John Lithgow on JK Rowling

So many of the people who criticise JKR haven't bothered to read her essay explaining her position.
A colleague told me she didn't need to because Rowling had written an entire book criticising a transwoman. That never happened.

Oh no, not JCO! Such a wonderful, thoughtful writer. So disappointing😕

Let’s put that in capitals.

BUT HE DOES STOP WRINGING HIS HANDS ENOUGH TO TAKE THE CASH

Quite!

Impudent women, forsooth. Who does he think he is, Sir Keir Starmer KCB KC MP?

Lithgow loftily opines she displays “impudent prejudice”, and obviously he didn’t know anything about it until he’d already taken the role and people told him to walk away. The stories are too good, steady work yada yada.

Oh yes, men really don't like impudent women. It must be a massive source of regret to these misogynists that they can no longer burn impudent women at the stake or lock them up in mental asylums.

Lithgow keeps popping up to blacken JKR's name, like the rest of them he never quotes what she's said that's so bad, but he does stop wringing his hands long enough to take the cash.

The bloke playing Snape has done much the same. He's also talked of the shameful racist abuse he's received. I think, although Alan Rickman is a hard act to follow, he'll make all but the worst of them eat their words. He's not said a dickybird about the abuse he'll have received from tras. In that he is probably wiser than Lithgow as he can sidestep what a massive hypocrite he's being.

For what it’s worth I did listen to this. Remnick described JKR as having views that are “to many ears as ugly as any prejudice around”.

Lithgow loftily opines she displays “impudent prejudice”, and obviously he didn’t know anything about it until he’d already taken the role and people told him to walk away. The stories are too good, steady work yada yada.

It ends with Remnick leading Lithgow to agree that both are “surprised by ferocity and cruelty in her tone” online.

Impudent prejudice! That’s a new one. I know American libel laws are different, but how the New Yorker has got away with its deeply nasty character assassination of JKR over the years I do not know.

Reviving this thread as this has just appeared in my podcast feed and don’t know if I have it in me to listen. What is it with the New Yorker? They have been utterly appalling to JKR for years - what is the point of their fact checkers when they run hateful shit like this without a care? I suppose I should listen to see exactly what Lithgow and Remnick have to say for themselves. But unsubscribing is now long overdue.

There is no right to compelled speech. No one is compelled to MIS-SEX a male or remove FEMALE basic and necessary public amenities. Forcing a female to ignore her lived experience as the oppressed sex, to mis-sex a male in order to cosplay in his fetish and to remove her basic necessary public amenities is discrimination!

That's why the male sex has privacy in male spaces....

Stating feminist beliefs is a protected right in society, per the Forstater judgement, and is "worthy of respect in a democratic society". What you want, is to discriminate against science, biological facts, and beliefs. You want to discriminate against a vulnerable and protected characteristic.

in preaching about acceptance in Harry Potter but not living it in practice

How is JKR not living acceptance here? And again, have the courage to answer and not ignore it.

PS For those of us with a working conscience he masterfully did…& it was beautiful!

Then why are MRAs/trans activists so unhappy with his wishy washy response then???

Rejection of what principles? Misogynist ones? Misogyny?

You've been asked numerous questions you refuse to answer, and I believe that is because you are not here in good faith. Such as what is it that JKR said, in HER OWN WORDS, not a third hand 'source' that twists it and puts a disingenuous slant on it, has she ever said that is 'transphobic'. Answer that. What in this is, 'transphobic'? Have the decency and honesty to answer, in your own words WITHOUT using a third hand source. Go on, back yourself. www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-rowling-writes-about-her-reasons-for-speaking-out-on-sex-and-gender-issues/

Because most people haven’t actually read what JKR wrote, they have just seen quotes taken out of context and “heard” she’s a wrongun. Rather than fact check it they go along with what social media tells them.

Indeed. I never 'misgender' anyone, because I never 'gender' them at all. I may have occassion to refer to their sex, but as we keep being told sex is not the same as gender.

Gretel346 · Today 08:59

Misgendering & refusing access to basic necessary public ammenities is discrimination.

"Misgendering can be, but is not necessarily discrimination. If you continually hassle a transw, saying, "Eurgh! You're a man," that may well be so adjudged. Pointing out that transw are men, in a causal conversation, or in a debate, is not.

