“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 suppose sexual reproduction is a rather abstract concept for many men.

Yes, all their posting history (via Advanced Search) has been deleted and wiped, so obvious a PBP. Probably that one with French bee name.

Yep.

Ah ha. What a charming way with words that poster had.

There are the gender queer people who rely on effective contraception and will be left holding a baby if all else fails, and there are the gender queer people for whom it is all just somebody else's problem. If they want to avoid responsibility, all they need is legs to walk away.

There are the gender queer people who don't get to compete in sport at all without a women's category, and there are the gender queer people who mysteriously always win if they compete in the non-binary category.

One day, maybe they will spot a pattern.

"ChatGPT word salad.

The fact you find it difficult to construct cohesive, coherent sentences doesn't automatically mean that everybody else does.

Yes, hilarious how the men on this thread push on regardless, letting neither fact nor logic impede them in their quest to convince us that they are right and we are wrong.

Despite clearly having no idea what a woman is.

Just like life really.

I have thought that there is a habit with some male posters in the past, as has been mentioned over the past pages, that there ARE commonalities.

Often, when they post something to refute what women are pointing out as being rather obvious flaws in why those people are not female, they resort to repeating something that looks to be out of a text or an academic paper. It is almost like they think that if they post something that seems impenetratable at the wee hours of the morning, that it will look like they are thinking at a much higher level than the rest of us.

Whereas, I read it and think, does the poster actually understand this, or have they seen one of the academics post this as a reply to something similar and thought 'that sounds great, I am going to use that'. Too often it doesn't actually say much of use and just reinforces how ideological and philosophically driven believing you are female when you are a male person really is.

The weird thing about the concept of 'social sex' is that most of the time sex discrimination is illegal. It's only legal in a limited number of situations, and the logical way to dispute one of those exceptions is to make an argument for mixed sex services, not to argue that it should be lawfully possible to discriminate on the basis of 'social sex'.

Sometimes you just have to sit back and wonder how on earth we are even having these arguments.

This is very true.

It's particularly telling that in my language, gendered pronouns don't even exist, and yet, we still have separate words for adult female and male people, as well as different cultural mores that are influenced by the material reality of our sexed bodies.

For example, tradition dictates that men lie flat on the ground to greet elders, whereas women genuflect, because, it would be impractical, if not dangerous, for a pregnant woman to prostrate on the ground.

It's almost as if humanity relies on the immutability of sex or something?🤔

That ol' pesky sex realism keeps popping up again and again, damnit!

Why is the BBC obsessed with Heated Rivalry?

There's another story about how great it is today: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c78x973y5zvo

That's I think 14 since the start of the year

Haha good spot. He’s talking about legal fictions as well. So he knows that at best his position is a legal fiction. The truth always pops out when you least expect it.

I’m not sure what a ‘Freeman on the Land’ is though. Sounds a bit medieval, which might be an appropriate timeframe for his views.

It is almost like they think that if they post something that seems impenetratable at the wee hours of the morning, that it will look like they are thinking at a much higher level than the rest of us.

I see it as "yay, this will shut you annoying women up".
But it doesn't.
They themselves often don't understand what they're posting.
One of the first things I noticed when I joined this board was that GC posters really DO look at the links provided. They do examine the articles and reports, and in many cases challenge them and pick them apart.

Broadly speaking they believe that they are only bound by laws and contracts that they have consented to, some use it to try and avoid paying council tax etc.

Oh bugger, my irony-o-meter has just exploded, again.

It all gets a bit my dad can fight your dad at times.

I’m not sure what a ‘Freeman on the Land’ is though.

If you have some time to waste, which you won't mind never getting back, do look up this movement.

Basically they argue that they can declare themselves independent of the government and not subject to the rule of law. Their arguments are legally baseless.

Interestingly, sources tell me that the movement appeared in Canada in the early 2000s. Canada, eh? Uh-huh.

Haha brilliant. So we definitely didn’t consent to the GRA 2004 as the Hansard debates show the lies and manipulation deployed to get it through. Ideal.

Thank you, I’ll have a look later when I’m doing the washing - always good to have a laugh to pass the time

Always reminds me of Sir Terry Pratchett quotes to the effect of 'you may not believe in reality, but reality believes in you'.

It reminds me of some of the classics from the past.

where being a woman is “a constellation of statistically linked elements that together describe something almost intangible and linguistically elusive”

and

"I'm an adult human, and I recognise within myself a constellation of data points that I identify as female”.

There was a poster who told us that we should all follow Ayn Rand’s ideals once too, that all the need for sex segregation would disappear if we acted as if we were already living in that idyll.

Aha! Just as I thought, it's all a bloody performance.

I seem to have mislaid my constellation of data points, it's probably lying around backstage somewhere.

A 'constellation of data points' eh? But none of those data points being 'a body that developed to produce large gametes''. 🙄

Ffs I am so sick of their utter nonsense. This bullshit needs to be run out of town.

We have already been accused of being aligned or tools for Sovereign Citizens.

I reckon that a lot of these accusations are projections. Because when you think of it, male people who state that they should access a female single sex provision when the law has been clarified is the same mentality as those people who declare that the law of the country / state / region that they are living doesn’t apply to them.

Just like telling women pointing out established science and biology are being told they are ideological and the list goes on.

So much of it is projection. And gaslighting.

Remember constellations of data points can also be manipulated to produce the result that is wanted.

It's frantic boffle to try and make it sound rational that a man can be a woman.

It's quite sad really. No woman has a 'constellation' of anything, she just is. Existing in a biologically female body is it, that's all, the end. It's the only thing every woman on the planet has in common. The frantic attempts to try and convince otherwise say everything needing to be said; no woman needs to do that, it wouldn't even cross her mind to try.

This