[__ Science __ ] Male Lawmaker Claims He Is “Every Bit as Biologically Female” As a Woman

[Milk-Drops]

But, it's a black choice. I can choose not to join them, but I'll be accused of hating them for it.

Unless you have a tome machine or hang around trans social spaces, you are likely to never be in this situation.

Even in the video you keep referencing, Jordan Peterson went to the protest being held by an emotionally charged lgbt group. He engaged them.


So unless you are going out of your way to engage trans people, you are next to zero chance likely going to get called hateful
What is concerning is you keep arguing as if there is the mob looking for you, but why would they even be looking for you?

 

[Barbarian]

Well, that's what I'm talking about, too. Respectful disagreement. Did you see the video that made Jordan Peterson famous?

Never heard of him.

They make all the same arguments I've been pointing out in this thread, and it wasn't respectful. Even supporters, like yourself, are embarrassed by reference to that video.

Don't know him, much less support him.

I am not saying that at all. Its clear you want to argue against an irational person who is making specific demands of you. No one has made that argument to you. No one on this site has accused you of anything or made any specific claims against you. No one has said they are offended.

It's a game people play; find the most extreme position from the other side, and pretend that's the norm.

 

[Barbarian]

Dude, that video is 9 years old and you keep ignoring that no one has been prosecuted over the law Peterson was even arguing over.

That's the worst sort of law. A law that's never enforced, but can be if the powers that be don't like you, is a tool of oppression.

 

[Milk-Drops]

That's the worst sort of law. A law that's never enforced, but can be if the powers that be don't like you, is a tool of oppression.

No, what it is is that bill C-16 expanded the harassment code to include trans people. What Tim seems to be afraid of is a law that doesn't even effect him ( Canada when he lives here in the US) and requires that a person prove they were harassed based on being trans. No one has been prosecuted on that law because its extremely hard to prove harassment.

 

[Tim Broom]

Unless you have a tome machine or hang around trans social spaces, you are likely to never be in this situation.

Lot's of people find themselves in this situation. J.K. Rowling is one of the most recently notable examples.

What I'm seeing from you is a consistent minimizing of what is a very real consequence for people who speak out against the social compulsion to go along or else.

Even in the video you keep referencing, Jordan Peterson went to the protest being held by an emotionally charged lgbt group. He engaged them.

Did you watch the video? Toward the start you can clearly hear the woman filming that she wants to go engage with Peterson. It may be that Peterson did go there to engage with them, in discussion, and you can see that in his demeanour all throughout.

It is the lgbtq mob screaming and shouting and interrupting. That's why the video is so embarrassing. You call them emotionally charged, but that is a perfect example of the kind of minimizing you keep doing. If it had been Peterson doing the shouting and screaming, you wouldn't excuse that as him simply being a little too emotional; you'd likely say he was hating them (because, angry shouting is often how hate expresses itself in real life).

Dude, that video is 9 years old

More minimizing. What does the date of the video have to do with anything? Well, nothing. It's just that the video is super embarrassing for the lgbtq so it gets ridiculed when it's presented as evidence of real-world perspectives. Those were real lgbtq people in that video, shouting and screaming and interrupting.

The same arguments made in that video toward Peterson are even now being made about J.K. Rowling. They are made toward any person who either criticizes the lgbtq movement or even simply disagrees with them, as Rowling did on the issue of whether a man transitioning to a woman becomes an actual, literal woman.

you keep ignoring that no one has been prosecuted over the law Peterson was even arguing over.

More minimizing. I never talked about the prosecution rates. You declared that no such laws exist and dared me to post any evidence. When I did, you did not retract your wrong declaration about the non-existence of such laws; you simply side-stepped and suggested the law had never even been used, and if I were to show you evidence to the contrary, you'd likely side-step again.

Its clear you want to argue against an irational person who is making specific demands of you.

Tell it to J.K. Rowling, Peterson, and while we're at it, Dave Chapelle.

 

[Tim Broom]

Never heard of him.

