JK Rowlings latest tweet. Just wow!

[Imnobody4]

I've copied it in full.
https://x.com/jk_rowling/status/1918747065460420745?t=bPXQ2pY9VAwPPqFR26_vvw&s=19

In light of recent open letters from academia and the arts criticising the UK's Supreme Court ruling on sex-based rights, it's possibly worth remembering that nobody sane believes, or has ever believed, that humans can change sex, or that binary sex isn't a material fact. These letters do nothing but remind us of what we know only too well: that pretending to believe these things has become an elitist badge of virtue.

I often wonder whether the signatories of such letters have to quieten their consciences before publicly boosting a movement intent on removing women's and girls' rights, which bullies gay people who admit openly they don't want opposite sex partners, and campaigns for the continued sterilisation of vulnerable and troubled kids. Do they feel any qualms at all while chanting the foundational lie of their religion: Trans Women are Women, Trans Men are Men?

I have no idea. All I know for sure is that it's a complete waste of time telling a gender activist that their favourite slogan is self-contradictory nonsense, because the lie is the whole point. They're not repeating it because it's true - they know full well it's not true - but because they believe they can make it true, sort of, if they force everyone else to agree. The foundational lie functions as both catechism and crucifix: the set form of words that obviates the tedious necessity of coming up with your own explanation of why you're one of the Godly, and an exorcist's weapon which will defeat demonic facts and reason, and promote the advance of righteous pseudoscience and sophistry.

Some argue that signatories of these sorts of letters are motivated by fear: fear for their careers, of course, but also fear of their co-religionists, who include angry, narcissistic men who threaten and sometimes enact violence on non-believers; back-stabbing colleagues ever ready to report wrongthink; the online shamers and doxxers and rape threateners, and, of course, the influential zealots in the upper echelons of liberal professions (though we can quibble whether they're actually liberal at all, given the draconian authoritarianism that seems to have engulfed so many). Gender ideology could give medieval Catholicism a run for its money when it comes to punishing heretics, so isn't it common sense to keep your head down and recite your Hail Mulvaneys?

But before we start feeling too sorry for any cowed and fearful TWAWites who're TERFy on the sly, let's not forget what a high proportion of them have willingly snatched up pitchforks and torches to join the inquisitional purges. Call me lacking in proper womanly sympathy, but I find the harm they've enabled and in some cases directly championed or funded - the hounding and shaming of vulnerable women, the forced loss of livelihoods, the unregulated medical experiment on minors - tends to dry up my tears at source.

History is littered with the debris of irrational and harmful belief systems that once seemed unassailable. As Orwell said, 'Some ideas are so stupid that only intellectuals believe them.' Gender ideology may have embedded itself deeply into our institutions, where it's been imposed, top-down, on the supposedly unenlightened, but it is not invulnerable.

Court losses are starting to stack up. The condescension, overreach, entitlement and aggression of gender activists is eroding public support daily. Women are fighting back and winning significant victories. Sporting bodies have miraculously awoken from their slumber and remembered that males tend to be larger, stronger and faster than females. Parts of the medical establishment are questioning cutting healthy breasts off teenaged girls is really the best way to fix their mental health problems.

One seemingly harmless little white lie - Trans Women are Women, Trans Men are Men - uttered in most cases without any real thought at all, and a few short years later, people who think of themselves as supremely virtuous are typing 'yes, rapists' pronouns are absolutely the hill I'll die on,' rubbing shoulders with those who call for women to be hanged and decapitated for wanting all-female rape crisis centres, and furiously denying clear and mounting evidence of the greatest medical scandal in a century.

I wonder if they ever ask themselves how they got here, and I wonder whether any of them will ever feel shame.

But they can if they say they're men?

Did you see the sexism yet?

Only men can be rabbis. So if a woman wants to be a rabbi, she has to say she's a man

This is a great post, and a way of looking at it that resonates with me

Can you be more specific? Of course no one has the right to do whatever they want all the time.

I mean, if men and women can do both roles, just by saying some words out loud, what is the point of the roles? Why even have them?

This is like trying to drag someone into the 20th century, never mind the 21st...

I am getting an insight into the mindset of someone for whom genderism actually makes sense.

They've managed to figure out that forcing people into boxes is a bit mean, so why not let people change boxes?

Genderism is a belief that's within the Overton window - it's a "more progressive" thing they can understand. The idea of abolishing the boxes is too radical.

And utterly unable to grasp the fundamental distinction between female sports+prisons and "expected to bake bread and cover your hair".

(Pro tip - "gender critical" refers to us thinking that the boxes themselves are a bad idea. That's why we don't like genderism - saying you should be able to change box is saying you think the boxes should exist.)

So we are back to cultural specificity. You’re underlining here that this ‘living as a woman’ doesn’t exist as any sort of universal concept. Whereas ‘being’ a woman, biologically female, does. Do you not see how ridiculous this is?

What a glorious thing to wake up to. JKR is our queen.

I have been reflected alot on this ruling. I remember when we were at school and learned about civil rights. There was a picture of one of the black kids going to school at Little Rock and all these white kids shouting (almost certainly racist lurs) at them. I remember thinking I don't want to be seen by history for being intolerant and one of these people.

I think, therefore one of the issues that noone is pushing back on are that most recent human rights movements are now so inclusive that they they remove all meaning and then there are no actual rights end up being protected because you can't legislate for anything.

