To think JKRowling should be in the House of Lords

[Allthegoodnamesarechosen]

She is probably the best selling living author writing in English

She has given a great deal of money to charity

She has conquered the disadvantages of being an unemployed single mother by her own efforts

She is a great role model for women and girls

those based on virtue

Who decides they are 'virtuous'? The equally heriditary and unelected monarchy. The same system that decided Sir Jimmy Savile was 'virtuous'.

It recognises that a minute percentage of women refuse to own that they are women, but, nonetheless, if they give birth they become mothers.

It's contradictory. On the one hand, it's saying they can choose the 'label' of woman or not; on the other it's saying they must accept the label of 'mother'.

Either way under the current system a woman like JKR would be immensely useful in what remains a chamber made up disproportionately of hereditary peers & males

That's a bit like saying Keir Starmer would be useful as a member of the Conservative party.

Awful woman. Outside the single issue echo chamber that MN is fast becoming, most women I know either don’t care about her or actively hold her in contempt for the horrific, divisive rubbish that now appears to be spewing.

Such as? Could you ease give an example?

Yes, could you refer specifically to the 'horrific, divisive rubbish that now appears to be spewing'.

Direct quotes if possible please.

It's contradictory. On the one hand, it's saying they can choose the 'label' of woman or not; on the other it's saying they must accept the label of 'mother'

To add to this - I could reframe that as: 'woman' is a label that can be picked up or discarded, but 'mother' is inviolate. That is not a good message for women who are not mothers.

Don't fool yourselves that the Lords have women's interests at heart. They just want to protect primogeniture.

Oh please. Do you even know what you’re talking about? Why is she “awful”? Please be specific. Otherwise you just sound thick.

Someone I love is suffering from a terminal neurological illness.

The ill informed people who think JKR only cares about trans issues can fuck right off.

www.annerowlingclinic.org/about/our-history

I gather that she's a bit more socialist than I am. But that's fine because it's important to have a range of viewpoints.

Okey dokey then. Her bank balance tells us otherwise.

there is so much wrong with this post it’s hard to know where to start!

Interesting you use Jimmy Saville as an example, surely you are not comparing him to JKR? But he is a good example of what happens when you disregard basic safeguarding which is what those who deride JKR stand for.

My other point is that you realise that the Conservative party have had 3 female prime ministers so I’m not quite sure why you hold the Labour Party in such esteem when it comes to equality to women ? The Labour Party doesn’t even realise that only women have cervixes!

💐

Thank you for posting this, I'm sorry for what you are going through with your loved one.

JKR really is a wonderful woman, and the amount of shit she is getting just for refusing to sit down about women and girls is just disgusting. Particularly when a lot of it is coming from people who have done fuck all with their own lives.

No, of course I'm not comparing Savile to JKR. I'm saying that the selection process for honours is neither democratic nor reliable.

The Lords don't care about safeguarding - they simply want to protect primogeniture. If you're aligning yourself on the basis of 'my enemy's enemy is my friend' then fair enough, but don't delude yourself that they are in your corner.

The Conservative party has had 3 x as many terms in office as the Labour Party so it's not surprising they've had more female PMs. A better measure might be the proportion of serving MPs - 104 of 202 Labour MPs are female - more than half; compared to just 87 of 365 Conservative MPs.

It's contradictory. On the one hand, it's saying they can choose the 'label' of woman or not; on the other it's saying they must accept the label of 'mother

It is not saying that they can choose the 'label' of woman or not. It is recognising that some women reject that label, but that this rejection does not change anything. If a woman gives birth she becomes a mother, no matter if she rejects the label 'woman'.

Don't fool yourselves that the Lords have women's interests at heart.

Some have messed it quite clear that they do by speaking up publicly.

They just want to protect primogeniture.

Over 760 Peers eligible to sit in the HoL. Of them less than 90 are hereditary peers.

Hope she doesn't see this. She'll be sobbing into her silk pillows.

Yes - so the concept of 'mother' is more important than the concept of 'woman' in the eyes of that speaker. It isn't. Motherhood can be socially constructed - you can become a mother without giving birth, through adoption. All he is doing is pigeonholing women into a very traditional role, while saying their biological sex is simply a label.

Over 760 Peers eligible to sit in the HoL. Of them less than 90 are hereditary peers.

But they are there because their peerage was conferred by someone who exists by virtue of hereditary privilege.

They weren't debating whether a woman must be called a woman. They were debating whether an adult human female could ever be called a father. The ' value' of either designation was not relevant. It was purely about whether mother and father were sex-designated.

How long till this gets put in the corner aswell???

Love JKL and EVERYTHING she stands for

She is wonderful ❤️❤️❤️

It clearly is relevant because they have casually thrown the word 'woman' under a bus while choosing to protect 'mother'. Femininity is only valid to them as a concept if you give birth.

You need to ask yourself why those women are so scared of the erasure of sex in law and policy that they will vote for "the nasty party" to keep the legal definition of woman as "a female of any age".

I'll tell you why I, as a former Labour Party paid-up member, will vote for the Tories unless a better party comes along or Labour send the self-id policy into a black hole never to be seen again. I can donate to food banks and charities to mitigate poverty, but I can't phone Rape Crisis if I think a male voice might answer; if one did, I'd be likely to self-harm of worse. I can use crowdfunding to fight an unfair dismissal case if my union is rendered useless, but I can't use a swimming pool changing room safely if males can walk in unchallenged. I can downsize my house or even move back in with my parents if my mortgage becomes unaffordable, but I can't go for a smear test with my memories of sexual assault and rape if my request for a female nurse is interpreted to refer to special gender feelz instead of biological reality. I can cope with fewer luxuries, but my mental health will not withstand being gaslight systematically by the State telling me that a woman can be born with a penis. I can cope with longer waiting lists for mental health treatment, but I cannot cope with being in a psychiatric ward with a male in my room and the nurses telling me he's a woman on his say-so, as has already happened. I can cope with longer waits for rape trauma counselling, but I cannot cope with someone male in the therapy group, as has also already happened.

If we lose women's right to create female-only spaces, we cannot work around that. We can work around service cuts and hardship. And that's why I will hold my nose and vote Tory.

I'd be likely to self-harm of worse

OR worse. I should have hit preview.

I'm not exaggerating there. I've got history of both self-injury and suicide attempts, and when I'm phoning Rape Crisis, I'm usually in a deep enough trauma pit that I already want to self-injure or end it all. It's very likely that hearing a male voice answer would tip me over the edge.