JK Rowling vs. History

Anything to do with gender and the status of women and men.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: JK Rowling vs. History

Post by henry quirk »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Fri Jul 23, 2021 9:58 pm
Gary Childress wrote: Fri Jul 23, 2021 9:04 pm
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Fri Jul 23, 2021 7:07 pm

I'm sure sculptor can take it. Who said we all have to get along? Anyone who thinks they can 'get along' with everyone is deluded and probably just a really annoying person. You make some amazingly insightful comments, but you are constantly backpeddling and going along with whoever last spoke to you. And you don't exactly 'get along' with everyone yourself. A bit of honesty with a sprinkling of self-awareness goes a long way...
Yes. You have valid points. I just don't like to see people ganged up on. Now, I know that the same happens to more social conservative people as well but I think if we don't want to be ganged up on we should treat others the same. In the end, no one should be ostracized. Yes, some need help and can't continue on their trajectories but I think it helps to care for the welfare of others, even if they may not be in a place where they can care for us.

And you are right, I lash out too sometimes with people I have a hard time getting along with. And it's wrong of me to do so. Obviously I need to work on myself as well. But I think in the end we humans are in a precarious position with respect to the amount of global destruction that can be wrought by us. Therefore, I think getting along is an imperative. It certainly can't hurt.
If you are talking about wars, then they are nothing to do with people 'getting along'. They are to do with power and money and political propaganda. Forcing people to be 'nice' to each other in that sickly, self-serving 'woke' way is shallow, hypocritical bullshit and intellectually oppressive.
And I'm not talking about you. I'm talking about the virtue-signalling wokism that is poisoning the planet. Sculptor and Mick are prime examples. Nasty pieces of work who don't get along with anyone but contantly throw around the B and R words and pretend to care about any particular 'group' that it's fashionable to pretend to care about at any given time (as long as it has virtue-signalling value)
🌟
Gary Childress
Posts: 7966
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: JK Rowling vs. History

Post by Gary Childress »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Fri Jul 23, 2021 9:58 pm
Gary Childress wrote: Fri Jul 23, 2021 9:04 pm
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Fri Jul 23, 2021 7:07 pm

I'm sure sculptor can take it. Who said we all have to get along? Anyone who thinks they can 'get along' with everyone is deluded and probably just a really annoying person. You make some amazingly insightful comments, but you are constantly backpeddling and going along with whoever last spoke to you. And you don't exactly 'get along' with everyone yourself. A bit of honesty with a sprinkling of self-awareness goes a long way...
Yes. You have valid points. I just don't like to see people ganged up on. Now, I know that the same happens to more social conservative people as well but I think if we don't want to be ganged up on we should treat others the same. In the end, no one should be ostracized. Yes, some need help and can't continue on their trajectories but I think it helps to care for the welfare of others, even if they may not be in a place where they can care for us.

And you are right, I lash out too sometimes with people I have a hard time getting along with. And it's wrong of me to do so. Obviously I need to work on myself as well. But I think in the end we humans are in a precarious position with respect to the amount of global destruction that can be wrought by us. Therefore, I think getting along is an imperative. It certainly can't hurt.
If you are talking about wars, then they are nothing to do with people 'getting along'. They are to do with power and money and political propaganda. Forcing people to be 'nice' to each other in that sickly, self-serving 'woke' way is shallow, hypocritical bullshit and intellectually oppressive.
And I'm not talking about you. I'm talking about the virtue-signalling wokism that is poisoning the planet. Sculptor and Mick are prime examples. Nasty pieces of work who don't get along with anyone but contantly throw around the B and R words and pretend to care about any particular 'group' that it's fashionable to pretend to care about at any given time (as long as it has virtue-signalling value)
You may be right about getting along having no effect on wars. Or it could be that the person we ostracize today might be the instigator of some atrocity tomorrow. Or perhaps getting along will defeat the attempts of leaders to demonize other people, making us believe that it's OK to hate them.

