Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Lady Hale "no such thing as biological sex"

125 replies

BinBadger · 23/05/2025 07:37

"The 80-year-old, who is a member of the House of Lords, also questioned what was meant by “biological sex”.
“I was with some doctors last week who said there is no such thing as biological sex,” she said. "

In the Grain today

Apparently her daughter said,

“The idea that the trigger for all of this case was whether trans women should represent women in the representation of women on boards, I find heartbreaking.”

She said she would love to have “a talented trans woman sitting on a board of mine”.

Just, why?!

Court ruling on legal definition of a woman ‘misinterpreted’, Lady Hale says

Speaking at book festival in east Sussex, former supreme court president says reaction to judgment ‘very binary’

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2025/may/22/court-ruling-legal-definition-of-a-woman-misinterpreted-lady-hale

OP posts:
Keeptoiletssafe · 23/05/2025 15:28

Contrast this article with the comment promoting the gender neutral toilets at lovely Hay:
https://views-voices.oxfam.org.uk/2017/11/unused-toilets/

After a few years of what will happen in reality, I wonder if people will be asking the same thing. For mixed sex, private toilets to work safely anywhere in public, they have to be carefully monitored and attended. There still needs to be trust in the people around you.

All these unused toilets - who are we building them for? - Views & Voices

Going to the toilet is one of the most dangerous things you can do as a woman living in a camp. We’re researching lighting and safety around latrines.

https://views-voices.oxfam.org.uk/2017/11/unused-toilets/

Merrymouse · 23/05/2025 15:29

TheKeatingFive · 23/05/2025 12:48

I think you can be well educated/articulate without being particularly good at critical thinking.

So there's a class of people who are very trusting of what 'authority' is telling them and not great at using their own brain to question what they're being told.

This ideology is associated with high status societal markers. The universities, left leaning media, even (god help us) the healthcare sector. It's cloaked in the language of 'progressive' morality, inclusion, kindness, self expression.

It's also total bollocks and immensely harmful to women and vulnerable young people. But a lot of people haven't properly grasped that yet or simply don't care.

I don't think you can be a Supreme Court judge without being able to apply critical thinking.

However, that doesn't mean you have to think critically all the time.

Merrymouse · 23/05/2025 15:31

Keeptoiletssafe · 23/05/2025 15:28

Contrast this article with the comment promoting the gender neutral toilets at lovely Hay:
https://views-voices.oxfam.org.uk/2017/11/unused-toilets/

After a few years of what will happen in reality, I wonder if people will be asking the same thing. For mixed sex, private toilets to work safely anywhere in public, they have to be carefully monitored and attended. There still needs to be trust in the people around you.

I think that very few people have applied critical thinking to this.

Keeptoiletssafe · 23/05/2025 16:26

The consultation almost gets it:

Example
13.3.11 A service provider operates a shopping centre and decides to renovate the centre. It initially intends to only provide separate-sex toilets to improve the safety and comfort of users. This disadvantages trans people because it means that a trans person cannot access a toilet catered towards their acquired gender. The service provider therefore decides to also provide toilets in individual lockable rooms which can be used by people of either sex.

Should be changed to:

Example
13.3.11 A service provider operates a shopping centre and decides to renovate the centre. It initially intends to only provide separate-sex toilets to improve the safety and comfort of users. This disadvantages trans people because it means that a trans person cannot access a toilet catered towards their acquired gender. The service provider to therefore decides to decrease the safety and comfort of users to also provide toilets in individual lockable rooms which can be used by people of either sex.

The government need to urgently look at what happens inside individual ‘lockable’ rooms which can be used by people of either sex, before mass introduction. They need better design ideas than the universal design if that’s the way they want to go.

The safest design solution is single sex toilets with door gaps. Everything else is less safe.

HappySquashGirl · 24/05/2025 01:12

Lack of clarity about the definition of a thing doesn't mean the thing doesn't exist.

You can argue about the definition of genocide.

It doesn't mean genocide doesn't exist.

BigfootSmallButtons · 24/05/2025 03:58

No such thing as Lady Hale then 🥱

CocoChaneI · 24/05/2025 04:12

The end result of this kind of thinking is ludicrous situations like when Labour employed a 19yo male as their minister for women. I mean, what experience could he have possibly have had living as an adult woman when he'd only been an adult for a couple of years. An adult male!

Threestripesswoosh · 24/05/2025 04:17

I wonder if it’s possible for a transwoman to identify as man.

