Celeb supporters of jkr

[RyanBergarasTeeth]

Can we have a thread on celebs that have come out with supportive messages for jk rowling? The ones i have seen so far:

Jonathan Ross (although a shit house scared of his daughters)
Robert webb
David baddiel
Kirsty Alsopp

Any others?

How are they forcing you to believe it?

@Helmetbymidnight

when you say 'turning on' him- do you mean like people turned on jkr- threatening to kill, rape, choke her and burn her books or do you mean people have just expressed disappointment with his views?

Do you really want to turn it into an argument about who dishes out the worst punishments? People who are against trans rights don't just threaten to harm kill and rape trans people for who they are.

Thats a good point helmet

Jkr gets death and rape threats

Sk gets a bit of disappointment...mainly cos he flip flops like a flippy floppy thing

Funny how it happens like that

Jonathan Pie (indirectly and a couple of minutes in..)

People who are against trans rights don't just threaten to harm kill and rape trans people for who they are.

People who hate women escalate their threats of violence, harm and rape into actual violence all the time - this includes many transwomen. As perpetrators, not victims, to be absolutely clear.

By contrast, no one in this conversation is "against trans rights", we just want women to have our own single-sex spaces.

(Apologies if i failed to properly decipher what you meant with that sentence; you would communicate better if you used appropriate punctuation.)

pappyon
You mentioned the arguments for TWAW.
Can you explain them please?
The 'they just feel like women' line isnt very informative, imo

@Kantastic

People who are against trans rights don't just threaten to harm kill and rape trans people for who they are.

People who hate women escalate their threats of violence, harm and rape into actual violence all the time - this includes many transwomen. As perpetrators, not victims, to be absolutely clear.

By contrast, no one in this conversation is "against trans rights", we just want women to have our own single-sex spaces.

(Apologies if i failed to properly decipher what you meant with that sentence; you would communicate better if you used appropriate punctuation.)

My point is that the side that wants to exclude transwomen from women's toilets (let's call them gender critical) always make out that they somehow have the moral high ground because they don't resort to threats of violence, and they thus encourage free speech. That's clearly illogical, in that it judges the majority against the actions of a horrible minority. It also conflates the separate issues of toxic discourse, which applies to any debates that rage online, with the mainstream trans rights movement. But the majortiy of people on both sides of the debate rightly call out that sort of language.

But it's also wrong. The people who don't want trans women to use women's toilets includes people who literally rape and kill trans people for who they are. And even if you don't include those people, there's plenty of toxic language, death and rape threats online too by people who share their view.

Eg. From a post on Glindr.

"I wrote a poem. English not my first language but I hope this is okay.

Cunt entirely off you bunch of muppets / I've got a fucking knife / The pressure in my head grows worse, soon I kill / Every penis must be sliced like a cunting savely / Shit off or I muder."

So the problem clearly isn't owned by mainstream trans rights activists (or whatever you want to call them), so instead of conflating the issues and focusing on the toxic discourse as a problem of the trans rights movement, why don't we just call it out and move on?

women have the protected characteristic of sex and we are entitled to single sex spaces for our safety, privacy and dignity.

Organisations lobbying for trans rights, like stonewall, are seeking to demolish that right and get the EA changed.

Our moral high ground is about protecting our rights from those who seek to erode them. It's that simple.

My point is that the side that wants to exclude transwomen from women's toilets (let's call them gender critical) always make out that they somehow have the moral high ground because they don't resort to threats of violence, and they thus encourage free speech. That's clearly illogical, in that it judges the majority against the actions of a horrible minority.

Its only illogical to you.

One side demands men who self ID as women to be allowed freely into women's safe spaces. Spaces where women are vulnerable. They also send rape, choking and strangulation death threats frequently to women who say no.

And you don't want us to talk about it?

Can you even hear yourself?

It is sad that celebrity women like Emma Watson are throwing schoolgirls under the bus. She's never had to deal with the anti-girl policies they are faced with in school these days, and her wealth protects her.

I said this on the other thread but I think it's women (and men) in their mid 20s and 30s who are the most woke as they will not have been personally affected by consequences of trans ideology such as the taking away of single sex spaces in schools, but don't yet have daughters who will be affected.

But I do think there's an increasing number of the generation below who are GC - the girls in school today who are holding their wee in all day rather than use unisex facilities and feel forced to stay at home - missing out on education - during their period due to unisex facilities and period shaming. The real world consequences are hitting them and through them their parents and grandparents.

But it's seemingly not cool to care about kids, it's more cool to parrot a nonsensical slogan and not think too deeply about it.

@pappyon

But the majortiy of people on both sides of the debate rightly call out that sort of language.

Sadly I don't think that's true. Rachel 'die in a grease fire' McKinnon is the loudest voice for single-sex sports, hugely prominent in the media.

Jane Fae, Munroe Bergdorf and many other very mainstream trans voices have said awful things.

I don't think these people represent trans people, I don't even think most of the extreme voices have gender dysphoria, but as long as they are the face of trans issues then genuine transphobia with continue to grow.

