“Heated Rivalry” author Rachel Reid on J. K. Rowling - “the bar is pretty high in how evil you have to be,” “ I’m extremely the opposite of everything she believes”

[YankSplaining]

Well, this is disappointing.

”[Reid] has a keen desire not to disappoint her fans, especially when they’re sending her photos of freshly inked tattoos of her words on their skin. ‘I know of another author that a lot of people got tattoos of but then wanted them gone. Like, J. K. Rowling,’ she says. ‘The bar is pretty high for how evil you have to be, but I don’t want to let a single person down.’ I ask if she’s a TERF. ‘No, I’m extremely the opposite of everything she believes,’ she replies.”

Well, too late, she let me down. “Extremely the opposite of everything she believes,” huh? I guess Rachel Reid thinks teenage girls should be forced to undress after PE in front of naked male classmates who gawp as their dicks get hard. Or that female inmates should be locked in cells with male inmates serving time for serial rape.

I don’t expect Reid to agree with Rowling on trans issues. It’s the monstering of Rowling that I take issue with - the “evil,” and the framing of Rowling as so extreme that Reid feels the need to be extremely the opposite of everything she believes.

Edit: title should read “on how evil you have to be”

Wasn’t Noam Chomsky one of Epstein’s best buddies? I’d assume his opinions on consent are murky at best.

This Noam Chomsky?

Noam Chomsky advised Epstein about 'horrible' media coverage, files show https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce9ykjlyv50o

I mean… Manufacturing consent seems rather an interesting phrase to use for someone demonising JK Rowling when Chomsky was defending Epstein. Almost like hypocrisy and blind tribalism.

Oh. Hang on. I didn’t check that the BBC article used any disclaimers so as not to portray anyone mentioned in the article as being representative of an entire population. Shame on me.

Yes. Thats the one. Blooming women talking about problems in Iran while the men are off trafficking women and girls like heroes. Just pure evil.

I have no problem with men presenting in a 'feminine' way i.e dresses, make up, long glossy hair etc. If that's their experience of themselves, that's fine. But if they tell me that is what a woman is or should be, then I would have a problem with it. Someone who is NOT something telling someone who IS that thing who or how they should be is definitely not alright.

They will often claim their hostility is because these are the product of sexual stereotypes imposed by the patriarchy but I suspect its more of an insecurity complex

I missed this classic piece of old school misogny.

It's on a par with 'feminists don't like page 3 because they are jealous'.

Just by the by, but have we a definition of evil in the context of JKR?
I like to do post modernism properly 😉

My experience with many militant GC adherents ...

I wonder how much 'experience' that adds up to and whether any of it is in real life or just as a keyboard warrior for the Omnicause.

“The premise of the thread is why JKR is considered evil. I'm simply explaining why. That you 'forget' this is indicative of your own bias not mine.”

This is another remarkable accusation. I haven’t forgotten the topic of this thread.

However, your posts are coming across as being incoherent as are your accusations towards other posters.

I actually read her words and have looked at her twitter timeline. You really seem more preoccupied by behaving as if you are some kind of righteous person who reads only the right content and nothing else than actually posting anything like factual evidence and coherently structured defences of your arguments that she is ‘evil’.

I suspect there is some very personal investment in this topic
by this poster. A similar range of arguments and the same link was used on a previous thread about JK Rowling not so long ago. I think it is heavy investment that we are seeing here.

It's even more nonsensical than that, because we can all see what most trans-identifying men actually look like, and there's very little to make anyone jealous there.

Great, they real unhinged write amongst us.

I'm sure there probably have been some difficult and painful encounters with inconvenient, militant women who said terrible things. Like 'no'.

Revelation after revelation about Epstein and his circle of rich powerful male buddies, systematically exploiting young women and doing as they pleased, but it's Rowling who's labelled "evil" for highlighting women's rights and child safeguarding.

💯

Move on, JKR haters. For fuck's sake.

"It's actually not rare that females attack their male partners in fact the numbers are comparable in studies. The difference is in the severity of violence. But Lesbian partners? There's significantly more severity between them and straight women. Why would that be? I suspect masculine behavioural patterns that more aligns them with male violence. Conversely that gay males are less violent than lesbians might therefore be related to effeminacy.

Why would there be significantly more severity between female on female attacks and female on male attacks?

Are you genuinely asking this? Seriously? You have artificially limited your range to domestic violence and not general violence. Then you make a statement that female person to female person violence ends up being more severe than a female person attacking a male person.

