[ rss / options / help ]
post ]
[ b / iq / g / zoo ] [ e / news / lab ] [ v / nom / pol / eco / emo / 101 / shed ]
[ art / A / beat / boo / com / fat / job / lit / map / mph / poof / £$€¥ / spo / uhu / uni / x / y ] [ * | sfw | o ]
logo
BADASSES

Return ] Entire Thread ] First 100 posts ] Last 50 posts ]

Posting mode: Reply
Reply ]
Subject   (reply to 65592)
Message
File  []
close
adc567779411beadc50eaab68b8fccbd78-7-jkrowling.rsq.jpg
655926559265592
>> No. 65592 YubYub
8th June 2020
Monday 9:15 am
65592 spacer
Nobody:

J.K. Rowling: I haven't pissed off my fan base in a while. He's my views on trannies...
Expand all images.
>> No. 65593 Anonymous
8th June 2020
Monday 9:20 am
65593 spacer
No, no, no, go away, I don’t need to hear about this shite on literally every website on the planet. PC Part Picker are going to have something up about it at this rate. I never read HP, she’s just some woman as far as I’m concerned.
>> No. 65594 Anonymous
8th June 2020
Monday 9:28 am
65594 spacer
>>65593
>SHE’S JUST SOME WOMAN AS FAR AS I’M CONCERNED

She's the closest we have to a female morrissey.
>> No. 65595 Ambulancelad
8th June 2020
Monday 9:37 am
65595 spacer
>>65593
Agreed, while she is a twat, keep it off .gs. The post is even written like one of those obnoxious tweets.
>> No. 65596 Searchfag
8th June 2020
Monday 10:26 am
65596 spacer
>>65595
Female erasure!
>> No. 65597 YubYub
8th June 2020
Monday 10:56 am
65597 spacer
>>65594
Tosser equality now!

>>65595
>The post is even written like one of those obnoxious tweets.
I too found this most unsettling.
>> No. 65598 Billbob
8th June 2020
Monday 2:50 pm
65598 spacer
>>65597
>I TOO FOUND THIS MOST UNSETTLING.

I know how to push your buttons. No point spending years on this site without knowing how to rile you lads up when the time comes to use it.
>> No. 65599 Samefag
8th June 2020
Monday 2:55 pm
65599 spacer

R-545179-1381071344-9650.jpeg.jpg
655996559965599
>>65596
Contrast male Erasure
>> No. 65612 YubYub
9th June 2020
Tuesday 3:03 pm
65612 spacer
The only interesting or funny thing about her is her insistence that she wrote about every single possible personal or societal problem that could ever exist in her books, but it's only through her habit of retconning everything that she makes any of this previously intended shite apparent, but nevertheless uses it to prove whatever point she's making now. It's really quite funny to watch.
>> No. 65614 Auntiefucker
9th June 2020
Tuesday 4:59 pm
65614 spacer

Birdo-Transexual-300x202.jpg
656146561465614
Is she wrong though?

If I stood still with leaves glued to my fingers a tree I would not be, and a bigot you would not be for not playing along even if it hurt my feelings.

The only difference between this and a religion is that people know better than to expect me to have to be believer of their religion.

It isn't transphobic, it is a statement of objective truth. She doesn't want to harm these people she just thinks they are mistaken and they shouldn't be entertained, any more than an atheist doesn't think we should entertain religion.
>> No. 65615 R4GE
9th June 2020
Tuesday 5:47 pm
65615 spacer
>>65614
>a tree I would not be
Good one, usually people go with attack helicopters.

>The only difference between this and a religion
Apart from what medical professionals have to say?

>She doesn't want to harm these people
Shame that's what her words and actions do, then.
>> No. 65616 YubYub
9th June 2020
Tuesday 6:01 pm
65616 spacer
>>65592
I often agree with her and some of the SURFs and this worries me because I can see those views upset people.
>> No. 65617 Auntiefucker
9th June 2020
Tuesday 6:07 pm
65617 spacer
>>65616
>I CAN SEE THOSE VIEWS UPSET PEOPLE.

One key reason I stay well clear of the trans debate. Any viewpoint, no matter how tame, will work people up into a frenzy.
>> No. 65618 R4GE
9th June 2020
Tuesday 6:32 pm
65618 spacer
>>65615

>Apart from what medical professionals have to say?

Medical professionals say it is a mental illness they say it is Body dysmorphic disorder. One that they have come to the conclusion it is easier to humour the patient. That doesn't mean the rest of us are supposed to belive it is real.

>Shame that's what her words and actions do, then.

No actions just words. If I said I think your god isn't real. You don't get to proclaim religious intollerance. If you know it is true that much you wouldn't be upset that she doesn't believe you.
>> No. 65620 YubYub
9th June 2020
Tuesday 6:46 pm
65620 spacer
I don't really get why people are equating this with religion. People are telling you who they are and you're not listening.

It's not telling a christian god doesn't exist, it's telling a christian they're not actually a christian.
>> No. 65621 Searchfag
9th June 2020
Tuesday 7:20 pm
65621 spacer
>>65620
>It's not telling a christian god doesn't exist, it's telling a christian they're not actually a christian.

You have equivocated, I don't doubt these peoples belief, I doubt that their belief is correct.

The issue is an expectation that you are required to believe someone, and not being able to have a different opinion on that.

It would be closer to when a Christian says "yes but in your heart you know god exists", and responding "no actually I don't, I believe he isn't real at all".
>> No. 65623 R4GE
9th June 2020
Tuesday 7:37 pm
65623 spacer
>>65621

Why does it have to be about belief? When someone tells you they'd like you to call them "she" instead of "he", why is that such an issue?
>> No. 65624 YubYub
9th June 2020
Tuesday 7:46 pm
65624 spacer
>>65623
I think it's an issue when a he wants to be called a she and enter the female changing room at the swimming baths and things like that.
>> No. 65626 Anonymous
9th June 2020
Tuesday 7:48 pm
65626 spacer
>>65623
If I don't believe they are a she, but rather a he. Why should I?
>> No. 65627 Moralfag
9th June 2020
Tuesday 7:50 pm
65627 spacer
>>65626

Basic politeness? Why be so obstinate about not respecting other people's wishes?
>> No. 65628 Anonymous
9th June 2020
Tuesday 7:54 pm
65628 spacer
>>65626

Half the people I talk to are arseholes, but I don't feel the need to point it out.
>> No. 65631 Anonymous
9th June 2020
Tuesday 8:27 pm
65631 spacer
>>65628

cuz ur a pussy m8
>> No. 65633 Searchfag
9th June 2020
Tuesday 9:35 pm
65633 spacer
>>65626

To be clear here, you are suggesting people just ignore their logical facilities and just take other peoples word on things, rather than form their own opinion based on their own observations and evidence.
>> No. 65638 Anonymous
9th June 2020
Tuesday 10:46 pm
65638 spacer
>>65633

You don't have to believe them, but it does no harm and a lot of good to humour them. Do you tell small children that their drawings are shit? Do you tell your wife that her arse looks fat in that dress?
>> No. 65639 Anonymous
9th June 2020
Tuesday 10:59 pm
65639 spacer
Is it okay if she gives me the horn?

I don't care about her political views.
>> No. 65641 Samefag
9th June 2020
Tuesday 11:04 pm
65641 spacer
>>65624
>enter the female changing room at the swimming baths
No-one used to give a shit about this. This 'legitimate concern' that has entered your mind has clearly been planted there by the transphobic shitstorm of the past few years.

Imagine if you really were a trans woman who wanted to go swimming. How much fucking anxiety you would have. You'd probably really hope that the changing rooms are individual cubicles to reduce the chance you'd have any issues with people, and avoid it if they weren't.

The way some people talk about it it's as though there's a national outbreak of men marching into the women's changing room, getting their cocks out and slapping girls around the face with them.
>> No. 65642 Anonymous
9th June 2020
Tuesday 11:07 pm
65642 spacer
>>65638

I don't do any of those things. But when everyone knows something but no one is allowed to talk about something publicly for fear of offending someone you enter thought control territory.

These people are adults incedently apply the same standard you would for any other ideological criticism.

It doesn't hurt anyone isnt a good enough argument for never correcting people incedently, I hope you at least learned that through 11 years of school.
>> No. 65643 Auntiefucker
9th June 2020
Tuesday 11:13 pm
65643 mum! people on the internet are wrong again!
D_2sJojU4AE9tgF.jpg
656436564365643
>>65638

There are two things at play here m7.

