JKR "An Update to My Essay of June 2020"

From about halfway down page 2 of this thread. Apparently Churchill said “I love it when a plan comes together” according to @CoolforKats 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

What you need is a whisky, a cigar, and to settle into the whole thread (tea and biscuits are also acceptable...)

"The effect of all this, especially in its Americanised version, was to stigmatise everyone in Western society unable to claim an Oppressed identity, as an Oppressor, simply by being born who they were.

Most people so designated took it with a healthy pinch of salt. But some, by temperament or upbringing, were vulnerable to guilt- tripping and accepted the stigma; and some who didn't, found themselves being hectored and penalised. Others again had never reconciled themselves to the notion of equality and the loss of automatic superiority to other groups.

A significant minority of people were therefore in want of an alternative identity which would destigmatise them and raise their status in the milieu they inhabited. An expansion of the "Oppressed" category to include a range of identities - genuine or invented - which could not be readily disproven, was the obvious solution to this."

Yep, it's why colorblind attitudes to race are dismissed. Whites are the oppressor class, white guilt is universal to all whites, and thus whites extending colorblind attitudes and policies is intrinsically racist because whites are intrinsically racist.
<Only> non white/colonized people's experiences are relevant.
I believe this is why Islam especially radical Islam gets a bye from the post modern left. All those clever clever types are at heart atheist and would ordinarily look at Islam as outmoded, oppressive and irrelevant, but because Muslims are brown and Christians are white, Christianity the bedrock of societies decried by the modern left, a main pillar of the liberal Enlightenment, and brown people's lived experience of imperial oppression by the West is all that matters in this Marcuse-Foucault-Butler tilted axis of the post modern world, Islam gets a total bye from the modern left.
I'm curious to see where the clash of intersectional ties in the Green Party pans out, the Gays4Gaza crowd intermingling with the Muslim Bros like Mothin Ali.

Well, the latest derailing technique seems to be the posting screeds of absolute pish and then arguing the toss about it. Endlessly. Still, rings the changes a bit, I suppose.

Oh, and there was a lot of 'cognitive dissonance' being bandied about. Apparently we're all guilty of that, or we would be if our latest scolder knew what it meant.

They always remind me of a naughty boy determined to upset or embarrass their female teacher (had a few in my class) and unpleasant chip on shoulder older male who found a new spin on the manosphere.
With a side order of female assistant, taking the Mean Girls film as blueprint not warning.

Muslims are brown and Christians are white

Worldwide approximately 68% of Christians are not white, somehow the left forget all about the Christians in Africa, Asia, Latin America.

Who do they think that huge statue in Brazil represents???

I'm maybe guilty of overgeneralizing, lol.
How many Muslims globally are white?

Yes. Even in the UK, most of the practicising Christians I know are Black.

I once caused spluttering incoherance and incandescent rage by pointing out that Jesus wasn't white. Or if he was he certainly would have stood out in that part of the world!

Of course the majority of Christians are non white. I'd be interested in how many Muslims were white but I'd be surprised if it was more than a percent or two.

No, as a woman I am VERY interested in this issue, of why MEN, regardless of how they dress or identify, persist in trying to cross boundaries, or gain access to titles, spaces, awards, that they have no place in trying to obtain. Other than their own mediocre successes, or other, in their correct sex class. That's a very interesting conversation. Would you like to join us, as clearly you are also interested in this question?

Well as a woman you don't get to speak for all women which is the fundamental flaw of JKR's reasoning particularly given she asserts experience gives her authority to do so. To assume to speak for all women is to assume they are a monolith of experience & understanding….kinda like a sexual stereotype.

Women, not being a monolith of experience & understanding means they don't all assess risk in the same way hence the diiference of opinion regarding trans women as a safety risk.

In other words given opinions vary spaces are contestable & contextual. And not as set in stone as you appear to believe.

So are you saying there is no one “female feeling” or thought? In which case, how does à make know he “feels like a female”? Which point of reference is he using? His mum? Margaret thatcher? If there is no one way to be a woman apart from biology, then that just confirms a man can never be a woman. Well played sir, well played.

Strange how none of you can ever explain in your own words any arguments. You c/p misogynistic MRA 'essays' but when asked to explain, you don't even understand what you read. You realise you are making a fool of yourself on here. Right?

Most women see males as a safety risk. 99.99999999% of women see males as a safety risk.

.

To be fair, is there any evidence he didn't say that?

A lot of famous quotes are attributed to Churchill.

“Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened.”

But it's quite possible some have been overlooked.

@CoolforKats you said to @socialdilemmawhattodo ‘Well as a woman you don't get to speak for all women which is the fundamental flaw of JKR's reasoning particularly given she asserts experience gives her authority to do so. ’

I understand that to mean you don’t think women should either; a) share their life experience with other people, especially if they can command a large or influential audience, or b) that life experience should be allowed to shape how they view the world and, in this case, assess the risks and disadvantages caused by men trying to access women’s spaces.

Is this an accurate reading of your position?
Are there areas where it is permissible for women to share their experience and knowledge, or is it only in relation to ‘trans rights’ that they should keep quiet and put up?

You’re right women aren’t a monolith, but we share a common biology and a very long history of oppression that is recognized by our rights in law to single sex spaces and protection from predatory men (sigh, yes, not all men or TIMs).

