To ask about JK Rowling - can someone tell me what happened?

[christmaspigeon]

Just that really. I like her. I like how she gives so much for charity and how she put Trump in his place, but I know people's views on her have changed. Something to do with trans comments?? Can someone explain (in really simple language!) what happened? Thank you!

Presumably transmen can join the male 50% of the board, so that should even things out.

@TheBuffster your DH might be even more surprised to hear that Telford Labour Women's Officer told women to 'suck my big lady cock' and the party thought it was just fine. In fact iirc, it was their fault for upsetting the penis-haver. Don't they know that women party members exist to make male women's officers feel validated?

@Biffbaff

Presumably transmen can join the male 50% of the board, so that should even things out.

Can. Change that to could. That scenario would require a sense of fair play for biological women. Have you glanced at the house of commons lately? (34% the highest representation ever!)Statistically women represent 50% of the population but are never represented as such, whether in Westminster, Hollywood or anywhere else. We're a long way off from fair representation, so why would we assume the erosion of the definition of women wouldn't be abused.

[quote iguanadonna]@TheBuffster your DH might be even more surprised to hear that Telford Labour Women's Officer told women to 'suck my big lady cock' and the party thought it was just fine. In fact iirc, it was their fault for upsetting the penis-haver. Don't they know that women party members exist to make male women's officers feel validated? [/quote]
What's nuts is misogyny like that is not against the law. Call a man by their actual name or pronouns and you're likely to get a visit from the police for committing a hate act. Call women what you like, threaten them with actual violence and get applauded by the woke crowd. (Sadly, many of my ideology would fit more with being woke than conservative, but this issue forces you to distance yourself)

I don't think the far right want a vegan, feminist socialist so I am politically homeless.

Meanwhile, over at the Green Party, this is one of the candidates who stood for chairperson of Green Party Women.

www.kathrynbristow.uk/bristol-green-party/

Some insights into their political priorities: grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/letter-from-a-green-party-member

Green Party have lost me and my whole family forever. They have lost their minds and we don’t vote for brainless gits.

Look at this person. They took a political position reserved for women.

See, in America, there were these rules to achieve parity between the sexes, in order to avoid women's voices being shut out of politics.
Full details here: thevelvetchronicle.com/ny-democrats-quietly-dismantle-1-male-1-female-rule/

This is being systematically dismantled.

Decaudin successfully got theNY State Democratic Partyto dismantle the “one male, one female” rule from Democratic State Committees—A rule which thewomen’s suffrage movementfought to put into place. The rule guaranteed females an equal seat at the Democratic table.

@thebuffster it's 51%! So really women should have a slight majority. I agree it's despicable that we don't.

I actually think the "definition of woman" is central to this whole debate, if that's what this is. Is there an adequate definition for what a woman is? If you're looking purely at sex organs and sexual/reproductive processes then that seems biologically accurate for most, but not all women - plenty of women born female are born without wombs and for those that are, not all of them are used for child bearing. Menstruation only takes place for some bio women, some years of their lives, so that's not an adequate measure. Socially, what are we talking about? Someone has mentioned dresses and "wigs", so long hair - that's an environmental factor but of course you can be a woman without either of those. There has been a lot of talk about victims of crime stats - again this is accurate for some types of crime, but that aspect of the definition focuses on women as victims - like being reduced to the function of your sex organs, this is reductive in a different way and some women on this thread aren't comfortable with that label either. Again for social and psychological reasons.

Intellectually I find this whole thing really interesting. I don't have answers but it's thoughtprovoking all the same.

I have also been thinking that, like with JKR a discussion of transmen and women became about transwomen and women, I wonder if this is because "man" and "men" as a term historically has been used as a catch-all word for men and women, so there isn't the same feeling among bio men about claiming the definition for one particular group as there is with women.

Oh. And the reason women get upset about ‘women’s officers and sex balanced boards and committees’ being led by males?

Because

• these positions will have influence on policy either at a business enterprise level all the way to Westminster.
• these positions are considered stepping stones (starting at university ‘women’s officers roles) to more senior policy making roles or other career roles.
• therefore not only are women not getting the balanced representation they need and deserve, particularly because for so long we have been subject to men’s opinions of what we need, women have lost the opportunity again to progress in their own careers. Yet again, a male has taken that from them.