Yes, everyone can identify as whatever they want. I'm free to disagree, that's just opinion. Naturally, most people will go with what makes immediate sense.

The more important issue is essentially that you have to accept and believe literally whatever people make up without questioning it. That might sound reasonable at first, but when you have men (that put in next to no effort to transition) entering female prisons, female toilets, and female sporting events, you can see how that is phlegmatic. If you change the definition of sex from your chromosomes to 'how you feel' then you are removing a lot of spaces that women have (I mean, by that logic I can live in the girls toilets because I want to be a woman).

That's already happening a lot as people are fearful of being transphobic. Now, the problem really lies in how people are trying to adjust the law. For example, Peterson's drama was all centred on the fact that it was wrong to legally oblige someone to use whatever pronouns they wanted, compelled speech. That's in no way transphobic. I mean, a woman here was fired for believing that there were only two biological sexes.

For example, Jessica Yaniv is an absolute mess that talks to young girls about periods and tries to force beauty salons to give her waxes despite having a cock. Here, again, the issue is 'if you don't serve me it's transphobic and that's wrong'. In most of the world, shops are not forced to provide a service and are free to deny.

Blaire White on the other hand is fucking amazing— loves guns, calls herself a tranny, thinks that you need to have a mental illness (gender dysphoria) to actually be trans. Her argument is often that 'trans' has been hijacked.

>>65641

Kids are being pushed into transitioning, biological men are competing in women's sports, Jessica Yaniv has been suing businesses that won't wax her cock, even male prisoners are identifying as women in order to be treated differently. On top of that, all this bullshit like 'non-binary lesbian' is a bloody joke. Actual transpeople are lovely, but there are people hell bent on hijacking it because they're insufferable cunts.

You're right that it's not a huge outbreak, but it is prevalent enough for us to pass a law that kids can't transition until they're 16. As I've said, people are losing jobs for believing that there are only two genders (note that I said believing, not imposing that belief on others or actually saying something transphobic).

I mean, people are starting to believe it's transphobic to not want to date a ladyboy. I can't understand why you wouldn't for the life of me— it seems like the goal in life. But then you may as well be homophobic because you're straight or something.

tl;dr — insufferable cunts call everything they don't like transphobic and want to force you to bum them
>> No. 65644 YubYub
9th June 2020
Tuesday 11:21 pm
65644 spacer
>>65639

She reminds me of my auntie, so obviously I understand your position.
>> No. 65645 Ambulancelad
9th June 2020
Tuesday 11:23 pm
65645 spacer
>>65643
It's rather telling that you keep bringing up Jessica Yaniv. She's been described as "a caricature of what it means to be a trans person in Canada: a useful scapegoat, in other words, to dismiss legitimate efforts for equitable treatment for the trans community".

All the stuff you are citing has about as much credibility as the Women's Institute's campaign against eskimoc rayguns.
>> No. 65646 R4GE
9th June 2020
Tuesday 11:23 pm
65646 spacer
>>65642

You're allowed to walk up to fat people and tell them to go for a jog, doesn't mean you should.
>> No. 65647 Anonymous
9th June 2020
Tuesday 11:27 pm
65647 spacer
>>65643

Trans rights is a psyop deigned to erase feminism. And that's a good thing. Quit your whining.
>> No. 65648 Billbob
9th June 2020
Tuesday 11:28 pm
65648 spacer
>>65643

You're stating a lot of things here as fact that are questionable at best, lies at worst.

You claim to be for honesty and transparency, just come out with it that they make you uncomfortable.
>> No. 65649 Paedofag
9th June 2020
Tuesday 11:30 pm
65649 spacer
>>65644
Just glad I'm not alone. I want her to take care of me in her big Scottish castle or wherever the fuck she lives.
>> No. 65650 Paedofag
10th June 2020
Wednesday 1:25 am
65650 spacer
>>65643
>by that logic I can live in the girls toilets because I want to be a woman
Nobody's allowed to live in the toilet.
>> No. 65651 Moralfag
10th June 2020
Wednesday 1:38 am
65651 spacer
>>65650
Fascist.
>> No. 65652 Billbob
10th June 2020
Wednesday 4:00 am
65652 spacer
>>65651
HAG.
>> No. 65658 Are Moaty
10th June 2020
Wednesday 9:27 pm
65658 spacer
>>65657
>ONE WRONG WORD

Laaad.
>> No. 65659 Are Moaty
10th June 2020
Wednesday 10:17 pm
65659 spacer
You know, mate, there's a whole website already dedicated to Twitter cunt-offs, it's fucking Twitter.
>> No. 65660 R4GE
10th June 2020
Wednesday 10:18 pm
65660 spacer
>>65657
>one wrong word and the "woke" crowd will cast you out like a leper
So maybe she should stop repeating that wrong word all the fucking time.
>> No. 65661 Samefag
10th June 2020
Wednesday 10:25 pm
65661 spacer
>>65657

>ONE WRONG WORD

Denying the existence or invalidating the experiences of trans people is hardly one word
>> No. 65663 R4GE
11th June 2020
Thursday 12:10 am
65663 spacer
>>65661
> Denying the existence or invalidating the experiences of trans people is hardly one word

biology.
>> No. 65664 Ambulancelad
11th June 2020
Thursday 12:43 am
65664 spacer
>>65663

http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2016/gender-lines-science-transgender-identity/

Education
>> No. 65665 Billbob
11th June 2020
Thursday 1:38 am
65665 spacer
>>65657

Nah, they've been losing faith in her for a while now. she's not quite on par with linehan, but she's had some pretty fucking oblivious takes. You'd have thought she could afford some pr agent or other to keep her up to speed on what you're meant to say nowadays.

What makes it particularly pleasing, though, is that up until the last couple of years, this lot treated harry potter as pretty much the progressive bible. they even lapped up all her half arsed, blatantly cynical "dumbledore was gay the whole time" shite. but after all, it turns out she's not a fairy godmother boss bitch and their worldview is shook.
>> No. 65666 Ambulancelad
11th June 2020
Thursday 1:40 am
65666 spacer
>>65665

>BUT AFTER ALL, IT TURNS OUT SHE'S NOT A FAIRY GODMOTHER BOSS BITCH AND THEIR WORLDVIEW IS SHOOK.

How many times can you ban someone at once?
>> No. 65667 Samefag
11th June 2020
Thursday 1:48 am
65667 spacer
>>65666

That's the language of the people being lampooned, lad.
>> No. 65672 Are Moaty
11th June 2020
Thursday 4:38 am
65672 spacer
>>65665
>this lot treated harry potter as pretty much the progressive bible. they even lapped up all her half arsed, blatantly cynical "dumbledore was gay the whole time" shite


y do ppl lie
>> No. 65673 Crabkiller
11th June 2020
Thursday 8:05 am
65673 spacer
This all seems quite reasonable. Most of the opposition I've seen to her don't have much of a position beyond a superficial "if someone says they're a woman then they're a woman" with little substance to explain their reasoning.

https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-rowling-writes-about-her-reasons-for-speaking-out-on-sex-and-gender-issues/
>> No. 65674 Moralfag
11th June 2020
Thursday 9:55 am
65674 spacer
>>65673
It's not reasonable at all, it's the same regurgitated SURF scaremongering I've been reading over and over again for the past four years.

Here's one takedown:
https://twitter.com/Carter_AndrewJ/status/1270787941275762689
>> No. 65675 Are Moaty
11th June 2020
Thursday 10:41 am
65675 spacer
>>65674
I think it's less scaremongering and more the encroachment of space. Many women are upset that any mentally ill bloke can now wander around and say "I'm a woman too because I feel like it, if you disagree you're a bigot". I can see that disgruntling actual women who've put up with decades of trout farming. Not to mention the mockery it makes of women's sports.
>> No. 65676 Samefag
11th June 2020
Thursday 10:42 am
65676 spacer
>>65675
>MANY WOMEN ARE UPSET THAT ANY MENTALLY ILL BLOKE CAN NOW WANDER AROUND AND SAY "I'M A WOMAN TOO BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE IT, IF YOU DISAGREE YOU'RE A BIGOT"

Do men care about this? I can't remember much of an Outcry from men about women who now claim they're men.

