'Bill Cash, an MP who often has tea and scones in the House of Commons, opined to the paper: “It makes me wonder what will happen next – will they stop selling madeira cake because of historical events in Madeira? There’s far too much wokery going on at the National Trust; this is just the latest example.”.
But 'A National Trust spokesperson said that, while some of its published recipes may differ, the plain and fruit scones in its tearooms have been dairy-free for years.
They added: “National Trust cafes serve millions of customers a year and we work hard to accommodate dietary needs and allergies.'.
I think people are blind if some of the stuff that comes out from fans of JK Rowling isn't pretty vile and ghastly, just as what comes out from the nuttiest part of the pro-trans communist is also pretty vile and ghastly.
I think to treat one side as saintly though which is what a few people do, is a recipe for disaster.
Neither side is saintly, especially when bigots latch on to both sides as an excuse to bash others.
However nothing Rowling herself said is ghastly, it was entirely measured.
What's been said to Rowling by some is ghastly. That she doesn't respond in kind, is a credit to her, don't you agree?
On this, she hasn't. But some of the stuff she has said before and commented/liked/re-shared has been.
So I don't fully agree she always responds in kind, no. Of course, the people saying stuff to her are equally vile and unkind.
What has she ever said that's been ghastly? Genuine question, I've never seen anything.
Simply holding an opinion others dislike isn't ghastly.
Personally I think this is pretty ghastly. The stuff said to her is worse but I think this is awful. This is a human being she is talking about.
Is she wrong? Personally I don't think so and theerfore don't consider it to be ghastly to say this.
Whether she's right or wrong, suggesting that someone who is trans is 'cosplaying' a 'misogynistic male fantasy' is a nasty thing to say IMO.
I've known a few trans people, both pre- and post-op, and they were not 'cosplaying', and neither were they in some form of 'fantasy'.
Also IMO: it shows an utter lack of compassion and understanding of trans people.
She doesn't say all trans people are cosplaying, she's saying that one person is.
Is she wrong?
I certainly don't know.
Unless you have had the sort of conversations with India Willoughby that I don't think you have, you don't know.
And I very much doubt that JK Rowling knows either.
Unless you take the position that trans people simply don't exist, people outside India's close personal circle and medical staff working with her are the only people who know with any degree of certainty.
(I wouldn't be surprised if there are abuses happening. And society needs to learn to process those. There's also a genuine dilemma of how to balance rights between two groups of people who have valid fears and who have both been treated badly in the past.
But otherwise we're talking about real people who are always more complicated on the inside than they seem in the outside. But it's hard to say that without being shouted down because you don't know what a man/woman is.)
There is quite a long history of India Willoughby baiting JK Rowling and other women, in pretty unpleasant ways. If interested you can read these before opining on one part of the exchange.
What is utterly enraging is that 3/4 of those affected have died and still there has been no compensation, with reports coming out of government that any action is being deliberately delayed to pay for tax cuts.
Other countries have not only managed to pay compensation but also hold people accountable.
Here the most the British state can manage is a lot of hand-wringing and fuck all action.
Someone close to me is currently having treatment which involves blood transfusions. The prognosis is good even though the treatment is not easy, to put it mildly.
But we have to hope and trust that the authorities today are not injecting something dangerous because they are incompetent, or trying to save money or their careers or because it's an experiment or to save face or just because they can and also that they are not lying to us.
And why the absolute fuck would anyone trust our authorities these days? I mean - what evidence is there that they are remotely competent or trustworthy to put in the balance with the ever-increasing evidence to the contrary?
I agree with much of what you say here, Ms Free, but I find the following line interesting:
"But we have to hope and trust that the authorities today are not injecting something dangerous because they are incompetent, or trying to save money or their careers or because it's an experiment or to save face or just because they can and also that they are not lying to us."
Much of medicine *is* an experiment. In my case, I had problems with both ankles in my early teens - AIUI (and we were never properly told what the problem was (*)) the peroneal tendons were not growing. One ankle, the worst effected, was operated on when I was 15. The other had growth hormone injections (into the tendon, I guess). Perhaps both were given injections - I can't remember.
Before that, the only 'treatment' had been to place my leg in a cast for months at a time, in the hope that time would settle it.
All three interventions: the casts, the operation, the injections - were experimental. It was clear that no-one knew what to do, as my problem was relatively rare. The operation was mucked up, meaning I had many more over the next decade. The growth hormones may have worked - that ankle is fine. Then again, it might have been fine anyway - the tendon might have grown of its own accord.
But the alternative to the experiments was me not walking properly again. I'm glad they experimented.
I just wish they'd kept us better informed. And that's somewhere I fear doctors still fail to this day.
(*) This annoys me as much as anything else that happened.
I remember a guy I worked with who had a severe problem with his feet. Went to see a consultant (after quite a wait of course) who listened carefully to his plight.
Then literally rubbed his hands and gleefully said "I think I'll get a paper out of this!".
It's no wonder the GPT's are getting higher patient satisfaction scores already.
In my case, we were called into the hospital when I was 13 or 14 for photos to be taken for a ?medical journal?. It was quite tortuous, as I had to manipulate my ankle to get the tendon to move, and then push it back. For what felt like hours, with each movement causing extreme pain.
Another surgeon wanted to operate on my lower back, thinking my pain in my leg after the first operation (on my ankle) was due to nerve damage in my lower back. Despite my not having any lower back pain...
Doctors and hospitals can be brilliant if you have a common malady. A heart attack? They know exactly what to do. Need a new hip? Join that queue.
But if you have something they don't understand, or cannot characterise, then you can be very poorly treated. Doctor Gregory House is a rare thing...
I think people are blind if some of the stuff that comes out from fans of JK Rowling isn't pretty vile and ghastly, just as what comes out from the nuttiest part of the pro-trans communist is also pretty vile and ghastly.
I think to treat one side as saintly though which is what a few people do, is a recipe for disaster.
Neither side is saintly, especially when bigots latch on to both sides as an excuse to bash others.
However nothing Rowling herself said is ghastly, it was entirely measured.
What's been said to Rowling by some is ghastly. That she doesn't respond in kind, is a credit to her, don't you agree?
On this, she hasn't. But some of the stuff she has said before and commented/liked/re-shared has been.
So I don't fully agree she always responds in kind, no. Of course, the people saying stuff to her are equally vile and unkind.
What has she ever said that's been ghastly? Genuine question, I've never seen anything.
Simply holding an opinion others dislike isn't ghastly.
Personally I think this is pretty ghastly. The stuff said to her is worse but I think this is awful. This is a human being she is talking about.
Is she wrong? Personally I don't think so and theerfore don't consider it to be ghastly to say this.
Whether she's right or wrong, suggesting that someone who is trans is 'cosplaying' a 'misogynistic male fantasy' is a nasty thing to say IMO.
I've known a few trans people, both pre- and post-op, and they were not 'cosplaying', and neither were they in some form of 'fantasy'.
Also IMO: it shows an utter lack of compassion and understanding of trans people.
She doesn't say all trans people are cosplaying, she's saying that one person is.
Is she wrong?
I certainly don't know.
Unless you have had the sort of conversations with India Willoughby that I don't think you have, you don't know.
And I very much doubt that JK Rowling knows either.
Unless you take the position that trans people simply don't exist, people outside India's close personal circle and medical staff working with her are the only people who know with any degree of certainty.
(I wouldn't be surprised if there are abuses happening. And society needs to learn to process those. There's also a genuine dilemma of how to balance rights between two groups of people who have valid fears and who have both been treated badly in the past.
But otherwise we're talking about real people who are always more complicated on the inside than they seem in the outside. But it's hard to say that without being shouted down because you don't know what a man/woman is.)
Trans people do exist.
Women do exist.
Trans people are trans people, women are women. If a person who is male chooses to identify as female it might be polite to call them by a female pronoun or female name, if that's what they identify as, so long as it doesn't harm anyone else. But it doesn't make them a real woman.
Cyclefree is a real woman. JK Rowling is. India is not. All 3 should be treated with respect, whatever happens inside their heads is neither here nor there.
But my views on this have changed. Foxjr2s best friend has come out as Trans last year, someone I have known since childhood. My son thinks it has saved her from suicide, and certainly she seems a lot happier. Their circle of friends, male and female, seem very supportive and have taken it all in their stride. She works as a waitress in London and has been subject to a fair amount of abuse on the tube etc. Transphobic abuse is a real thing.
No you see, transphobia doesn't exist. So says one of the people JK Rowling has unfortunately supported.
I have just read Chapter 1 of J.S. Mill's "On Liberty" (What else would I be doing on a damp Bank Holiday Monday?)
I suggest that Humza and his mates take a read, and reflect.
I read it at uni. I have precisely zero recollection of it. Wrote a report on it. I remember thinking it had held up well.
My son, who is doing PPE at Oxford, is a real fan. I enjoyed it when doing Jurisprudence at University. Superb clarity of thought.
I'm certainly enjoying Mill (and prior to him Hume) a heck of a lot more than Marx.
However, Marx does have one stylistic trait that I appreciate. Basically, X is Y, Y is X.
Have you tried Kant's first Critique? This has a readability score of 0% and a philosophical significance of 100%. (Unlike Hegel who scores approximately 0% in both categories).
I remember sitting reading that with the Oxford dictionary at my side. God knows what it was like in the original German.
Some parts seemed brilliant but in others I simply got lost in the unending classifications and sub categories and struggled to understand the differences. Hard work.
It sounds like a non fiction version of The Silmarillion.
Cyclefree is a real woman. JK Rowling is. India is not. All 3 should be treated with respect, whatever happens inside their heads is neither here nor there.
Saying India is "cosplaying" is not treating them with respect. How on Earth can you see that, it is legitimately bizarre that she would put it in those terms if not intended to provoke a reaction.
Why mention India's name at all? Why is India's life a concern of JK Rowling's?
She doesn't say all trans people are cosplaying, she's saying that one person is.
Is she wrong?
Is JK Rowling in the person's head? Are you in their head?
You are saying this particular individual is just making it up, "cosplaying". How do you know what they are doing? What right do you have to say what they are?
What right: Freedom of speech.
Look it up.
I don't think Horse was saying she couldn't say it under his terms, that is for Police Scotland. Horse's point was the comment was unpleasant or as he put it "ghastly". I suspect many would agree the comment might be offensive whilst still allowing her the freedom to say them.
I have just read Chapter 1 of J.S. Mill's "On Liberty" (What else would I be doing on a damp Bank Holiday Monday?)
I suggest that Humza and his mates take a read, and reflect.
I read it at uni. I have precisely zero recollection of it. Wrote a report on it. I remember thinking it had held up well.
My son, who is doing PPE at Oxford, is a real fan. I enjoyed it when doing Jurisprudence at University. Superb clarity of thought.
I'm certainly enjoying Mill (and prior to him Hume) a heck of a lot more than Marx.
However, Marx does have one stylistic trait that I appreciate. Basically, X is Y, Y is X.
Have you tried Kant's first Critique? This has a readability score of 0% and a philosophical significance of 100%. (Unlike Hegel who scores approximately 0% in both categories).
I remember sitting reading that with the Oxford dictionary at my side. God knows what it was like in the original German.
Some parts seemed brilliant but in others I simply got lost in the unending classifications and sub categories and struggled to understand the differences. Hard work.
It sounds like a non fiction version of The Silmarillion.
My parents gave me many books as a child, one of which was the Silmarillion (but not, oddly, the Hobbit). I discarded it as too complex. I sometimes think if I bought a copy now, I may enjoy it more.
