FB Groups and JK

[SusannaQueen]

Ok, I'm just having a rant and I know FB groups are free to set their own rules.
I've been following a fab FB group, (Home for Peculiar Artists 2), post goes up from admin saying this is a reminder, we don't allow anything Harry Potter or JKR related, if you don't know why then educate yourself. Lots of supportive replies.
I'm on the group in my real name, so I'm not going to weigh in, but it hugely fucks me off, so many people just believing lies with no dissent allowed. Just makes me think this whole thing is insurmountable.

@Wavedancer99 yes I thought so.

What you actually did was take someones words and reframe them in a quote which to subsequent readers could appear to be a correct quote or interpretation of it.
Also, your self penned ‘quote’ was an attempt at conflating the posters words with an abhorrent and unrelated statement in order to portray them as someone who needs to be ‘cancelled’.

If you don’t understand how dangerous what you just did is then you are in no position to direct anyone to go and educate themselves.
Although, that would be preferable to being educated by you, I’ll give you that.

Anyway, DH has just had a Mince Pie (vile things that they are) it was a Mr Kipling as they were on offer in Asda and cheaper than Asda's own.

So for those who eat them which is the best MP?

Yeah, because they use the exact same bioessentialist criteria that you do. This isn't hard ro understand.

Do you honestly think that if we all woke up tomorrow and everyone said 'right, we are no longer going to have men and women, everyone is just going to be human' and everyone just ignored the fact that there are two distinct sexes with different needs, that the oppression of one sex class by the other would just stop dead in its tracks?

You think that's the answer? I think that's very naive.

Good, so in other words, the sex of the individual isn't the issue, the act of exposing one's genitals is.
And we can therefore punish people for the act of exposing their genitals, instead of preemptively discriminating against people on the basis of their sex.

Um no. Men in no way need to be in areas where there are naked or vulnerable women and female children . The fact that you are arguing for this is a huge red flag.

And we can therefore punish people for the act of exposing their genitals, instead of preemptively discriminating against people on the basis of their sex.'

Or we could continue to do what the law already does and safe guard against this by not allowing males in female only spaces what with them being the ones that are most likely to flash their bits around. Rather than waiting for a child to be traumatised by it first.

@Wavedancer99

"There are men, transmen, transwomen and women. There. Everyone gets to be represented, brave and stunning."

No, piss off with that crap.

There are women, cis and trans.
There are men, cis and trans.
And there are non-binary people.

We're not going to accept a classification that is functionally equivalent to "there are homosexual people and normal people".

Well I'm not going to accept being made a subset of my own sex because some males want to appropriate my sex.

So we have a bit of a problem don't we?

Yes, I've not reported that 'quote' because I believe it should stand as evidence of the sort of tactics that are used by the posters who are determined to erode women's (legal) single sex spaces. There's never reasoned and rational debate, just hyperbole, nonsense conflation and wild claims with no evidence to back it up.

@Thefartingsofaofdenmarkstreet

Being trans means having a different gender identity than assigned at birth, and non-binary people's identities are different than assigned at birth

Gender identities are not 'assigned at birth'. The sex is observed. No one 'assigns' anything, that makes it sound like some sort of decision is made.

The gender identities of "man" and "woman" are assigned based on what is observed.

The only thing you can observe is whether the baby has a vagina or a penis.

Anything aside from that, any category you base on that, is in fact assigned.

We've got Sainsbos taste the difference @Whitefire but I've not tried their normal ones so I don't know if these taste different. I don't love mince pies. I might see if I can get some ecclfechan cakes instead next week which are like a mash up between a mince pie and a bakewell tart

That's called the sex @Wavedancer99. Male and female. We're all one or the other.

Ooh they sound interesting clymene maybe DD could have one after her banana Weetabix

No, piss off with that crap.

There are women, cis and trans.
There are men, cis and trans.
And there are non-binary people.

No, you don't get to police my speech and choose the words by which I describe myself.

@Wavedancer99

"There are men, transmen, transwomen and women. There. Everyone gets to be represented, brave and stunning."

No, piss off with that crap.

