JK Rowling on Keir Starmer

[quote Igneococcus]Letters in the Times today:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/29adb314-a60e-11ec-a0e9-23fd932feb90?shareToken=2fb93a5c32e916e40de1f1e74d96aed3[/quote]
I got mine shown in the Irish version , but only in print. I'm glad they are continuing to show letters about this topic.

As for this nonsense:
I love being a woman (or trans woman, if you insist) and support the feminist movement, but I am disillusioned that some women are using masculine behaviour to aggressively promote their agenda in an uncompromising way.

No Diane, you are not a woman, and you never will be. I will not be a participant in your self delusion.

There are about 450 and they are almost all about Diane's letter.

Anybody going to write in to counter ‘Diane’? I was thinking of it. Is it worth it?

The comments below have amply covered off the response to ‘Diane’ but it would be good if print version readers had a counter-response.

"some women are using masculine behaviour"

But how can we tell, in this brave new gender fluid world? Where there are many more than 2 sexes ...?

If you deliberately muddy the water you cannot then pretend it's drinkable.

This reads like trolling:

I love being a woman (or trans woman, if you insist) and support the feminist movement, but I am disillusioned that some women are using masculine behaviour to aggressively promote their agenda in an uncompromising way.

Clearly Diane believes that women should behave like 1950s housewives. That is the type of woman that Diane would like to be. Sadly for Diane a set of behaviours do not make womanhood, biology does. And women do not want to share women's spaces with people like Diane. Because Diane is one of the men who are the problem.

We’re just not ladylike enough for Dianne…

Its funny because the masculine behaviour comment can be read 2 ways. Firstly that women are acting in a masculine way or, as I initially read it, women shouldn’t be using the ‘masculine behaviour’ of others as an argument for single sex spaces? As the letter is written by a TW I gather now the first is what was meant.

I love being a woman (or trans woman, if you insist) and support the feminist movement, but I am disillusioned that some women are using masculine behaviour to aggressively promote their agenda in an uncompromising way. A little more listening and less shouting might resolve the debate and enable us to move on to the real threat to women from abusive men — predominantly partners.

My eyes are rolling so much from that comment that they're in danger of jumping out of my head. FFS.

Many thanks for the share token, @Igneococcus. I see that all the other letters are pro JKR. I like this one: It’s interesting that an author of children’s fantasy books makes so much more real-world sense than the leader of Her Majesty’s opposition, who seems to believe in magical thinking. Thank you, Ellie, for that!

Yes, poor Diane is very disappointed with us, it's a wee shame.

[quote Igneococcus]Letters in the Times today:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/29adb314-a60e-11ec-a0e9-23fd932feb90?shareToken=2fb93a5c32e916e40de1f1e74d96aed3[/quote]
Typically TW Diana gets in a dig about feminists not ladying properly - “aggressively masculine” if I recall correctly to describe women’s rights campaigners.

Letters in the Times today:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/29adb314-a60e-11ec-a0e9-23fd932feb90?shareToken=2fb93a5c32e916e40de1f1e74d96aed3

JKR is bloody amazing.
Sir Kier comes across as a clueless ditherer.

"Is Keir persuadable? What does he need to hear or think to decide that he's going to support women and just be brave and face his own party?"

Tbh I'm not prepared to try and persuade the leader of the Labour Party of my humanity. He can whistle

Is Keir persuadable? What does he need to hear or think to decide that he's going to support women and just be brave and face his own party?

Do I care? I am appalled that Keir Starmer deliberately misquoted the Law in his recent pronouncements. The best way to make them see sense is not to vote for them and to support the Tories instead (i.e. hurt them at the ballot box - spoiling your vote isn't as effective and just disenfranchises women as a sex group which is probably what they want). We Women have only had the vote for 100 years after all.
Alas the Conservatives are pretty much the only mainstream party which allows members independent thought on these and many other matters.
As a former LP member I currently have zero intention of ever voting Labour again - as to get this so wrong beggars belief and along with many other things shows that the Labour Party does not learn from past mistakes
e.g. 'Militant Tendency' re-appears as 'Momentum and Corbyn' a couple of decades later. Life's too short to sit through this stuff again and 'keep the (Labour) faith'.
I have a real issue with especially female MPs of any party (Mordaunt, Nandy etc) trying to gaslight women voters with this stuff...that 'transphobic hate group' declaration thing in the Labour Leadership election really was the last straw for many women I expect.

So please use your votes but not for parties which refuse to respect your biological sex rights.

Thank you Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g, BraveBananaBadge, itsnotdeep & WellThatsMeScrewed

This whole thing is bad enough as it is but to then have disability dragged in as if any political party have suggested they give even the tiniest of fucks about the disabled population… (“Hurrah for our Paralympians! Look, you got a medal, what do you mean you need better funding?” is somehow still a thing, for example, despite Team GB being ranked 2nd in world for Paralympic Medals vs 4th for Olympic ones*. The influx of cash just announced isn’t to balance investment either. Ugh.)

Hence, I fear, the state of my fields.

• both sets stats from Wikipedia

This is a great thread.

How lovely would it be if JK started a new party all of her own. What an inspiring leader she would be.

This has been pointed out before, but it maybe repays repetition regarding Starmer's reported claim that 'transwomen are women ... that is actually the law.' ...

Whether or not the intersection between the 2004 [Gender Recognition] Act and the 2010 [Equality] Act gives this result, it does so if at all at best in application to people with a GRC, and moreover in just the etiolated sense that, for instance, it is actually the law that a corporation is a person.

[See, eg, Oxford Business Law Blog ... Corporations are universally treated by the law as ‘legal persons'. ]

'It is actually the law that a [GRC certificated] transwoman is a woman in the same sense as Tesco PLC is a person.' ... does not quite have the same ring to it, does it? Sir Keir knows the score here, both as a lawyer and as a politician. He should be ashamed of his obfuscation and trimming on this issue.

All kudos to JKR for keeping on keeping on.

Apols. I should have been clearer.

I really didn't think my comment was that oblique but two people seem to have misread it tho ...

Ha ha don't worry!