“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”

You have no ability to understand my experience. You are very anti-my experience as it is.

Am I missing something, this is coming from a man who thinks he can understand the women experience and therefore he can be a women if he wants because he understands the woman experience.

Hmm. The statistical size is too small, therefore, we are wrong to state that TW commit sex offences at higher rates than other men; but, at the same time, those too small statistics prove that TW commit sex offences at a lower rate.

I see.

I’m not sure he’s actually claimed that he thinks he can understand the woman experience or that he can be a woman if he wants because he understands the woman experience. (Though this is a long thread, and I could have missed it within the rest of his me-me-me drivel.)

Rather, it seems to me that he claims he can be a woman and appropriate everything to do with women simply because he wants to. And that we are the exemplars of sex-realist evil for not soothing his brow and validating him like good service humans.

You are not missing a thing.

It all comes down to the falsity based on the philosophical theories that if someone describes their personal experiences as 'female' when they are male, they are female.

We have seen it said by experts where they have said 'children know who they are' and that we must treat their description of themselves as being true because they are the only ones who know who they are.

Yet, apparently 'There is no philosophy' and 'I do not identify'.

This is a form of gaslighting. Of denying the philosophical basis that forms the foundation of describing 'experiences' all while also denying that 'experience' is being used to form an 'identity'.

At the same time deny anyone else has the ability to understand his experience. Even though understanding his experience is just about knowing he's lying when he says he's a women.

We get it, trans women think they're women because they think women is a category defined by whatever you say you are.

You get it, gender critical women think you are not women because we think women is a category defined by biological sex. Repeating a zillion times that you are women will not change that fact. It just means you are repeating your miscategorisation a zillion times.

Let us say we changed the names. We'll call people with female bodies flims, and people who identify with femininity flams. Two different categories, two different names. Transwomen are flams, many gender critical women are not. Transwomen are not flims but they are flams.

Now which group is it that we need to differentiate by in sports, in medical studies, in changing rooms?

Quite simply though, female people don't have to go through an existential folding of reality to enable them to describe themselves. And that is also what we saw last night.

The effort is huge where a male person has to deny that their language and descriptions of themselves and their life is based purely on philosophical theory and not on being able to use accurate and factual language. You end up with the endless cycle of returning to those male people trying to use accurate statements such as 'women don't need to [insert word here]' in order to justify their statements, their decisions and their behaviour.

Yet ultimately the only way that statement could be considered accurate to describe their personal experience is through philosophical theory. Because using proven and established science will mean show the falsity.

I also think that these male people think that simply repeating the false statement enough times keeps them in their comfort zone, they also have been led to believe that it will prevent others from continuing discussion and that maybe some people will feel that male person feels so strongly about their identity that there must be something to it.

Meanwhile, the reality is seeing male people simply just double down on using female language for themselves strips away remaining emotional support. Particularly when that language is describing a group of male people's intention to continue to act in ways that cause harm to female people.

So then the hyperbole comes where that emotional support must be regained somehow? How? Well, remind everyone that this group of male people are heavily persecuted, that deaths may occur, that no woman or girl has complained up until now, and that decades of experience must be real, how can it not be real while forgetting that the experience itself is not being denied, the description of it is.

All to support some male people's impossible claim that they are female people.

I think maybe an existential crisis was had last night.

Obviously I don't see any need to give up the word 'woman', but I'm happy to acknowledge that I am not a flam, and I have no problem with all the people who identify as cis and trans women having their own word to describe their identity.

Would they in turn accept a new word that refers simply to people whose sex is female and infers nothing about identity?

Could this be the solution?

it's always an existential crisis isn't it? Or emotional incontinence as I prefer to call it.
Countless posts on a thread all about themselves, their demands and their dislike of women.
Sad times.

Sad times indeed.

Imagine having to spend so much energy to convince others that your identity makes you something you are not. That is ‘sad’ on so many levels.

We touched on the concept of solipsism ages ago when I was at school and it's all I can think of when I read oneposts misogynistic ramblings.

For the solipsist, it is not merely the case that he believes that his thoughts, experiences, and emotions are, as a matter of contingent fact, the only thoughts, experiences, and emotions. Rather, the solipsist can attach no meaning to the supposition that there could be thoughts, experiences, and emotions other than his own. In short, the true solipsist understands the word “pain,” for example, to mean “my pain.” He cannot accordingly conceive how this word is to be applied in any sense other than this exclusively egocentric one.

I've noticed that this kind of extreme solipsism, is a feature, not a bug amongst many men who say they're women.

https://x.com/gaynotqueer1/status/2026296936278430099?s=46

Here is a great example of two men discussing ‘girlhood’. Because describing yourself as a ‘girl’ is apparently not about any philosophical belief structure at all. It is just as meaningful as any male person claiming any other female language for themselves when they are male people.

