Helen Saxby on Rowling and truth:

Speaking the truth about sex is becoming more and more difficult because of accusations of transphobia, and yet much of the reaction to Rowling’s tweet was just angry that she had highlighted this fact. We’re not allowed to say sex is real, but we’re doubly not allowed to say that we’re not allowed to say it. Many people suggested that Rowling was deliberately misrepresenting the truth. ‘Nobody is saying sex isn’t real!’ was a common refrain, presumably because being caught out saying sex isn’t real would make you look stupid. Trans allies want to deny sex exists but to do it in a sort of secret way without the fact being brought out into the cold light of day for examination.

They want to do it but they don’t want us pointing out that they’re doing it. That seems fair!

By the same token, they want to call us bitches and cunts and stinking holes, but they don’t want us to say they’re doing that and that it’s misogyny. Don’t name the problem, be the problem, yeh?

If we weren’t one of two sexes we would not be able to reproduce sexually, and that’s what the human species does.

…

It’s just biology. Biology is difference, it is exclusive, it has boundaries, it’s the truth. But are we allowed to name it?

…

But if, when the situation demands it, you do have to tell the truth about someone’s sex, then the correct trans ally response is to deny the sex. Sex suddenly is not real anymore. Situations which demand the truth are those such as equality law, sex-segregated sports, hostels, refuges and changing rooms, because in these areas sex really matters. Sex forms the basis of women’s rights. But suddenly this man in front of you, with a female gender identity, who you were happy to treat politely, is now literally a woman, no debate. If you don’t treat his gender identity as if it were his sex you are a transphobic bigot. Sex denialism serves to replace sex with gender when it’s expedient to do so, so that gender, in a sleight of hand, becomes sex, to all intents and purposes. If you notice the sex (and lots of women do notice) you are hateful. If you don’t notice, it will be used as proof there is no harm in letting males into female spaces, despite the fact that a woman’s boundaries have still been breached without her consent. The ethics of this are not to be discussed.

And if you try to discuss it, stand back while the flood of “cunt!” and “stinking hole!” comes pouring over you.

Reciting the mandatory “trans women are women,” Helen points out, is saying that sex isn’t real.

Transwomen by definition have to be male. Women by definition have to be female. The only way the mantra could be true is if you believe women come in both male and female varieties. If you do believe this, then you also have to believe that ‘single-sex spaces’ must accommodate two sexes, and at the same time that they must retain the name ‘single-sex’. This tortuous redefinition of commonly-understood words is crucial because otherwise you would have to admit that trans demands are impinging on women-only services, and the official line is that there is no conflict of interest.

How does “cis” fit into this redefinition project?

Transwomen are not, of course, adult human females. If they were they wouldn’t be trans. It’s just a way of hiding the fact that you’re saying women come in male and female varieties, a necessary camouflage when you don’t want anyone to notice you’re talking rubbish. The promoted way of avoiding this fate is to divide women up into ‘cis’ and ‘trans’, cis being the female women and trans being the male women. If you accept the categorisation ‘cis’ you accept that women come in both male and female varieties, and you are saying biology isn’t real. You also contribute to the negative consequences for women when ‘cis’ becomes weaponised as a sign of privilege over ‘trans’. JK Rowling is not just a wealthy white woman for the purpose of discrediting her opinion, but a wealthy white cisgendered woman, thus neatly putting women into the position of oppressors of men.

I think the way it works is that if a woman is white and cis she is also necessarily a Karen and that’s three strikes and she goes to the very top of the intersectional pole, oppressing everyone.

JK Rowling expressed concerns about the effects on women if we are coerced into believing that sex isn’t real. Many of the vile and offensive replies to her tweets illustrated the fact that sex differences are very real when it comes to insulting women. In the treatment of JK Rowling there was a very clear pattern of sexualised abuse from men that many women will recognise from experience.

Yep. I was surprised at how very familiar it was. How stupid of me – of course it’s familiar. There are only so many ways of expressing disgust and loathing of women, why would I think any of it would be original?