You won't find a single prominent feminist promoting abuse, threats or harassment in the same way.

It's interesting, isn't it? Stephen King's TWAW pledge seems to be a response to this

You should address the T××× tweet*

A stark statement which reads not as a piece of advice, but as a command, similar in effect to You should watch your words. And the literary world and its celebrity authors are perfectly well aware of the implications of ignoring such a command.

@7Days

pappyon You mentioned the arguments for TWAW. Can you explain them please? The 'they just feel like women' line isnt very informative, imo

OK that's a fair comment. And I can see why even if I expand on that argument it still might feel slightly circular. But please bear with me.

Before I do I think it's important to point out that not everyone agrees with what 'being a woman' means, and that's fine (let's come back to that later if you disagree), it's also true (imo) that how we can define 'being a woman' in different ways depending on the context, and that's also fine. Eg. it would make more sense to refer to the simple biological model for abortion rights issues.

But there are inherent issues with the simple biological model which mean that doesn't work in all cases. Whether you refer to chromosomes, hormones, primary or secondary sex characteristics, there are cases that exist which mean that there are no solid biological definition that will include everything that is a 'woman' and exclude everything that is not (blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/stop-using-phony-science-to-justify-transphobia/).

For me, I have to make the appeal to common sense and say that my womanhood isn't just about what's between my legs, or what's inside me (not that I can see that). The fact that I feel like a woman is an important part of it. I certainly didn't always feel like a woman. I used to feel like a girl, and sometimes I still do. But at some indiscernible point, definitely not bang on my 18th birthday, I 'transitioned' into womanhood. Now, how I express my identity as a woman is very personal to me, and isn't at all normative - I wouldn't say that you have to express womanhood or feel like a woman the way I do in order to be a woman. It also doesn't necessarily align with traditional norms of femininity. It's unconscious and plays out in every way I talk and behave.

If you want to get a bit less fluffy and common-sensical, this is more or less what Judith Butler describes as 'performativity'. This is the idea that our gender, while usually assigned at birth, is afterwards reinforced through how we talk, behave and interact with one another, mostly but not always according to specific cultural norms. It's performative, but not a performance. This means our manhood/womanhood doesn't result in these actions, instead these actions (unconsciously) result in our man/womanhood. There are tonnes of books written about performativitity (here's a short article medium.com/@willfraker/gender-is-dead-long-live-gender-just-what-is-performativity-582f35bec23) and like I said, not everyone agrees with this definition, but it feels correct to me.

If you disagree, I'd like to illustrate it with a thought experiment. The fact that I strongly feel like a woman means that I have a strong core preference for being viewed as a woman. It can feel odd to identify that feeling because it's so normal for people who aren't trans (cis, sorry, it's just easier), but imagine, hypothetically, if you 100% physically and socially transitioned into the 'opposite' gender. Would you feel a strong sense of discomfort in seeing yourself, and other people seeing you in that way? Or would you rather see yourself, dress yourself, and call yourself in however way you identified, but as the gender in which you identify?

I say it's a thought experiment, but it was actually done to someone. David Reimer was a cis man who was raised, and made to look like to society as a girl, following medical advice. As he grew up he experienced all manner of impulses and mental discrepancies (which we now call dysphoria) from being told one thing from all sides while experiencing internal conflict with the mere concept of being a girl. This is generally how trans people feel before they transition.

But if you still disagree with the idea that you can strongly 'feel' like a man/woman, well then that's fine. Isn't it? We can disagree about that. However we can also acknowledge that whatever your position on that philosophical point, trans people fair far better psychologically if they are enabled to live the life of the gender in which they identify. That's why most people who want to promote trans rights say trans women are women, regardless of the science or philosophy.

But maybe you think it isn't fine if we disagree, because it's about concern over men's access to women's toilets. Well without wanting to ramble on any further, I'd say simply that the concern is overblown. A predatory man isn't going to wait for legal recognition of womanhood before he enacts his plan to abuse women in toilets. In countries where reforms have made it easier for trans women to gain that recognition, there hasn't been an uptick in sexual assault in toilets. It's been legally possible for transwomen to access women's toilets for decades, and there hasn't been an uptick in sexual assualt in toilets. If you still want to exclude trans women from toilets, you should know that doing so would make their lives much worse, and it would also make cis women's lives much worse. There are already many stories of cis women being thrown out of toilets because they don't 'pass the test' of womanhood.

That seems to boil down to 'be kind', pappyon.

And 'women will be raped anyway'.

However we can also acknowledge that whatever your position on that philosophical point, trans people fair far better psychologically if they are enabled to live the life of the gender in which they identify.

I think you miss where the main thrust of the GC discussion is directed.

TW are not biological women. The edge cases of significant but rare DSDs do not alter that and aren't really relevant.

We don't want self ID in sport because it creates an inherent disadvantage for women.

We want women to have the right to run single sex services where needed such as DV shelters or programmes for religious groups.