Like, okay, you don't recognize his name, but still, it's evidence being presented for your consideration. I posted youtube link clips in the body of my post for your reference but I understand why people would rather the video did not exist. It is quite embarrassing.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Like, okay, you don't recognize his name, but still, it's evidence being presented for your consideration. I posted youtube link clips in the body of my post for your reference but I understand why people would rather the video did not exist. It is quite embarrassing.

No one in this thread has said the video doesn't exist. I tried talking to you about it, but keep avoiding talking about anything in detail. You are doing the same thing Jordan Peterson does where you say you are concerned, but won't explain how this would effect you considering the only way you would get in trouble is if you moved to Canada and did a provable act of harassment to a Canadian trans person.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Lot's of people find themselves in this situation. J.K. Rowling is one of the most recently notable examples.

She is probably not a good example for you to use considering she is in a lawsuit right now because she decided to harass an Olympian and spread misinformation about them being trans, when there is no evidence of the person being trans. She also likes to troll people on twitter and instigate arguments. Using a person who actually committed harassment and is in a legal battle over it isn't a good look.

What I'm seeing from you is a consistent minimizing of what is a very real consequence for people who speak out against the social compulsion to go along or else.

I keep asking how this would effect you and you keep dodging. You want me to take you seriously, but all you seem to have is a person who actually committed documented harassment and a video from over 8-9 years ago.

Did you watch the video?

Yes, and seem to be triggered that some kids were not debating in good faith 9 years ago, and that Jordan went to the protest and engaged these kids himself.

It is the lgbtq mob screaming and shouting and interrupting.

He went to the lgbt protest and misunderstood the bill. I could go to a Trump rally and find people that don't want to have a discussion in good faith too. There are tons of videos where people do that.

That's why the video is so embarrassing. You call them emotionally charged, but that is a perfect example of the kind of minimizing you keep doing. If it had been Peterson doing the shouting and screaming, you wouldn't excuse that as him simply being a little too emotional; you'd likely say he was hating them (because, angry shouting is often how hate expresses itself in real life).

Stop with the conspiracy thinking. I have not made the argument the either you or Peterson are hateful. I am not the kid in the video. I have been trying to have a civil conversation with you, but you seem to want to be the victim. You want to be targeted by these people. Dude, you are in your 40s and afraid of imaginary lgbt mobs from years ago coming to shame you.

More minimizing. What does the date of the video have to do with anything?

You arguing about stuff happening now, with a video that is almost a decade old. So far its the only thing you can point to and if you want me to take you serious, show me something that you are concerned about from maybe this year.

Well, nothing. It's just that the video is super embarrassing for the lgbtq so it gets ridiculed when it's presented as evidence of real-world perspectives. Those were real lgbtq people in that video, shouting and screaming and interrupting.

Do you understand that a small group of kids isn't the entire LGBTQ demographic? Just like a video of a group of straight dudes doing something stupid or embarrassing isn't a representation of all straight people.

I really don't know what you are trying to say. Are saying that your entire understanding of complex politics comes from this video?

The same arguments made in that video toward Peterson are even now being made about J.K. Rowling. They are made toward any person who either criticizes the lgbtq movement or even simply disagrees with them, as Rowling did on the issue of whether a man transitioning to a woman becomes an actual, literal woman.

It seems that your entire argument is that there are kids on the internet that will call you a meanie if you criticize them........Once again I can say that is every group. Every group is filled with people that want to argue and are low information.

What do you want me to do about it? So far your entire thing is people will be mean to you and socially people wont want to associate with you if you engage with them. That has been the internet and social interaction since the dawn of time.

What do you want done exactly?

More minimizing. I never talked about the prosecution rates. You declared that no such laws exist and dared me to post any evidence.

Yeah, you haven't provided a law that would apply to what you were talking about. You are not thrown in jail for criticizing trans people or offending them. You get prosecuted for harassment, the same thing would happen if you harassed a Christian or straight person. Just like Jordan Peterson, you don't even understand the law you are complaining about.

When I did, you did not retract your wrong declaration about the non-existence of such laws; you simply side-stepped and suggested the law had never even been used, and if I were to show you evidence to the contrary, you'd likely side-step again.

