I don't agree with the ad-hominem comments on Sam Smith, India Willoughby et al.

[TERFCat]

Basically as the title says.

I think gender ideology can be robustly criticized without the need for comments on any individual's appearance or dress sense.

If you go to Twitter, a lot of the GC accounts I follow are currently laughing at Sam Smith for his latest magazine cover. I don't like SS, but I do think that they is free to dress how they want. SS shouldn't be body shamed either as they has a perfectly normal body.

Same goes for India. Don't like them, but I don't think their clothes etc should be mocked.

You can refer to Sam as he as that is correct. "They" is factually incorrect and gramatically incorrect.

I didn't get a message saying my comment was out of order. I did not misgender SS, I called him 'him', since he's a man.

Hmm why was my message deleted? Terf Cat/AmuseBish....isn't a woman and not a terf.

Hello @QueenHippolyta,

Your post was deleted for troll-hunting, which is against our Talk Guidelines. Please report any concerns directly to us, rather than posting on the thread. Although we can't vouch for anyone, we can't see any links whatsoever between the two posters you are referencing.

In regards to posts being deleted for misgendering, we will remove anything that we don't feel is in the spirit of civil debate. You can find our guidelines on discussions around gender identity here.

Ah that explains your rather muddled-seeming posts QH - you seem to think I'm the OP - some of the things you were addressing to me weren't at all about things I'd actually posted!

A few people can vouch I've been on here for years and generally only name change to related usernames. And I was making different points from the OP (and wouldn't use a 'z' in the word criticising) (and generally bring up IW's racism when referring to IW) (and I don't know anything about SS's latest magazine cover) (and I don't call myself a TERF, as I don't know or care who identifies as trans, but care about feminism not centering males).

But if you're just here to put your Law and Classics degree to use trollhunting rather than engage, I'm happy to just scroll on by. I was getting Poe's Law vibes anyway.

(Didn't see the deleted post, haven't been back to this thread since this afternoon).

What?

You think I'm a man? How have you come to that conclusion?

In the original definition of the phrase as suggested by John Locke (in his Treatise), an argumentum ad hominem seeks "... to press a man with consequences drawn from his own principles or concessions."

I do understand this is perhaps not what OP means by "ad hominem" - the sense has been mangled over the years - but it does seem particularly apt regarding the two men OP mentions.

... Perhaps a reminder may be also useful: a Lockean argument ad hominem is perfectly respectable, not at all fallacious or even unkind (unless pointing out someone's inconsistencies is held to be so).

If the cap fits ...?

That outfit must have been inspired by Billy Connolly's incontinence pants.

https://twitter.com/TSting18/status/1624509990613446664?lang=en-GB

Someone on twitter agrees with me!

Or even Kenny Everitt as Rod Stewart

https://twitter.com/EUSpotter/status/1624542505789169665?s=20

Dress like an arsehole, get talked about like an arsehole. Snowflake generation