JennyForeigner · 24/05/2025 07:43

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 23/05/2025 12:11

I think it's because they attach so much importance to being clever that their cleverness becomes a weakness.

Imagine you were always top of the class at school. You weren't the sporty one, you weren't the cool one, you were the brainy one. Your superpower was understanding things that were too complicated for most other people to understand. And then you left school and went to university and continued to collect qualifications until you eventually entered your chosen field and excelled at it.

Let's say your chosen field is law, you have a PhD in constitutional law, you became a barrister and then a silk and are now a judge.

Being clever is your identity.

And you frequently come into contact with people, often members of the public with no expertise in your field, who nonetheless have strong opinions about things like the death penalty, or human rights, or jury trials, and are quite happy to publicly disagree with you and say you are wrong.

You find it easy to dismiss these people as thickos who have no idea what they are talking about. If only they were clever and educated like you, they would have the same opinions as you.

Then along comes a doctor who prescribes puberty blockers to children, or someone like Sally Hines with her PhD in gender studies.

And they confidently inform you that anyone who thinks that a man is someone with a penis and a woman is someone with a vagina is just a thicko, who doesn't understand the difference between sex and gender.

You don't understand the difference between sex and gender either, but you don't want to admit it, because that would make you a thicko and there is nothing worse than being a thicko.

And you're certainly not going to say, "Well that sounds like total horse crap to me, Sally, and just because you have a PhD doesn't mean you're not a complete fricking idiot."

Because you have a lot of respect for qualifications, you attach an enormous amount of value to your own, and you have a PhD yourself. So obviously you are personally invested in it not being possible for someone with a PhD to be a complete fricking idiot, because that would mean that you also might be a complete fricking idiot, which is unthinkable.

And, you know, you're a legal expert. You're not a doctor or a professor of gender studies. These are Helen Webberley and Sally Hines' fields of expertise, not yours. And if they have that expertise and they are telling you that humans can change sex and that woman is just an identity, who are you to argue? You don't want to be like those ignorant fools who think their opinions about constitutional law are as valid as yours.

And you can see that, on the whole, you have people with degrees and titles and impressive sounding jobs saying that trans women are women, whereas it tends to be people who are a bit, well, Brexity, who say otherwise. OK there are a couple of outliers like JK Rowling, but at the end of the day she just wrote some books for children about wizards, so she's not really an expert, is she?

You know which side you want to be on. Even if you don't fully understand it, you're happy to defer to the expertise of doctors who have dedicated their careers to gender affirming care and academics who specialise in gender studies.

Because they must be right...right?

This is an excellent post

RedToothBrush · 24/05/2025 09:37

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 23/05/2025 12:11

I think it's because they attach so much importance to being clever that their cleverness becomes a weakness.

Imagine you were always top of the class at school. You weren't the sporty one, you weren't the cool one, you were the brainy one. Your superpower was understanding things that were too complicated for most other people to understand. And then you left school and went to university and continued to collect qualifications until you eventually entered your chosen field and excelled at it.

Let's say your chosen field is law, you have a PhD in constitutional law, you became a barrister and then a silk and are now a judge.

Being clever is your identity.

And you frequently come into contact with people, often members of the public with no expertise in your field, who nonetheless have strong opinions about things like the death penalty, or human rights, or jury trials, and are quite happy to publicly disagree with you and say you are wrong.

You find it easy to dismiss these people as thickos who have no idea what they are talking about. If only they were clever and educated like you, they would have the same opinions as you.

Then along comes a doctor who prescribes puberty blockers to children, or someone like Sally Hines with her PhD in gender studies.

And they confidently inform you that anyone who thinks that a man is someone with a penis and a woman is someone with a vagina is just a thicko, who doesn't understand the difference between sex and gender.

You don't understand the difference between sex and gender either, but you don't want to admit it, because that would make you a thicko and there is nothing worse than being a thicko.

And you're certainly not going to say, "Well that sounds like total horse crap to me, Sally, and just because you have a PhD doesn't mean you're not a complete fricking idiot."

Because you have a lot of respect for qualifications, you attach an enormous amount of value to your own, and you have a PhD yourself. So obviously you are personally invested in it not being possible for someone with a PhD to be a complete fricking idiot, because that would mean that you also might be a complete fricking idiot, which is unthinkable.

