“Heated Rivalry” author Rachel Reid on J. K. Rowling - “the bar is pretty high in how evil you have to be,” “ I’m extremely the opposite of everything she believes”

We are in for another night of complete bollocks!

Hey, that reminds me, where are those wives we were promised so long ago! And where is the cash we were all supposed to be be receiving?

There are billions of women. Most of them you have never met and never will meet and don't have a clue about.
Most of the ones you have met, you don't know what they really think and you never will. Some, for social reasons, will say what it pleases you to hear, whether they really believe it or not.
You are not qualified to speak for "the majority of women", or about them, and are talking through your hat. It just makes you look silly.

What a fantasist 🤣🤣🤣

The women here don't represent women. They are a conservative christian funded trans conspiracy-generating coterie. The majority of women and the rest of the planet support and respect trans people (with the exception of a handful of other countries with dodgy human rights records).

These adult makes do not feel any sense of identification with females. If they did, they would recognise female vulnerability and female rights. They would want to support them, not subvert them. They would want to participate in service and in mothering. No, their entire sense of identification is as females, not with females.

Even considering a language variation as a thought experiment, you need to recognise and include in your experiment the fact that these men want whatever women have, including any language that describes women as a group. They won’t accept having a different name to women, just as they won’t accept third spaces.

Applying your definition 2 to antibody who has not declared a gender identity, who does not have a gender identity, or whose gender identity is unknown, simply supports the quasi-religious belief in gender identity and imposes it on all.

onepostwonder · 24/02/2026 22:09

Trans women don't feel entitled, we are women.

Ha hah! 2 lies in one sentence!

“He points out that when a woman says NO, "If a man aggressively debates, doubts, negotiates, or attempts to change her mind, it should be recognized for what it is. It should be clear that: 1) She said no; 2) He heard it and didn't accept it; 3) He is trying to control her." This is predatory behaviour.”

It cannot be said enough.

I actually think that some of these male people who do keep trying to force people to accept them as being female when it is impossible, do understand that it is predatory behaviour. That is why they desperately try to use any tactic to prove they are female people. Because then it isn’t predatory male behaviour. It then becomes ‘righteous’ behaviour instead.

Also why there are so many attempts to then frame women pointing out that those male people are not female has to be designated as bigoted.

Most of the female posters on this thread know this and recognise it clearly. Still, the wheedling and manipulation continues though.

Yes. This whole discussion is an example of what Gavin de Becker says in The Gift of Fear.

He points out that when a woman says NO, "If a man aggressively debates, doubts, negotiates, or attempts to change her mind, it should be recognized for what it is. It should be clear that: 1) She said no; 2) He heard it and didn't accept it; 3) He is trying to control her." This is predatory behaviour.

The thread is also a great reminder of how female-only spaces and discussions change when a man enters.

As a previous poster said, men (identifying as TW) will NEVER know what it's like to be in a female only space, because that space changes as soon as they enter it.

Ironically, they all perfectly illustrate the concept of the ‘male gaze’.

They all have incredibly similar (eerily similar) origin stories (and prose style too) that they try out on us for the sympathy vote at first, to get us to give into them.

And it never takes them long to change their tune and get to the bald truth of the matter: they really don’t care what women want, they’re going to keep being obdurate in refusing to acknowledge material reality, and they’re going to keep doing what they want to do anyway unless other men act to prevent them. (And behind every word they type dwells the sentiment, ‘…and you annoying bitches can’t stop me’).

The anti-reality, truth denying forcefield that surrounds their brains is almost impressive in a twisted way - very solipsistic and extremely male behaviour.

I know exactly what you mean. I join you in that exasperation. I agree with the other post too, of course.

I know you're right. 😄

I'm just exasperated at all the oxygen these men use up in trying to dominate women - they take up so much energy.

The Mumsnet mantra - "No is a complete sentence" needs to be used far more often.

Well, being male people, they find it all too easy to ignore women saying 'NO'. They want, so they get.

