[Amy Jade]

I still like Amber and think she's an excellent actress but I fully believe they were abusive to each other and both did wrong 100% so shes silly making out she was some beaten down fragile ex

[Oliver_W]

I wonder if people will be trying to get her movie roles cancelled, like they were with Depp? Is she gonna be in Aquaman 2?

[Jigs]

Dan Wootton is the Perez of this decade. He's a successful man but at what cost?

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Liam-

.
Comparing being trans to gays being forced to go through conversation therapy was a new low even for her

Depends, wasn't she comparing children being given drugs to allow them to transition as like putting gay kids through conversion therapy?

I think part of the backlash against her is thinking "trans" is one group of people or one entity, when really she's speaking up about a lot of stuff that's grown up around trans rights (stemming from extreme activists) that is really quite dangerous if it's allowed to continue (and dangerous FOR trans people as well as cis people).

[GoldHeart]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

All the anti-trans stuff basically, she's becoming more and more extreme with it. I used to agree with her to an extent but it's becoming more and more apparent that she has a massive issue with trans people in general.

She is not anti trans, for god sake she's even supportive and has trans fans and friends. These days its too easy to jump on the bandwagon and think bad of people .

All she said was the biological gender thing or am I missing something? . JK is unfairly getting stick over this .

[Liam-]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Depends, wasn't she comparing children being given drugs to allow them to transition as like putting gay kids through conversion therapy?

I think part of the backlash against her is thinking "trans" is one group of people or one entity, when really she's speaking up about a lot of stuff that's grown up around trans rights (stemming from extreme activists) that is really quite dangerous if it's allowed to continue (and dangerous FOR trans people as well as cis people).

Yeah that’s what she did, it’s a totally fabricated comparison, she’s using a historic tragedy for gay people to try and emotionally strengthen her, often misguided, opinions, conversion therapy is forced, nobody is forcing anybody to be transgender.

Therein lies her problem, for a very talented author she is very bad at articulating whatever she thinks her points are, more often than not she uses sources that aren’t proven, that aren’t really supported by science and she doesn’t help herself when she uses opinions from anti-lgbt organisations to try and back her up, she loves to have her opinion, but when people question her, she decides to say it’s because she’s a woman, not because she’s a horror.
Many people have reservations about self ID and that is fine, but she doesn’t say that, she lumps all Transgender under the same umbrella.

She shows no intention of trying to converse with trans people to try and understand, that’s part of the problem, she doesn’t want a discussion, she wasn’t to lecture

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Liam-

Yeah that’s what she did, it’s a totally fabricated comparison, she’s using a historic tragedy for gay people to try and emotionally strengthen her, often misguided, opinions, conversion therapy is forced, nobody is forcing anybody to be transgender.

Therein lies her problem, for a very talented author she is very bad at articulating whatever she thinks her points are, more often than not she uses sources that aren’t proven, that aren’t really supported by science and she doesn’t help herself when she uses opinions from anti-lgbt organisations to try and back her up, she loves to have her opinion, but when people question her, she decides to say it’s because she’s a woman, not because she’s a horror.

She shows no intention of trying to converse with trans people to try and understand, that’s part of the problem, she doesn’t want a discussion, she wasn’t to lecture

Tbf, she does converse with transpeople. What she refuses to do is converse with the extreme trans-activists that are drowning everyone else's voices out IMO.

And, in my opinion, allowing children to transition and take drugs to facilitate that is dangerous.

But I won't turn the thread into the trans debate.

[Liam-]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Tbf, she does converse with transpeople. What she refuses to do is converse with the extreme trans-activists that are drowning everyone else's voices out IMO.

And, in my opinion, allowing children to transition and take drugs to facilitate that is dangerous.

But I won't turn the thread into the trans debate.

She converses with the transpeople that agree with her

Children aren’t allowed to transition, you have to be 18 to transition, puberty blockers that are given are completely reversible and gives questioning children time to come to terms with whatever they are, but they’re not handed out like candy like JK and the like seem to think they are

[GoldHeart]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Tbf, she does converse with transpeople. What she refuses to do is converse with the extreme trans-activists that are drowning everyone else's voices out IMO.

