hateful and incites violence?
She questioned the phrase , “people who menstruate.” She thinks it should have said women not people.
And the problem with her comment is?
"
She's wrong. Lots of people who don't identify as "women" menstruate. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So what has she said specifically that is hateful and incites violence?
She questioned the phrase , “people who menstruate.” She thinks it should have said women not people.
And the problem with her comment is?
She's wrong. Lots of people who don't identify as "women" menstruate."
She's not wrong though. Reality doesn't bend to fit identity. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So what has she said specifically that is hateful and incites violence?
She questioned the phrase , “people who menstruate.” She thinks it should have said women not people.
And the problem with her comment is?
She's wrong. Lots of people who don't identify as "women" menstruate."
But only biological women can.
We'll go round and round the houses with this one.
People express religious views which could be viewed as "hateful" or harmful towards same sex couples and whilst I'd strongly disagree with them (the bakers who refused to bake the wedding cake for the guy couple springs to mind) I'd argue until I was blue in the face for their right to express their opinion and more importantly respect their religious beliefs.
In the case of JK she was stating a basic biological fact. How that can be viewed as hateful is beyond me. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So what has she said specifically that is hateful and incites violence?
She questioned the phrase , “people who menstruate.” She thinks it should have said women not people.
And the problem with her comment is?
She's wrong. Lots of people who don't identify as "women" menstruate.
She's not wrong though. Reality doesn't bend to fit identity. "
the reality for those people is that they are not women.
Why can't people open their minds a little and allow people to live as they see fit. It literally effects no one but them and maybe those close to them.
Her comment was unnecessary.
I'd rather say nothing than express an opinion that would upset a whole bunch of people doing nowt but living their lives....but that's just me.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So what has she said specifically that is hateful and incites violence?
She questioned the phrase , “people who menstruate.” She thinks it should have said women not people.
And the problem with her comment is?
She's wrong. Lots of people who don't identify as "women" menstruate.
She's not wrong though. Reality doesn't bend to fit identity.
the reality for those people is that they are not women.
Why can't people open their minds a little and allow people to live as they see fit. It literally effects no one but them and maybe those close to them.
Her comment was unnecessary.
I'd rather say nothing than express an opinion that would upset a whole bunch of people doing nowt but living their lives....but that's just me.
"
It does affect me, and other women when we have to censor our experience to avoid offending others over a simple biological fact. And then there's the way identity politics can affect legislation which definitely has implications for the wider population.
People can live however they choose, they just can't expect everyone else to go along with it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So what has she said specifically that is hateful and incites violence?
She questioned the phrase , “people who menstruate.” She thinks it should have said women not people.
And the problem with her comment is?
She's wrong. Lots of people who don't identify as "women" menstruate.
But only biological women can.
We'll go round and round the houses with this one.
People express religious views which could be viewed as "hateful" or harmful towards same sex couples and whilst I'd strongly disagree with them (the bakers who refused to bake the wedding cake for the guy couple springs to mind) I'd argue until I was blue in the face for their right to express their opinion and more importantly respect their religious beliefs.
In the case of JK she was stating a basic biological fact. How that can be viewed as hateful is beyond me."
I don't agree that it was "hateful" but I do think it was unnecessary, offensive to some and unkind.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion, wrong, right or otherwise...i personally just don't think we must always share them. Especially if that opinion will hurt someone. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So what has she said specifically that is hateful and incites violence?
She questioned the phrase , “people who menstruate.” She thinks it should have said women not people.
And the problem with her comment is?
She's wrong. Lots of people who don't identify as "women" menstruate.
She's not wrong though. Reality doesn't bend to fit identity.
the reality for those people is that they are not women.
Why can't people open their minds a little and allow people to live as they see fit. It literally effects no one but them and maybe those close to them.
Her comment was unnecessary.
I'd rather say nothing than express an opinion that would upset a whole bunch of people doing nowt but living their lives....but that's just me.
It does affect me, and other women when we have to censor our experience to avoid offending others over a simple biological fact. And then there's the way identity politics can affect legislation which definitely has implications for the wider population.
People can live however they choose, they just can't expect everyone else to go along with it. "
I'm sorry. But how does how someone else identifies censor your experience?!
We're all individuals!
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So what has she said specifically that is hateful and incites violence?
She questioned the phrase , “people who menstruate.” She thinks it should have said women not people.
And the problem with her comment is?
She's wrong. Lots of people who don't identify as "women" menstruate.
She's not wrong though. Reality doesn't bend to fit identity.
the reality for those people is that they are not women.
Why can't people open their minds a little and allow people to live as they see fit. It literally effects no one but them and maybe those close to them.
Her comment was unnecessary.
I'd rather say nothing than express an opinion that would upset a whole bunch of people doing nowt but living their lives....but that's just me.
It does affect me, and other women when we have to censor our experience to avoid offending others over a simple biological fact. And then there's the way identity politics can affect legislation which definitely has implications for the wider population.
People can live however they choose, they just can't expect everyone else to go along with it.
I'm sorry. But how does how someone else identifies censor your experience?!
We're all individuals!
"
Because I'm a woman, and it seems that's a word I can no longer use when talking about things like menstruation (people who menstruate), smear tests (people with cervixes) etc etc. It feels dehumanising.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So what has she said specifically that is hateful and incites violence?
She questioned the phrase , “people who menstruate.” She thinks it should have said women not people.
And the problem with her comment is?
She's wrong. Lots of people who don't identify as "women" menstruate.
But only biological women can.
We'll go round and round the houses with this one.
People express religious views which could be viewed as "hateful" or harmful towards same sex couples and whilst I'd strongly disagree with them (the bakers who refused to bake the wedding cake for the guy couple springs to mind) I'd argue until I was blue in the face for their right to express their opinion and more importantly respect their religious beliefs.
In the case of JK she was stating a basic biological fact. How that can be viewed as hateful is beyond me."
It isn’t hateful from my perspective. In my view it is disrespectful to the rights of those who no longer identify as women and harmful in the way that it is regressive in the sense that it promulgates an attitude the runs counter to the need for us to understand and respect the gender rights of individuals. She has a right to her view and to express it. However, in holding it, she opens herself up to those who would strongly criticise the view and experience the consequences of doing so. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So what has she said specifically that is hateful and incites violence?
She questioned the phrase , “people who menstruate.” She thinks it should have said women not people.
And the problem with her comment is?
She's wrong. Lots of people who don't identify as "women" menstruate.
She's not wrong though. Reality doesn't bend to fit identity.
the reality for those people is that they are not women.
Why can't people open their minds a little and allow people to live as they see fit. It literally effects no one but them and maybe those close to them.
Her comment was unnecessary.
I'd rather say nothing than express an opinion that would upset a whole bunch of people doing nowt but living their lives....but that's just me.
It does affect me, and other women when we have to censor our experience to avoid offending others over a simple biological fact. And then there's the way identity politics can affect legislation which definitely has implications for the wider population.
People can live however they choose, they just can't expect everyone else to go along with it.
I'm sorry. But how does how someone else identifies censor your experience?!
We're all individuals!
Because I'm a woman, and it seems that's a word I can no longer use when talking about things like menstruation (people who menstruate), smear tests (people with cervixes) etc etc. It feels dehumanising.