She doesn't say all trans people are cosplaying, she's saying that one person is.
Is she wrong?
Is JK Rowling in the person's head? Are you in their head?
You are saying this particular individual is just making it up, "cosplaying". How do you know what they are doing? What right do you have to say what they are?
What right: Freedom of speech.
Look it up.
I don't think Horse was saying she couldn't say it under his terms, that is for Police Scotland. Horse's point was the comment was unpleasant or as he put it "ghastly". I suspect many might agree the comment might be offensive whilst still allowing her the freedom to say it.
My initial comment in this thread was that I agree with the basic point Cyclefree was making, however much I disagree with other things she has said and the ways she has gone about it. I think she did have a coherent point here, well argued.
I was just saying that JK Rowling has said some quite ghastly things, in my view. She has a right to say those things, I just wondered if she sometimes regrets wading in at all - that's clearly her right to do so. Wasn't disputing that.
But we can debate what is and isn't ghastly but I think it odd that if somebody posts about some random person on Twitter many times, it wouldn't be seen as a bit "unhinged", whether it is about trans issues or not. Trump seems pretty unhinged when he starts posting about random celebrities he hates.
Cyclefree is a real woman. JK Rowling is. India is not. All 3 should be treated with respect, whatever happens inside their heads is neither here nor there.
Saying India is "cosplaying" is not treating them with respect. How on Earth can you see that, it is legitimately bizarre that she would put it in those terms if not intended to provoke a reaction.
Why mention India's name at all? Why is India's life a concern of JK Rowling's?
Because India vocally claims to be a woman and wants the law to force everyone to accept her as a woman, which Rowling says she is not. India puts a lot out there which Rowling is responding to and you are ignoring as if it doesn't exist.
This is a serious matter as it jeopardises real women's rights and they have legitimate safeguarding concerns.
India can do whatever they want to do, but once you get the law involved, then it becomes everyone else's business. Then it is Rowling's concern.
Cyclefree is a real woman. JK Rowling is. India is not. All 3 should be treated with respect, whatever happens inside their heads is neither here nor there.
Saying India is "cosplaying" is not treating them with respect. How on Earth can you see that, it is legitimately bizarre that she would put it in those terms if not intended to provoke a reaction.
Why mention India's name at all? Why is India's life a concern of JK Rowling's?
Because India vocally claims to be a woman and wants the law to force everyone to accept her as a woman, which Rowling says she is not.
This is a serious matter as it jeopardises real women's rights and they have legitimate safeguarding concerns.
India can do whatever they want to do, but once you get the law involved, then it becomes everyone else's business. Then it is Rowling's concern.
Fine, argue a different point to the one I made.
JK Rowling said India is cosplaying. I think that is offensive and needlessly provocative, legitimises people to jump onto India (as you can see in the comments - actual abuse).
So you can say you support "respect" but you don't actually believe it in practice. Which is fine.
She could have disagreed as strongly as she wants with India without making these silly Tweets. That was my whole point, JK Rowling actively alienates people with some of the stuff she says. Once again: that does not in any way legitimate the VILE abuse she gets from people.
The R&W poll tonight rounds to 102% so make of that what you will. A good poll for Labour rebuilding a 22 point advantage and a 17.5% swing from the Conservatives. 61-36 on the usual measure but again beware of rounding but no material change.
The 2019 Conservative vote splits 42% Conservative, 21% Reform, 20% Labour and 13% Don't Know. Overall, including the DKs, it's 39% Labour, 18% Conservative, 15% Don't Know, 12% Reform and 8% LD. Just over a third of the total DKs are 2019 Conservative voters with the next largest group, at about 25%, those who didn't vote last time.
Two thirds of the Reform vote is 2019 Conservatives,
Cyclefree is a real woman. JK Rowling is. India is not. All 3 should be treated with respect, whatever happens inside their heads is neither here nor there.
Saying India is "cosplaying" is not treating them with respect. How on Earth can you see that, it is legitimately bizarre that she would put it in those terms if not intended to provoke a reaction.
Why mention India's name at all? Why is India's life a concern of JK Rowling's?
I have an mtf friend and she would probably say india is cos playing, in her view anyone not aiming for gender reassignement but claiming to be trans is a cos player and yes she will be under the knife later this year. Her view is simple if you believe you are the wrong sex then you change it. If you don't change it then it is performative (or cos play)
Cyclefree is a real woman. JK Rowling is. India is not. All 3 should be treated with respect, whatever happens inside their heads is neither here nor there.
Saying India is "cosplaying" is not treating them with respect. How on Earth can you see that, it is legitimately bizarre that she would put it in those terms if not intended to provoke a reaction.
Why mention India's name at all? Why is India's life a concern of JK Rowling's?
India Willoughby has tried to have JK Rowling arrested and made comments like this about her:
'Bill Cash, an MP who often has tea and scones in the House of Commons, opined to the paper: “It makes me wonder what will happen next – will they stop selling madeira cake because of historical events in Madeira? There’s far too much wokery going on at the National Trust; this is just the latest example.”.
But 'A National Trust spokesperson said that, while some of its published recipes may differ, the plain and fruit scones in its tearooms have been dairy-free for years.
They added: “National Trust cafes serve millions of customers a year and we work hard to accommodate dietary needs and allergies.'.
This is an example of the crazies on one side of a culture war providing ammunition for the rather side, which is a reciprocal and self sustaining arrangement.
According to Mr Cash it seems that catering to allergies is wokeism. I met the legendary man once in his commons office (he had one of the nice ones) and he was both perfectly charming and a complete windbag. His opening monologue in our “conversation” lasted 40 minutes.
Cyclefree is a real woman. JK Rowling is. India is not. All 3 should be treated with respect, whatever happens inside their heads is neither here nor there.
Saying India is "cosplaying" is not treating them with respect. How on Earth can you see that, it is legitimately bizarre that she would put it in those terms if not intended to provoke a reaction.
Why mention India's name at all? Why is India's life a concern of JK Rowling's?
I have an mtf friend and she would probably say india is cos playing, in her view anyone not aiming for gender reassignement but claiming to be trans is a cos player and yes she will be under the knife later this year. Her view is simple if you believe you are the wrong sex then you change it. If you don't change it then it is performative (or cos play)
Yes all the people sitting on waiting lists are just "pretending". What a silly post.
Much as I like the Redfield & Wilton poll out today with the 24% Labour lead, polling appears to have taken place on Easter Sunday.
I’m wary of bank holiday polling. Not that it’s really outlier I suppose.
Always be wary. Though from the evidence of the last 48 hours in Alpe D’Huez (I’m not there this evening, I had to drive back to burgundy to receive an IKEA delivery tomorrow morning) the Brits currently out of circulation on their Easter trips are a mixture of Lib Dem remainer types - most of whom probably actually vote Labour - and ra ra students (“just pay for this one mate and we’ll sort it on Tricount later”) who’d probably like to vote Tory like their parents but can’t be seen to do so this year.
I think I spotted a potential Lancastrian Reform voter at the Kyriad on the way down too. One of those admirable family patriarchs - bald, looked like a football hooligan, but holding the grandchildren enthralled with his stories “I’m actually a ninja, and when you’re a ninja you’re always watching the corners of the rooms for potential attackers. Don’t drop your guards kids. That bloke over there. Could be another ninja. You never know”.
I do know, because the bloke over there was a Belgian. There aren’t many Belgian ninjas. But there were many Belgian cars on the autoroute. I counted a 2:1 ratio of Belgian to French cars (and a 2:1 of French to British and a 2:1 of British to Dutch).
You don't see many Belgian ninjas because they're *really good*...
I think people are blind if some of the stuff that comes out from fans of JK Rowling isn't pretty vile and ghastly, just as what comes out from the nuttiest part of the pro-trans communist is also pretty vile and ghastly.
I think to treat one side as saintly though which is what a few people do, is a recipe for disaster.
Neither side is saintly, especially when bigots latch on to both sides as an excuse to bash others.
However nothing Rowling herself said is ghastly, it was entirely measured.
What's been said to Rowling by some is ghastly. That she doesn't respond in kind, is a credit to her, don't you agree?
On this, she hasn't. But some of the stuff she has said before and commented/liked/re-shared has been.
So I don't fully agree she always responds in kind, no. Of course, the people saying stuff to her are equally vile and unkind.
What has she ever said that's been ghastly? Genuine question, I've never seen anything.
Simply holding an opinion others dislike isn't ghastly.
Personally I think this is pretty ghastly. The stuff said to her is worse but I think this is awful. This is a human being she is talking about.
What's ghastly there?
Yes its a human being, but if the human being is misogynistic then calling out misogyny is entirely acceptable and not ghastly.
I think the term was used to imply that the state of being trans is a misogynist male fantasy, and that by virtue of being trans the person was a misogynist male indulging in a misogynist fantasy of being female.
IIUC gender critical thought precludes the possibility of innocent transition: that everybody who transitions is impelled by delusion or fetishism or coercion or x, where x is a bad thing. JKR cannot concieve of a good trans or a good transition and hence from that logic concluded that Willoughby was bad.
The thing about this, the female to male transman I knew was such a lovely, sweet person. Female to male transitioners get little, if any, of this sort of abuse thrown at them; yet I fail to see how if males to females are suffering (in Rowling's view) from some form of mental aberration, then surely female to males are as well? Or is there an 'innocent transition' path for female to males, but not male to female?
Cyclefree is a real woman. JK Rowling is. India is not. All 3 should be treated with respect, whatever happens inside their heads is neither here nor there.
Saying India is "cosplaying" is not treating them with respect. How on Earth can you see that, it is legitimately bizarre that she would put it in those terms if not intended to provoke a reaction.
Why mention India's name at all? Why is India's life a concern of JK Rowling's?
Because India vocally claims to be a woman and wants the law to force everyone to accept her as a woman, which Rowling says she is not.
This is a serious matter as it jeopardises real women's rights and they have legitimate safeguarding concerns.
India can do whatever they want to do, but once you get the law involved, then it becomes everyone else's business. Then it is Rowling's concern.
Fine, argue a different point to the one I made.
JK Rowling said India is cosplaying. I think that is offensive and needlessly provocative, legitimises people to jump onto India (as you can see in the comments - actual abuse).
So you can say you support "respect" but you don't actually believe it in practice. Which is fine.
She could have disagreed as strongly as she wants with India without making these silly Tweets. That was my whole point, JK Rowling actively alienates people with some of the stuff she says. Once again: that does not in any way legitimate the VILE abuse she gets from people.
Cosplaying is a more accurate description of India than claiming she is a woman.
People have a right to cosplay if they want to, but it doesn't change their sex which is real.
Cyclefree is a real woman. JK Rowling is. India is not. All 3 should be treated with respect, whatever happens inside their heads is neither here nor there.
Saying India is "cosplaying" is not treating them with respect. How on Earth can you see that, it is legitimately bizarre that she would put it in those terms if not intended to provoke a reaction.
Why mention India's name at all? Why is India's life a concern of JK Rowling's?
India Willoughby has tried to have JK Rowling arrested and made comments like this about her:
I think people are blind if some of the stuff that comes out from fans of JK Rowling isn't pretty vile and ghastly, just as what comes out from the nuttiest part of the pro-trans communist is also pretty vile and ghastly.
I think to treat one side as saintly though which is what a few people do, is a recipe for disaster.
Neither side is saintly, especially when bigots latch on to both sides as an excuse to bash others.