Trans means different things to different people. A Transwoman who has done the therapy, and had the medication and gone through with gender reassignment surgery poses a significantly less risk to womenn in private spaces than a TG woman who has just had breast implants and nothing else. A transman who has done the gambit, will have very different needs from a confused transmasc teenager who isn't emotionally mature enough to deal with the stares from creepy old me when their breasts develop.

The same is happening with to the people with neuro-atypical diagnosis i.e. Autism, Torrets and ADHD. They are now having to share their space with people who are "Neuro-divserse" which doesn't have any specific meaning and is often self-diagnosed. They have wildly different needs and expectations of how they can participate in society, and this just sets back the advances made by disability acts.

We know the most recent iteration of trans rights is actually mens rights in disguise because of the way they have been bullying women. We know some of this has been straight men who are just creeps, but alot of it has been gay men who have been out of work since marriage equality passed (looking at you Tatchell). Thats why the message has always been confusing. The people who it actually effects i.e. Trans Women and Trans men are rarely heard.

Oh sure, it's all social conditioning. But I'm talking about working within the society we actually have, not the one we wish we had. And the fact is, that due to our social conditioning, a TW will probably feel much freer to indulge in wearing makeup if she wants as a TW than she would have done as a regular man. Myself, I don't see why regular men can't wear makeup. There's no reason why they can't, except social conditioning. In fact, I think a of them would benefit from some good base and concealer, and a bit of mascara and blush. My ex was interviewed on TV once and he came on with this MAC base on, and he looked so much younger! Skin all even and glowy. I absolutely think that regular men should be able to wear makeup just the same as women, if they want to.

Do you have your bridle with you, armed and ready? Using words like ‘extremist’ for someone purely stating biological facts and how they relate to the material reality of women and girls isn’t the scold you think it is.

Men often call women who stand up to them and say no to them ‘hateful’, it makes them VERY angry when a woman who is as successful, intelligent and articulate as JKR firmly and factually dismantles their misogynistic agenda.

But you carry on doing their dirty work for them, do the ‘pick me dance’, whilst the rest of us carry on calling this bullshit out in whatever way we can, and then you can silently reap the rewards that other women have fought for you to have.

And if a person is a rabbi they are engaged in an activity that says they are ‘living as a man’ because only men can do it, unless they move to a culture where women can be rabbis then they aren’t. Or something. It’s all very confusing.

Here, try these that I posted a page ago?

Can you understand that if they are not the sex they have 'chosen' to be, then there needs to be limits to what those people do as that sex they have 'chosen' to be?

Sport?
Prison?
Changing rooms?
Any single sex facility were female people expect to only be with female people?
Female only roles for either intimate procedures or to ensure female people have their needs considered in a representation role?

Do you understand that a male person accessing these provisions makes them mixed sex in reality?

But a man can ‘live as a woman’ all the time. They’re entitled to do that? Regardless of the impact on others?

Citations please for her supporting the Israeli government, and not your opinion, but actual, verifiable facts that she supports it, you know like words out of her own mouth?

The Supreme Court and JKR have spoken. The law is the law.
I’d like us to appropriate Stonewall’s “NO DEBATE” right about now. It would make a good sticker in the right colours.

The idea of abolishing the boxes is too radical

Totally. Hence feminists being the first people to spot this long before it was on anyone else's radar. I'm guessing these women's sense of sexism was so razor sharp, they could spot it approaching from space.

And, of course, once you've seen it, it cannot be unseen. If you want to change gender roles, you must swap boxes. The boxes must remain.

But, of course, the ultimate irony is, that these men aren't swapping boxes at all. They're just putting a ribbon round their own box.

I said a few pages back that I think third spaces are the most reasonable solution.

Thank God (ess) for JKR.

@RipleyJones thank you for that excellent shot of the cat (& side info)

I think she was drawing an analogy to highlight how fear of consequences—then and now—serves to suppress free thought.

In the past, dissent was met with torture, burning at the stake, or beheading. Today, it’s the loss of livelihood, social ostracism, and threats of violence, including rape.

The comparison underscores that while the methods have changed, the outcome is the same: fear keeps people in line.

It’s a powerful analogy, and I think anyone capable of understanding nuance would see its value.

What an amazing piece of writing. Gets to the core of it and, absolutely, there is a very strong whiff of the inquisition in all of this.

Being successful, well-known and enormously wealthy has given her the platform to be able to take a strong stance without (financial) repercussions that might threaten her livelihood.

However, most people in her situation would never in a million years have done what she has i.e. shouting the truth from the rooftops. She's a modern day hero - bravo!

I think third spaces are the answer.

But if TW wanted to go round dressing in skirts and makeup, because she happens to like that, that's fine because she wouldn't be having an impact on anyone else.

By your own logic they’re not going to be living as women then, are they.

Yes you’re right , I would have been too frightened to agree which is really sad for us women I bloody love JK Rowling, she’s phenomenal.

I used to feel this same way. Essentially "don't push your luck". But I've come to a point where the truth matters more.

A lot of these things don't need to be said out loud in every day conversation, especially if the main purpose is to upset the person you're speaking to. I do A LOT more smiling and shrugging than confrontation. But when push comes to shove, it's all true.

And the context here isn't a malevolent shit-stirrer whipping her baying crowd into a hateful frenzy. It's a woman who has received enough death threats to paper her house, just for believing the truth. I absolutely support her right to say these things out loud.

Not in terms of the spaces they inhabit, no.

I wouldn't mind sharing with fully transitioned women, but I appreciate not every woman feels that way, so third spaces seem to be best compromise.

Lots of women don’t wear skirts and make up, are they ‘living as men’?