Originally posted by Eon Blue
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1227071She’s also on Twitter addressing her views. Thoughts and opinions?
Only the unintelligent feel she is a transphobe.
Originally posted by Eon Blue
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1227071She’s also on Twitter addressing her views. Thoughts and opinions?
Only the unintelligent feel she is a transphobe.
Originally posted by Artol'Gender' intervention with minors, especially stuff like puberty blockers, is child abuse. There is no wiggle room on this, no time for nuance. That this is 'broadly accepted' as a form of treatment shows how corrupt and psychopathic many mental health professionals are.
Broadly accepted treatment is of course also what falls under gender reassignment, and puberty blockers to give minors the choice for more significant interventions when they are of age.
Originally posted by Artol
I think she is extremely misguided. The phrasing of people who menstruate is supposed to be inclusive and specific. There are people that menstruate that do not want to be labeled as women, whose gender is not "woman", there's somewhat uncommon biological configurations where you can't clearly say whether a person is male or female in a biological sense, who might still menstruate, and then there is a lot of women, who do not menstruate, I suspect JK Rowling being one of them. So, it's a stupid hill to die on, it doesn't help people, if anything it furthers negative sentiment that's sadly very common in the UK and I wish she'd use her platform better, but she's a shitty Blairite anyways, so I don't expect anything particularly insightful or humane from her.
It comes off as disingenuous to me when people use the "not all women menstruate" defense. It reminds me of people bringing up intersex people or the clown fish in regards to transgender discussions.
Nobody is saying all women menstruate. JK Rowling certainly wasn't saying that. Certainly she is aware women who do menstruate eventually stop, she is 54 so it's possible she herself has already stopped. And I'm sure there are conditions women can have where they never menstruate.
The point was, and I think you and others who bring up the "not all women menstruate" know this, that *only* women menstruate. Not men. Never men.
You talk about silly hills to die on, but "women aren't the only ones who menstruate" is about the silliest one to die on.
And while we are here: yes women are the only ones who can give birth and yes they are the only ones who can get abortions. Men cannot do either of those things either.
Originally posted by Scribble
'Gender' intervention with minors, especially stuff like puberty blockers, is child abuse. There is no wiggle room on this, no time for nuance. That this is 'broadly accepted' as a form of treatment shows how corrupt and psychopathic many mental health professionals are.
I almost wonder at times if the transgender community really doesn't want to be accepted by society. I truly do.
We went from "let me use the bathroom I want and use my pronouns" to "acknowledge some men can menstruate, allow little kids to choose their genders, put them on puberty blockers, etc."
This is black propaganda that comes off like it is designed to turn people against the community. It's like the women who sing and dance about how awesome abortions are, is that truly designed to get people on their side or to disgust them so much they go to the other side?
Originally posted by SurturYou should indeed see it that way, because much of it is exactly that. The TRAs don't want to be accepted: they need trans people to feel marginalised so that they can exploit and brainwash them for their larger ideological cause.
I almost wonder at times if the transgender community really doesn't want to be accepted by society. I truly do.We went from "let me use the bathroom I want and use my pronouns" to "acknowledge some men can menstruate, allow little kids to choose their genders, put them on puberty blockers, etc."
This is black propaganda that comes off like it is designed to turn people against the community. It's like the women who sing and dance about how awesome abortions are, is that truly designed to get people on their side or to disgust them so much they go to the other side?
Luckily, I can assure you that many trans people see it for what it is; it's mostly the trans-trender crowd and their weak-jawed white male allies who toe the line of child abuse and denial of biological sex.
Edit: what is this 'larger ideological cause' I speak of? Just go look at Twitter. All of the trans-lobby stans are communists, anarchists, or both. It's not a coincidence: Marxist philosophy thrives off victim complexes to garner support.
It reminds me of when people here were pushing for gay marriage to be legal and then those against were all "if made legal they will go after the children next and try to make pedophilia okay!".
That didn't happen with the gays, but the trans community was apparently watching this and nefariously stroking their chin and going from "let grown adults choose how they identify" to "hey this 4 yr. old boy who last week thought he was a truck this week thinks he is a girl, it's legit".
And although they aren't transgender, there is a push for child drag queen acceptance too.
And there is uhh...yeah:
https://www.dailywire.com/news/10-year-old-boy-dressed-drag-pictured-naked-amanda-prestigiacomo
Originally posted by SurturThese people are the worst thing to happen to trans people. All we want is to live our lives, look cute if possible, and get on with normal people things. But that isn't going to happen now, because of shit like Drag Queen Story Time, child drag queens (the exploitation of 'Desmond is Amazing' is vile), puberty blockers, girls being forced to share school changing rooms with teenage boys, etc.