However nothing Rowling herself said is ghastly, it was entirely measured.
What's been said to Rowling by some is ghastly. That she doesn't respond in kind, is a credit to her, don't you agree?
On this, she hasn't. But some of the stuff she has said before and commented/liked/re-shared has been.
So I don't fully agree she always responds in kind, no. Of course, the people saying stuff to her are equally vile and unkind.
What has she ever said that's been ghastly? Genuine question, I've never seen anything.
Simply holding an opinion others dislike isn't ghastly.
Personally I think this is pretty ghastly. The stuff said to her is worse but I think this is awful. This is a human being she is talking about.
Is she wrong? Personally I don't think so and theerfore don't consider it to be ghastly to say this.
Whether she's right or wrong, suggesting that someone who is trans is 'cosplaying' a 'misogynistic male fantasy' is a nasty thing to say IMO.
I've known a few trans people, both pre- and post-op, and they were not 'cosplaying', and neither were they in some form of 'fantasy'.
Also IMO: it shows an utter lack of compassion and understanding of trans people.
No, it shows a loss of tolerence for a specific individual who has made something og=f a career out of aiting anyone who questins Trans orthodoxy. This is about the specific rather than the general, as anyone who actually spends any time looking at this would see straight away.
Cosplaying is a more accurate description of India than claiming she is a woman.
People have a right to cosplay if they want to, but it doesn't change their sex which is real.
I don't care what India is. You aren't her, you can't speak for what she is doing. She believes she is what she is. I would treat her with respect. I do not believe JK Rowling has. I do not believe India has treated JK Rowling with respect.
Sometimes the right to speak, is also the right not to.
But I have got a good insight into your actual views today, so thanks for airing them in good spirit.
Cyclefree is a real woman. JK Rowling is. India is not. All 3 should be treated with respect, whatever happens inside their heads is neither here nor there.
Saying India is "cosplaying" is not treating them with respect. How on Earth can you see that, it is legitimately bizarre that she would put it in those terms if not intended to provoke a reaction.
Why mention India's name at all? Why is India's life a concern of JK Rowling's?
I have an mtf friend and she would probably say india is cos playing, in her view anyone not aiming for gender reassignement but claiming to be trans is a cos player and yes she will be under the knife later this year. Her view is simple if you believe you are the wrong sex then you change it. If you don't change it then it is performative (or cos play)
Yes all the people sitting on waiting lists are just "pretending". What a silly post.
I didn't say they were, what I said was there are many who say I am trans who have no intention of going through gender reassignment surgery. Those are the ones my friend calls performative.
Cyclefree is a real woman. JK Rowling is. India is not. All 3 should be treated with respect, whatever happens inside their heads is neither here nor there.
Saying India is "cosplaying" is not treating them with respect. How on Earth can you see that, it is legitimately bizarre that she would put it in those terms if not intended to provoke a reaction.
Why mention India's name at all? Why is India's life a concern of JK Rowling's?
I have an mtf friend and she would probably say india is cos playing, in her view anyone not aiming for gender reassignement but claiming to be trans is a cos player and yes she will be under the knife later this year. Her view is simple if you believe you are the wrong sex then you change it. If you don't change it then it is performative (or cos play)
I think people are blind if some of the stuff that comes out from fans of JK Rowling isn't pretty vile and ghastly, just as what comes out from the nuttiest part of the pro-trans communist is also pretty vile and ghastly.
I think to treat one side as saintly though which is what a few people do, is a recipe for disaster.
Neither side is saintly, especially when bigots latch on to both sides as an excuse to bash others.
However nothing Rowling herself said is ghastly, it was entirely measured.
What's been said to Rowling by some is ghastly. That she doesn't respond in kind, is a credit to her, don't you agree?
On this, she hasn't. But some of the stuff she has said before and commented/liked/re-shared has been.
So I don't fully agree she always responds in kind, no. Of course, the people saying stuff to her are equally vile and unkind.
What has she ever said that's been ghastly? Genuine question, I've never seen anything.
Simply holding an opinion others dislike isn't ghastly.
Personally I think this is pretty ghastly. The stuff said to her is worse but I think this is awful. This is a human being she is talking about.
I agree, it is ghastly. Its cruel and dismissive of another person's lived experience. It seems to me something she has said to be provocative on the day this legislation came into force to try and make a point. That in itself shows a lack of compassion or care about the person she is speaking about. Its frankly rude.
The question is whether it should be criminal. I think she wants to test that.
Cyclefree is a real woman. JK Rowling is. India is not. All 3 should be treated with respect, whatever happens inside their heads is neither here nor there.
Saying India is "cosplaying" is not treating them with respect. How on Earth can you see that, it is legitimately bizarre that she would put it in those terms if not intended to provoke a reaction.
Why mention India's name at all? Why is India's life a concern of JK Rowling's?
I have an mtf friend and she would probably say india is cos playing, in her view anyone not aiming for gender reassignement but claiming to be trans is a cos player and yes she will be under the knife later this year. Her view is simple if you believe you are the wrong sex then you change it. If you don't change it then it is performative (or cos play)
Yes all the people sitting on waiting lists are just "pretending". What a silly post.
I didn't say they were, what I said was there are many who say I am trans who have no intention of going through gender reassignment surgery. Those are the ones my friend calls performative.
You said.
If you don't change it then it is performative (or cos play)
But people can't always change it, i.e. if they are stuck on a waiting list.
Cyclefree is a real woman. JK Rowling is. India is not. All 3 should be treated with respect, whatever happens inside their heads is neither here nor there.
Saying India is "cosplaying" is not treating them with respect. How on Earth can you see that, it is legitimately bizarre that she would put it in those terms if not intended to provoke a reaction.
Why mention India's name at all? Why is India's life a concern of JK Rowling's?
I have an mtf friend and she would probably say india is cos playing, in her view anyone not aiming for gender reassignement but claiming to be trans is a cos player and yes she will be under the knife later this year. Her view is simple if you believe you are the wrong sex then you change it. If you don't change it then it is performative (or cos play)
Yes all the people sitting on waiting lists are just "pretending". What a silly post.
I didn't say they were, what I said was there are many who say I am trans who have no intention of going through gender reassignment surgery. Those are the ones my friend calls performative.
You said.
If you don't change it then it is performative (or cos play)
But people can't always change it, i.e. if they are stuck on a waiting list.
I said no intention of changing it....being on a waiting list is an intention to change it. She reckons 90% of those she meets in the clubs she goes too have no intention of changing by reassignment
I said no intention of changing it....being on a waiting list is an intention to change it. She reckons 90% of those she meets in the clubs she goes too have no intention of changing by reassignment
I understand your original point so my mistake, wasn't silly so I apologise.
'Bill Cash, an MP who often has tea and scones in the House of Commons, opined to the paper: “It makes me wonder what will happen next – will they stop selling madeira cake because of historical events in Madeira? There’s far too much wokery going on at the National Trust; this is just the latest example.”.
But 'A National Trust spokesperson said that, while some of its published recipes may differ, the plain and fruit scones in its tearooms have been dairy-free for years.
They added: “National Trust cafes serve millions of customers a year and we work hard to accommodate dietary needs and allergies.'.
I imagine that rule would also preclude dairy butter - taken together, I believe that would make an inferior scone, both in taste and nutritional value. It would also probably save the caterers a lot of money because margarine is cheap shit. That does matter to me, and I don't think it's a positive development.
'Bill Cash, an MP who often has tea and scones in the House of Commons, opined to the paper: “It makes me wonder what will happen next – will they stop selling madeira cake because of historical events in Madeira? There’s far too much wokery going on at the National Trust; this is just the latest example.”.
But 'A National Trust spokesperson said that, while some of its published recipes may differ, the plain and fruit scones in its tearooms have been dairy-free for years.
They added: “National Trust cafes serve millions of customers a year and we work hard to accommodate dietary needs and allergies.'.
I imagine that rule would also preclude dairy butter - taken together, I believe that would make an inferior scone, both in taste and nutritional value. It would also probably save the caterers a lot of money because margarine is cheap shit. That does matter to me, and I don't think it's a positive development.
The problem with such fruit scones is they're an unsuccessful attempt at raisin the tenor of a debate.
(Which frankly we could do with on here, since we seem to be back on transgender culture wars.)
Cyclefree is a real woman. JK Rowling is. India is not. All 3 should be treated with respect, whatever happens inside their heads is neither here nor there.
Saying India is "cosplaying" is not treating them with respect. How on Earth can you see that, it is legitimately bizarre that she would put it in those terms if not intended to provoke a reaction.
Why mention India's name at all? Why is India's life a concern of JK Rowling's?
I have an mtf friend and she would probably say india is cos playing, in her view anyone not aiming for gender reassignement but claiming to be trans is a cos player and yes she will be under the knife later this year. Her view is simple if you believe you are the wrong sex then you change it. If you don't change it then it is performative (or cos play)
An understandable and undeniably logical perspective.
The question is whether it should be criminal. I think she wants to test that.
I strongly feel it should not be criminal.
I agree. But the effect of the new Act is unclear on this. Does this stir up hatred of a protected group, namely biologically male transvestites? I think it does. Does it fall within the protections and defences in the Act? That is unclear but if it was found to do so the Act would be gutted.
I said no intention of changing it....being on a waiting list is an intention to change it. She reckons 90% of those she meets in the clubs she goes too have no intention of changing by reassignment
But again, does your friend know what is going on inside the heads of these people? How can we say what they are doing is or isn't performative? And second, why is that our concern, can these people not just be left alone?
The question is whether it should be criminal. I think she wants to test that.
I strongly feel it should not be criminal.
I agree. But the effect of the new Act is unclear on this. Does this stir up hatred of a protected group, namely biologically male transvestites? I think it does. Does it fall within the protections and defences in the Act? That is unclear but if it was found to do so the Act would be gutted.
The act seems very foolish to me and not thought through.
What I am not quite clear about, is isn't inciting violence already a crime under the law? I am not saying this does that.
'Bill Cash, an MP who often has tea and scones in the House of Commons, opined to the paper: “It makes me wonder what will happen next – will they stop selling madeira cake because of historical events in Madeira? There’s far too much wokery going on at the National Trust; this is just the latest example.”.
But 'A National Trust spokesperson said that, while some of its published recipes may differ, the plain and fruit scones in its tearooms have been dairy-free for years.
They added: “National Trust cafes serve millions of customers a year and we work hard to accommodate dietary needs and allergies.'.
They’ll be banning him next due to his sharing a name with degenerate hard currency.
'Bill Cash, an MP who often has tea and scones in the House of Commons, opined to the paper: “It makes me wonder what will happen next – will they stop selling madeira cake because of historical events in Madeira? There’s far too much wokery going on at the National Trust; this is just the latest example.”.
But 'A National Trust spokesperson said that, while some of its published recipes may differ, the plain and fruit scones in its tearooms have been dairy-free for years.
They added: “National Trust cafes serve millions of customers a year and we work hard to accommodate dietary needs and allergies.'.
I imagine that rule would also preclude dairy butter - taken together, I believe that would make an inferior scone, both in taste and nutritional value. It would also probably save the caterers a lot of money because margarine is cheap shit. That does matter to me, and I don't think it's a positive development.
The problem with such fruit scones is they're an unsuccessful attempt at raisin the tenor of a debate.
(Which frankly we could do with on here, since we seem to be back on transgender culture wars.)
I think people are blind if some of the stuff that comes out from fans of JK Rowling isn't pretty vile and ghastly, just as what comes out from the nuttiest part of the pro-trans communist is also pretty vile and ghastly.