But I mostly just feel bad watching Sculptor get picked on. Yes, he picks on people too and he's probably capable of handling it but it probably just feeds his animosity and negativity on the forum and solves nothing. And it just lends more to his cause, where he can say that LGBTQ people are nothing but victims in society. I mean, I still think gender dysphoria is probably not the sign of the healthiest most well-adjusted individual but we all have our faults and as long as a person's issue doesn't significantly harm others, then if they want to just be themselves, there's not much any of the rest of us can do. We can't force people who've committed no crime to be one way or the other.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: JK Rowling vs. History

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Gary Childress wrote: Sat Jul 24, 2021 3:19 am
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Fri Jul 23, 2021 9:58 pm
Gary Childress wrote: Fri Jul 23, 2021 9:04 pm

Yes. You have valid points. I just don't like to see people ganged up on. Now, I know that the same happens to more social conservative people as well but I think if we don't want to be ganged up on we should treat others the same. In the end, no one should be ostracized. Yes, some need help and can't continue on their trajectories but I think it helps to care for the welfare of others, even if they may not be in a place where they can care for us.

And you are right, I lash out too sometimes with people I have a hard time getting along with. And it's wrong of me to do so. Obviously I need to work on myself as well. But I think in the end we humans are in a precarious position with respect to the amount of global destruction that can be wrought by us. Therefore, I think getting along is an imperative. It certainly can't hurt.
If you are talking about wars, then they are nothing to do with people 'getting along'. They are to do with power and money and political propaganda. Forcing people to be 'nice' to each other in that sickly, self-serving 'woke' way is shallow, hypocritical bullshit and intellectually oppressive.
And I'm not talking about you. I'm talking about the virtue-signalling wokism that is poisoning the planet. Sculptor and Mick are prime examples. Nasty pieces of work who don't get along with anyone but contantly throw around the B and R words and pretend to care about any particular 'group' that it's fashionable to pretend to care about at any given time (as long as it has virtue-signalling value)
You may be right about getting along having no effect on wars. Or it could be that the person we ostracize today might be the instigator of some atrocity tomorrow. Or perhaps getting along will defeat the attempts of leaders to demonize other people, making us believe that it's OK to hate them.

But I mostly just feel bad watching Sculptor get picked on. Yes, he picks on people too and he's probably capable of handling it but it probably just feeds his animosity and negativity on the forum and solves nothing. And it just lends more to his cause, where he can say that LGBTQ people are nothing but victims in society. I mean, I still think gender dysphoria is probably not the sign of the healthiest most well-adjusted individual but we all have our faults and as long as a person's issue doesn't significantly harm others, then if they want to just be themselves, there's not much any of the rest of us can do. We can't force people who've committed no crime to be one way or the other.
He's not 'picked on'. He's an arsehole.
Gary Childress
Posts: 7966
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: JK Rowling vs. History

Post by Gary Childress »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Sat Jul 24, 2021 4:01 am
Gary Childress wrote: Sat Jul 24, 2021 3:19 am
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Fri Jul 23, 2021 9:58 pm

If you are talking about wars, then they are nothing to do with people 'getting along'. They are to do with power and money and political propaganda. Forcing people to be 'nice' to each other in that sickly, self-serving 'woke' way is shallow, hypocritical bullshit and intellectually oppressive.
And I'm not talking about you. I'm talking about the virtue-signalling wokism that is poisoning the planet. Sculptor and Mick are prime examples. Nasty pieces of work who don't get along with anyone but contantly throw around the B and R words and pretend to care about any particular 'group' that it's fashionable to pretend to care about at any given time (as long as it has virtue-signalling value)
You may be right about getting along having no effect on wars. Or it could be that the person we ostracize today might be the instigator of some atrocity tomorrow. Or perhaps getting along will defeat the attempts of leaders to demonize other people, making us believe that it's OK to hate them.

