JK Rowling article

[DrDreReturns]

Interesting read. I know it's from a Conservative site but it seems only the right are gender critical at the moment.

www.conservativehome.com/highlights/2022/03/profile-j-k-rowling-striving-to-stop-starmer-nailing-his-colours-to-the-fence-on-trans.html

No one wants to dm you Elaine.

Jeez you talk lots of boring word shite tbh.

"The exception was female reproductive rights,"

Fuchs says How did infertile cis women fit into your framework

Again. fuck off with the offensive comparators of women with medical conditions with transitioned males.

Let’s not forget - just how many transitioned males are still fertile, or even have children. The comparison never takes that into account.

And a female’s reproductive rights are based on a female receiving medical assistance to have a full term pregnancy. Using a reproductive system designed for that purpose that needs assistance.

NOT a male reproductive system designed to produce small gametes, but being completely surgically re engineered to be magically believed to develop a foetus.

Again, the entire interaction of pregnancy is being ignored by this poster. Why? Well, I think most regulars have deduced why that is. We have seen it all before.

"basic idea of feminism as centrally focused on combating sex-based discrimination"

Fuchs says There is no reason why trans-inclusive feminism can't keep fighting for all of these causes. Furthermore, I don't think any discrimination or misogyny has been because of my biology more than it has been because I am and express myself as a woman. People who discriminate don't know my chromosomes, or genitals, or what's written on my birth certificate. Having said that, there definitely does exist systemic oppression which harms lots of women because of their biology. For just one example, take menstruation, it's a burden which doesn't affect most men. But some women don't menstruate, nonetheless, they are still women, even though they don't suffer directly from this form of oppression. I would still consider, for example, increasing accessibility for period products as falling under the "feminism" umbrella

There is no reason why trans-inclusive feminism can't keep fighting for all of these causes

It is a fool who proposes that trans -inclusiveness fights negative sexist discrimination. How does a female, who even now experiences negative sexist discrimination from birth, benefit from a male who has never experienced negative sexist discrimination winning women’s prizes meant to encourage females to overcome that discrimination, or transitioned males being in roles designated to ensure female’s needs are being considered as a matter of priority in that organisation. ( not one transitioned male has actually prioritised females in these roles in the Uk yet, they all prioritise their own agenda, not females).

How does a female benefit from having a male in their sport? Even today female children are negatively discriminated against, yet sports are compounding that by now including males in their sport.

How does a female benefit from a transitioned males being in their single sex space? When that female had a very high likelihood of experiencing male abuse or violence. Any male can cause retraumatisation.

Furthermore, I don't think any discrimination or misogyny has been because of my biology more than it has been because I am and express myself as a woman.

Good for you!!! And yet I know many non-confirming female who are discriminated against just the same as any female who does ‘present as feminine’. Your whole argument is false and idealistic. It is not based in reality. Either you are not female, or live in denial that any discrimination you have received is due to your ‘presentation’.

No. All females I know, even ‘butch’ lesbians have been on the receiving end of negative sexist discrimination because of their female body.

But you do crack on believing women getting fired while they are pregnant is due to them ‘presenting as feminine’. Or being passed over for a job is due to presenting as female. If you are so entrenched that you don’t believe that male transitioners are recognised, at least by females on a recruitment panel, to use your words , I don’t know what to say to you. You are obviously deeply entrenched in your political agenda.

But some women don't menstruate, nonetheless, they are still women,

No shot Sherlock.

Yet you are still making an example out of female medical conditions. An example of negative sexist discrimination right there.

And you are very naive if you think these women (females) ‘don’t’ experience discrimination. They will still experience negative sexist discrimination if they are a certain age.

They have already suffered negative sexist discrimination in that for too long research into conditions that cause menstruation issues AND contraception which may suppress menstruation had been ignored. Because they are ‘Women’s’ issues.

Even the lack of female radiographers who can do internal ultrasounds ! I have have serveral of these ultra sounds, never one female available. And it is very painful to have an ultrasound shoved into your vagina when you are distressed. But hey… no sexist discrimination to be found here…

Just another opinion completely devoid of female reality.

Agree here, the quality of discourse (especially here) is dire. If you want to DM me, I'm also happy to discuss things less publicly.

Yeah, I find it difficult to talk to people who support purposeless experimentation of animals too. Oh wait, that was you.

I'll spare readers the photos of the sewn together rats. It appears they were not kept sedated for the duration.

extract

In total they had 46 pairs of rats conjoined together with both sides made pregnant, and a total of 562 embryos were transferred to female halves and 280 to the males.

'We found that 169 embryos had developed normally in the native uteruses of the females, whereas only 27 had developed normally in male rats,' the team, led byRongjia Zhang,said.

While performing caesarean section on the males, they found some abnormal dead foetuses - a phenomenon not observed in those born to the attached female.

'These dead foetuses differed from normal foetuses in terms of morphology and colour; they were accompanied by atrophied or swollen placentas,' the team said.

There were also surviving foetuses, some lasting just two hours and others more than a day, according to the researchers, who say that the body weight after two hours wasn't significantly different to those born of the female.