I think to treat one side as saintly though which is what a few people do, is a recipe for disaster.
Neither side is saintly, especially when bigots latch on to both sides as an excuse to bash others.
However nothing Rowling herself said is ghastly, it was entirely measured.
What's been said to Rowling by some is ghastly. That she doesn't respond in kind, is a credit to her, don't you agree?
On this, she hasn't. But some of the stuff she has said before and commented/liked/re-shared has been.
So I don't fully agree she always responds in kind, no. Of course, the people saying stuff to her are equally vile and unkind.
What has she ever said that's been ghastly? Genuine question, I've never seen anything.
Simply holding an opinion others dislike isn't ghastly.
Personally I think this is pretty ghastly. The stuff said to her is worse but I think this is awful. This is a human being she is talking about.
What's ghastly there?
Yes its a human being, but if the human being is misogynistic then calling out misogyny is entirely acceptable and not ghastly.
I think the term was used to imply that the state of being trans is a misogynist male fantasy, and that by virtue of being trans the person was a misogynist male indulging in a misogynist fantasy of being female.
IIUC gender critical thought precludes the possibility of innocent transition: that everybody who transitions is impelled by delusion or fetishism or coercion or x, where x is a bad thing. JKR cannot concieve of a good trans or a good transition and hence from that logic concluded that Willoughby was bad.
The thing about this, the female to male transman I knew was such a lovely, sweet person. Female to male transitioners get little, if any, of this sort of abuse thrown at them; yet I fail to see how if males to females are suffering (in Rowling's view) from some form of mental aberration, then surely female to males are as well? Or is there an 'innocent transition' path for female to males, but not male to female?
I think there is often a view that ftm Trans people are lesbians or Tomboys who have been persuaded that they are Trans. Not my opinion, but Stock for example has expressed it.
'Bill Cash, an MP who often has tea and scones in the House of Commons, opined to the paper: “It makes me wonder what will happen next – will they stop selling madeira cake because of historical events in Madeira? There’s far too much wokery going on at the National Trust; this is just the latest example.”.
But 'A National Trust spokesperson said that, while some of its published recipes may differ, the plain and fruit scones in its tearooms have been dairy-free for years.
They added: “National Trust cafes serve millions of customers a year and we work hard to accommodate dietary needs and allergies.'.
I imagine that rule would also preclude dairy butter - taken together, I believe that would make an inferior scone, both in taste and nutritional value. It would also probably save the caterers a lot of money because margarine is cheap shit. That does matter to me, and I don't think it's a positive development.
The problem with such fruit scones is they're an unsuccessful attempt at raisin the tenor of a debate.
(Which frankly we could do with on here, since we seem to be back on transgender culture wars.)
Much as I like the Redfield & Wilton poll out today with the 24% Labour lead, polling appears to have taken place on Easter Sunday.
I’m wary of bank holiday polling. Not that it’s really outlier I suppose.
Always be wary. Though from the evidence of the last 48 hours in Alpe D’Huez (I’m not there this evening, I had to drive back to burgundy to receive an IKEA delivery tomorrow morning) the Brits currently out of circulation on their Easter trips are a mixture of Lib Dem remainer types - most of whom probably actually vote Labour - and ra ra students (“just pay for this one mate and we’ll sort it on Tricount later”) who’d probably like to vote Tory like their parents but can’t be seen to do so this year.
I think I spotted a potential Lancastrian Reform voter at the Kyriad on the way down too. One of those admirable family patriarchs - bald, looked like a football hooligan, but holding the grandchildren enthralled with his stories “I’m actually a ninja, and when you’re a ninja you’re always watching the corners of the rooms for potential attackers. Don’t drop your guards kids. That bloke over there. Could be another ninja. You never know”.
I do know, because the bloke over there was a Belgian. There aren’t many Belgian ninjas. But there were many Belgian cars on the autoroute. I counted a 2:1 ratio of Belgian to French cars (and a 2:1 of French to British and a 2:1 of British to Dutch).
You don't see many Belgian ninjas because they're *really good*...
They are all hiding in the alcoves in the alcoves, nooks and crannies in Koningin Astridpark.
I said no intention of changing it....being on a waiting list is an intention to change it. She reckons 90% of those she meets in the clubs she goes too have no intention of changing by reassignment
But again, does your friend know what is going on inside the heads of these people? How can we say what they are doing is or isn't performative? And second, why is that our concern, can these people not just be left alone?
If you were born male but think you were born in the wrong body and are really female why would you want to keep a dick is her point of view. If you really think you are female you will get rid of it as soon as possible, want to keep it then yes she would say then you are just cos playing being a girl
'Bill Cash, an MP who often has tea and scones in the House of Commons, opined to the paper: “It makes me wonder what will happen next – will they stop selling madeira cake because of historical events in Madeira? There’s far too much wokery going on at the National Trust; this is just the latest example.”.
But 'A National Trust spokesperson said that, while some of its published recipes may differ, the plain and fruit scones in its tearooms have been dairy-free for years.
They added: “National Trust cafes serve millions of customers a year and we work hard to accommodate dietary needs and allergies.'.
They’ll be banning him next due to his sharing a name with degenerate hard currency.
Please, please, pretty please with skittles, can we not have cash *and* transgender stuff on the same thread?
Trans is one of those issues where we actually all have perfectly reasonable, nuanced opinions based on human decency and mutual respect but a small number of blow hards on the internet in both camps thrive on creating a great big fuss.
But again, does your friend know what is going on inside the heads of these people? How can we say what they are doing is or isn't performative? And second, why is that our concern, can these people not just be left alone?
I am entirely in favour of leaving those people alone to do whatever they want to do.
I am not in favour of recognising something that is factually incorrect if it violates others safeguarding.
Let people do as they please within the law, but where safeguarding is concerned then objective truth matters - and the objective truth is that India is not a woman however they identify, where it matters for safeguarding purposes.
Where safeguarding isn't at play, then India can do whatever they want to do, its none of anyone else's business.
I think there is often a view that ftm Trans people are lesbians or Tomboys who have been persuaded that they are Trans. Not my opinion, but Stock for example has expressed it.
This chap on First Dates, honestly he was as masculine as me, I wouldn't have known if he hadn't chosen to air it.
He clearly feels he is a man and was born a man but in the wrong body. I don't feel threatened by "Jeff" (can't remember his name) from First Dates being a man now. But I accept perhaps that is a privileged thought.
'Bill Cash, an MP who often has tea and scones in the House of Commons, opined to the paper: “It makes me wonder what will happen next – will they stop selling madeira cake because of historical events in Madeira? There’s far too much wokery going on at the National Trust; this is just the latest example.”.
But 'A National Trust spokesperson said that, while some of its published recipes may differ, the plain and fruit scones in its tearooms have been dairy-free for years.
They added: “National Trust cafes serve millions of customers a year and we work hard to accommodate dietary needs and allergies.'.
I imagine that rule would also preclude dairy butter - taken together, I believe that would make an inferior scone, both in taste and nutritional value. It would also probably save the caterers a lot of money because margarine is cheap shit. That does matter to me, and I don't think it's a positive development.
The problem with such fruit scones is they're an unsuccessful attempt at raisin the tenor of a debate.
(Which frankly we could do with on here, since we seem to be back on transgender culture wars.)
That failure was baked in.
This debate is at best half-baked.
The contributions have just not risen to the occasion.
I think people are blind if some of the stuff that comes out from fans of JK Rowling isn't pretty vile and ghastly, just as what comes out from the nuttiest part of the pro-trans communist is also pretty vile and ghastly.
I think to treat one side as saintly though which is what a few people do, is a recipe for disaster.
Neither side is saintly, especially when bigots latch on to both sides as an excuse to bash others.
However nothing Rowling herself said is ghastly, it was entirely measured.
What's been said to Rowling by some is ghastly. That she doesn't respond in kind, is a credit to her, don't you agree?
On this, she hasn't. But some of the stuff she has said before and commented/liked/re-shared has been.
So I don't fully agree she always responds in kind, no. Of course, the people saying stuff to her are equally vile and unkind.
What has she ever said that's been ghastly? Genuine question, I've never seen anything.
Simply holding an opinion others dislike isn't ghastly.
Personally I think this is pretty ghastly. The stuff said to her is worse but I think this is awful. This is a human being she is talking about.
What's ghastly there?
Yes its a human being, but if the human being is misogynistic then calling out misogyny is entirely acceptable and not ghastly.
I think the term was used to imply that the state of being trans is a misogynist male fantasy, and that by virtue of being trans the person was a misogynist male indulging in a misogynist fantasy of being female.
IIUC gender critical thought precludes the possibility of innocent transition: that everybody who transitions is impelled by delusion or fetishism or coercion or x, where x is a bad thing. JKR cannot concieve of a good trans or a good transition and hence from that logic concluded that Willoughby was bad.
The thing about this, the female to male transman I knew was such a lovely, sweet person. Female to male transitioners get little, if any, of this sort of abuse thrown at them; yet I fail to see how if males to females are suffering (in Rowling's view) from some form of mental aberration, then surely female to males are as well? Or is there an 'innocent transition' path for female to males, but not male to female?
I think there is often a view that ftm Trans people are lesbians or Tomboys who have been persuaded that they are Trans. Not my opinion, but Stock for example has expressed it.
Well, from the guy I knew that's *really* wrong, and a bit insulting.
I said no intention of changing it....being on a waiting list is an intention to change it. She reckons 90% of those she meets in the clubs she goes too have no intention of changing by reassignment
But again, does your friend know what is going on inside the heads of these people? How can we say what they are doing is or isn't performative? And second, why is that our concern, can these people not just be left alone?
If you were born male but think you were born in the wrong body and are really female why would you want to keep a dick is her point of view. If you really think you are female you will get rid of it as soon as possible, want to keep it then yes she would say then you are just cos playing being a girl
In which case why don't we prioritise gender surgery and hormonal treatments on the NHS, rather than make it as difficult as possible, such as closing the Tavistock before other services are running?
I think people are blind if some of the stuff that comes out from fans of JK Rowling isn't pretty vile and ghastly, just as what comes out from the nuttiest part of the pro-trans communist is also pretty vile and ghastly.
I think to treat one side as saintly though which is what a few people do, is a recipe for disaster.
Neither side is saintly, especially when bigots latch on to both sides as an excuse to bash others.
However nothing Rowling herself said is ghastly, it was entirely measured.
What's been said to Rowling by some is ghastly. That she doesn't respond in kind, is a credit to her, don't you agree?
On this, she hasn't. But some of the stuff she has said before and commented/liked/re-shared has been.
So I don't fully agree she always responds in kind, no. Of course, the people saying stuff to her are equally vile and unkind.
What has she ever said that's been ghastly? Genuine question, I've never seen anything.
Simply holding an opinion others dislike isn't ghastly.
Personally I think this is pretty ghastly. The stuff said to her is worse but I think this is awful. This is a human being she is talking about.
I agree, it is ghastly. Its cruel and dismissive of another person's lived experience. It seems to me something she has said to be provocative on the day this legislation came into force to try and make a point. That in itself shows a lack of compassion or care about the person she is speaking about. Its frankly rude.
The question is whether it should be criminal. I think she wants to test that.
Unless it’s from the future, she tweeted it last month (US format) so not making a point on the day the legislation came into force. More part of her general cruel and dismissive output in that case.
