Tom Felton getting stick. Is this really the world we live in now?

[User012389]

Whatever your stance is on trans issues do people really have nothing better to do than verbally slaughter him for choosing to continue within the franchise and being honest that he has no strong opinions on the matter? He's a big boy now and I'm sure he can handle himself but it makes me terrified for the young actors who are also already being subjected to this as well.

I myself was also pretty much forced to remove a post on a facebook group congratulating one of the young actors on being cast in the TV series as some of the vitriol I received completely overpowered the positive intention of the post. I said nothing inflammatory just pointed out that not everyone disagrees with JK's opinions and that we need to be accepting of opinions which are different to our own.

I'd understand the backlash if JK or so called TERFS were spreading genuine hate or encouraging persecution of a group but I just don't see that. IMO whatever your views on gender identity are there's way more horrible and important things going on in the world. Is a lot of trans-activisim really just a way for young people to express their very valid dissatisfaction with the world in general in a reasonably safe way? Honestly maybe I'm getting old and boring but I just don't get it.

They give him shit because they can't actually defend their own position. Attacking is their only option.
I have so much respect for Tom Felton. He'll have known how much abuse he would get and he stuck to his principles anyway and refused to throw JKR to the wolves. Great strength of character.

people or institutions who bow to the TRA bullies always make the mistake of overestimating how many people believe their nonsense. Some shrieking on X does not mean that most people agree. They don’t.

It's crazy how many people in the UK are transphobic and so uneducated. Trans people have been around as long as us cisgender folk have.

Now there are more medications available. Two physicians I work with and three nurses I work with are transgender.

Don't be scared just because you don't understand.

Hats off to Tom Felton. Avoids the 'virtue signalling' brigade and keeps out of this toxic debate.

We're not scared. We disagree because we do understand. The trans movement is sexist, homophobic and deeply authoritarian and dehumanising in how it treats people.

Tom Felton's reply saying he wasn't attuned and he was grateful for being where he is was fine, very unfair for him to be attacked for it, it isn't his job to take sides in a wider debate, and he doesn't have to if he doesn't want to. But I don't agree that JK and "TERFS" have "just" looked after women's rights, both they and the other side are polarised and both sides have been very polarising and antagonistic in their fight and have caused a lot of damage.
Most of us are in the middle. And I strongly suspect that both polarised sides have been encouraged and manipulated to be awful to eachother, just like the other major disputes and wars going on in the world. And both sides funded, as "minority interest groups".

We could and should have found a reasonable way for both sides to feel okay about all this before it went mad and that would have stopped it all going mad.

is this mainly the Twitter lot? I honestly think a large % are ND in some way.

@Dancingintherainxxx It only became possible for anyone to have any kind of elective surgery without the very real and large possibility of dying, when antibiotics began to be produced for public use in the late 1940s (www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/objects-and-stories/how-was-penicillin-developed)

In what sense then did trans people exist before then? If there was only cross-dressing available, no prospect of surgery, and no concept of being transgender? Being “born in the wrong body”, or “inversion theory”, was thought to cause homosexuality, not what is now called “gender invariance”. A boy cross-dressing as a woman would have been an actor, a music hall comedian, a minstrel, a man with a sexual fetish, or a gay man. A woman cross-dressing as a man was thought to be a lesbian, or simply desirous of freedom from expectations of female dress and behaviour. The very word “transgender” didn’t exist (and “gender” before the early twentieth century would have been understood as referring to grammar, not “sex roles”.)

Where are all the mysterious past trans people documented, who had no such concept to refer to themselves?

I'm not 'scared' and sufficiently well educated to know that I don't need someone like you telling me that I should accept men in women only spaces just because he happens to be wearing a skirt and a bit of lippy.

It's scary how many people scream that people are predjudiced against trans people or don't understand them because they're not getting their own way.

I am not transphobic. I will not teach my daughter to be transphobic. I will never make the slightest suggestion to my dd that a trans person has less value than her. I would tear her a new one if she teased that boy in her class or excluded him because he wears a dress. I would encourage her to share makeup tips and clothes with him if they wish. I would encourage her to acknowledge how distressing it is to feel like he's in the wrong body and offer emotional support and kindness where needed. However I would also defend her right to say what she sees and understand that what this boy feels like doesn't trump her right to have protected characteristics as a biological woman and lived experiences as a woman. If she wishes to acknowledge him as 'she' out of kindness then I'd absolutely encourage this too. However this should be a choice and she should also have the choice to say what she scientifically sees which is not a biological female it's a biological male who feels like a female. Again, someone's feelings don't trump someone's right to free speech.

Not everyone who isn’t cisgender is transgender

not everyone buys into the concept of gender - that anything other than your sexual biology is affected by your sex

tbis isn’t transphobic

its gender-phobic

please at least accuse me of something that’s true

I look forward to hearing this too.

I was recently told on a thread that people with transgender identities had been existing in the UK for millennia and that in the past, we just didn't know that they were transgender. They never came back to tell us who these people were and how we would have past by them and never have known.

So, maybe this poster can fill us in.

