“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”

Have you ever met a trans woman? This is a ridiculous stereotype.

In much of the world, female is a bioligical state and woman is a social/cultural/interpersonal state.

They AREN'T presenting as "female" or as women though, although they THINK they are. They are presenting as a narrow, sexist version of femininity that exists only in their own head. So they put on their lipstick and high heels and whatever and are saying "this is what a woman is" even if they don't actually claim to BE a woman themselves. It's still what they think woman are.

So yes, I have a problem with that because it's sexist, regressive bollocks and because a great many of them are getting a boner from their "humiliation" of being seen as the lesser sex. The sex that's only there to be fucked. They've literally TOLD us this. This is how they see us. And we're expected to play along.
Fuck that!
Be a man in a dress (fine) or put your fucking trousers on.

Eddie Izzard was a case in point. He got a lot of credit for saying he was an unconventional man who liked to wear dresses. Lost it all when he decided to say he was a woman.

Seems extraordinary, doesn't it? That she could believe all this and think this makes her the good guy?

How do people's moral compasses go this far off direction?

They would be by me. I don't care how people dress or do their make up or whatever. I do care about males claiming female rights and using female spaces. Because they're male.

So she believes in the opposite of rape survivors having female support if needed? She believes in the opposite of allowing disabled women a choice over which sex their intimate care is provided by? She believes in the opposite of women being able to have fair sporting competition?
Wow. She's nice.

I reckon this is a timely reminder about ‘feminine’ men and consent. You know, the consent that is the foundation to safeguarding.

https://x.com/knownheretic/status/2026070396244832609?s=46

The name Joanne Rowling contains FIVE letters from the word "Israel". That's more than enough proof that she's been anti-Palestine and plotting to overthrow Iran since birth.

"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."

Or ... it's because men in fishnets are getting a boner trying to access women in their own space.

Personally, and this is just a suggestion of course, I would take it up with them and recommend they stop taking selfies with their cocks out in women's toilets.

I just want to point out that JKR bought a yacht from someone - most likely from a man.

Which tells you everything you need to know about JKR and her evil politics.

So there. Carry on.

Oh come on wims... wasn't this convincing?

"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."

I mean seriously.

Why is it that some posters think that if they post text like this, it will be more convincing?

All because apparently, we are insecure of some people's 'femininity'?

Considering the argument used upthread about gay men not being as violent as lesbians (base on what evidence, I would love to see it!), because apparently they are 'feminine' and lesbians are 'masculine' this statement is remarkable. Also, it does seem that this poster fully embraces sex stereotypes and consider rejection of those stereotypes as 'hostile'.

I reckon there is a great, great of heavy personal investment in this topic to the point of extreme hyperbole describing a woman who rejects that male people can be women as 'evil'. By someone using terminology from a book about propaganda co-written by Noam Chomsky who supported Epstein and called women's voices and their accounts of what happened to them as propaganda ....

The twists and turns on this thread has been the usual wild ride in absurdity.

Never heard of her. Stupid, ignorant virtual signalling to a crowd that is no longer in fashion.

I think we now need a definition of "insecurity complex", and fuck knows what the context is.

I think we're supposed to be reverent, but in a humble way which doesn't interfere with our subservience.

I know, it's hilarious.

And then telling women off for taking the piss out of men with comedy boobs and fishnets.

I wish he'd make up his mind. Jealous or contemptuous, envious or mocking??

Apparently we're both simultaneously, and they're both wrong. 😄

Oh nooooos

Aisha thinks we're..... Unfuckable?!

Say it ain't so!

Same.

Shame on her!

These days, it doesn't take long at all.

That made me laugh when I spotted it. The seething, sneering fury aimed at women is always eventually outed by these posters.

Tells you everything you need to know about their real motivations.

I haven't watched the show or read the book, but I believe the author got her start in fanfiction spaces. I'm honestly more surprised you're surprised by this, OP. Virtue-signalling about how "evil" JKR is is practically a requirement for entry in that environment.

