To agree with JK Rowling?

[StraightenUpAndFryRight]

mobile.twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1207646162813100033

‘Dress however you please.
Call yourself whatever you like.
Sleep with any consenting adult who’ll have you.
Live your best life in peace and security.
But force women out of their jobs for stating that sex is real?
#IStandWithMaya #ThisIsNotADrill’

From Alice in Wonderland:
*`I don’t know what you mean by “glory,”‘ Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don’t — till I tell you. I meant “there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!”‘

`But “glory” doesn’t mean “a nice knock-down argument,”‘ Alice objected.

When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

The question is,’ said Alice, whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, which is to be master – – that’s all.’

Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. `They’ve a temper, some of them — particularly verbs, they’re the proudest — adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs — however, I can manage the whole of them! Impenetrability! That’s what I say!’*

Humpty Dumptyism

I posted this on the other JKR thread, posting here in case someone finds it useful

Contact details forJK Rowling:

www.jkrowling.com/enquiries/

“Jo rarely gives interviews or writes articles, preferring to express herself on twitter. If you have a media enquiry, please contact J.K. Rowling’s PR team at [email protected]”

So it looks like [email protected] is the one to use unless anyone knows otherwise?

I’m going to email anyway, I think she needs an outpouring of love and support to counteract the vitriol.

Whether or not you decide that the terms man / woman / he / she exclusively denote the holders of any of those characteristics is an ideological position.

Deciding that those words mean what they mean on a biological level isn't an ideological position, but deciding that they mean something else is. Pretending that both sides of that debate are coming at it from an equally valid and equally political perspective is nonsense - the debate is reality versus ideology.

Can't believe this poll hasn't yet been gamed.

Maybe it has been and, much like Twitter, when you actually let people vote the pro reality votes prevail even if the anti reality voters try to cheat.

Of course once those words mean whatever anyone wants them to they mean nothing at all.

Which is exactly the point isn't it? That's the endgame. As enshrined in the Yogakarta principles.

What a fucking stupid life goal. Making biological sex obsolete. Do something useful.

Even
I think words would matter if those people who don't believe in mythology over material fact (most people we know all know in fact) were all forced into to be labelled cisgender, no distinction between male or female.

I don't think there'd be an issue then calling us 'cisgender'
I believe that's the fantasy endgame.

Words matter. Don't let anyone con you into buying the snake oil.

The debate is reality verses flat eathers. They are welcome to their beliefs but they can’t rewrite text books based on their feelz.

Precisely. Believe that the moon is made of blue cheese if you like, but if you demand that I set out to hack off a chunk and bring it back to the dinner table to serve with crackers I have every right to tell you to sod off, or to laugh.

...Only women can give birth. Only women menstruate.

These are all examples of facts which have been construed by some to be offensive.

If you agree to the definition that "women" are 'the ones without a Y' then of course it is a fact that only women give birtth. If we similarly define 'fitumpagog' to denote 'the ones without a Y' then relative to that definition it is a fact that only 'fitumpagog give birth.

If some other people come along and say they find that definition offensive and discriminatory, they want to also be known as'fitumpagog, then their dispute is with language and word usage, not the bit about who can or can;t give birth.

Such a simple basic distinction. But then I suppose it suits the rhetoric too greatly to give up acting as if what is being disputed is literally who can or can't give birth.

It is after all easier to dismiss the person who thinks the earth is a different shape than what it physically is, rather than the person who wants to change what words we use for different shapes.

It is indeed easy to dismiss manipulative behavior, if you stiffen your spine a bit.

Tiresome isnt it kittens

It’s sex that is a protected characteristic under the equalities act, and for this to have been successfully applied all these years there must have been an agreed upon legal definition of what each sex is. It appears to have been the same definition used by science, and that’s in all our dictionaries. Even in other languages, while they of course have different terms for each sex, they have all had this same clear distinction between two sexes we have also had for our entire history.

Now perhaps there will be some research to prove we have in fact been wrong this whole time, the same way science found people were wrong to believe the world was flat. Until that happens we remain with the already agreed upon meanings that have been expressing this clear distinction between the sexes all this time. If you want to change the status quo you need to do the work of proving that beyond any reasonable doubt, none of us need to prove that it’s reasonable to believe words still have the meanings they always have done.

Deciding that those words mean what they mean on a biological level isn't an ideological position, but deciding that they mean something else is. Pretending that both sides of that debate are coming at it from an equally valid and equally political perspective is nonsense - the debate is reality versus ideology.

Both sides accept the same reality. In the sense of physical facts about chromosomes, body parts, hormones etc. The dispute is only in whether such factors should be a requirement or disqualifying, for particular terms.

There is no biology or science to tell us what words in the English language mean or denote.

And if you had no ideology on the matter you wouldn't resist language change.

Back when gay meant happy, you must have had some reason for why you would act to resist it changing to mean homosexual. Otherwise you would have just shrugged your shoulders and let it get redefined.

Your reasons, whether political, practical, moral, or you have just become so attached to gay meaning happy that you cannot bear it not meaning that anymore, whatever, can surely be described as an ideological stance?

You're not having our fucking words. OK?

ffs JAPAB this isn't some sort of existential word game.

Oh Jesus we're now being accused if being the 'I just don't see why we can't use gay for happy anymore' people.

WHERE IS THE EYE ROLL EMOJI WHEN I NEED IT?

Does anyone fancy an existential word game? I'll start.

Cock

You realize that this is not working on us, right? I mean, if you'd like to spend the remaining 4 pages proving the cliche about the pointlessness of repeating a behavior that you already know does not yield the desired results true then by all means, be my guest, but it's not going to make any difference.

There is no ‘both sides’. There is how language has been used until now, and there’s those who want to change it. It’s on the latter group to prove why it should change, that’s not two equal but opposing ideological positions so it’s manipulative to present it as such.

Gay also meaning homosexual doesn’t stop it meaning happy. Women meaning anyone who self ids as such does stop it from meaning only adult human females. Again, that’s a manipulative false equivalency.

People resort to manipulation when they don’t have a valid argument.

evan

Womble

Someone is gonna have to explain the rules to me...slowly

Oh fuck

I typed even...then i changed it, doh!!

What, not responding with another word for cock? Disappointed in you, Rufus.

Badger

PENIS!!!!!