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.

If you let "young trans people" (by which presumably you mean young trans-identified males, because young trans-identified females can come in anyway),; into women's spaces, you open the door to any man who can say the words "I identify as a woman".

And for the record, the ringleader in the murder of Brianna Ghey was a girl, so trying to use that case to leverage men into women's spaces doesn't really work.

Oh no Flirts. I believe that the idyll future is that we will be replaced with more malleable younger models who don’t remember how fucking sexist the world was and sadly still is now. But who have been convinced that male people really can be women and so will feel they have to make all those male people with transgender identities
feel good. Because that is apparently the job of others to be service humans.

It is a very prejudicial and optimistic view.

Whereas the reality is that even as children, why is there an understanding that humans cannot change sex. And that female people need spaces that exclude all male people.

I am not agreeing or disagreei g with you. I do however think it's a bit of a stretch to suggest that no revelations will ever be made in the future about the functioning of the human body. . We don't know THAT much about the brain or the rest of the body. Literally anything could be discovered in the future.

Errr.

You don’t seem to have a grasp of the logic of your assertion.

Great. You can believe what you wish to believe. However, what bodily relevation do you believe will be discovered in the future that has not already been searched unsuccessfully, that is applicable to all the people who have a transgender identity today?

There is no neurological or biological marker for a transgender identity. The only commonality is a philsophical belief about their own identity that does not reflect material reality.

What physical or neurological aspect of the human body do you expect will be found to support that philosophical belief?

Sure, but nothing is going to be found in the future that means the sexist marginalisation and abuse that happened to women because of our bodies didn't happen.

This is what the whole "gender is so much more complicated than you think" people miss.

We don't have single sex spaces, protections and opportunities because of some free-floating belief that some people are "women" and need different things to the people called "men", we have them as a result of the very concrete risks and disadvantes faced by female people because of our bodies and how people react to them. The only reason we call them "women's" spaces/resources at all is because "woman" happens to be the name for those female people.

So if "science" decides "woman" in future actually means someone else, it doesn't follow that the someone else also has a right to women's spaces, it just means women's spaces wouldn't have the right name any more!

Whatever may or may not be found in the future that validates why some male bodied people "feel" they are in some way female, it still doesn’t mean they were ever part of the group that has the experiences and needs for which female-only resources exist.

All this "really a woman on the inside, sex is oh so complicated" is a red herring. The people for whom women-only spaces exist are the people who suffer the consequences of being observed to be female from the day they were born. So if your "womahood" was of some invisible, indectable kind that science hasn't even found yet, then by definition that was not you!

You can't possibly say what science will or will not discover about ANYTHING in the future. What an utterly ridiculous thing to say. Absolutely anything could be revealed. For all we know, we might have as yet undetectable particles buzzing like a halo immediately outside our skulls from our brains. We literally dont know what makes our brains tick. Neuroscience is in its infancy.

Yes, but none of that would mean that people with female bodies cease to have female bodies. So sexism or risk or abuse based around the female body would still be an issue. The only way that stops being an issue is if we manage to educate it out of society, which while definitely something we should continue to strive for, to date has proven to be a longer job than we might wish.

But even with some bodies it's not clear what sex the person is. The only thing I can think of as a determiner woold be chromosomes..but even then I dont know how much work has been done on that and whether there is any material ambiguity..That's my point..We dont know everything yet.

Everyone's sex can be determined. The definition is whether the body has developed on a path to make small gametes or large.

In the tiny number of cases where there is any ambiguity about this, a medical specialist will provide the answer.

But again.

The reason we have female only spaces, rights, protections and opportunities is because people who are recognised as being female at birth, and who live with that through their lives, face the consequences of their sex in ways that people who are recognosed male at birth do not.

By definition, a person who is "a woman" due to some as-yet-unrecognised factor that we in future decide is also "womanhood" is not one of those people.

So the possibility that "womanhood" may mean something else in future due to some as-yet-undiscovered factor is not ever going to be an argument to open up provisions made under the original meaning to them, because there is no connection between the provisions made for female people and a by definition non-female factor that makes this future person "a woman".

This feels like "I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue" just before someone says, "Mornington Crescent!!" but instead it will be "Clownfish!!"

Ah.

Well at this point I think...yes, with an open "But DSDs" lining up there behind "you don't even know your own chromosomes", I think I can execute a misapplied Dutch Protocol followed by a faked Reverse Ferret to sidestep the Evidence Based Review entirely , landing fair and square on Clownfish for a classic Sawyers finish.

And that's GenderWang!

This gets to the crux of the problem though. Given Brianna Ghey's age, severe mental health problems (including hospitalization for an eating disorder), autism, ADHD and depression, there there's an argument (overwhelming imo) that Ghey should not have had his dysphoria affirmed as being trans and in fact that was medical malpractices.

Let's engage in the thought experiment that Ghey, with the same gender dysphoria isn't treated as a female but as his natal sex, to see if his problems resolve, as they very often do, once puberty is finish ed and his underlying mental non-gender problems and maladjustments are addressed. The question remains of using a toilet safely, in this case a male toilet. It become obvious that this is the real problem to be rectified -- physical safety should not depend on whether or not someone identifies as trans. Unfortunately TRAs are not willing to engage with this concern, it's all or nothing. I struggle to see how it's not manipulative and emotional blackmail. (I should point out I'm not accusing you of that, but rather those are the terms of the debate as publicly presented.)

