Stephen Fry - What a repulsive, condescending misogynistic turd

[Absentmindedsmile]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14820209/Harry-Potter-narrator-Stephen-Fry-turns-JK-Rowling-TERFs.html

Yuk.

The recent way the culture has gone against them means there is a great deal of bullying, violence and suicide and genuine pain and agony in the trans community
'But to scream 'transphobe' at anybody who does not buy into every single aspect of that particular person's trans views is so self harming

He actually comes across as really measured to me in that article.
Saying things like "screaming transphobe" at someone who doesn't buy into every aspect of trans views is harming. Which I actually tend to agree with.

Regarding female people being able to correctly sex a male person maybe these links will help.

It has everything to do with recognising male body cues that are rather distinctively male and not to be conflated with 'masculine looking female'. These arguments that female people recognising male body cues are problematic in some way, ie. on this thread it is being framed as racism, are not new. But they are flawed because they rely on 'looks' and when female people recognise male body cues, they are not relying on 'looks' or 'beauty' at all.

Female people can very reliably identify a male person's sex without even seeing them. Just by hearing them or seeing them move.

Maybe this will help. These are just some of the differences in the male body due to testosterone.

https://www.theparadoxinstitute.com/watch/testosterone-and-beyond-the-male-advantage

Here in this Times article is a good hip alignment article.

ONE OF THE Q-ANGLE DIAGRAMS & A POLL

If you believe in fair competition, Emily Bridges should not be racing Laura Kenny

Owen Slot, The Times, 29th March 2022

https://archive.is/u4oSa
^www.thetimes.co.uk/article/3081c8c0-af7c-11ec-8b8c-0207c0fd6104?shareToken=dfc4c5b36b407a8e0ccc2133e718b121^

"Biomechanically, though, she still retains distinct advantages. The athletes she will be competing against have naturally wider hips. For the purposes of powering a bicycle, the crucial element here is that they will have a wider angle between the hips and the knees — this means their quads do not work so efficiently in transferring power."

Here is a study done on faces, just to disprove this 'beauty' myth of an argument that has been posed on this thread.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004269892200133X

Our results indicate that facial structures with full information on the texture and color of the skin are correctly classified as to their sex by most of the participants (98.4 % for Exp. 1 and 94.6 % for Exp. 2). If we do not consider versions 3 and 5 (close to the androgyne version 4), which contain a certain degree of sex ambiguity and only consider the less ambiguous versions (1 and 2 for male faces, and 6 and 7 for female faces), the accuracy approaches the ceiling (99.9 % for Exp.1, and 99.1 % for Exp.2). This is in line with previous research which observed that natural faces, devoid of any cultural signs of sex, are generally correctly categorized into their sex

I would think that results over 90% indicate a correct assumption that most of the population can accurately identify the sex of humans from faces. However, note the difference between people correctly identifying male versions of faces vs female.

The study mentions other papers as well.

I have a link stashed away that show that babies can recognise male and female faces too.

I am really not sure when people started to believe that their inability to tell the difference between male and female people through observation and hearing voices was the norm. The research says otherwise.

Nothing to do with 'beauty' and fucking everything to do with observation of distinct body cues of masculinised male people.

Again, posters need to be aware of the misinformation that has been posted on this thread .

Yes, he’s not a parent and views the world from a pretty niche perspective.

Have to say that the TRA posters on this thread are using some of the worst arguments I've ever seen. Anywhere. Ever.

The problem with gender is that it is a social construct based on stereotypes. Nobodies gender is black or white or rainbow coloured because it's just a made up thing. It's about 'feelings' and 'qualities' or having a 'sense' of something.

Oh how I miss the days before having a 'gender identity' became a thing, when everyone knew that gender just meant sex.

Thus, male skulls/faces tend to have stronger muscle attachments and larger mastoid processes, brow ridges, glabellar regions, thicker supraorbital margins, a more sloping forehead, more rectangular orbits, and heavier zygomatic bones. Seemingly, these differences between male vs female skulls/faces are related to endogenous testosterone and develop during puberty in males

I mean that's how I do it.

Many's the time i'd be in the bar with my mates, saying cor, look at the zygomatics on him.

The reason women get arsier as we get older is that with experience we learn that "you didn't ask nicely" is just another excuse.

What "You didn't ask nicely" hides is that there was no way of ever asking that woudl have worked because there is no way that a woman can say No to a man who does not want her to say No that he wil consider acceptable. As far as the man is concerned, the simple fact of a woman saying a thing he doesn't want to be said is enough for him to feel she has said it the wrong way.

So eventually, we just end up saying it plain and simple and not giving him any space to wiggle and dissemble.

I'm not sure I would go anywhere near co signing a manifesto about sex education with a man who thinks intergenerational sex is fine and that nine-year-olds can consent to and enjoy sex with an adult.

