Well, hello Emma Watson

[crumpet]

www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-15130209/Harry-Potter-Emma-Watson-treasures-J-K-Rowling-trans-rights.html

She’s passed her test and got a £30k car - she can’t obey the rules of the road and is currently banned.

Ugh 🙄 Another day, another anti trans post 🥱

She's 35! She's old enough to know what a woman is.

She was young when she made the HP films but when people can and do have terribly traumatic or abusive childhoods and come through to be fully functioning adults then I do lose sympathy for privileged people who made a lot of money doing something they loved during their youth but claim that it messed their lives up.

@DoinFineIThink
Emma is being described as a "spoilt child" etc because pp think she is immature. And spoilt. Not that she is in fact a child at 36. I can't believe you don't understand this.

She is just a year younger than JKR was when the first HP film was released.

she's not particularly bright

’not particularly bright’ people don’t get degrees at Oxford.

Ugh. Another day, another anti woman post.

And What a reach this one is, since all it is is Emma Watson saying that although she fundamentally disagrees with JKR (as we have known for a long while) she can still hold in her mind and value at the same time the entirely separate relationship they had. What a radical , unreasonable and childish position eh? 🙄 unlike JKR of course who will apparently "never forgive" EW for not agreeing with her.

lol.

Another day, another misogynistic anti feminist post 🙄😴

EW went further than just disagreeing with her, she was deliberately cruel. And it is that which JK can't forgive her for, not merely disagreeing with her that females are human, exist, and deserve our feminist hard won sex-based rights. So you are being disingenuous, as usual.

Tbf, there’s a big difference between being intelligent and being educated.

Univeristies are hardly breeding grounds for critical thinking these days.

And Oxford in particular, no wonder it’s dropping down the ranks

Deliberately cruel how?

disagreeing with her that females are human, exist, and deserve our feminist hard won sex-based rights

yeh that's not the disagreement lol.

Laurie Penny has a degree from Oxford. Just saying.

It's already been said how in the thread. Witches comment, for one.

Er, yes, it is the disagreement. One side wants to obliterate all the sex-based gains our foremother feminists made, as if it were all for nothing. The other side wants to keep them. That's the issue.

Do you really think just because someone is 'book smart' and can remember facts for an exam that makes them intelligent? Some of the most dumbest, most brainwashed and most lacking in any emotional intelligence and lacking in general common sense and ordinary intelligence are those that are university educated.

what comment was that?

er no that's how you want to frame the disagreement.

the actual disagreement is whether supporting trans rights is a threat to women's rights.

No, you're right - JKR has also been very clear that she won't forgive those who called for, enabled, facilitated or encouraged the medical abuse of confused children, be it via unthinking affirmation, drugs or surgical mutilation.

Thanks for reminding us. The full picture is important.

Right. She won't forgive people who don't agree with her entirely warped and ignorant mischaracterising of healthcare for trans people.

Read above, it even has a link to a clip.

No, that is how you want to frame it to suit your anti-women agenda.

The actual disagreement is whether the rights of a male in a dress should have more rights to the hard won single sex rights females have. THAT, is the issue.

Translation: Shove your golden bridge up your arse.

Sterilising, chemically castrating and physically destroying children's bodies is not 'health' 'care'. It is child abuse. HTH

im describing the actual disagreement which is about whether trans rights are a threat to women's rights, not whether women are human and exist and have rights.

Sterilising, chemically castrating and physically destroying children's bodies

nothing to do with the subject at hand. just the rantings and ravings of people who know nothing about the things on which they presume to speak.

No, you are describing the Mens Rights version of it.

Your mob believes the female sex don't exist, that our rights aren't sex-based and that every single thing our foremother feminists (rest their souls) fought for was.... all for nothing.

The issue is whether the female sex exist and have sex-based rights away from the male sex. That, is the issue. No matter how maliciously and malignantly you attempt to reframe it to fit a hateful Mens Rights agenda.

No im describing the actual disagreement which is about whether trans rights are a threat to women's rights.

You think they are. I don't. That's the disagreement.