And then comes the shaming tactic of calling people perverted if they then enquire how materially that male person fits the description of female person being a human with a body formed around producing large gametes regardless of whether they do produce those gametes.

It is a script meant to stop discussion of female people’s needs to be recognised as a unique category. We have seen parts of it over this thread from multiple posters.

Make a statement that is not true in any material sense according to science and then comes all the tactics to shame people or try to convince them using theories and belief.

The whole ‘I am a woman’ is never going to be true for a male person. And if it were true then those ‘women’ would have free access to female sports, and would be placed automatically in female prisons in the UK.

There would be no restrictions usable under Article 8 either.

The very existence of these exceptions are proof that society in general does not believe that these male people are female in any way. And the attempt of leveraging ‘social sex ‘ is flawed in exactly the same way. Social sex is also philosophical … but apparently we are told it is not.

The determined mantra of ‘The UK will see trans people living as fully embodied people once again some day’ is an empty one. It might be comforting to some, but there is no sign that this will ever be unless a group of people are in power that are fully totalitarian and authoritarian and control people to make it happen.

Why? Because it is purely a constructed subjective reality which crumbles with scrutiny and analysis.

It is why the term biological determinism keeps being falsely used to characterise women rejecting that male people can ever be female in any way. Any way to discredit women will be used.

Are they not embodied now?

I fear that I may have misunderstood a key part of this issue.

Is it like being a ghost?

hundreds of years

The 'hundreds of years' falls apart when you look beyond the first flush of feel good.

Because that relies on cultural appropriation from other cultures and I don't believe those other cultures believed male people can be female people. I don't believe they allow those male people who have been culturally leveraged to be treated as if they are 'female'.

But like other misused concepts and terminology, it sounds good and convincing.

hundreds of years

LOL Transgender was only invented about 50-60 years ago when men discovered that by abusing oestrogen & undergoing mutilating surgery they could present as a pastiche of a woman.

This pretty much sums it up. The people who feel the need to criticise JKR on this issue, aren’t fit enough to lace her boots.

No, thank you. We already have such a word: woman. We do not need to coin another word because they have appropriated it to describe an imaginary identity.

Besides, they will appropriate whatever noun or adjective we use to describe ourselves. They want what they think we have. Nothing else will do.

I had never heard of Rachel Reid before yesterday when I read some of this thread. And I'm no expert on this kind of fiction , I'm sure she does it well and it seems to be selling anyway.

But ....I can't help thinking if some guy was turning out bonkbusters about lesbian hockey players or tennis stars or whoever , wouldn't you think it was a bit creepy?
Apologies if I'm repeating a point already made.

I can understand why straight women might write/ watch gay porn.

It's the class of human you're interested in, without the inherent power imbalance of heterosexuality and the violence of traditional porn.

There's probably an element of liberation in that.

But yes, a man doing it about lesbians would be creepy. Not much is analogous between the sexual experience of women and men, because of the power imbalances.

The funny thing is, I realised last night, that our lovely interlopers remind me of my Dad. Specifically, when he has got a question in a quiz wrong, but is utterly convinced that he is correct (and that everyone else is wrong).

No, thank you. We already have such a word: woman. We do not need to coin another word because they have appropriated it to describe an imaginary identity.

I'm not proposing we actually stop using the word women. It's more of a thought experiment, to take the historical baggage and accumulated legal wrangles away from the two different concepts of 1. adult human females and 2. adult humans feeling a sense of identification with females regardless of actual sex* (happy to replace latter with any other description TRAs want to insert that is non circular).

The constant yes but I am a woman is a stupid argument when the person making it has no excuse not to understand that under our definition they're not. They're making it personal when it's not, it's an argument about which definition we should be using. So let's in this thought experiment detach the definitions from the current word and examine them as standalone options. Does it make sense to work with the category of flims or the category of flams?

We can look at definition 1 and definition 2 and see of the current provisions of facilities for women, sports etc, which makes sense under definition 1 and which under definition 2. I claim they all attach to definition 1. Women have women's sports because of the differences between male and female bodies. Definition 1. Women's medicine, definition 1. Offending stats are clearly aligning to definition 1 not definition 2. The supreme court went through a load of these cases in reaching the conclusion that to make sense of equality law, sex has to mean biological sex. Definition 1 all the way.

Definition 2 leaves huge swathes of people not even classified. Gender critical people who don't identify particularly with any gender but consider it harmful stereotyping. Nonbinary and other identified people would be neither men nor women so the large amount of cases where facilities are divided into two options wouldn't work. Babies, people with severe learning disabilities, people in a coma where it isn't possible to ascertain how they may have identified previously.