But again, does your friend know what is going on inside the heads of these people? How can we say what they are doing is or isn't performative? And second, why is that our concern, can these people not just be left alone?
I am entirely in favour of leaving those people alone to do whatever they want to do.
I am not in favour of recognising something that is factually incorrect if it violates others safeguarding.
Let people do as they please within the law, but where safeguarding is concerned then objective truth matters - and the objective truth is that India is not a woman however they identify, where it matters for safeguarding purposes.
Where safeguarding isn't at play, then India can do whatever they want to do, its none of anyone else's business.
I agree I treat everyone with respect and will use their preferred names/ genders /pronouns....likewise I draw the line at safeguarding issues
'Bill Cash, an MP who often has tea and scones in the House of Commons, opined to the paper: “It makes me wonder what will happen next – will they stop selling madeira cake because of historical events in Madeira? There’s far too much wokery going on at the National Trust; this is just the latest example.”.
But 'A National Trust spokesperson said that, while some of its published recipes may differ, the plain and fruit scones in its tearooms have been dairy-free for years.
They added: “National Trust cafes serve millions of customers a year and we work hard to accommodate dietary needs and allergies.'.
I imagine that rule would also preclude dairy butter - taken together, I believe that would make an inferior scone, both in taste and nutritional value. It would also probably save the caterers a lot of money because margarine is cheap shit. That does matter to me, and I don't think it's a positive development.
The problem with such fruit scones is they're an unsuccessful attempt at raisin the tenor of a debate.
(Which frankly we could do with on here, since we seem to be back on transgender culture wars.)
That failure was baked in.
This debate is at best half-baked.
The contributions have just not risen to the occasion.
Well, from the guy I knew that's *really* wrong, and a bit insulting.
I think it's just a bit rude in general to tell anyone what they are to think or be, whether somebody is trans or not is sort of irrelevant to how I see this.
If you want to be called HosiasHessop and I keep calling you the other name, I'd think it a bit rude and frankly would show that you don't have much attention to detail. Maybe I think it's a very silly name, or why on Earth would you do that but it doesn't impact my life at all.
Frankly the amount of attention trans people get is BIZARRE to me. Your odds of meeting one even in London are virtually nil.
I think people are blind if some of the stuff that comes out from fans of JK Rowling isn't pretty vile and ghastly, just as what comes out from the nuttiest part of the pro-trans communist is also pretty vile and ghastly.
I think to treat one side as saintly though which is what a few people do, is a recipe for disaster.
Neither side is saintly, especially when bigots latch on to both sides as an excuse to bash others.
However nothing Rowling herself said is ghastly, it was entirely measured.
What's been said to Rowling by some is ghastly. That she doesn't respond in kind, is a credit to her, don't you agree?
On this, she hasn't. But some of the stuff she has said before and commented/liked/re-shared has been.
So I don't fully agree she always responds in kind, no. Of course, the people saying stuff to her are equally vile and unkind.
What has she ever said that's been ghastly? Genuine question, I've never seen anything.
Simply holding an opinion others dislike isn't ghastly.
Personally I think this is pretty ghastly. The stuff said to her is worse but I think this is awful. This is a human being she is talking about.
What's ghastly there?
Yes its a human being, but if the human being is misogynistic then calling out misogyny is entirely acceptable and not ghastly.
I think the term was used to imply that the state of being trans is a misogynist male fantasy, and that by virtue of being trans the person was a misogynist male indulging in a misogynist fantasy of being female.
IIUC gender critical thought precludes the possibility of innocent transition: that everybody who transitions is impelled by delusion or fetishism or coercion or x, where x is a bad thing. JKR cannot concieve of a good trans or a good transition and hence from that logic concluded that Willoughby was bad.
The thing about this, the female to male transman I knew was such a lovely, sweet person. Female to male transitioners get little, if any, of this sort of abuse thrown at them; yet I fail to see how if males to females are suffering (in Rowling's view) from some form of mental aberration, then surely female to males are as well? Or is there an 'innocent transition' path for female to males, but not male to female?
I think there is often a view that ftm Trans people are lesbians or Tomboys who have been persuaded that they are Trans. Not my opinion, but Stock for example has expressed it.
Well, from the guy I knew that's *really* wrong, and a bit insulting.
It is, but Stock seems to take that line in her book.
Cyclefree is a real woman. JK Rowling is. India is not. All 3 should be treated with respect, whatever happens inside their heads is neither here nor there.
Saying India is "cosplaying" is not treating them with respect. How on Earth can you see that, it is legitimately bizarre that she would put it in those terms if not intended to provoke a reaction.
Why mention India's name at all? Why is India's life a concern of JK Rowling's?
I have an mtf friend and she would probably say india is cos playing, in her view anyone not aiming for gender reassignement but claiming to be trans is a cos player and yes she will be under the knife later this year. Her view is simple if you believe you are the wrong sex then you change it. If you don't change it then it is performative (or cos play)
Yes all the people sitting on waiting lists are just "pretending". What a silly post.
I didn't say they were, what I said was there are many who say I am trans who have no intention of going through gender reassignment surgery. Those are the ones my friend calls performative.
"Well I'm not the World's most masculine man, but I know what I am in bed, I'm a man and so was Lola"
So long as these people are not harming anyone else, I really couldn't care less. If people spent more time getting their own house in order rather than interfering with others the World would be a far happier place.
I think there is often a view that ftm Trans people are lesbians or Tomboys who have been persuaded that they are Trans. Not my opinion, but Stock for example has expressed it.
This chap on First Dates, honestly he was as masculine as me, I wouldn't have known if he hadn't chosen to air it.
He clearly feels he is a man and was born a man but in the wrong body. I don't feel threatened by "Jeff" (can't remember his name) from First Dates being a man now. But I accept perhaps that is a privileged thought.
That's male privilege (like white privilege but for sex) though.
FTM is no problem, since men don't need protecting from women.
Men wanting single-sex areas is typically from misogyny, not safeguarding.
Women who want single-sex areas often do for safeguarding reasons, because of innate sexual differences that make a real difference.
'Bill Cash, an MP who often has tea and scones in the House of Commons, opined to the paper: “It makes me wonder what will happen next – will they stop selling madeira cake because of historical events in Madeira? There’s far too much wokery going on at the National Trust; this is just the latest example.”.
But 'A National Trust spokesperson said that, while some of its published recipes may differ, the plain and fruit scones in its tearooms have been dairy-free for years.
They added: “National Trust cafes serve millions of customers a year and we work hard to accommodate dietary needs and allergies.'.
I imagine that rule would also preclude dairy butter - taken together, I believe that would make an inferior scone, both in taste and nutritional value. It would also probably save the caterers a lot of money because margarine is cheap shit. That does matter to me, and I don't think it's a positive development.
But it's *not a development at all*. It's not new. Just some people pretending it's new.
I said no intention of changing it....being on a waiting list is an intention to change it. She reckons 90% of those she meets in the clubs she goes too have no intention of changing by reassignment
But again, does your friend know what is going on inside the heads of these people? How can we say what they are doing is or isn't performative? And second, why is that our concern, can these people not just be left alone?
If you were born male but think you were born in the wrong body and are really female why would you want to keep a dick is her point of view. If you really think you are female you will get rid of it as soon as possible, want to keep it then yes she would say then you are just cos playing being a girl
In which case why don't we prioritise gender surgery and hormonal treatments on the NHS, rather than make it as difficult as possible, such as closing the Tavistock before other services are running?
The tavistock was closed from what I understood because of its advocacy for treating minors rather than work it did with adults
As an LGBT+ person with a non-binary adult offspring, the whole debate just depresses me. Rowling needs to shut up. Hate - whether spoken or physical - for people is one thing when its genuine. But this is *performative* hate. Baiting the other side to stir up a reaction in others to further *their* side.
But again, does your friend know what is going on inside the heads of these people? How can we say what they are doing is or isn't performative? And second, why is that our concern, can these people not just be left alone?
I am entirely in favour of leaving those people alone to do whatever they want to do.
I am not in favour of recognising something that is factually incorrect if it violates others safeguarding.
Let people do as they please within the law, but where safeguarding is concerned then objective truth matters - and the objective truth is that India is not a woman however they identify, where it matters for safeguarding purposes.
Where safeguarding isn't at play, then India can do whatever they want to do, its none of anyone else's business.
You can agree with all of that - and still agree that writing a Tweet to 50 million people calling out somebody by name that they are "cosplaying" is rude, pointlessly provocative, offensive and self-defeating. It is astonishing you cannot see that.
Actually if JK Rowling wrote like you, she'd not have people like me calling her out. But she doesn't. Why not?
I think people are blind if some of the stuff that comes out from fans of JK Rowling isn't pretty vile and ghastly, just as what comes out from the nuttiest part of the pro-trans communist is also pretty vile and ghastly.
I think to treat one side as saintly though which is what a few people do, is a recipe for disaster.
Neither side is saintly, especially when bigots latch on to both sides as an excuse to bash others.
However nothing Rowling herself said is ghastly, it was entirely measured.
What's been said to Rowling by some is ghastly. That she doesn't respond in kind, is a credit to her, don't you agree?
On this, she hasn't. But some of the stuff she has said before and commented/liked/re-shared has been.
So I don't fully agree she always responds in kind, no. Of course, the people saying stuff to her are equally vile and unkind.
What has she ever said that's been ghastly? Genuine question, I've never seen anything.
Simply holding an opinion others dislike isn't ghastly.
Personally I think this is pretty ghastly. The stuff said to her is worse but I think this is awful. This is a human being she is talking about.
I agree, it is ghastly. Its cruel and dismissive of another person's lived experience. It seems to me something she has said to be provocative on the day this legislation came into force to try and make a point. That in itself shows a lack of compassion or care about the person she is speaking about. Its frankly rude.
The question is whether it should be criminal. I think she wants to test that.
Unless it’s from the future, she tweeted it last month (US format) so not making a point on the day the legislation came into force. More part of her general cruel and dismissive output in that case.
I thought that she had tweeted this (possibly retweeted?) today. I may be wrong, I am not on Twitter or TwiX or whatever it is called these days.
I think people are blind if some of the stuff that comes out from fans of JK Rowling isn't pretty vile and ghastly, just as what comes out from the nuttiest part of the pro-trans communist is also pretty vile and ghastly.
I think to treat one side as saintly though which is what a few people do, is a recipe for disaster.
Neither side is saintly, especially when bigots latch on to both sides as an excuse to bash others.
However nothing Rowling herself said is ghastly, it was entirely measured.
What's been said to Rowling by some is ghastly. That she doesn't respond in kind, is a credit to her, don't you agree?
On this, she hasn't. But some of the stuff she has said before and commented/liked/re-shared has been.
So I don't fully agree she always responds in kind, no. Of course, the people saying stuff to her are equally vile and unkind.
What has she ever said that's been ghastly? Genuine question, I've never seen anything.
Simply holding an opinion others dislike isn't ghastly.
Personally I think this is pretty ghastly. The stuff said to her is worse but I think this is awful. This is a human being she is talking about.
What's ghastly there?
Yes its a human being, but if the human being is misogynistic then calling out misogyny is entirely acceptable and not ghastly.
I think the term was used to imply that the state of being trans is a misogynist male fantasy, and that by virtue of being trans the person was a misogynist male indulging in a misogynist fantasy of being female.
IIUC gender critical thought precludes the possibility of innocent transition: that everybody who transitions is impelled by delusion or fetishism or coercion or x, where x is a bad thing. JKR cannot concieve of a good trans or a good transition and hence from that logic concluded that Willoughby was bad.
