'He has a point, but he's too blunt.' JKR

I’m tickled by Howse’s idea that because we know what a dog is, he can call a cat a giraffe.

You have to hand it to JKR, she really knows how to play her minions.

Like any seasoned gamblers who bluffs successfully they are masters—at least for the moment—of psychological manipulation, projecting a cool confidence when in fact only vulnerability lies beneath a thin veneer of apparent strength.

People pretending "we are winning" do so to project confidence to create a positive mindset aimed at motivating and influencing outcomes by projecting strength. It's a strategy to influence perception, a form of deception to boost morale when things are actually difficult.

Like Trump who unflinchingly uses the 'we are winning' con even in the face of obvious losing & growing disinterest, her public actions aren't about what she's thinking or feeling but designed to control the minds & hearts of the loyal she like Trump regards as hapless half wits whose emotional tail she can effortlessly wag.

If anything, this latest angle from JKR reveals only that she perceives a declining interest in the 'cause' as is the fate of many in the face of new shiny ones like immigration so a 'rallying of the troops' has been deemed a necessary 'jolt' into action.

.

My comment never stated vulnerability to propaganda is exclusive to women. In fact I compared JKR's followers to Trump's who are a male majority. What their followeres both have in common is a need to scapegoat, demonise & dehumanise an unjustified target for all their problems/insecurities that their puppeteers expertly pull their strings on.

Ooh good. So when I tell a male with a trans identity he’s a man I’m not insulting him, just stating facts. That’s good to know.

So well said by JKR. People who took the cowardly position are simply trying to shift blame. It was our fault for not saying things kindly enough. Not theirs for refusing to listen to logic. Its a tactic so often used against women, less commonly against men so perhaps that’s a silver lining?

Facts hurting feelings doesn't qualify as an insult….

In response to " Interesting interview with @Glinner on @GBNEWS a few minutes ago about the trans debate. It's interesting how the tide is turning in his favour. I've seen old friends who shunned him admit he has a point but that he was too blunt. Even that would was unthinkable a few years ago. "

From the start, a key tactic of the gender identitarians has been linguistic prescription, and it's proved shockingly successful. Trans activists' shibboleths and euphemisms have been allowed to penetrate the upper echelons of our culture with devastating consequences to freedom of speech and belief. Huge swathes of liberal media, the arts, academia and publishing have thrown themselves with gusto into the defence of a quasi-religious belief causing provable real world harm, and in their arrogance they've been outraged when people they assumed were part of their In Group have refused to march meekly along in lock step.

Time and again, I've seen and heard well-educated people who consider themselves critical thinkers and bold truth-tellers squirm when put on the spot. 'Well, yes, maybe there's something in what you're saying, but it's hateful/provocative/rude not to use the approved language/pretend people can literally change sex/keep drawing attention to medical malpractice or opportunistic sexual predators. Why can't you be nice? Why won't you pretend? We thought you were one of us! Don't you realise we have sophisticated new words and phrases these days that obviate the necessity of thinking any of this through?'

As the vibe shifts, and a lot of people in the elite professions start trying to reposition themselves, the obvious place to start is, 'it's not that I couldn't see your point, but did you have to say it that way?' We dissenters were supposed to find a way of questioning the chemical castration of children while calling it 'gender affirming care.' We were meant to defend the rights of vulnerable women while also using female pronouns for male rapists. We should have found a way to discuss fairness for women and girls in sport, while pretending that the ineradicable physical advantage men have over women doesn't exist.

Either a man can be a woman, or he can't. Either women deserve rights, or they don't. Either there's a provable medical benefit to transitioning children, or there isn't. Either you're on the side of a totalitarian ideology that seeks to impose falsehoods on society through the threat of ostracisation, shaming and violence, or you're not. The alternative to being 'blunt' - using accurate, factual language to describe what was going on - was to surrender freedom of speech and espouse ideological jargon that obfuscated the issues and the harms caused. We've always needed blunt people, but we need them most of all when being asked to bow down to a naked emperor.

https://x.com/jk_rowling/status/1995491771950797148

Oooh does that mean you’ll stop insulting abd belittling women on here, or are you still struggling with that bit? Maybe more practice?

Look, that might work for some people whose motivations are spreading bigotry but as Piers demonstrates to Tucker here civilised people appreciate its not necessary to be insulting to support an argument.

There are none so misogynistic as those who portray women as mindlessly following a ‘leader’ as if women lack the ability to think clearly and to research and form their own opinions.

I equate it with those who declare it ‘it is not what you say, it is how you say it’ to categorise someone as being a bigot for using accurate language to describe something that the majority of people agree with.

There have been at least two UK court cases where it has become very clear under testimony that those people who tend to make accusations of hate for those using accurate language can never articulate how particular concepts can be stated verbally in an acceptable way. JK Rowling is pointing at the emperor and declaring he has no clothes on in many different ways. And people
try to shame her.

In terms of 'the cause', and taking actual people out of it, it's great to have an irritant who will keep saying the unsayable. It moves the Overton Window.

How do you really know Trump is losing then?

In my experience the people who will say something that needs to be said, when others won't, are usually very blunt, even to the point of seeming thoughtless of others.

These same people do sometimes go to far, or are blunt about topics where maybe it it's not deserved. Because the same personality traits that allow them to say what is needed, sometimes push them to say things that aren't needed. No one always has perfect judgement.

I tend to admire these qualities and I like blunt people.

I also think that it's possible, as a totally separate phenomena, to say things in a way that is just not very easy for others to understand. It's not about being too blunt, it's more a failure to say things in a way others will understand. GL occasionally had this issue imo. If you say something, and 90% of people don't get it or misunderstand, it's probably not been expressed in a useful way.

The angry men in the corner can rant if they want to. We don’t have to listen anymore. They can fuck off.

Uh huh, & how do you really know?

If 'winning' is as JKR implies is about language then you would need evidence confirming that most people actually in contact with trans people are refusing to acknowledge their identity &/or refuse them any rights that go along with that ….which you don't. Talk, particularly on twitter…as they say is cheap & its actions in every day scenarios that matter. Given most people are unlikely to disrespect people's choices on how they choose to live or get heavily invested in causes that don't have any real world effect on them I doubt very much anything on the ground has changed in terms how people treat trans people in their lives.

That people in general are supportive of restrictions on sports participation or medicinal intervention on minors or even believe people 'can't change sex' isn't any indication of whether they would deny trans peoples basic human rights of self determination in practical circumstances.

You seem to be confusing opinions with real world actions which we all know are 'watered down' once the rubber hits the road.

Look, she's a savvy individual who clearly accurately assessed him as an attention seeking opportunistic slimy toad who latched on to anything that would indulge his bigotry AND delegitimised the 'cause' by his inability to temper his bigotry. But being also the clever strategist she is exploited the opportunity of his 'win' in the courts to rally the troops AND cede to the pressure of acknowledging his 'service' as he has been begging her to do like a jilted admirer.

She must of needed a long shower after that one….