I also suspect Rachel Reid is yet another straight woman getting off on writing smut about gay men. That puts her on potentially thin ice with the gay community, so of course she's going to cover her tracks by being the bestest ally possible. Straight people tend to assume that trans is just another flavour of gay, and when you add in the fact that this woman is Canadian, and their media has fully fallen to the woo . . . was it ever really going to play out any other way?

This woman is a clown and her comments are embarrassing. I agree. But she's not likely to listen to the outrage of a stranger on the internet, and value it above the feedback she's getting from her own social group.

The best way to hit back is to just stop talking about these people, I've found. Hit them in the wallet. Starve them of attention. There's no point engaging in a subject they won't change their minds on. They're too stupid for that. But they do tend to have managers and public relations people, who aren't quite so mystified when casual fans start to quietly pull back. It's satisfying to think of the arguments that are probably raging behind the scenes, as the artists involved face the "internet clout vs actual money" dilemma 😂

Excellent excellent point

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

So, therefore you have nothing but domestic violence statistics to make your point. Yet feel that you have any kind of evidence to support your points about safeguarding.

As I keep pointing out, it is also not just about physical risk to safety. There are many types of harms that female people need female single sex provisions to be safeguarded against:

Harms include:
-Rape and sexual assault.
-Violence.
-Sexual abuse that is not rape or sexual assault.
-Sexual abuse that also includes solo sexual acts or using the experience in future sexual acts.
-Any other abuse that may include verbal abuse, intimidation in any way etc, this includes inappropriate questions and comments.
-A male person's presence where female people need privacy and dignity.
-A male person's presence where female people need to feel safe from any male person's presence (over the age of about 8 years old).
-Female people self-excluding knowing that there may be a male person accessing that provision.
-Female people not having the freedom to discuss the issues that cause them distress, concern, or that they need to talk about because a male person is present.
-Female children (and female adults) learning to have no or too low personal boundaries because they have been taught that male people are female people and that they should ignore and overcome feelings of discomfort.

Narrowing the discussion to sex and violence offences does not remove these other harms from consideration for female single sex spaces.

However, discussion of why a group of male people should not be treated differently to all other male people is relevant to the discussion as to why no male people should be given special access to those female single sex spaces.

I always think life must be terrifying for people who think women are as likely to commit violent crimes as men.

Given the prison statistics, they must be constantly worried about running into the many thousands of violent women who they think have escaped justice.

"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.

Why would there be significantly more severity between female on female attacks and female on male attacks?

Are you genuinely asking this? Seriously? You have artificially limited your range to domestic violence and not general violence. Then you make a statement that female person to female person violence ends up being more severe than a female person attacking a male person.

Firstly because male bodies also have stronger bones and be less inclined to soft tissue and connective issue damage, male people tend to be taller than female people meaning that where female people can reach may be restricted when attacking a male person. Even to the point of the necks of male people tend to be stronger so that presents some protection there too. This can be significant too when it comes to brain damage as female people have more delicate brain fibres than male people meaning. female brains are also more susceptible to damage.

That doesn't even then include the fact that male people have significant grip strength advantages over female people meaning that a male person is more likely to hold off a female person attacking them.

But apparently, you have artificially limited the discussion point to domestic violence situations only, seemingly so that you can present lesbians as being more of a danger to women. You then do the 'female hetersexuals do it too' deflection and throw in generalisations you do not evidence about butch lesbians having male behavioural patterns and gay male having female behavioural patterns.

At this point you do seem rather keen on arguing men's rights arguments.

"Cue trans identification?"

Why? Because you wish to argue that they are feminine so have less violent tendencies like the generalisation you used for male people who are same sex attracted? Because it comes down to whether someone is 'feminine' or 'masculine'?

Blimey.

💯

Move on, JKR haters. For fuck's sake.