The ten successful pups that were born of the male rat developed into adulthood and were 'functionally reproductive, the team added.

These pups also had no obvious abnormalities in the heart, lung, liver, kidney, brain, testis, ovary or uterus, based on a histological examination.

They presumably ascertained this by killing them and doing an autopsy of their organs. Practical enough. It's a standard method of investigation when testing new medications on animals.

SelfPortraitWithPterodactyl

Thank you. I hope you feel free to join in on any thread here. I found it was the only way I could start to calm the dissonance.

As I have studied industrial relations at uni, these discussions about negative sexist discrimination and the sleight of hand that keeps happening in these posts are very interesting to see. Because they are simply not based in reality and are rather contrived. That negative sexist discrimination against females is based on presentation…. Oh please!

It appears they were not kept sedated for the duration.

That is so fucked up.

And yet, not one peep from that poster declaring it was something wonderful to come for transitioned males.

For the male rat to get the uterus one female rat had first to be killed.

Then a second female rat had to be used to feed not only her own embryos but also the parasite male’s.

1 dead female rat
1 abused female rat
so some human men could get vicarious ‘gestation rights’.

Wel, yes scrolling

Just to restate some posters opinions on this:

'PROHIBITING THE EXPERIMENTATION ON HUMAN FOETUSES (and animals) WOULD VIOLATE TRANSITIONED MALE'S RIGHT TO GESTATE'.

Now. They did not state this in those words, but they did say something about nothing should violate transitioned males right to gestate.

We're talking at least 46 female rats killed for their uteruses (couldn't identify out of that) and 46 female rats who were sewn to male rats. These rats had their vaginas plugged, so that they couldn't give birth vaginally, because it would have affected the male rats.

Plus the 46 male rats themselves who were castrated first, and underwent repeated abdominal surgery.

138 adult rats. And only 27 (9%) of embryos transferred into the males made it to full term.

And of those 27, over half died within hours/days of birth.

In total, they got ten physically normal, apparently healthy rat pups out of the male rats.

Well, they have no idea of course about how well the brain in those baby rats has developed with all those drugs etc.

It's not really like you can tell whether they'd have learning disabilities, is it?

You share your views in trans rights with the American far right, the Catholic Church and the taliban,

And now JK Rowling's opinions here have been endorsed by Vladimir Putin.

And you still claim you're fighting against the patriarchy...

@ElaineFuchs

You share your views in trans rights with the American far right, the Catholic Church and the taliban,

And now JK Rowling's opinions here have been endorsed by Vladimir Putin.

And you still claim you're fighting against the patriarchy...

Oh? Which opinions are those? How much money has he donated to the current appeal to help children in Ukrainian orphanages run by, er, Lumos, JK Rowling's children's charity?

How often has he expressed support for gay rights? As in gay men and lesbians? How often has he spoken against domestic violence, and donated to charities that support single mothers?

Whixh opinion are those?

Yawn. Nasty despot who is suspected to have agitated for Brexit to destabilise the EU, and tampered with the US elections, says thing he knows people will seize on, in order to
A) stir up more drama;
B) turn people against the woman who just pledged a million pounds to help the children being victimised by his war ;
C) distract people from paying attention to the things JK Rowling has said about the effects of his war on children.

By your reasoning, if Putin suddenly condemned domestic violence, I would be obliged to stop my direct debit to my local branch of Women's Aid. I'm not as easily manipulated as that, thanks.

P.S. have you ever checked out the views of the American far right, the Catholic Church, the Taliban and Putin on animal rights?

I've started the work for you. Russia is rated D for animal welfare on api.worldanimalprotection.org/country/russia

Russian animal welfare legislation does not cover animals used for scientific research, to the extent that it is even still legal to test cosmetics on animals.

@ElaineFuchs

You share your views in trans rights with the American far right, the Catholic Church and the taliban,

And now JK Rowling's opinions here have been endorsed by Vladimir Putin.

And you still claim you're fighting against the patriarchy...

This is such an awful argument. Definitely one for the collection.

I also particularly enjoy that Elaine has had it explained and still has no inkling of just how bad it is.

And there is more! The person putting forward this particular wonderful non-sequitor not only fails to engage with others' arguments or requests for clarification, she complains about the 'low standard of discourse'.

A new defining character of chutzpah ! Always a treat to come across.

Thanks Elaine.

[Of course foolishness ignorance and stupidity have downsides too. In this case, sterilised children and all the rest. There is more to be done. Still, nice to have a smile raised now and then, even in direst circumstances.]

@ElaineFuchs

You share your views in trans rights with the American far right, the Catholic Church and the taliban,

And now JK Rowling's opinions here have been endorsed by Vladimir Putin.

And you still claim you're fighting against the patriarchy...

fuchs you list these groups as a way to shame people.

Not only is this an ad hominem style of attack, because clearly you are not addressing any argument here just ‘look at who you share your views with’.

You share your support with a whole range of people too. Including those whose actions you would abhor.