JK Rowling has been very brave. No matter what her personal wealth or privilege, she speaks for a huge number of women who don’t have a voice or stand to lose too much by using it. The lack of empathy for women who have suffered sexual or domestic violence seems to be growing as the most vocal advocates for trans demands stoop to painting even rape victims as bigots. How cold-hearted do you have to be to hear the intimate disclosure of sexual abuse from a former friend, colleague or mentor, and use it to publicly distance yourself from her and reinforce your credentials with your fan base?

Then she shares Emma Watson’s horrible treacherous tweet.

This should be a thing.

A group of women MPs and charities are urging the government to treat misogyny as a hate crime within the government’s new domestic abuse laws.

Their amendment to the Domestic Abuse Bill would require all police forces to record and track crimes motivated by misogyny.

Those two sentences say two different things. Tracking misogynist motivation for crimes is not the same as making misogyny itself a crime. That’s quite an important distinction, don’t you think? Sloppy wording not helpful.

A statement from Citizens UK and the coalition of campaigners – including Refuge and Women’s Aid – says this approach will “not create any new crimes but would provide critical data on the link between hostility to women and the abuse and harassment women experience”.

They managed to make the distinction clear, I don’t see why the BBC couldn’t do the same.

Labour MP Ms Creasy said it was “time for change”, adding: “Misogyny is so much part of everyday life that we overlook the harm it does – at the expense of tackling the root causes of violence against women.”

Ain’t that the truth.

Lib Dem MP Ms Jardine said: “Misogyny in far too many instances remains unnoticed and unrecorded. “We must do everything in our power to tackle violence against women, and the requirement to record misogynistic crime and how it interacts with domestic abuse is a key step to tackling gender inequality.”

Yes, yes it is.

We will never surrender!

CNN has more information:

Hundreds of protesters marched into Seattle’s City Hall late Tuesday, calling for Durkan to step down after police continued to use chemical irritants to disperse crowds — despite the mayor’s 30-day ban on tear gas that she announced Friday.

Led by city council member Kshama Sawant, the protesters peacefully marched from Capitol Hill to City Hall, where Sawant allowed the protesters inside the building, CNN’s affiliate KOMO reported. Protesters left the building around 10:30 p.m. local time, and Seattle police did not report any arrests.

Durkan’s office responded late Tuesday in a statement to KOMO, saying the mayor “will not be distracted from the critical work that needs to be done at a moment that Seattle is facing its most challenging time in its history.

Well, its recent history. I think it’s had some pretty challenging times in less recent history, what with world wars and fires and earthquakes and general strikes.

“As the person who originally investigated the Seattle Police Department for the unconstitutional use of force, Mayor Durkan believes that SPD can lead the nation on continued reforms and accountability, but knows this week has eroded trust at a time when trust is most crucial,” the statement read.

Protesters have also camped out and occupied the area outside Seattle police’s East Precinct building in the Capitol Hill neighborhood, which protesters are now calling the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone.

Contrary to online rumors, Seattle officials say they have no indication that the occupied area is being coordinated by left-wing activist groups under the umbrella of Antifa.

Capitol Hill is the hipster neighborhood in Seattle. Having an occupied area around the closed police precinct there does not equal a takeover of the whole city, to put it mildly. Trump’s frothing is completely absurd.

Updating to add: CNN reports that Assistant Police Chief Deanna Nollette says police had received reports that protesters allegedly set up barricades, “with some armed individuals running them as checkpoints into the neighborhood.” That’s four levels of meta – reports, says, received reports, allegedly, so make of that what you will. The right-wing gun-brandishers do it where there are cameras, proudly, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t barricades and armed individuals in Capitol Hill.

Now Trump is threatening to invade Seattle.

I look forward to the arrival of thousands of heavily armed troops from the Bureau of Prisons and ICE and the army and the marines to take over Seattle and put us all under martial law.

I’m looking out the window. I’m not seeing the takeover.

Another actor who has fame and fortune entirely because of Joanne Rowling but chooses to turn her back on her in public anyway.

And, again, the claim is a crock of shit. The formula “trans people are who they say they are” is true (but obvious) if she means trans people are trans people if they say they are, but it’s not true if she means (as of course she does) that trans people are the sex they are not if they say they are. I’m not a llama if I say I am, you’re not an armchair if you say you are, they’re not the delegation from Planet Remulac if they say they are. Saying isn’t a guarantee of truth. Saying is just saying. Other things being equal, sure, we trust what people tell us unless we have a reason not to, but that does not translate to a rule that people are what they say they are, no questions asked, period, you’re an evil demon if you disagree.