We want the right to discuss public policy without being threatened or sacked.

None of this implies rudeness or unkindness to individuals. In practice most people are happy to treat TWAW in most situations but the times when sex matters are hugely important to women's rights.

BovaryX there was something bone chilling in that tweet, more so than the abusive ones in some ways. The simplicity, but the authority of that command, and the immediate obeyance.

Not a celebrity as such, but former Labour bigwig, Tom Watson. tweeted his support for JKR. He said

The persecution of @jk_rowling is shocking. Despite the abuse, she still has the courage to speak out for what she believes in, which seems like a rare quality in these polarised times.

Her acceptance of Lloyd Russell-Moyle’s apology is classy, and worth reading.

Whatever one thinks of his politics and conduct while an MP, at least he has stuck his head above the parapet. Where are all the other ex-Labour bods who were happy to benefit from JKR's donations?

Do you think removing women's right to self-id to access toilets will stop them from being raped?

It's about what's a proportionate response. Stopping women from accessing toilets from self-id, , imposing checks for instance, would be undignified and unsafe for trans and ciswomen. And it wouldn't stop predatory men. In fact it might make it easier, because they could just claim to be a post-op trans man.

there was something bone chilling in that tweet, more so than the abusive ones in some ways. The simplicity, but the authority of that command, and the immediate obeyance

Olive
I absolutely agree. It is a demonstration of explicit power. This is an insight into the mind of an authoritarian who tolerates no dissent. And good point about Tom Watson. Actually, I hadn't considered that angle about Labour. JKR must be a major donor.

@pappyon

Do you think removing women's right to self-id to access toilets will stop them from being raped?

It's about what's a proportionate response. Stopping women from accessing toilets from self-id, , imposing checks for instance, would be undignified and unsafe for trans and ciswomen. And it wouldn't stop predatory men. In fact it might make it easier, because they could just claim to be a post-op trans man.

I think retaining the right to challenge is vital. And I think politeness has often been mistaken for not noticing.

And ensuring male-free spaces for women of faiths who can't use single sex spaces, women who have been traumatised by male violence, and women who simply WANT and value single sex spaces is more important than pretending to believe a lie to avoid making a small number of males sad.

I support decent third space provision in addition to women's spaces. I won't be guilted into giving other women's rights away.

Pappyon

Maybe don’t just focus on toilets:

Think about refuges and prisons where women and girls really are the most vulnerable in society.

Many TW are male-bodied. Allowing them in to single sex spaces will exclude women and girls of faith and many traumatised by experience of male violence.

These girls and women won’t be able to take part in activities such as sport, visiting a gym, a swimming pool or attending residential trips. Why do you think it’s ok for these women and girls to be pushed out or what would you do to prevent that happening?

Apparently I am a bigot for saying that I want to support trans people and believe trans people have the right to live in safety with dignity, but these rights cannot come at the expense of safety and dignity for women and girls.

Some communities of hasidic jews believe that women shouldn't be allowed to walk on the same side of the street as men. When they tried to enforce this in Hackney, the council rightly intervened. Were they excluding women who subscribed to that belief from the streets?

Some white men don't want to be in the same room as a black man. Sometimes because of past trauma. Should they be allowed to exclude black men from their spaces? Is prohibiting segregation excluding white people who believe in segregation?

The call was often made to exclude gay men from men's toilets because of the fear of rape. Is the call to include gay men prohibiting straight men from using those spaces?

The answer of course is no. Most women of all faiths share toilets with transwomen, either because they don't realise or don't care. Transwomen have been using women's spaces for decades without bothering anyone.

You say you support third space provision, but how does that work in practice? Who pays for that service to be implemented. Where do trans people go until that service is widely available? Would you (or women of particular faiths, or women who have experienced trauma) feel more comfortable with transmen using women's spaces? Are you happy for people to be challenged more? What if you are a woman but you don't look or dress very womanly? How do you prove you have the right to access?

A couple of MPs and a former MP have just dipped their toes in and tweeted support for JKR.

Pat McFaddon MP: We are very lucky to have @jkrowling. Her books have brought so much joy to millions of children. My nine year old loves every new Ickabog chapter. Thank you @jkrowling

Siobhain McDonagh MP: I join my great friend @patmcfaddenmp in thanking @jk_rowling for her work, her generosity & her bravery. No woman should ever be required to be silent about sexual or domestic violence. I thought that was the past...

Plus Angela Smith, former MP, has retweeted. Shocking how many female MPs have remained silent though- particularly women MPs who campaign on women's issues.

They're getting lots of likes, and any demands to chant the mantra are getting robust replies. Here's hoping a couple more get braver...

Some white men don't want to be in the same room as a black man. Sometimes because of past trauma. Should they be allowed to exclude black men from their spaces? Is prohibiting segregation excluding white people who believe in segregation?

We've done this one eleventy billion times, but white men and black men are still MEN so they share the MEN'S spaces.

If spaces are separated on the basis of biological sex, then that's how they stay. No matter how much someone wants to be there.