Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

JK Rowlings latest tweet. Just wow!

1000 replies

Imnobody4 · 03/05/2025 20:36

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.

https://x.com/jk_rowling/status/1918747065460420745?s=19&t=bPXQ2pY9VAwPPqFR26_vvw

OP posts:
Thread gallery
36
ChessorBuckaroo · 03/05/2025 23:39

SL2924 · 03/05/2025 22:58

I’m a Catholic and didn’t read this as anti Catholic rhetoric. Rather - specifically referencing the medieval period of Catholicism with the malleus malificarum and all the witch/women burning. Which has parallels in some of the slogans I’ve seen recently in the protest marches.

She should have stated Puritans instead. Witch hunts ramped up tenfold during the repressive Puritan regime.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Hopkins

Further: The Puritan Policeman ("the civil and religious strait jacket" imposed on society by the Puritans)

https://www.jstor.org/stable/2085847

She also could have mentioned cults today like born-again "Christians", Mormons, seventh day Adventists, Jehovah Witnesses etc.

Matthew Hopkins - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Hopkins

Wheresthebeach · 03/05/2025 23:47

She is utterly amazing

SnoopyPajamas · 03/05/2025 23:47

Candlesandmatches · 03/05/2025 20:47

Shame about the anti Carholic rhetoric. But I agree with her message.

She does specify "medieval" Catholicism, and later, refers to the Inquisition. I don't see how this is any slur on modern day Catholics. Unless we're going to pretend the church doesn't have a long-standing and less than noble history, regarding the suppression of views deemed heretical?

Ireland didn't repeal its Catholic blasphemy laws until 2018. It's not as if this issue was all sorted out hundreds of years ago. To use the lightest possible example: The Life of Brian was subject to widespread bans in 1979. That's well within living memory, for many people.

Pudmyboy · 03/05/2025 23:47

Beebop2025 · 03/05/2025 21:27

Meanwhile a TRA is now defining trans people as an ethnic group.

https://x.com/Gaynotqueer1/status/1918581801439621160

His posts are great! Never heard of him before but he is now a hero of mine!

RedToothBrush · 03/05/2025 23:48

Well all I can say is.

Thanks JKR for saying everything we've been saying here FOR YEARS.

Its getting harder and harder to ignore what we are saying. BECAUSE ITS TRUE.

The Truth is the light of liberalism. Liberalism - the real one is driven by it. When you start to lie, liberalism starts to die and freedom dies. Democracy dies in the dark I think is the phrase.

Its that simple. Someone should write a fiction book based on this principle.

Oh wait. She did.

LeftieRightsHoarder · 03/05/2025 23:49

JK is such a star, in every way.

CraftandGlamour · 03/05/2025 23:50

What a woman. The old-fashioned kind. 🥰😍

StuckUpPrincess · 03/05/2025 23:56

I find JK and the court ruling to be transphobic. While I don't think that transwomen should compete in women's sports, and I think that only trans people who have obtained GRCs should be allowed to use the women's loos and changing rooms, I also think it's awful to treat transpeople as if they don't exist. And that's what the UK Supreme Court ruling does. If someone who has fully transitioned can't use the women's loos and changing rooms, where are they meant to go? They'll get beaten up and harassed if they use the men's. But no one seems to care about that. They do exist and always have, and lots of transwomen will have used the loos with you and you're none the wiser.

I think what it comes down to is that JK and people who agree with her do not believe that there is any such thing as a genuine transwoman. That is, someone who feels that they are a woman inside, transitions to be female as far as is possible, just wants to continue with their lives, and has no interest whatsoever in doing anything harmful towards anyone.

JK and her followers seem to believe that every transwoman is some pervert in disguise and that they can't possibly be genuine.

I strongly disagree.

Vaxtable · 04/05/2025 00:00

JK is the best.

notjaneausten · 04/05/2025 00:01

JKR, thank you.

AzurePanda · 04/05/2025 00:02

I couldn’t love JKR more.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 04/05/2025 00:03

StuckUpPrincess · 03/05/2025 23:56

I find JK and the court ruling to be transphobic. While I don't think that transwomen should compete in women's sports, and I think that only trans people who have obtained GRCs should be allowed to use the women's loos and changing rooms, I also think it's awful to treat transpeople as if they don't exist. And that's what the UK Supreme Court ruling does. If someone who has fully transitioned can't use the women's loos and changing rooms, where are they meant to go? They'll get beaten up and harassed if they use the men's. But no one seems to care about that. They do exist and always have, and lots of transwomen will have used the loos with you and you're none the wiser.

