JKR vs IW

[ZeldaFighter]

Are we going to talk about this? I think JKR was feeling a bit grumpy today 😀

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/jk-rowling-india-willoughby-twitter-gender-b2507309.html

I am a bit worried that "naice" people will think JKR is being horrid.

And as we know, women hve been arrested or spoken to by the police for:

• Calling someone a 'pig' on social media.
• Being 'untoward' about paedophiles.
• Stickering.
• Posting a photo of a ribbon.

Which does tend to undermine the public perception of what constitutes a 'hate crime'.

Respect is an interesting word. I think we may have adopted an American version which is perhaps more akin to courtesy.

In the past, it was clear you were expected to earn respect. You earned it by being a member of the community, by fulfilling your responsibilities and so on.

This idea that we have to offer respect to criminals, trolls, misogynists… lots of very young people insisting that much older people are disrespecting them by not joining in with what, to someone who has lived several times longer, looks a lot like a passing fad.

The behaviour expected under the word Respect is actually bizarrely reverent. They seem to want acknowledgment and appreciation for just you know, being alive. Regardless of the hash they are making of it.

And I’m talking about a wide range of younesters, not any specific demographic.

Particularly when repeatedly, quite tediously frequently, openly threatening to rape, kill, kerbstomp, barbedwire base ball bat batter and behead women who say no to men is patted on the head by police as fine.

The stuff of sociopathy, crisis teams and medication changes is fine.

But women have to watch their words and be naice and polite to abusive, threatening men.

Yes, it hits many of us right on the VAWG experience buttons, we've been there. It's repulsive. It's exceptionally unjust and sexist, and there is very, very little evidence of effort by the TQ+ lobby to separate themselves from or reject this as unacceptable and nothing to do with TQ+ desires and wishes. Which is naturally going to create the implication that yes, apparently TQ+ politics comes with sociopathy, violent threats, hatred of women and a desire for a male supremacist hell on earth, and they're good with it. <Shrug.> It's the lobby's choice that this is the case. It's rather like 'it's terrible to say male people with TQ+ identities are coming into women's spaces to sexually offend' without separating the political movement from the sexually offending men with TQ+ identities. It's just another command to pretend not to see reality out of 'respect', like pretending via pronouns.

Patience long, long gone now I'm afraid. And I am a pretty patient person.

In fairness to HQ they are on the sharp end of a group of activists who are not winning prizes for stability (kidnap threats etc) and are highly litigeous. And much as I would love this all to go to court and be thrashed out in the full public eye, it's not my business and my employees who'd suffer hell and ruin in the long, drawn out process. I use names. It's clunky, it's bloody annoying and I resent it more every time I do it, but I am not pity-lying. I am not kow-tow lying. And I don't think it's 'kind' at all. When you're talking to people with poor boundaries and poor sense of balance with other people's rights, it's unfair to walk them up a path of indulging some things and some beliefs, and then expecting them to cope with 'no, not in this situation'. It would have been much kinder and better to have had firm boundaries from the start.

Don’t forget - a woman was fined for wasting police time, for reporting a stalker.

She was consequently murdered by the stalker.

Unless we have a clear figure for the number of trans people in the country, we can’t produce any clear crime rates. A twenty percent increase in crimes against trans people is actually a reduction, if the amount of trans people has gone up by twenty five percent over the same time period.

Hi all - we're happy to clarify a few things. When we introduced the guidelines, the aim was always to strike a sensible balance between freedom of expression and hosting discussions where folks with differing views would feel comfortable taking part. Deliberately misgendering, especially if done so as a personal attack will pretty much always be deleted when reported, as it's just not in keeping with those aims. We're not out to punish anyone and we really don't think there's anything to be gained by being overly prescriptive either. If your use of language is necessary to illustrate your point then it's much less likely to be in breach of our guidelines. As with everything, we look in context and on a case-by-case basis.

It's always fine to get in touch with us if you have any questions about our moderation - [email protected]

But MNHQ, that implies that "gender" is a concept that is real and proven.
How can that be? What is the proof that gender even exists apart from in the mind of some people?
Whereas, SEX is a definite biological, factual and provable, immutable reality.
Why is it that we are not permitted then, to discuss reality, as opposed to something that is ambiguous at best and fictitious at worst?

To "misgender" someone requires a belief in a system and an ideology that a lot of women (your main audience and bread and butter, so to speak) do NOT subscribe to.

Why do you insist on siding with (mainly) males, over the females here who are attempting to discuss reality in a world where they are already discriminated against and in some places, persecuted for the very fact that they ARE female?

To go back to Dadjokes claim that The fact is that many employers won't employ transgender people, I checked the 2018 National LGBT survey report:

80% of all respondents (LGB and T) aged 16-64 had been in paid employment during the previous 12 months. This compares to an average employment rate in the general population nationally of 75%.

For LG the employment rates were 88%, Q 82%, B 75%, Pan 72%, Other 72% and Asexual 63%.

