JK Rowling Manx Flag Controversy

[Hoops]

16 hours ago, Chie said:

To interject here. Long post incoming to clear up some myths and other bits.

1. Woke is simply being aware of the social, political and cultural issues faced by minority groups. This “wokeism” half you all believe in is nothing more than the weaponised version used by the right, promoted by the daily Mail and other media. Most people are woke by it’s actual definition in some way or another. I consider myself woke by that definition also.

2. To those bleating “cancel culture”. I’m a lefty and I can’t say i have actually seen anyone cancelled. Not really. People claim they are cancelled, shout about people trying to cancel them. But, all those people still have huge social media followings, speak at events, write and sell books and have very vocal opinions that reach a large audience. And quite honestly are about as far from cancelled as you can get.

3. Barely any of us on the left have any intention of removing anyones freedom of speech. That’s a small minority called the far left and a lot of us think they are bellends at the best of times for some of the crap they pull. The rest of us support freedom of speech, support the discussion of ideas and support an individuals right to an opinion. What we don’t believe however is that freedom of speech gives someone the right to go out of their way to insult, belittle or otherwise make a person feel anything less than what they are. That isn’t freedom of speech, that’s just being a cunt. And that’s the issue here. Half the people spouting their freedom of speech is being taken away are actually upset because they are no longer able to say things to minority groups that make fun of or cause offence to them.

4. JK Rowling. Most of what has been mentioned are relatively early tweets where she did still show some support. Since then, she has really gone to town on targeting trans people at every possible opportunity and now she has surrounded herself with her echo chamber of like minded morons it has only gotten worse, she associates with and promotes people who have stated in interview that trans people should be put to death, rounded up, put in special camps (uhhh….) and more. She’s a very toxic individual. However, she said something very revealing in a recent tweet. She linked trans women with her abusive ex husband hinting that there is somehow a link of blame that falls on trans women for how she was treated. It makes me wonder if that’s the real issue. She can’t outright hate men as that would cause all manner of issue in regards to her professional life so she hates on trans women who were born biologically male instead.

5. No. Trans people do not deny biology. Never have. Never will. That’s a “daily Mail told me so” claim. Trust me when I say they are more than aware of what biology is. They have to live with biology every single day. They do however accept (quite rightly) that biology is not black and white and is incredibly complex when you delve into the nitty gritty. The whole concept of man vs woman is not as clear cut as the gender critics would want you to believe. I am not writing another post on this here as it will go on for days. But, if you take everything into account that you should take into account. You could easily argue that every person alive is in some way intersex and that a large portion of the population deviate from what people believe is the standard model.

6. No, trans people are not trying to erase women. That has never been a thing. Not once have women been told they can’t identify with whatever they feel makes them female. Not once have they been told that they can’t be women. That again is a gender critic “daily Mail told me so” claim. Literally no one is doing this and would want to do this. This has come about because of the whole bathroom and changing room debacle which is utter nonsense. Yes, a handful of trans people have done a bad thing. But that doesn’t mean the whole is representative of the few. There is good and bad in every walk of society. If anyone thinks banning trans women from womens toilets is going to somehow save natal women then they should go to google, click on “News” and search “woman raped in toilet”. There’s a whole subsection of cis men that didn’t get that memo and raped women in toilets anyway and have been doing so for a very long time. And none of them had to pretend to be trans to do so. But it’s trans people that are the issue?. I find it interesting amidst the thousands and thousands of articles about cis men doing the raping that none of these people talk about that or gang together in national outrage. No, only when a trans person uses a toilet to pee.

Lastly. If you hadn’t guessed it, yes I’m trans and unlike the nonsense people believe I am actually more than open to sitting down and having a sensible discussion with anyone on this matter and explaining out things about being transgender that they might not understand and I am more than willing to listen to other peoples points of view. I might not agree with it but I will listen.

ok, a point by point rebuttal

 

[Hoops]

Just now, Hoops said:

ok, a point by point rebuttal

 

sorry, i was identifying as david ashford for a bit there.

First thing, full respect for your last paragraph.

As for the 'woke' tag, 'gammon', 'snowflake' etc etc, they add nothing to a debate.

I do feel you are being a bit disingenuous when you refer solely to toilets in terms of trans people in women's spaces

I talked about women's wings in prisons, Karen White among others, and the judge's statement I quoted. There was also the awful case of the woman allegedly raped in the woman's ward of a hospital, and the disgraceful response to that. All rapes are carried out by biological men, most trans women are biological men. We are now giving biological men a degree of access to areas where vulnerable women are, which they didn't have before.

I could go on, but it's all been said. Now, I get why it is dangerous for trans women to be put in the men's ward of a prison or hospital, so I would say the solution has to be separate  wings and wards for trans people.

The public toilets issue is difficult, believe it or not I see both points of view. First of all, we have too few public toilets anyway, so a push to build more single occupant facilities might be a solution, and public loo's with attendants would help alleviate a number of issues.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Seems to be a bit of a fixation on here about trans people being raped in public toilets.

Not something I would contemplate doing nor I imagine any of my acquaintances.

Not to make light of it but maybe toilet rapists would never be fussy about their choice of victim

[HeliX]

1 hour ago, Hoops said:

ok, a point by point rebuttal

 

You are David Ashford and I claim my £5

EDIT: In my haste to beat other people to this joke I didn't see you made it in the next post. Balls.

Edited July 7, 2022 by HeliX

[AcousticallyChallenged]

1 hour ago, Hoops said:

sorry, i was identifying as david ashford for a bit there.

First thing, full respect for your last paragraph.

As for the 'woke' tag, 'gammon', 'snowflake' etc etc, they add nothing to a debate.