I think what it comes down to is that JK and people who agree with her do not believe that there is any such thing as a genuine transwoman. That is, someone who feels that they are a woman inside, transitions to be female as far as is possible, just wants to continue with their lives, and has no interest whatsoever in doing anything harmful towards anyone.

JK and her followers seem to believe that every transwoman is some pervert in disguise and that they can't possibly be genuine.

I strongly disagree.

No, they’re just men. There’s no value judgement.

SnoopyPajamas · 04/05/2025 00:04

ChessorBuckaroo · 03/05/2025 23:39

She should have stated Puritans instead. Witch hunts ramped up tenfold during the repressive Puritan regime.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Hopkins

Further: The Puritan Policeman ("the civil and religious strait jacket" imposed on society by the Puritans)

https://www.jstor.org/stable/2085847

She also could have mentioned cults today like born-again "Christians", Mormons, seventh day Adventists, Jehovah Witnesses etc.

I think she reached for the reference that would be understood by the majority of readers. Most of the groups you mention here are American and wouldn't have the same effect. UK readers know what is meant when someone mentions the Spanish Inquisition. Mormons are mostly a blank to us, unless you've watched South Park or seen that one play. Born again Christians are even vaguer, and Seventh Day Adventists would get you a blank look from most people in the street.

Puritans would have fit the witch hunt angle, but her "TWAW is both crucifix and catechism to TRAs" point was too good to lose, so I'm not surprised she kept it simple and kept to the Inquisition metaphor throughout. If she'd had a really good joke about The Scarlet Letter in her back pocket, she probably would have gone the Puritan route instead

Vaxtable · 04/05/2025 00:08

StuckUpPrincess · 03/05/2025 23:56

I find JK and the court ruling to be transphobic. While I don't think that transwomen should compete in women's sports, and I think that only trans people who have obtained GRCs should be allowed to use the women's loos and changing rooms, I also think it's awful to treat transpeople as if they don't exist. And that's what the UK Supreme Court ruling does. If someone who has fully transitioned can't use the women's loos and changing rooms, where are they meant to go? They'll get beaten up and harassed if they use the men's. But no one seems to care about that. They do exist and always have, and lots of transwomen will have used the loos with you and you're none the wiser.

I think what it comes down to is that JK and people who agree with her do not believe that there is any such thing as a genuine transwoman. That is, someone who feels that they are a woman inside, transitions to be female as far as is possible, just wants to continue with their lives, and has no interest whatsoever in doing anything harmful towards anyone.

JK and her followers seem to believe that every transwoman is some pervert in disguise and that they can't possibly be genuine.

I strongly disagree.

Oh go away with you. JK is standing up for women. Which if the TRAs would have their way would soon become a minority.

Why should I give up hard won rights to share my safe place with someone who is not biologically woman. Why should women in prison have to share with a man? Why should those poor American swimmers have to share changing rooms with a man? Someone who was happy to walk around with his penis hanging out

Why do women who have suffered domestic abuse have to attend a centre and talk to a man?

if someone suffers body dysmorphia and thinks they are the opposite sex that’s up to them but they can’t be expected to share spaces solely for women ( or men if a trans man) so trans people have to have a third space

the ruling was also clear that the trans community continue to be protected. They just can’t share women’s safe spaces and tbh I am very sad you seem to think it’s acceptable that women gave to share with non women

HaddyAbrams · 04/05/2025 00:11

They'll get beaten up and harassed if they use the men's. But no one seems to care about that

My son has been bullied and harassed in the men's. Can he use the ladies too?

Waitwhat23 · 04/05/2025 00:11

StuckUpPrincess · 03/05/2025 23:56

I find JK and the court ruling to be transphobic. While I don't think that transwomen should compete in women's sports, and I think that only trans people who have obtained GRCs should be allowed to use the women's loos and changing rooms, I also think it's awful to treat transpeople as if they don't exist. And that's what the UK Supreme Court ruling does. If someone who has fully transitioned can't use the women's loos and changing rooms, where are they meant to go? They'll get beaten up and harassed if they use the men's. But no one seems to care about that. They do exist and always have, and lots of transwomen will have used the loos with you and you're none the wiser.

I think what it comes down to is that JK and people who agree with her do not believe that there is any such thing as a genuine transwoman. That is, someone who feels that they are a woman inside, transitions to be female as far as is possible, just wants to continue with their lives, and has no interest whatsoever in doing anything harmful towards anyone.

JK and her followers seem to believe that every transwoman is some pervert in disguise and that they can't possibly be genuine.

I strongly disagree.

Were you bothered when women were being turned away or forced to self exclude from rape crisis services because lobbying groups had convinced Governments and organisations that they could not provide single sex services? When women were being told to 'reframe their trauma'? When the women of Edinburgh and the Lothians had to rely on the generosity of JKR to provide them with the services they needed? When ERCC refused, out of sheer spite, to signpost women to Beira's Place?

