Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
The joy of ignore.
Ms Rowling: insightful critic of gender policy or myopic [insult]
- Thread starter TheVat
- Start date
- Status
I understand that you didn't forget when suggesting what "the Left" should "receive graciously"↗.
Seriously, think it through: No one forgot, but [___].
If they didn't forget, why pass it over, or, worse yet, reinforce it? And, inasmuch as there is an obvious answer, in that context it is similarly obvious why some of those people you speak for would resent that answer.
And that reason is what some would seem to not wish to address: Is there a polite way to tell someone they have no civil, human, or constitutional rights? Is there a polite way to falsely accuse someone of being a groomer?
†
Hey, did you ever see that one Family Guy episode where it's determined that Peter is retarded, so he goes on a spree, including a ladies' room raid?
Anyway, no, they're not retarded, and as we've seen along the way, it does not necessarily help to explain to them how things work.
Don't make me whip out The Simpsons; the goggles do nothing.
Oh.
†
So, again: Is there a polite way to tell someone they have no civil, human, or constitutional rights? Is there a polite way to falsely accuse someone of being a groomer? Because this is ten years ago. Five years ago. Three years ago. Last year. Going on right now.
And there is also something near to a comedy routine we might attempt, in which we try to parse which anti-trans arguments are supposed to know better, and who really is new. Because, again, what remains mysterious are the boundaries of the apparently undying politeness the objects of such prejudice owe the people who would harm them. You know, who do you give them permission to be annoyed with, that sort of thing. And when do they have to just, you know, smile politely?
I find myself wondering here that if by continuing to "complain" about a thing, am I simply obliging some by "happily" fulfilling a stereotype (even insofar as a halb kaykel can only derive so much pleasure from portraying such)? Or am I continuing to "complain" because the thrust of my actual complaint* never managed to surface through the murk of pages and pages of having to explain the difference between claiming that a work, or works, contains bigoted tropes and claiming that the author, or authors, of said works is (are) a bigot(s)?
* Said actual complaint simply being that the "satirical" implication that it is somehow absurd that a bunch of Jews could appear in films which also contain some degree of antisemitic content (is it similarly absurd to suggest that Birth of a Nation is a racist film, despite the presence of actual Black people within the film?), followed by multiple posts alleging that various random Jews were happy to portray antisemitic stereotypes (because, apparently, they did not appear as though they were being forced to do such)--and this continued even after the "friendly" reminder that this particular halb kaykel is not made particularly happy when being stereotyped by people in less friendly environs (like much of the US Bible Belt, funnily enough)--is antisemitism. It is very much a classic form of antisemitism--this acting as though one is simply asking innocent questions, or making harmless assertions, while in fact stating that Jews just love to be stereotyped. It's fucking bullshit.
Moreover, said complaint was repeatedly strawmanned as being some sort of demand for censorship, when really all I was after was perhaps for such behavior to be censured, as per the ostensible rules of this forum.
Natalie Wynn doesn't fault Megan Phelps-Roper for the way her (Phelps-Roper's) podcast turned out, and neither does she feel that she was in any way misled by Phelps-Roper. Though she does regret her participation in such. Rather, Wynn adopts a rather sympathetic stance towards Phelps-Roper. While the idea that we "become the Westboro Baptist Church" by aggressively criticizing and shaming bigots is patently absurd, it is somewhat understandable that a person who was brought up in such an environment--and is now trying to distance themselves from such--would be rather reticent and overly cautious with respect to condemnation of others, even when such is very much rightly earned.
That said, saying such, or attempting to say as much, with a smile or all polite-like is arguably more insidious than saying such with readily apparent hatred and vitriol. At least with the latter, you know exactly what to expect and there is, hopefully, little room for confusion or misconstrual. It's that fucking polite shit--and, with respect to the patently non-equivalent actual bigotry, feigned ignorance or innocence and "politeness" and all that--that is apt to sow confusion. And, unless the purveyor of such truly is all that stupid/ignorant (doubtful--but is that really what we're going with here?), it's apt to do far more damage over time.
Last edited:
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
I'll look into this Phelps. Everything I read and saw previously regarding the Westboro cult was probably as twisted, sinister and idiotic as Christianity can get in the West today.
If she managed to get out then good on her.
I will find her story and feedback.
It should be noted that nowhere did Tiassa say or imply that "Phelps-Roper has to be a bigot." That is just yet another of James' innumerable straw men here.
Rather, Natalie Wynn has observed that when it comes to calling out bigotry, Phelps-Roper seems to be of the mindset that "we've all become the Westboro Baptist Church" when it comes to criticizing and condemning others. Wynn said, "So Megan Phelps-Roper's viewpoint seems to be that scorn and condemnation are never appropriate, that we should approach every conflict with empathy and compassion, even when dealing with the worst, most destructive people in the world." (see here). She determines this on the basis of Phelps-Roper having said this, "I can't help but see in our public discourse so many of the same destructive impulses that ruled my former church", and this, "my heretical belief is that even the people who seem to be the worst, most destructive people in the world are human beings who deserve compassion and empathy, if we want to find a way to change their minds." That latter part is not unreasonable much of the time, but one has to draw a line somewhere--see my examples involving ICE agents in posts above.
But the main problem here is that there is a world of difference between condemning people because they are homosexual, and condemning people because they hate homosexuals and wish to deprive them of rights and protections. The former people realy ought to be confronted, criticized and even shamed; the latter are simply doing what reasonable, empathetic people ought to be doing.