"
Of course you can! No ones saying you can't. You can refer to yourself as whatever you like, trans and non binary people mostly just want to be able to do the same.
I really don't think it has any real impact on anyone else's lives and I think people are way too over the top about this kinda thing.
The argument is that "women" simply doesn't fit every circumstance. That takes nothing away from you...its just not right for them. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So what has she said specifically that is hateful and incites violence?
She questioned the phrase , “people who menstruate.” She thinks it should have said women not people.
And the problem with her comment is?
She's wrong. Lots of people who don't identify as "women" menstruate.
But only biological women can.
We'll go round and round the houses with this one.
People express religious views which could be viewed as "hateful" or harmful towards same sex couples and whilst I'd strongly disagree with them (the bakers who refused to bake the wedding cake for the guy couple springs to mind) I'd argue until I was blue in the face for their right to express their opinion and more importantly respect their religious beliefs.
In the case of JK she was stating a basic biological fact. How that can be viewed as hateful is beyond me.
It isn’t hateful from my perspective. In my view it is disrespectful to the rights of those who no longer identify as women and harmful in the way that it is regressive in the sense that it promulgates an attitude the runs counter to the need for us to understand and respect the gender rights of individuals. She has a right to her view and to express it. However, in holding it, she opens herself up to those who would strongly criticise the view and experience the consequences of doing so."
You said what I wanted to...eloquently |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So what has she said specifically that is hateful and incites violence?
She questioned the phrase , “people who menstruate.” She thinks it should have said women not people.
And the problem with her comment is?
She's wrong. Lots of people who don't identify as "women" menstruate.
She's not wrong though. Reality doesn't bend to fit identity.
the reality for those people is that they are not women.
Why can't people open their minds a little and allow people to live as they see fit. It literally effects no one but them and maybe those close to them.
Her comment was unnecessary.
I'd rather say nothing than express an opinion that would upset a whole bunch of people doing nowt but living their lives....but that's just me.
It does affect me, and other women when we have to censor our experience to avoid offending others over a simple biological fact. And then there's the way identity politics can affect legislation which definitely has implications for the wider population.
People can live however they choose, they just can't expect everyone else to go along with it.
I'm sorry. But how does how someone else identifies censor your experience?!
We're all individuals!
Because I'm a woman, and it seems that's a word I can no longer use when talking about things like menstruation (people who menstruate), smear tests (people with cervixes) etc etc. It feels dehumanising.
"
Of course you can use the word woman as a woman who menstruates, but you can also understand the rights of individuals who don’t identify as women who also menstruate. It isn’t simply either or, it is a case of both and. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So what has she said specifically that is hateful and incites violence?
She questioned the phrase , “people who menstruate.” She thinks it should have said women not people.
And the problem with her comment is?
She's wrong. Lots of people who don't identify as "women" menstruate.
She's not wrong though. Reality doesn't bend to fit identity.
the reality for those people is that they are not women.
Why can't people open their minds a little and allow people to live as they see fit. It literally effects no one but them and maybe those close to them.
Her comment was unnecessary.
I'd rather say nothing than express an opinion that would upset a whole bunch of people doing nowt but living their lives....but that's just me.
It does affect me, and other women when we have to censor our experience to avoid offending others over a simple biological fact. And then there's the way identity politics can affect legislation which definitely has implications for the wider population.
People can live however they choose, they just can't expect everyone else to go along with it.
I'm sorry. But how does how someone else identifies censor your experience?!
We're all individuals!
Because I'm a woman, and it seems that's a word I can no longer use when talking about things like menstruation (people who menstruate), smear tests (people with cervixes) etc etc. It feels dehumanising.
Of course you can! No ones saying you can't. You can refer to yourself as whatever you like, trans and non binary people mostly just want to be able to do the same.
I really don't think it has any real impact on anyone else's lives and I think people are way too over the top about this kinda thing.
The argument is that "women" simply doesn't fit every circumstance. That takes nothing away from you...its just not right for them."
I have been told by trans people that it's 'transphobic' because 'not all women menstruate' or 'not all women have cervixes' etc. So it does affect me, unfortunately.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So what has she said specifically that is hateful and incites violence?
She questioned the phrase , “people who menstruate.” She thinks it should have said women not people.
And the problem with her comment is?
She's wrong. Lots of people who don't identify as "women" menstruate.
She's not wrong though. Reality doesn't bend to fit identity.
the reality for those people is that they are not women.
Why can't people open their minds a little and allow people to live as they see fit. It literally effects no one but them and maybe those close to them.
Her comment was unnecessary.
I'd rather say nothing than express an opinion that would upset a whole bunch of people doing nowt but living their lives....but that's just me.
It does affect me, and other women when we have to censor our experience to avoid offending others over a simple biological fact. And then there's the way identity politics can affect legislation which definitely has implications for the wider population.
People can live however they choose, they just can't expect everyone else to go along with it.
I'm sorry. But how does how someone else identifies censor your experience?!
We're all individuals!
Because I'm a woman, and it seems that's a word I can no longer use when talking about things like menstruation (people who menstruate), smear tests (people with cervixes) etc etc. It feels dehumanising.
Of course you can use the word woman as a woman who menstruates, but you can also understand the rights of individuals who don’t identify as women who also menstruate. It isn’t simply either or, it is a case of both and."
Changing the definition of the word woman to fit in with the gender identities of people who weren't born female has its own problems and implications. It's a slippery slope. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So what has she said specifically that is hateful and incites violence?
She questioned the phrase , “people who menstruate.” She thinks it should have said women not people.
And the problem with her comment is?
She's wrong. Lots of people who don't identify as "women" menstruate.
She's not wrong though. Reality doesn't bend to fit identity.
the reality for those people is that they are not women.
Why can't people open their minds a little and allow people to live as they see fit. It literally effects no one but them and maybe those close to them.
Her comment was unnecessary.
I'd rather say nothing than express an opinion that would upset a whole bunch of people doing nowt but living their lives....but that's just me.
It does affect me, and other women when we have to censor our experience to avoid offending others over a simple biological fact. And then there's the way identity politics can affect legislation which definitely has implications for the wider population.
People can live however they choose, they just can't expect everyone else to go along with it.
I'm sorry. But how does how someone else identifies censor your experience?!
We're all individuals!
Because I'm a woman, and it seems that's a word I can no longer use when talking about things like menstruation (people who menstruate), smear tests (people with cervixes) etc etc. It feels dehumanising.
Of course you can use the word woman as a woman who menstruates, but you can also understand the rights of individuals who don’t identify as women who also menstruate. It isn’t simply either or, it is a case of both and.
Changing the definition of the word woman to fit in with the gender identities of people who weren't born female has its own problems and implications. It's a slippery slope. "
A slippery slope to what?!
No one is going to steal your vagina and say you can't refer to yourself as a woman anymore... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So what has she said specifically that is hateful and incites violence?
She questioned the phrase , “people who menstruate.” She thinks it should have said women not people.
And the problem with her comment is?
She's wrong. Lots of people who don't identify as "women" menstruate.
She's not wrong though. Reality doesn't bend to fit identity.
the reality for those people is that they are not women.
Why can't people open their minds a little and allow people to live as they see fit. It literally effects no one but them and maybe those close to them.
Her comment was unnecessary.
I'd rather say nothing than express an opinion that would upset a whole bunch of people doing nowt but living their lives....but that's just me.