The thing about this, the female to male transman I knew was such a lovely, sweet person. Female to male transitioners get little, if any, of this sort of abuse thrown at them; yet I fail to see how if males to females are suffering (in Rowling's view) from some form of mental aberration, then surely female to males are as well? Or is there an 'innocent transition' path for female to males, but not male to female?
In her essay "The Trans-TERF War"[1] which many remarked upon but few read, JKR explains that FTMs are considered by gender critical people[2] to be and remain women regardless of transition status. As such they are less of a concern, and it is notable that women who pose as men to have sex with straight women are uncontroversially assigned to the female estate (the term used for women's prisons). Women who transition are (I think) considered to be a passive victim of external influences, in contradistinction to men who are considered to be more active. But in no case is an innocent motive admitted or even conceived.
We are acquainted with the concept of a "shibboleth": a cant phrase used by members of a group to denote membership. In gender critical thought people do not "transition". Instead they "are transed": the passive sense indicating that this is something done to them, not by them. As a belief system gender critical thought is coherent and perhaps deserves more objective analysis than it gets. Given that those doing the analysis are combatants in the war of ideas, I'm not expecting it soon... ☹️
[1] that title was in links to it: the page itself had a different title which I forget. [2] she used the word "we" here, so I assume that's the "we" she refers to
On topic: Thanks much to Cyclefree for her consistent support for justice.
One observation: I have thought for some time that the ferocity of some "trans" activists may be a result of them having doubts about their own argument.
That maybe so, but I suspect much of the anti-Trans ferocity of middle aged males may well be fear of emasculation and suppressed fears over their own sexuality.
It works both ways.
I also think there's a lot of denial over people being made uncomfortable by obviously trans people, I might instictively feel a little bit of it myself if a 6ft 2in trans woman with blue hair plonked themselves down beside me on the bus. However some folk seem to be maddened by even the sight of anyone trans or transvestite, while simultaneously bellowing 'I'm no transphobe but..' La Rowling and her acolytes seem literally disgusted by anyone trans.
Happily younger people seem increasingly unbothered by such things.
I watched First Dates earlier, when the bloke said he was trans I was honestly surprised
When I was scanning the YouTubes for Cybertruck updates, I was taken aback to find that one of the presenters was trans (male-to-female). It's obvious in retrospect but I think there's a Red Queen Race going on: the faster people detect trans people, the more countermeasures they deploy. It's not your father's trans, that's for sure.
Most people just want to get on with their lives. Not unreasonably. That includes trans people.
Most of us don't have to deal with others debating our existence.
Well, from the guy I knew that's *really* wrong, and a bit insulting.
I think it's just a bit rude in general to tell anyone what they are to think or be, whether somebody is trans or not is sort of irrelevant to how I see this.
If you want to be called HosiasHessop and I keep calling you the other name, I'd think it a bit rude and frankly would show that you don't have much attention to detail. Maybe I think it's a very silly name, or why on Earth would you do that but it doesn't impact my life at all.
Frankly the amount of attention trans people get is BIZARRE to me. Your odds of meeting one even in London are virtually nil.
Rather more than that, in fact. Something like 0.5% of folk are, on census data. Which implies rather more in certain age groups.
And how would [edit]* one know, in many instances, just by looking?
Indeed one of my colleagues went trans a few years ago, and that wasn't in London. So that stat feels about right.
*changed, not to sound unintentionally aggressive.
But again, does your friend know what is going on inside the heads of these people? How can we say what they are doing is or isn't performative? And second, why is that our concern, can these people not just be left alone?
I am entirely in favour of leaving those people alone to do whatever they want to do.
I am not in favour of recognising something that is factually incorrect if it violates others safeguarding.
Let people do as they please within the law, but where safeguarding is concerned then objective truth matters - and the objective truth is that India is not a woman however they identify, where it matters for safeguarding purposes.
Where safeguarding isn't at play, then India can do whatever they want to do, its none of anyone else's business.
You can agree with all of that - and still agree that writing a Tweet to 50 million people calling out somebody by name that they are "cosplaying" is rude, pointlessly provocative, offensive and self-defeating. It is astonishing you cannot see that.
Actually if JK Rowling wrote like you, she'd not have people like me calling her out. But she doesn't. Why not?
If India claims to be "more of a real woman" than Rowling, I think its entirely legitimate for Rowling to say that she is a real woman while India is cosplaying as one.
What Rowling said is factually correct, what India said is factually wrong.
As an LGBT+ person with a non-binary adult offspring, the whole debate just depresses me. Rowling needs to shut up. Hate - whether spoken or physical - for people is one thing when its genuine. But this is *performative* hate. Baiting the other side to stir up a reaction in others to further *their* side.
Cyclefree is a real woman. JK Rowling is. India is not. All 3 should be treated with respect, whatever happens inside their heads is neither here nor there.
Saying India is "cosplaying" is not treating them with respect. How on Earth can you see that, it is legitimately bizarre that she would put it in those terms if not intended to provoke a reaction.
Why mention India's name at all? Why is India's life a concern of JK Rowling's?
I have an mtf friend and she would probably say india is cos playing, in her view anyone not aiming for gender reassignement but claiming to be trans is a cos player and yes she will be under the knife later this year. Her view is simple if you believe you are the wrong sex then you change it. If you don't change it then it is performative (or cos play)
Yes all the people sitting on waiting lists are just "pretending". What a silly post.
I didn't say they were, what I said was there are many who say I am trans who have no intention of going through gender reassignment surgery. Those are the ones my friend calls performative.
"Well I'm not the World's most masculine man, but I know what I am in bed, I'm a man and so was Lola"
So long as these people are not harming anyone else, I really couldn't care less. If people spent more time getting their own house in order rather than interfering with others the World would be a far happier place.
No one mostly cares, frankly if you tell me you are a woman I will call you by your preferred name and pronouns. I merely draw the line when you say despite having a functional penis I should be allowed into a womens prison, a womens refuge, a women only ward etc. That is a safe guarding issue, one I hasten to add that won't be exploited by the genuinely trans but will be exploited by the predatory.
Hell I am completely hetero however if I knew I was going to be jailed for 10 years I would claim to be a women not to exploit them but because I would have an easier time in a womens prison than a male one
As an LGBT+ person with a non-binary adult offspring, the whole debate just depresses me. Rowling needs to shut up. Hate - whether spoken or physical - for people is one thing when its genuine. But this is *performative* hate. Baiting the other side to stir up a reaction in others to further *their* side.
Please let it stop.
Your overall position on these questions strikes me as being quite misogynistic. Women with contrary views are always being told to “shut up”.
FWIW I find Joanne Rowling to be intolerant and lacking sympathy for others in different circumstances. She's not alone in that but I prefer tolerance and understanding.
'Bill Cash, an MP who often has tea and scones in the House of Commons, opined to the paper: “It makes me wonder what will happen next – will they stop selling madeira cake because of historical events in Madeira? There’s far too much wokery going on at the National Trust; this is just the latest example.”.
But 'A National Trust spokesperson said that, while some of its published recipes may differ, the plain and fruit scones in its tearooms have been dairy-free for years.
They added: “National Trust cafes serve millions of customers a year and we work hard to accommodate dietary needs and allergies.'.
What happens next is that Bill Cash becomes an ex MP. Unlike the majority of his party colleagues, voluntarily.
I think people are blind if some of the stuff that comes out from fans of JK Rowling isn't pretty vile and ghastly, just as what comes out from the nuttiest part of the pro-trans communist is also pretty vile and ghastly.
I think to treat one side as saintly though which is what a few people do, is a recipe for disaster.
Neither side is saintly, especially when bigots latch on to both sides as an excuse to bash others.
However nothing Rowling herself said is ghastly, it was entirely measured.
What's been said to Rowling by some is ghastly. That she doesn't respond in kind, is a credit to her, don't you agree?
On this, she hasn't. But some of the stuff she has said before and commented/liked/re-shared has been.
So I don't fully agree she always responds in kind, no. Of course, the people saying stuff to her are equally vile and unkind.
What has she ever said that's been ghastly? Genuine question, I've never seen anything.
Simply holding an opinion others dislike isn't ghastly.
Personally I think this is pretty ghastly. The stuff said to her is worse but I think this is awful. This is a human being she is talking about.
I agree, it is ghastly. Its cruel and dismissive of another person's lived experience. It seems to me something she has said to be provocative on the day this legislation came into force to try and make a point. That in itself shows a lack of compassion or care about the person she is speaking about. Its frankly rude.
The question is whether it should be criminal. I think she wants to test that.
Unless it’s from the future, she tweeted it last month (US format) so not making a point on the day the legislation came into force. More part of her general cruel and dismissive output in that case.
I thought that she had tweeted this (possibly retweeted?) today. I may be wrong, I am not on Twitter or TwiX or whatever it is called these days.
The posting format formerly known as tweets are date stamped m’lud, 3/4/24 in this case.
I think people are blind if some of the stuff that comes out from fans of JK Rowling isn't pretty vile and ghastly, just as what comes out from the nuttiest part of the pro-trans communist is also pretty vile and ghastly.
I think to treat one side as saintly though which is what a few people do, is a recipe for disaster.
Neither side is saintly, especially when bigots latch on to both sides as an excuse to bash others.
However nothing Rowling herself said is ghastly, it was entirely measured.
What's been said to Rowling by some is ghastly. That she doesn't respond in kind, is a credit to her, don't you agree?
On this, she hasn't. But some of the stuff she has said before and commented/liked/re-shared has been.
So I don't fully agree she always responds in kind, no. Of course, the people saying stuff to her are equally vile and unkind.
What has she ever said that's been ghastly? Genuine question, I've never seen anything.
Simply holding an opinion others dislike isn't ghastly.
Personally I think this is pretty ghastly. The stuff said to her is worse but I think this is awful. This is a human being she is talking about.
I agree, it is ghastly. Its cruel and dismissive of another person's lived experience. It seems to me something she has said to be provocative on the day this legislation came into force to try and make a point. That in itself shows a lack of compassion or care about the person she is speaking about. Its frankly rude.
The question is whether it should be criminal. I think she wants to test that.
Unless it’s from the future, she tweeted it last month (US format) so not making a point on the day the legislation came into force. More part of her general cruel and dismissive output in that case.
I thought that she had tweeted this (possibly retweeted?) today. I may be wrong, I am not on Twitter or TwiX or whatever it is called these days.
The posting format formerly known as tweets are date stamped m’lud, 3/4/24 in this case.
I'm more impressed by the Tardis of whoever took that image than anything else then.
As an LGBT+ person with a non-binary adult offspring, the whole debate just depresses me. Rowling needs to shut up. Hate - whether spoken or physical - for people is one thing when its genuine. But this is *performative* hate. Baiting the other side to stir up a reaction in others to further *their* side.
Please let it stop.
Your overall position on these questions strikes me as being quite misogynistic. Women with contrary views are always being told to “shut up”.
FFS. Shut up yourself. I have a wife and a daughter. I don't want the latter to grow up in a world where she can't be who she wants to be. My dislike of what Rowling is saying is what she is saying. Not her gender. As is blindingly obvious to anyone who isn't baiting to stir up a reaction...
Well, from the guy I knew that's *really* wrong, and a bit insulting.
I think it's just a bit rude in general to tell anyone what they are to think or be, whether somebody is trans or not is sort of irrelevant to how I see this.
