'He has a point, but he's too blunt.' JKR

[IwantToRetire]

In response to " Interesting interview with @Glinner on @GBNEWS a few minutes ago about the trans debate. It's interesting how the tide is turning in his favour. I've seen old friends who shunned him admit he has a point but that he was too blunt. Even that would was unthinkable a few years ago. "

From the start, a key tactic of the gender identitarians has been linguistic prescription, and it's proved shockingly successful. Trans activists' shibboleths and euphemisms have been allowed to penetrate the upper echelons of our culture with devastating consequences to freedom of speech and belief. Huge swathes of liberal media, the arts, academia and publishing have thrown themselves with gusto into the defence of a quasi-religious belief causing provable real world harm, and in their arrogance they've been outraged when people they assumed were part of their In Group have refused to march meekly along in lock step.

Time and again, I've seen and heard well-educated people who consider themselves critical thinkers and bold truth-tellers squirm when put on the spot. 'Well, yes, maybe there's something in what you're saying, but it's hateful/provocative/rude not to use the approved language/pretend people can literally change sex/keep drawing attention to medical malpractice or opportunistic sexual predators. Why can't you be nice? Why won't you pretend? We thought you were one of us! Don't you realise we have sophisticated new words and phrases these days that obviate the necessity of thinking any of this through?'

As the vibe shifts, and a lot of people in the elite professions start trying to reposition themselves, the obvious place to start is, 'it's not that I couldn't see your point, but did you have to say it that way?' We dissenters were supposed to find a way of questioning the chemical castration of children while calling it 'gender affirming care.' We were meant to defend the rights of vulnerable women while also using female pronouns for male rapists. We should have found a way to discuss fairness for women and girls in sport, while pretending that the ineradicable physical advantage men have over women doesn't exist.

Either a man can be a woman, or he can't. Either women deserve rights, or they don't. Either there's a provable medical benefit to transitioning children, or there isn't. Either you're on the side of a totalitarian ideology that seeks to impose falsehoods on society through the threat of ostracisation, shaming and violence, or you're not. The alternative to being 'blunt' - using accurate, factual language to describe what was going on - was to surrender freedom of speech and espouse ideological jargon that obfuscated the issues and the harms caused. We've always needed blunt people, but we need them most of all when being asked to bow down to a naked emperor.

https://x.com/jk_rowling/status/1995491771950797148

I think a lot of responses are about an inability to deal with certain issues and subjects, rather than about acceptance.

It's driven by wanting the world to be perfect rather than acknowledging it's imperfections.

This is why you have a privilege elite leading the charge on it.

Yes, not only do we seem to be permitted to call a man a man, it's no longer an automatic deletion for calling a cult a cult.

@Datun There IS no solution other than the one we've got.

Quite.
What's that phrase that's always being flung at us? 🤔
Oh yes. "Facts hurt your feelings".

Progress indeed!

I was deleted on here for replying to someone who said that AGP was a victimless crime, with the words 'it's far from victimless.'

Excellently expressed message as she always writes so eloquently.

They may shoot Glinner the messenger for his language used (whilst laughing at the same bluntness in his comedy) but the message is still the same.

Yes, AGP is far from victimless. It is part of the 'hidden harms' that polite society wishes no one to mention.

No, you originally said "Like Trump who unflinchingly uses the 'we are winning' con even in the face of obvious losing & growing disinterest,"

And I gave you evidence that public opinion is actually changing in our favor, and that the majority of the public, even American liberals, don't agree with any of it. Then you ignored it and said "how do you really know" and made the point that actions speak louder than words or feelings.

Now obviously I could counter this post with a list of a whole slew of concrete wins for our side, the Supreme Court ruling and recent actions at the BBC just to name a few.

But here's the interesting point. You basically tried to make the initial argument that your side is "winning" bc the majority of the public actually believe and support trans ideology. I gave you concrete evidence that not only is that not the case but also that support is going down, not up, as trans ideology has been forced into our lives and taken hold of our institutions. And your counter-argument is that well actually that doesn't matter what matters is how people actually act in regards to trans ideology?? And that as long as they don't act as they feel that your side is still winning?

Didn't you then just literally make our point for us? That all this time you never really cared how we felt about your nonsense as long as we kept it to ourselves and still went along with and acted how you said we should act? Bc that's what we've been complaining about all along, is the demand we ACT against what we believe but instead in accordance with your beliefs under threats of cancelation, violence, etc. Are you seriously admitting that the whole point of your movement was just to get people to live by the rules you set for them regardless of how they feel about them? You do understand that is the definition of authoritarianism, don't you?

But a lesbian by definition is a female homosexual. Are you saying butch lesbians are men??? How homophobic.