It does affect me, and other women when we have to censor our experience to avoid offending others over a simple biological fact. And then there's the way identity politics can affect legislation which definitely has implications for the wider population.
People can live however they choose, they just can't expect everyone else to go along with it.
I'm sorry. But how does how someone else identifies censor your experience?!
We're all individuals!
Because I'm a woman, and it seems that's a word I can no longer use when talking about things like menstruation (people who menstruate), smear tests (people with cervixes) etc etc. It feels dehumanising.
Of course you can use the word woman as a woman who menstruates, but you can also understand the rights of individuals who don’t identify as women who also menstruate. It isn’t simply either or, it is a case of both and.
Changing the definition of the word woman to fit in with the gender identities of people who weren't born female has its own problems and implications. It's a slippery slope.
A slippery slope to what?!
No one is going to steal your vagina and say you can't refer to yourself as a woman anymore... "
The loss of single sex spaces and sex segregated sports for a start. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Ricky has a point unless you don't like Ricky in which case he is the enemy and must be eliminated..... 
Why is this thread so up tight fgs....
What a tolerant world we live in as long as ppl agree with you....  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So what has she said specifically that is hateful and incites violence?
She questioned the phrase , “people who menstruate.” She thinks it should have said women not people.
And the problem with her comment is?
She's wrong. Lots of people who don't identify as "women" menstruate.
She's not wrong though. Reality doesn't bend to fit identity.
the reality for those people is that they are not women.
Why can't people open their minds a little and allow people to live as they see fit. It literally effects no one but them and maybe those close to them.
Her comment was unnecessary.
I'd rather say nothing than express an opinion that would upset a whole bunch of people doing nowt but living their lives....but that's just me.
It does affect me, and other women when we have to censor our experience to avoid offending others over a simple biological fact. And then there's the way identity politics can affect legislation which definitely has implications for the wider population.
People can live however they choose, they just can't expect everyone else to go along with it.
I'm sorry. But how does how someone else identifies censor your experience?!
We're all individuals!
Because I'm a woman, and it seems that's a word I can no longer use when talking about things like menstruation (people who menstruate), smear tests (people with cervixes) etc etc. It feels dehumanising.
Of course you can use the word woman as a woman who menstruates, but you can also understand the rights of individuals who don’t identify as women who also menstruate. It isn’t simply either or, it is a case of both and.
Changing the definition of the word woman to fit in with the gender identities of people who weren't born female has its own problems and implications. It's a slippery slope. "
Yes it seems lately that some groups want to change defenitions from what they were, it doesnt matter how much they try it, in the end it is what it is. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So what has she said specifically that is hateful and incites violence?
She questioned the phrase , “people who menstruate.” She thinks it should have said women not people.
And the problem with her comment is?
She's wrong. Lots of people who don't identify as "women" menstruate.
She's not wrong though. Reality doesn't bend to fit identity.
the reality for those people is that they are not women.
Why can't people open their minds a little and allow people to live as they see fit. It literally effects no one but them and maybe those close to them.
Her comment was unnecessary.
I'd rather say nothing than express an opinion that would upset a whole bunch of people doing nowt but living their lives....but that's just me.
It does affect me, and other women when we have to censor our experience to avoid offending others over a simple biological fact. And then there's the way identity politics can affect legislation which definitely has implications for the wider population.
People can live however they choose, they just can't expect everyone else to go along with it. "
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So what has she said specifically that is hateful and incites violence?
She questioned the phrase , “people who menstruate.” She thinks it should have said women not people.
And the problem with her comment is?
She's wrong. Lots of people who don't identify as "women" menstruate.
She's not wrong though. Reality doesn't bend to fit identity.
the reality for those people is that they are not women.
Why can't people open their minds a little and allow people to live as they see fit. It literally effects no one but them and maybe those close to them.
Her comment was unnecessary.
I'd rather say nothing than express an opinion that would upset a whole bunch of people doing nowt but living their lives....but that's just me.
It does affect me, and other women when we have to censor our experience to avoid offending others over a simple biological fact. And then there's the way identity politics can affect legislation which definitely has implications for the wider population.
People can live however they choose, they just can't expect everyone else to go along with it.
I'm sorry. But how does how someone else identifies censor your experience?!
We're all individuals!
Because I'm a woman, and it seems that's a word I can no longer use when talking about things like menstruation (people who menstruate), smear tests (people with cervixes) etc etc. It feels dehumanising.
Of course you can use the word woman as a woman who menstruates, but you can also understand the rights of individuals who don’t identify as women who also menstruate. It isn’t simply either or, it is a case of both and.
Changing the definition of the word woman to fit in with the gender identities of people who weren't born female has its own problems and implications. It's a slippery slope.
A slippery slope to what?!
No one is going to steal your vagina and say you can't refer to yourself as a woman anymore...
The loss of single sex spaces and sex segregated sports for a start. "
Exactly.
It is none of my business how an individual choses to identify and on a one to one basis, I would always refer to a person as he or she depending on how they identify.
However, I've heard this described as the thin end of the wedge. It has far more wide reaching implications as described above. Registered sex offenders identifying as women and being moved from a male to a female prison is an extreme example but it has happened. The debate on self ID means that it could be far easier going forward for a man with nefarious intentions to gain access to women's only spaces. Of course we need to differentiate between scumbags like this and genuine trans people who just want to live their life. But this shouldn't be at the price of women's rights and the erosion of language used to describe women and uniquely female biological experiences. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I don’t know, I guess it’s just what I would feel, I certainly wouldn’t expect anyone else to feel that way. I just know I would feel wrong ignoring views I feel fundamentally at odds with just to enjoy entertainment that they produced.
I’m not trying to guilt anyone who doesn’t feel that way, it’s just how I personally would feel. Everyone’s got to make their own choices and draw their own lines in the sand and that’s mine "
It's not a "view" to state that there are only two genders, it's a statement of fact. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So what has she said specifically that is hateful and incites violence?
She questioned the phrase , “people who menstruate.” She thinks it should have said women not people.
And the problem with her comment is?
She's wrong. Lots of people who don't identify as "women" menstruate.
She's not wrong though. Reality doesn't bend to fit identity.
the reality for those people is that they are not women.
Why can't people open their minds a little and allow people to live as they see fit. It literally effects no one but them and maybe those close to them.
Her comment was unnecessary.
I'd rather say nothing than express an opinion that would upset a whole bunch of people doing nowt but living their lives....but that's just me.
It does affect me, and other women when we have to censor our experience to avoid offending others over a simple biological fact. And then there's the way identity politics can affect legislation which definitely has implications for the wider population.
People can live however they choose, they just can't expect everyone else to go along with it.
I'm sorry. But how does how someone else identifies censor your experience?!
We're all individuals!
Because I'm a woman, and it seems that's a word I can no longer use when talking about things like menstruation (people who menstruate), smear tests (people with cervixes) etc etc. It feels dehumanising.
Of course you can use the word woman as a woman who menstruates, but you can also understand the rights of individuals who don’t identify as women who also menstruate. It isn’t simply either or, it is a case of both and.
Changing the definition of the word woman to fit in with the gender identities of people who weren't born female has its own problems and implications. It's a slippery slope.
A slippery slope to what?!