Wynn seems to believe, as do I, that Phelps-Roper is likely well-intentioned, but her many years in a hateful cult--one she was brought up in--have made her somewhat reticent and perhaps overly cautious when it comes to criticizing and condemning others. Somewhat understandably so. My understanding is that it can take years to undo all of the damage and brainwashing done unto one by a cult, and such a person is likely to have "hang ups" about certain things for quite a long time. It's not entirely unlike those who were raised within an extremely religious, even fundamentalist, environment, and when they finally break away from such they are often prone to hating on all things "religious" for a very long while after.
Wizard of Whatever
Registered Senior Member
People have the right to be bigoted, as long as they don't restrict others rights not to be bigoted, nor break the law.
Jan 6th never happened? Sounds like you might be the one with the mental issue here!
Nope. Here in reality, gender-affirming surgery IMPROVES mental health, even if you hate those trannies.
Gender-Affirming Surgery Improves Mental Health Outcomes and Decreases Antidepressant Use in Patients with Gender Dysphoria - PubMed
Therapeutic, IV.
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Right. So there was no racism until the left created it.
You should do comedy!
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Sorry, Atlan0001 , can you clarify this post of yours?
Are you saying that trans people are mentally ill "per natural laws of biology and psychology"?
You should do comedy, or maybe you shouldn't, since you ignore completely the eventuality of a higher suicide rate among the so-called transgenders. This, including among eunuchs, throughout all history of all the anti-natural of all species. You ought to read 'Complexity: The emerging SCIENCE at the edge of order and chaos', by M. Mitchell Waldrop. Particularly the part about simulating nature on computers, which runs directly to the advent of AI today. The logical look of beauty to and of the natural and the shattering look of pure ugliness to and of the unnatural in life.
Natural laws will not be messed with with impunity.
Natural laws will not be messed with with impunity.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Is this your clarification?
Can we conclude my interpretation in post 523 is correct? It is your contention that trans people are "mentally ill ... per natural laws of biology and psychology"?
Is it also your contention that
- "...the eventuality of a higher suicide rate among the so-called transgenders..."
- "...throughout all history of all the anti-natural of all species..."
- "...the logical look of beauty to and of the natural..."
- "...the shattering look of pure ugliness to and of the unnatural in life..."
- "...Natural laws will not be messed with with impunity..."
are all part of the rationale for why transgendered people are mentally ill?
Last edited:
Где-нибудь ещё в животном мире есть трансгендеры, или это чисто человеческое изобретение?
You really have trouble with understanding! Why ask questions over and over again that already have blatantly clear answers to them presented?! But such is your definition of "discussion."
-----------------------------
Albert Einstein -- "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds...."
Last edited:
Мир стоит на пороге 3-й мировой войны, а Запад обсуждает "считать ли нормальной бабу, пришившую себе член"... Как сказали бы у нас в России:
"Тихо, шифером шурша,
Крыша "едет" не спеша"...
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Your first post in this thread was less than eleven hours ago. Where have you ever "blatantly and clearly" answered this question "over and over again" previously?
Again, for clarity:
Is it your contention that trans people are "mentally ill ... per natural laws of biology and psychology"?
Is it also your contention that
- "...the eventuality of a higher suicide rate among the so-called transgenders..."
- "...throughout all history of all the anti-natural of all species..."
- "...the logical look of beauty to and of the natural..."
- "...the shattering look of pure ugliness to and of the unnatural in life..."
- "...Natural laws will not be messed with with impunity..."
are all part of the rationale for why transgendered people are mentally ill?
As I said, "....over and over again!" You have an almost sad comedic way of making, proving, my point over and over, and over, again!
Yep, because of people like you. If they get the chance to transition their suicidal ideation rates go down. Simple solution! But one you will hate, of course.
A great many species have more than two genders. Naturally.
Natural laws? So you don't get vaccines, take medicine or use water/sewer/electrical utilities?
So basically you dislike all of the decent and admirable qualities of JK Rowling, but you tolerate her because... Got it.
Given that I have yet to meet an anti-trans person who can define what a "woman" is - just going to laugh at that one.
Moderator note: Some off-topic posts regarding site policies and, more generally, the subject of bigots and how or whether they ought to be censored have been moved to a new thread, here:
www.sciforums.com
This thread also seems to be turning away from the topic of JK Rowling and her views on gender policies, to become a more general discussion about transgender people. Probably we need a separate thread on that, because a lot of people are very uneducated about sex and gender, and this thread isn't really the best place to conduct a general education campaign.
On bigots and the censorship of bigotry
Moreover, said complaint was repeatedly strawmanned as being some sort of demand for censorship, when really all I was after was perhaps for such behavior to be censured, as per the ostensible rules of this forum. (Emphasis added.) Whoops. Funnily enough, turns out I was wrong about this (the...
www.sciforums.com
This thread also seems to be turning away from the topic of JK Rowling and her views on gender policies, to become a more general discussion about transgender people. Probably we need a separate thread on that, because a lot of people are very uneducated about sex and gender, and this thread isn't really the best place to conduct a general education campaign.
Moderator note: Some posts on basic sex and gender education have been moved to a separate thread, here:
www.sciforums.com
What is a woman? What is a man? Is sex binary? Is gender binary? etc.
Given that I have yet to meet an anti-trans person who can define what a "woman" is - just going to laugh at that one. I'm not anti-trans, but defining a woman is easy. Her 23 chromosome pair is XX, while a males is XY. This is the biological definition.
www.sciforums.com
- Status