JKR "An Update to My Essay of June 2020"

Who wrote this?

Among all the amusing things about that is that the first reply I can see is from Aidan Comerford moaning that the writer gave JKR some grudging credit for 'genuinely supported survivors of sexual violence'. Nothing is ever enough for the pitchfork wielders

.. and yet you led with the women.

Nah they hate Dawkins, Musk & Linehan equally.

So they hate influential men who speak against their ideology? Sad times.

Lol, X ….

"What strikes me about J.K. Rowling’s essay, published on 21 October, is the sheer scale of the moral and historical importance she has assigned herself. She has effectively cast herself as a latter-day Orwell, defending objective reality against an authoritarian orthodoxy, protecting the working classes from their intellectual overlords, and rescuing feminism from people who have supposedly betrayed it. And the extraordinary thing is that she appears to regard this interpretation of events as so self-evident that it barely requires defending. There is something profoundly self-aggrandising about a billionaire presenting herself as the authentic voice of working-class women while dismissing those who disagree with her as fashionable, privileged ideologues. But the deeper problem is intellectual. Her essay constructs an entire theory of contemporary political power around a single controversy, with Rowling herself occupying the morally indispensable position at its centre. Her treatment of trade unions is particularly revealing. She cites genuine government statistics showing that graduates and higher earners are more likely to belong to unions, then leaps to the conclusion that union leadership has been captured by privileged believers in gender ideology. Those statistics establish a demographic pattern. They tell us nothing about members' views on trans rights. Her account of history is similarly selective. She describes twentieth-century civil rights movements as authentic grassroots struggles, while characterising contemporary trans activism as an elite project imposed from above. Yet feminism, gay liberation and civil rights all drew on academics, lawyers, political organisations and institutional support. She has simply written these complexities out of her historical narrative. Then there is the Orwell quotation. She invokes 1984 to suggest that disagreement over the meaning of woman is equivalent to denying elementary arithmetic. The Supreme Court's 2025 decision did establish the meaning of sex within the Equality Act, while expressly recognising continuing discrimination protections for trans people. That is a legal ruling with specific consequences, rather than the philosophical revelation she makes it out to be. And there is a distinction worth preserving. Rowling has genuinely supported survivors of sexual violence, and her charitable contributions deserve recognition. Threats and harassment directed at her are indefensible. There are legitimate arguments about privacy, safeguarding and how competing rights should be accommodated. What makes the essay so grandiose is the way she converts those questions into a struggle for civilisation itself. Anyone who shares her interpretation is defending objective reality. Anyone who challenges it is participating in an authoritarian campaign against women, whether knowingly or through ideological capture. She has constructed a political universe in which almost every institution is compromised, almost every disagreement confirms her suspicions, and her own extraordinary wealth and influence somehow reinforce her credentials as the champion of the powerless. It reads increasingly like someone who has mistaken the intensity of her personal convictions for the historical importance of her role in defending them. And that final declaration, “I remain on their side,” is particularly revealing. She has appointed herself the representative of millions of women, decided what their interests are, and assumed the authority to pronounce upon everyone else's feminism. That's quite a position for one person to confer upon herself."

😬

Nah they hate Dawkins, Musk & Linehan equally.

Is "actually they just hate women" supposed to be a gotcha?

Is "actually they just hate women" supposed to be a gotcha?

Since confirming what people who menstruate are in 2020 (women and girls, in case anyone is still confused), Rowling has published 4 Strike novels and 2 children's books, as well as setting up Beira's Place.

It's quite an efficient sort of madness. In that time I still haven't got round to getting a bedside table for my spare room.

To be fair, they reserve the same ire for Bindel Joyce & co.

That they are 'just jealous' is pure cope.

showing that graduates and higher earners are more likely to belong to unions, then leaps to the conclusion that union leadership has been captured by privileged believers in gender ideology.

Well, it has. Which is why women have had to set up their own fucking union.

And no, he doesn't address any of the bloody arguments. Whoever the hell he is.

He sounds exactly like the sort of man she's talking about.

I would love her to start listing the arguments. I would love her to start itemising exactly who has been captured, and how it manifests itself, and what the fuck they say. From that's above my pay grade to I lost my phone in the river.

That's the problem with these people. It has long been noted that they don't want to hear from influential, independent women. They want to hear from all the women who have no power, no platform and no fucking voice. That's who they want to listen to, the ones they can't hear.

She invokes 1984 to suggest that disagreement over the meaning of woman is equivalent to denying elementary arithmetic.

Christ, you'd think it doesn't take a genius to understand that this Orwell quote was never about "elementary arithmetic".

She invokes 1984 to suggest that disagreement over the meaning of woman is equivalent to denying elementary arithmetic.

Christ, you'd think it doesn't take a genius to understand that this Orwell quote was never about "elementary arithmetic".

She invokes 1984 to suggest that disagreement over the meaning of woman is equivalent to denying elementary arithmetic.

Christ, you'd think it doesn't take a genius to understand that this Orwell quote was never about "elementary arithmetic".

There are legitimate arguments about privacy, safeguarding and how competing rights should be accommodated.

It is the post-SC ruling/post-EHRC guidance mantra. My captured MP churns it out all the time. Never admits what the arguments are though, nor how they might be resolved.

There are legitimate arguments about privacy, safeguarding and how competing rights should be accommodated.

It is the post-SC ruling/post-EHRC guidance mantra. My captured MP churns it out all the time. Never admits what the arguments are though, nor how they might be resolved.

Not forgetting TWAW/TMAM - No debate.

Funnily enough the legitimate arguments have been made by women, accepted and agreed with by the SC, EHRC and various other courts and tribunals.

Women and girls have the right to safety, privacy and dignity. Single sex spaces, services, sports, awards, associations are legitimate, legal and operate on the basis of being single sex, full stop, the end.