And that is just the superficial top line repercussions. This isn’t just ‘scaremongering’. Remember the activist Munroe Bergdorf who told women they couldn’t centre their reproductive rights at a women’s protest. An activist who has used transphobic namecalling on other transpeople and calls gay men and women homophobic names. An activist that encouraged children to contact them in private while representing a children’s charity. An activist who has been held up as been the epitome of the modern feminist and is asked to contribute on matters concerning women and children. And this is just a well known incidence.

Please don’t be misled in believing that there are now many of these boards, panels and committees that have males now representing females. And no.... transmen rarely have the power to get in these positions. I think you will find it reflects the reality of equality in that sense.

So again.... Joanne Rowling responded to the changes in guidance that were put in (I don’t believe any debate was had before hand) to being in Scotland. Again, how happy are you that women’s needs are even adequately represented in these instances.

Transmen have been mentioned a bit in this thread, but..it really seems transwmen are prioritised, and transmen ignored. Transmen are not chipping away at womens rights, as much as its made out the 'cervix havers' and such is to appease transmen (when 'women and transmen' would suffice if so).

medium.com/@jben9581/trans-men-and-non-binary-people-are-valid-too-317ff14174c9

This is (part of) a transmans view on this kind of thing. Even the transmen notice that its all about transwomen. I posted this as i specifically mentions the JKR thing, and the reaction, which, again, ignored transmen though really, if it was to upset any transpeople, it would realistically have been transmen, given her original tweet on it.

The reaction to JK Rowlings tweets/essay was both quite odd and a bit telling to me. She invalidated the lived experience of trans men and non binary people, but everyone who condemned her said ‘trans women are women’? This was not about trans women but trans men and how people just ignore us on the whole, on each ‘side’ of the debate.

This transman obviously did feel 'invalidated' with what JKR said about basically, those with periods being female. But, they also seem baffled with the 'TWAW' reaction. But thats the whole thing in a nutshell to me. IF transactivists and the likes saw transmen as men, they would be centred in everything, like men are. Infact, it goes the other way, transmen are ignored totally (unless to be used as a gotchya point) and transwomen are the ones all attention and focus should be on. Odd that, really

Can we have an example of one of her 'anti-trans tweets', please?

This link:

medium.com/@rebeccarc/j-k-rowling-and-the-trans-activists-a-story-in-screenshots-78e01dca68d (WARNING, IT'S NASTY STUFF)

contains a number of JKR supposedly "transphobic" tweets and the responses she got from activists on twitter. The activists are unhinged and are driven by misogynistic hatred. This is what's going on here, a load of people have found an excuse to hate JKR and they are thoroughly enjoying themselves and their sense of righteousness.

Can someone explain to me what Kathryn's pronouns mean?

Fae/Faer/Faers/Faerself

I can only just about accept they/them (even though it is bollocks), but the rest? They are just made up words from what I can see, I don't understand the etymology behind them.

The responses to her tweet, get me everytime. The pure hatred dripping from them. The endless parade of violence and threats, insulting age/appearance, sexual threats also, when its claimed that those who threaten are a tiny minority, and no of course transactivists do not react in such a way to women with a different opinion. TERF is a neutral term also. You are all being very silly and hysterical, it was a JOKE!

While twitter is not a good representation of real life overall, its baffling at this stage that some will still claim this does not happen and its actually feminists who are the nasty ones. Mind, I suppose it has t be pretended that it doesn't happen, similar to all the men commiting sexual offenses then deciding they are trans (or declaring themselves trans WHILE committing said offense), that doesn't happen either despite huge overreprestation in numbers in prison.

Are you talking about intersex people, as I'm pretty sure they've asked repeatedly not to be used in the trans debate out of a sign of respect. Your statement ...plenty of women born female... Suggests that these people are identified female at birth despite not having wombs.
The catchall women are people without penis' would work, but no doubt would be seen as transphobic.
The fact that we even need to define what women is beyond biological sex, with the whataboutery shows how far gone women's rights and identity have gone.
Everyone in 1990 knew what a woman was without resorting to body parts.
They also knew women are systematically discriminated against so need rebalancing 'checks' in place.

The illogical logic of tra means we are now having to tie ourselves in knots to define ourselves.
We weaken our position squabbling amongst ourselves because we've all been forced into buying the fallacy that sex isn't easily defined.
Meanwhile men take up positions of power trampling all over us helped by the fact we are told we have to lift them up even at cost to ourselves.
Let's be real. We're grown ups. We all know the difference between men and women really, don't we, despite the doublethinkery in evidence.