No one is going to steal your vagina and say you can't refer to yourself as a woman anymore...
The loss of single sex spaces and sex segregated sports for a start.
Exactly.
It is none of my business how an individual choses to identify and on a one to one basis, I would always refer to a person as he or she depending on how they identify.
However, I've heard this described as the thin end of the wedge. It has far more wide reaching implications as described above. Registered sex offenders identifying as women and being moved from a male to a female prison is an extreme example but it has happened. The debate on self ID means that it could be far easier going forward for a man with nefarious intentions to gain access to women's only spaces. Of course we need to differentiate between scumbags like this and genuine trans people who just want to live their life. But this shouldn't be at the price of women's rights and the erosion of language used to describe women and uniquely female biological experiences."
Absolutely this |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I don’t know, I guess it’s just what I would feel, I certainly wouldn’t expect anyone else to feel that way. I just know I would feel wrong ignoring views I feel fundamentally at odds with just to enjoy entertainment that they produced.
I’m not trying to guilt anyone who doesn’t feel that way, it’s just how I personally would feel. Everyone’s got to make their own choices and draw their own lines in the sand and that’s mine
It's not a "view" to state that there are only two genders, it's a statement of fact."
It was a fact that the earth was flat, the sun revolved round the earth and the earth was the centre of the Universe. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So what has she said specifically that is hateful and incites violence?
She questioned the phrase , “people who menstruate.” She thinks it should have said women not people.
And the problem with her comment is?
She's wrong. Lots of people who don't identify as "women" menstruate.
She's not wrong though. Reality doesn't bend to fit identity.
the reality for those people is that they are not women.
Why can't people open their minds a little and allow people to live as they see fit. It literally effects no one but them and maybe those close to them.
Her comment was unnecessary.
I'd rather say nothing than express an opinion that would upset a whole bunch of people doing nowt but living their lives....but that's just me.
It does affect me, and other women when we have to censor our experience to avoid offending others over a simple biological fact. And then there's the way identity politics can affect legislation which definitely has implications for the wider population.
People can live however they choose, they just can't expect everyone else to go along with it.
I'm sorry. But how does how someone else identifies censor your experience?!
We're all individuals!
Because I'm a woman, and it seems that's a word I can no longer use when talking about things like menstruation (people who menstruate), smear tests (people with cervixes) etc etc. It feels dehumanising.
Of course you can use the word woman as a woman who menstruates, but you can also understand the rights of individuals who don’t identify as women who also menstruate. It isn’t simply either or, it is a case of both and.
Changing the definition of the word woman to fit in with the gender identities of people who weren't born female has its own problems and implications. It's a slippery slope.
A slippery slope to what?!
No one is going to steal your vagina and say you can't refer to yourself as a woman anymore...
The loss of single sex spaces and sex segregated sports for a start.
Exactly.
It is none of my business how an individual choses to identify and on a one to one basis, I would always refer to a person as he or she depending on how they identify.
However, I've heard this described as the thin end of the wedge. It has far more wide reaching implications as described above. Registered sex offenders identifying as women and being moved from a male to a female prison is an extreme example but it has happened. The debate on self ID means that it could be far easier going forward for a man with nefarious intentions to gain access to women's only spaces. Of course we need to differentiate between scumbags like this and genuine trans people who just want to live their life. But this shouldn't be at the price of women's rights and the erosion of language used to describe women and uniquely female biological experiences."
Language is always evolving this doesn’t erode anything unless you choose to see it that way. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Im maybe too out of touch but as a straight male is it a offensive for me to say i have no interest in a woman that used to be a man? I apologise if it does cause offensive but i cant get past the fact they were born with a cock and nothing will change my mind on that.
Also, how does it work for many sporting events? It opens up such a minefield and only solution is to have trans only events imo. I know that goes against being inclusive but i dont think there is any realistic alternative |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Im maybe too out of touch but as a straight male is it a offensive for me to say i have no interest in a woman that used to be a man? I apologise if it does cause offensive but i cant get past the fact they were born with a cock and nothing will change my mind on that.
Also, how does it work for many sporting events? It opens up such a minefield and only solution is to have trans only events imo. I know that goes against being inclusive but i dont think there is any realistic alternative "
Unfortunately, many sporting events are allowing trans women to compete in the women's category which of course causes issues with fairness and in some cases physical injury above and beyond the norm. And for young female athletes, loss of scolarships to trans women. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Im maybe too out of touch but as a straight male is it a offensive for me to say i have no interest in a woman that used to be a man? I apologise if it does cause offensive but i cant get past the fact they were born with a cock and nothing will change my mind on that.
Also, how does it work for many sporting events? It opens up such a minefield and only solution is to have trans only events imo. I know that goes against being inclusive but i dont think there is any realistic alternative "
Many would accuse you of being transphobic for having this opinion.
Same for lesbians who choose not to engage in sexual activity with a trans woman who has not undergone surgery.
Quite shocking really when you think about it. That people are exercising their right to chose not to have sex with someone. What is the world coming to..... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So what has she said specifically that is hateful and incites violence?
She questioned the phrase , “people who menstruate.” She thinks it should have said women not people.
And the problem with her comment is?
She's wrong. Lots of people who don't identify as "women" menstruate.
She's not wrong though. Reality doesn't bend to fit identity.
the reality for those people is that they are not women.
Why can't people open their minds a little and allow people to live as they see fit. It literally effects no one but them and maybe those close to them.
Her comment was unnecessary.
I'd rather say nothing than express an opinion that would upset a whole bunch of people doing nowt but living their lives....but that's just me.
It does affect me, and other women when we have to censor our experience to avoid offending others over a simple biological fact. And then there's the way identity politics can affect legislation which definitely has implications for the wider population.
People can live however they choose, they just can't expect everyone else to go along with it.
I'm sorry. But how does how someone else identifies censor your experience?!
We're all individuals!
Because I'm a woman, and it seems that's a word I can no longer use when talking about things like menstruation (people who menstruate), smear tests (people with cervixes) etc etc. It feels dehumanising.
Of course you can use the word woman as a woman who menstruates, but you can also understand the rights of individuals who don’t identify as women who also menstruate. It isn’t simply either or, it is a case of both and.
Changing the definition of the word woman to fit in with the gender identities of people who weren't born female has its own problems and implications. It's a slippery slope.
A slippery slope to what?!
No one is going to steal your vagina and say you can't refer to yourself as a woman anymore...
The loss of single sex spaces and sex segregated sports for a start.
Exactly.
It is none of my business how an individual choses to identify and on a one to one basis, I would always refer to a person as he or she depending on how they identify.
However, I've heard this described as the thin end of the wedge. It has far more wide reaching implications as described above. Registered sex offenders identifying as women and being moved from a male to a female prison is an extreme example but it has happened. The debate on self ID means that it could be far easier going forward for a man with nefarious intentions to gain access to women's only spaces. Of course we need to differentiate between scumbags like this and genuine trans people who just want to live their life. But this shouldn't be at the price of women's rights and the erosion of language used to describe women and uniquely female biological experiences."
This, 100% this |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So what has she said specifically that is hateful and incites violence?
She questioned the phrase , “people who menstruate.” She thinks it should have said women not people.
And the problem with her comment is?
She's wrong. Lots of people who don't identify as "women" menstruate.