I disagree. I was also confused as to what point the OP was trying to make. Once I read her reply I could then answer.

Regardless of the issue - it could be anything at all - people naturally tend to like when other people they care about or feel emotionally invested in, including public figures, have the same values or opinions as them. And vice versa.

And despite what you see on mumsnet, there are a very large number of people that have values or beliefs regarding this particular issue that feel disappointed that he doesn't apparently feel the same. I've felt disappointed when singers or artists or actors have said things that I think are anywhere on a scale from 'a bit shit' to 'utterly abhorrent' the same way I would if a friend I valued said the same things - it's quite human.

Whether or not you agree with them it's not particularly surprising...

You actually seem really ill informed on this. You seem to have missed the decade of feminists, mostly lesbians, trying to actually even get issues discussed without being demonised and rejected from the Labour Party and the LGBT groups.

Can you tell us what it is that JK Rowling and 'TERFS' have said that has been 'polarised'?

Have women been issuing death and rape threats?
Have women had protests where their signs called for any violence to people with transgender identities?
Have women cancelled people because of their opinions?
Have women shut down events, and screamed and played loud music to stop people being able to hear discussion?
Have women had topless protests in the UK?

Can you show me please where the symmetry is.

Or have women just said 'no' and refused to accept that any male person can change sex. And refused to accept any male person in single sex provisions?

By the way, do you also think that JK Rowling should treat male people who abuse her with kindness and respect? Is that what you call polarising and antagonistic?

I fully admit that I don't understand 'cisgender'. I think it might be something to do with being a 'trad wife' or a 'real man', so people who describe as cisgender strongly identify with stereotypes associated with their sex. It does sound very American. Probably something to do with Cheerleading and football.

Sh the both sides again.
Why is women saying no always considered as bad as the man's violent reaction

People are not transphobic, uneducated and many are not 'scared'. You seem to be ideologically driven.

No male person can ever live or experience life as a woman.

They can only ever experience life as a male person who believes they are a woman.

Even when they 'act' like a woman, they are acting as they believe a 'woman' should act. Which is fucking misogynistic when you unpick it!

Even if they are treated 'as a woman' by some people, they are being treated as a 'male who presents as a woman and believes they are a woman'. Because their every reaction is based on that. Not on them being female in any way. But based on their own reaction developed over years of them reacting to the way they interact with society and themselves and how others interact with them while having a male body and a mind that processes stimuli in that male body.

Even when they have extreme body modifications, it is to be their own concept of what a female looks like to them. It is not what a female is. They are still processing stimuli and making decisions based on the way they interact with society and themselves and how others interact with them while having a male body.

How can it be any other way?

The only way a person can experience life as a woman, is to have a female body, formed around the production of large gametes, even if it doesn't produce those and to navigate their life based on the decisions they and society makes that revolve around them having that body.

A male can conceptualise what it might be like to be a female, but that is all it ever is - their concept of being female.

They may do it because they don't feel they fit into how they conceptualise how a male person interacts with the world (ie. their own stereotypes around being male) or they do it because they want to be seen as a female (using their own stereotypes of how a female navigates life). It really doesn't matter though. Their motivation is irrelevant to the outcome. And I consider the outcome can only be described as misogyny.

Which is that they will always be just a male who believes they are something they are objectively not.

How can the material reality be any different? This is why someone's gender is only based on someone's philosophical belief. And philosophical beliefs are fine for people to hold, but not one person in the UK has to comply with another's philosophical belief.

The logic cannot be any different than that I am afraid. But apparently, we should just let these male people into female single sex spaces.

This is timely with all the discussion about Khelif. Here is a reason why cis is a meaningless word.

The term 'cis' is meaningless because the term includes any male person who has a DSD yet has a body that is **formed around the production of small gametes that has any degree of sensitivity to any of the testosterone that body produces.

There is no word left for female people.

Because even male people are now saying they are also ‘female’ . When ^^ female means only a person of the sex category where that person's body has been formed around the production of large gametes, regardless of whether the body does, has or ever will produce those large gametes. ie that requires the presence of ovaries or ovarian tissue - never testes.

In fact, we now have examples of many male people declaring that they are female people. So even the word for female has become meaningless in that sense.

But 'cis' is a word that was repurposed from its original usage and is meaningless for the purpose of discussing female people in its current usage. It has been used in academic papers as well in an attempt at using inclusive language which then renders the papers meaningless because the term is not describing a unique grouping of human bodies, even when it claims to be doing just that.

To see how this works, we have been told that 'girl' and 'woman' both now include:

1 Male person who has been incorrectly registered as a female at birth, but has a male body **.
2 Any male person has now claimed a transgender identity using those labels.
3 And any person who has a female body ^^.

Under the label of 'girl' and 'woman', extreme transgender activists have been telling us for years that those labels break down into two types of girls or women:

Cis and Transwomen/transgirls.

These terms mean:

Cis
= (1) Male person who has been incorrectly registered as a female at birth, but has a male body **
and
= (3) Any person who has a female body^^

Trans
= (2) Any male person has now claimed a transgender identity using those labels.

Therefore there is no unique word to mean female people who have a body ^^ formed around the production of large gametes.