Trump is all worked up about the sacrilegious idea that we can rename military bases that were named after Confederate military “heroes.”

The Great American Heritage of slavery and official, deliberate, detailed racial persecution and oppression – I think we can rename things as a way to reject that heritage. I think it’s more than slightly disgusting that Donald Trump wants us to cling to that heritage.

Aaron Blake at the Post:

In tweets early Wednesday afternoon, Trump argued against changing the names of bases like Fort Bragg, Fort Hood and Fort Benning — all of which are named after Confederate generals. In doing so, though, he referenced the United States’s history of winning.

“These Monumental and very Powerful Bases have become part of a Great American Heritage, and a history of Winning, Victory, and Freedom,” Trump said, adding, “Therefore, my Administration will not even consider the renaming of these Magnificent and Fabled Military Installations.”

Yehbut Bragg, Hood and Benning were all Confederate generals, and they…lost. So not so much part of a history of Winning then!

Cities and states across the country in recent years have removed Confederate statues, for instance, as well as taken Confederate names off of schools, streets, parks and holidays. NASCAR on Wednesday afternoon announced it would ban Confederate flags at its events.

NASCAR did??? Stone the crows.

If NASCAR can, surely Trump can.

She’s angry, and rightly so.

Another Do it to Julia.

Fantastic Beasts star Eddie Redmayne has joined Harry Potter lead actor Daniel Radcliffe in criticising JK Rowling’s recent comments about trans people.

In a statement to Variety magazine, Redmayne said: “Respect for transgender people remains a cultural imperative, and over the years I have been trying to constantly educate myself.”

Why is it a cultural imperative? And what does he mean by “respect” anyway? And why is he implying that JK Rowling is disrespecting trans people?

Redmayne, who in 2015 starred in The Danish Girl, a biopic of Lili Elbe, one of the first known recipients of sex reassignment surgery, added: “As someone who has worked with both JK Rowling and members of the trans community, I wanted to make it absolutely clear where I stand. I disagree with Jo’s comments. Trans women are women, trans men are men and nonbinary identities are valid.”

Well thank fuck he’s spent years educating himself so that he can come up with that deeply thoughtful and incisive formula which we’ve only heard a billion times before. Also, the first two are false and the third is meaningless.

Anyway, thanks for ticking the box, movie guy.

White privilege something something JK Rowling something tethered to something.

Yet, as the inequity of capitalism and its inextricable link to white privilege are brought into focus, JK Rowling instead devoted her enormous Twitter platform to discussing the use of gender-neutral terms last Saturday night.

She what? She chose her own subject to talk about at a particular moment? How shocking! Of course so did most people on Twitter, but, you know – any stick to beat a woman with.

The timing of her social media tirade is telling. In the context of a collective reckoning with how our economic, political and social systems have dehumanised black lives for centuries, it seemed the fantasy-writer turned billionaire had decided an equally pressing issue was making grand claims about the estimated 1 per cent of the population who identify as trans.

It wasn’t a tirade. It was a woman saying some things. It’s funny how men always think women are doing most of the talking when in reality they’re doing about 20%. (There are studies on it.) By the same token, if a woman talks at all, it must be a tirade. Women not supposed to talk, ok?

Transphobia is tethered to the malign structures of white supremacy. 

No it isn’t. That’s just jargon, and it’s not true. Furthermore, what Rowling is saying is not “transphobia.”

So, as we harness this political moment to dismantle centuries of inherited racism, we also have a duty to understand its relationship with the kind of discourse that is, quite frankly, making life hell for trans people.

Do we? Wouldn’t that be changing the subject? Do genuine anti-racism activists actually want to change the subject that way?

Also, if we must change the subject, what about the subjection of women? What about that discourse? Why are trans people the cool kids who are welcome to usurp anti-racism while women are just transphobes who have to be shut up?

The whole piece is dreck and the Independent should be embarrassed for publishing it.

Sigh.

Rowling writes about her reasons, starting by explaining why she is interested in trans issues.