And, in my opinion, allowing children to transition and take drugs to facilitate that is dangerous.

But I won't turn the thread into the trans debate.

Those extreme idiots are making the trans community look bad , and it's child abuse .

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Liam-

She converses with the transpeople that agree with her

Children aren’t allowed to transition, you have to be 18 to transition, puberty blockers that are given are completely reversible and gives questioning children time to come to terms with whatever they are, but they’re not handed out like candy like JK and the like seem to think they are

Well, tbf, the trans activists who are the ones with an issue with her statements don't really want a debate. They shout TERF and shut down anyone who doesn't just trot out their previously agreed phrases. If you even slightly question their demands or offer a nuanced discussion of it you're immediately a TERF. Probably why Emma Watson didn't offer any input to the discussion in any detail, just tweeted one sentence to please everyone for fear of backlash.

There's wrong on both sides, but I personally have no time for the extreme activists who want their way or no way in regards to any issue and to hell with everyone else and their views or needs.

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Liam-

puberty blockers that are given are completely reversible

It's still unclear as to how reversible they are, plus they come with other nasty side effects.

Potential immediate side effects of puberty blockers include hot flashes, swelling, headaches, and weight gain. Long-term side effects could possibly include bone density loss and subfertility, which is why using puberty blockers for more than four years is not recommended.

According to the BBC, there is no clear data on how exactly puberty blockers might affect adolescent brain development and mental health. Obtaining informed consent from children — considered unfit to make mature, long term decisions — for a process that might affect them for their entire adult life is also a debate that hasn’t found any clear-cut answers.
> https://theswaddle.com/what-are-puberty-blockers/

[Liam-]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Well, tbf, the trans activists who are the ones with an issue with her statements don't really want a debate. They shout TERF and shut down anyone who doesn't just trot out their previously agreed phrases. If you even slightly question their demands or offer a nuanced discussion of it you're immediately a TERF. Probably why Emma Watson didn't offer any input to the discussion in any detail, just tweeted one sentence to please everyone for fear of backlash.

There's wrong on both sides, but I personally have no time for the extreme activists who want their way or no way in regards to any issue and to hell with everyone else and their views or needs.

The extreme ones are horrifying tbf, they’re very militant, but then how are people meant to feel if people are trying to devalue their existence? Then on the other hand, look at the response Margaret Atwood is getting for believing in the opposite of JK, it’s just as bad. However there are many level headed trans people she could discuss things with, Paris Lees for one, Monroe Burgdof is another one, she just doesn’t come across as someone who is willing to hear that people think she’s wrong, even if they’re respectful, I mean, she tweeted her admiration for someone and then deleted it and unfollowed him because he told someone he supported trans rights, she does herself no favours and often comes across as a standard bigot

[Liam-]

But back to Johnny, I was ready a reporters tweets from the trial and it sounded like he got a battering by the Sun’s defence for being a historic drunk and drug taker, but he handled it well by all accounts and then Herd walked past him in the corridor and stared him out trying to intimidate him

[parmnion]

****ing weirdo.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Liam-

The extreme ones are horrifying tbf, they’re very militant, but then how are people meant to feel if people are trying to devalue their existence? Then on the other hand, look at the response Margaret Atwood is getting for believing in the opposite of JK, it’s just as bad. However there are many level headed trans people she could discuss things with, Paris Lees for one, Monroe Burgdof is another one, she just doesn’t come across as someone who is willing to hear that people think she’s wrong, even if they’re respectful, I mean, she tweeted her admiration for someone and then deleted it and unfollowed him because he told someone he supported trans rights, she does herself no favours and often comes across as a standard bigot

Tbf, I feel her problem with people like Stephen King is the same as mine, offering no input to a discussion but the pre-approved phrase that doesn't actually add anything. Just like Emma Watson, he may have posted nothing at all considering all he added to it. The discussion is too complex to be a "trans women are women" or even a "trans women are trans women" type of thing. And their kind of posturing doesn't help.