Dude like seriously this doesn't even make any fucking sense. Butch lesbians are females why would anyone tell them they are a man?

Are you seriously admitting that the whole point of your movement was just to get people to live by the rules you set for them regardless of how they feel about them? You do understand that is the definition of authoritarianism, don't you?

... and exactly what JKR has just said. That once you remove all the forced language, and you are at last able to be as blunt as you feel? Job done.

"They want it all couched in fluffy language and manners so they don't have to confront the real world.

It rocks their entire world and their entire privilege for this to be pointed out."

Most definitely RTB

How often have we seen this on FWR. Time and time again, we are told - you are so extreme! You are not moderate! There HAS to be a way to work this out! There HAS to be a compromise!

And after you explain why there can be no compromise because that leaves huge safeguarding holes, we are then told that our language is the issue! How we should be ashamed of being so very disrespectful!

And then we point out just how disrespectful it is to female people to have to change our language and how it is disrespectful that we have to adopt our language for each and every person's specific tailored need. Then we get told that we are the problem. Not the person who demands that they are treated as if they are not what they materially are, but what they demand to be recognised as.

It is a sign of people who have not, or maybe cannot, think about this from the position of female people's needs. It is also a sign of someone who might rely more on their own feeling like someone who is kind and thoughtful being recognised by others rather than having their own ethical barometer.

In a way, they give outsiders the power to reward them rather than having thought deeply through all the issues presented and understood the ramifications of each aspect and knowing that in some instances there are no compromises.

This constant refrain of 'case by case' or 'there is a compromise, you just won't accept it', is generally a signal to me that little research and active discussion from all angles has occurred in that person's mind.

This is exactly what i look like

I've skipped over posts from earlier today, and I am sure some are more than worth while reading.

But as is now sadly and boringly common, a thread that seems to have been really active in the day isn't a positive.

It is the usual hijackers, and those who for some unfathomable reason encourage them to carry on by replying.

Another thread down the drain.

I was going to add another interesting support of Glinner, but think probably that everyone else on this thread.

Talk about ground hog day.

Another thread down the drain.

There's no need for such an overreaction. There are still plenty of interesting and thoughtful posts on here.

Yes, derailers are annoying. But people can engage (or not) with whoever they want, for whatever reason they want.

Agreed. There have always been those who try to derail, disrupt and dominate on here with a display of their regressive Victorian notions of how women should think and behave. From the old midnight misogynist to the more recent midnight howlers.

Women on here are well equipped to respond or to ignore. It's always been said that this is a tanker that's slowly being turned round - and it is slow with so many of our institutions captured at the very top. But the gains and changes are significant and growing. It's amazing what happens when the bullying and silencing is challenged and stops.

So the next debate might be Wallace Vs Dawkins?
I hope Peter keeps Freddy away from the wine for this one.

It's not an over reaction.

I am sure like may others I have limited time.

Time wasters who are just here to masterbate their egos dont need encouragement.

If you think they are that interesting why not set up a thread and ask them all to come and litter the thread with their trivia.

They aren't listening to any of you.

They are sitting there thrilled to have taken up your time whilst laughing at you.

Has there ever been one of the usual supsects who has come back and said thank you, now I understand?

Of course not.

And their pathetic ego game is an insult to issues that some want to be able to discuss without wading through intentional nonsense.

Dilettantism.

I agree with Glinner and JKR.

I am concerned about Glinner in that at times he is putting far to much emotional energy in to this but given how much it has taken from him its understandable.

I hope that he can finally come to terms with everything and manages to rebuild his life.

Well now. That would be interesting to hear Dawkins debate this.

I was deleted once for saying:

The types of surgeries undertaken under the guise of “sex reassignment surgery”, “gender affirming surgery” or the like are major surgeries.'

because “under the guise of” suggested something “underhand” apparently🙄

Euphemistic, softened language rather than blunt truth is one of the main reasons we (society) got into this mess in the first place. It wasn’t that long ago that pointing out doctors are sterilising children was considered an extremist claim, rather than, you know, a simple truth.

Gosh she's really into her either / ors isn't she?

I've got another one for her...either she recognises that 9 out of 10 of the safest countries in the world for women have policies of gender self ID, or she doesn't.

Women, Peace and Security Index.

giwps.georgetown.edu/the-index/

But if they include males in their definition of women, then how do they know it’s a safe place for women? How are they defining woman? If they can’t define women, how do they know it’s a safe place for them? P s males with a trans identity are not women.

Same shit, different day. Thanks for the valued contribution.

It's brilliant seeing the toxic influence of all the lies / fake facts / false language draining away isn't it?

Yes, it’s getting there. That deletion was 5 years ago. It’s not like I’m still bitter or anything 🤣