JK Rowling has sadly opened her mouth again

[DayAndAge]

How the metro can put out this tweet which effectively suggests a woman shouldn't be allowed to speak is beyond me. Shocked but not surprised. Comments are heartening though, as is the ratio.

You’re right, they could be one of those nutters that works for the OU in the Gender Studies department.

@RedToothBrush In all seriousness, imagine a world where AI was somehow a main factor in our defence system, had the ability to launch a missile - and had that set of beliefs! It's an Issac Asimov story waiting to happen.

Thanks to JKR, several papers are now reporting on the organised gaslighting that the press has been participating in over Scarlet Blake's trial.

She's brilliant.

That statement is a lie. All trans women are men.

Considering the average reliability of a printer, Alexa, card machine..... it can believe what it likes. It won't launch missiles, it will just witter a lot about 'lost connection' and 'reboot'. An AI army wouldn't make it to the end of the street.

The point about third spaces is that, in terms opf pubic perception, that would be an entirely reasonable, and achievable, solution. Public perception is what matters most when it comes to forming social contracts based on common understanding.

People have been told that it is unsafe for trans identified people to use the toilets and facilities set aside for their sex, not that the primary need is self validation.

Transwomen are never going to push for or agree to third spaces unless single sex spaces are absoloutley locked down to them. I wonder how many men will still claim they are women if the right to enter women's changing rooms and bathrooms is officially denied to them.

'Trans' is a concept.

It is meant to name the condition whereby for whatever reason someone feels like they want to present in ways which are considered socially typical of the opposite sex. This feeling may be intense and overwhelming, or it may be motivated by other urges, or desires, for self expression of some kind; however the strength of feeling involved does not fundamentally change the reality of their sex nor does it make some more "genuinely trans" than others.

I'm pretty sure that Dadjoke has told us before that he is a "cis man". He has been telling us what we are allowed to think about gender identity ideology on this board for years.

I'm pretty sure that Dadjoke has told us before that he is a "cis man".

It was obvious!

I can think of something many other things women could be campaigning for rather than pressing for 'third spaces' though:
Equity in toilet provision (sick of queuing while the men just waltz past, been doing it all my adult life)
For more rape charges to end with a conviction
For girls to be taught how to spot a potential abuser
For women being allowed to express a view on Twitter without being told it's 'sad' to disagree with what men want
For the press to report a man as a man, not a woman (this was a given not so long ago)
And on and on....

My sympathy with a cat-torturing murderer is pretty limited tbf. He can sod off out of the female estate.

I have started chortling everytime I hear the word "cis". It puzzles people who have bought the trans Koolaid.

I’ve always wondered about his name. Is it deliberately ironic or a “double bluff” or what?

I’ve come across several supposedly clever people who use the word “cis” with a straight face and who really don’t like it when you start asking them what it means. They get flustered and irritable. I wonder why 🤷‍♀️

@RogueFemale and others. Re complaining to IPSO: We can complain via the website complaints form. However, it is very unlikely to be taken forward because we are a third party We have not personally been harmed or criticised. Also it (the report) was probably a court report or taken from a report of the trial. Writing to the Times and any journal directly is probably the best option. Unfortunately they will always have the defence that it was how the court instructed the monster to be described.

Unfortunately they will always have the defence that it was how the court instructed the monster to be described.

Did the court also instruct women to keep their mouths closed? If not, Metro may struggle for a defence.

Nothing wrong with that - their opinion is shit.

What their opinion isn't: clever, thought-provoking, insightful or original.

It perfectly highlights the fact women are supposed to put aside our own wants and needs and take responsibility for sorting out other people.

How often do you read even on here when we're talking about provision for women the reply whether about meeeeeeen? Women's dv services was a good one. (Less so now they've drunk the koolaid too) you'd go on a thread about shelters for women and read what about shelters for men? Men suffer dv too... (and somehow it's always worse than what women suffer)

Nobody is stopping or has ever stopped men organising the creation of services. Just like women did, men can do. Want a shelter for men? Nobody is stopping them being created.

But somehow it's women that should be taking time away from our needs to sort out something for men.

This is the same. Nobody is stopping transwomen from creating trans spaces. But that's not what they want. They want women to divert our energy to sort it out for them. To prioritise them. To validate them. To step aside for them. To include and focus on them. And if we refuse to do so, we are met with rage because it is the job of women to meet and prioritise the wants and needs of men.

From such small things as it being our fault if our male partners don't get their own mother a birthday card to shit like this - us not creating spaces for transwomen.

It's nothing more than a new chapter of the same fucking book. And that book's title is Everything Is The Fault And The Responsibility Of Women. A Handy Guide On How To Centre Men In Every Aspect Of Your Life.

Asimov created the three Laws of Robotics, they're only fictional but it's a pity they can't be applied to AI:

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

Sorry for the derail, my inner nerd reacted to seeing Asimov's name, and it had just narrowly missed the oppo to point out elsewhere that it was Tammy Wynette and not Dolly Parton who sang Stand by your Man, so I humoured it.
Obviously I agree with all the serious points on here too😏

Just wanted to clarify. I wasn't sure if you knew what I meant by "worth shit". I meant it's worthless. I'm probably overthinking it but I don't want to take the tiniest risk I could be misunderstood and have anyone think I think that poster's got an opinion worth listening to.

Yes, she's a brilliant strategist and she knows exactly when to speak up and what the inevitable reaction will be.

It's like watching a Grandmaster at Chess.

I really wish the media would start talking about how the court gets people to swear not to lie and at the same time forces them to lie (with wrong sex pronouns) about sex. If that's not a glaring Orwellian problem with justice in this country, I don't know what is.

I really wish the media would start talking about how the court gets people to swear not to lie and at the same time forces them to lie (with wrong sex pronouns) about sex. If that's not a glaring Orwellian problem with justice in this country, I don't know what is.^^

Yes I was thinking about this the other day, with that "non binary" narcissist of a frightfully posh barrister. Every one of these tribunals I've seen virtually, witnesses, barristers for both sides and even the judges have slipped up on "non binary" pronouns. It's not natural speech, it puts you completely on the back foot. IMO it's all about power. How is that appropriate for a barrister, when the person (in this case very obviously male) is right their in the room? It introduces an element of walking on eggshells and cognitive dissonance which simply should not be part of court proceedings.

See this Twitter thread where this particular genderist gives a lecture on misgendering:

x.com/sorelle_arduino/status/1760578469421867281?s=46&t=SPorwN-mokktL467rcZ57g

I said to my daughter, two days ago when I heard the BBC broadcast, we’ve officially stepped into 1984. We had to reject the truth, reject was we could see and hear and realise the BBC was untrustworthy. It felt like this country had lost something.

No more TWAW

The truth is trans women are men or trans identified man.

Back to facts now.

Why don't the witnesses say- the court has told me to tell the truth and the court has also told me to lie so I cannot say anything that doesn't violate at least one of these things, so I cannot give evidence.

That's what I'd do.

Even in the court cases such as Rachel Meades and Denise Fahmy's the genderist witnesses couldn't stop using sex based pronouns for people with personalised gender-based pronouns. Even when they'd made a thing of it, they slipped up. It really showed how difficult it is, even when you're fully signed up to the idea of other people controlling your language and imposing pronouns that are outside normal usage. How normal people are supposed to manage, especially in a high stakes environment like a murder trial, I don't know.

I actually think it's institutional harm to the victim and their family to force them to mange their language for the sake of the person who's committed a criminal act against them. It's huge institutional bias towards the accused. If they identify as innocent should we believe that, no matter the evidence? If they're innocent gender, do they get off scot free?