And then they declare that they are 'women' and know all about 'misogyny'. Which is very clear that some of them are masters at behaving misogynistically while gaslighting people.

It's long overdue that these people were just told NO. Men aren't women no matter what surgery they have or drugs they take or how much they drone on.

We've let too many anti social, anti democratic, anti safeguarding and anti women men run amok in society causing immense harm - especially to children and young people.

No more pandering. No more giving in to coercive control. No more letting them running amok in the NHS and schools. No more keeping silent as they trash their way through institutions. No more tortuous language that confuses, obfuscates and hides reality.

NO.

No, thank you. We already have such a word: woman. We do not need to coin another word because they have appropriated it to describe an imaginary identity.

I'm not proposing we actually stop using the word women. It's more of a thought experiment, to take the historical baggage and accumulated legal wrangles away from the two different concepts of 1. adult human females and 2. adult humans feeling a sense of identification with females regardless of actual sex* (happy to replace latter with any other description TRAs want to insert that is non circular).

The constant yes but I am a woman is a stupid argument when the person making it has no excuse not to understand that under our definition they're not. They're making it personal when it's not, it's an argument about which definition we should be using. So let's in this thought experiment detach the definitions from the current word and examine them as standalone options. Does it make sense to work with the category of flims or the category of flams?

We can look at definition 1 and definition 2 and see of the current provisions of facilities for women, sports etc, which makes sense under definition 1 and which under definition 2. I claim they all attach to definition 1. Women have women's sports because of the differences between male and female bodies. Definition 1. Women's medicine, definition 1. Offending stats are clearly aligning to definition 1 not definition 2. The supreme court went through a load of these cases in reaching the conclusion that to make sense of equality law, sex has to mean biological sex. Definition 1 all the way.

Definition 2 leaves huge swathes of people not even classified. Gender critical people who don't identify particularly with any gender but consider it harmful stereotyping. Nonbinary and other identified people would be neither men nor women so the large amount of cases where facilities are divided into two options wouldn't work. Babies, people with severe learning disabilities, people in a coma where it isn't possible to ascertain how they may have identified previously.

The funny thing is, I realised last night, that our lovely interlopers remind me of my Dad. Specifically, when he has got a question in a quiz wrong, but is utterly convinced that he is correct (and that everyone else is wrong).

I can understand why straight women might write/ watch gay porn.

It's the class of human you're interested in, without the inherent power imbalance of heterosexuality and the violence of traditional porn.

There's probably an element of liberation in that.

But yes, a man doing it about lesbians would be creepy. Not much is analogous between the sexual experience of women and men, because of the power imbalances.

I had never heard of Rachel Reid before yesterday when I read some of this thread. And I'm no expert on this kind of fiction , I'm sure she does it well and it seems to be selling anyway.

But ....I can't help thinking if some guy was turning out bonkbusters about lesbian hockey players or tennis stars or whoever , wouldn't you think it was a bit creepy?
Apologies if I'm repeating a point already made.

No, thank you. We already have such a word: woman. We do not need to coin another word because they have appropriated it to describe an imaginary identity.

Besides, they will appropriate whatever noun or adjective we use to describe ourselves. They want what they think we have. Nothing else will do.

This pretty much sums it up. The people who feel the need to criticise JKR on this issue, aren’t fit enough to lace her boots.

hundreds of years

LOL Transgender was only invented about 50-60 years ago when men discovered that by abusing oestrogen & undergoing mutilating surgery they could present as a pastiche of a woman.

hundreds of years

The 'hundreds of years' falls apart when you look beyond the first flush of feel good.

Because that relies on cultural appropriation from other cultures and I don't believe those other cultures believed male people can be female people. I don't believe they allow those male people who have been culturally leveraged to be treated as if they are 'female'.

But like other misused concepts and terminology, it sounds good and convincing.

Are they not embodied now?

I fear that I may have misunderstood a key part of this issue.

Is it like being a ghost?