Why are you only worrying about young trans women, and apparently not young trans men? By your logic, if young trans women should be in female spaces, then young trans men should be in the male ones, where they'd undoubtedly be much more at risk. But no concern for them (because only biological males matter)??

Hahahahahahahaha no

Germaine Greer is an extreme 'terf'. You'd know that if you had paid attention to her. She disagrees with any males in female spaces, and disagrees with transgender.
It's called being wise and an wise elder woman. That's why they fight for a future for our young, not be selfish and throw our hands up.

Ghey was a still fully intact male teenager. NO ONE would feel comfortable with a fully intact male teenager in with women and girls, you are not living in reality. He was not at all vulnerable in male spaces, and even if he were, that is NOT OUR PROBLEM TO SOLVE! Women and girls are not HUMAN SHIELDS for males in dresses.

The female sex class are the ones vulnerable to penis-wielding strong teenage males like Ghey. Females are vulnerable. Males are not vulnerable.

Germaine Greer as always says it best. She made the comment about trans in our spaces in 1979. She knew what was coming. A very wise woman who has gotten more anti-males in female spaces in the last several years.

Oh yes, how can we forget! A MALE is 'more vulnerable' than ACTUAL women and girls, many of us rape survivors and DV survivors. It's all about the men. No one is more vulnerable than a strong teenage male with penis and testicles. Not even a 14 year old girl who was raped. DELUSIONAL and misogynistic! Ghey was not even remotely vulnerable. Women and girls are. And males can sort out male on male violence themselves. And NOT expect women to be happy they are putting a fox in the hen house because the fox 'might' be picked on. We rape survivors, DV survivors, women and little girls are NOT HUMAN SHIELDS for intact teenage males. And it was never about safety, only validation.

As MALES, transwomen are not at all vulnerable. Many transwomen themselves have said they are safe in the males, the worst they get is a smirk. It's NEVER been about safety as there has never been one account of a transwoman harmed in a male space. It's about validation, and being surrounded by women. The PROOF it was never about safety in the first place, is the fact that they rejected third spaces because they say it 'others' them.

This is PROOF it's only about validation. It never was about safety.

Females are more vulnerable with fully intact transwomen in our spaces than a transwoman ever will be in the males. The moment you say put a male in the female space because of his 'feelz' about safety, you ARE using women and girls in that space as human shields.

Have a THIRD SPACE like we asked for, for years. Any males in the female space is NOT...AN...OPTION. Not now, not ever. We are not human shields for males.

You are entitled to be concerned for males. But feminists will prioritise the female sex class. You are misogynistically attacking a feminist heroine in JK for 'spreading and creating hatred' just because she defends womens rights! No male is 'vulnerable'. Only the female sex class is vulnerable. Your hatred of feminists and your disregards of the needs of THE most vulnerable group EVER - the female sex, is disgusting. You won't get kudos for men for doing this. And as feminists are winning the war, yes, the chickens of this violent and hateful misogynistic ideology are well and truly coming home to roost.

No. You don’t understand what I am saying. And frankly you are the one who sounds ‘utterly ridiculous’ now.

What possible finding is there that will tie a person who is upfront in declaring they have chosen to be trans because they like the lifestyle to transmaxxers, and to people who are cat gender or Neptune gender to a person with autogynaphilia to one who had gender dysphoria. What the fuck do you think they will find for a person who is gender fluid? Including one that changes gender depending on the movie role offered such as Izzard?

People who pose this ‘Whatabout’ and ‘you can’t possibly know ‘ miss the point that means being trans would have to be something that can be defined and consistent. They also end up gate keeping who is and isn’t transgender according to that poster’s own personal definition. So if you have a coherent definition beyond ‘they are the gender they say they are’, please give it to us now and you will be doing more than any expert activist. And are you expecting your discovery will sort out who is really transgender and who isn’t?

There is a reason that the only commonality between all people with a transgender identity is their philosophical belief.

But the other point is, so what?

At what point does whatever you are suggesting may be found in the future change a person’s sex category based on what reproductive function their body has been formed around?

A male person will still not have the experience of growing up making decisions based on the way they and society interacts due to have that particularly sexed body. They still will have the physical advantages of a male body which has to be considered for safety of female people in any situation where safeguarding has to be considered.

So what difference do you expect such a discovery even will make?

Not that your thought experiment is relevant at all to the discussion on what is needed here and now.

Already at this time every human can be correctly categorised as having a body formed around production of large gametes or small gametes, regardless of whether they produce those gametes.

This is already able to be done and it is happening.

I also have a feeling that our methods for ascertaining gender and the way we think about it will be completely debunked in the near future.

This is one of those statements that just tells me how little scientific literacy there is in large swathes of the population. Biology has come so far in the past few decades and at no point did our understanding of mammalian sex change. We can (and do) sequence just about anything that doesn't move fast enough out of our way, we have masses of gene expression data sets, we have fantastic imaging systems, we can detect the tiniest traces of chemical compounds. The idea that any (non-captured and honest) biologist in the 21st century is baffled by sex or that there will be a fundamental change of how we understand sex in the near future is absolutely ludicrous.

Apparently Rik Mayall also wasn't impressed by Fry's philisophical ramblings either: https://x.com/ripx4nutmeg/status/1936048737098350780