Is this just women being women again?
>> No. 65677 Anonymous
11th June 2020
Thursday 10:54 am
65677 spacer
>>65676

Pretty much. It's a "mask slip" where supposed fisherfolk forget they're meant to be in favour of equality, and openly admit their desire for special privileges and spaces.

If they agree that trans women are really women and not men, that means men are able to access the special privileges feminism has granted to women; and that's less important than keeping up the facade. It ceases to be a movement of equality and becomes a movement of outright sexual discrimination.
>> No. 65678 Are Moaty
11th June 2020
Thursday 11:05 am
65678 spacer
>>65675
You've not read the thread.
>> No. 65679 Auntiefucker
11th June 2020
Thursday 11:30 am
65679 spacer
>>65678

None of us have, WomanLad.
>> No. 65680 Are Moaty
11th June 2020
Thursday 11:38 am
65680 spacer
>>65679
Cool, so you're happy to read a transphobic screed by a billionaire and call it reasonable, but a point-by-point rebuttal of said transphobic talking points can just be dismissed out of hand before continuing to discuss the issue. Is that because you're a coward, lazy, or both?
>> No. 65681 Paedofag
11th June 2020
Thursday 12:01 pm
65681 spacer

D50KN1OXoAILNNF.jpg
656816568165681
>>65675
>MANY WOMEN ARE UPSET THAT ANY MENTALLY ILL BLOKE CAN NOW WANDER AROUND AND SAY "I'M A WOMAN TOO BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE IT, IF YOU DISAGREE YOU'RE A BIGOT"

Page 15 https://www.bsa.natcen.ac.uk/media/39147/bsa34_moral_issues_final.pdf
Only 13% of women are "Quite" or "Very" uncomfortable with it. 15% of men. Yes this is one study with a not massive sample size (561 women) but even so it has more authority than the "many" that you just made up.
>> No. 65682 Paedofag
11th June 2020
Thursday 12:12 pm
65682 spacer
>>65676

I was going to post the graph in >>65681 to say that I just don't think many people at all are actually bothered about this - just a very loud minority of twitter users. It's easy to see a hundred (or even ten thousand) tweets agreeing or disagreeing with something and think that means the majority of people, but that's still only a fraction of a percent of twitter users, let alone humans on earth.

Glinner will never, ever, ever have the reach or platform to actually change things, and JK Rowling only really has enough juice to make a few throwaway headlines. I am not worried.
>> No. 65683 YubYub
11th June 2020
Thursday 12:17 pm
65683 spacer
>>65680

I'm a different person than the one you replied to. You have not thought about things before getting angry.
>> No. 65684 Billbob
11th June 2020
Thursday 12:19 pm
65684 spacer
>>65683

I don't see how that changes the implications of the post you did make, though.
>> No. 65685 Auntiefucker
11th June 2020
Thursday 1:32 pm
65685 spacer

ham.jpg
656856568565685
On the radio they were saying that about 0.5% of the female prison population are men that identify as women, and often those are the ones that will abuse the already traumatised woman in there. The trouble is that they need a system for 'actual' trans people, but for scumbags in prison it must look great: an easier prison full of birds.

You can see online how these people have very weird ideas about what it means to be a woman, ideas that are fetishistic.

https://twitter.com/WomenReadWomen/status/1270935846783315968?s=20

It's not really a hard argument: there are two sexes, your birth certificate has to be male or female. That's not denying anyone's existence.

>>65648

>JUST COME OUT WITH IT THAT THEY MAKE YOU UNCOMFORTABLE.

I can tell you've been to university. Of course it makes me uncomfortable, that's why I wrote so fucking much. Do you think I'd be so strongly opinionated if I was comfortable with it? Honest to God, what were you thinking when you wrote that? I imagine you chuckling to yourself and imagining me as a daily mail reader that hates anything gay, and then using your superior intellect to expose me through psychoanalysis. Only in university could you get this moronic attitude of 'you're only complaining about something because you don't like it'.

I'm often around a bunch of queers that identify/present as anything under the sun and I think it's great.

>>65681

You've managed to ignore the fact that he wasn't talking about actual trans people. In your evidence it refers to transpeople which, most would imagine, put a reasonable effort into passing. I think most people would be fine with that, because most people are decent. What he said though:

>MANY WOMEN ARE UPSET THAT ANY MENTALLY ILL BLOKE CAN NOW WANDER AROUND AND SAY "I'M A WOMAN TOO BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE IT, IF YOU DISAGREE YOU'RE A BIGOT"

It's wrong that men, that put little to know effort to look like a woman, can just waltz into a women's bathroom because they feel like it. If being trans is reduced to a feeling and does not need proper gender dysphoria, then you have to allow anyone that feels like a woman into the women's toilets. Most people are fine with trannies provided they put in a bit of effort, and in my experience a lot of trannies cringe at transtrenders and all of the 70+ genders that now exist.
>> No. 65687 Searchfag
11th June 2020
Thursday 1:56 pm
65687 spacer
>>65685

>I CAN TELL YOU'VE BEEN TO UNIVERSITY

I meant that "actual" trans people make you uncomfortable, not just the ones you've decided are lying.

>I'M OFTEN AROUND A BUNCH OF QUEERS THAT IDENTIFY/PRESENT AS ANYTHING UNDER THE SUN AND I THINK IT'S GREAT.

Yeah, and some of Tommy Robinsons best mates are black.


>MOST PEOPLE ARE FINE WITH TRANNIES PROVIDED THEY PUT IN A BIT OF EFFORT

fucking hell. Beyond parody.
>> No. 65688 YubYub
11th June 2020
Thursday 2:32 pm
65688 spacer
Why don't we must make like Thailand and call transsexuals kathoeys/third genders instead of letting them convince themselves they're actual women or men?
>> No. 65689 Auntiefucker
11th June 2020
Thursday 2:57 pm
65689 spacer
>>65688
I think you're a kathoey m8
>> No. 65690 Anonymous
11th June 2020
Thursday 3:05 pm
65690 spacer

web-hoey-getty.jpg
656906569065690
>>65689
u wot m8?
>> No. 65691 YubYub
11th June 2020
Thursday 3:35 pm
65691 spacer
>>65689
That's a load of hooey.
>> No. 65695 Anonymous
12th June 2020
Friday 10:34 am
65695 spacer

q6e7tonzle451.jpg
656956569565695
Am I allowed to object when the cult of post modernism starts claiming that biological sex is unscientific? Or am I supposed to keep my mouth shut forever?
>> No. 65696 Crabkiller
12th June 2020
Friday 10:57 am
65696 spacer
>>65695
You could ask them to elaborate.
>> No. 65697 Samefag
12th June 2020
Friday 11:00 am
65697 spacer
>>65695
Science has long understood that the idea of there being characteristics of the sexes which are always one or the other and never the twain shall meet is completely outdated, so if anyone it adhering to cultish behaviour by sticking to that model it's you lad.

Biology is messy - if you are using the term "biological sex" in relation to trans people, it's usually to forward the unscientific idea that it is not.

Also fuck off with your DARVO 'being silenced' rhetoric.
>> No. 65698 Billbob
12th June 2020
Friday 11:11 am
65698 spacer
>>65697

>Science has long understood that the idea of there being characteristics of the sexes which are always one or the other and never the twain shall meet is completely outdate


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_dimorphism


Poor effort, go back to school.
>> No. 65699 Crabkiller
12th June 2020
Friday 11:13 am
65699 spacer
>>65697
This. There is a tiny minority of organisms that display sexual characteristics that don't fall neatly along a binary axis, typically caused by genetic abnormalities and which usually render them infertile. This completely invalidates the notion of biological 'male' and 'female' sex. Having XX chromosomes, a womb and the ability to produce fertile eggs does not make you 'female' (whatever that outdated word is supposed to mean). How ignorant are you?

M8 don't bother, you're arguing with the mentally ill and they do it all day. Nowt else to do when you're stuck at home dilating your surgical wound.
>> No. 65700 Auntiefucker
12th June 2020
Friday 11:45 am
65700 spacer

dimorphic.png
657006570065700
>>65698
Is that some kind of gotcha? Do you know what dimorphism means? You see female spiders ten times the size of male ones that eat them after mating and say yes, this is exactly how it must work in humans too?

Is this human male or female? Come on, we're dimorphic, you can easily tell right?
>> No. 65701 R4GE
12th June 2020
Friday 12:09 pm
65701 spacer

white_yokohama_chicks_1__3.jpg
657016570165701
>>65700
>Is this human male or female? Come on, we're dimorphic, you can easily tell right?