She's not wrong though. Reality doesn't bend to fit identity.
the reality for those people is that they are not women.
Why can't people open their minds a little and allow people to live as they see fit. It literally effects no one but them and maybe those close to them.
Her comment was unnecessary.
I'd rather say nothing than express an opinion that would upset a whole bunch of people doing nowt but living their lives....but that's just me.
It does affect me, and other women when we have to censor our experience to avoid offending others over a simple biological fact. And then there's the way identity politics can affect legislation which definitely has implications for the wider population.
People can live however they choose, they just can't expect everyone else to go along with it.
I'm sorry. But how does how someone else identifies censor your experience?!
We're all individuals!
Because I'm a woman, and it seems that's a word I can no longer use when talking about things like menstruation (people who menstruate), smear tests (people with cervixes) etc etc. It feels dehumanising.
Of course you can use the word woman as a woman who menstruates, but you can also understand the rights of individuals who don’t identify as women who also menstruate. It isn’t simply either or, it is a case of both and.
Changing the definition of the word woman to fit in with the gender identities of people who weren't born female has its own problems and implications. It's a slippery slope.
A slippery slope to what?!
No one is going to steal your vagina and say you can't refer to yourself as a woman anymore...
The loss of single sex spaces and sex segregated sports for a start.
Exactly.
It is none of my business how an individual choses to identify and on a one to one basis, I would always refer to a person as he or she depending on how they identify.
However, I've heard this described as the thin end of the wedge. It has far more wide reaching implications as described above. Registered sex offenders identifying as women and being moved from a male to a female prison is an extreme example but it has happened. The debate on self ID means that it could be far easier going forward for a man with nefarious intentions to gain access to women's only spaces. Of course we need to differentiate between scumbags like this and genuine trans people who just want to live their life. But this shouldn't be at the price of women's rights and the erosion of language used to describe women and uniquely female biological experiences.
Language is always evolving this doesn’t erode anything unless you choose to see it that way."
I honestly believe this would be a far bigger debate, with much different opinions if men were being impacted in the same way that women are. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So what has she said specifically that is hateful and incites violence?
She questioned the phrase , “people who menstruate.” She thinks it should have said women not people.
And the problem with her comment is?
She's wrong. Lots of people who don't identify as "women" menstruate.
She's not wrong though. Reality doesn't bend to fit identity.
the reality for those people is that they are not women.
Why can't people open their minds a little and allow people to live as they see fit. It literally effects no one but them and maybe those close to them.
Her comment was unnecessary.
I'd rather say nothing than express an opinion that would upset a whole bunch of people doing nowt but living their lives....but that's just me.
It does affect me, and other women when we have to censor our experience to avoid offending others over a simple biological fact. And then there's the way identity politics can affect legislation which definitely has implications for the wider population.
People can live however they choose, they just can't expect everyone else to go along with it.
I'm sorry. But how does how someone else identifies censor your experience?!
We're all individuals!
Because I'm a woman, and it seems that's a word I can no longer use when talking about things like menstruation (people who menstruate), smear tests (people with cervixes) etc etc. It feels dehumanising.
Of course you can use the word woman as a woman who menstruates, but you can also understand the rights of individuals who don’t identify as women who also menstruate. It isn’t simply either or, it is a case of both and.
Changing the definition of the word woman to fit in with the gender identities of people who weren't born female has its own problems and implications. It's a slippery slope.
A slippery slope to what?!
No one is going to steal your vagina and say you can't refer to yourself as a woman anymore...
The loss of single sex spaces and sex segregated sports for a start.
Exactly.
It is none of my business how an individual choses to identify and on a one to one basis, I would always refer to a person as he or she depending on how they identify.
However, I've heard this described as the thin end of the wedge. It has far more wide reaching implications as described above. Registered sex offenders identifying as women and being moved from a male to a female prison is an extreme example but it has happened. The debate on self ID means that it could be far easier going forward for a man with nefarious intentions to gain access to women's only spaces. Of course we need to differentiate between scumbags like this and genuine trans people who just want to live their life. But this shouldn't be at the price of women's rights and the erosion of language used to describe women and uniquely female biological experiences.
Language is always evolving this doesn’t erode anything unless you choose to see it that way.
I honestly believe this would be a far bigger debate, with much different opinions if men were being impacted in the same way that women are."
I'm glad someone said it! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So what has she said specifically that is hateful and incites violence?
She questioned the phrase , “people who menstruate.” She thinks it should have said women not people.
And the problem with her comment is?
She's wrong. Lots of people who don't identify as "women" menstruate.
She's not wrong though. Reality doesn't bend to fit identity.
the reality for those people is that they are not women.
Why can't people open their minds a little and allow people to live as they see fit. It literally effects no one but them and maybe those close to them.
Her comment was unnecessary.
I'd rather say nothing than express an opinion that would upset a whole bunch of people doing nowt but living their lives....but that's just me.
It does affect me, and other women when we have to censor our experience to avoid offending others over a simple biological fact. And then there's the way identity politics can affect legislation which definitely has implications for the wider population.
People can live however they choose, they just can't expect everyone else to go along with it.
I'm sorry. But how does how someone else identifies censor your experience?!
We're all individuals!
Because I'm a woman, and it seems that's a word I can no longer use when talking about things like menstruation (people who menstruate), smear tests (people with cervixes) etc etc. It feels dehumanising.
Of course you can use the word woman as a woman who menstruates, but you can also understand the rights of individuals who don’t identify as women who also menstruate. It isn’t simply either or, it is a case of both and.
Changing the definition of the word woman to fit in with the gender identities of people who weren't born female has its own problems and implications. It's a slippery slope.
A slippery slope to what?!
No one is going to steal your vagina and say you can't refer to yourself as a woman anymore...
The loss of single sex spaces and sex segregated sports for a start.
Exactly.
It is none of my business how an individual choses to identify and on a one to one basis, I would always refer to a person as he or she depending on how they identify.
However, I've heard this described as the thin end of the wedge. It has far more wide reaching implications as described above. Registered sex offenders identifying as women and being moved from a male to a female prison is an extreme example but it has happened. The debate on self ID means that it could be far easier going forward for a man with nefarious intentions to gain access to women's only spaces. Of course we need to differentiate between scumbags like this and genuine trans people who just want to live their life. But this shouldn't be at the price of women's rights and the erosion of language used to describe women and uniquely female biological experiences.
Language is always evolving this doesn’t erode anything unless you choose to see it that way.
I honestly believe this would be a far bigger debate, with much different opinions if men were being impacted in the same way that women are."
Is that comment helpful to the debate so you think? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So what has she said specifically that is hateful and incites violence?
She questioned the phrase , “people who menstruate.” She thinks it should have said women not people.
And the problem with her comment is?
She's wrong. Lots of people who don't identify as "women" menstruate.
She's not wrong though. Reality doesn't bend to fit identity.
the reality for those people is that they are not women.
Why can't people open their minds a little and allow people to live as they see fit. It literally effects no one but them and maybe those close to them.
Her comment was unnecessary.
I'd rather say nothing than express an opinion that would upset a whole bunch of people doing nowt but living their lives....but that's just me.
It does affect me, and other women when we have to censor our experience to avoid offending others over a simple biological fact. And then there's the way identity politics can affect legislation which definitely has implications for the wider population.
