John Cleese defends JKR

He's being told, over and over not to even ask.

It's rude. It's denying their existence. It's been answered already, dur (presumably by 'choke on dick and die'). It's transphobic because he should gain all the information first before asking for it online.

He will not be answered. Not once. No sir. Not at all.

#NoDebate

Has someone shared this (from another thread) with him please? It's so brilliant. Monty Python couldn't exist today as they made the normal absurd and the normal today is absurd.

www.bustle.com/p/how-eyeliner-defines-my-womanhood-54595

Sorry realised my last comment totally missed the point of the thread. Good on JKR and JC

"He read Law at Cambridge."
That explains his technique, ask questions to the witnesses so they speak such self-contradictory claptrap that everyone sees they have nothing real or true to speak of. Bravo John!

@MrsJamin have just watched life of Brian on the back of that clip!

Also common is "well, if women are going to be attacked by men anyway ...".

Yes, this pops up a lot. The 'rapists gonna rape' defense. I think offering the reference of, say, women's prisons is a useful one. But that type of practical, critically urgent situation is clearly not something these people are even aware of. I guess they're operating on a slightly rosy-tinted view of society, where people are divided up neatly into 'good' and 'nasty' and it's very easy to discern them just by looking.

Oh, god knows. I think I might have run out of energy trying to make allowances for all the lazy, dim, and easily persuaded failures of logic people have made. They need to wake up. Now.

It's shocking how many trans activist responses are pure disinformation. I'm losing count of the number of flat-out denials that self-ID is just what it says, a declaration of identity by oneself without anything additional being necessary. There are kind responses saying that the activists are mistaken. Bollocks are they mistaken, they long ago lost any sense of needing to speak facts and the truth when they push their ideology.

Also common is "well, if women are going to be attacked by men anyway ...".

and then the penny dropped that once we couldnt define woman to not include men then nothing at all could ever be solely for women again

Yes. I have seen some pennies start to drop, in real time, in the past couple of weeks. It's ... a relief.

It's the Louis Theroux style of questioning isn't it.

I don't think he'll back down.

John Cleese knows what he's doing. He's giving them an opportunity to look batshit and playing innocent.

He knows what the issue is about and he knows its bullshit. He knows how language works and he knows how to make others show themselves up and reveal more than they intend.

He read Law at Cambridge.

And also haven’t seen the nastier side of TRA shouting down and abusing anyone who disagrees

Oh my, that Twitter threat is so polite. Noone is saying he is a bigot, or that he is killing trans folk or that he needs to suck cock.

Isn't that wonderful?

I think most men see through TWAW (certainly for relationship purposes) but they see it as a relatively harmless fiction (which it is, for them).

I agree, I think this applies to 80% of the people who support TWAW without having really thought about it. They just think supporting is being nice and inclusive and haven’t followed it through to the logical consequences for girls’ dorms, women’s sport etc.

I think most men see through TWAW (certainly for relationship purposes) but they see it as a relatively harmless fiction (which it is, for them). Here's hoping the abuse that JKR is getting will open a few eyes and more will speak out.

And God, yes, the difference between "educate yourself, man" and "choke on my dick, woman" is so blindingly obvious to anyone who wants to see.

How heartening! There are a lot of famous people who secretly support JKR. If they all officially support her, then there won't be anything to be scared of. Strenght in numbers.

I hope he doesn't backtrack. He's a smart, wealthy man who, by 80, shouldn"t need to give shit about twitter activists

I imagine that, at 80, you might worry about the big stuff like death or your children and grandchildren. I can't imagine worrying much about being cancelled by Twitter warriors, not even by Daniel Radcliffe.

My worry is he will do an reverse ferret and say he was confused etc...

He might but he doesn't strike me at all as the type to be easily cancelled.

a reverse ferret... not 'an'

My worry is he will do an reverse ferret and say he was confused etc...

There's nothing behind it. It baffles me how this has passed for a 'debate'

It hasn't. They've been saying 'no debate' for years, so the debate hasn't happened. Yet.

And it's much easier and safer for men to speak up

I think I understand why many don't. There has been a prevailing discourse over the last decade or so that people shouldn't speak about issues that they have no experience of, instead they should listen:
white people shouldn't speak about racism, they should listen to people of colour; heterosexuals shouldn't talk about homosexuality, they should listen to people who are LGB; men shouldn't talk about feminism, they should listen to women; authors should only write about the culture they come from ... I can see how many have got the idea that they shouldn't have opinions about trans, they should instead listen to transpeople.
It's clearly a stupid idea - how is anyone supposed to learn anything without discussing it? - but plenty of people have been stamped down for this.

Actually, I just realised that my dad used to do the same as John Cleese in certain meetings. He called it “the farmer from the countryside technique” (probably terribly non-PC, but those were different times).

Basically, my dad would pretend not to understand and repeatedly ask for (reasonable) clarifications. He used this when other parties were trying to use business jargon or trying to add a lot of complexity to draw the attention away from mistakes or poor procedures.

He could have entered into a very high level debate, but his concern was that a) it would distract from the actual issue and b) that a lot of decision makers wouldn’t understand that he had won the debate.