It's the "I must educate you with proclamations! These are the facts! I have not bothered to consider you may already know these assertions and have already made counterarguments, I will just assume I am the first person to bring this to your attention!" posting style.

Now the world is a wonderful varied place and I'm sure sometimes the people who post like that are in fact women, but usually they are men.

There are no TRAs on this thread as far as I can see. Just women who don't agree with everything JKR says. I can only speak for myself when I say this thread further highlights to me the stark difference in black and white women's lived experiences.

Telling me to care more about black women affected by Caster Semenya's inclusion over the racism she experienced, is like telling me to care more about the black people who have less access to national resources because of the black migrants seeking asylum. I care about both issues but in a very different way to how you will ever care.

It just makes no sense to me. And it screams of whitesplaining - somehow you can see the black plight better than I can. Somehow you are a saviour for black women who have been forgotten in our compassion for Semenya's experiences.

I am not saying Ms Semenya should be allowed to compete against biological women, but I am highlighting the treatment of her as a black person which is similar to many black women's experiences. I think those issues are important to acknowledge when discussing individual cases, because these individuals and the systems they are subjected to do not exist in a vacuum.

I love a good cheekbone!

Was Rowling not, though,correcting the tweet reporting of that story about Fry saying he couldn't pronounce that word and putting it in every book? Or was that verbatim what Fry said with no editing?

Quite.

it's the same realisation that makes you think what the actual fuck when men are complaining that you're crowing about getting your rights confirmed.

Absolutely I was bloody crowing. Whooping, high-fiving, yippee-ing.

Who the fuck wouldn't do that, when we finally get our sports back, stop creepy men using our changing rooms and toilets, and prevent rapists being put into women's prisons!!

What on earth is he talking about??

I suspect it's that women just aren't allowed to crow about anything that might inadvertently affect a man.

I have to say, it's really an horrendously ill judged interview.

There's so much wrong with it, and so much fodder. I hope JKR takes her time with her response, should she even bother to make one.

We have seen this now in at least two court case transcripts.

Women are allowed to have whatever thoughts they want. But if it involves excluding male people from being women in any way , we are told by expert activist testimonial that there is no way to verbalise that thought. No matter what words we use.

It is what we are seeing here.

Yes well I'm not the only one puzzled that you call yourself GC @Christmasmorale. But I think it's harder to argue "no TRA on this thread" when we have @LimeFinch's contributions.

The treatment of Semanya is because he is a man competing in womens athletics not because he's black

joking aside, that paragraph only highlights all the inherent physical differences that people clock straight away. It's got nothing to do with whether they look masculine. And everything to do with whether they look male.

Masculine women don't have male bone structure.

He said it in an interview on the Triggernometry podcast. And other places. I heard it from his own mouth. Will see if I can find it...

Chris, did you read my post to you about the process by which people have concluded what they have?

Ah, the old "you don't type, write or talk like what a woman usually sounds like" 🙄😁
So MN guessing "must be a man" as usual then, as I said.

I think you have made my point entirely. Your refusal to even acknowledge the obvious and public racism at work in the identification and vilification of Ms Semenya is what makes many minorities feel excluded from white feminism.

Take a look at this thread, and make your decision:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5357330-5357330-reflections-on-trans-arguments

"Telling me to care more about black women affected by Caster Semenya's inclusion over the racism she experienced"

This is what you took from pages of posts? I would suggest this is a mischaracterisation of what has happened on this post. People have pointed out that you have placed more value on the demands of Semenya and Banda. Have you even acknowledged their lack of integrity, and the harm that those male people have done to the female athletes in those countries? Because if you have, please point it out to me, I might have missed it. Thanks

"I am not saying Ms Semenya should be allowed to compete against biological women, but I am highlighting the treatment of her as a black person which is similar to many black women's experiences. I think those issues are important to acknowledge when discussing individual cases, because these individuals and the systems they are subjected to do not exist in a vacuum."

You have used misinformation and assumptions to justify your position on this. And people have pointed out that misinformation and those assumptions, and I don't believe you have even acknowledged when you have been wrong.

I believe it's an attempt to reframe the "you let in black women so why not men" shite. Obviously that is an incredibly racist, offensive and just plain stupid position, and I think that after several years, TRAs have finally realised it. So now it becomes "black men can be women and you're the racist if you deny it", in much the same vein as "you say women don't have penises so you are the pervert with a genital obsession".

It leads to the kind of argument we are seeing now, with all the honesty, intelligence, lucidity, consistency and reason that you'd expect.

Limey has teenage/early 20s male vibes that come across in every post. There are actually loads of men I agree with about many things. Limey manages to discredit himself perfectly well with the pish he comes out with.