And, you know, you're a legal expert. You're not a doctor or a professor of gender studies. These are Helen Webberley and Sally Hines' fields of expertise, not yours. And if they have that expertise and they are telling you that humans can change sex and that woman is just an identity, who are you to argue? You don't want to be like those ignorant fools who think their opinions about constitutional law are as valid as yours.

And you can see that, on the whole, you have people with degrees and titles and impressive sounding jobs saying that trans women are women, whereas it tends to be people who are a bit, well, Brexity, who say otherwise. OK there are a couple of outliers like JK Rowling, but at the end of the day she just wrote some books for children about wizards, so she's not really an expert, is she?

You know which side you want to be on. Even if you don't fully understand it, you're happy to defer to the expertise of doctors who have dedicated their careers to gender affirming care and academics who specialise in gender studies.

Because they must be right...right?

I struggle with this.

I was always the 'clever one'. I had a desire to find out. If I didn't understand something I'd find out more. I also am very aware that many academics and academic studies talk bollocks. Ben Goldacre's book 'Bad Science' was hugely influential, award winning and sold a lot of copies. So there has been a big cultural move in these 'clever' circles to question things and to question the motivations of people. Being 'clever' ISN'T the excuse.

I'd actually like to challenge this idea of what it is to be 'clever'. A lot of people who think they are clever, actually aren't that clever.

To go back to Lady Hale, she's a judge. She's been working in law for a long time. She's well aware that clever people tell lies, will twist the truth to suit themselves and will make up all manner of stuff to justify their own actions. It's not just 'thickos' who lie.

This is purely about arrogance and seeing yourself above others. The 'right thinking people'.

You social circle is superior so if someone in your social circle tells you something you respect them already so you don't vet what's been said. You use stereotypes to smear 'lesser' people. This is about social status not cleverness. Many people in this circle are actually pretty mediocre, truth be told. They don't think outside the box. It's about fitting in and never wrong stepping. This is the boy club manifesting in a new way. If you are in the boys club you don't get questioned. You are right. Your mate has a trans child? Fab they are a lovely family, they are respectable, they are liberals - there's no chance there's trauma or sexism or homophobia or even autism going on there - because I know them.

This is one of the key things drummed into you with safeguarding - just because someone is an upstanding member of the community or well respected never assume that they aren't capable of doing something bad.

You hear the comment all the time from Ploppers 'but my trans friend is lovely, they wouldn't hurt a fly'. One of the issues here is the 'keeping up appearances' issue when it hits a family. Everyone is desperate to show how accepting they are, they rarely talk about the impact or issues with behaviour that come with it. So those outside of this, don't really see this side of things because they just see people playing 'happy families' and the condemnation of those who don't play happy families - and the social smearing that goes with it.

There's a lot of middle class conformity going on here. Certain parts of Middle England struggles to cope with certain things - it's unbelievably straight (as in you go to school, you get good result, you go to uni, you get a good job, you get married, you have children, your children go to uni, you never ever do anything wrong). You don't drop out from safe cliches and thinking. To describe the following mentality: At a party you dance around your handbag, you absolutely don't ever decide to jump on a table and dance, not once. Well maybe there was this one time at uni, that you were so wild for ten minutes and you tell the story for the next twenty years. You do everything 'the right way' because 'that's what clever people do'.

An anecdote about this thinking: My son was told last week by a girl he sits next to at school "if you don't behave, you'll get a bad report". He's been having trouble with this girl. It's low level bullying and she thinks she's the greatest thing since sliced bread. Here's the thing - he's pretty much the best behaved boy in the class, he's top of the class, his last school report just was brilliant and I frequently have comments about what a nice boy he is and how hard he tries. But he still struggles. The structure of things doesn't suit him. He has ADHD (diagnosed). And this means he can't sit still, he struggles with focus in class and frequently gets told off for doodling. He can read a book whilst watching TV and is able to tell you everything happening in both. He doesn't conform. And ultimately this girl can't cope with this. She thinks you should do everything in a set right way.

They don't look like they've ever had a day of fun or being silly in their lives. They don't get it. They look at us as weirdos and have a snotty snobby attitude. It's all about this desire to sort everything and everyone in life into nice neat boxes. We don't fit their box so they think they are superior. It's viewed as almost a 'moral failure' is the best way I can describe it.