It reminds me of when people here were pushing for gay marriage to be legal and then those against were all "if made legal they will go after the children next and try to make pedophilia okay!".That didn't happen with the gays, but the trans community was apparently watching this and nefariously stroking their chin and going from "let grown adults choose how they identify" to "hey this 4 yr. old boy who last week thought he was a truck this week thinks he is a girl, it's legit".
And although they aren't transgender, there is a push for child drag queen acceptance too.
And there is uhh...yeah:
https://www.dailywire.com/news/10-year-old-boy-dressed-drag-pictured-naked-amanda-prestigiacomo
Also, have you noticed that transmen are never brought up? It's always "Trans women are women", never any attention to transmen. Incongruities like that really highlight for me that this is not actually about trans acceptance.
https://medium.com/@rebeccarc/j-k-rowling-and-the-trans-activists-a-story-in-screenshots-78e01dca68d
J. K. Rowling and the trans activists: a story in screenshots
I think this is essential for anyone wanting to comment on this topic. It's essentially just Rowling's tweets alongside the vitriol she got for them.
Guess whose side Twitter is on? hmm
Originally posted by Scribble
'Gender' intervention with minors, especially stuff like puberty blockers, is child abuse. There is no wiggle room on this, no time for nuance. That this is 'broadly accepted' as a form of treatment shows how corrupt and psychopathic many mental health professionals are.
I disagree, I view the opposite, to force a child to go through puberty when they strongly signal that they do not consider themselves to be the gender in line with their biology to be a form of abuse.
Originally posted by Surtur
It comes off as disingenuous to me when people use the "not all women menstruate" defense. It reminds me of people bringing up intersex people or the clown fish in regards to transgender discussions.Nobody is saying all women menstruate. JK Rowling certainly wasn't saying that. Certainly she is aware women who do menstruate eventually stop, she is 54 so it's possible she herself has already stopped. And I'm sure there are conditions women can have where they never menstruate.
The point was, and I think you and others who bring up the "not all women menstruate" know this, that *only* women menstruate. Not men. Never men.
You talk about silly hills to die on, but "women aren't the only ones who menstruate" is about the silliest one to die on.
And while we are here: yes women are the only ones who can give birth and yes they are the only ones who can get abortions. Men cannot do either of those things either.
I understand where you are coming from, but there is a difference between biological sex and social gender. That's just how humans work. So if we use the same term "man" and "woman" for biological sex and for gender, we are going to being inaccurate. Leaving aside intersex people, and other potential outliers, you are right to say only "biological women" menstruate, you would not be right to say that only "social women" menstruate however. That's what the disagreement is about. And in this case, it was JK Rowling who went out of her way to be offended, at something accurate a completely unrelated organization said.
Originally posted by Scribble
https://medium.com/@rebeccarc/j-k-rowling-and-the-trans-activists-a-story-in-screenshots-78e01dca68d[b]J. K. Rowling and the trans activists: a story in screenshots
I think this is essential for anyone wanting to comment on this topic. It's essentially just Rowling's tweets alongside the vitriol she got for them.
Guess whose side Twitter is on? hmm [/B]
Seems like an unpleasant person, I think the dynamics of twitter really can bring out the worst in people.
Originally posted by Artol
I disagree, I view the opposite, to force a child to go through puberty when they strongly signal that they do not consider themselves to be the gender in line with their biology to be a form of abuse.
If the child strongly signaled that they should only have one arm. would you be ok with having one of their arms surgically removed?
Originally posted by Silent Master
So, you're ok with some forms of child abuse?
I think, like most people, it is important to weigh the harm and benefit of individual situations. I suspect you do as well. And you seem generally like an intelligent person, you must realize that this example of cutting off a limb of a child won't be particularly convincing to me as it is not the same logical basis that I derive my POV from.
Originally posted by Artol
I think, like most people, it is important to weigh the harm and benefit of individual situations. I suspect you do as well. And you seem generally like an intelligent person, you must realize that this example of cutting off a limb of a child won't be particularly convincing to me as it is not the same logical basis that I derive my POV from.
Why isn't it particularly convincing to you? both are examples of bringing the kids body in line with what the kids feel is the proper state for them.
Originally posted by Surtur
why not?
To be specific, because it is a significant, completely irreversible intervention that as far as I know isn't a common occurrence that has a long history of existing in human beings.
That's not to say that I couldn't think of a hypothetical situation, where a child is so significantly distressed, perhaps close to suicied, or having attempted it at times, over a prolonged period, with the supervision of doctors, where perhaps even the removal of a limb is the most reasonable thing to do. I have not heard of such a situation ever though.