Shall we start posting the very clear misogynistic statements that some in your movement have made? Statements about kinky little girls, about women being vacant eyes, open mouths and other holes for penises, about how being a woman is about being subservient in sex, or so on. Or how one very prominent trans activist has written about how intergenerational sex is not ‘harmful’. And the list goes on. We can do that very easily.

We have receipts. And we don’t live in a world carefully curated to avoid seeing these things. In fact, the person who made that statement about male abortions has a couple of other very misogynistic quotes as well.

And look up transmaxxing too while you are at it. Plus the fast growing porn category of transitioned males masturbating in female toilets. In one, you can even hear the mum taking her kids to the toilet.

Are you comfortable with your support of those people ?

Except, not one of us on this thread would say ‘ all trans people are like that’. It is clear you think the trans movement so pure you can get away with this continued and repetitive of ‘but… but, look at the people who share your views’! Like it is some clever gotcha!

Now, very few trans people fall into the categories I have mentioned.

This argument you are pushing is facile and seems like a last resort.

And guess what, there may be many Catholics who are critical of gender identity, there may also be many who are supportive of gender being prioritised over sex. It is a huge population.

Or are you saying this as a way to point out the way those in the church hid the sex abuse being carried out by some of its males and allowed people to be horrifically abused!

Because here you are arguing for another subset of males to be exempt from safeguarding measures.

Measures that were implemented in part BECAUSE of the issues with the Catholic Church and the generations of denial that it could happen.

And we are telling you the lessons we all learned from that episode is why we have the safeguarding protocols we do today. No sub group of males are to be exempt from being subjected to rigorous safeguarding boundaries and checks.

Nice to remind us.

The lesson here is: even males declared not capable of rape, child rape, child sex abuse, assault and other abuse, due to their beliefs. Whether those beliefs are about god or about themselves being women.

And really? You comment is about as weak as saying …. This group and this group both believe water is wet!! So they must all be [insert thing that is not a clever deduction gained from the internet ] here.

If fuchs, YOU are aligning and shaping your beliefs with people based on your aspiration to be considered part of that group, that is a weakness of character on your part.

I cannot imagine changing my belief of proven science and well established facts because of who else might also believe it. What a ridiculous way to live.

Believing that people cannot change sex is a very very common understanding. Many groups believe it. What part of supporting rights for women and girls does the Taliban believe?

It seems you miss the highly pertinent part of that ‘comparison’ the rights of women and girls. Strange that.

Glad you acknowledge that it is the majority of the world who believes this, by the way. And that it is an extreme minority who believe that sex can change.

All through this thread you really have also ignored the large group of transitioned males and females who also believe people cannot change sex.

And some of those also support the rights of females and children to have safe single sex spaces, and to be able to keep the boundaries they need.

So finally, you might want to defend Foucault and his motivations for lowering the boundaries needed by females and all children next. And how he has been lauded for being one of those responsible for the theories that destabilise society in ways that are harmful to females and children.

Sorry about the length. I tried to break it up but MN run in safari on my phone has selection issues.

And crossed post with 9.

And there is more! The person putting forward this particular wonderful non-sequitor not only fails to engage with others' arguments or requests for clarification, she complains about the 'low standard of discourse'.

I suspect there are many cognitive dissonances that this poster has in their life.

They seem to be fairly typical of the type of usual activist posters. They operate on a very superficial level and maybe even just repeating trope they pulled off some forum or twitter.

The arguments have gaps so huge you can drive a fully laden lorry through them. But yes, after post upon post has been added to the thread to argue those superficial takes, the poster circles back around to what they started with. I also pointed out that I have seen one poster in the past who did this regularly. Perhaps they went to the same ‘how to post on MN like an activist champ and show those women what’s what!’ website.

Sorry. Just one more it may have been posted upthread, but this is a good place to start in understanding that ‘bad people also support trans rights’.

And these instances are of people directly supporting trans rights being prioritised over women’s rights.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4013710-The-Dark-Side-of-Some-of-Those-Supporting-Self-ID

Thank you @Helleofabore for so clearly explaining the absurdity of the presumption that GC views, which are shared among various individual groups, mean that all the various other ideas among those groups are also shared.

On a slightly different note, thinking about how ideological ideas permeate whole groups of people so easily, the recent Russian invasion of Ukraine, on the basis of a false pretext that Putin has successfully manipulated the majority of the Russian into believing, seems to highlight how very easy it is for large groups of people to believe almost anything.

I was also struck watching a programme on Channel 4 last night about covid vaccines in Sudan and how many there believe that the vaccines contain microchips which will be used to control your mind. Now I see that 20% of the US population - modern educated people - also believed this in July 2021.
www.theweek.co.uk/news/world-news/953553/one-in-five-americans-believe-vaccines-have-microchips

By comparison with a belief that it is justified to invade and bomb a neighbouring country, or that a microchip can be hidden in a vaccine and someone is out to control you with it, no wonder the belief that someone has an inner gender which is more important than their sex, and trans women are really women with a right to all girls and women’s spaces, has been so easy to take route.