I mention all this only to explain that I knew perfectly well what was going to happen when I supported Maya. I must have been on my fourth or fifth cancellation by then. I expected the threats of violence, to be told I was literally killing trans people with my hate, to be called cunt and bitch and, of course, for my books to be burned, although one particularly abusive man told me he’d composted them.

What I didn’t expect in the aftermath of my cancellation was the avalanche of emails and letters that came showering down upon me, the overwhelming majority of which were positive, grateful and supportive. They came from a cross-section of kind, empathetic and intelligent people, some of them working in fields dealing with gender dysphoria and trans people, who’re all deeply concerned about the way a socio-political concept is influencing politics, medical practice and safeguarding. They’re worried about the dangers to young people, gay people and about the erosion of women’s and girl’s rights. Above all, they’re worried about a climate of fear that serves nobody – least of all trans youth – well.

She didn’t expect the avalanche, because we don’t see much of this kind of thing, and we don’t see much of it because…of that very climate of fear. People are afraid to say it in public because they don’t want the inevitable monstering. We’re caught in this horrible loop. If we point out the horrible loop we are instantly told all about our crusty dusty stinking holes.

[A]ccusations of TERFery have been sufficient to intimidate many people, institutions and organisations I once admired, who’re cowering before the tactics of the playground. ‘They’ll call us transphobic!’ ‘They’ll say I hate trans people!’ What next, they’ll say you’ve got fleas? Speaking as a biological woman, a lot of people in positions of power really need to grow a pair (which is doubtless literally possible, according to the kind of people who argue that clownfish prove humans aren’t a dimorphic species).

…

We’re living through the most misogynistic period I’ve experienced. Back in the 80s, I imagined that my future daughters, should I have any, would have it far better than I ever did, but between the backlash against feminism and a porn-saturated online culture, I believe things have got significantly worse for girls. Never have I seen women denigrated and dehumanised to the extent they are now. From the leader of the free world’s long history of sexual assault accusations and his proud boast of ‘grabbing them by the pussy’, to the incel (‘involuntarily celibate’) movement that rages against women who won’t give them sex, to the trans activists who declare that TERFs need punching and re-educating, men across the political spectrum seem to agree: women are asking for trouble. Everywhere, women are being told to shut up and sit down, or else.

Everywhere, women are being told to shut up and sit down, or else they will be told they are Karens, bitches, cunts, whores, stinking dusty dried-up holes.

I’ve read all the arguments about femaleness not residing in the sexed body, and the assertions that biological women don’t have common experiences, and I find them, too, deeply misogynistic and regressive. It’s also clear that one of the objectives of denying the importance of sex is to erode what some seem to see as the cruelly segregationist idea of women having their own biological realities or – just as threatening – unifying realities that make them a cohesive political class. The hundreds of emails I’ve received in the last few days prove this erosion concerns many others just as much.  It isn’t enough for women to be trans allies. Women must accept and admit that there is no material difference between trans women and themselves.

And I’m just not going to do that. I can’t, and I also don’t want to. I can’t because it isn’t true and I see no way I can convince myself it is true…especially since I don’t want to in the first place.

But, as many women have said before me, ‘woman’ is not a costume. ‘Woman’ is not an idea in a man’s head. ‘Woman’ is not a pink brain, a liking for Jimmy Choos or any of the other sexist ideas now somehow touted as progressive. Moreover, the ‘inclusive’ language that calls female people ‘menstruators’ and ‘people with vulvas’ strikes many women as dehumanising and demeaning. I understand why trans activists consider this language to be appropriate and kind, but for those of us who’ve had degrading slurs spat at us by violent men, it’s not neutral, it’s hostile and alienating.

And the activists’ way of persuading us otherwise? To spit degrading slurs at us! To rant and rave that we stink, we’re crusty, we’re dusty, we need to shut our crusty dusty lips.

It’s funny, in a way (not really haha funny) that they do this, because it betrays the fact that men (all too many of them at least) have a visceral disgust and loathing for women despite wanting to fuck them. Ooh that creepy hole, the one we all get pushed out of, the one straight men like to put their dicks in, but at the same time the one that…who knows…maybe it has toads in it, or rats, or maggots, or razor blades, or rotting smelly fish. Maybe we could genetically engineer it to get away from the horror? Make it smell of lavender or orange peel or cedar shavings?