In an adult yes, these are are baby chickens can you tell which are male and female by looking at them with an untrained eye? no then then they are impossible to tell apart.

There are multiple ways to tell babys sex without looking at their genitals incedenty

The shape of the pelvic bone, The "adams apple". The number of ribs, the shape of the skull- based on the the flatness of the forhead and the pointing of the chin I would pressume this child to be female.
>> No. 65702 Paedofag
12th June 2020
Friday 12:11 pm
65702 spacer
>>65701

>In an adult yes, these are are baby chickens can you tell which are male and female by looking at them with an untrained eye? no then then they are impossible to tell apart.

My point here is that no one mistake an adult rooster for a hen.
>> No. 65703 Anonymous
12th June 2020
Friday 12:19 pm
65703 spacer
>>65701
>I would pressume

Why would you presume? Are you saying this child could be male, when you've listed all the traits that a female would have in a sexually dimorphic species such as humans? What a blunder that would be!
>> No. 65704 Anonymous
12th June 2020
Friday 12:26 pm
65704 spacer
>>65702

There are people out there, who haven't been taking any sort of hormone supplement or had any surgery, whose sex you'd struggle to guess. This would seem to undermine your argument about how we're the same as chickens.
>THE SHAPE OF THE PELVIC BONE, THE "ADAMS APPLE". THE NUMBER OF RIBS, THE SHAPE OF THE SKULL
This is hilarious. The number of ribs? Fucking hell. Lad thinks the bible is a medical textbook.
>> No. 65705 Moralfag
12th June 2020
Friday 12:30 pm
65705 spacer
>>65703

I would presume because you've purposefully picked a vague angle and I'm not trained in skull examination. You get an arachnologist to look at the child they could do it in a second. I could definitely tell from the ribs. It would be like showing a picture of a dogs arse and claiming it is impossible to tell what breed it is. That picture is unclear in a way that a close up examination wouldn't be.
For someone who claimed that I did a gotcha you are doing an awful lot of gotcha whilst ignoring the article based on scienctific observation which will tell you the differances.

Also you missed the point with the chicks, Most animals including humans (which were clearly listed on that Sexual dimorphism link) display more noticeable dimorphism after puberty.
>> No. 65706 YubYub
12th June 2020
Friday 12:33 pm
65706 spacer
>>65704
There are people out there, who haven't been taking any sort of hormone supplement or had any surgery, whose sex you'd struggle to guess. This would seem to undermine your argument about how we're the same as chickens.

Okay I was born with one kidney does that make every medical textbook false or does that just make me and them freaks?
>> No. 65707 Billbob
12th June 2020
Friday 12:37 pm
65707 spacer
>>65705
No come on.

- I said the biology of sex is messy and not all traits are always specific to one sex
-You linked to sexual dimorphism and told me to go back to school.
-I said if dimorphism makes us always different please identify the sex of this baby
-You referred to some stuff that you said would make it female, but you're not sure, leaving open the possibility it could be a male baby with so-called 'female' traits.

So exactly how are you countering my point?
>> No. 65708 Anonymous
12th June 2020
Friday 12:42 pm
65708 spacer
>>65706

It makes the medical textbook false if it says that can't happen. Generally they don't.
Please tell me more about the science you learned from the bible.
>> No. 65709 YubYub
12th June 2020
Friday 12:51 pm
65709 spacer
>>65705
>I COULD DEFINITELY TELL FROM THE RIBS.
Yo I found your youtube channel

>> No. 65710 Moralfag
12th June 2020
Friday 1:02 pm
65710 spacer
>>65705
>YOU GET AN ARACHNOLOGIST TO LOOK AT THE CHILD THEY COULD DO IT IN A SECOND.
Assuming you meant to say archaeologist (rather than arachnologist which is someone who studies spiders) and being nice in assuming that by archaeologist you meant anthropologist, this is still false; it's mostly guesswork.
http://downloads.hindawi.com/archive/2015/908535.pdf
>> No. 65712 YubYub
12th June 2020
Friday 1:15 pm
65712 spacer
>>65708

So to clarify what we are talking about is an extreme corner case then.

You've decided the tail should wag the dog. Saying humans have 2 legs is unscientific and ablest because some people don't. Is that correct?
>> No. 65714 Are Moaty
12th June 2020
Friday 1:19 pm
65714 spacer
>>65712

To clarify you seem to believe in the literal garden of eden story while insisting that other people are being unscientific.
>> No. 65715 Samefag
12th June 2020
Friday 1:23 pm
65715 spacer
>>65714

I was told one piece of information by one person one time that swore they knew it to be true so I don't have a reason to question now, I made a mistake. Now are you going to acknowledge the encyclopaedia article saying sexual dimorphism exists based on medical texts or not?
>> No. 65716 Paedofag
12th June 2020
Friday 1:26 pm
65716 spacer
>>65715

Yeah? Good fact checking there. Now where did you get the ideas that women don't have adam's apples or that "trained arachnologists" can reliably distinguish male and female skeletons? Because you're wrong on all counts and multiple levels. If this thread has established anything at all it's that you're a fucking idiot.
>> No. 65717 Samefag
12th June 2020
Friday 1:26 pm
65717 spacer
>>65715
Not him, but, lad no-one, literally no-one, is saying sexual dimorphism is not a thing. Just as no-one is claiming to JK Rowling that 'sex is not real'.

We're saying it's more nuanced than it at first appears.
>> No. 65718 Anonymous
12th June 2020
Friday 1:29 pm
65718 spacer
>>65710


They are usally deal with skull fragements which is what makes it so vague, I assure you you give them a complete skull to work with they would 'know' in seconds.
>> No. 65719 Ambulancelad
12th June 2020
Friday 1:30 pm
65719 spacer
>>65717
>Not him, but, lad no-one, literally no-one, is saying sexual dimorphism is not a thing.

>>65697

"Science has long understood that the idea of there being characteristics of the sexes which are always one or the other and never the twain shall meet is completely outdated, so if anyone it adhering to cultish behaviour by sticking to that model it's you lad. "
>> No. 65720 Moralfag
12th June 2020
Friday 1:32 pm
65720 spacer
>>65718

You're still wrong and you'd know that if you'd read the study I linked when I told you that the first time. Nothing you say at this point is credible. You believe something based on the fact that some bloke down the pub swore to you it's true. That's your entire "scientific" approach. If you ever say something true, it's going to be by total coincidence, not based on any sort of reality.
Arachnologists my arse.
>> No. 65721 YubYub
12th June 2020
Friday 1:47 pm
65721 spacer
>>65719


>> No. 65722 Anonymous
12th June 2020
Friday 5:48 pm
65722 spacer
I met a bloke at a bar back in 2012 and 4 years later we got married. About 2 years into the relationship, he came out as trans. OK, so I'm in love with a women? Very confusing, but you can't help who you fall in love with and our relationship didn't change much.

My knowledge and opinions about transgender people and transitioning is informed by her, but even she is a pariah among her so called "community" for believing that children shouldn't be given hormones and that psychiatric intervention to confirm someone is actually transgender and not suffering from one of the mental health issues that can cause dysphoria, but don't mean you're trans. She also thinks that trans women shouldn't be allowed to compete in the women's bracket of sports where larger skeletal-musculature gives them an unfair advantage, as it compromises the integrity of the bracket and marginalises women in their own sport and she empathises with women on that.

She is called a SURF for this, because she identifies with the "radical" fisherpersons and not the trans-fisherpersons, and she is called "true-scum" for daring to suggest a trans person might need a medical diagnosis ruled out before going ahead with transition and wait till adulthood to decide. Ultimately, she doesn't really identify as trans as we both seem to understand it talked about and discussed, it's just something that happened to her and she is ostracised for breaking ranks when voicing dissenting opinions about her experiences.

It's tragic, deeply worrying and also incredibly exhausting to read some of the shit they say about her because she identifies as female and not trans, never mind the overt and naked hate from the right towards her just for existing. I've never subscribed to the idea that the left eats itself, but if not that then what the fuck is going on in far left circles right now?

