“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”

I think we now need a definition of "insecurity complex", and fuck knows what the context is.

Never heard of her. Stupid, ignorant virtual signalling to a crowd that is no longer in fashion.

Oh come on wims... wasn't this convincing?

"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 hence the 'over reaction' to what are mostly organic personal preferences rooted in utero hormonal & genetic influences."

I mean seriously.

Why is it that some posters think that if they post text like this, it will be more convincing?

All because apparently, we are insecure of some people's 'femininity'?

Considering the argument used upthread about gay men not being as violent as lesbians (base on what evidence, I would love to see it!), because apparently they are 'feminine' and lesbians are 'masculine' this statement is remarkable. Also, it does seem that this poster fully embraces sex stereotypes and consider rejection of those stereotypes as 'hostile'.

I reckon there is a great, great of heavy personal investment in this topic to the point of extreme hyperbole describing a woman who rejects that male people can be women as 'evil'. By someone using terminology from a book about propaganda co-written by Noam Chomsky who supported Epstein and called women's voices and their accounts of what happened to them as propaganda ....

The twists and turns on this thread has been the usual wild ride in absurdity.

I just want to point out that JKR bought a yacht from someone - most likely from a man.

Which tells you everything you need to know about JKR and her evil politics.

So there. Carry on.

"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 hence the 'over reaction' to what are mostly organic personal preferences rooted in utero hormonal & genetic influences."

Or ... it's because men in fishnets are getting a boner trying to access women in their own space.

Personally, and this is just a suggestion of course, I would take it up with them and recommend they stop taking selfies with their cocks out in women's toilets.

The name Joanne Rowling contains FIVE letters from the word "Israel". That's more than enough proof that she's been anti-Palestine and plotting to overthrow Iran since birth.

I reckon this is a timely reminder about ‘feminine’ men and consent. You know, the consent that is the foundation to safeguarding.

https://x.com/knownheretic/status/2026070396244832609?s=46

So she believes in the opposite of rape survivors having female support if needed? She believes in the opposite of allowing disabled women a choice over which sex their intimate care is provided by? She believes in the opposite of women being able to have fair sporting competition?
Wow. She's nice.

They would be by me. I don't care how people dress or do their make up or whatever. I do care about males claiming female rights and using female spaces. Because they're male.

Seems extraordinary, doesn't it? That she could believe all this and think this makes her the good guy?

How do people's moral compasses go this far off direction?

Eddie Izzard was a case in point. He got a lot of credit for saying he was an unconventional man who liked to wear dresses. Lost it all when he decided to say he was a woman.

They AREN'T presenting as "female" or as women though, although they THINK they are. They are presenting as a narrow, sexist version of femininity that exists only in their own head. So they put on their lipstick and high heels and whatever and are saying "this is what a woman is" even if they don't actually claim to BE a woman themselves. It's still what they think woman are.

So yes, I have a problem with that because it's sexist, regressive bollocks and because a great many of them are getting a boner from their "humiliation" of being seen as the lesser sex. The sex that's only there to be fucked. They've literally TOLD us this. This is how they see us. And we're expected to play along.
Fuck that!
Be a man in a dress (fine) or put your fucking trousers on.

In much of the world, female is a bioligical state and woman is a social/cultural/interpersonal state.

Have you ever met a trans woman? This is a ridiculous stereotype.

Perhaps, but one that has its basis in biology.

No man can be a cultural/social woman.

I don't speak on behalf of anyone else, but whether someone is trans or not can be very easily distinguished in a majority of circumstances. Distinguishing trans status becomes difficult on the ends of the 'trans spectrum,' if such a thing exists.

I agree. No man is a woman.

The video statement is classic othering of an out group to form a wedge to insert the superfluous requirement of consent. Women don’t need anyone’s permission to be women. There is no demand or request to be. Trans women are women. That sex realists are opposed to this doesn’t make it not true.

A twisting of words and meanings.

This is so tedious.

And some people question why we needed the SC judgment?

The evidence is right here.

We are allowed to disagree. I am allowed to live my life and you, your's.

I never said otherwise. Get on and live your life. It's "yours".

Transwomen are men.

There is absolutely zero scientific, objective, verifiable criteria that would make them women.

No sensible conversations can be had when one side continually and knowingly lies about the facts.

To be fair, the stereotypes are more visible to the public whereas the run of the mill are not.

Sex realist arguments will always form a wedge. They are not inclusive. They are about restricting and defining groups that do not belong.