But I mostly just feel bad watching Sculptor get picked on. Yes, he picks on people too and he's probably capable of handling it but it probably just feeds his animosity and negativity on the forum and solves nothing. And it just lends more to his cause, where he can say that LGBTQ people are nothing but victims in society. I mean, I still think gender dysphoria is probably not the sign of the healthiest most well-adjusted individual but we all have our faults and as long as a person's issue doesn't significantly harm others, then if they want to just be themselves, there's not much any of the rest of us can do. We can't force people who've committed no crime to be one way or the other.
He's not 'picked on'. He's an arsehole.
He's kind of a jerk sometimes to me too, I'll admit, but I kind of feel like he probably can't help it. Heck, maybe I annoy him. However, on the plus side, (like you) he seems fairly down to earth and realistic, albeit coming from a different political angle. He doesn't seem to spam weird stuff (at least not that I've seen), which makes him less annoying to me.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: JK Rowling vs. History

Post by henry quirk »

henry quirk wrote: Fri Jul 23, 2021 2:25 am
0E91C791-410E-4D65-B394-17D3E1D8FD47.jpeg
0E91C791-410E-4D65-B394-17D3E1D8FD47.jpeg (81.17 KiB) Viewed 1576 times
mickthinks
Posts: 1495
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 1:10 am
Location: Augsburg

Re: JK Rowling vs. History

Post by mickthinks »

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Jul 22, 2021 5:06 am
mickthinks wrote: Wed Jul 21, 2021 10:35 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Jul 21, 2021 7:51 pm The suicide rate before and after "transition" is statistically identical
I think you'll find that that is a lie made up by the anti-trans camp.
I think you'll find the rate of suicidal ideation among "trans" types is about 43% before transtion, and actually marginally higher after transition.
Hmmm, any reason (other than rank dishonesty) why you have switched from a claim about suicide rates to a claim about suicide ideation? They are not the same thing, and your original claim looks even more dodgy now you seem to be backing away from it. I think it's a lie made up by the anti-trans camp, and I think it is important that you accept responsibility for propagating one of their lies.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: JK Rowling vs. History

Post by Immanuel Can »

mickthinks wrote: Sun Jul 25, 2021 1:24 pm I think it's a lie made up by the anti-trans camp, and I think it is important that you accept responsibility for propagating one of their lies.
Well, you there are several terms used -- suicide attempts, suicide ideation, achieved suicide, self-harm...all relevant, and depending on which you take, the numbers go even higher, potentially.

But you don't believe me...go look for yourself.

Here's the center for suicide prevention, which we can be reasonably sure is not motivated by being "anti trans." Check the graphic on the first page, for a glimse. Then go looking around at what other sites say, just to satisfy yourself.

https://www.suicideinfo.ca/resource/tra ... e-suicide/
mickthinks
Posts: 1495
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 1:10 am
Location: Augsburg

Re: JK Rowling vs. History

Post by mickthinks »

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Jul 22, 2021 5:06 amI think you'll find the rate of suicidal ideation among "trans" types is about 43% before transtion, and actually marginally higher after transition.

suicidal ideation among "trans" types is about 43% before transition

This is possible but meaningless without the context of a control. Is suicidal ideation among the cisgendered population much less than 43%? Do you know? Are the anti-trans campaigners that you get your information from interested in making that all-important comparison? No, I thought not.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2749860/

marginally higher after transition [than before]

Citation please (I'll wait) ...
Last edited by mickthinks on Sun Jul 25, 2021 3:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
mickthinks
Posts: 1495
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 1:10 am
Location: Augsburg

Re: JK Rowling vs. History

Post by mickthinks »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Jul 25, 2021 2:47 pmHere's the center for suicide prevention, which we can be reasonably sure is not motivated by being "anti trans." Check the graphic on the first page, for a glimse. Then go looking around at what other sites say, just to satisfy yourself. https://www.suicideinfo.ca/resource/tra ... e-suicide/
Thanks, I checked that earlier and it says "a completed medical transition was shown to greatly reduce rates of suicidal ideation and attempts" so quite why you are holding it up to support your contrary claim I have no idea.

Actually that last is not really true. I do have an idea—I think you may be an arrogant, lazy, bigotted tosser who can't read, but I could be wrong.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: JK Rowling vs. History

Post by Immanuel Can »

mickthinks wrote: Sun Jul 25, 2021 3:25 pm Is suicidal ideation among the cisgendered population much less than 43%?
Yes. It's much lower.