It's all so fucking tiresome. The only reason I bring this up is because you're arguing about something not even trans people agree on, so what is the fucking point lads? It's fucking brain rot. If you want to discuss the politics of it, then do that, but otherwise you're pissing in the wind.
>> No. 65723 R4GE
12th June 2020
Friday 5:54 pm
65723 spacer
The only thing I'll say about this is that nae cunt cares what Ron has to say and even Glinner, a man who's been online 24/7 for five years forgot his character's name. It must be gutting.
>> No. 65724 Ambulancelad
12th June 2020
Friday 6:26 pm
65724 spacer
>>65722
>YOU'RE ARGUING ABOUT SOMETHING NOT EVEN TRANS PEOPLE AGREE ON, SO WHAT IS THE FUCKING POINT LADS

/iq/ post of the year ladm9.
>> No. 65725 YubYub
12th June 2020
Friday 6:34 pm
65725 spacer
This shitposting is getting tedious lads. Can we get back to serious business like how fucking awful gingers are?
>> No. 65726 Moralfag
12th June 2020
Friday 6:41 pm
65726 spacer
>>65722

>It's tragic, deeply worrying and also incredibly exhausting to read some of the shit they say about her because she identifies as female and not trans, never mind the overt and naked hate from the right towards her just for existing. I've never subscribed to the idea that the left eats itself, but if not that then what the fuck is going on in far left circles right now?

As we've discussed at various points on here recently, it's not really the far left. It's some bastard offshoot brain virus that has a natural home among people with general leftist sympathies (i.e a tendency to be on the side of the oppressed, no matter whom or where) but really takes root and flourishes among liberals.

it's a sort of weird radical centrism, really- The people who subscribe to these supposedly far-left politics are never bothered about the redistribution of wealth, but they spend all day every day talking about the social injustices caused by almost anything you can possibly conceive of [i]besides[i] wealth. in fact, income inequality seems to be a positively positively taboo subject amongst the pronoun crowd.

The part about hating her because she identifies as a woman, and not trans, is where it really starts to resemble genuine Orwellian doublethink, for me. your mrs has my honest sympathies, she sounds like a strong character.
>> No. 65727 Are Moaty
12th June 2020
Friday 8:29 pm
65727 spacer
>>65725
Can't help it. If you want hundreds of posts on here bickering then bringing up trannies is the most effective way of doing so. Guaranteed never fail.
>> No. 65832 Ambulancelad
27th June 2020
Saturday 8:33 pm
65832 spacer
Graham Linehan banned from Twitter for transphobia. He was so upset he posted on Mumsnet to discuss the ban.
>> No. 65837 Samefag
28th June 2020
Sunday 7:38 am
65837 spacer

JK Rowling is Blairite.jpg
658376583765837
J.K. Rowling's political opinions have always given the impression of being precisely calculated to alienate everyone on the planet.
>> No. 65839 Ambulancelad
28th June 2020
Sunday 9:59 am
65839 spacer
>>65837

Rebranding of pragmatic/centre left as Blairites and using it as a pejorative with heavy undertones of 'traitor' is the reason the Labour party can't win an election
>> No. 65840 Are Moaty
28th June 2020
Sunday 10:28 am
65840 spacer
>>65839

Yes, and it works just as effectively as rebranding leftist MPs with strong values and grassroots support as anti-semites.

Neither side can claim the moral high ground when they both pull exactly the same shit.
>> No. 65845 Are Moaty
28th June 2020
Sunday 11:57 am
65845 spacer
>>65840
>rebranding leftist MPs with strong values and grassroots support as anti-semites

No one was rebranding them apart from "the you know whos". Which either means they had a point, or that they really do control everything.
>> No. 65846 YubYub
28th June 2020
Sunday 12:12 pm
65846 spacer
>>65845

Except that's not true.
>> No. 65847 YubYub
28th June 2020
Sunday 12:36 pm
65847 spacer
>>65846


oh well, 'no smoke without fire' then I guess.
>> No. 65849 Moralfag
28th June 2020
Sunday 2:20 pm
65849 spacer
>>65847

More like no smoke without a fire that was ignored under a safe centrist leader and then weaponised when it became politically expedient and subsequently buried even when a highly detailed report is published demonstrating that to be the case.

The real losers here are Jews who have had their voice silenced my a zionist lobby that would have you believe Jews are a single monolithic group. Using them as pawns in this game is far worse than the supposed antisemitism of the far left. But of course you know that, you just don't care, because the media is on your side.

You are David baddiel and I claim my five pounds. If I can pry it from your hands that is.
>> No. 65850 Anonymous
28th June 2020
Sunday 2:32 pm
65850 spacer
>>65849

As a famous tv comedian I resent the implication that I am any less qualified than a trained professional.
>> No. 65854 Ambulancelad
28th June 2020
Sunday 3:58 pm
65854 spacer
>>65840

>YES, AND IT WORKS JUST AS EFFECTIVELY AS REBRANDING LEFTIST MPS WITH STRONG VALUES AND GRASSROOTS SUPPORT AS ANTI-SEMITES.

If you don't want to be branded as an anti-semite, then don't say anti-semitic things. It's really that easy.
>> No. 65855 R4GE
28th June 2020
Sunday 4:30 pm
65855 spacer
>>65839
Nobody wants what Blairites are selling. If the public liked Blairism then nobody would have a good reason for shying away from the label "Blairite".
The problem with the ""pragmatic"" ""centre left"" is that they aren't pragmatic in terms of the year 2015, 2017, 2019 or 2020 for that matter. They're pragmatic only in the terms of 1997. They have no answers to the problems of the here-and-now because they've been too busy fighting to kill the wrong answers from the Labour left. The country needs a revolution (even if just a pragmatic one) and all that Blairites can offer is triangulation. Forget traitors to the Labour party, Blairites are practically traitors to the Blairism of the 90s.

If you're a young man, I say emigrate.
>> No. 65856 Billbob
28th June 2020
Sunday 4:38 pm
65856 spacer
>>65855
Where to?
>> No. 65857 Billbob
28th June 2020
Sunday 4:58 pm
65857 spacer
>>65855

>If the public liked Blairism then nobody would have a good reason for shying away from the label "Blairite".

The only people who have a problem with the term "Blairite" is the left of the Labour party. Starmer is a pragmatic centre-leftist, which is why he's going to win the next General election; unsurprisingly, every general election in modern history has been won by the candidate closest to the centre of the contemporary zeitgeist.
>> No. 65858 YubYub
28th June 2020
Sunday 5:11 pm
65858 spacer
>>65856
The Seychelles

>>65857
If the public are so big on self-identified Blairites, why doesn't Starmer declare himself one?
>every general election in modern history has been won by the candidate closest to the centre of the contemporary zeitgeist.
and what if the contemporary zeitgeist is inimical to "pragmatic centre leftism"? Labour would've been bang on the zeitgeist if it had stood on the 2019 Tory manifesto under a different leader, but if you described that manifesto to a Blairite MP they'd ask why you're reading them a slightly racist Bennite wank-fic about spending hikes and leaving Europe.
>> No. 65861 YubYub
28th June 2020
Sunday 7:57 pm
65861 spacer
>>65857

Nah mate, you've got it the wrong way round. associating yourself with blair is like openly admitting you're a war criminal, and the only people who don't have a problem with it are the kind of mildly sociopathic top lads who thought change UK was going to go anywhere.

his legacy is a long and largely pointless war, not drastically reducing homelessness or anything else positive he actually achieved in office.
>> No. 65862 YubYub
28th June 2020
Sunday 11:03 pm
65862 spacer
>>65861

Well this is the inductive reasoning that is the problem in the labour party to them
centre left = blairite
blairite = in favour of war crimes

They really have only themselves to blame for losing elections.
>> No. 65863 Anonymous
28th June 2020
Sunday 11:59 pm
65863 spacer
>>65862

No, you just appear to be playing a weird kind of victim card.

nobody wants to be called a blairite. reasonable centre-left politicians take pains not to be labelled a blairite. if they get called a blairite anyway, it's probably a sign they've done something to earn that label. if they're reasonable centre-left politicians, they just get called centre ground, moderate, or whatever.

your assertion was that only the far left dislike the idea of being a blairite, when that's clearly wrong, everyone dislikes being called a blairite. it's almost as if you don't really understand what it means.
>> No. 65864 Samefag
29th June 2020
Monday 12:09 am
65864 spacer
>>65863
>everyone dislikes being called a blairite. it's almost as if you don't really understand what it means.


