[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

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.

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

[Liam-]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

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

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

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Liam-

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?

[Liam-]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

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

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Liam-

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.

[Braden]

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.

[Rob!]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

Unless you use Reddit they can't still be a thing in 2020?

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

[Rob!]

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.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Braden

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.

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.

[Rob!]

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.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Rob!

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 Sorry about that).

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

[Mokka]

Originally Posted by Braden

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.

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.

[user104658]

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.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Mokka

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.

Is that Emma Watson stuff aimed at me lady.

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.

[Mokka]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

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

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

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.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Mokka

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.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Rob!

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.

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 )

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

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 )

People are easily pleased in lock down.

[Niamh.]

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?

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Cal.

Erm how so darlin!

she has a gobby son! like mother like son

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

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?

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.

[Rob!]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

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 )

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

[Rob!]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

People are easily pleased in lock down.

Shut it Karen

[Rob!]

Did I do that right?

[Marsh.]

Prostate owner, if you must.