And that's the thing. Accepting transgenderism has flourished in certain circles. Questioning it has become a 'moral failing'. All this training? Well you conform. You don't break the rules. If school tells you to do something, you don't question why the rule is in place. You just obey it, because that's why you've done well in life. Rules are there for a reason. Rules are never wrong. Other people didn't do well at school, because they didnt do what they were supposed to - that's why they didn't get straight As. They didn't work hard. They didn't follow the rules. Note the phrase - 'educate yourself' at this point.

To go back to my point about who clever people are and who they are not.

There's two types of 'clever people'. Those who are rule makers and takers. They end up in positions of authority and think the rest of the world should be exactly like them. Many aren't actually that clever but have merely benefitted from a system that suits and favours them for whatever reason. They often achieve above their actual ability for this reason. It's privilege. They do well because they still together with like minded people and people from the same social circle. An increasingly closed social circle.

Then there's clever people who break the mould and break rules. They don't always do so well in life, but some do exceptionally well and they piss off the first group more than anyone else because they are almost viewed as 'having done it wrong and they shouldn't have achieved'. And because they are genuinely brilliant in a way that shines through regardless and can't be suppressed. They often fight against the system and often disrupt the system. And of course the first group hate them for this - it's their system. This group can show them up and can highlight the fact that many in the first group really aren't as clever as they think. That ruffles feathers.

We live in a period where social mobility is shutting down. Group one are trying to close ranks to protect their own. The system has become more rigid. You must be academic, you must tick the right boxes, you can't take a different route or think differently.

Lady Hale exemplifies these things. She is a judge. Her job literally was to sit in judgement of others. Now she sits in judgement of others who don't do what she does because she's morally superior and she follows her set education programme, like she's supposed to.

People like these can not conceive of the rules being wrong. They make the rules. They do the training. That's why the SC ruling has rattled them. They've been following what they were told was right only to fit out they've been acting unlawfully. That couldn't possibly be the case. They do everything right. It's impossible for them to do it wrong. That would be a moral failing. They are never going to admit they've spent the last few years enforcing sexism and homophobia now are they? It must be the SC judges who have been mistaken. The system must change back to the one we've been happy with and have spent so much time constructing.

It comes back to this dynamic of power and control.

People like Lady Hale live in a different bubble to others. It's a false world, detached from 'its a bit more complicated than that'. Their world is very black and white. There are only good people (the people they know) and bad people (people they won't / don't associate with).

It's been called the lanyard class. It's got little to do with cleverness and everything to do with maintaining status, keeping the status quo and retaining power over others.

Be mindful of the difference.

It's about not 'rocking the boat'.

The whole culture of the punishment of whistleblowers stems from the above.

See the fear of MPs on this.

maltravers · 24/05/2025 11:20

I just think her daughter is central to her life, LGBT is central to her daughter’s life. She doesn’t want to make things harder for her daughter or herself. Not a trans offspring, but in the ballpark. I don’t buy the “not clever” thing though, she’s just made a choice. I think given her profile she shouldn’t have done it, it makes it harder for women, but there we are:

https://archive.ph/zXKGc

maltravers · 24/05/2025 11:22

Sorry, link above is a times article about her and her daughter from about six years ago.

Merrymouse · 24/05/2025 11:42

maltravers · 24/05/2025 11:20

I just think her daughter is central to her life, LGBT is central to her daughter’s life. She doesn’t want to make things harder for her daughter or herself. Not a trans offspring, but in the ballpark. I don’t buy the “not clever” thing though, she’s just made a choice. I think given her profile she shouldn’t have done it, it makes it harder for women, but there we are:

https://archive.ph/zXKGc

I agree - but I also think her comments were pretty forgettable - have I missed something or was their a particular comment that contradicted the SC?

Allthegoodnamesarechosen · 24/05/2025 11:54

@MissScarletInTheBallroom

I’ve met Lady Hale (in a charitable context, not up before the beak). Your analysis of her is , in my experience, bang on the money. Quite a few girls in her ( our) era found that the best way of succeeding in a male dominated world was to be a substitute man in your head, to be what Homer says of Athene ‘ all for the father’.

‘She later studied at Girton College, Cambridge (the first from her school to attend Cambridge), where she read law. Hale was one of six women in her class, which had 110 men, and graduated with a starred first and top of her class in 1966.[8][

When she was at Cambridge, there were only three women’s colleges. Girton was barely in Cambridge, it was right on the outskirts: less distraction ( serious comment by one of their dons).