But I completely agree on any kind of militant activist, it destroys any actual progress for anyone.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Liam-

But back to Johnny, I was ready a reporters tweets from the trial and it sounded like he got a battering by the Sun’s defence for being a historic drunk and drug taker, but he handled it well by all accounts and then Herd walked past him in the corridor and stared him out trying to intimidate him

Are they suggesting his history of drinking and drugs makes it ok for them to post sh*t about him and ruin his career?

As for Herd, I saw the image of her walking into court linking the arms of her lawyer and was it a friend or sister or something? She's a performer. All I'll say is it doesn't say much for him that he was so easily duped by her if the stories of her pretending she had the same interest and hobbies as him to get to the point where he married her. A bloody mess of a relationship.

It is nice to see his exes come out in support of him though.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Tbf, I feel her problem with people like Stephen King is the same as mine, offering no input to a discussion but the pre-approved phrase that doesn't actually add anything. Just like Emma Watson, he may have posted nothing at all considering all he added to it. The discussion is too complex to be a "trans women are women" or even a "trans women are trans women" type of thing. And their kind of posturing doesn't help.



But I completely agree on any kind of militant activist, it destroys any actual progress for anyone.

I definitely agree with that. There is currently -- no one -- more dangerous to genuine trans people than people on the extreme fringes of trans rights and those who refuse to see that some purported transwomen are in fact problematic fetishists. They're right there in front of your face. They know fine well these individuals exist. They just think admitting it would be damaging when, ironically, it's the dogma and refusal to explore the issues that's going to end up absolutely decimating decades of progress when the bubble bursts.

[arista]

[arista]

[arista]

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Yeah that was an odd story, with all the tapes etc that were released, seems like she was the abuser there though although wasn't there a first set of recordings that seemed to say he was the one? If so not sure he can sue them for lying as such?

*I may not have the full set of facts on this story

To me it sounds like both of them were abusive at different points, but that Amber Heard tried to spin the story into her being the victim.

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by parmnion

****ing weirdo.

Wooton or Amber?

[Amy Jade]

Originally Posted by Mystic Mock

To me it sounds like both of them were abusive at different points, but that Amber Heard tried to spin the story into her being the victim.

This is how I feel. I definitely believe he hit her and she hit him also before anyone pulls me up for it

[Tom4784]

Given what we know now, I think it's wrong to paint both sides as equally wrong. She's a psychological abuser, she put him in a position where she basically said she could do what she wanted to him and he'd be the villain and she proved it right with her lies to the world.

He was likely broken down by her abuse and lashed out which isn't right but it doesn't make him an abuser either. If you were to flip the genders, would you say a woman is an abuser if she is abused, finally snaps and lashes out? According to the law, she wouldn't be considered so given that there was a murder charge that was overturned a year or two ago with a woman who, after years of abuse, killed her husband. She was found guilty, I believe but then the courts recognised the effects of things like psychological abuse and coercive control and overturned it and I believe they wrote it into law as a justifiable defense although I'd have to google that last bit.

It's an extreme example, but, regardless of gender, if you abuse someone and they eventually snap, it doesn't make them an abuser for defending themselves.

[Vanessa]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Given what we know now, I think it's wrong to paint both sides as equally wrong. She's a psychological abuser, she put him in a position where she basically said she could do what she wanted to him and he'd be the villain and she proved it right with her lies to the world.

He was likely broken down by her abuse and lashed out which isn't right but it doesn't make him an abuser either. If you were to flip the genders, would you say a woman is an abuser if she is abused, finally snaps and lashes out? According to the law, she wouldn't be considered so given that there was a murder charge that was overturned a year or two ago with a woman who, after years of abuse, killed her husband. She was found guilty, I believe but then the courts recognised the effects of things like psychological abuse and coersive control and overturned it and I believe they wrote it into law as a justifiable defense although I'd have to google that last bit.

It's an extreme example, but, regardless of gender, if you abuse someone and they eventually snap, it doesn't make them an abuser for defending themselves.

Yes, I agree with you 100%.
And his exes all defended him. Surely if he had a history of violence it would have come out already?
She's a narcissistic sociopath and painted herself as the victim.
When in fact she was the abuser.