JK Rowling sticking up for KJK

[Signalbox]

As @ PatrickStrud has blocked me on here (we've never, to my knowledge, interacted on Twitter or anywhere else) I can't challenge him directly about the claim he published in iNews (see below) that a Let Women Speak event in Australia 'staged a mass Nazi salute'. This is a lie so brazen, so easily disprovable and so libellous, I'm amazed it was allowed it into print by a supposedly reputable news source.

For years now, women and gay people concerned about the erosion of their rights, the dismantling of safeguarding and the escalating threats and violence of trans activists have been called 'fascists' and 'Nazis' by people like Strudwick for holding what, until five minutes ago, were solidly left-wing/feminist political positions.

Nobody but useful idiots can be genuinely surprised that REAL fascists have spotted a glorious opportunity in trans activism. The homophobic, anti-feminist far-right has long held that the left is degenerate, foolish, immoral and authoritarian, and now they can point to the incoherent arguments of the gender ideologues, the bullying tactics of the no-platformers and the swarms of masked men threatening violence against women for wanting to retain single-sex spaces, and crow 'we told you so'.

Actual Nazis have turned up on the fringes of Let Women Speak events for exactly the same reason aggressive, narcissistic trans activists are there. These groups closely resemble each other. Both are rife with misogynistic opportunists who're using a clash of rights to push their own agendas, both are there in the hope of violence, and neither gives a damn about the women who're there to speak out in their own voices, about their own lives, on their own behalf. It's high time those peddling lies like Strudwick's are held accountable and I sincerely hope @ ThePosieParker takes action.

https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1663265027783049223

That was a shit article

as a PP noted, Strudwick repeatedly conflated the US and the UK.

he seems obsessed with the idea that women are actually OK with men role playing as women. Well I’m a woman mate and I’m not ok with it. But thanks for telling me how I should feel

his main objection to the channel 4 documentary seems to be that they give voice to opinions he disagrees with

I hope KJK sues his arse into oblivion

heaven knows it will be no loss to journalism

eleanorwish · Today 00:08

They've now deleted the libel

Sadly for him and them, it's too late, the deed was done. I hope that KJK does sue and win, because it may make more of these truth twisters think twice about publishing nasty hit pieces against women like KJK, Kathleen Stock & JKR etc.

He is a very experienced journalist too so there is no excuse that he was naive or wet behind the ears or anything. He knew exactly what he was doing.

This is EPIC. Really, really important. I very much hope PP takes JKR up on the offer of legal support. It's about time these angry men start to be put back in their boxes.

My respect for these women, PP, JKR and those like them is off the charts. I'm seeing a real change among the 'be kind' brigade, as its starting to slowly sink in that these men hate women.

he seems obsessed with the idea that women are actually OK with men role playing as women. Well I’m a woman mate and I’m not ok with it. But thanks for telling me how I should feel

Since he has pre-emptively blocked any woman who might disagree with his misogyny he probably thinks women are ok with it. He seems to be the i's very own LOJ.

Someone said on the Kathleen Stock thread that none of these people have stopped to consider that women are genuinely upset by the imposition of stereotypes and loss of rights that genderism brings

we’re not campaigning against it because we’re bored, or enjoy being perceived as hateful bigots. We’re genuinely, legitimately upset

but to men like Strudwick we’re not real people. Our motivations wouldn’t be something he gives a moments thought to

Yes, I knew a lot of gay men like Strudwick at university. Women were only ever of interest in terms of what we can do for them - we are their mothers, sisters and surrogates. As friends we are only ever of use if we reflect back on their brilliance (remember fag hags?). But we are not full humans, worthy of respect as individuals with our own thoughts and opinions.

Exactly. Sexist ideology attracts sexist men to support it.

Shock headline.

The i newspaper is, unlike the Independent, a member of IPSO. So it may be worth lodging a complaint with IPSO.

we’re not campaigning against it because we’re bored, or enjoy being perceived as hateful bigots. We’re genuinely, legitimately upset but to men like Strudwick we’re not real people. Our motivations wouldn’t be something he gives a moments thought to

The fact that so many men really don't see women as equally human with their own inner lives and needs and deserving of human rights is the most depressing thing about genderism.