That sort of competition and imbalance tends to have one of two outcomes: you either become a feminist and fight to extend your privilege to other women, or you despise the less successful and gain some pleasure in keeping them in their ( humble) place.

Plus of course, she has made her living sticking to an argument through thick and thin, and not admitting that you could be wrong. She had to be skilled in the sophists’ trick of ‘making the worse argument seem the better’.

Unfortunately she has ended up trying to persuade other people to ignore one of basic tenets of biology, which is just not going to end well.

Justme56 · 24/05/2025 12:04

Her daughter went to Newnham college which I believe is a women’s college. However looking at their entry criteria it is based on having some form of ‘female’ identification (passport, driving licence etc), so includes TW, TM and NB. I guess ‘female’ covers all bases.

caramac04 · 24/05/2025 12:07

There are some very good posts on here which are much broader than just ‘I think Lady Hale is wrong’ - which I have found really interesting and they support my opinion of ‘Lady Hale is wrong’
I really enjoy reading other poster’s opinions especially when they articulate why they have reached that opinion. Far better than I can so thank you. Sometimes mumsnet makes me laugh and sometimes it educates me; prompts me to read around a subject a bit more.
That is also my justification for spending far too long on here sometimes.

CocoChaneI · 24/05/2025 12:31

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 23/05/2025 12:11

I think it's because they attach so much importance to being clever that their cleverness becomes a weakness.

Imagine you were always top of the class at school. You weren't the sporty one, you weren't the cool one, you were the brainy one. Your superpower was understanding things that were too complicated for most other people to understand. And then you left school and went to university and continued to collect qualifications until you eventually entered your chosen field and excelled at it.

Let's say your chosen field is law, you have a PhD in constitutional law, you became a barrister and then a silk and are now a judge.

Being clever is your identity.

And you frequently come into contact with people, often members of the public with no expertise in your field, who nonetheless have strong opinions about things like the death penalty, or human rights, or jury trials, and are quite happy to publicly disagree with you and say you are wrong.

You find it easy to dismiss these people as thickos who have no idea what they are talking about. If only they were clever and educated like you, they would have the same opinions as you.

Then along comes a doctor who prescribes puberty blockers to children, or someone like Sally Hines with her PhD in gender studies.

And they confidently inform you that anyone who thinks that a man is someone with a penis and a woman is someone with a vagina is just a thicko, who doesn't understand the difference between sex and gender.

You don't understand the difference between sex and gender either, but you don't want to admit it, because that would make you a thicko and there is nothing worse than being a thicko.

And you're certainly not going to say, "Well that sounds like total horse crap to me, Sally, and just because you have a PhD doesn't mean you're not a complete fricking idiot."

Because you have a lot of respect for qualifications, you attach an enormous amount of value to your own, and you have a PhD yourself. So obviously you are personally invested in it not being possible for someone with a PhD to be a complete fricking idiot, because that would mean that you also might be a complete fricking idiot, which is unthinkable.

And, you know, you're a legal expert. You're not a doctor or a professor of gender studies. These are Helen Webberley and Sally Hines' fields of expertise, not yours. And if they have that expertise and they are telling you that humans can change sex and that woman is just an identity, who are you to argue? You don't want to be like those ignorant fools who think their opinions about constitutional law are as valid as yours.

And you can see that, on the whole, you have people with degrees and titles and impressive sounding jobs saying that trans women are women, whereas it tends to be people who are a bit, well, Brexity, who say otherwise. OK there are a couple of outliers like JK Rowling, but at the end of the day she just wrote some books for children about wizards, so she's not really an expert, is she?

You know which side you want to be on. Even if you don't fully understand it, you're happy to defer to the expertise of doctors who have dedicated their careers to gender affirming care and academics who specialise in gender studies.

Because they must be right...right?

Not sure I'm buying this tbh.

You make it sound like a complicated issue but if somebody says humans can change sex then it's pretty clear they're bonkers.

If a zoologist tell you that pink unicorns exist are you going to say "oh, well, they're the expert not me. Unicorns must exist then I guess"?

moto748e · 24/05/2025 12:31

I was just thinking exactly the same, @caramac04 !

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 24/05/2025 12:33

CocoChaneI · 24/05/2025 12:31

Not sure I'm buying this tbh.

You make it sound like a complicated issue but if somebody says humans can change sex then it's pretty clear they're bonkers.

If a zoologist tell you that pink unicorns exist are you going to say "oh, well, they're the expert not me. Unicorns must exist then I guess"?