There is no law that says you can't criticize trans people, your original claim. There is a law that says you can't harass people. All bill C-16 did is add trans people to the list.

Tell it to J.K. Rowling, Peterson, and while we're at it, Dave Chapelle.

Guess what none of them have been prosecuted under any law for criticizing trans people. Peterson definitely wasn't and now has a job where he stirs culture war fear on The Daily Wire. Nothing is stopping him from doing that. Dave Chapelle made jokes against trans people but didn't get prosecuted for it. He went on to have several successful Netflix specials and still sells out live performances. Rowling is not being prosecuted for criticizing trans people. She is in a court battle because she harassed an Olympian online and spread misinformation about the Olympian being trans when there is no evidence outside a document from a Russian agency that says the Olympian is male, but paper the organization used outright says they didn't test for the Olympian's gender.

So far your entire argument boils down to you want to criticize people, but you don't want to be criticized in return. You want to be special. You are the one who is irrational sjw with a quivering lip and wet eyes.

 

[Tim Broom]

She also likes to troll people on twitter and instigate arguments.

Did you know that the BBC had to apologize 3 separate times for its coverage of J.K. Rowling over all this trans stuff? I wonder if you know why they had to apologize 3 separate times. Here is an article which sums it up fairly well, in case you're interested.

 

[Barbarian]

Like, okay, you don't recognize his name, but still, it's evidence being presented for your consideration.

Some random guy's opinion doesn't change facts.

 

[Barbarian]

Did you know that the BBC had to apologize 3 separate times for its coverage of J.K. Rowling over all this trans stuff?

This is starting to sound like grievance gathering. People who need to feel persecuted will always find ways to justify it.

 

[Barbarian]

Rowling is not being prosecuted for criticizing trans people. She is in a court battle because she harassed an Olympian online and spread misinformation about the Olympian being trans when there is no evidence outside a document from a Russian agency that says the Olympian is male, but paper the organization used outright says they didn't test for the Olympian's gender.

Hmmm... (Barbarian checks)

Rowling seems to have a major fixation on transgender, but I'm thinking that the large difference in upper body strength men have over women (there are exceptions) would make things unfair for other women in a competition like boxing. I'd be open to data showing that transitioning would significantly reduce that advantage, but I don't think it would.

This has nothing whatever to do with the point that transgendered people deserve respect and should be left alone by those who don't like the idea.

 

[KV-44-v1]

, if you want to go around being rude and mean to people,

Calling true Christians vamps contradicts reality. Calling pretenders their biological gender ALIGNS WITH IT.

YOU, uncle j, risk offending Christians with your politically correct replies, yet you dont mind "offending" so why should we play pretend? Mabye people having thin skin IS the problem. Think about that. We need thicker skins in this world.

----
Yes, you reap what you sow. So perhaps I'll have Tranz people refer to me as "Supercalifragelisticexpealidocius peterpiperpickedapickofpickledpeppers the Seventy-oneth." each time they refer to me, and dust up a fuss every time my reference is said wrong or not used. They wish to confuse with Reality-Bending, why not confuse them with word-bending?

 

[KV-44-v1]

You mean the youtube channels of people that claim everyone is trans and use contradictory criteria to pigeon hole everyone as trans?

No, I mean normal everyday people who havent been taken in by the 2020's Political Left.

when you had your Edward account.

Is that the name of your dog?? For all i know you had a "ninjaturtle69". LOL.

Ok banned member Edward.

Ok b*nned member ninjaturtle69.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Did you know that the BBC had to apologize 3 separate times for its coverage of J.K. Rowling over all this trans stuff? I wonder if you know why they had to apologize 3 separate times. Here is an article which sums it up fairly well, in case you're interested.

I read the article, but I don't see what you mean here. The BBC apologized for claiming it was a crime when it was an offense. This doesn't mean that JK Rowling was not harassing trans people.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Hmmm... (Barbarian checks)

Rowling seems to have a major fixation on transgender, but I'm thinking that the large difference in upper body strength men have over women (there are exceptions) would make things unfair for other women in a competition like boxing. I'd be open to data showing that transitioning would significantly reduce that advantage, but I don't think it would.

