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.

Because for a lot of men, women are mothers or sex objects. Stephen only has use for the ‘mother’ part.

Ok. That makes sense. Get it.

It’s not that complicated. Men as a class are a threat to women. That’s just a fact. We have single sex spaces mainly for that reason. Plus privacy, plus dignity for women.
That, and the fact that even one male in a female space (doesn’t matter what he’s wearing) changes the dynamic completely.
Really though, we shouldn’t need a reason, other than “ because we don’t want to”.

I wondered the same, but @LimeFinch is probably just a desperate imitator.

Perhaps he's Russell T Davies 😂

But if it was acknowledged and addressed so protection was afforded to black women, rather than GC white feminists completely ignoring this valid aspect of the discussion, you might get more support from black athletes like Simone Biles who no doubt will identify with the experiences of DSD athletes given the inherent racism against black female athletes and their bodies.

oh, sorry Chris, I've just seen that screenshot.

Unfortunately, that is the other relentlessly used argument. That you can't tell someone's sex unless you look at their genitals.

It's said, again, to make people go eww and shut down discussion.

And, I'm afraid, it's used a lot, sometimes quite feverishly. It would appear that some people quite like the suggestion.

Which is why, 'well we all have eyes, we don't need to go to Specsavers', etc, are all used to refute the stupid and creepy notion that you can't tell someone's sex without looking at their penis.

Ha ha ha. Have you seen the way the TRAs villified Simone Biles last week? Because she wasn't pure enough for them?

Now you've explained it, I understand - but this is exactly why I don't agree with JKR's style of communicating. All nuance gets lost and the "I have eyesight" attitude is already and will continue to be used against black women to justify racial stereotyping.

It's not that I don't think it's a valid aspect of discussion, I just don't think it's used in this discussion in the valid way that you might use it.

if you feel up to the challenge, you could start a thread about it, though!

If it was so difficult for people to use their eyesight to spot a male, then all those transwomen wouldn't need facial feminisation surgery, would they? Or oestrogen?

I'm not a TRA and I'm not permanently on twitter. But if the GC movement really wants to include minorities, then actually listen and acknowledge the concerns rather than point score

And I'm thinkingnow of that quote about why would anyone want to belong to a club that doesn't want them as a member. But I know trans people object to a ' third space '

I don't believe that one poster on this thread will deny that many ignorant people wrongly accuse women such as Serena of being a man.

You seem to have make an assumption there too.

NO ONE IS IGNORING THE RACISM that many black female athletes are wrongly accused of being men. People ARE rejecting your repeated assertions about Semenya and Banda and male people such as that.

We are also pointing out that correctly identifying male athletes as being male is not racist as you have accused. You have repeatedly mischaracterised what people have posted here, you have not acknowledged where you were wrong and you have thrown around accusations meant to silence women.

Using "cis" for yourself is fine if that is how you identify.

Using it to refer to people who specifically see themselves as part of a gender group of cis- and trans- indivduals is also fine.

However you cannot use it as a kind of catch all term for the people who simply used to be called "women" before genderism threw all that incoherent pseudo-intellectual slurry around attempting to create enough confusion to allow a few men to slip into women's spaces because that is a misunderstanding of what "cis" actually means. It's not just "the new name for women", it's "female people who identify as women gender as well".

Basically, unless you know for certain how a person identifies, you should not assume they are "cis". They could be non-binary. They could be a trans person who feels safer / better in their actual sex's space or presentation. They could like me, see themself purely in terms of their sex and experience "gender", such as it is, as an oppressive system of control over both sexes but over women in particular. To call any of those people "cis" is incredibly offensive. So for safety, it is best not to use it unless you are very sure how the people you are talking about see themselves.

So now people pointing out that the issues with your points are 'point scoring' and we should just Shut the fuck up.

Excellent.

‘Rowling seems to live rent-free in the heads of many celebrities who have leeched off her writing talent.

Perhaps Fry’s decision to come clean with his bitchiness this time was prompted by the Supreme Court ruling that insisted the definition of woman be biological rather than fantastical. Perhaps it was Rowling’s celebration of the ruling with champagne and cigars that ticked off Fry – some men find it very hard to watch women enjoy a victory.

On the one hand, who cares what Stephen Fry thinks? His desire for Rowling to shut up rather than cause discomfort to his friendship circle is laughable in its bourgeois pomposity.’

Not what I said but your way of communicating, say compared to Datun, is not to try and convince anyone but to point score. No one told you to stop posting.

So, you didn't understand what she was saying before you condemned her?

Quite. It’s madness. I blame lockdown for the destruction of teens rational thinking - they got indoctrinated on line into this cult and the adults gave in

I have a question for you.

Do people become trans because they transition, or do they transition because they are trans?

As far as Semanya goes the knowledge about his DSD became widespread in the public domain because he challenged the findings of an earlier investigation. Up until then all his medical history was speculation. When he challenged the findings he and his advisors failed to understand understand that test results previously seen as private would become public as they would be admissible as evidence . It begs the question why they went to the wire in the first place and challenged a finding that they knew to be accurate, but that is a mystery only they know the answer to..

It does however throw light on the French Olympic boxers teams and advisors who spectacularly failed to challenge the findings of their test results because they knew from Semanya’s experience that to challenge the results meant the confidentiality they were given would disappear under the appeal rules. Unfortunately for them that spoke volumes not only about the test results themselves, but about their previous knowledge about the biological sex of the two boxing cheats.

@Christmasmorale i think you are conflating separate issues as a result of your previous experiences. The hurt you have experienced and the bigotry you have seen is leading you to add this cause into your ‘things I must fight at all costs’ collection.

But it doesn’t belong there.

The bigotry faced by Serena because of racism is not the same as the challenge received by Semenya for being male. Semenya was widely accepted as a female with high testosterone and still is in many places. If anything it was racism that allowed that to pass for so long.

The truth is the hostility to Semenya is because Semenya got rich and successful without deserving it, pushing other women- almost certainly black women- out in the process.

Yes the world has been horrible to black women. No, Semenya and Imane Kelif and the other male boxer do not deserve leeway because of that.

Who are these people? Whoever suggested Serena Williams looked like a man must either have a brain addled by racism or be a liar. If this goes on (presumably from deliberate racists) it should be publicised and condemned. Even if it is a diversion from the discussion of actual men posing as women in sport it is something that deserves its own thread.

I see. So, people need to be respectful of you and your opinions while you make whatever accusations you want to and spread misinformation?

Do you see that this could be considered a problem? And could be why you find an issue with JK Rowling pointing out abusive male people.

Well J. K. Rowling, and everyone else in this, has been having this argument for years.

We've gone from A to Z a zillion times. It doesn't really work you just arriving at Y and saying well I don't think Z looks right.

everyone was nuanced to start with. Everyone was kinder easier, lighter. It doesn't work. None of it.

as I said, you're having a completely different argument.

You can't take an argument that has been honed over years, sometimes decades, with quite literally thousands of people, and costing quite literally millions of pounds, and take an aspect of it that you translate in an entire different way, because you're having a different argument, and say it's all wrong.

I don't really know how else to explain it. Both arguments are valid but we're on completely different trains. And you can't use one argument to fuel the other train.