“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”

She’s big in Canada and a very niche book market, the programme was made cheaply and she and the makers didn’t expect it to go global. She simply isn’t in the same league as jk Rowling so of course she’s not funding things as people are suggesting. She’s also gay herself. How about just let authors be authors and realise they aren’t always that media savvy, they say things in interviews without thinking it through. Or has lost so many fans for speaking out so much, if she’d just quietly funded projects she believed in and been less radical that would have been easier for you, and the flip side is the hockey writer doesn’t know the ins and outs of the implications of trans people in sports, it’s quite complex especially in team sports with a safety aspect, not even just a faster fairness thing

Your grasp of white women in western countries gnashing their teeth having any impact on Iranian women is subpar. Outcomes?

Other than manufacturing public consent for war/regime change? NIL

Slave trade was legal in the UK until it wasn’t. Section 28 was law.

Women know who are women.

Sex realists are in the middle of a transient project to remove trans people from culture. They experienced some luck in being able to insert leadership in critical departments. With the support of religious conservatives, changes in law were won. However, the status of trans people has not changed. The status quo shall prevail eventually.

We’ve done this. Exactly what part of offence rates not being reflective incarceration rates do you not understand. You're grasping at straws.

Ask yourself why Iran? Why not the multitude of other countries that practice human rights violations of women? I noticed she's recently upped the posting on Iran….& here we go again off to war & regime change. How 'coincidental'.

"Could it have something to do with the power difference between male and female people combined with vulnerability in domestic situations? Meaning it is rare that female people attack male partners because female people will rarely overpower that male partner."

It's actually not rare that females attack their male partners in fact the numbers are comparable in studies. The difference is in the severity of violence. But Lesbian partners? There's significantly more severity between them and straight women. Why would that be? I suspect masculine behavioural patterns that more aligns them with male violence. Conversely that gay males are less violent than lesbians might therefore be related to effeminacy.

Cue trans identification?

"Do lesbian women have a greater rate of committing general female on female violence outside of domestic situations?

I'm not aware of studies that show that. From my understanding the studies done are more about intimate partner violence.

"And do lesbians also commit violence at the same rate as the male population in general? By all means, please show those rates.)"

Irrelevant to the point that lesbians are not representative of all women as trans women are not representative of all men.

"You didn't demonstrate anything that was useful to making safeguarding decisions.

I didn't need to as that isn't relevant to the point of false stereotyping by JKR being discussed on this thread.

"The point is also that even if there were sub groups within that segregation characteristic that had a lower rate of risk of committing violence or abuse towards female people, it should not also be up to female people to have to check if the male person accessing a female single sex provision is part of that sub group or not. Hence, ALL people in that segregated characteristic are excluded with no exceptions. ie. all male people above the age of about 8 years old are legitimately excluded."

Irrelevant to the discussion on this thread.

C'mon, the motivation for usually using 'man in a dress' isn't one of just being accurate. Its crude reductive delivery is specifically designed to ridicule & diminish its subject reducing them to an oversimplified deluded perverse caricature as a tool to avoid psychological, behavioural & cultural associations to women that interestingly don't apply to trans men. Far be from me to be picky about accuracy but it doesn't usually require degradation nor inconsistency in application.

In terms of 'men wearing dresses' as a symbol of woman hood, you sound like you're projecting your own interpretation as that's not a claim being made. Rather the claim is more about common inclinations that by extension influence behavioural patterns that given them legitimacy for entering women's spaces.

That some use clothing as a form of sexual gratification isn't necessarily reflective of the whole but I get how its convenient weaponisation serves the GC movement. As I mentioned upthread, isolated instances have long been exploited to stereotype.

"I’m not against men wearing dresses but I am against them doing so in a mocking or highly sexulised interpretation of womanhood"

Many women enjoy wearing highly sexualised clothing as an extension of their own sexuality & trans women are no different that's why there's a legitimate association. Are you against their preferences too?

I appreciate patriarchy enforcing dress standards has had an influence on women's choices but to assume that's the only reason particularly in modernity is to deny women's capacity for self autonomy….a thing the patriarchy & GC ideology have in common.

The indisputable evidence is group behavioural association. Most normal functioning people accept the fact associations equal group categorisation hence societies acceptance. Categorisation is a fundamental cognitive process by which humans structure, understand, and simplify the vast complexity of the world. It's the process of identifying similarities and differences, allowing the brain to group objects, people, and ideas into classes.

But most of all that they claim the identification with 'woman' is what's really the the most triggering issue. I suspect even if they only claimed to identify with women & not be women that would be equally upsetting because of the implication of female group identified behaviours.

My experience with many militant GC adherents is that they are particularly hostile to feminine identified behaviours/presentation because they themselves are gender non conforming. They will often claim their hostility is because these are the product of sexual stereotypes imposed by the patriarchy but I suspect its more of an insecurity complex hence the 'over reaction' to what are mostly organic personal preferences rooted in utero hormonal & genetic influences.

And yet they mock trans women as 'men in dresses'. But interestingly don't mock trans men or butch women as performing 'man face'.

MN have said that bullying via reaction emojis will be something that they will put a stop to, you just have to report the posts where someone is using emoji reactions to bully you.

We've belonged in single sexed spaces. We continue to belong in single sexed spaces.

Make no mistake. Men will be forcibly removed from women only spaces.

We saw it recently with two men being escorted out by a female bouncer. Whilst threatening the women in the toilet with violence, of course.

I can't remember if they have been arrested or not, for their threats.

Men who refuse to leave women's spaces will have the police called on them, of course.

Truthfully, after the last couple of years, I believe sex realists expect there to be some level of criminal enforcement requirement in the future.

You've never, ever been in a female single sex place. As soon as you cross the threshold, the atmosphere will change, and you'll never even know it.

Women don't need to ask permission to be in women's space.

There is no philosophy. You have no ability to understand my experience. You are very anti-my experience as it is.

I apologise for not paying attention to the sentries stationed at the doorway.

My presence in (and to my understanding, other trans persons presence in) toilets and other single sex spaces was not elevated to the level of international culture war status until recently.

Women have never wanted you there. You just never bothered to ask.

There is political, yes. Conceptually I experience misogynistic forces in the world and understand feminist politics behind liberation, embodiment and personhood amongst layers of other power dynamics and group-focused enculturisation.

My presence in (and to my understanding, other trans persons presence in) toilets and other single sex spaces was not elevated to the level of international culture war status until recently. My response referred to the placement of military troops at the doors of public spaces to mediate entry. Presumably they would be good at their jobs and prevent all perceived enemy incursion.

Do you think military troops are needed?

Can trans people not be trusted to use the facilities of their born sex?
To obey the law, like other citizens are capable of doing?

Care to clarify?