Run along stuck up child. Most of us were both alive and of voting age during new labour. And remember the 10 years people kept voting for him as prime minister, and how people still continued voting for him after the Iraq and Svalbard wars had started.


Terribly mysterious how he remained popular for so long in direct contradiction to everything you are saying like you are spewing utter drivel of a student who looked at the cover of a political text book once.
>> No. 65865 Crabkiller
29th June 2020
Monday 1:09 am
65865 spacer
>>65864

and, indeed, things change. lots has changed in the thirteen fucking years since he was prime minister. it's nice of you to prove that lad right when he said your lot are stuck in the past, though.

think of it this way- how many tories are comfortable with being called a thatcherite? this doesn't even have anything to do with political allegiance, it's simple pr. identifying strongly with a highly polarising figure from the past hurts your marketability in the here and now.
>> No. 65866 Auntiefucker
29th June 2020
Monday 1:45 am
65866 spacer
>>65864

>RUN ALONG STUCK UP CHILD.

This is the sort of thing that puts people off voting labour.
>> No. 65867 Crabkiller
29th June 2020
Monday 3:23 am
65867 spacer
>>65866

If someone calling them a stuck up child on an anonymous image board is enough to put them off voting for a political party. Then they probably shouldn't have the right to vote.
>> No. 65868 Moralfag
29th June 2020
Monday 6:17 am
65868 spacer
>>65864
Does it come as a shock to you that people can vote for candidates they don't actually like?
Blair was ridiculously popular in 1997. By 2005 he was not, but he won anyway because really: you're going to make Michael Howard PM instead? Pull the other one.
>> No. 65869 Billbob
29th June 2020
Monday 10:03 am
65869 spacer
>>65868

If that were true you wouldn't expect labour to win so decisively you would expect some sort of minority government or coalition. Apparently he was still more popular then than every labour candidate since compared to their opponent.

Honestly the labour voters are ashamed they were winning. When the party loses you can sneer all day long at who's in power, actually running the country doesn't allow for that.
>> No. 65870 Anonymous
29th June 2020
Monday 10:07 am
65870 spacer
>>65869
>Honestly the labour voters are ashamed they were winning. When the party loses you can sneer all day long at who's in power, actually running the country doesn't allow for that.

This is bad and you should feel bad.
>> No. 65871 Samefag
29th June 2020
Monday 10:50 am
65871 spacer
>>65867

The majority of people who voted conservative at the last election shouldn't have suffrage. Voting against your own interests in such a concise and direct manner should be seen as proof of their incompetency.
>> No. 65872 Paedofag
29th June 2020
Monday 10:51 am
65872 spacer
>>65871
Why is voting Labour in their interests?
>> No. 65873 Billbob
29th June 2020
Monday 10:54 am
65873 spacer
>>65872

Because they're poor.
>> No. 65874 Paedofag
29th June 2020
Monday 10:55 am
65874 spacer
>>65873
Labour wants to keep them poor so they'll keep voting Labour.
>> No. 65875 YubYub
29th June 2020
Monday 10:56 am
65875 spacer
>>65874

Surely they want to keep them dependent on free money?
>> No. 65876 Anonymous
29th June 2020
Monday 10:57 am
65876 spacer
>>65871

FASCIST
>> No. 65877 Crabkiller
29th June 2020
Monday 10:59 am
65877 spacer
>>65876

Hag
>> No. 65878 Samefag
29th June 2020
Monday 10:59 am
65878 spacer
>>65876

killing tories isn't facist, it's humanitarian.
>> No. 65879 Crabkiller
29th June 2020
Monday 12:26 pm
65879 spacer
>>65878
Yeah, who needs taxpaying professionals.
>> No. 65880 Samefag
29th June 2020
Monday 1:15 pm
65880 spacer
>>65879

Fact : no labour voter has ever had a job. The clue is in the name.
>> No. 65881 Moralfag
29th June 2020
Monday 2:08 pm
65881 spacer
>>65869
Labour's 2005 victory was off the back of the lowest percentage of the popular vote seen by any majority government in the history of this country. If you really want to look at the numbers, Theresa May was only down 1% on Blair's 1997 win in 2017 and she came back without a majority. Elections are complicated things, but you'd much rather simplify them down to an opinion poll on one man so that you can pretend that Blair was much more impressive than he was. You chide Labour voters for being ashamed of the man who won them 3 elections, but you're unwilling to think critically about why the general public tell pollsters loathe and detest a man they elected to office 3 times. If anything makes it shameful to recognise the achievements of Blair, it's backwards looking sycophants like you.
>> No. 65882 Searchfag
29th June 2020
Monday 2:25 pm
65882 spacer
>>65881

That's actually a damning indictment of Teresa May, as the Conservatives have been redrawing constituency boundaries since 2010 to ensure victory and stop Labour ever getting another majority and her campaign returned a hung parliament.
>> No. 65883 R4GE
29th June 2020
Monday 2:29 pm
65883 spacer
>>65882
She's the Tory equivalent of Jeremy Corbyn.
>> No. 65884 Billbob
29th June 2020
Monday 3:10 pm
65884 spacer
>>65883
Other than her failure, not really. The only serious political conviction she's had in her life is that she should be prime minister. The 2017 Conservative manifesto was a moderate, triangulating document, not a Thatcherite version of the longest suicide note in history. (Even if they did such a bad job explaining their moderate policies that they wound up making it sound like a suicide note.)
>> No. 65885 Are Moaty
29th June 2020
Monday 3:34 pm
65885 spacer
>>65884
I think the dementia tax was probably the key policy that lost May her majority. How does one explain that one, then?
>> No. 65886 R4GE
29th June 2020
Monday 3:41 pm
65886 spacer
>>65885
She out Corbyned Corbyn. She thought Jeremy Corbyn was doing such a Corbyn of things that she could throw in a few deeply unpopular policies because victory was assured. She Corbyned too far and ended up Corbyning herself against Corbyn.
>> No. 65887 Moralfag
29th June 2020
Monday 5:01 pm
65887 spacer
>>65886
I agreed that the state should requisition granny's home to pay for her dementia care though. A superb policy poorly sold.

Corbyn going after the Kulaks was old hat.
>> No. 65888 Moralfag
29th June 2020
Monday 6:10 pm
65888 spacer
>>65885
The "dementia tax" would actually have left people much better off than they are under the current system. The Conservatives utterly cocked up communicating it in the sort of way that would stretch credulity if you saw it in fiction.
The policy would've let people keep their homes for their lifetimes and made sure that you'd always be left with at least £100,000 no matter the cost of your care. Corbyn got this backwards in one speech, saying the proposal was to only cover the first £100,000 of care costs. Later, May was asked by a member of the public how they could be sure their care costs wouldn't lead them to bankruptcy: The answer was easy: "because the government will let you keep at least £100,000." May fumbled in a failed attempt to explain the policy in detail, rather than giving that clear answer.

That's not to say it's a good policy, but the miscommunication (and the things that possibly stemmed from it, such as the subsequent U-Turn rendering the already tedious "strong and stable" a complete joke.) is comedy gold.
>> No. 65895 Ambulancelad
1st July 2020
Wednesday 9:31 am
65895 spacer
>>65888
Or is that to say that Corbyn used the time honoured tactic of completely misrepresenting political opposition to make them sound like nutters in order to derail them? No politician's above using tricks.
>> No. 65897 R4GE
1st July 2020
Wednesday 9:36 am
65897 spacer
>>65895

Can't it be both?
>> No. 65988 Anonymous
9th July 2020
Thursday 1:34 pm
65988 spacer
We've got a CV from a ftm person. However, it looks like they've transitioned to far and they've gone from looking like a girl to looking like a boy to looking like a boy with downs syndrome. Didn't even know that was possible. I've never seen such a downy face in a non-downy person.
>> No. 65993 Auntiefucker
9th July 2020
Thursday 5:01 pm
65993 spacer
>>65988

They might have looked downy as a girl too.
>> No. 65994 Auntiefucker
9th July 2020
Thursday 5:10 pm
65994 spacer
>>65993
I looked through their old pictures, part of my recruitment filter is looking them up online to gauge whether that suggests they're a twat, and they weren't that fit as a full on girl.

