Hooter, I’m not going to debate with you calling me a misogynist. I hope the mods are taking note of your conduct.
Agreed. And Moose has already demonstrated it by doing exactly that in this thread. There is a world of difference between the people you describe, yet that is given no consideration at all. The only people who will suffer from such a scenario are women and girls, and it seems very unfortunate that any attempt to discuss the issues, or even recognise them, is met with complete rejection or attempts to demonise them. It is a real shame, because the SNP had a real opportunity to achieve something, highlighting and discussing all of the issues involved (even the possibility of finding a more mutual resolution), but instead chose to die on a hill that was bereft of any moral fortification.
I hope everyone is taking note of what I am saying. I am not accusing you of being a misogynist. I am describing your behaviour as misogynistic, and I am explaining why I believe that is the case. I think it is your own words that make you out to be a misogynist without any help from me. All I am doing is discussing your freely given description of your own beliefs. But whilst you are at it, you can draw their attention to post 26, above, in which you attempt to smear me by misrepresenting what I said, or post 16 in which you lie, not for the first time, about national statistics to exaggerate a point. Note that, on both occasions, I returned your argument and addressed what you said, rather than complain that the mods did not delete your messages. That is the nature of a forum, and I would hope that provided an argument is reasoned, it is not forbidden. Again. I wasn’t insulting you, I was making an observation parallel with your own comments about me. For the record, if I had simply posted a message saying you were a misogynist, without explanation, I would expect it to be removed. But that is not what I did, and I couldn’t have said what I did without you demonstrating the behaviour first.
What is the effect on Hooter Moose? Please explain, if you can… I don’t think I have expressed a derivative thought in this thread yet, but all you have spouted is left wing dogma and previously disseminated lies (UK murder rate) as argument. It is clear which of us is receiving instructions from above mate. You post like a Guardian Twitter feed, try to get posts deleted and then suggest the rest of us are brain washed
The debate isn't about trans rights being extended though. That's the issue. The debate is about what constitutes 'trans.' If all that defines a trans woman (and by default a woman) is that you say you feel like a woman, then what's to stop anyone from doing so? Trans women or sex offender? What's the barrier between the two?
This And that the modern trans lobby has taken the issue from a genuinely benevolent consideration to an in your face post modernist FU to society, is unfortunate to say the least.
When my Greek mate at Canterbury got 'doctored', directly after his viva I presented him with the mother of all spliffs proudly inscribed with the word "μyλακα". He took me task for misspelling the word and I found it most amusing that he only managed to smoke to down to the "y" before passing out - some sort of divine retribution was going on there.
Just for a bit of context, in the game this is the character that has got everyone in a hissy. Her name is Sirona Ryan. She runs a bar called the "Three Broomsticks" and although not playing a massive role in the game gives out a few quests later on and protects you in Hogsmead from a villian. Voice actor is obviously done with a male voice but perhaps given a slight feminine twang with effects. Overall, the character is portrayed well, voiced excellent and no other character in the game (rightly) is against his view to be this way. If you took this character out of the game I am almost certain none of this would of happened. I do not blame the developers for this, I do not blame Rowling either (she had no actual involvement in the game's creation at all), but I do blame the small percentage of people who have blown this whole thing out of proportion. I've been to a lot of "Pride" events in my life time. I've seen a lot of Trans women, Drag Queens, Trans Men as well. How a person chooses to live their lives is their own choice at the end of the day. Nobody but that person has any right to say otherwise. I've been in relationships with more females than males and I am not afraid to publically say this on a football forum. To me it doesn't matter, it's an IP address on the Internet with a screen name. But the person behind it is a real person who is freely allowed to express their beliefs if they so choose to. I do somewhat agree (having re-read alot of what Rowling said in old Tweets) about trans women entering a female-only public bathroom for example, that is something that does happen but until their is an actual law to stop it I cannot see it ending completely. One of my best friends is a women who goes to rallies about LBGT+ movements, and she also feels this is getting way too much media attention especially has a video game is a form of entertainment at the end of the day. The person above isn't a real person, she is a essentially a bunch of binary numbers, which makes it pretty ironic that the outcome to any debate will be right or wrong, true or false, one or zero.
You're right, I just randomly pasted a quote I didn't know existed before today and happened to come across through sheer happenstance. I will say, though, that the irony of you posting that after bemoaning how (not) well read the British public is sheer chef's kiss perfection.
Lewis would say that wouldn't he? He was clearly pi55ed (as usual) and trying to flog a few more books to grown ups when he came out with that twaddle. Pure marketing. If he were alive today he'd probably give the middle-aged knobs that ride push-along scooters the thumbs up!
