:hee:

Also, just now I've come across the "Women and cis women" stuff, yeah. She was accused of "othering" transpeople but I imagine people born as women find it pretty othering for it to now be a case of "trans women are WOMEN and women are CIS WOMEN". The sudden disdain for any mention of the word trans is what's causing any harm to that community, but at the same time they want to uphold use of the word "cis". It's hypocritical and toxic.



And as a cis, privileged white person that's me done. :worry:

Erm how so darlin!

TERFs do exist though, I think you're right in that there have been cases of 'Trans' people preying on women and using their status as a way of doing so but TERFs are basically extremists that oppose trans people in general and JK has been known to tweet support for TERFs that have been ruled in a court of law to be discriminating against trans people. TERFs are no different, in my eyes, to LGB people who oppose the T and want it abolished. It's not a word I'd use to describe just women either, any gender can be a TERF if they hold extreme views.

I do think that a lot of the problems with people abusing trans status would generally not be a thing if self diagnosis wasn't a thing. I don't think anyone should be able to say 'I am trans' and then start living as their preferred gender just because there's more to be considered than that unfortunately.

Which seems to be JKR's entire argument IMO. That you can't just erase biology from people who are born women, and you can't allow people to call themselves trans, which makes a mockery of the people who spend their lives fighting hard to be seen and treated as the sex they see themselves to be and actually transition.

I don't understand why more members of the trans community are not just as aggrieved as cis women about this self ID stuff. It's harmful to both.

I absolutely agree with your second paragraph but I also think this is the opinion of JK Rowling and most women who bring up womens rights, it's the self ID stuff that's the main issue :shrug:

Well then if self ID is the issue, why doesn’t JK and the women like her define their issues, rather than using blanket statements like trans women, they know what they’re doing when they do that, they love playing the victim when they receive abuse for their ignorance because they can play on it to try and prove their point

Because the responses to her have been full of nuance and careful handling of language and respect and not just dismissing her on the grounds that she's white, cis and rich?

Yeah and they’re awful obviously, but like I said, I think that’s the reaction she seeks, they shouldn’t give it to her because it allows her to justify her feelings on trans people, they play right into her hands and they continue to every time someone says something ignorant

What feelings? Her entire issue is with self ID and the claims that biological sex doesn't exist that comes from the extreme trans activists.

Where exactly is the trans hate?

Why is a transpersons feelings on the entire topic of gender and sex the only one allowed without people being shouted down? Do transpeople deserve equality? Yes. Do they have authority on the discussion concerning those topics? No.

I really do feel for JK Rowling. It's like she can do no right for simply stating her opinion, and from what I gather, she's also concerned about the safety and well-being of trans women.

Funnily enough, lots of people think this about bigotry in general.

The thing about JK's views and the whole #IStandWithJK thing is that it summons a ton of the sort of people she openly hates like flies to ****. Pretty sure the type of people who are saying they agree with her while yelling "Trans people need to shut up and deal with their choices" aren't the sort of support she'd want.

Exactly. Yet being told she's condoning and calling for the rape, abuse and murder of trans women. So.... not the rapist, abuser and murderers fault... but a woman's fault. Feminism has gotten a bit confused by itself. :shrug:

The whole thing is yet another example of the loudest extreme sides of both sides of the liberalism and free speech brigades hurling sticks at each other while ignoring the issue that the quieter people in the middle are sort of sensibly discussing between themselves.

Yep, and on this particular occasion they're all cis people. (kind of like in here :worry: Sorry about that).

I haven't looked back, has Scarlett offered her thoughts? I'd be interested to read them.

Then why use Twitter and her celebrity status and wording that is questionable if not objectionable to stir up controversy and fear. That helps no one.

People are getting riled up at Emma Watson for using her celebrity platform to be a feminist, and also to oppose Rowling. It goes both ways.

Ehhh she is quite blatantly not a transphobe, and my genuine concern is that by refusing to debate any nuance, transpeople and those supporting aggressive denouncing of counter-opinions are going to completely derail their own battle for increased rights. People shouting "Transphooobe!" without even an attempt to justify that as a response, and of course worst, comments that she can "eat a bag of dicks" or "suck my big trans cock" - comments so obviously drenched in male violence that go largely IGNORED because people didn't like what she had to say - are going to do far more harm to the average transperson than JK Rowling seeking an open discussion a thousand times over.

