Scores of actresses turn down roles in play critical of JK Rowling’s gender views.

[lechiffre55]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/06/13/scores-actresses-turn-down-roles-play-critical-jk-rowling

"The stage production, which is set to debut at the Edinburgh Fringe, has already caused outrage over a working title which labelled the gender-critical Harry Potter author a c----."

"The production is yet to cast any of the female roles, including that of Rowling herself."

"Actors have been found for male leads, who will portray Harry Potter cast members Rupert Grint and Daniel Radcliffe."

Is it possible to quiver your bosoms and clutch your pearls at the same time, I wonder? It certainly conjures up a peculiar mental picture.

I bet Edith Evans could have done it.

I think it'd look like the Charlston.

One has to start by establishing the agreed facts, and then build your argument from them.

Swinging into Mumsnet and saying 'If a man thinks he is female, he is female' is not at all persuasive. It's clearly incorrect, has no factual basis - it's clearly nonsense. Everything built on a nonsense premise cannot help but be at best, more nonsense.

If you start with 'there are male people who think they are female' okay that might well be true. They're not female, they believe something that's just simply impossible. The prescribed course of medical treatment would be year 6 biology? Then we can progress from there.

Maybe sort of like a shimmy? I used to belly dance.

There was something about the poster (a username that is a synonym for women's underwear), their description of what they imagined our bosoms to be doing... I think they were getting a bit of Trans joy.

But the twitching of Daily Mails as well would be tricky, I'll grant you!

Was that the "supple breasts" a spuriously famous gender author wrote in a book article, and there was some confusion about what the term meant?
I cleared that up, it mean the author had an erection when he wrote the words.

'Christinapple · Yesterday 22:08
I've read the books.

The nationality, races and skin colours are always mentioned for any character, no matter how minor, who isn't white English. It is clear from the books the "default" is white English for the characters because it's described for anyone who isn't.'

I do agree with this, even though I disagree with much that Christina says. The early books made some very clunky attempts to be inclusive, and the effect is the opposite. I'm inclined to cut some slack for early writing by a non-established children's fiction writer who had no idea that every syllable would be scrutinised decades later. (Time to stop doing it in the Galbraith books, though.)

For some reason I've got Les Dawson in my mental picture.

Definitely vibes of that well known woman Les Dawson.

I pictured Mrs Doubtfire, who's as much of a woman as some of our trolls.

You seem to have missed the bit about the C18 when being horrified over the idea of wizards having bodily functions 🙄

Personally I’d rather evanesco than have some poor House Elf emptying chamber pots/students flinging the contents from windows after the fashion of their Muggle counterparts - but you do you 🤷‍♀️

”Wherever they stood” is in line with various segments of Muggle society of the time - but with mercifully better clean-up.

The actress wasn't a white woman in blackface though was she?

You surely understand that your postmodernist philosophical approach does not accurately reflect material reality, don’t you? You can keep repeating the phrases how some male people believe they are female and people can see very clearly that this is not based at all in observable or provable established science. It is just in the same vein of the humans who declare that they are lizards and get their bodies cosmetically modified to have some lizard type characteristics. They can never be lizards, and male humans can never be female humans. Ever.

The only thing they can ever be is their own interpretation, usually based on sexist negative stereotypes or their own disassociation from negative stereotypes they believe are associated with the sex category their body fits into. Your own posts are deeply misogynistic in the nature of the language you use and your apparent reaction.

Worse though, you don’t show any depth of understanding of the degree of risk of committing a sex offense being male carries. And such you seem to be rather dismissive about the fact that no evidence has ever shown that transitioning has lowered that risk. Therefore, your belief of allowing a male person into a single sex space makes that space so meaningless that it negates the purpose of that space.

Race and ethnicity are socially constructed concepts. They are not rooted in biology (the nearest biological component is ancestry). The ideas we hold about race and ethnicity are formed by narratives and beliefs.

Sex is a biological/material characteristic. However, the ideas people hold about sex tend to focus on socially constructed narratives and beliefs, not the material reality.

It is ironic that many consider race and ethnicity fixed yet consider sex being open to change!

Mumsnet isnt a great forum for debating people like Nicky as it's easy for posters to selectively attend (and ignore) points raised.

We all victims of confirmation bias, and I expect Nicky really did think she was answering all of the challenges posed and witnessing vile bigotry - based on selectively attending to specific aspects of posts. She clearly was feeling righteously indignant.

There is really no point of discussion beyond definitions if 2 debaters are using different definitions. The key issues are (I) does she accept or deny there is a fixed and immutable difference between natal males and females (ii) if she accepts these, her beliefs about where and when this difference matters can be discussed.

The challenge for Nicky, is that these two points can and should be debated without any reference to trans people. The starting point should be where single sex provision is deemed to be good (or acceptable). Then, a discussion can be had about whether those with a trans identity should or shouldn't be included - but only at this point.

Posters like Nicky, when starting at the point of 'trans inclusion', consider this to be the be all and end all. They can't see there being an issue outside of the trans inclusion aspect and I think they are so blinded by their passion for their cause that they really think the points we raise are driven by transphobia and a desire to exclude trans people - no by a desire for single sex spaces!

Remember the petition about the venue?

It's now got 1,065 signatures.

I wonder how much impression that's making.

(It's still listed at the venue on the Fringe website and one can still buy tickets through the site.)

We don't want or need "same gender" spaces because they would include men! It's the biology stupid!

Well as an agender being I just piss wherever I feel like it! Oh wait! Does that mean I'm a man?

Actually that is not entirely true.

Go for a lung function test and your race is noted because there are racial variations. Your age and sex and height are also considered.Generally black people have a larger lung capacity, white is less and asian people have a smaller capacity, this applies for people of the same sex and size.

Men generally have a larger lung capacity than women (and lots of other biological differences).

An ECG with 'inverted T waves' is normal in children but resolves at about age 20 in caucasians and 30 in black people. Over that age it is an abnormality.

I use black here because it is not dependent on where you or your ancestors come from.

I'd guess this (and the job ad asking for physical theatre ability) means the first act is scripted and the second act will be devised over rehearsal time by director and actors. No talk, just lots of interpretive dance.
I know it's childish but I really want to see this now.
Comedy is definitely the right category.

Sadly, what NickyNack illustrates is the heart of all this. When I started reading the first post I assumed they were making a point about how once you’ve redefined something (in this case the meaning of sex/gender/woman/etc) you can achieve whatever you’re aiming for as you are redefining facts.

Like when definitions of Child Poverty change so politicians can say “child
poverty is going down!” Well, no, you’re just discounting some people to get the result you want.

Once you accept that TWAW (and how many truly believe that I don’t know, but there is certainly a cohort of people who are evangelical about it) then you can guarantee that you have Women Only spaces. They’re not, you’re just including men in the group of women and yelling at people who don’t believe what you do.

So I agree it’s not insane- it’s calculated to get men what they want.