People can live however they choose, they just can't expect everyone else to go along with it.
I'm sorry. But how does how someone else identifies censor your experience?!
We're all individuals!
Because I'm a woman, and it seems that's a word I can no longer use when talking about things like menstruation (people who menstruate), smear tests (people with cervixes) etc etc. It feels dehumanising.
Of course you can use the word woman as a woman who menstruates, but you can also understand the rights of individuals who don’t identify as women who also menstruate. It isn’t simply either or, it is a case of both and.
Changing the definition of the word woman to fit in with the gender identities of people who weren't born female has its own problems and implications. It's a slippery slope.
A slippery slope to what?!
No one is going to steal your vagina and say you can't refer to yourself as a woman anymore...
The loss of single sex spaces and sex segregated sports for a start.
Exactly.
It is none of my business how an individual choses to identify and on a one to one basis, I would always refer to a person as he or she depending on how they identify.
However, I've heard this described as the thin end of the wedge. It has far more wide reaching implications as described above. Registered sex offenders identifying as women and being moved from a male to a female prison is an extreme example but it has happened. The debate on self ID means that it could be far easier going forward for a man with nefarious intentions to gain access to women's only spaces. Of course we need to differentiate between scumbags like this and genuine trans people who just want to live their life. But this shouldn't be at the price of women's rights and the erosion of language used to describe women and uniquely female biological experiences.
Language is always evolving this doesn’t erode anything unless you choose to see it that way.
I honestly believe this would be a far bigger debate, with much different opinions if men were being impacted in the same way that women are.
Is that comment helpful to the debate so you think? "
Do* |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Im maybe too out of touch but as a straight male is it a offensive for me to say i have no interest in a woman that used to be a man? I apologise if it does cause offensive but i cant get past the fact they were born with a cock and nothing will change my mind on that.
Also, how does it work for many sporting events? It opens up such a minefield and only solution is to have trans only events imo. I know that goes against being inclusive but i dont think there is any realistic alternative
Unfortunately, many sporting events are allowing trans women to compete in the women's category which of course causes issues with fairness and in some cases physical injury above and beyond the norm. And for young female athletes, loss of scolarships to trans women. "
Inclusion is all very well till someone is seriously injured or worse. Im 6ft and built like a tank and know plenty guys bigger than me. The thought of them transitioning and playing womens rubgy wouldn't be worth thinking about! And im not being sexist, just the reality of a physical imbalance .
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So what has she said specifically that is hateful and incites violence?
She questioned the phrase , “people who menstruate.” She thinks it should have said women not people.
And the problem with her comment is?
She's wrong. Lots of people who don't identify as "women" menstruate.
She's not wrong though. Reality doesn't bend to fit identity.
the reality for those people is that they are not women.
Why can't people open their minds a little and allow people to live as they see fit. It literally effects no one but them and maybe those close to them.
Her comment was unnecessary.
I'd rather say nothing than express an opinion that would upset a whole bunch of people doing nowt but living their lives....but that's just me.
It does affect me, and other women when we have to censor our experience to avoid offending others over a simple biological fact. And then there's the way identity politics can affect legislation which definitely has implications for the wider population.
People can live however they choose, they just can't expect everyone else to go along with it.
I'm sorry. But how does how someone else identifies censor your experience?!
We're all individuals!
Because I'm a woman, and it seems that's a word I can no longer use when talking about things like menstruation (people who menstruate), smear tests (people with cervixes) etc etc. It feels dehumanising.
Of course you can use the word woman as a woman who menstruates, but you can also understand the rights of individuals who don’t identify as women who also menstruate. It isn’t simply either or, it is a case of both and.
Changing the definition of the word woman to fit in with the gender identities of people who weren't born female has its own problems and implications. It's a slippery slope.
A slippery slope to what?!
No one is going to steal your vagina and say you can't refer to yourself as a woman anymore...
The loss of single sex spaces and sex segregated sports for a start.
Exactly.
It is none of my business how an individual choses to identify and on a one to one basis, I would always refer to a person as he or she depending on how they identify.
However, I've heard this described as the thin end of the wedge. It has far more wide reaching implications as described above. Registered sex offenders identifying as women and being moved from a male to a female prison is an extreme example but it has happened. The debate on self ID means that it could be far easier going forward for a man with nefarious intentions to gain access to women's only spaces. Of course we need to differentiate between scumbags like this and genuine trans people who just want to live their life. But this shouldn't be at the price of women's rights and the erosion of language used to describe women and uniquely female biological experiences.
Language is always evolving this doesn’t erode anything unless you choose to see it that way.
I honestly believe this would be a far bigger debate, with much different opinions if men were being impacted in the same way that women are.
Is that comment helpful to the debate so you think? "
Yes. Otherwise I wouldn't have made the comment.
Thanks for checking I'd thought it through though . |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So what has she said specifically that is hateful and incites violence?
She questioned the phrase , “people who menstruate.” She thinks it should have said women not people.
And the problem with her comment is?
She's wrong. Lots of people who don't identify as "women" menstruate.
She's not wrong though. Reality doesn't bend to fit identity.
the reality for those people is that they are not women.
Why can't people open their minds a little and allow people to live as they see fit. It literally effects no one but them and maybe those close to them.
Her comment was unnecessary.
I'd rather say nothing than express an opinion that would upset a whole bunch of people doing nowt but living their lives....but that's just me.
It does affect me, and other women when we have to censor our experience to avoid offending others over a simple biological fact. And then there's the way identity politics can affect legislation which definitely has implications for the wider population.
People can live however they choose, they just can't expect everyone else to go along with it.
I'm sorry. But how does how someone else identifies censor your experience?!
We're all individuals!
Because I'm a woman, and it seems that's a word I can no longer use when talking about things like menstruation (people who menstruate), smear tests (people with cervixes) etc etc. It feels dehumanising.
Of course you can use the word woman as a woman who menstruates, but you can also understand the rights of individuals who don’t identify as women who also menstruate. It isn’t simply either or, it is a case of both and.
Changing the definition of the word woman to fit in with the gender identities of people who weren't born female has its own problems and implications. It's a slippery slope.
A slippery slope to what?!
No one is going to steal your vagina and say you can't refer to yourself as a woman anymore...
The loss of single sex spaces and sex segregated sports for a start.
Exactly.
It is none of my business how an individual choses to identify and on a one to one basis, I would always refer to a person as he or she depending on how they identify.
However, I've heard this described as the thin end of the wedge. It has far more wide reaching implications as described above. Registered sex offenders identifying as women and being moved from a male to a female prison is an extreme example but it has happened. The debate on self ID means that it could be far easier going forward for a man with nefarious intentions to gain access to women's only spaces. Of course we need to differentiate between scumbags like this and genuine trans people who just want to live their life. But this shouldn't be at the price of women's rights and the erosion of language used to describe women and uniquely female biological experiences.
Language is always evolving this doesn’t erode anything unless you choose to see it that way.
I honestly believe this would be a far bigger debate, with much different opinions if men were being impacted in the same way that women are.
Is that comment helpful to the debate so you think?
Yes. Otherwise I wouldn't have made the comment.
Thanks for checking I'd thought it through though ."
Is that one? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So what has she said specifically that is hateful and incites violence?
She questioned the phrase , “people who menstruate.” She thinks it should have said women not people.