Is that Emma Watson stuff aimed at me lady. :nono:

I don't object to Emma Watson being a feminist or any other of the causes she puts her name to. I object to her shallowness on the subjects. She plops herself on podiums parroting slogans and phrases getting herself a pat on the back from minority groups and other women for being a "strong advocate" but then when (like now) the cause calls for a more nuanced and detailed actual discussion on the issue, she can't. It's shallow and meaningless and shows her up for the banal ambassador she is. A face and nothing more.

I don't think JKR's words have stirred up any fear. The fear has come from the absolutely ridiculous twisting of her words.

Emma had a moment there where people were calling for her input due to the Harry Potter link and she chose it to post 2 tweets that said.... nothing at all. And by simply saying nothing other than basically "trans women are women" it's almost like she's justifying and enabling the gross twisting of JKR's own words and the backlash she has received. It's completely gross and certainly not feminist.

I'm not trans, but I fight and stand along side of my trans kid everyday. I'm also a woman whose rights are meant to be imposed upon. I'm voicing that I'm not in anyway afraid of losing my womanhood by a trans woman being who she is.
I stood along side a friend this week who underwent trans surgery. She has been living as a woman for years already, but has to go through all the steps to get to this week. She was a woman to me before the surgery, and she is one today post it.

That's all well and good, but not exactly relating to JKR's words though?

She hasn't said transpeople are taking away her womanhood.

The activists calling for ridiculous changes where the law replaces sex with gender is the problem. Last year the debate was about gender and sex being different and now they want to replace one with the other. People are within their rights to get upset about it without being told they're completely against the other people that this concerns. As I said before, transpeople themselves should be concerned about it too, not just cis women.

Completely off topic, but I gave my father in law a few books to read over lockdown and I gave him a few of yours, he told me he loved them (that's a compliment because he told me he hated a couple of the books I gave him [emoji14] )

People are easily pleased in lock down. :idc:

I mean is it wrong to not want to be referred to as person who menstrates? How come it's only descriptions of women that's changing? Has anyone seen men described as prostate owners?

she has a gobby son! like mother like son

:omgno:

It is ridiculous that in their quest to drop the "trans" prefix and simply be referred to as woman, they still throw about the "cis" prefix.

I don't think differentiating with either trans or cis prefixes is a problem (personally) but if you're wanting to drop one prefix, don't force one on women who are quite clearly rejecting it. :shrug:

Aww how lovely, thank you! And thank him from me too! :love:

Shut it Karen

Did I do that right?

Prostate owner, if you must. :hmph:

Well, from prostate pleaser to prostate owner, keep your GOB SHUT.

See, I genuinely don't see it as a means of causing controversy or fear. As far as I'm concerned, both JK Rowling and Emma Watson should be able to say whatever they like on social media.

As do I but I still think she could have mentioned that the abuse JK was getting wasnt right, leaving that out is almost the same is saying its justified and I hope that's not what she was saying

Will do :love:

That would require her to actually add substance to her words.

She's basically a "L'Oreal girl for feminism", she doesn't do much.

I agree with Marsh here (yuk!).

My issue with the Potter franchise kids is not that they have differing opinions to JK Rowling... It's that they haven't bothered to - or don't have the ability to - engage her in discussion about it directly to express what it is they disagree with. Beyond that, they haven't even publicly managed to state a case in their own words for why they specifically disagree with her, when they're some of the few people who have a valid platform to do just that.

All they've done is pop their heads up, bleat a group-think mantra which I'm sorry I just cannot ****ing stand. Catchphrases for people who can't articulate their own thoughts to parrot "in support of X, Y, Z"... No. No thank you. As your ol primary school teacher might have said... "show your working". They say that for a reason. You show your reasoning so that people know you understand what you're saying and didn't copy it from the person sat next to you... Because if you did, you don't get the marks.

So yes, anyway, off track a little: I'm repulsed by the response of the Potter kids because it wasn't the personal or thought out response of people who actually give a ****, it was the parroted response of a group of celebrities who are worried that their own image might be attached to JK Rowling and are keen to express otherwise, to appease the fan base, and I imagine to protect their own image. It is shallow. I have very little time for it.

Yeah, I agree with you. However, that would mean she'd have to be gutsy enough to go against the mob mentality online.

It's terrible, really, especially on Twitter. You're vilified when you do give your opinion but you're also called out for your silence.

Exactly. This "ambassador for women's rights" had a moment to... be an ambassador for women's rights and got her PA to roll out a stock PR answer from the "basic phrases" handbook.

I found Daniel Radcliffe's response laughable too when he basically told people he was sorry she'd ruined the books for them. Apologising on her behalf AND justifying their "hatred" of her but without saying why. That does not work on so many levels.