Firstly because male bodies also have stronger bones and be less inclined to soft tissue and connective issue damage, male people tend to be taller than female people meaning that where female people can reach may be restricted when attacking a male person. Even to the point of the necks of male people tend to be stronger so that presents some protection there too. This can be significant too when it comes to brain damage as female people have more delicate brain fibres than male people meaning. female brains are also more susceptible to damage.

That doesn't even then include the fact that male people have significant grip strength advantages over female people meaning that a male person is more likely to hold off a female person attacking them.

But apparently, you have artificially limited the discussion point to domestic violence situations only, seemingly so that you can present lesbians as being more of a danger to women. You then do the 'female hetersexuals do it too' deflection and throw in generalisations you do not evidence about butch lesbians having male behavioural patterns and gay male having female behavioural patterns.

At this point you do seem rather keen on arguing men's rights arguments.

"Cue trans identification?"

Why? Because you wish to argue that they are feminine so have less violent tendencies like the generalisation you used for male people who are same sex attracted? Because it comes down to whether someone is 'feminine' or 'masculine'?

Blimey.

I always think life must be terrifying for people who think women are as likely to commit violent crimes as men.

Given the prison statistics, they must be constantly worried about running into the many thousands of violent women who they think have escaped justice.

I'm not aware of studies that show that. From my understanding the studies done are more about intimate partner violence.

So, therefore you have nothing but domestic violence statistics to make your point. Yet feel that you have any kind of evidence to support your points about safeguarding.

As I keep pointing out, it is also not just about physical risk to safety. There are many types of harms that female people need female single sex provisions to be safeguarded against:

Harms include:
-Rape and sexual assault.
-Violence.
-Sexual abuse that is not rape or sexual assault.
-Sexual abuse that also includes solo sexual acts or using the experience in future sexual acts.
-Any other abuse that may include verbal abuse, intimidation in any way etc, this includes inappropriate questions and comments.
-A male person's presence where female people need privacy and dignity.
-A male person's presence where female people need to feel safe from any male person's presence (over the age of about 8 years old).
-Female people self-excluding knowing that there may be a male person accessing that provision.
-Female people not having the freedom to discuss the issues that cause them distress, concern, or that they need to talk about because a male person is present.
-Female children (and female adults) learning to have no or too low personal boundaries because they have been taught that male people are female people and that they should ignore and overcome feelings of discomfort.

Narrowing the discussion to sex and violence offences does not remove these other harms from consideration for female single sex spaces.

However, discussion of why a group of male people should not be treated differently to all other male people is relevant to the discussion as to why no male people should be given special access to those female single sex spaces.

Excellent excellent point

I haven't watched the show or read the book, but I believe the author got her start in fanfiction spaces. I'm honestly more surprised you're surprised by this, OP. Virtue-signalling about how "evil" JKR is is practically a requirement for entry in that environment.

I also suspect Rachel Reid is yet another straight woman getting off on writing smut about gay men. That puts her on potentially thin ice with the gay community, so of course she's going to cover her tracks by being the bestest ally possible. Straight people tend to assume that trans is just another flavour of gay, and when you add in the fact that this woman is Canadian, and their media has fully fallen to the woo . . . was it ever really going to play out any other way?

This woman is a clown and her comments are embarrassing. I agree. But she's not likely to listen to the outrage of a stranger on the internet, and value it above the feedback she's getting from her own social group.

The best way to hit back is to just stop talking about these people, I've found. Hit them in the wallet. Starve them of attention. There's no point engaging in a subject they won't change their minds on. They're too stupid for that. But they do tend to have managers and public relations people, who aren't quite so mystified when casual fans start to quietly pull back. It's satisfying to think of the arguments that are probably raging behind the scenes, as the artists involved face the "internet clout vs actual money" dilemma 😂

That made me laugh when I spotted it. The seething, sneering fury aimed at women is always eventually outed by these posters.

Tells you everything you need to know about their real motivations.

Same.

Shame on her!

These days, it doesn't take long at all.

Oh nooooos

Aisha thinks we're..... Unfuckable?!

Say it ain't so!

I know, it's hilarious.

And then telling women off for taking the piss out of men with comedy boobs and fishnets.

I wish he'd make up his mind. Jealous or contemptuous, envious or mocking??

Apparently we're both simultaneously, and they're both wrong. 😄

I think we're supposed to be reverent, but in a humble way which doesn't interfere with our subservience.