And the problem with her comment is?
She's wrong. Lots of people who don't identify as "women" menstruate.
She's not wrong though. Reality doesn't bend to fit identity.
the reality for those people is that they are not women.
Why can't people open their minds a little and allow people to live as they see fit. It literally effects no one but them and maybe those close to them.
Her comment was unnecessary.
I'd rather say nothing than express an opinion that would upset a whole bunch of people doing nowt but living their lives....but that's just me.
It does affect me, and other women when we have to censor our experience to avoid offending others over a simple biological fact. And then there's the way identity politics can affect legislation which definitely has implications for the wider population.
People can live however they choose, they just can't expect everyone else to go along with it.
I'm sorry. But how does how someone else identifies censor your experience?!
We're all individuals!
Because I'm a woman, and it seems that's a word I can no longer use when talking about things like menstruation (people who menstruate), smear tests (people with cervixes) etc etc. It feels dehumanising.
Of course you can use the word woman as a woman who menstruates, but you can also understand the rights of individuals who don’t identify as women who also menstruate. It isn’t simply either or, it is a case of both and.
Changing the definition of the word woman to fit in with the gender identities of people who weren't born female has its own problems and implications. It's a slippery slope.
A slippery slope to what?!
No one is going to steal your vagina and say you can't refer to yourself as a woman anymore...
The loss of single sex spaces and sex segregated sports for a start.
Exactly.
It is none of my business how an individual choses to identify and on a one to one basis, I would always refer to a person as he or she depending on how they identify.
However, I've heard this described as the thin end of the wedge. It has far more wide reaching implications as described above. Registered sex offenders identifying as women and being moved from a male to a female prison is an extreme example but it has happened. The debate on self ID means that it could be far easier going forward for a man with nefarious intentions to gain access to women's only spaces. Of course we need to differentiate between scumbags like this and genuine trans people who just want to live their life. But this shouldn't be at the price of women's rights and the erosion of language used to describe women and uniquely female biological experiences.
Language is always evolving this doesn’t erode anything unless you choose to see it that way.
I honestly believe this would be a far bigger debate, with much different opinions if men were being impacted in the same way that women are."
I think it is a big debate and all perspectives need to be heard without dismissing, discounting or demonising any of those who hold those perspectives. We can only work through these issues and find appropriate solutions with more compassionate conversation. That doesn’t mean views are not challenged but creative solutions to complex issues can’t be created with the same thinking that is creating and reinforcing them. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *aitonelMan
over a year ago
Travelling |
"I don’t know, I guess it’s just what I would feel, I certainly wouldn’t expect anyone else to feel that way. I just know I would feel wrong ignoring views I feel fundamentally at odds with just to enjoy entertainment that they produced.
I’m not trying to guilt anyone who doesn’t feel that way, it’s just how I personally would feel. Everyone’s got to make their own choices and draw their own lines in the sand and that’s mine
It's not a "view" to state that there are only two genders, it's a statement of fact."
Technically genders are not fact, they are social constructs used to fit social roles in society based upon masculinity and femininity. Man/woman and men/women and boy/girl being the main universal ones. There are many cultures around the world, throughout history that have changed these roles - women being the warriors for example. Women being rulers as Queens and Empress.
Sex on the other had is the fact, these are of course the male and female terms based upon the physical and biological traits. This would be male and female. Naturally occurring without any human intervention.
Of course there are those that have both male and female biological traits.
The sort of elephant in the room and true thing that is highly debated is the mental/psychological and how that defines and combines the above two catagoeies. Where is the cross over, when does one psychological state impact the others. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So what has she said specifically that is hateful and incites violence?
She questioned the phrase , “people who menstruate.” She thinks it should have said women not people.
And the problem with her comment is?
She's wrong. Lots of people who don't identify as "women" menstruate.
She's not wrong though. Reality doesn't bend to fit identity.
the reality for those people is that they are not women.
Why can't people open their minds a little and allow people to live as they see fit. It literally effects no one but them and maybe those close to them.
Her comment was unnecessary.
I'd rather say nothing than express an opinion that would upset a whole bunch of people doing nowt but living their lives....but that's just me.
It does affect me, and other women when we have to censor our experience to avoid offending others over a simple biological fact. And then there's the way identity politics can affect legislation which definitely has implications for the wider population.
People can live however they choose, they just can't expect everyone else to go along with it.
I'm sorry. But how does how someone else identifies censor your experience?!
We're all individuals!
Because I'm a woman, and it seems that's a word I can no longer use when talking about things like menstruation (people who menstruate), smear tests (people with cervixes) etc etc. It feels dehumanising.
Of course you can use the word woman as a woman who menstruates, but you can also understand the rights of individuals who don’t identify as women who also menstruate. It isn’t simply either or, it is a case of both and.
Changing the definition of the word woman to fit in with the gender identities of people who weren't born female has its own problems and implications. It's a slippery slope.
A slippery slope to what?!
No one is going to steal your vagina and say you can't refer to yourself as a woman anymore...
The loss of single sex spaces and sex segregated sports for a start.
Exactly.
It is none of my business how an individual choses to identify and on a one to one basis, I would always refer to a person as he or she depending on how they identify.
However, I've heard this described as the thin end of the wedge. It has far more wide reaching implications as described above. Registered sex offenders identifying as women and being moved from a male to a female prison is an extreme example but it has happened. The debate on self ID means that it could be far easier going forward for a man with nefarious intentions to gain access to women's only spaces. Of course we need to differentiate between scumbags like this and genuine trans people who just want to live their life. But this shouldn't be at the price of women's rights and the erosion of language used to describe women and uniquely female biological experiences.
Language is always evolving this doesn’t erode anything unless you choose to see it that way.
I honestly believe this would be a far bigger debate, with much different opinions if men were being impacted in the same way that women are.
Is that comment helpful to the debate so you think?
Yes. Otherwise I wouldn't have made the comment.
Thanks for checking I'd thought it through though .
Is that one?"
By this, I wasn't deliberately trying to be an arsehole, I meant more if you really care about the issue then why try to make a debate about something it's not about just because you feel hurt about another issue and in the process derail the debate and alienate half the audience/participants.... Why can't guys debate women's issues and vice versa with equal weight, why are we even talking about gender instead of people....? As a white male I seem to get told I'm privileged and to shut up a lot lately, no doubt someone is just about to say that again with a thinly disguised insult. I think folk should be nicer to each other as a starting point and then debate and then work out what really matters to them rather than starting from a side and shouting abuse. In my mind, there's some woman who's written a few books and made some money and has an opinion, and it is just that and nothing more. I've seen more hate on this thread than us contained in the potter lady's opinion and yet nobody wants to take responsibility for that, instead we burn the rich witch to reduce our self loathing, innit.... ....sad times |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So what has she said specifically that is hateful and incites violence?
She questioned the phrase , “people who menstruate.” She thinks it should have said women not people.
And the problem with her comment is?
She's wrong. Lots of people who don't identify as "women" menstruate.
She's not wrong though. Reality doesn't bend to fit identity.
the reality for those people is that they are not women.
Why can't people open their minds a little and allow people to live as they see fit. It literally effects no one but them and maybe those close to them.
Her comment was unnecessary.
I'd rather say nothing than express an opinion that would upset a whole bunch of people doing nowt but living their lives....but that's just me.