They looked best, to me at least, in the pictures before taking the male hormones where they were dressed as a boy with androgynous hair but mixing it up with mascara and other makeup on.
>> No. 65995 Ambulancelad
9th July 2020
Thursday 6:37 pm
65995 spacer
>>65994

>part of my recruitment filter is looking them up online to gauge whether that suggests they're a twat

please consider making an appointment with dignitas.
>> No. 65996 Are Moaty
9th July 2020
Thursday 6:58 pm
65996 spacer
>>65994

Would I fail such an application if I had no online presence?

I want to understand how the modern panopticon opperates, and my chances of survival in the near future.
>> No. 65998 Billbob
9th July 2020
Thursday 7:29 pm
65998 spacer
>>65994
Where do you work, because that's illegal.
>> No. 65999 Anonymous
9th July 2020
Thursday 7:43 pm
65999 spacer
>>65996
Not at all. The only times I've looked up someone online and decided not to proceed to interview is when they're too much of a lad.

>>65998
That's be telling.
>> No. 66011 Billbob
12th July 2020
Sunday 3:10 pm
66011 spacer
This thread is a collection of beefy poz loads.
>> No. 66648 Paedofag
15th September 2020
Tuesday 8:12 am
66648 spacer
>The meat of the book is the investigation into a cold case: the disappearance of GP Margot Bamborough in 1974, thought to have been a victim of Dennis Creed, a transvestite serial killer.

>One wonders what critics of Rowling’s stance on trans issues will make of a book whose moral seems to be: never trust a man in a dress.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/books/what-to-read/troubled-blood-robert-galbraith-review-jk-rowling-fails-strike/

Imagine getting so annoyed by trannies on twitter that you write a novel about a cross dressing man who uses his disguise to kill women.
>> No. 66649 Crabkiller
15th September 2020
Tuesday 8:33 am
66649 spacer
>>66648
Some more cynical people are suggesting that it's the other way around: she deliberately whipped people up into a frenzy in order to get media coverage for her book.
>> No. 66650 YubYub
15th September 2020
Tuesday 8:56 am
66650 spacer
>>66649
Desperate for cash is she?
>> No. 66651 Moralfag
15th September 2020
Tuesday 9:04 am
66651 spacer
>>66648

Well, when something doesn't happen often enough in reality to justify your bizarre reactionary worldview, you can always write a book about it. how often does this happen in real life?

i'm really sad that TERF sub on Rudgewick got banned. It was literally post after post of mentalist harpies shrieking to each other about how they never feel safe in the bathroom any more because a bloke in a dress might come in and rape them while they're doing a wee. a very specific kind of psycho-sexual phobia, that I'd almost categorise as bordering on fetish; like my fear-arousal to the threat of castration. very freudian.
>> No. 66652 Billbob
15th September 2020
Tuesday 9:12 am
66652 spacer
>>66651
>HOW OFTEN DOES THIS HAPPEN IN REAL LIFE?

Probably more often than what happens in the typical episode of midsummer murders.
>> No. 66654 Moralfag
15th September 2020
Tuesday 11:47 am
66654 spacer
>>66652
Come one now, probably? Show us a graph at least.
>> No. 66655 Anonymous
15th September 2020
Tuesday 11:55 am
66655 spacer
>>66654
I'll knock one up in paint. Isn't midsummer all about sex cults and getting stabbed to death by someone dressed as a dryad?
>> No. 66656 R4GE
15th September 2020
Tuesday 4:49 pm
66656 spacer
>>66651
>how often does this happen in real life?
Apparently often enough for her like to complain about trans prisoners.

>how they never feel safe in the bathroom any more because a bloke in a dress might come in and rape them while they're doing a wee
Yeah, they were going crazy over people being able to legally self-ID as a woman and go in the changing rooms. Because blokes just itching to burst into the bogs and rape women if only they could legally justify being there by claiming to be one is totally a thing.
>> No. 66657 Anonymous
15th September 2020
Tuesday 7:56 pm
66657 spacer
>>66648
Oh I wondered what they were all getting upset about again with her.

She's just trolling now;
>> No. 66658 Crabkiller
15th September 2020
Tuesday 8:24 pm
66658 spacer
>The 'evidence' that provoked the malice was so flimsy, even Twitter should have been embarrassed to publish it. Pink News, which dominates the LGBTQ+ outrage market, gave the case for the prosecution. According to the first review, 'JK Rowling’s latest book is about a murderous cis man who dresses as a woman to kill his victims', it announced.

>It is about nothing of the sort, I thought. And I could say that with authority because I had just finished a review copy of Troubled Blood, the fifth novel in Rowling’s Cormoran Strike series, as research for a long piece on her politics and art I'm working on for the Critic. No honest person who takes the trouble to read it can see the novel as transphobic. But then honest people are hard to find in a culture war.

>The men and women pouring out their loathing of Rowling online could not have read the unreleased book: not that their ignorance bothered them in slightest, as no mob on the rampage in history has ever stopped to read a novel.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/j-k-rowling-s-latest-novel-isn-t-transphobic-/

In other words, a couple of misleading clickbait headlines have wound up people who haven't done any further research because they wanted them to be true.
>> No. 66659 Moralfag
16th September 2020
Wednesday 12:16 am
66659 spacer
>>66658
She could've written a long piece about how you should go outside right now and beat up anyone who looks vaguely transgender and some twat in The Spectator would still be there to explain why it's not transphobic.
>> No. 66660 Samefag
16th September 2020
Wednesday 1:40 am
66660 spacer
>>66659

The Spectator has morphed into "contrarian twat weekly" since the Barclay Brothers bought it.
>> No. 66661 Anonymous
16th September 2020
Wednesday 7:07 am
66661 spacer
>>66659
The guardian have also said that the telegraph and pink news have misrepresented the book and people who haven't read it shouldn't take their reviews at face value and should question them instead.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/booksblog/2020/sep/15/rowling-troubled-blood-thriller-robert-galbraith-review
>> No. 66662 Are Moaty
16th September 2020
Wednesday 9:43 am
66662 spacer
Had a conversation about this with my mum. Referred to her as a cis woman and she went mental. Said she was not cis, she was normal.
>> No. 66663 Anonymous
16th September 2020
Wednesday 10:12 am
66663 spacer
>>66662
Fucksake. She's one of them.
>> No. 66664 Crabkiller
16th September 2020
Wednesday 10:29 am
66664 spacer
>>66661
I read that whole piece and was still waiting for the bit where she points out the misrepresentation when I reached 'Since you're here...'

As far as I can tell all the critics actually do understand (because they are trans and are quite familiar with media representation of them) that it is utterly irrelevant that the character is technically not trans. The character is 'trans adjacent' or 'trans enough' to stoke the same fear of trans people that Rowling has been pushing for months.

It's actually the critics that are being misrepresented, I think.
>> No. 66665 YubYub
16th September 2020
Wednesday 10:44 am
66665 spacer
>>66664
It's "they're wrong to make out this minor character is the main antagonist of the book, but I don't want that to be misinterpreted as saying Rowling is right so I'll also call her tone deaf."
>> No. 66666 R4GE
16th September 2020
Wednesday 11:01 am
66666 spacer
>>66665
>they're wrong to make out this minor character is the main antagonist of the book
Who gives a shit? Is that really the issue here? The Guardian is such a load of wank.
>> No. 66667 Samefag
16th September 2020
Wednesday 11:03 am
66667 spacer
>>66666
Mate, we should be against all forms of clickbait. Clickbait doesn't become acceptable just because the headline agrees with your worldview.
>> No. 66668 Auntiefucker
16th September 2020
Wednesday 11:35 am
66668 spacer
I want to go out and buy 100 copies of this book right now, just to piss off all you screeching lefty thought police tossers who want to ban all opinions you don't agree with.
>> No. 66669 Anonymous
16th September 2020
Wednesday 11:41 am
66669 spacer
>>66668
Go for it. It's your money.
>> No. 66670 Samefag
16th September 2020
Wednesday 11:41 am
66670 spacer
>>66668
Come on lad, that was an entry-level trolling attempt. You can do better than that - we believe in you.
>> No. 66671 Are Moaty
16th September 2020
Wednesday 11:43 am
66671 spacer
>>66670

shouldn't you be on twitter hurling death threats at rowling and screeching about how "trans wimmin are wimmin?"
>> No. 66672 Searchfag
16th September 2020
Wednesday 11:44 am
66672 spacer
>>66671
"Shouldn't you be screeching somewhere?" he screeched.
>> No. 66673 Samefag
16th September 2020
Wednesday 11:49 am
66673 spacer
>>66672

ha, you lot are the ones crying about how a work if fiction is akin to mein kampf and will end up killing trannies.i suppose you were the people who got fawlty towers banned for being problematic as well.
>> No. 66674 Searchfag
16th September 2020
Wednesday 11:52 am
66674 spacer
>>66673

Yes, I personally am those people and did that. I went right up into the BBC's grill and forced them to.
>> No. 66675 Moralfag
16th September 2020
Wednesday 12:13 pm
66675 spacer
>>66671
Slightly better, you managed to get a couple of bites. Still, a bit poorly executed as you replied to me. Also, you need to go on an unrelated tangent with the aim of drawing uninterested people in.

