“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”

In some cases, there is nothing wrong with restricting and defining groups.
Female people is one such group.
Male-born people do not belong to it.

Not in women only spaces, you're not.

Yes. We understand that you don’t understand safeguarding and consent.

You are still attempting to use philosophical belief to support a purely subjective reality. One that is not based on any material reality.

You are right though, whether there is any ‘request’ or not to accept male people as ‘women’ or any demand is irrelevant. It is irrelevant because it can never be.

Using philosophical theories and appeals to ‘culture’ doesn’t make it any more materially real. The UK court system has confirmed that the only meaning of ‘woman’ for access to female single sex provisions is that material reality you are trying so hard to convince us, and maybe yourself, is just as real as your subjective reality.

I really don’t understand you. In what way can cats be inclusive of dogs for example in a cat club? Or infants in a club for adolescents?

We have different teams / categories for different purposes. For biological purposes eg toilets and the biological functions that the female human beings conduct there, ( which are not restricted to toileting) we team on a biological basis and have done so for years on safety, privacy and dignity grounds. Whereas if there were to be a team on eg how to arrange long hair, that might be appropriate to organise by gender rather than sex or to include all long haired persons.

But its just silly to think that any one of us can demand and be granted access to every team/ characteristic based on our own wishes without reference to others who have a shared factor that we lack.

Oh dear god, what nonsense.

Men cannot be women. There is no means of being a woman beyond biology. We are not entertaining the blatant lying any longer.

Sex realist beliefs equally isolate trans men from men.

Safeguarding is based on legitimate discrimination, so yes, laws and policies to protect female people is all about defining groups and excluding those which pose a risk of harm to those female people.

Again, you don’t understand safeguarding principles. And the law and the majority of the UK population is ‘sex realist’ it seems by your approach. I would say the world because that seems likely too.

That sex realists are opposed to this doesn’t make it not true.

It just means that you are taking the word 'women' and using it to mean something that has absolutely nothing to do with the people previously defined as women.

So called trans men are women.

Obviously

I don't believe I've ever met a trans woman who demanded to be granted access to anywhere. We were excluded and took the path of least resistance. We were excluded from manhood by men and included in womanhood by women.

It is not within our gift to isolate any women from men.

All of this is untrue.
All of it.

We were excluded from manhood by men and included in womanhood by women.

I don't really know what 'manhood' and 'womanhood' are, but you can no more be excluded from being male or female than you can be excluded from having a particular blood type. These are objective classifications.

'male' and 'female' are not clubs that you can join or leave.

And all the wheedling and arguing in the world won't get you entry if you don't belong.

If onepost is using 'sex realist' in a derogatory way, does that mean that the opposite (a 'sex fantasist'?) is meant to be a good thing to be?

I must say, "sex fantasist" would make an amazing band name!😄

Sex realist arguments are reality. it's right there in in the words, and it includes the whole human race because there are only 2 sexes. How much more inclusive can you get. 🤯

They could play at the Trans Mission gig at Wembley. They're sure to find an appreciative audience of likeminded individuals there.

Exactly. Inclusive does not mean everyone in the same space as so many people spouting it seem to think. It means there should be a space for everyone.

And furthermore, not everything HAS to be inclusive.

Speaking of which, that takes place a fortnight tomorrow and there's a shedload of tickets not sold yet.

Edited for splung

The path of least resistance, hmm? Women were too frightened or too socialised to speak up against your invasions. And now that women are speaking up for themselves you don't like it. You don't like women womaning our way, only your way.

Your claim that sex realist arguments aren't inclusive is just the same sour grapes. Sex realism is inclusive of the specific sex. Woman and female are terms inclusive of ALL women, however
they present and whatever they believe about themselves. No, they are not terms inclusive of male people, just as cats and felines are not terms inclusive of donkeys and equines.

Women were too frightened or too socialised to speak up against your invasions.

This has played out time and time again. Remember the swimming volunteer, Anne Combes who wandered through the changing rooms where young female swimmers were changing in between competitions? I remember the fact that these girls were absolutely terrified of speaking up against his presence for fear of being labelled bigoted transphobes.

British Swimming eventually changed their rules after parents complained.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12350741/Parents-raised-concerns-transgender-pool-official-using-womens-changing-room-time-young-girls.html

On behalf of the patriarchy, I hereby re-admit you and all transwomen back into manhood, and apologise for the clerical error that led you believe you couldn't be a man if you preferred stereotypically female clothing. We let the work experience lad have a go at maintaining the manhood boundaries and it caused no end of trouble.

Girls were so frightened or socialised of me they grabbed me by the arms and dragged me in before I even started treatment. Boys were so welcoming and inclusive they waited by the nurse's toilet for me to arrive so they could share their inclusivity. There are 1000s of additional experiences that would align on one side of the gender division.