It does affect me, and other women when we have to censor our experience to avoid offending others over a simple biological fact. And then there's the way identity politics can affect legislation which definitely has implications for the wider population.
People can live however they choose, they just can't expect everyone else to go along with it.
I'm sorry. But how does how someone else identifies censor your experience?!
We're all individuals!
Because I'm a woman, and it seems that's a word I can no longer use when talking about things like menstruation (people who menstruate), smear tests (people with cervixes) etc etc. It feels dehumanising.
Of course you can use the word woman as a woman who menstruates, but you can also understand the rights of individuals who don’t identify as women who also menstruate. It isn’t simply either or, it is a case of both and.
Changing the definition of the word woman to fit in with the gender identities of people who weren't born female has its own problems and implications. It's a slippery slope.
A slippery slope to what?!
No one is going to steal your vagina and say you can't refer to yourself as a woman anymore...
The loss of single sex spaces and sex segregated sports for a start.
Exactly.
It is none of my business how an individual choses to identify and on a one to one basis, I would always refer to a person as he or she depending on how they identify.
However, I've heard this described as the thin end of the wedge. It has far more wide reaching implications as described above. Registered sex offenders identifying as women and being moved from a male to a female prison is an extreme example but it has happened. The debate on self ID means that it could be far easier going forward for a man with nefarious intentions to gain access to women's only spaces. Of course we need to differentiate between scumbags like this and genuine trans people who just want to live their life. But this shouldn't be at the price of women's rights and the erosion of language used to describe women and uniquely female biological experiences.
Language is always evolving this doesn’t erode anything unless you choose to see it that way.
I honestly believe this would be a far bigger debate, with much different opinions if men were being impacted in the same way that women are.
Is that comment helpful to the debate so you think?
Yes. Otherwise I wouldn't have made the comment.
Thanks for checking I'd thought it through though .
Is that one?
By this, I wasn't deliberately trying to be an arsehole, I meant more if you really care about the issue then why try to make a debate about something it's not about just because you feel hurt about another issue and in the process derail the debate and alienate half the audience/participants.... Why can't guys debate women's issues and vice versa with equal weight, why are we even talking about gender instead of people....? As a white male I seem to get told I'm privileged and to shut up a lot lately, no doubt someone is just about to say that again with a thinly disguised insult. I think folk should be nicer to each other as a starting point and then debate and then work out what really matters to them rather than starting from a side and shouting abuse. In my mind, there's some woman who's written a few books and made some money and has an opinion, and it is just that and nothing more. I've seen more hate on this thread than us contained in the potter lady's opinion and yet nobody wants to take responsibility for that, instead we burn the rich witch to reduce our self loathing, innit.... ....sad times "
I wasn't trying to derail the debate.
I honestly believe that if men's spaces, sport and the language used to describe their existence could potentially be affected in the same way as women's may be then more people would be sitting up and paying attention.
And I very much welcome men's opinion on this. Every husband, father and brother should be paying attention to an issue which could impact on the women in their lives.
I've not seen anything hateful on this thread. It would have been pulled if that was the case or the comments deleted. I've only seen people strongly express their viewpoint which is what a debate is all about.
Every single person has a right to be treated with respect and dignity. But as I stated earlier, this should not come at the cost of another section of society.
I doubt you're an arsehole.
I'm signing off from this thread now as wine has been opened.
Cheers folks |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So what has she said specifically that is hateful and incites violence?
She questioned the phrase , “people who menstruate.” She thinks it should have said women not people.
And the problem with her comment is?
She's wrong. Lots of people who don't identify as "women" menstruate.
She's not wrong though. Reality doesn't bend to fit identity.
the reality for those people is that they are not women.
Why can't people open their minds a little and allow people to live as they see fit. It literally effects no one but them and maybe those close to them.
Her comment was unnecessary.
I'd rather say nothing than express an opinion that would upset a whole bunch of people doing nowt but living their lives....but that's just me.
It does affect me, and other women when we have to censor our experience to avoid offending others over a simple biological fact. And then there's the way identity politics can affect legislation which definitely has implications for the wider population.
People can live however they choose, they just can't expect everyone else to go along with it.
I'm sorry. But how does how someone else identifies censor your experience?!
We're all individuals!
Because I'm a woman, and it seems that's a word I can no longer use when talking about things like menstruation (people who menstruate), smear tests (people with cervixes) etc etc. It feels dehumanising.
Of course you can use the word woman as a woman who menstruates, but you can also understand the rights of individuals who don’t identify as women who also menstruate. It isn’t simply either or, it is a case of both and.
Changing the definition of the word woman to fit in with the gender identities of people who weren't born female has its own problems and implications. It's a slippery slope.
A slippery slope to what?!
No one is going to steal your vagina and say you can't refer to yourself as a woman anymore...
The loss of single sex spaces and sex segregated sports for a start.
Exactly.
It is none of my business how an individual choses to identify and on a one to one basis, I would always refer to a person as he or she depending on how they identify.
However, I've heard this described as the thin end of the wedge. It has far more wide reaching implications as described above. Registered sex offenders identifying as women and being moved from a male to a female prison is an extreme example but it has happened. The debate on self ID means that it could be far easier going forward for a man with nefarious intentions to gain access to women's only spaces. Of course we need to differentiate between scumbags like this and genuine trans people who just want to live their life. But this shouldn't be at the price of women's rights and the erosion of language used to describe women and uniquely female biological experiences.
Language is always evolving this doesn’t erode anything unless you choose to see it that way.
I honestly believe this would be a far bigger debate, with much different opinions if men were being impacted in the same way that women are.
Is that comment helpful to the debate so you think?
Yes. Otherwise I wouldn't have made the comment.
Thanks for checking I'd thought it through though .
Is that one?
By this, I wasn't deliberately trying to be an arsehole, I meant more if you really care about the issue then why try to make a debate about something it's not about just because you feel hurt about another issue and in the process derail the debate and alienate half the audience/participants.... Why can't guys debate women's issues and vice versa with equal weight, why are we even talking about gender instead of people....? As a white male I seem to get told I'm privileged and to shut up a lot lately, no doubt someone is just about to say that again with a thinly disguised insult. I think folk should be nicer to each other as a starting point and then debate and then work out what really matters to them rather than starting from a side and shouting abuse. In my mind, there's some woman who's written a few books and made some money and has an opinion, and it is just that and nothing more. I've seen more hate on this thread than us contained in the potter lady's opinion and yet nobody wants to take responsibility for that, instead we burn the rich witch to reduce our self loathing, innit.... ....sad times
I wasn't trying to derail the debate.
I honestly believe that if men's spaces, sport and the language used to describe their existence could potentially be affected in the same way as women's may be then more people would be sitting up and paying attention.
And I very much welcome men's opinion on this. Every husband, father and brother should be paying attention to an issue which could impact on the women in their lives.
I've not seen anything hateful on this thread. It would have been pulled if that was the case or the comments deleted. I've only seen people strongly express their viewpoint which is what a debate is all about.
Every single person has a right to be treated with respect and dignity. But as I stated earlier, this should not come at the cost of another section of society.
I doubt you're an arsehole.
I'm signing off from this thread now as wine has been opened.
Cheers folks "
You said everything I came back here to say
I think I'm done here now too, night all. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