This has nothing whatever to do with the point that transgendered people deserve respect and should be left alone by those who don't like the idea.

I agree we need to have discussions around trans people and sports. The issue Rowling got herself into was claiming and spreading a rumor that someone was trans when there has not been any solid evidence that an Olympian that is representing a country where it is illegal to identify as trans, is trans.

 

[Tim Broom]

The BBC apologized for claiming it was a crime when it was an offense.

For one of the apologies, yes, they did word it like that, which amounts to a non-apology because, in this context the words "crime" and "offence" are synonymous. It is a distinction without a difference. In either case, there is guilt. That is what the BBC was supposed to be apologizing for; assuming guilt where there was none.

Look again at the article:

"The BBC has apologized after suggesting that J.K. Rowling’s remarks about transgender women could put her on the wrong side of a new hate crime law in Scotland."

The BBC assumed guilt, along with thousands of readers who supported the assumption. That is the reason why the apology is necessary. Sure, the language here is toned waaaay down, because, for them to apologize it would have needed to be stronger than a "suggestion" about something that "could" happen.

Your own posts are a witness to that; you see Rowling as a trouble-making troll purposefully and deliberately trying to antagonize the trans community.

But what did she really do that was so wrong? I read her comments; they are opinions. For example, she is of the opinion that just because a biological man believes about himself that he is a biological woman does not make it so. It's fine if he wants to believe that about himself, but others should not be compelled to go along with his preferences about himself just to avoid hurting his feelings.

To me, that is a perfectly reasonable opinion, but for that she was accused of being a criminal by the BBC, for which they had to later apologize, 3 separate times.

I mean, to be fair, we look at Trump and his track record of dishonesty, and on that basis we can safely say that he is not fit to be a leader. He just lies and lies. Because our judgment would be based on that observable evidence we can feel confident making this judgment.

Now, Trump lies in the thousands, so that's way bigger than the 3 lies the BBC had to apologize for, yet still, does it have to get into the dozens and thousands before we agree that there is a problem?

First offence, fine. Someone got a little too emotional and let rhetoric get the better of them. Apologize and move on. But, then a second offence? Why did it happen again? I mean, I guess apologize and move on... But then, a third time? This is no accident. Even the apologies seem to only exist because the BBC gets its viewership from people who believe it is reputable.

The marketing department worked out that it would cost more in loss-of-trust viewership than would be gained from any public relations boost they may get from standing by the pro-woke editors who kept breaking the law.

Whether it's Peterson, Chapelle, Rowling, or whomever, the pattern is the same. Someone shares an opinion and the woke mob rips in to them with all the same accusations of transphobia, or hate speech.

You keep arguing that no one has yet been prosecuted by the law in Canada or, now, Scottland, and yet in each case there are many people who WANT these laws to be used to prosecute speech which is critical, of even just in disagreement of them.

Rowling didn't say anything hateful or abusive. She said others should not be compelled to pretend that a biological man becomes a biological woman.

As for her comments on the boxer at the olympics, the information was murky as there was some question about her eligibility. It may be that Rowling rushed to judgment as there's no clear information about what IBA test the boxer apparently failed to indicate a male advantage.

But, again, it's a distinction without a difference, because even she were a male-to-female boxer, you guys would still be upset with Rowling for the criticism. I know that because Jon Oliver made that clear in his show where he goes through three responses to the criticism that male-to-female should not play in women's sports; 1, There's not enough examples of this happening for anyone to feel concerned about it, 2, there's no evidence that there is physical advantage, and 3, You're really weird if you feel concerned about this.

You may not notice it, like going nose blind to a stink in your own room, but others notice this condescending attitude and it's almost certainly why Trump as re-elected. As bad as he is, they'd rather have him than the woke mob.