Cis is meaningless as a unique description for female people and it always was. It is also misogynistic because it leaves female people with no unique word for their needs.

HTH

The other significant issue with ‘cis’ is that its very usage forcibly categorises someone into having a philosophical belief that they may or may not have. It is very problematic for those who do not have a ‘gender identity’.

In fact, to extrapolate it out : if ‘cis’ excludes those who do not ‘identify as having a gender aligned with the sex they were born’ then the trans gender community would be fucking huge.

Because it would include everyone who doesn’t believe in gender identities at all. Not through deliberately self-categorisation as ‘agender’ but simply through rejection of anything to do with that philosophical belief that is the foundation for gender identity and the theories that shape those identities.

Because, the only commonality with all those claiming a transgender identity is philosophical belief. Not a medical 'problem' according to transgender people and academics and medical professionals who are transgender and shaping public awareness. No scientific and robustly established material facts.

So only philosophical belief.

And I would be pleased to know just what other philosophical belief should be given the power to shape a whole populations language to the extent that we are seeing these language changes being demanded?

If someone who was religious called me a non-believer, I cannot dispute that. Because it reflects my reality. I don’t believe in their religion so in their religion centred language that is what I am. It could be considered neutral in that respect. It doesn’t change my belief.

As an example, labelling me ‘cis’ is not neutral. It falsely categorises my beliefs and is not a neutral act at all. Calling me ‘cis’ coercively forces me to believe in gender identity and the theories that are foundational to them.

That is not forgetting that in recent years it has also become clear that the term ‘cis woman’ has been used to incorporate male people with differences of sex development. Those who have masculinised using the testosterone their bodies produces from testes.

I believe that happened because of that other problematic phrase ‘assigned female at birth’ . It is problematic because it too was unsuccessfully repurposed in another false attempt to support a philosophical belief as being something more than just belief.

The term cis woman was said to mean ‘a person assigned female at birth who identified as the gender they were born’ or ‘identified as a woman’. It is quite interesting really as you see the not subtle political manoeuvring in these artificial word changes.

Either way, it was a scientific term that has been wrongly repurposed. It was never meant to describe human belief systems and it fails dismally in that role.

On many topics.

Sadiq Khan labelled anyone protesting about ULEZ as being 'far right'. It is an accusation that seeks to shame others.

The thing is (as I know you know Helleofabore, but clearly @Dancingintherainxxx doesn’t), there are lots and lots of records of women and girls, all throughout history, writing about how they wish they had been born a boy/man, because then they would have the freedom/education/power, or sexual ability to love women, that men do.

Presumably we ought to take these historical women at their word, that what they wanted was the freedom/education/power or ability to love women that men do, and not that they were secretly experiencing some ineffable “gender identity” that wasn’t even an available cultural idea.

Whereas, in comparison, there are lots of historical records of men writing about how they love men; and lots of records of men cross-dressing on stage, or as entertainment, or in gay brothels like “Molly houses”, or as sexual entertainment for other men; BUT, interestingly, there really aren’t any historical records of men writing that they really wished they were born women. Nada, really, until very recently. Probably because, for most of recorded history, it would have been like wishing you’d been born a slave — eg: pretty much unthinkable to men, gay or not.

It’s funny that the desire for men to “live as women” pretty much coincides, historically, with the liberation of women and their ability to vote, earn, live independently to men, have a degree of sexual freedom, and so on. (I’m being ironic here, of course, because it’s not surprising at all, really, is it?) Men certainly described sexual fetishes for women’s clothing in the late nineteenth or early twentieth century (oddly, not so much before then); but they seemed to have zero attraction to actually becoming a woman, or passing as a woman (outside of the context of gay male sexuality), when what that meant was actually being legally and socially lesser than men.

I suspect you may not have been following this issue that closely, which isn't a criticism, because many people haven't.

Women depend on sex based rights. People often talk about spaces, but I think the most obvious is the right to control our fertility while enables access to education and to work and economic independence. (Many 'TERFS' are older and know that changes that enabled this occurred in their life time and can't be taken for granted) A 'sex based right' is a right that women depend on, but men don't. Without the ability to refer to women as a sex class, and explain discrimination on the basis of sex, women have no rights. This is why the Supreme Court decided as it did. If the class 'woman' can include anyone, it has no meaning in law.

On the other hand, organisations like Stonewall have been campaigning to remove sex based protections from the Equality Act since 2015 womansplaceuk.org/2018/06/25/references-to-removal-of-single-sex-exemptions/.

Women and some men have lost jobs and work for attempting to be 'reasonable' - in some cases just politely insisting that sex exists and should be taken into account in law. Eventually women started fighting back, and started to win court cases, but it took money and time.

I don't know what you mean by 'in the middle', but if you just think that the Protected Characteristics of sex and gender reassignment should exist, and that the rights of both groups sometimes conflict, so need to be balanced, you are a TERF.

Tom Felton is an actor making a living. How much work has Emma, Daniel, Rupert done recently. They're very wealthy. Tom needs to earn a crust.

Damn right he's not.

I'm so sorry you've been through this.