Come on lad, even if you're a fresh import from the Other Place, you should be better at trolling than this.

Still, why here of all places? Surely you can get more bites on, well, Twitter?
>> No. 66676 Paedofag
16th September 2020
Wednesday 12:16 pm
66676 spacer
>>66675

because twitter instantly bans anyone with an opinion to the right of che guevara and i'd have the rozzers kicking my door in by now. hope you're having a nice afternoon whacking off to "fat bints" and trannies, ladm9
>> No. 66677 Billbob
16th September 2020
Wednesday 12:36 pm
66677 spacer
>>66676

So you've come here, were we're notoriously lax on bans?

(A good day to you Sir!)
>> No. 66678 Auntiefucker
16th September 2020
Wednesday 12:57 pm
66678 spacer
>>66677
Are the mods cheekier than the cheekiest of nando's?
>> No. 66679 Searchfag
16th September 2020
Wednesday 1:16 pm
66679 spacer
>>66676

>because twitter instantly bans anyone with an opinion to the right of che guevara

Indeed, many communist figures from Lenin to Mao were famously outspoken advocates for trans rights weren't they.

It's bollocks lad. The majority of Twitter is characterised by deep strain of liberalism focused entirely on individual identity, hence the obsession with personal pronouns and categorising racial profiles etc.

There's nothing remotely socialist about it, it has far more in common with the ideology of Reagan and Thatcher than it does with anyone on the left. You've been drawn in by a deliberately misleading false dichotomy.
>> No. 66680 Samefag
16th September 2020
Wednesday 1:32 pm
66680 spacer
>>66679
Left wing stopped meaning anything to do with class or wealth or basic human needs a while back, now it isn't for the majority but the already privileged to slip into positions of power by protesting the only reason they aren't a CEO is because they are a girl.
>> No. 66681 Billbob
16th September 2020
Wednesday 1:36 pm
66681 spacer
>>66680

Or in other words, centrist liberals have appropriated the label. I think anyone who considers themselves properly left wing has a duty to combat this misapprehension.
>> No. 66686 Moralfag
16th September 2020
Wednesday 3:51 pm
66686 spacer
>>66680
>Left wing stopped meaning anything to do with class or wealth or basic human needs a while back
This has always felt like an attempt to keep up the disingenuous idea that it's communists calling for more female CEOs so that most of the shit parts of modern life (which are largely economic problems) can be laid at the door of "the left", and not our 1980s leadership who were selling the country off on the one hand and decrying "gay sports days" on the other. if you stick with thatcher's economic policy but love gay sports days, you're still at least 50% thatcherite. even if your other 50% is some loony left social liberalism, you're going to sum to zero and come out a centrist by any reasonable use of maths.
>> No. 66694 Moralfag
17th September 2020
Thursday 2:52 pm
66694 spacer
>Meanwhile the suspects in Dr Bamborough’s disappearance include a womanising patient who seems to have developed feelings for her, a passive-aggressive husband who wanted her to quit her job to become a full-time mother, and a sadistic serial killer active in the 60s and 70s, who was loosely based on real life killers Jerry Brudos and Russell Williams – both master manipulators who took trophies from their victims.

https://robert-galbraith.com/about/

There we have it. Based on real life killer trannies.
>> No. 66719 YubYub
20th September 2020
Sunday 9:22 am
66719 spacer
>Making a demon of JK Rowling is a wretched sport, born of trout farming and resentment

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/sep/20/making-a-demon-of-jk-rowling-is-a-wretched-sport-born-of-trout farming-and-resentment

You can always rely on the Groan.
>> No. 66720 Crabkiller
20th September 2020
Sunday 11:07 am
66720 spacer
>>66719

At this point the Guardian is purely to distract, deter, and deflect any genuine efforts of the left from addressing material problems.
>> No. 66721 Searchfag
20th September 2020
Sunday 5:25 pm
66721 spacer
>>66719
>>66720
Another article today tries to "both sides" American fascism. They're beyond parody at this point.
>> No. 66722 Moralfag
20th September 2020
Sunday 5:55 pm
66722 spacer
>>66720
Whilst I'm much more favourable now than I have been in the past to the idea that the moment you start any political movement in this country half its' members will be coppers before you've even invited anyone else to join, I don't think the moany types who show up in the Observer are anything quite that insidious. I think they're just a group of increasingly out-of-touch weirdos who idolise the Blair years, if not Blair himself, and don't understand how or why things changed. "Why's everyone so angry? What's with all these new ideas? Didn't I used to have hair there?"; they don't get it. Also, yeah, the Guardian isn't especially radical. I think the best example of this I've come across recently was when it turned out many of Leicester's garment factories are owned by what amount to local Mafias and the reporter who did a piece on it ended an episode of Today in Focus by saying words to the effect of "we all need to shop smarter".
>> No. 66723 Paedofag
20th September 2020
Sunday 6:33 pm
66723 spacer
>>66722
>words to the effect of "we all need to shop smarter".
A reminder that anyone who says "there is no ethical consumption under capitalism" is fair game to punch in the mouth.
>> No. 66724 Samefag
20th September 2020
Sunday 6:42 pm
66724 spacer
>>66722

The guardian is just a very specific, middle class type of out of touch. it's one of the biggest culprits for burying its head in the sand about immigration tensions as they simmered over the past decade, because from that strata of society it seems inconceivable that so many people don't see the benefits of being able to hire a dirt cheap polish nanny or cleaner.
>> No. 66725 Anonymous
20th September 2020
Sunday 6:50 pm
66725 spacer
>>66723
What's your problem with that sentiment? All I can think of is that it serves as a crutch for people to avoid making difficult choices, but that doesn't affect the validity of the statement.
>> No. 66727 Anonymous
20th September 2020
Sunday 7:11 pm
66727 spacer
>>66725

Not them but it is an absurd expectation and it shifts the burden of responsibility for investigating mafia ties on to the man in the street for all aspects of their life from the various bodies that should be investigating such organisations.
>> No. 66728 Paedofag
20th September 2020
Sunday 7:23 pm
66728 spacer
>>66727
We seem to be interpreting it quite differently. My understanding was the opposite - if ethical consumption in capitalist markets is impossible (due to the opaqueness inherent in global supply chains), then it follows that individuals should worry less about their individual purchases and instead demand more regulation and enforcement at higher levels.

When you say "it is an absurd expectation", what exactly are you referring to?
>> No. 66729 Billbob
20th September 2020
Sunday 7:57 pm
66729 spacer
>>66728

You can look at it in both ways if you want to.

Either it's a cop out and gives you an excuse to buy everything from Nestle and Monsanto because what's the point worrying if you can't avoid it, or it means every company you buy from is up to no good at some point down the line even if you try do your homework so the system itself needs uprooting.

still not sure which side the original lad meant it from mind.
>> No. 66730 Billbob
20th September 2020
Sunday 8:32 pm
66730 spacer
>>66728
It is an absurd statement. What it should have called for is investigations and more regulations. Would you be okay with a report on hospitals killing people ending with, "patients should chose better doctors"?

It's a cancerous brand of capitalism that expects the consumer to fix all the world's problems by being informed and moral consumers. Buy electric cars if you don't want global warming. Don't eat at Nandos if you care about the welfare of chickens. Don't buy from Nike if you don't agree with Uyghur slave labour. The government doesn't need to step in.
>> No. 66731 Billbob
20th September 2020
Sunday 8:55 pm
66731 spacer
>>66730
>Buy electric cars if you don't want global warming.
Even in the example you gave, the consumer is uninformed. Electric cars are still really terrible for the environment. I'm not criticising you, this just underlines the point you're making.

Return ] Entire Thread ] First 100 posts ] Last 50 posts ]
whiteline

Delete Post []
Password