“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”

Your isolation and mocking of trans people does not support women. You are servants of men.

You speak on behalf of sex realists. Sex realism is largely backed by US right wing christian conservative men. It is a globally-focused effort to reduce the rights of LGBT people and eventually return culture to align with its core biblical belief that women are subservient to men.

This is your belief.

We are social, beyond other mammals. Our culture does not depend on everyone knowing what gametes everyone else developed to support in intimate detail. We have gender for this, and most people understand that gender is not always aligned with sex. That is being human.

Claims to the contrary are entirely unevidenced and are philosophical, or political positions, based on fantasies and desires, but, most certainly not reality.

It's based on boners.

Which is one of the reasons why often repeated remarks are - I can't believe we're even talking about this, it's gob smacking thatwe're even at this stage, this is absolute bollocks, how come it's got so far, the NHS, politicians, schools...🤯

And I know you're a man, sinner, so you may have a bit more insight, but I think for women in general, it's mind blowing.

I don't know about Potter because it's not a fandom I'm interested in. But from infrequent glances at a few fic communities that I used to lurk in, I've noticed an increase in writing "Our Flag Means Death" fic because it has characters with "explicitly queer identities" - gender still being big in certain sections of fanfic 🤷‍♀️

Does Harry Potter still dominate fan fiction?

I think that it's the madness of the reaction to Harry Potter - both the book burning and the fans - that was one of the things that led JKR to realise that she needed to be the adult in the room.

Thank you!! I love MN. There are at least 3 words/ concepts in your post that I hadn't heard of 🤣

The irony is that the TRA movement isn't defining terms in context, they are trying to bludgeon women into accepting one definition across all contexts, transwomen are women, no debate etc, which is why I think they are doing post modernism all wrong.
Saying sometimes in life and law sex matters is much closer to doing it properly.

Sometimes definition of terms in different contexts does matter in order to be able to communictae about some sorts of stuff, and sometimes it's scrub your hands before you enter the operating theatre, that's where no debate applies.

It's not a belief that transw are men, it's an incontrovertible piece of knowledge. Its undisputed, medico-scientific fact. Claims to the contrary are entirely unevidenced and are philosophical, or political positions, based on fantasies and desires, but, most certainly not reality.

As for sex realists all being religious, right wing conservative women...

A) I'm an atheist
B) I'm liberal minded and on the left
C) - can you guess?

I was at university with too many philosophy undergraduates back in the day. They could talk shit about the meaning of words until you actually had to say, "Fine, Martin, you think water is a concept, and so is cleanliness and the idea of personhood, but it's still your turn to do the sodding washing up."

Can't imagine why I was reminded of that

The constellation thing is kind of telling given that womens lives are more rooted in cycles and blood, to me it's a lot more earthy and material rather than nebulous and made of imaginary things in the sky.

I also have knocking about in my head something about woman being the default for any man who doesn't fit received ideas of manliness, Ancient Greece I think? Not manly enough, must be a woman, women being just the dumping ground for non-manly men, and as ever it's the men who dump the other men on us without so much as a by your leave.

I mean though, the implied meaning that ‘a woman is someone who has never penetrated someone else’ is particularly in line with people like Serrano and Lavery.

Another was

“a constellation of statistically linked attributes - including genotype - that together match a pattern we identify as sex.”

This

Remember constellations of data points can also be manipulated to produce the result that is wanted.

We have already been accused of being aligned or tools for Sovereign Citizens.

I reckon that a lot of these accusations are projections. Because when you think of it, male people who state that they should access a female single sex provision when the law has been clarified is the same mentality as those people who declare that the law of the country / state / region that they are living doesn’t apply to them.

Just like telling women pointing out established science and biology are being told they are ideological and the list goes on.

So much of it is projection. And gaslighting.

A 'constellation of data points' eh? But none of those data points being 'a body that developed to produce large gametes''. 🙄

Ffs I am so sick of their utter nonsense. This bullshit needs to be run out of town.

Aha! Just as I thought, it's all a bloody performance.

I seem to have mislaid my constellation of data points, it's probably lying around backstage somewhere.

It reminds me of some of the classics from the past.

where being a woman is “a constellation of statistically linked elements that together describe something almost intangible and linguistically elusive”

and

"I'm an adult human, and I recognise within myself a constellation of data points that I identify as female”.

There was a poster who told us that we should all follow Ayn Rand’s ideals once too, that all the need for sex segregation would disappear if we acted as if we were already living in that idyll.

Thank you, I’ll have a look later when I’m doing the washing - always good to have a laugh to pass the time

Haha brilliant. So we definitely didn’t consent to the GRA 2004 as the Hansard debates show the lies and manipulation deployed to get it through. Ideal.

I’m not sure what a ‘Freeman on the Land’ is though.

If you have some time to waste, which you won't mind never getting back, do look up this movement.

Basically they argue that they can declare themselves independent of the government and not subject to the rule of law. Their arguments are legally baseless.

Interestingly, sources tell me that the movement appeared in Canada in the early 2000s. Canada, eh? Uh-huh.