Is JK Rowling ‘too big to be cancelled’?

wasnt for want of trying though was it!

left to the devices of the SNP Isla “rapist gender” Bryson would be in a female prison

A failed bill hasn't stopped men going into places they shouldn't. Crimes are still being recorded in a person's preferred gender.

I'd use 'supported' loosely. I'd wager that more than a few were whipped.

Men barging their way into spaces, sports and prisons where they have no right to be and our shite government for allowing this.

How can that be the case when the gender reform bill which was supported by MSPs from all parties has been blocked by our Westminster overlords? Absolutely nothing has changed in Scotland.

@Badburyrings and @BIWI

How arrogant of you to think that because we disagree with you we’re missing the point or unaware of current affairs. My job relates directly to current affairs and I’ve been doing it successfully for over two decades. I can assure you no points are missed, I just don’t think you’ve made any that are particularly convincing.

In the end the circular arguments tied to patriarchal ideas, boxing into categories and combined with the far right push to a nuclear family that can be controlled, versus the embracing of the spectrum of human variety and celebrating the difference, fail in themselves.

You know, once you've been following the gender vs sex topic for a while across various platforms, you see a very clear pattern of phrases belonging to gender critical criticism of gender ideology turning up a few weeks or months later as accusations from genderists against gender criticism.

Of course flipped this way they make no sense at all.

"circular arguments"
GI: "a woman is anyone who says they are a woman" - circular
GC: "a woman is a biological female, including biological females with natural or elective physical variations" - not circular

"patriarchal ideas"
GI: "Women are mentally different to men. A woman is someone of either sex whose personality meets the cultural tropes of womanhood" - patriarchal

GC: "a woman is a biological female. Her womanhood is just a fact about her that does not restrict her to and is not contingent on any specific mental or cultural attributes" - not patriarchal

"boxing into categories"

GI: "you are assigned a gender based on your sex. If your box doesn't fit you need to transition by picking the gender box that matches your character" - boxing into categories

GC: "Your body has a sex. That has physical consequences. Our culture imposes personality boxes based on sex. Transitioning is just swapping one box for another. By its existence it implicitly validates the existence of the boxes. The real aim is to have no boxes." - rejects boxing into categories

"embracing of the spectrum of human variety and celebrating the difference"

GI: "you can only be accepted as yourself by embracing sex stereotypes or transitioning " - puts conditions around the spectrum of human variety and makes celebrates the difference contingent on social rituals

GC: "You are you and that's ok. Your sex is just your sex. You don't need to perform a gender or a physical or social transition to be accepted and acceptable exactly as you are." - embracing of the spectrum of human variety and celebrating the difference

"combined with the far right push to a nuclear family that can be controlled"

This one is all their own! Utter bollocks and obviously mistaken or sinply bad faith of course, but not nicked from us for once.

I doubt the genderists even realise they are doing it. I think it really is DARVO in action : "that's bad, I can't be bad, so it must be them that is doing it"

She still comes across as a bitter and hate-filled individual.

She really doesn't. You see bitter and hate filled, I see passionate and principled. She's smart, articulate and uses her immense wealth to help women and girls. She was a single mother who fled domestic violence.

She's rightly angry at men barging their way into spaces, sports and prisons where they have no right to be, and our shite government for allowing this. Her status shines a light on this where before it went brushed under the carpet (males in female prisons for example).

Her wealth enables her to state facts that others won't or can't without fear of being cancelled/sacked from jobs.

She's amazing.

What do you imagine she is bitter about? You keep using that word so presumably you have some idea as to what you think it is.

Good for her setting up and supporting charities. She still comes across as a bitter and hate-filled individual.

@BIWI I have noticed on more than one occasion (ok, A LOT) that this particular poster often replies with similar type comments. Often missing the point, totally unaware of current affairs or the subject matter being discussed. If there's ever a totally irrelevant, infantile or banal comment to a thread it is often made by the same person.

I'm pro-independence but feeling politically homeless over this and seriously considering spoiling my ballot.

Job done then.

I absolutely agree that the issue is being hijacked for political gain.

I don't believe Nicola Sturgeon gave one flying fuck for trans rights and thought it was an easy win for "our ultra progressive wee country".

I'm pro-independence but feeling politically homeless over this and seriously considering spoiling my ballot.

Well said, @FlirtsWithRhinos !!!

That cartoon actually makes zero sense 🤷🏻‍♀️

@Viviennemary

"She seems to be stirring up trouble for troubles sake."

If what you mean by this is "She is risking her life to make the world a safer, fairer place for women and children" then I agree with you.

Cars have wheels, but some cars sometimes don't have their wheels on.

Tables don't have wheels, except sometimes they do.

Presumably, following their "there's no difference between a woman who is not currently (or maybe was never) able to produce large gametes and a bological male, including biological males who actually can or have produced small gametes" logic, Mishy, Katie and other TRAs of their ilk also believe some tables are actually cars 😂

But of course, all this mithering misses the real point.

It doesn't matter how you define "women" now, what matters is the group of people who met the boring, old fashioned, not-hair-splitting everyday definition of woman that everybody understood with no issues until about 5 minutes ago are the ones who bear the consequences of female biology and are the ones who suffered and still suffer from the sexism of a historically patriarchal society, so they are the ones that every single "woman only" space, opportunity, protection, support and political voice are for and refer to. Changing the definition of woman now to include people who were not included in that history of sexism does not give these new "women" any moral claim whatsoever to anythung that predates their inclusion in "womanhood".

Eh? That cartoon really doesn't make any sense.
Why do you think it's such a gotcha @MishyJDI ?

Obviously Clarabell didn't read the evidence given by Rape Crisis Edinburgh at the latest tribunal . Otherwise she wouldn't be placing her trust in them to protect women. As for Engender, come on!!!!!

Well I suppose gender ideologists know a circular argument when they see one. Or perhaps not.

Love the faux concern for JKR’s mental health.

I don't know. Probably not. But seems a bit obsessed with trans people. It can't be good for her mental health.

Though the logic bombs of her positions must be keeping her up at night. Or perhaps not.

In the end the circular arguments tied to patriarchal ideas, boxing into categories and combined with the far right push to a nuclear family that can be controlled, versus the embracing of the spectrum of human variety and celebrating the difference, fail in themselves.

Read Judith Butler and free your minds from the rabbit hole. This is a controlled agenda, and many good people are being used.

Katie (the TRA many love to hate) captured it well here. On fire:

What kind of political gain do you think JK Rowling could possibly be seeking to achieve by taking this stance?

Are you aware of what has happened to her since she nailed her colours to the mast?

And what has happened to other women in, for example, politics, publishing, the arts and the charity sector, for saying similar things?

I don't agree with her views on Scottish Independence and I think a lot of her views on trans rights stem from her allegiance to the union and desire to undermine the Scottish Government/SNP.

Goodness me, that’s a stretch. Is that the way your own political views have developed? Everything a knee-jerk reaction to another thing you disagree with?

I strongly dislike the government too but have the opposite criticism of the MSM, which hasn't done enough to challenge gender identity theory IMO. The BBC upholding a complaint about Justin Webb for specifying that trans women are male is a case in point.

Definitely not obsessive Scottish nationalist. Certainly have a strong dislike for the government we’ve been saddled with for the last 14 years, and don’t trust them or their affiliated MSM who have helped stoke up the anger around GRR and hate speech laws.

I just don’t particularly like or trust her and I think this issue is absolutely being hi-jacked for political gain under the pretence of caring about women’s rights.