I do feel you are being a bit disingenuous when you refer solely to toilets in terms of trans people in women's spaces

I talked about women's wings in prisons, Karen White among others, and the judge's statement I quoted. There was also the awful case of the woman allegedly raped in the woman's ward of a hospital, and the disgraceful response to that. All rapes are carried out by biological men, most trans women are biological men. We are now giving biological men a degree of access to areas where vulnerable women are, which they didn't have before.

I could go on, but it's all been said. Now, I get why it is dangerous for trans women to be put in the men's ward of a prison or hospital, so I would say the solution has to be separate  wings and wards for trans people.

The public toilets issue is difficult, believe it or not I see both points of view. First of all, we have too few public toilets anyway, so a push to build more single occupant facilities might be a solution, and public loo's with attendants would help alleviate a number of issues.

 

Transgender men with phalloplasties are also capable of committing rape. It has happened before.

[HeliX]

1 hour ago, Hoops said:

I talked about women's wings in prisons, Karen White among others, and the judge's statement I quoted. There was also the awful case of the woman allegedly raped in the woman's ward of a hospital, and the disgraceful response to that. All rapes are carried out by biological men, most trans women are biological men. We are now giving biological men a degree of access to areas where vulnerable women are, which they didn't have before.

I could go on, but it's all been said. Now, I get why it is dangerous for trans women to be put in the men's ward of a prison or hospital, so I would say the solution has to be separate  wings and wards for trans people.

The public toilets issue is difficult, believe it or not I see both points of view. First of all, we have too few public toilets anyway, so a push to build more single occupant facilities might be a solution, and public loo's with attendants would help alleviate a number of issues.

I don't think anyone has a problem with separate wings for trans women and trans men, but the problem is those wings don't exist and they have to be put somewhere for now. The chances are much higher for trans women to be raped in men's prisons than for trans women to commit rape in women's prisons, so surely the answer is to put them in women's prisons for now?

Quote

All rapes are carried out by biological men

Eh?

[HeliX]

Oh hang on, I presume this is going to go down the legal/semantic route of "rape involves a penis". I think in normal speech it's probably fair to lump "violent sexual assault" under the same category. Which is something women do to other women and also to men.

[Hoops]

36 minutes ago, HeliX said:

Oh hang on, I presume this is going to go down the legal/semantic route of "rape involves a penis". I think in normal speech it's probably fair to lump "violent sexual assault" under the same category. Which is something women do to other women and also to men.

Well, with regards to the 'legal/semantic' route on this thread, I get the feeling I'm damned if I do, damned if I don't.

[Newsdesk]

12 minutes ago, Hoops said:

I'm damned if I do, damned if I don't.

You are. The basic issue or problem with rape is men. Whatever they identify as. This seems to be the core issue that drives women to want to have safe spaces because many of them due to abuse and various negative life experiences with men find it hard to trust men even if that man claims they are identifying as a women. It shouldn’t be a hard concept for people to grasp really. Many women have grown up in fear of sexual intimidation or violence. It’s not unreasonable for them to be wary of opening up traditionally safe spaces to men who identify as women as some (likely a very very small number) might be self identifying purely to get access to that space. This is the issue with self identification without the requirement for any form of surgery or hormone regimes. Potentially you could get some hairy-arsed bloke claiming their female for purely nefarious reasons. 

Edited July 7, 2022 by Newsdesk

[HeliX]

13 minutes ago, Hoops said:

Well, with regards to the 'legal/semantic' route on this thread, I get the feeling I'm damned if I do, damned if I don't.

I think I clarified it in a reasonable way...

If you're talking about risks to people, most would understand violent sexual assault as "rape".

I also don't think I was damning you, just trying to establish common definitions so we could discuss sensibly?

[HeliX]

6 minutes ago, Newsdesk said:

Potentially you could get some hairy-arsed bloke claiming their female for purely nefarious reasons.

Why would they bother? If they're going to bust into the women's changing room and assault people it makes no odds what they say they are. It's already illegal.

[Newsdesk]

1 minute ago, HeliX said:

Why would they bother? If they're going to bust into the women's changing room and assault people it makes no odds what they say they are. It's already illegal.

Because some men can be highly manipulative and cunning and many women know that. They’ve grown up around manipulative and cunning men many of whom will have resorted to sexual violence. 

[HeliX]

Just now, Newsdesk said:

Because some men can be highly manipulative and cunning and many women know that. They’ve grown up around manipulative and cunning men many of whom will have resorted to sexual violence. 

But what's the benefit? And should that risk result in restrictions on people who are doing nothing wrong? We don't do that in many laws I would suggest. Other than perhaps gun laws.

[Newsdesk]

Just now, HeliX said:

But what's the benefit? And should that risk result in restrictions on people who are doing nothing wrong? We don't do that in many laws I would suggest. Other than perhaps gun laws.

The benefit is that they get to exert control over women by legally being able to share their space. A form of intimidation. As I said the main issue from the woman’s perspective seems to be self identification. If someone is on a hormone regime and a formal mental health pathway then likely there would be no issue. But as it stands with self identification you could technically put on a wig and a dress and self identify to get access to spaces that are exclusively for women. 

[HeliX]

1 minute ago, Newsdesk said:

The benefit is that they get to exert control over women by legally being able to share their space. A form of intimidation. As I said the main issue from the woman’s perspective seems to be self identification. If someone is on a hormone regime and a formal mental health pathway then likely there would be no issue. But as it stands with self identification you could technically put on a wig and a dress and self identify to get access to spaces that are exclusively for women. 

But the moment they do anything illegal it's irrelevant. And if they want to do anything illegal they can just walk in regardless of claiming one thing or another. Doesn't seem fair to put such restrictions on people going about their normal business on the offchance that someone is pretending to be trans?