It's hit me twice how many men don't see women as humans; the first time by the way my DH acted after I had kids (which was very much all about him being more important and deserving of things like free time and sleep than me) and with genderism. And DH is considered a good bloke by most too and in many ways does treat women equally, just not his wife right after she'd had a baby. That was an inconvenience.

It's all about self-ID but women and girls aren't allowed to self identify. We're not even allowed to have space without male bodies.

All the articles where some heinous rapist or sex attacker like Dolatowski is given she/her pronouns whilst the journalist just assumes sex-based pronouns for the victim - did they ask the victim their pronouns? Do they not see using sex-based pronouns for females and not for males pretty much is saying only men are allowed to self identify. Not those pesky females who want to not be raped. They're subhuman and we'll assume their pronouns because they're lesser.

I read an article about Afghanistan when the Taliban took over by a woman who was saying how so many women thought more men would stand up against the regime and they didn't - some of them who hitherto had seemed like normal blokes were laughing about the change in status of women. They really didn't see women as equal.

I know it's not as bad here, but it's all part of the same slippery slope - the dehumanisation of women and girls.

Some people can only perceive women's words and actions in relation to themselves. They can't think that we have our own worlds, feelings, thoughts. Only that we must be motivated by a feeling towards them.

So when a woman says 'no' to being told what to do, they see that as a personal affront.

The idea that women have autonomy and agency is actually I think not possible for some people. It's really curious when you come across it, because it's such a strange viewpoint. They really don't see women as fully human.

the articles where some heinous rapist or sex attacker like Dolatowski is given she/her pronouns whilst the journalist just assumes sex-based pronouns for the victim - did they ask the victim their pronouns? Do they not see using sex-based pronouns for females and not for males pretty much is saying only men are allowed to self identify.

Woah. That aspect never struck me, before. We're not even bit part players in some mens' worlds. We're backdrop. Scenery.

Yep, it's so insidious isn't it?

If you were going to be logically consistent and fair (and NOT misleading), you'd use EITHER sex based OR gender based pronouns throughout (and clearly flag which you were using). If using gender based pronouns, you'd either avoid pronouns or use 'they/them' for the victim until you'd determined their preference.

The ONLY way you don't do this is if you think the female victim is lesser, subordinate, less deserving of the same consideration.

The fact it's gender based (whatever they want) for men and sex based (assigned by the journalist) for women and children is a very clear message.

They don't clearly point out when they're using gender based or sex based pronouns in order to confuse the reader and allow the dehumanisation of the females throughout the article.

Also, to be a pedant, it's really poor English to change the rules of grammar all the time throughout an article.

Interesting exchange here:
https://twitter.com/HJoyceGender/status/1663458744640872449

I managed to skim read a printed paper version of the article, and unless I skimmed to fast the deleted sentence isn't there.

I wonder if they had to bin a number of copies, or do they post online first to gauge reaction?

Interestingly in their tv section the C4 documentary tonight is highlighted as "admirably even handed"!

Not sure which is worse that the "i" paper encourages articles from TRA because they think they are right, or encourages them because they see them as click bait.

In other words they actually dont care about the issue at all, but are quite happy to have women denigrated and maligned, just for a few cheap likes.

Also this person is not an experienced reporter he's a reject from buzzfeed. But I think him and a couple of other "young" writers are just used by the "i" to appeal to younger readers.

No integrity and no committment to news.

I read 'medieval lawyer' 😂

Seems that this is now being alleged all over the place.

Info about this article posted on the LWS event thread, but thought would add hear as it is so similar

A Civil service diversity adviser has been blasted for linking women's rights groups to the far-Right and suggesting they are calling for trans genocide.

Saorsa-Amatheia Tweedale, the transgender ambassador for the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), claimed fascists giving Nazi salutes had been 'welcomed' on rallies by so-called gender critical campaigners abroad.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12145593/Whitehall-diversity-adviser-sparks-fury-calling-gender-critics-genocidal.html