The anti woman narrative which has been a feature of institutional capture in this country has finally been addressed. And frankly, women are taking their shit back.

Imagine if Stonewall et al had spent the last 10 years fighting for third spaces, facilities and services instead of trying to intimidate women into silence and complete compliance.

RedToothBrush · 04/05/2025 00:15

StuckUpPrincess · 03/05/2025 23:56

I find JK and the court ruling to be transphobic. While I don't think that transwomen should compete in women's sports, and I think that only trans people who have obtained GRCs should be allowed to use the women's loos and changing rooms, I also think it's awful to treat transpeople as if they don't exist. And that's what the UK Supreme Court ruling does. If someone who has fully transitioned can't use the women's loos and changing rooms, where are they meant to go? They'll get beaten up and harassed if they use the men's. But no one seems to care about that. They do exist and always have, and lots of transwomen will have used the loos with you and you're none the wiser.

I think what it comes down to is that JK and people who agree with her do not believe that there is any such thing as a genuine transwoman. That is, someone who feels that they are a woman inside, transitions to be female as far as is possible, just wants to continue with their lives, and has no interest whatsoever in doing anything harmful towards anyone.

JK and her followers seem to believe that every transwoman is some pervert in disguise and that they can't possibly be genuine.

I strongly disagree.

Thats nice.

Now do you know how the law actually works?!

How do you define any one who has 'undergone or is undergoing gender reassignment' in law, if you can't refer to them as individuals who identify as the opposite sex. You literally have to refer to sex in order to give them ANY legal protections. You can't refer to a certificate, because the whole category is broader than those who have got one and explicitly groups those with a GRC with those who do not. There are no caveats applied, there are no exemption clauses or qualifying comments. It is one category that can ONLY possibly be defined if you use sex. Nothing else works.

The law can not bend to fit people's mood. It is hard and rigid in how it uses definitions to create universal understanding so there is no confusion nor room for error - as these would lead to injustice.

Likewise, how do you define homosexuals in law, without using biological sex as your reference point? Or do you want them to lose all their rights too? I might afterall 'being trans is just like being homosexual' is the mantra we usually here and we all believe in those rights now don't we?

Turn this on this head, how do you define in law, what gender is? You can't define it as a feeling in your head, because no third party can verify this. This means that you'd open the door to literally anyone claiming they were transgender or any male simply claiming they were a female (but not trans) or anyone saying they were homosexual even if they are literally shagging someone of the opposite sex at that very moment.

Or do you go down the route of saying 'anyone who wears a dress or lipstick is a woman?' as a legal definition with a straight face whilst also pronouncing 'its not regressive' or 'its not about genderstereotypes'.

Thats the irony of this; in order to have transrights, we need to be able to identify the transpeople. And this means we need to be able to see sex, because transpeople define themselves using sex - even if its to say they are the opposite sex.

The paradox is hilarous to see all these supposedly clever people going 'I DISAGREE WITH TEH RULING', who are incapable of understanding that the Supreme Court can only rule on what the text of the Equality Act says. And this means because of the way its worded it is literally impossible for them to have reached any other conclusion - even if they believe TWAW - because otherwise transpeople (as well as women and homosexuals) would have lost their rights because they wouldn't have been able to defend them in a court of law should they ever did to.

It has NOTHING whatsoever with politics. This is a neutral, practical observation of the text which notes that if the purpose of the Act is to give rights to certain groups, it can not do so without sex always being biological sex because there are no caveats, exemptions, alternative definitions or exclusions written into the Act.

THEY HAD NO CHOICE but to rule in this way.

If you are in disagreement. Take it up with Reality not the Supreme Court. I'm sure Reality will magically change to fit your ideal...

RedToothBrush · 04/05/2025 00:17

StuckUpPrincess · 03/05/2025 23:56

I find JK and the court ruling to be transphobic. While I don't think that transwomen should compete in women's sports, and I think that only trans people who have obtained GRCs should be allowed to use the women's loos and changing rooms, I also think it's awful to treat transpeople as if they don't exist. And that's what the UK Supreme Court ruling does. If someone who has fully transitioned can't use the women's loos and changing rooms, where are they meant to go? They'll get beaten up and harassed if they use the men's. But no one seems to care about that. They do exist and always have, and lots of transwomen will have used the loos with you and you're none the wiser.

I think what it comes down to is that JK and people who agree with her do not believe that there is any such thing as a genuine transwoman. That is, someone who feels that they are a woman inside, transitions to be female as far as is possible, just wants to continue with their lives, and has no interest whatsoever in doing anything harmful towards anyone.