The only people group who have a comparable rate of sucidal ideation/attempts/self harm, etc. were Jewish people during the Holocaust, actually. And interestingly, one of the lowest rates of suicide is among males in traditionally marginalized communities like the straight, black demographic, at a mere 7.2%. So we can judge that it isn't "discrimination" that's causing it. It's just that body dysmorphic types tend to be mentally ill and self-destructive.

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/artic ... ne.0016885


West News: "A study from professors at the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention and the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law, for example, found that 46 percent of transgender men and 42 percent of transgender women in the study had attempted suicide.

Is this due to discrimination? The study does show high levels of discrimination against transgender people. But it also shows that the suicide rate among transgender women who say people identify them as transgender regularly is 45 percent. How about those who are able to pass for the gender to which they claim membership? Their suicide rate is still 40 percent . How about the suicide rate among those transgender individuals who have had hormone treatment? It’s 45 percent. Surgery doesn’t militate against suicide either."


But you won't believe me whatever I say. So go and check it for yourself. It's the sources most sympathetic to transing that post the highest statistics on suicide rates.
Last edited by Immanuel Can on Sun Jul 25, 2021 4:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Can can't.

Post by uwot »

mickthinks wrote: Sun Jul 25, 2021 3:32 pmActually that last is not really true. I do have an idea—I think you may be an arrogant, lazy, bigotted tosser who can't read, but I could be wrong.
No, I think you pretty much nailed it.
mickthinks
Posts: 1495
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 1:10 am
Location: Augsburg

Re: Can can't.

Post by mickthinks »

:D
mickthinks
Posts: 1495
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 1:10 am
Location: Augsburg

Re: JK Rowling vs. History

Post by mickthinks »

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Jul 22, 2021 5:06 am
mickthinks wrote: Wed Jul 21, 2021 10:35 pmGiven that it is self-evident that gender is different from race, species, etc. ...
That's what people say when they have no argument.
It's also what people say when asked to justify something which is self-evident. You are right, it isn't an arguement, but here's the thing: it only works when everyone can see for themselves that the claim in question is self-evident and there is no need for non-existent doubts to be argued away, and that the questioning is a disingenuous attempt to keep pressing a non-existent case.

It is self-evident that gender is different from race and species.


So, as the one denying a self-evident claim, the burden lies with you to prove your "Rachel Dolezal" and "rhodedendron" herrings aren't really as red as they appear.

lol You can't, can you?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: JK Rowling vs. History

Post by Immanuel Can »

mickthinks wrote: Sun Jul 25, 2021 6:19 pm ...something which is self-evident....
No such thing, Sam.

It is self-evident that gender is different from race and species.
It isn't at all evident that it's a difference that makes any difference in this particular case.

They're all "transing." How come you'll let men play women, but won't let Rachel Dolezal claim blackness? More particularly, in the case of "transablism," how come you'll be fine with a person severing one kind of "digit," but not with him severing a different "member"?

So the burden of proof's on you to show that there IS an essential difference, one capable of rationalizing the one case, but excluding the others.

But I already sense you'll have nothing.

The "self-evident" cry is a dead giveaway.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: JK Rowling vs. History

Post by henry quirk »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Jul 25, 2021 7:01 pm
mickthinks wrote: Sun Jul 25, 2021 6:19 pm ...something which is self-evident....
No such thing, Sam.

It is self-evident that gender is different from race and species.
It isn't at all evident that it's a difference that makes any difference in this particular case.

They're all "transing." How come you'll let men play women, but won't let Rachel Dolezal claim blackness? More particularly, in the case of "transablism," how come you'll be fine with a person severing one kind of "digit," but not with him severing a different "member"?

So the burden of proof's on you to show that there IS an essential difference, one capable of rationalizing the one case, but excluding the others.

But I already sense you'll have nothing.

The "self-evident" cry is a dead giveaway.
It is self-evident that gender is different from race and species.

I can't see how it matters.

Can a man become a woman?

No, he cannot.

Can a white woman become a black woman?

No, she cannot.

Can a human become a chimpanzee?

No, he cannot.


transablism: of all the trans states, this is the only one that holds true.

A sighted man can indeed become a blind man...have spoon, will scoop.
Post Reply