Emma Watson's dig at JKR

[IamSarah]

It appears she said at the BAFTAs 'I am here for all of the witches... bar one'

Disappointing but not unexpected.

twitter.com/emwatsonbestof/status/1503505167207084034?s=21

EW does not 'owe' JKR her career and was presumably cast into the role by others. However EW will have had a personal relationship with her over many years and from what I can gather JKR was a supportive and caring influence on the children who were in the films.

EW will know of the death threats and obscene abuse that JKR receives on a daily basis because of her one view that men cannot change their biological sex to become women and that women need protected safe spaces. She isn't transphobic but disagrees with men being able to self-identify themselves into women's spaces. Many other women, including me, feel the same but are unable to say so in public for fear of reprisals or potential job implications.

It someone with whom I had a close personal relationship held I view I personally disagreed with but for which they were subjected to death or rape threats every day I would raise that with them personally. What I wouldn't do is use a 3 second set-up gag to make a cheap point so that a group of people would tell me how amazing I am on social media. It's increased the hate for JKR and it's just a cheap shot.

That's the bit I take issue with. Playground bullying against a philanthropic kindhearted woman who deep down you know hasn't suddenly become a total bigot.

The line without the bit she wasn't brave enough to speak with her usual over-pronunciation was mean. The additional bit (which clearly wasn't 'ok' or 'by the way') was downright pathetic.

@EeeICouldRipATissue

See, so far we've had Bar one By the way Okay

Speculation
Nobody knows for definite.
It's still grounds for this shit show of a thread though

That's shy it's not a good idea to mutter cryptic messages under your breath at a televised awards ceremony then isn't it? Especially when you have stood by and taken the side of people who have hurled misogynistic, sexually and physically violent abusive threats at a woman that you know very well.

It's just not a great look is it?

@MangyInseam

I suspect he was confused about transmen vs transwomen.

If he cannot follow a real-life chain of events like

article about period poverty, etc which avoids using the words women and girls in key places
⬇️
JK saying she's sure there used to be a word for people who menstruate

and gets confused between male and female transitioners, then why on earth was he sticking his oar in on the subject at all and apologising for JK?

And why aren't trans activists yelling at him for being a "cisgender white man" who can't be bothered to research anything before making pronouncements?

@autienotnaughty if by women, you mean females, then yes, all women. If by women, you include males, then no.

To quote an excellent post on another thread -

'Feminist action is essentially gender critical, because feminism centres women. Activism that centres other groups may be good or bad, but it isn't feminism. Since, by definition, men are not women, any activism that centres men (such as liberal feminism) is not feminist. If it centres men to the detriment of women, it is anti-feminist.'

(Note, this refers to 'feminist action' which isn't relevant to this thread in particular but the general sentiment of the quote holds).

@Waitwhat23

I mean all women. I don't feel I have the right to decide who's female and who's not. Except myself of course.

I mean all women. I don't feel I have the right to decide who's female and who's not. Except myself of course.

So brave 👏🏼 Luckily for you biology decides who's female, the "right to decide" has been taken out of your hands.

The dictionary definition of female -

'of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes'.

So, not males.

As the quote above, feminism which includes males is not feminism.

[quote autienotnaughty]@Waitwhat23

I mean all women. I don't feel I have the right to decide who's female and who's not. Except myself of course. [/quote]
But "deciding" doesn't enter into it . One is, or is not, female/male. Do you genuinely think these have no meaning beyond personality traits, like liking cats or cowboy boots or jogging?

I mean, I've never met her, but I'd bet my house your mother was female. How can I be so sure? I couldn't guess at anything else about her. I couldn't guess her hair colour or what her favourite TV programme is/was or her height or her political leanings. But I genuinely would bet my house and all my worldly goods she was female. Think about how I could know that.

Hint, it's the same way I knew which of my two DC would have periods and may one day become pregnant and which definitely would never do those things. It's the same reason why, out of me and DH, one of us has had 25 years of periods and the other has never had a single one. It's not fecking random.

[quote autienotnaughty]@Waitwhat23

I mean all women. I don't feel I have the right to decide who's female and who's not. Except myself of course. [/quote]
Let me help you.

Female: reproductive sex class capable of producing ova.

Male: reproductive sex class capable of producing sperm.

Now many people have conditions that affect their ability to produce ova or sperm, but they're still male or female. You couldn't diagnose these conditions if you didn't know which sex class they are. Lack of sperm production, for example, isn't a medical condition in a female body.

And yes, there is a small number of people with a variation of development in either class. On occasion it can be confusing or misleading. But it's rare, and it's still a variation along one line or the other. Again, you couldn't identify it if you didn't know which sex class they were in.

Believe it or not, once upon a time, people didn't find male and female to be a baffling concept that required subjective "decision". When deciding who to send to war or who to deny a vote, they knew pretty well. Even now in these enlightened times, people who want to send death and rape threats, create crap gendered insults and erode rights can still work out who the females are. Oh, and gay couples who want to conceive can usually work out which gametes they need and which people can provide them. They are clever like that.

It's like we still retain some reptilian understanding of this difficult concept.

I mean all women. I don't feel I have the right to decide who's female and who's not. Except myself of course.

You are talking about a simple fact of biology. Neither you nor me nor anyone else decides who is female.

4.3 billion years of evolution made that decision. Mother Nature in other words. Sexual reproduction evolved around 1.6 to 2.1 billion years ago, because it offered significant fitness advantages over asexual reproduction.