JK and her followers seem to believe that every transwoman is some pervert in disguise and that they can't possibly be genuine.

I strongly disagree.

But to be honest my reply to this post should really have been

"Everything I disagree with is transphobic cos reality is a philosophical belief and thus anyone who disagrees with me is in denial of the power of the Big Lie".

Lostcat · 04/05/2025 00:18

this woman is so very wrong headed. . She knows not the harm she does.

Mmmnotsure · 04/05/2025 00:20

AInightingale · 03/05/2025 21:08

That letter has some odd signatories, like Dr Caressa Dick, Professor Fellatio Hornblower, Sissy P. Orn, and Dixie Rect, Professor of Gender Studies.

I love UK terfs. 🤣💗

Hands up. Which MNetter is responsible for Joseph Gerbils, P.H.D. Communications Studies, University of Berlin?

RedToothBrush · 04/05/2025 00:21

Lostcat · 04/05/2025 00:18

this woman is so very wrong headed. . She knows not the harm she does.

Do please explain in 1000 words without resorting to utter bollocks.

Thank you kindly in advance for your carefully considered contribution to this thread.

In other news, the sky is still above you and the sun will rise again in the morning. Material reality is wonderful.

RedToothBrush · 04/05/2025 00:23

Mmmnotsure · 04/05/2025 00:20

Hands up. Which MNetter is responsible for Joseph Gerbils, P.H.D. Communications Studies, University of Berlin?

Wasn't me!

But I congratulate whoever did!

😂

Lostcat · 04/05/2025 00:23

RedToothBrush · 04/05/2025 00:21

Do please explain in 1000 words without resorting to utter bollocks.

Thank you kindly in advance for your carefully considered contribution to this thread.

In other news, the sky is still above you and the sun will rise again in the morning. Material reality is wonderful.

No one has an issue with material reality.

Seethlaw · 04/05/2025 00:23

@StuckUpPrincess

I'm curious: why do you think that transwomen shouldn't compete in women's sports? And why would you restrict access to women's spaces only to people who have a GRC?

SnoopyPajamas · 04/05/2025 00:24

StuckUpPrincess · 03/05/2025 23:56

I find JK and the court ruling to be transphobic. While I don't think that transwomen should compete in women's sports, and I think that only trans people who have obtained GRCs should be allowed to use the women's loos and changing rooms, I also think it's awful to treat transpeople as if they don't exist. And that's what the UK Supreme Court ruling does. If someone who has fully transitioned can't use the women's loos and changing rooms, where are they meant to go? They'll get beaten up and harassed if they use the men's. But no one seems to care about that. They do exist and always have, and lots of transwomen will have used the loos with you and you're none the wiser.

I think what it comes down to is that JK and people who agree with her do not believe that there is any such thing as a genuine transwoman. That is, someone who feels that they are a woman inside, transitions to be female as far as is possible, just wants to continue with their lives, and has no interest whatsoever in doing anything harmful towards anyone.

JK and her followers seem to believe that every transwoman is some pervert in disguise and that they can't possibly be genuine.

I strongly disagree.

I also think it's awful to treat transpeople as if they don't exist. And that's what the UK Supreme Court ruling does

Trans people didn't discorporate en masse and poof into nothingness the very instant the Supreme Court ruling was read out. They live and breathe and exist among us as human beings, the same as they did before.

Nobody's pretending they're a different biological sex, is all. They never were, so I don't see what's changed? They're still identifying as their pick of the 79 genders, just like before. All that's changed is that a law which already existed has been clarified, to avoid confusion.

If someone who has fully transitioned can't use the women's loos and changing rooms, where are they meant to go? They'll get beaten up and harassed if they use the men's. But no one seems to care about that.

The only groups obligated to solve that problem are transwomen and men. It's nothing to do with women. Why do you think it is? Why should we risk our safety and dignity, so that one group of men can be kept safe from another? This is in no way our problem.

If you care so much, why aren't you in a men's forum right now, telling them not to beat up and harass "the dolls"? Serious question. Why aren't you?

That is, someone who feels that they are a woman inside, transitions to be female as far as is possible, just wants to continue with their lives, and has no interest whatsoever in doing anything harmful towards anyone.

Again - the feelings and choices of this hypothetical man, angelic as he may be, are not any woman's problem. We don't have to accommodate him, we don't have to validate him. We don't have to pay attention to him at all. He can nice, he can be mean, he can pass, he can not pass. It doesn't matter. He doesn't belong in our spaces. End of. I'm not going to hurt him, but I don't have to let him in either, and I don't have to play along.

However misguided and well-intentioned his womanface may be, many women will still find it offensive, and we have every right to.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.