JKR "An Update to My Essay of June 2020"

Or a somatic woman according RMW

'Secondary female sex traits' are having their 15 minutes of fame at the moment! They've appeared in a number of posts recently.

The current version of TWAW seems to be that a man who transitions can acquire enough 'secondary female sex traits', including hormonal and psychological, to be considered a kind of woman - so he is 'socially a woman'.

I gather it's out of fashion to claim that people can actually change sex, [in fact it's even claimed that nobody ever said they could🙄] so 'TWAW' has been toned down by admitting that a man cannot become a biological woman, but he can be socially as near as dammit, so budge up, ladies...

Who can forget their haunting ballad 'I just want to pee in peace''.

Wasn't there a Gilbert and Sullivan character who claimed to trace his descent from a "protoplasmic primordial atomic globule"? Perhaps macrocosmic polycules are a sort of colonial development of that. Like ascidians or something.

And primary male sex organs.
He is male you numpty.
Growing some fatty lumps isn’t the same as female breast development.
He isn’t female in any way except in his head.

Thing is i worked in VAWG sector for years, i used to personally do battle for individual women on a daily basis with the police, CPS, the LA, probation, and other sundry workers who did not get it in the voluntary sector, but these were individual workers.

fast forward to “partnership” working, i did the same battles with senior personnel, talking the talk.

i dragged most of the fuckers in to court for one reason or another, and i was very much hated, and they did everything they could to discredit me and my agency because we proffered the awkward truth.

yet nothing at all has changed

If I was JKR I would chuck money at this strategically, and post on X, with the protection of my wealth.

i am as a retired foot soldier forever grateful, of her wealth and power of words.

GOD COMPLEX MY ARSE.

it’s the academic and so called educated people, women mostly, who have utterly stunned me with their disdain for sex based rights and love of identity politics and putting the rights of cross dressing men above women.
One academic friend now has a daughter who says she’s a man. It’s pretty much a pet topic of my friend, who now has a confused daughter on her way to a needless mastectomy. I’ve absolutely no doubt that her Mother’s aggressive transactivism has pushed her down this gender hole.

Surely flogging a dead horse is the absolute peak of being queer. Sadism, necrophilia and bestiality all rolled into one.

Considering all that "close reading" they do at school, it is really very embarrassing.

And then, there are the impossible and often toxic ideals of masculinity - a socially constructed reality, but equally problematic, making it easiest just to shove any meaningful acknowledgement of it to one side, alongside the physical realities faced by women, and transwomen - they can't be male, so they surely must be female!

It's not kind, and it's not inclusive. Something more nuanced perhaps could be.

I can to a certain degree depending on species but then I have done cloning since when it was still quite difficult to do but even I can't change a man into a women.

It's all about denying difficult realities which take honesty and hard work to manage, and, frankly, can never be fully resolved. The physical basis of women's oppression. The physical limitations of transition. There is a parallel there on which we could stand and work together, if we were allowed to acknowledge either.

Instead, though, both are denied.

And this is the tell that it all comes from a position of considerable privilege - wealthy 21st western cultures let us pretend we can transcend our bodies. All these young women not fully realising how utterly dependent they are on single-sex protections, modern medicine, the pill etc. - because, frankly, it's easier not to have to face up to it. Ditto some trans people - certainly the ideology - using the law and medicine and privilege to rewrite reality.

It's all so unhealthy.

I think that’s why so many bog standard (non gendery) men get so very exasperated that there are some stubborn silly women who refuse to comply with validating men as laydeeees when it’s for the good of everyone (except women and girls, but who tf cares?)

Thinking about it, it's an extension of that age-old dichotomy, man = mind & superior, woman = body & inferior.

Now, man = mind is so superior, it's subsumed the very idea of woman-as-body (man always was closer to God, after all), while hypocritically positing (cos man/God-mind defines Truth and creates reality) that this is to the benefit of women. After all, says man/God mind, women always did claim that reducing them to the physical was unjust and limiting, so by re-making woman in my own image (gender identity, trans), I'm liberating her from that flesh-and-blood prison I put her in, and elevating her to sit alongside me (inclusive feminism! - comes with such promise of protection and power!)

It’s the arrogance of expecting me to adhere to your personal belief system without actually being able to make any sort of rational case for it that always gets me.

Exactly!

I say I am, therefore you must know I am (not believe, or accept, but know!)

Believe or accept are big enough asks, but know? It rejects any possibility of there being any other external and free-thinking mind, at least where that particular claim's concerned.

ETA: In response to Henrietta.

Wasn't there something about not worshipping graven images? I'd posit that lopping bits off your body and/or adding bits to impersonate something you are not counts.

...and that everyone else must bow down and agree.

Ha! Yes, just a bit!

It's also a bit God complexy to say you can change biology.

What is a secondary sex trait? Is it a tendency to compulsively shave one's legs?

... or are you thinking of characteristics? or sexual signals, such as displays (fluttering the feathers for instance), or scent marking?

Think I remember seeing the band Sexual Signals in the early 1980s in what was then Hatfield Poly. They were very flamboyant.

You know what I (quite genuinely) find is more god-complex-like?

The supremely confidence of the I-say-it-therefore-it's-true mentality we see in supporters of the ideology, alongside their astonishing indifference to what the evidence may actually show.

I'm entirely serious here.

JKR's essay is clearly written and carefully argued. OK, so I agree with it too, but I like to think (note the caution - no god complex here) I'm similarly capable of acknowledging those qualities in work with which I disagree.

It's so important that we retain the ability to distinguish, to some limited degree (we're all human) between our internal perception, preferences and potential prejudices, and the existence of an external "reality" (however one defines it!), which stands outside and untouched by that.

In this light, I find CoolforKats' perception "latest god complex fest" and similarly hyperbolic commentary genuinely ironic, if not a bit frightening.

That these people never say, "Well, she writes well, and makes some thoughtful points, but I emphatically disagree because" and instead assert an alternative reality to what's before their very eyes is, to me, far closer to a god-complex.

The debating style associated with trans ideology, as well as the ideology itself, is po-mo subjectivity taken to quite dangerous extremes.

If "I think, therefore I am," is to be human, then "I think [it is], therefore it is!" is to be god.

Presumably that would be the same Aidan Comerford who was hounding the rabbit sanctuary Carrot Cottage last year?

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5346978-rabbit-rescue-targeted-by-tras

Another example of word slop designed to confuse and somehow obscure the underlying intent... (even if apparently written by AI)

There are legitimate arguments about privacy, safeguarding

correct - women are entitled to have spaces without men. This is the core of the argument - there has never been a 'we don't like trans people' argument - it is about preserving women's rights to be women.

'Trans women' are men, not women - so they do not get access

and how competing rights should be accommodated.

and here is the deliberate attempt to re-engineer the argument... by conceding the above that there are legitimate arguments about privacy and safeguarding (an statement we can all agree), the hope is that by putting this nonsense alongside it will pick up that same validity...

it is of course nonsense because there are no competing rights
women have the rights to their spaces
men have the rights to their spaces

no man has any rights to any women's spaces

the rights do not compete because providing women's spaces for women / women's sports teams for women / women's rape support centres for women / women's toilets for women has nothing to do with men who have their own where needed.

So, let's not play games with words - it is transparently obvious and doesn't work
Any claim that there are competing rights implies men having a right to women's spaces and they don't - black and white / end of discussion. The answer is NO.

He's a continuous drone in the background. Luckily only dogs and TRAs can hear him