Human beings evolved not only to reproduce sexually, but also as a exually dimorphic species, that is males and females of the species differ significantly in size, weight, strength and a number of other traits in addition to their different reproductive systems. Again, this happened because it was an advantage to the survival of the species.

Female humans are those born with the female reproductive system, which is organised to release large gametes and bear offspring. This remains true regardless of whether an individual female human is born with congenital malformations of her reproductive system, whether she loses any part of that system to disease, whether it ever works at all or whether she chooses to make any use of it.

HTH

sexually dimorphic

[quote autienotnaughty]@Waitwhat23

I mean all women. I don't feel I have the right to decide who's female and who's not. Except myself of course. [/quote]
Best pop your hard hat on, you're unfortunately about to experience a pile-on.

Best pop your hard hat on, you're unfortunately about to experience a pile-on.

Well, that's what happens when someone claims reproductive sex class is a matter of opinion. 2+2=5, Winston. The Party says so.

It's like intersectional feminism which is meant to be about realising and fighting against the multiple axis' of oppression some women, through being more than one protected characteristic, face. By including males in feminism, you are actively excluding some women. Women who have religious views which means that they cannot access some single sex spaces are excluded if you include males. There's no good argument I've seen for this from those who call for males to be included in this scenario accept from a sort of muttering that religious views are outdated anyway. It is excluding females.

I wonder if it's possible to have this conversation without the sneering tone and constant comments that women who are supportive of those in transition are fundamentally lacking in intelligence?

@WorkingOnMyNightCheese

Ok what about hormones are they not a biological part of what makes people feel feminine or masculine. Or neuro pathways?

Trans men don't just decide they feel male on a whim or because they grew up with brothers or because school discussed gender identity and it's the same for trans women. It's biological part of who they are.

If your dd as she gets older identifies as male it won't be something you did or school or her environment. It will be part of who your dd is and their biological make up.

Some people are born with both sex organs, some are born with none. Some women never have a period or grow breasts. Some women are infertile. They are all whatever they feel they are. A woman with out a womb or breasts is still a women. It's far more complex than vagina, breasts, periods and penis.

@BlindGirlMcSqueaky

I wonder if it's possible to have this conversation without the sneering tone and constant comments that women who are supportive of those in transition are fundamentally lacking in intelligence?

Being supportive of transitioning people does not have to include claiming not to be able to define female or to think that it is somehow a subjective judgement. It is a risible position to hold and tge point people are actually making is that nobody is truly this lacking in intelligence, so please don't try to persuade us to pretend that we are as well.

In fact, if you don't know the difference between male and female, how would you know what transitioning involves? How can transgenderism even exist as a concept unless reproductive sex and gender identity are two distinct and separate things?

In fact, if you don't know the difference between male and female, how would you know what transitioning involves? How can transgenderism even exist as a concept unless reproductive sex and gender identity are two distinct and separate things?

That's a point Blaire White has made many times- if Blaire had not been born as a biological male how could she transition to be a trans woman?

Ok what about hormones are they not a biological part of what makes people feel feminine or masculine. Or neuro pathways?

I have PCOS which means I have higher levels of testosterone than the average woman. I'm still female. And not because I feel feminine but because I am female. It's not how I act, or feel, or because I have breasts or because I menstruate (sometimes due to my female endocrine condition, I don't) or because I like 'feminine' things.

It's because it's encoded in my body. In my DNA, in my bone structure, etc etc.

If people want to identify as a different gender, they are perfectly entitled to do so. It doesn't change their sex though.

Some people are born with both sex organs, some are born with none

Really??

Do you have any evidence of this? Links to papers? I've never heard of people being born with NO sex organs. What about chromosomes?

I'm not especially into claiming that I have the one true correct opinion and everyone else should shut up and agree with me or else they're thick as mince.

@Waitwhat23 I agree way more complicated than sex organs, hormones, neuro pathways , fertility , body parts etc

@WinterTrees

Some people are born with both sex organs, some are born with none

Really??

Do you have any evidence of this? Links to papers? I've never heard of people being born with NO sex organs. What about chromosomes?

I think the term is intersex and covers people born with both male and female organs and people born whether neither male or female is identified.

@BlindGirlMcSqueaky

I'm not especially into claiming that I have the one true correct opinion and everyone else should shut up and agree with me or else they're thick as mince.

Humans can't change sex. That's not an opinion, it's a fact.

What does feeling feminine actually mean though? I don't understand how a person can feel like something they literally have no experience of being.
There are plenty of women who don't like/do/wear the things that society deems as 'feminine' and plenty of men who do - it doesn't change what their sex is, since sex is about biology (and how the world treats you on account of it). Being a woman is not about wanting hair extensions and gel nails, it's about periods, menopause, pregnancy, physical strength and the threats we endure because on the whole ours is less than that of males. It's about being second class citizens throughout the world, the default for everything being geared towards men.

Now I do think that there genuinely people who don't feel at ease in their skin and medical transitioning is the most appropriate treatment for them. Because something has clearly gone wrong in their development. But that still doesn't make them actually female and there should be limits on what they can do. I wouldn't allow even a fully transitioned woman to take a place in a women's sports team for example. But I wouldn't have a problem sharing a bathroom.
The problem here is self ID, which is so prone to abuse. And with the transitioning of people who are too young to be risking their health in this way and who may well change their minds.