No man LARPing as a woman is being refused access to necessary public amenities. No man is legally allowed to use womens' toilets, whether he's wearing jeans, or an LBD. Simple.

Next time you are in a mixed sex toilet, notice the design. Gender neutral, universal, unisex, accessible, disabled. Whatever it’s called it has to be completely private. That’s the private design because of voyeurism by men on women.

The problem with being completely private is you are less likely to get help if you are having a medical emergency. Or being assaulted.

Radar keys were an attempt to try and stop the misuse that goes on in mixed sex private design (sex,drugs,vandalism).

Single sex designed toilets have door and partition gaps, over and under them, for ventilation, easier cleaning, prevention of misuse and supervision for emergencies. BUT if it is ambiguous who is going to be in the space in front on the cubicles, then the cubicles become private.

So who gets a less safe basic necessary public amenity when cubicles and rooms become completely private?
women
children
anyone having a medical emergency

Who does it harm least?
healthy men

For example, if a school only offers gender neutral designs is that discrimination? I would say yes as there’s so safe facility for children with a whole range of medical conditions and invisible disabilities (diabetes, epilepsy, mental health, drug addiction, frailty, pots, heart conditions) that need single sex design. I also think it’s discrimination against the girls because of the evidence I have of what happens in these private spaces. In fact, it has been found the world over that girls will rather not go into unisex toilets in school at all. This pattern is repeated across wider society.

I am looking at safe solutions for everybody. That means safe design which is single sex toilets in a single sex environment as standard. The single sex environment has to be enforced by law, with exceptions for young children with carers for health and safety reasons. And also cleaners, for health and safety too.

I am also looking at ways to make the less hygienic, less safe unisex toilets better for those times (small cafe, train) where no safer single sex toilets are available.

To use your own (rude) words back at you, did you mean to be so wilfully ignorant of health and safety for the medically vulnerable and girls?

How can anyone ‘misgender ‘ when no one can define ‘gender ‘?

Excluding male people from a female single sex provision not 'refusing access to basic necessary public ammenities'. It is discrimination - legitimate discrimination. Not all discrimination is bad.

If male people refuse to use the single sex provision that are there for male people to use, the solution has never been to allow them to use the female single sex provision, regardless of how they identify. It could be asked why society has to provide those male people with individual solutions based on their personal decisions, however, the current thinking is to provide alternative options.

If misgendering is 'discrimination', then so to is enforcing anyone to use specific language that supports one person's subjective reality as if it is the universal material reality.

I don't think your accusation of 'wilfully ignorant' works here at all.

You seem to be stuck in 2018 @Gretel346- all your legal assumptions are wrong.

Discrimination against gender critical feminists is discrimination against a protected group as lots of organisations have discovered. CGD Europe, Garden Court Chambers, Open University, Arts Council England, etc etc etc.

No one is refusing men access to men’s spaces, are they 🙄 and if there are mixed sex spaces, they can use those too, so sorry, that’s nonsense.

Just struck me the trantrums when someone like Glinner (it's usually him) calls out a former friend, colleague, whatever, for what he sees as wilful ignorance on this subject. This nepo-enby is doing exactly the same thing, imo, and should have exactly the same reception. Unless, of course, the tras are massive hypocrites.

No one is refused access to public amenities. Everyone has access based on their body sex and no one gets to choose their body sex.

"Misgendering" is an ideological position that only makes sense in the context that being a man or a woman is mental not physical. This is a niche belief and one should no more expect others to accomodate that than one should expect people outside ones religion to accomodate ones ideas about blasphemy.

But be happy! The solution to both issues is trivially simple

Keep "man" and "woman" with the sex based meanings they have always had, coin new words to nane the differet to sex feelng-based identities you want recognised, and campaign for recognition, rights, spaces and anything else you think is reasonable based on that.

Allow yourself to recognise openly and honestly that gender identity is something different to body sex (as you know it is every time you say trans people exist), then instead of fixating on taking recognition, rights, spaces and even our language and history away from female people you can start to see who trans people really are and what they really need.

Most people would support that. Feminists would definitely support that.

It doesn't have to be a zero sum game.

Because while your care for trans people is genuine, that knee jerk anger you feel at JKR and so-called TERFs is not about trans rights at all but patriarchy's deep subconcious offense at women saying no.

Let go of your anger. Recognise what it truly is and it will have no power over you.

Open your eyes, open your mind and think bigger!