With that commonality and history comes shared experiences that are familiar to more women than not.

or b) that life experience should be allowed to shape how they view the world and, in this case, assess the risks and disadvantages caused by men trying to access women’s spaces.
Is this an accurate reading of your position?

Yes.

Are there areas where it is permissible for women to share their experience and knowledge, or is it only in relation to ‘trans rights’ that they should keep quiet and put up?

I never suggested they shouldn't. I simply said they as in the Gender critical movement don't get to speak on behalf of all women as if we agree when we clearly don't.

With that commonality and history comes shared experiences that are familiar to more women than not.

Like JKR your'e conveniently making the false equivalence of women's experiences with cis men & trans women. Clearly the women who don't agree with JKR aren't hence they don't clock trans women as a risk.

Like JKR says experience matters but not quite in the way she imagines it does.

@CoolforKats

You don’t believe women should use their experiences to shape how they view the world or assess the risks and disadvantages caused by men who wish to access women’s spaces. Can I double check that’s what you mean?

’Like JKR your'e conveniently making the false equivalence of women's experiences with cis men & trans women. Clearly the women who don't agree with JKR aren't hence they don't clock trans women as a risk.’

No. I am stating my belief which is supported by evidence which you may easily when you search VAWG statistics, rates of sexual offence by TIMs in prison, and from a basic knowledge of women’s history.

I don’t wish to make any assumptions about you, your intentions, or your level of knowledge in these subjects; please don’t make assumptions about me.

I used to frequent a different board and there was a very dull poster who always got terribly indignant whenever anyone referred to 'we' thinking/doing anything (random but real examples, Irish people wrt funeral practices or proportional representation), demanding to know who 'we' were and was there any documentation to prove their opinion was completely united, not something that had been claimed.

I came to the conclusion that he had few friends and little social experience, but also noted that he was ex-army (UK) and wondered had he been trained to reject expressions of general opinion on principle. He did go in for divide and rule games.

For me, 'we' is the many people I know and read and hear to share a specific state or experience.

Yet in building regulations and standards and legislation the designs for men, women and unisex facilities are set. Thousands of pages on toilet design throughout the years. Dictated to by health and safety and biological differences.

Unless we are to scrap all the above and have a free for all, all toilets will have to become universal rooms. No more cubicles. It would cost millions. Who is to fund it?

A lot of this though is a red herring - designed to look so important a discussion that it hides the real underlying issues...

At the core of this is:

• born man or born woman
• can't change sex
• both sexes are allowed (morally / ethically and legally) to have their own spaces

That is it - there is nothing more to this argument than that.

The first two are immutable facts of biology and it doesn't matter whether all women or all men or any combination wants to accept them - they just are...
you could have every person in the world disagreeing with those two statements and it makes no difference - they will carry on being true.

Truth is not changed by perception or belief. The % of agreement doesn't change reality - it can explain tensions and discussions and disagreements - but it makes zero difference to actual biological reality.

The last is our society's decision - and yes that can be changed - it would be a degenerate society that did so, but that is where those who have an agenda can deploy it if they wish - but to change it means doing so legally and through parliament - not the current bullying, lies, deception, pressure, cancelling, etc. which are the current tools of the trade to change a society away from a recognition of truth and reality, and the care for particularly the more vulnerable members of society; to a society based on anarchy and male oppression.

What is so superb about the current discussions is that reality and truth have not just been established in the country (that has been a continuous part of our history for centuries), but that they have been acknowledged and cemented in as indisputable truths.

It makes these discussions a bit pointless - because the battles are won, the war is won - truth has triumphed and as most people are decent, so gradually the clouds are lifting and people are reverting to normality - and we are seeing a clearer and clearer understanding of the lies and deception that led us into this place - and rejecting them.

JKR has been a superb part (alongside many others) in moving this along - the only reason anyone argues against her is in a desperate attempt to hold back truth and reality - however it won't matter what they do, all she has to do is keep reiterating truth - there is no flaw to truth and it can not be brought down - it just is.

So, continue to dive down into the weeds and make claims around % of people who someone speaks for - it is irrelevant - JKR is not creating her own philosophy or agenda - she is simply highlighting truth - and anyone who stands against truth and reality, well a) they have already lost this battle and b) we have to question their motives - they can not be good or healthy for society.

Women, not being a monolith of experience & understanding means they don't all assess risk in the same way hence the diiference of opinion regarding trans women as a safety risk

When deciding on public policy, assessments of risk are supposed to be based on evidence, not personal opinion.

There is no data to show that trans women are less of a threat to women than other men.

You are right that Rowling’s opinion does not and should not decide public policy and law, so those who disagree with her would make better use of their time if they engaged with the available evidence and proposed how legislation should change.

First, of course, you would have to clearly define ‘trans’ and I don’t think that would be popular in the community.

Women, not being a monolith of experience & understanding...

You're nearly there, Kool. You might even say women differ in every possible way but one - United by our shared biology.

Because that's it. That's the only thing women from the paleolithic, 10th century Japan, the Amazon rain forest, the court of Louis IVX, my daughter and Judith flaming Butler have that united them. Our female biology. Or our sex, to put it bluntly.

And no transwoman ever will.