I think you may have gotten this a little bit the wrong way round, but it is interesting to hear it from your angle. The Sirona character was a side issue that was criticised as a missfired act of appeasement after the game came out, and is really only a side show in attempts by the 'HP trans lobby' to criticise everything about the game. The campaign against the game is very old, and is based solely on a dislike of JK Rowling. It is a development of the 'quiddich scandal', and the complaints of what Rowling said are exactly the same as the ones that people are now looking at, scratching their heads and saying "that's not what she said". Quidditch scandal: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-59726281 But this Atlantic article shows the root and how far back it stretches. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-59726281 There appeared to be a serious belief that a political victory (if it was moral, there would have been no need to lie) could be achieved, because a very vocal but small group on social media could generate enough hatred of JK Rowling that even she could be cancelled. The Atlantic demonstrates the dilemma for the activists perfectly. They want Rowling not to profit from Harry Potter, but to do that they must create a situation where people's disgust at her published opinions outweighs their desire to interact with the fruits of her creativity, and thus pay her royalties. It is such a wonderful thing to see your eyes opened to what that very small group, through social media, have achieved by blatantly lying about and miss-representing what she said. I could have waffled on about it for a year switching you off to it, but because this piqued your interest, you have seen the reality of it. Imagine now if they did that with a politician, an actor or even a President of the United States!! That such a small group could influence or control, virtually unconsciously, the wider world to accept, without question (until something like this came along) their lies and propaganda. You may not realise it, but this, and more specifically what you have done on this forum, is the thin end of a wedge that it can be hoped, by those who dislike the effect that you have highlighted, will see a change in the consciousness of our societies. I hope that others are now asking where else this highly moralised use of virtue signalling and fake outrage, fuelled by lies and propaganda, is being used to manipulate the collective conscience. Watch out for posters on here who speak in absolute terms about Rowlings opinions, or any persons opinion where they appeal only to common understanding (rather than actual data), then ask yourself, given what you have recently found out, how they came to that conclusion, and whether they are trying to fairly discus a subject with you, or whether they simply want you to fall into line agreeing with them. The big tell is when they make it clear that to disagree with them is to become demonised. Personally, I don't ask you to agree with me. I am just pleased that people are asking more questions, because when they do they can discover that not every virtue signal is what they were told. People not knowing this is not the problem. It is more that our guard is down, because of coersive virtual signalling that relies on our good nature and lack of curiosity. My big eye opener was when I tried to find out how such a disgusting racist like Donald Trump could become President. Don't get me wrong, the guy is a nob. But he is not a racist, and there is no evidence that he is. Yet with Joe Biden you do not need to look very hard to find racism, and he gets a free ride, even though his own VP called him out for opposing anti Jim Crow bills that affected her as a mixed race school child back in the seventies. Yet Biden's the white saviour and Trump is the disgusting racist. Am I wrong in thinking that that is how most people see the situation? Don't trust me, or people who appear like me! Always check it out for yourselves. And always distrust anyone who tells you not to bother because "we already know she's a transphobe".
Classic Hooter strawman. No one has spoken in ‘absolute terms’ about Rowling’s opinions other than those who claim she has a track record in supporting LGBT. This tenuous argument to crowbar in a claim that Trump is not a racist. That’s the President who described certain African Countries as ‘Sh*t hole Countries’, told a non-white congresswomen ‘to go back to where she came from’, called Mexicans ‘rapists’ entertained white supremacists at his home and encouraged a white insurgency to get ‘their’ Country ‘back’. How does anyone reach the opinion no evidence of racism? Well, we know the answer to that and why this debate is so delicious to some. They can turn their powerful heroes into victims.
So are you calling GoBE a racist Moose All those things with Trump have context, but if you consider what he has said, and compare it with things you and others have said on this forum, where you consider yourself an anti racist (third world, black and brown people, ****ish minorities), there are parallels between the rhetoric you and Trump choose to use. Should we not judge you the way you judge him? As for not talking in absolute terms, here's you saying that Rowling hasn't dialled down something no one other than you and the trans lobby has said... To ask us to accept what you say, we must accept she is a trans phobe or said the things people are now coming to understand she didn't say in the first place. What did she say that was trans phobic? How should she dial down her positive comments about LGBGT? You do the same here, as I pointed out in my post above, without explaining what her dubious causes are, but expecting us to agree with you. This is exactly what I warned we should look out for... People are cottoning on to the schtick. If you want to be taken seriously, don't just allude to a supposed common understanding, explauin what she said, because everyone who has commented more positively on her has stated that they have not seen it. If you are going to criticize and insult a person, at least explain why. And thank you, again. You can always be relied upon to demonstrate the traits I describe the unfortunate elements of the far left as having.
Todays new Left eating it's own tail , right before everyone's eyes . I know I am a drunk old skool bigot but hey , my cares were socio-economic. Today it's about uvver stuff old farts like myself cannot understand. IMO the Labour mob should split into 2 . Old skool socio-economic and New Labour middle class woke ****ery with their 1st world issues
I bloody love Harry Potter, as someone who is now in their 30s. The books, not any of the films (maybe with the exception of the DH pt 2). It isn't the best-written fantasy by any stretch of the imagination, nor does it create a world as rich as someone like Tolkein. Her sports writing is particularly poor. However, I still think it is genius and its universality is a testament to that. Rowling released each book to the reading level of the character, so readers could grow up, or see their own children grow up, with the books. The blending of worlds is also done very well. So irrespective whatever is discussed in the trans debate, which should be treated with compassion and consideration from both sides... Harry Potter is amazing. I will completely ignore anyone who disagrees and think you are so frighteningly wrong that you should probably be under some sort of mandatory state supervision for your own protection. END OV.