For TW the employment rates were 63%, TM 56% and NB 65%.

Compared to the general population, survey respondents were over represented in the education, arts & entertainment, public administration and information & communications sectors.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5b3b2d1eed915d33e245fbe3/LGBT-survey-research-report.pdf

We will never get accurate statistics again though. If eg. A transwoman murderer is recorded as a ‘female’ murderer. As we saw in the case of the biologically male (Blake) last week.

If they do insist on not using biological sex in police statistics (which is 💯 wrong obviously), they need to introduce new categories of trans man trans woman.

Deliberately misgendering, especially if done so as a personal attack will pretty much always be deleted when reported, as it's just not in keeping with those aims.

What trans activists may call 'misgendering' I call accurately referring to by sex.

It's absurd to say that women can't call a man a man. When we discuss these issues on the 'sex and gender' board a person's sex is highly pertinent.

What this means is that women are being compelled to obey the orders of a man over their own judgement.

It's like joining a dog lovers forum, where you are allowed to discuss all aspects of dog life, but you are not permitted to use the word "dog" under any circumstances.
Everyone KNOWS they talking about a dog, but they must refer to it as a four legged hairy wet nosed be-tailed mammal.
It rankles a bit, because it's a forum where people really want to discuss dogs using plain uncomplicated English, but the forum owners hate that.

MENtal.

women are being compelled to obey the orders of a man over their own judgement.

^^ That.

'Deliberate misgendering'...so knowing things that are facts is not a 'personal attack'.

So can you explain why "misgendering" is a problem, while "mis-sexing" is not?

As I said in my post above, we've moved on from 2018. Gender critical views are protected and there are plenty of us here who believe that sex is immutable - to take the example of this thread, many (if not most) of the posters here have a sincerely held belief that India Willoughby is a man because that is India's biological sex. Why would we be censored for saying that?

Oooh interesting, I was deleted - but what for? Asking what an example of a ‘personal attack’ was ie someone ON the thread or someone NOT on the thread? Also, don’t the mods ever tell you what you have been deleted for - I’ve not had an explanation from them. Bit unfair, how do you know if you might accidentally commit a felony in future if you don’t know what it is that constituted one in the first place?

It is a bit difficult when rules and definitions are not written down, or if they are, they're in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard'.

''women are being compelled to obey the orders of a man over their own judgement''

This is what it's all about and always has been.

I remember when I used to believe this was really just about being kind. What an eye-opener it's all been since.

Are these the same stats that are being skewed by the reporting of male crimes as female due to men suddenly deciding to become transwomen when they're caught?

Can you honestly say that in her shoes you would march for trans people?

Would you march for women?

Yes. My gender critical beliefs mean that I know its not possible to change sex. I believe that sex is material and matters.

While of course others are free to hold and express gendesrist beliefs- that gender identity matters more than sex, and that sex can be changed - this is not a position I agree with or am obliged to pretend to agree with.

It's not rude to express my belief that sex is real and immutable. It's not our of the ordinary or any big deal to say a man is a man and remains so.

It's pretty run of the mill, tbh.

But the thing is......it's NOT A BELIEF.

We are not talking about ghosts, reincarnation, or any nebulous ideas.

We are talking about PROVEN SCIENTIFIC FACTS. Actual repeatable, immutable, biological fact.
It is not a "belief".
You (not to anyone in particular) can demonstrate your disbelief in gravity if you like, I will open the window for you while you plummet to your death.
You can try to walk on water, but you will sink and your belief that you can do so will not hold you up.
You can believe that the earth is flat if you like, but the view from space tells the true story.

I resent it when sex is described as a "belief" or that the fact that sex change is impossible is a "belief".

It is a FACT, and your belief in it or rejection of it makes absolutely no difference.
The reason it is a fact is that it will still be true in a million years time. If all human knowledge was wiped out tomorrow, the same discoveries about sex would be made, the females would still be having the babies and the men would still be providing the sperm, and there would still be two sexes, and changing sex would remain impossible.

MNHQ are disallowing facts and reality, and encouraging "wrong-think" and "wrong-speak" and the implication is that if you do not capitulate to compelled speech you will be punished.

The last time I was deleted I was told exactly what my offence was and I thanked the mod who contacted me for letting me know. It does make it easier to avoid making the same mistake.

Previous deletions and warnings have just been "against guidelines" and I haven't had a clue what I was being checked for.

I'd already read your post and wondered if your hypothetical example mentioning another poster might have been the cause, even though you made it clear that you weren't suggesting that that poster was at fault, and it was just a "what if".

But I could be wrong, obviously. I might even be thinking of someone else's post that is entirely unconnected.

I'm old and have senior moments.

Edited to make a sentence more readable - as I say, I'm old . . .

We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men.

Yes. Very early on perhaps a lot of us did.

https://www.feministcurrent.com/2019/04/10/i-supported-trans-ideology-until-i-couldnt-anymore/