“I think you’ve missed the definition of what a man is”

[DrizzleandDamp]

I’m confused by this, so Daniel Radcliffe turns on JK when she defends the fact being a woman is more than just a feeling, or wearing “woman” stuff.

But when a right wing awful person goes after Harry Styles for wearing a dress, he says she doesn’t understand the definition of a man. Because a man in a dress, is still in fact, a man.

I’m totally lost at this point.

Not that I care Styles wore a dress, he’s a cheap knock off of Bowie and Cobain (I’m so old!), but still crack on lad.

Love Harry.

Ah. You see you're expecting there to be logic and some kind of a coherent narrative.

It's a mistake I made for years.

@MichelleofzeResistance

Ah. You see you're expecting there to be logic and some kind of a coherent narrative.

It's a mistake I made for years.

I think that's the intention. To gaslight and confuse people. Either that or they're so thick that they can't even consider how illogical they are. Quite a few of them fall into this second category TBF.

Don't forget either that you'll definitely be too old, white, middle class, female, educated, heteronormative (even if you're LGBT) and Other Things Too to be able to understand any of this Higher Knowledge.

'cause of the 8th rule of misogyny

Men are whatever men say they are and women are whatever men say they are.

JK is a woman. That's where she went wrong.

Oh.

Well I’m a lot clearer now.

I felt a lot more relaxed about all this stuff once I realised that none of it makes any sense. Trying to understand the logic here is like trying to understand creationism or Scientology. It makes no sense, believing in it is an act of faith.

Do we have a link to his comments

I won't forget - it's engraved in my lady brain.

Poor us. Driving our vulvas around all day, stuck in our limited little worlds of reality, logic, science, critical thinking, integrity, common sense....

Simple explanation:

Men are the main human beings.

Women are - well, who knows and whothefuck cares?

Some sarcasm** may have been involved in writing this post.

**And a fucking angry women

It's like they spent all that time going on about their superior capacities for Enlightenment reasoning and rationality, and when women finally get access to the education and prove we're just as good at it, suddenly rationality's associated with boring old womanly types and thus deemed inferior.

I really like Harry Styles and I love that he appears to not making anything of being 'trans' or 'non-binary' (unlike Sam Smith who wants to be referred to as they because he wears a block heel). He is just doing what he is doing.

There is a lot of contradiction from people who are applauding HS for wearing dresses etc but also seem rigidly attached to gender stereotypes by suggesting that womanhood is a matter of 'identity'.

But like a PP, the more I look at this issue and realise what completely contradictory bullshit it all is, the less I care. This level of illogical, constantly goalpost changing, horseshit is completely unsustainable.

OP, I think you mean Elijah Wood, not Radcliffe. It's this tweet here:

twitter.com/elijahwood/status/1328418900552269825?s=19

They do look a bit similar...

PS I don't think it's breaking any new ground, but I like that Harry has done this now and been happy to call himself a (feminine) man rather than trans.

I am not really sure what point the op is lost on.

Surely you understand that there is a raft of difference between a transgender person and someone who chooses to wear a dress either as a compulsion or simply a fashion statement.

"Not that I care Styles wore a dress, he’s a cheap knock off of Bowie and Cobain (I’m so old!), but still crack on lad."

I saw Cobain up front and personal once. Proper filthy, but oh, so beautiful to look at irl.

@PurpleHoodie filthy as in actually needed a wash? Really really jealous whatever your answer. Can you tell more? Sometimes I realise I am now over a decade older than he ever was and it's a real jolt.

I have a lot of time for Harry. Unless I missed something, he doesn't say he's trans or NB or anything. He just says he likes fashion and dressing up. And has never said he isn't anything other than a man AFAIK. We need more Harrys.

I don't think Harry Styles even refers to himself as a 'feminine' man - he is quite tight lipped on it all. It could just be deliberate to create intrigue and get people talking, but I like it!

His 'Watermelon Sugar' video was him very much a bloke cavorting with lots of beautiful women

Scout

Filthy, as in 'needs a wash'.

From some others we got talking to "Filthy" as in 'nudge, nudge, wink, wink'.

Ahhh. The long gone days of miss spent youth.

When blokes wore guyliner n ruffles, and were still Manly, Manly.

I think he’s rather a poppet. And he makes a wonderful poster boy for GC feminism because he’s a man who likes to play with fashion, fully aware it makes him no less of a man.

(And of all the pop stars for my teen to idolise, he’s a pretty nice one)

But yes to the hypocrisy - Elijah Wood won’t be hounded as a transphobe.

Yes, and then there's drag queens, when the definition of drag is a man (usually) dressing up and pretending to be female on stage, but we still have to refer to them as 'she' (cf Celebrity Masterchef, Portrait Artist of the Year, etc) even though they're not trans - or are they? Confused, you will be

I agree, Harry Styles challenging gender stereotypes is all good (and reminds me of the the cover of Hunky Dory).

Oooh, thanks Purple. I could quiz you all night but I won't! I'm not a fan of ruffles on anyone. A man who can rock a cardie though...
Thinking about it, it's remarkable how boring and straight laced today's batch of musicians are. And actors actually. Where did all fun ones or the hedonists go?

What about the original Man Who Sold The World cover, that got replaced with macho crap because if I remember rightly, American audiences couldn't stomach the dress.