I think that if people you think of as clever and educated all started saying that pink unicorns exist, and people you think of as not so clever were the ones saying, "u wot, mate?", and being clever and educated was important to you, you'd have a powerful incentive to start believing that pink unicorns exist. Or at least, pretending to believe it.

CocoChaneI · 24/05/2025 12:40

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 24/05/2025 12:33

I think that if people you think of as clever and educated all started saying that pink unicorns exist, and people you think of as not so clever were the ones saying, "u wot, mate?", and being clever and educated was important to you, you'd have a powerful incentive to start believing that pink unicorns exist. Or at least, pretending to believe it.

I respectfully disagree. Bonkers is bonkers.

There's 'unconventional' views and no doubt many current norms would've been seen as unconventional 100 years ago. But fantasy is fantasy. What next....identifying as a hobbit!

ZenNudist · 24/05/2025 12:43

I read this and assumed over privileged and virtue signalling because of the LGBTQI+ daughter.

She has gone down in my estimation.

I read the daughter's comments (presumably at her position in life thanks to her mum's standing) and just thought it was so ignorant. Nothing wrong with having a trans woman on a board but if the rest of your board is also male, it still excludes women who are after all 50% of the population. Its not particularly diverse. It depends if you see diversity as being good for your business.

The 30% club aims to get women on to boards. It's depressing that men have dominated at the top level forever, and then when there is finally some sway towards getting better representation of women in running things there are some men willing to don a wig and a dress and ask to be called Susan rather than just appoint an actual woman to the role.

From 2 obviously intelligent it doesn't show good critical thinking skills.

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 24/05/2025 12:48

CocoChaneI · 24/05/2025 12:40

I respectfully disagree. Bonkers is bonkers.

There's 'unconventional' views and no doubt many current norms would've been seen as unconventional 100 years ago. But fantasy is fantasy. What next....identifying as a hobbit!

Bonkers might be bonkers, but humans are pack animals and in general we don't like to stand out from the crowd. Being a lone dissenting voice is hard.

I recently did a day's training on unconscious bias which went into this point in quite some detail and it was absolutely fascinating.

The tale of the Emperor's New Clothes encapsulates this perfectly. You can have hundreds of people thinking, "is this bonkers?" but as long as everyone else is pretending it is normal, they feel more comfortable pretending it isn't bonkers. The one person who stands up and says, "this is bonkers" is a rare breed.

It's why JK Rowling is so remarkable.

Because saying, "this is bonkers" quietly, in the privacy of your own home, with your own family, might be easy. (Or it might be hard, if the rest of your family is pretending it isn't bonkers.)

Saying "this is bonkers" when you have 14 million Twitter followers is brave to the point of potential self destruction.

TheWatersofMarch · 24/05/2025 12:48

“There’s no such thing as biological sex”. So any two humans can reproduce? I thought it had to be a biological male and female.

Merrymouse · 24/05/2025 12:51

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 24/05/2025 12:33

I think that if people you think of as clever and educated all started saying that pink unicorns exist, and people you think of as not so clever were the ones saying, "u wot, mate?", and being clever and educated was important to you, you'd have a powerful incentive to start believing that pink unicorns exist. Or at least, pretending to believe it.

I think she knows very well that biological sex exists, but used the Trumpian "some people are saying" technique because it was personally and politically convenient.

Merrymouse · 24/05/2025 12:58

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 24/05/2025 12:48

Bonkers might be bonkers, but humans are pack animals and in general we don't like to stand out from the crowd. Being a lone dissenting voice is hard.

I recently did a day's training on unconscious bias which went into this point in quite some detail and it was absolutely fascinating.

The tale of the Emperor's New Clothes encapsulates this perfectly. You can have hundreds of people thinking, "is this bonkers?" but as long as everyone else is pretending it is normal, they feel more comfortable pretending it isn't bonkers. The one person who stands up and says, "this is bonkers" is a rare breed.

It's why JK Rowling is so remarkable.

Because saying, "this is bonkers" quietly, in the privacy of your own home, with your own family, might be easy. (Or it might be hard, if the rest of your family is pretending it isn't bonkers.)

Saying "this is bonkers" when you have 14 million Twitter followers is brave to the point of potential self destruction.

She had plenty of practice at the height of Harry Potter madness - the obsessive fans, the book burning. How do you get though that without a firm grasp on 'this is bonkers'?

New posts on this thread. Refresh page