If you want to be called HosiasHessop and I keep calling you the other name, I'd think it a bit rude and frankly would show that you don't have much attention to detail. Maybe I think it's a very silly name, or why on Earth would you do that but it doesn't impact my life at all.
Frankly the amount of attention trans people get is BIZARRE to me. Your odds of meeting one even in London are virtually nil.
It depends where you go.
I was out in Ventnor last week and our waitress was Trans. Nobody seemed to notice, all very British.
FWIW I find Joanne Rowling to be intolerant and lacking sympathy for others in different circumstances. She's not alone in that but I prefer tolerance and understanding.
Where is the tolerance and sympathy from the trans activist side when biologic women dont want to share their safe spaces with people who decide they are female while still being genitalia wise male?
Which somewhat refutes the idea that immigration suppresses per capita GDP by bumping up the denominator.
Japan's economic problems could also be read as an indictment of the zero interest rate policy that was copied by the West after the financial crisis.
The zero interest rate policy was more a symptom than a cause of the malaise. At root: an export-oriented economic model in a globalising world where other countries to its South (Korea and China, largely) played and beat it at its game, combined with an ageing and shrinking population. And a population allergic to consumption and addicted to saving. And no natural resources for when the Chinese boom started demanding more and more of them.
There’s plenty for us in Europe to be wary of from the Japanese experience. In a few years’ time our populations will be as old, and our couple of years of inflation might come to be seen as a golden era before deflation properly took hold.
As an LGBT+ person with a non-binary adult offspring, the whole debate just depresses me. Rowling needs to shut up. Hate - whether spoken or physical - for people is one thing when its genuine. But this is *performative* hate. Baiting the other side to stir up a reaction in others to further *their* side.
Please let it stop.
Your overall position on these questions strikes me as being quite misogynistic. Women with contrary views are always being told to “shut up”.
FFS. Shut up yourself. I have a wife and a daughter. I don't want the latter to grow up in a world where she can't be who she wants to be. My dislike of what Rowling is saying is what she is saying. Not her gender. As is blindingly obvious to anyone who isn't baiting to stir up a reaction...
I have two daughters, I want them to be whatever they want to be.
But if they're ever in a position where they need safeguarding, then I hope their safeguarding is not violated.
As an LGBT+ person with a non-binary adult offspring, the whole debate just depresses me. Rowling needs to shut up. Hate - whether spoken or physical - for people is one thing when its genuine. But this is *performative* hate. Baiting the other side to stir up a reaction in others to further *their* side.
Please let it stop.
Your overall position on these questions strikes me as being quite misogynistic. Women with contrary views are always being told to “shut up”.
That's patently untrue. I don't believe Rochdale is slapping the little woman down for daring to comment. He might be pissed off more generally at her (or anyone else's) "performative" intolerance.
Cyclefree is a real woman. JK Rowling is. India is not. All 3 should be treated with respect, whatever happens inside their heads is neither here nor there.
Saying India is "cosplaying" is not treating them with respect. How on Earth can you see that, it is legitimately bizarre that she would put it in those terms if not intended to provoke a reaction.
Why mention India's name at all? Why is India's life a concern of JK Rowling's?
India Willoughby has tried to have JK Rowling arrested and made comments like this about her:
Doesn't make JK Rowling not vile in what she said.
It doesn’t matter whether nasty, hateful people who make nasty, hateful comments about others are trans, anti-trans, trans agnostic, male, female, white, black, brown, remainers, brexiteers, or whatever, they are to be despised for being nasty and hateful, not for any other reason.
Cyclefree is a real woman. JK Rowling is. India is not. All 3 should be treated with respect, whatever happens inside their heads is neither here nor there.
Saying India is "cosplaying" is not treating them with respect. How on Earth can you see that, it is legitimately bizarre that she would put it in those terms if not intended to provoke a reaction.
Why mention India's name at all? Why is India's life a concern of JK Rowling's?
I have an mtf friend and she would probably say india is cos playing, in her view anyone not aiming for gender reassignement but claiming to be trans is a cos player and yes she will be under the knife later this year. Her view is simple if you believe you are the wrong sex then you change it. If you don't change it then it is performative (or cos play)
IIUC India Willoughby had their penis removed many years ago.
FWIW I find Joanne Rowling to be intolerant and lacking sympathy for others in different circumstances. She's not alone in that but I prefer tolerance and understanding.
Hit the nail firmly on the head. I think JK Rowling shoots herself in the foot constantly with what she says. It is unnecessary.
She was the one that said "be kind". She should hold herself to that standard.
As an LGBT+ person with a non-binary adult offspring, the whole debate just depresses me. Rowling needs to shut up. Hate - whether spoken or physical - for people is one thing when its genuine. But this is *performative* hate. Baiting the other side to stir up a reaction in others to further *their* side.
Please let it stop.
Your overall position on these questions strikes me as being quite misogynistic. Women with contrary views are always being told to “shut up”.
FFS. Shut up yourself. I have a wife and a daughter. I don't want the latter to grow up in a world where she can't be who she wants to be. My dislike of what Rowling is saying is what she is saying. Not her gender. As is blindingly obvious to anyone who isn't baiting to stir up a reaction...
I have two daughters, I want them to be whatever they want to be.
But if they're ever in a position where they need safeguarding, then I hope their safeguarding is not violated.
As an LGBT+ person with a non-binary adult offspring, the whole debate just depresses me. Rowling needs to shut up. Hate - whether spoken or physical - for people is one thing when its genuine. But this is *performative* hate. Baiting the other side to stir up a reaction in others to further *their* side.
'Bill Cash, an MP who often has tea and scones in the House of Commons, opined to the paper: “It makes me wonder what will happen next – will they stop selling madeira cake because of historical events in Madeira? There’s far too much wokery going on at the National Trust; this is just the latest example.”.
But 'A National Trust spokesperson said that, while some of its published recipes may differ, the plain and fruit scones in its tearooms have been dairy-free for years.
They added: “National Trust cafes serve millions of customers a year and we work hard to accommodate dietary needs and allergies.'.
What happens next is that Bill Cash becomes an ex MP. Unlike the majority of his party colleagues, voluntarily.
His comment serves to make me wonder what on earth the British Empire did in Madeira that he's so sensitive about it, btw.
Cyclefree is a real woman. JK Rowling is. India is not. All 3 should be treated with respect, whatever happens inside their heads is neither here nor there.
Saying India is "cosplaying" is not treating them with respect. How on Earth can you see that, it is legitimately bizarre that she would put it in those terms if not intended to provoke a reaction.
Why mention India's name at all? Why is India's life a concern of JK Rowling's?
I have an mtf friend and she would probably say india is cos playing, in her view anyone not aiming for gender reassignement but claiming to be trans is a cos player and yes she will be under the knife later this year. Her view is simple if you believe you are the wrong sex then you change it. If you don't change it then it is performative (or cos play)
IIUC India Willoughby had their penis removed many years ago.
Which somewhat refutes the idea that immigration suppresses per capita GDP by bumping up the denominator.
Japan's economic problems could also be read as an indictment of the zero interest rate policy that was copied by the West after the financial crisis.
The zero interest rate policy was more a symptom than a cause of the malaise. At root: an export-oriented economic model in a globalising world where other countries to its South (Korea and China, largely) played and beat it at its game, combined with an ageing and shrinking population. And a population allergic to consumption and addicted to saving. And no natural resources for when the Chinese boom started demanding more and more of them.
There’s plenty for us in Europe to be wary of from the Japanese experience. In a few years’ time our populations will be as old, and our couple of years of inflation might come to be seen as a golden era before deflation properly took hold.
Deflation would be a good thing. We should welcome it and see the reduction in the cost of living as a primary mechanism for reducing inequality.
Cyclefree is a real woman. JK Rowling is. India is not. All 3 should be treated with respect, whatever happens inside their heads is neither here nor there.
Saying India is "cosplaying" is not treating them with respect. How on Earth can you see that, it is legitimately bizarre that she would put it in those terms if not intended to provoke a reaction.
Why mention India's name at all? Why is India's life a concern of JK Rowling's?
I have an mtf friend and she would probably say india is cos playing, in her view anyone not aiming for gender reassignement but claiming to be trans is a cos player and yes she will be under the knife later this year. Her view is simple if you believe you are the wrong sex then you change it. If you don't change it then it is performative (or cos play)
Yes all the people sitting on waiting lists are just "pretending". What a silly post.
I didn't say they were, what I said was there are many who say I am trans who have no intention of going through gender reassignment surgery. Those are the ones my friend calls performative.
"Well I'm not the World's most masculine man, but I know what I am in bed, I'm a man and so was Lola"
So long as these people are not harming anyone else, I really couldn't care less. If people spent more time getting their own house in order rather than interfering with others the World would be a far happier place.
No one mostly cares, frankly if you tell me you are a woman I will call you by your preferred name and pronouns. I merely draw the line when you say despite having a functional penis I should be allowed into a womens prison, a womens refuge, a women only ward etc. That is a safe guarding issue, one I hasten to add that won't be exploited by the genuinely trans but will be exploited by the predatory.
Hell I am completely hetero however if I knew I was going to be jailed for 10 years I would claim to be a women not to exploit them but because I would have an easier time in a womens prison than a male one
'Bill Cash, an MP who often has tea and scones in the House of Commons, opined to the paper: “It makes me wonder what will happen next – will they stop selling madeira cake because of historical events in Madeira? There’s far too much wokery going on at the National Trust; this is just the latest example.”.
But 'A National Trust spokesperson said that, while some of its published recipes may differ, the plain and fruit scones in its tearooms have been dairy-free for years.
They added: “National Trust cafes serve millions of customers a year and we work hard to accommodate dietary needs and allergies.'.
I imagine that rule would also preclude dairy butter - taken together, I believe that would make an inferior scone, both in taste and nutritional value. It would also probably save the caterers a lot of money because margarine is cheap shit. That does matter to me, and I don't think it's a positive development.
The problem with such fruit scones is they're an unsuccessful attempt at raisin the tenor of a debate.
(Which frankly we could do with on here, since we seem to be back on transgender culture wars.)
Cyclefree is a real woman. JK Rowling is. India is not. All 3 should be treated with respect, whatever happens inside their heads is neither here nor there.
Saying India is "cosplaying" is not treating them with respect. How on Earth can you see that, it is legitimately bizarre that she would put it in those terms if not intended to provoke a reaction.
Why mention India's name at all? Why is India's life a concern of JK Rowling's?
India Willoughby has tried to have JK Rowling arrested and made comments like this about her:
Doesn't make JK Rowling not vile in what she said.
It doesn’t matter whether nasty, hateful people who make nasty, hateful comments about others are trans, anti-trans, trans agnostic, male, female, white, black, brown, remainers, brexiteers, or whatever, they are to be despised for being nasty and hateful, not for any other reason.
That is what I was trying to say, although you put it rather more clearly than me.
Cyclefree is a real woman. JK Rowling is. India is not. All 3 should be treated with respect, whatever happens inside their heads is neither here nor there.
Saying India is "cosplaying" is not treating them with respect. How on Earth can you see that, it is legitimately bizarre that she would put it in those terms if not intended to provoke a reaction.
Why mention India's name at all? Why is India's life a concern of JK Rowling's?
I have an mtf friend and she would probably say india is cos playing, in her view anyone not aiming for gender reassignement but claiming to be trans is a cos player and yes she will be under the knife later this year. Her view is simple if you believe you are the wrong sex then you change it. If you don't change it then it is performative (or cos play)
IIUC India Willoughby had their penis removed many years ago.