There are women, cis and trans.
There are men, cis and trans.
And there are non-binary people.

We're not going to accept a classification that is functionally equivalent to "there are homosexual people and normal people".

No, there are homosexual and heterosexual people (and bisexual people), someone in one category will never be the same as someone from the other but they are both people and both perfectly normal.

To say that homosexual people are nasty and dirty would be homophobic. To say they are totally normal but do not happen to be heterosexuals is not homophobic. Get the pattern?

The gender identities of "man" and "woman" are assigned based on what is observed.

Man and woman are not 'gender identities'.

The word woman means 'adult human female'. In the same way that 'mare' means 'adult female horse' or 'ewe' means 'adult female sheep'.

You can't just start changing the meanings of words because you feel like it. Words have meaning and are how we communicate.

What is your definition of 'woman'?

*How and why would it be the opposite?

Non-binary gender identities are identities that exist outside the binary identities of "man" and "woman".

Being trans means having a different gender identity than assigned at birth, and non-binary people's identities are different than assigned at birth, therefore they fall under the trans umbrella.*

So trans people believe they have the “opposite” of the binary identity man/woman because not to be one is to be the other (that’s what a binary means);

THEN how can non-binary people have an identity that isn’t in the binary? Trans reinforces and depends on the binary. But “non-binary” depends on the idea that there is either something outside a binary (more than two terms); or that there is an intermediate area between the binary; a third term.

If gender is not a binary but a spectrum, then trans people are all just non-binary, aren’t they? (Because if non-binary exists, then in fact everyone is then non-binary, no?)

So how can “non-binary” be possible at the same time as “trans”? One relies for its entire identity on a binary the other says doesn’t exist.

@Clymene with you on that - not a fan of mince pies either. Do Eccelfechan cakes have raisins in normally? If so, I'll just go for a Bakewell tart.

@Thefartingsofaofdenmarkstreet

Yeah, because they use the exact same bioessentialist criteria that you do. This isn't hard ro understand.

Do you honestly think that if we all woke up tomorrow and everyone said 'right, we are no longer going to have men and women, everyone is just going to be human' and everyone just ignored the fact that there are two distinct sexes with different needs, that the oppression of one sex class by the other would just stop dead in its tracks?

You think that's the answer? I think that's very naive.

I do think that rendering gender categories more flexible and malleable, and rejecting the idea that our biological sex says anything about what we "should" be (including being a "man" or "woman"), that would be a good step in the right direction and a great challenge to any "sex-based" gender roles.

Why do you think conservatives are all suddenly teaming up with you? Because they see you as an opportunity to reassert the rigid gender categories.

(In fact one might surmise that the entire idea of the “trans umbrella” is unmitigated fanciful made up bollocks that is completely logically inconsistent and incoherent 😂)

I do think that rendering gender categories more flexible and malleable, and rejecting the idea that our biological sex says anything about what we "should" be (including being a "man" or "woman"), that would be a good step in the right direction and a great challenge to any "sex-based" gender roles.

How is that going to help women get better maternity care, for example?

@Thefartingsofaofdenmarkstreet I've also asked several times for @Wavedancer99 to give their definition of "woman" but predictably they don't seem able to.

Anything that actually gets to the crux of the debate, TRAs always avoid answering because it exposes their argument for what it is: nonsense.

Being trans means having a different gender identity than assigned at birth, and non-binary people's identities are different than assigned at birth, therefore they fall under the trans umbrella.

But what are these gender identities based on? If everyone just chooses one, how do they decide which one to choose? Are there common features of the different gender identities?

If you think 'woman' is a gender identity, what attributes would you expect someone with a gender identity of 'woman' to have?

Ecclefechan tarts have raisins, lots of. The Scottish equivalent of fly pie

@foxgoosefinch
Correct, gender is not binary and neither is sex.

Referring to "man" and "woman" as the "binary" identities is a colloquialism, derived from the fact that these two identies are part of the binary that you are trying to impose.

And you think that just pretending that the categories of male and female just don't exist is the way to get men to stop raping us? How? Do you think they will no longer be able to tell who are the men and who are the women?