Is there an adequate definition for what a woman is? If you're looking purely at sex organs and sexual/reproductive processes then that seems biologically accurate for most, but not all women - plenty of women born female are born without wombs and for those that are, not all of them are used for child bearing.

I believe that there are quite adequate definitions for ‘female’. It incorporates a holistic look at the body and its potential for reproduction, whether it ever does or whether due to a medical condition, or other impairment (deliberate or not) or decision it doesn’t. This incorporates not only chromosomes, genitals etc. it also looks at hormones and things down to cellular level. All people with differences in development can be sorted into male or female with today’s techniques.

The discussion about who menstruates, who has a uterus, who has an enlarged clitoris, etc is all distraction. It was always women who ever had the ‘potential’ to menstruate, to get pregnant, whatever. Is should never have entered the conversation on whether they did, do or will.

It always was about having the potential (if medical reasons or choice prevented that). Question. Which women benefitted from this change in focus?

@akittencalledjesus

Can someone explain to me what Kathryn's pronouns mean?

Fae/Faer/Faers/Faerself

I can only just about accept they/them (even though it is bollocks), but the rest? They are just made up words from what I can see, I don't understand the etymology behind them.

Fay means fairy in Gaelic, but honestly, no idea.

@akittencalledjesus

Can someone explain to me what Kathryn's pronouns mean?

Fae/Faer/Faers/Faerself

I can only just about accept they/them (even though it is bollocks), but the rest? They are just made up words from what I can see, I don't understand the etymology behind them.

They are neopronouns, derived from old words for fairy, as in fey and the name Fay. Reasonably common on the internet at this point.

For the purposes of balance, I'm linking explanations from others, and not my own vitriolic terfy point of view.

This is a post from the person who developed them in 2013: askanonbinary.tumblr.com/post/70717402524/pronouns-i-have-encountered-in-no-particular-order

This is a guide on how to use them in context: neopronounfaq.tumblr.com/post/185595241964/guide-to-faefaer-pronouns

Bloody small screens. ‘it’ should not ‘is’.

Mine was an entirely terfy interpretation, but hey it was on the money.

@Winesalot

Is there an adequate definition for what a woman is? If you're looking purely at sex organs and sexual/reproductive processes then that seems biologically accurate for most, but not all women - plenty of women born female are born without wombs and for those that are, not all of them are used for child bearing.

I believe that there are quite adequate definitions for ‘female’. It incorporates a holistic look at the body and its potential for reproduction, whether it ever does or whether due to a medical condition, or other impairment (deliberate or not) or decision it doesn’t. This incorporates not only chromosomes, genitals etc. it also looks at hormones and things down to cellular level. All people with differences in development can be sorted into male or female with today’s techniques.

The discussion about who menstruates, who has a uterus, who has an enlarged clitoris, etc is all distraction. It was always women who ever had the ‘potential’ to menstruate, to get pregnant, whatever. Is should never have entered the conversation on whether they did, do or will.

It always was about having the potential (if medical reasons or choice prevented that). Question. Which women benefitted from this change in focus?

This was what I was trying to say. Thanks for putting it so well.

The fact that we even need to define what women is beyond biological sex, with the whataboutery shows how far gone women's rights and identity have gone.

Its impossible to define women without biology. Unless you resort to stereotypes, which not all women follow. They know this when they say it. This is how TRAs get away with bollocks such as 'women is a shifting constellation of meaninglessness' and that

There is no need to define wmen without biology, as biology is what makes women women! And doing so, would mean women simply is another word for 'person' or 'human', rendering the word woman totally useless.

The 'some women are without a womb' and such makes no difference, and changes nothing. A woman is someone of the female sex, wether or not they have 'all the parts' and whether or not they are fertile. Its of the sex, thats the important part. Male people are not, and never will be of the female sex.

@TheBuffster

Mine was an entirely terfy interpretation, but hey it was on the money.

It's almost like us adult women weren't born yesterday and know some stuff? Nah, can't be true. What would women know?

@thebuffster

Since the 1990s there has been lots of scientific research which has identified more at play than the "binary" of XX and XY chromosomes.

Things are progressing as to how sex is defined, scientifically speaking.

I meant to provide this link www.scientificamerican.com/article/sex-redefined-the-idea-of-2-sexes-is-overly-simplistic1/

A definition often given is

' A woman is anyone who identifies as a woman'

BUT, that really does not work at all. As if there is no definition of woman, then how does one identify with one? Its a nonsense definition. If you ask me what a strudlebart is, and I say 'its something that looks like a strudlebart'..how are you ever going to know what one is?!