 

[Tim Broom]

This has nothing whatever to do with the point that transgendered people deserve respect

But, Rowling deserves respect, too, right? I mean, accusing her of supporting genocide and suicide, and calling her a criminal, just because she says a biological man cannot become a biological female, is absurd.

Her opinion isn't hateful or rude. It's just her position. That she is vocal about it, or perhaps even critical of her own critics when expression her postion, doesn't make her rude.

I mean, it's not Rowling who has to apologize for false accusations of criminal activity. It's the woke side of BBC apologizing to her. Yet, you keep suggesting that it is Rowling who is being rude.

Don't you see at least some reason to question that?

 

[Milk-Drops]

For one of the apologies, yes, they did word it like that, which amounts to a non-apology because,

You are contorting the article to fit your conspiracy. I noticed that Deadline didn't give any context in the article, but instead just posted the archive link. If you go to the archive link you will find out that Rowling wasn't charged for anything by Scotland, and Scotland had no interest in charging her. The BBC was saying if Rowling was serious about her comments of standing with any woman who went after trans activists, she could be charged. Rowling was not charged with anything and the government ignored complaints by some that wanted her charged. So the only thing was the BBC mistakenly said crime instead of offense. Which is different, considering one would lead to a trial and another would be at law enforcement's digression.

in this context the words "crime" and "offence" are synonymous. It is a distinction without a difference. In either case, there is guilt. That is what the BBC was supposed to be apologizing for; assuming guilt where there was none.

There is a difference, and I am starting to notice you are always assuming the worst case. Second, you seem to be misunderstanding what the article was saying. The BBC was apologizing for saying Rowling would be commiting a crime if she stood by her twitter deceleration to back people harassing trans people. The BBC did not say she actually did it.

Look again at the article:


The BBC assumed guilt, along with thousands of readers who supported the assumption. That is the reason why the apology is necessary. Sure, the language here is toned waaaay down, because, for them to apologize it would have needed to be stronger than a "suggestion" about something that "could" happen.

Then you didn't read the original article then.

JK Rowling hate law posts not criminal, police say

Social media comments by JK Rowling challenging Scotland's new hate crime law are not being treated as criminal.

web.archive.org

Your own posts are a witness to that; you see Rowling as a trouble-making troll purposefully and deliberately trying to antagonize the trans community.

No, I said she has trolled trans activists. I've seen the posts myself. She went on a deleting spree when she got in hot water for calling Imane Khelif trans, and spreading the lie that she was trans. She went hard after Imane and it resulted in Imane getting severely harassed. Even Rowling stepped in and joined in on the harassment.

When it came out that Rowling had been spreading a rumor backed by a discredited paper that made no such claims that Imane Khelif was male. Khelif sued her for the harassment campaign. Rowling thought she was leading a crusade on a trans woman beating up on women, when in reality Khelif is a woman. Rowling nuked her twitter, but people had already archived it. Rowling committed actual harassment, but thought it was ok because she thought she was targeting a trans woman. That is why she is in big trouble.

But what did she really do that was so wrong? I read her comments; they are opinions. For example, she is of the opinion that just because a biological man believes about himself that he is a biological woman does not make it so. It's fine if he wants to believe that about himself, but others should not be compelled to go along with his preferences about himself just to avoid hurting his feelings.

She did not get in any legal trouble for that.

To me, that is a perfectly reasonable opinion, but for that she was accused of being a criminal by the BBC, for which they had to later apologize, 3 separate times.

No it wasn't. The tweet that the BBC said COULD get her in trouble is this one.

"I hope every woman in Scotland who wishes to speak up for the reality and importance of biological sex will be reassured by this announcement, and I trust that all women - irrespective of profile or financial means - will be treated equally under the law.
"If they go after any woman for simply calling a man a man, I'll repeat that woman's words and they can charge us both at once."

Its that last one there, its where she said she will repeat that woman's words.


In that same article we get a quote from the first minister.

"The legislation does not prevent people expressing controversial, challenging or offensive views, nor does it seek to stifle criticism or rigorous debate in any way."

I DELETED THE OFF TOPIC TRUMP RANT

does it have to get into the dozens and thousands before we agree that there is a problem?

