JKR "An Update to My Essay of June 2020"

The ability to confuse & distort a simple point about how personal experience shapes perception….a point your hero makes the centrepiece of informing her views is astounding. But when you think about the consequences of not doing so being accepting your hero is a raging hypocrite by denying it to others makes sense. Its called cognitive dissonance.

Brixton Academy '94

Phew. If @Catiette doesn't understand it either then it's not me being thick.❤️

I can kind of guess what they may have meant? But it's hard to follow the thinking in sentences and across posts. I've just reread the one of mine that was a response to, and think it may be a case of misunderstanding compounding misunderstanding, compounding... but dunno, really.

I know I keep going on about it, but this is what makes the TRA cause so unconvincing. I really think we try to understand what they're saying, but it's like nailing jelly to a table. And then our attempts to understand or challenge what we've understood in turn are jellified - "Nice essay, Jo!" becomes "hero worship", and pinpointing a potential discrepancy becomes "identifying and distorting a simple point".

Time and time again the visitors here drive us to the same conclusion: it's hard to explain the inexplicable and justify the unjustifiable. Grammar itself seems to collapse under the weight of it all.

I can kind of guess what they may have meant? But it's hard to follow the thinking in sentences and across posts.

Part of the problem with cognitive dissonance is it kind of sets you up for this sort of thing. There's no way you can engage with a point that challenges your beliefs.

I can kind of guess what they may have meant? But it's hard to follow the thinking in sentences and across posts. I've just reread the one of mine that was a response to, and think it may be a case of misunderstanding compounding misunderstanding, compounding... but dunno, really.

I know I keep going on about it, but this is what makes the TRA cause so unconvincing. I really think we try to understand what they're saying, but it's like nailing jelly to a table. And then our attempts to understand or challenge what we've understood in turn are jellified - "Nice essay, Jo!" becomes "hero worship", and pinpointing a potential discrepancy becomes "identifying and distorting a simple point".

Time and time again the visitors here drive us to the same conclusion: it's hard to explain the inexplicable and justify the unjustifiable. Grammar itself seems to collapse under the weight of it all.

Deffo no cognitive dissonance in those who believe Dr. Upton's enhanced chest in anyway is identical to female secondary sex characteristics.
No, no dissonance at all.
Pot/kettle.
Your whole ideology is dissonant at it's core.

It's almost as if they don't really want anyone to try to understand what they are saying. They want to deflect attention to their long words and tortured syntax, because they think that is what makes someone sound clever, and they want to intimidate with their 'cleverness'.

Edit for premature posting!

Um, hormone replacement therapy can and does produce secondary sex characteristics.

Maybe its time to sit this one out & let the wymon speak.

It's in honour of their fairy godmother Judith Butler, who wouldn't use 5 words where 500 we're available.
What's fantastic about Rowling's essay is that unlike the word salad that comes out of TRA and gender academics' mouths, she speaks in language and concepts that everyone understands.
It's why her words always have weight and significance, and genderists both hate her for it, and are so impotent that even now, years after TWAW became the mantra, noone is able to articulate anything that isn't nonsensical.
She is loathed by Planet Gender precisely because as this essay shows, her powers of communication are undimmed, and the vast majority agree with her.

It's in honour of their fairy godmother Judith Butler, who wouldn't use 5 words where 500 we're available.
What's fantastic about Rowling's essay is that unlike the word salad that comes out of TRA and gender academics' mouths, she speaks in language and concepts that everyone understands.
It's why her words always have weight and significance, and genderists both hate her for it, and are so impotent that even now, years after TWAW became the mantra, noone is able to articulate anything that isn't nonsensical.
She is loathed by Planet Gender precisely because as this essay shows, her powers of communication are undimmed, and the vast majority agree with her.

Brixton Academy '94

Was that before the line up changed? They’re like the bloody Sugababes!

Um, hormone replacement therapy can and does produce secondary sex characteristics.

Maybe its time to sit this one out & let the wymon speak.

Just adding to the above, I think it began with a paradoxical attempt to demonstrate that fear's a matter of personal experience and individual perception... by using a generalisation? That was then reinforced with a vague reference to stats... which was subsequently used to argue the relative irrelevance of stats?

I'm also not sure cognitive dissonance is fully understood, but just the last few responses - accusation, ad hom, accusation - speak for themselves as to who's engaging with whose words more closely, and where this is going (jelly and trifles) so I'm off now.

They became the Sugababes in '98.

They became the Sugababes in '98.

Absolutely. I have read and listened to JB and she seems unable to differentiate between abstract concepts and concrete facts. I actually cringe for her on podcasts. It seems to be easier for intellectual frauds to make their way through the social sciences than through the physical sciences. <ducks for cover>

Wtf has Bill Wyman got to do with any of this?

Um, hormone replacement therapy can and does produce secondary sex characteristics.

Maybe its time to sit this one out & let the wymon speak.

Mate, your'e struggling with the most basic of concepts on this thread & seriously think your critique of Butler of all people is meaningful?

What is it with the gender critical movement & delusions of grandeur? Is it really any wonder they project this onto trans people as 'being something they are not'?

that isn't nonsensical.

Like not understanding biology 101 about hormones?