Cyclefree is a real woman. JK Rowling is. India is not. All 3 should be treated with respect, whatever happens inside their heads is neither here nor there.
Saying India is "cosplaying" is not treating them with respect. How on Earth can you see that, it is legitimately bizarre that she would put it in those terms if not intended to provoke a reaction.
Why mention India's name at all? Why is India's life a concern of JK Rowling's?
I have an mtf friend and she would probably say india is cos playing, in her view anyone not aiming for gender reassignement but claiming to be trans is a cos player and yes she will be under the knife later this year. Her view is simple if you believe you are the wrong sex then you change it. If you don't change it then it is performative (or cos play)
Yes all the people sitting on waiting lists are just "pretending". What a silly post.
I didn't say they were, what I said was there are many who say I am trans who have no intention of going through gender reassignment surgery. Those are the ones my friend calls performative.
"Well I'm not the World's most masculine man, but I know what I am in bed, I'm a man and so was Lola"
So long as these people are not harming anyone else, I really couldn't care less. If people spent more time getting their own house in order rather than interfering with others the World would be a far happier place.
No one mostly cares, frankly if you tell me you are a woman I will call you by your preferred name and pronouns. I merely draw the line when you say despite having a functional penis I should be allowed into a womens prison, a womens refuge, a women only ward etc. That is a safe guarding issue, one I hasten to add that won't be exploited by the genuinely trans but will be exploited by the predatory.
Hell I am completely hetero however if I knew I was going to be jailed for 10 years I would claim to be a women not to exploit them but because I would have an easier time in a womens prison than a male one
I wouldn't disagree with any of that.
I do not think we actually disagree on very much here when it comes to the trans issue itself, just whether JK Rowling is or isn't offensive/rude in what she says. I can only say that if she said that to me, I would feel very offended.
I think people are blind if some of the stuff that comes out from fans of JK Rowling isn't pretty vile and ghastly, just as what comes out from the nuttiest part of the pro-trans communist is also pretty vile and ghastly.
I think to treat one side as saintly though which is what a few people do, is a recipe for disaster.
Neither side is saintly, especially when bigots latch on to both sides as an excuse to bash others.
However nothing Rowling herself said is ghastly, it was entirely measured.
What's been said to Rowling by some is ghastly. That she doesn't respond in kind, is a credit to her, don't you agree?
On this, she hasn't. But some of the stuff she has said before and commented/liked/re-shared has been.
So I don't fully agree she always responds in kind, no. Of course, the people saying stuff to her are equally vile and unkind.
What has she ever said that's been ghastly? Genuine question, I've never seen anything.
Simply holding an opinion others dislike isn't ghastly.
Personally I think this is pretty ghastly. The stuff said to her is worse but I think this is awful. This is a human being she is talking about.
I agree, it is ghastly. Its cruel and dismissive of another person's lived experience. It seems to me something she has said to be provocative on the day this legislation came into force to try and make a point. That in itself shows a lack of compassion or care about the person she is speaking about. Its frankly rude.
The question is whether it should be criminal. I think she wants to test that.
Unless it’s from the future, she tweeted it last month (US format) so not making a point on the day the legislation came into force. More part of her general cruel and dismissive output in that case.
I thought that she had tweeted this (possibly retweeted?) today. I may be wrong, I am not on Twitter or TwiX or whatever it is called these days.
The posting format formerly known as tweets are date stamped m’lud, 3/4/24 in this case.
I'm more impressed by the Tardis of whoever took that image than anything else then.
US date format: mm/dd/yy. NATO standard is yyyy-mm-dd to reconcile usage. It's also Japanese standard iirc.
Comments
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/apr/01/national-trust-defends-vegan-scone-recipe-after-wokery-criticism
'Bill Cash, an MP who often has tea and scones in the House of Commons, opined to the paper: “It makes me wonder what will happen next – will they stop selling madeira cake because of historical events in Madeira? There’s far too much wokery going on at the National Trust; this is just the latest example.”.
But 'A National Trust spokesperson said that, while some of its published recipes may differ, the plain and fruit scones in its tearooms have been dairy-free for years.
They added: “National Trust cafes serve millions of customers a year and we work hard to accommodate dietary needs and allergies.'.
Another surgeon wanted to operate on my lower back, thinking my pain in my leg after the first operation (on my ankle) was due to nerve damage in my lower back. Despite my not having any lower back pain...
Doctors and hospitals can be brilliant if you have a common malady. A heart attack? They know exactly what to do. Need a new hip? Join that queue.
But if you have something they don't understand, or cannot characterise, then you can be very poorly treated. Doctor Gregory House is a rare thing...
Women do exist.
Trans people are trans people, women are women. If a person who is male chooses to identify as female it might be polite to call them by a female pronoun or female name, if that's what they identify as, so long as it doesn't harm anyone else. But it doesn't make them a real woman.
Cyclefree is a real woman. JK Rowling is. India is not. All 3 should be treated with respect, whatever happens inside their heads is neither here nor there.
Why mention India's name at all? Why is India's life a concern of JK Rowling's?
The world has gone mad .
https://x.com/lewis_baston/status/1774871943864299858?s=46
I was just saying that JK Rowling has said some quite ghastly things, in my view. She has a right to say those things, I just wondered if she sometimes regrets wading in at all - that's clearly her right to do so. Wasn't disputing that.
But we can debate what is and isn't ghastly but I think it odd that if somebody posts about some random person on Twitter many times, it wouldn't be seen as a bit "unhinged", whether it is about trans issues or not. Trump seems pretty unhinged when he starts posting about random celebrities he hates.
This is a serious matter as it jeopardises real women's rights and they have legitimate safeguarding concerns.
India can do whatever they want to do, but once you get the law involved, then it becomes everyone else's business. Then it is Rowling's concern.
JK Rowling said India is cosplaying. I think that is offensive and needlessly provocative, legitimises people to jump onto India (as you can see in the comments - actual abuse).
So you can say you support "respect" but you don't actually believe it in practice. Which is fine.
She could have disagreed as strongly as she wants with India without making these silly Tweets. That was my whole point, JK Rowling actively alienates people with some of the stuff she says. Once again: that does not in any way legitimate the VILE abuse she gets from people.
The R&W poll tonight rounds to 102% so make of that what you will. A good poll for Labour rebuilding a 22 point advantage and a 17.5% swing from the Conservatives. 61-36 on the usual measure but again beware of rounding but no material change.
The 2019 Conservative vote splits 42% Conservative, 21% Reform, 20% Labour and 13% Don't Know. Overall, including the DKs, it's 39% Labour, 18% Conservative, 15% Don't Know, 12% Reform and 8% LD. Just over a third of the total DKs are 2019 Conservative voters with the next largest group, at about 25%, those who didn't vote last time.
Two thirds of the Reform vote is 2019 Conservatives,
https://twitter.com/IndiaWilloughby/status/1617183552101048321
I’m more of a woman than JK Rowling will ever be
According to Mr Cash it seems that catering to allergies is wokeism. I met the legendary man once in his commons office (he had one of the nice ones) and he was both perfectly charming and a complete windbag. His opening monologue in our “conversation” lasted 40 minutes.
People have a right to cosplay if they want to, but it doesn't change their sex which is real.
Doesn't make JK Rowling not vile in what she said.
Sometimes the right to speak, is also the right not to.
But I have got a good insight into your actual views today, so thanks for airing them in good spirit.
The question is whether it should be criminal. I think she wants to test that.
But people can't always change it, i.e. if they are stuck on a waiting list.
But people can't always change it, i.e. if they are stuck on a waiting list.
I said no intention of changing it....being on a waiting list is an intention to change it. She reckons 90% of those she meets in the clubs she goes too have no intention of changing by reassignment
(Which frankly we could do with on here, since we seem to be back on transgender culture wars.)
https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/JPN/japan/gdp-per-capita
Which somewhat refutes the idea that immigration suppresses per capita GDP by bumping up the denominator.
What I am not quite clear about, is isn't inciting violence already a crime under the law? I am not saying this does that.
Would you like some dim-dims?
If you were born male but think you were born in the wrong body and are really female why would you want to keep a dick is her point of view. If you really think you are female you will get rid of it as soon as possible, want to keep it then yes she would say then you are just cos playing being a girl
The symbiosis of culture war.
I am not in favour of recognising something that is factually incorrect if it violates others safeguarding.
Let people do as they please within the law, but where safeguarding is concerned then objective truth matters - and the objective truth is that India is not a woman however they identify, where it matters for safeguarding purposes.
Where safeguarding isn't at play, then India can do whatever they want to do, its none of anyone else's business.
He clearly feels he is a man and was born a man but in the wrong body. I don't feel threatened by "Jeff" (can't remember his name) from First Dates being a man now. But I accept perhaps that is a privileged thought.
In which case why don't we prioritise gender surgery and hormonal treatments on the NHS, rather than make it as difficult as possible, such as closing the Tavistock before other services are running?
If you want to be called HosiasHessop and I keep calling you the other name, I'd think it a bit rude and frankly would show that you don't have much attention to detail. Maybe I think it's a very silly name, or why on Earth would you do that but it doesn't impact my life at all.
Frankly the amount of attention trans people get is BIZARRE to me. Your odds of meeting one even in London are virtually nil.
So long as these people are not harming anyone else, I really couldn't care less. If people spent more time getting their own house in order rather than interfering with others the World would be a far happier place.
If you can't say something nice, say nothing.
FTM is no problem, since men don't need protecting from women.
Men wanting single-sex areas is typically from misogyny, not safeguarding.
Women who want single-sex areas often do for safeguarding reasons, because of innate sexual differences that make a real difference.
The tavistock was closed from what I understood because of its advocacy for treating minors rather than work it did with adults
Please let it stop.
Actually if JK Rowling wrote like you, she'd not have people like me calling her out. But she doesn't. Why not?
We are acquainted with the concept of a "shibboleth": a cant phrase used by members of a group to denote membership. In gender critical thought people do not "transition". Instead they "are transed": the passive sense indicating that this is something done to them, not by them. As a belief system gender critical thought is coherent and perhaps deserves more objective analysis than it gets. Given that those doing the analysis are combatants in the war of ideas, I'm not expecting it soon... ☹️
[1] that title was in links to it: the page itself had a different title which I forget.
[2] she used the word "we" here, so I assume that's the "we" she refers to
That includes trans people.
Most of us don't have to deal with others debating our existence.
And how would [edit]* one know, in many instances, just by looking?
Indeed one of my colleagues went trans a few years ago, and that wasn't in London. So that stat feels about right.
*changed, not to sound unintentionally aggressive.
What Rowling said is factually correct, what India said is factually wrong.
Hell I am completely hetero however if I knew I was going to be jailed for 10 years I would claim to be a women not to exploit them but because I would have an easier time in a womens prison than a male one
Unlike the majority of his party colleagues, voluntarily.
I was out in Ventnor last week and our waitress was Trans. Nobody seemed to notice, all very British.
There’s plenty for us in Europe to be wary of from the Japanese experience. In a few years’ time our populations will be as old, and our couple of years of inflation might come to be seen as a golden era before deflation properly took hold.
But if they're ever in a position where they need safeguarding, then I hope their safeguarding is not violated.
https://www.standard.co.uk/culture/tvfilm/celebrity-big-brother-s-india-willoughby-says-gender-reassignment-surgery-was-like-having-a-tooth-out-a3732206.html
She was the one that said "be kind". She should hold herself to that standard.
Now try me on national naming conventions... 😃