What exactly is the problem? What exactly do you think is going to happen?

First offence, fine. Someone got a little too emotional and let rhetoric get the better of them. Apologize and move on. But, then a second offence? Why did it happen again? I mean, I guess apologize and move on... But then, a third time? This is no accident. Even the apologies seem to only exist because the BBC gets its viewership from people who believe it is reputable.

The marketing department worked out that it would cost more in loss-of-trust viewership than would be gained from any public relations boost they may get from standing by the pro-woke editors who kept breaking the law.

Whether it's Peterson, Chapelle, Rowling, or whomever, the pattern is the same. Someone shares an opinion and the woke mob rips in to them with all the same accusations of transphobia, or hate speech.

Ok, so now its what I thought it was from the start. The current boogeyman. The evil people that want to hurt you for whatever the weekly reason is. You are aware that this boogeyman changes based on what is the popular culture war topic right? It has been crt, wokeness, the gay agenda, feminists, trans people, black lives matter, soros, secret space jews, etc. Its whatever it needs to be, and I'm just mentioning stuff from like the last 5 years.

You keep arguing that no one has yet been prosecuted by the law in Canada or, now, Scottland, and yet in each case there are many people who WANT these laws to be used to prosecute speech which is critical, of even just in disagreement of them.

And in each case we can point to the government of both Canada and Scotland saying that is not how the law is interpreted and that you won't get charged for basic disagreements, debate, or argument. Just like how you have freedom of speech, so does everyone else. People can speech at you until they are blue in the face, that does not mean the government is going to do anything to you.

As I have already asked you, what do you actually want done?

Rowling didn't say anything hateful or abusive. She said others should not be compelled to pretend that a biological man becomes a biological woman.

And Scotland said it was fine and they have no interest in going after her.

But, again, it's a distinction without a difference, because even she were a male-to-female boxer, you guys would still be upset with Rowling for the criticism. I know that because Jon Oliver made that clear in his show where he goes through three responses to the criticism that male-to-female should not play in women's sports; 1, There's not enough examples of this happening for anyone to feel concerned about it, 2, there's no evidence that there is physical advantage, and 3, You're really weird if you feel concerned about this.

What do you want? Jon Oliver punished? He has free speech too. What do you want?

You may not notice it, like going nose blind to a stink in your own room, but others notice this condescending attitude and it's almost certainly why Trump as re-elected. As bad as he is, they'd rather have him than the woke mob.

What do you want done? What do you want Trump to do?

I think the reason why you keep avoiding answering what you want done, will get you labled.

I am not saying you are hateful, but its pretty telling when you won't make a positive statement about what you want.

You know that shakesperian quote " I think she doth protest to much, methinks"?

 

[Barbarian]

I agree we need to have discussions around trans people and sports. The issue Rowling got herself into was claiming and spreading a rumor that someone was trans when there has not been any solid evidence that an Olympian that is representing a country where it is illegal to identify as trans, is trans.

Then it comes down to evidence. If she can't show some convincing evidence that she's right, I'd say she has exposed herself to an embarrassing and costly legal mess.

But, Rowling deserves respect, too, right?

To the degree she is willing to give it. What is legal to do, is not the same as that which is considered decent. If she slandered that person, (if) then she must bear the consequences.

I mean, accusing her of supporting genocide and suicide, and calling her a criminal, just because she says a biological man cannot become a biological female, is absurd.

Kinda like people who scream "think of the children" when frothing about drag queens and trans people in restrooms. As noted before, Protestant ministers are several times more likely to molest children than the transgendered. Catholic priests somewhat less but still more than the transgendered. But if we consider the most hysterical extremists as the norm, we'll always be wrong.

Yet, you keep suggesting that it is Rowling who is being rude.

It seems to me that it's none of her business. And if it turns out her allegations are false, she'll have to take the consequences for it.

No it wasn't. The tweet that the BBC said COULD get her in trouble is this one.

Like so many hateful people, Rowling seems to have a need to feel persecuted. Poor woman.