Just one from Rebecca’s compilation yesterday:

What I wonder now is how people who see themselves as progressive, woke, pro social justice, on the left, reconcile that with the whole “cunt bitch whore skank does ur pussy stink” theme.

I mean I really wonder, not just I say it rhetorically and move on. I really wonder and I would love to know. A lot of former friends of mine who were targets of abuse of exactly that kind, and did not for a second see it as progressive or woke in any way – how do they line these things up in their heads?

Good, Rebecca’s post collecting a sample of the abuse leveled against Rowling is getting attention.

The Washington Post:

Chinese authorities have been trying for three years to reverse the devastating imbalances of their one-child policy and coax couples to have more children.

Trying and failing. The birthrate remains low and – plot twist! – there are far more men than women.

Eh, what? Why’s that? A low birthrate doesn’t equal more men being…oh wait yes it does. If you can only have one it HAS to be a male, amirite? Nobody nobody NOBODY wants an only child who is a [retch gag puke] female. (Why not? Well, come on, I ask you – they’re so disgusting – they do all that gross pregnancy stuff and then milk-producing stuff. Ew. Men are clean and tidy.)

But now, an economics professor at Fudan University in Shanghai has come up with another — and, unsurprisingly, controversial — solution: allow women to have multiple husbands, and they will have multiple babies.

Oh they will, will they. Is he sure about that? Women who wanted no more than one child will automatically want one per husband if they decide to have several? Dream on, bro.

In China today, home to 1.4 billion people, there are 100 million only-children under the age of 40. But the traditional preference for sons — and the associated practice of aborting girls — means that there are about 34 million more men than women.

Oops.

So they prevent about 34 million women from existing, and then they want existing women to make up the slack by pushing out more babies for them. That’s a big NOPE, comrade.

His suggestion to solve the oversupply of men is to allow involuntary bachelors — known as “bare branches” in Chinese because they cannot bear fruit for their family tree — to share the relatively scarce supply of women.

Yes but women aren’t a “supply” and women are not things for real people to “share” among themselves. Thanks anyway.

Plus, it would just be more efficient, he continued, suggesting that women would have no trouble meeting the physical needs of multiple husbands.

Sure. They can just lie there. What difference does it make if it’s one or ten?

“It’s common for prostitutes to serve more than 10 clients in a day,” Ng wrote, before taking off on another offensive tangent. “Making meals for three husbands won’t take much more time than for two husbands,” he added.

How about twenty? Fifty? Let’s get really efficient.

Ng is steeling for a fight. He wrote that his next column aimed at redressing gender imbalances would be about legalizing brothels.

Because China’s gender mismatch has caused a fierce competition among men looking for wives, he said, “a man’s right to achieving sexual satisfaction is being severely violated if legal sex work is not allowed.”

Heyyyyyyyy, that’s what Amnesty International says! Also Elliot Rodger, also incels on Twitter shouting at women for existing.

RR-C did some collecting – just a small sample, she says. It’s all screenshots, no text. It’s thematic – the themes are

1. shut the fuck up
2. cunt
3. hag
4. suck my dick
5. slag / whore / tart
6. disgust – stink, dried up, stench
7. smack, punch, piss in her cold dead eyes

Do they do this to, say, Graham Linehan? Not that I’ve seen.

There was also this:

Dude tells Cornel she’s wrong, in fact he says she’s lying.

Like this one:

“Other genders” that have labia. Hi, please be quiet while I interrupt you on the subject of female genital mutilation in order to talk about “other genders” i.e. people who have female genitals but are too important and special to be just boring old females. That’s the important thing – not female people with mutilated genitals but preening “activists” who want to talk over them.

“not all labias, clitorises and vaginas belong to women” – so hand them over, you greedy selfish bitches, share them with everyone else!

But but but that never happens, beardy guy said so.

Trump’s evil tweet about Martin Gugino is being widely disputed.

Byron Brown is the mayor of Buffalo.

I wish Trump would just cease to exist. Right now. Just go out like a candle. At least that particular stream of venom would stop.

Chris Cillizza at CNN comments:

In a country on high alert for incidents of unnecessary use of force by police against those protesting in the wake of the death of George Floyd, the video sparked outrage. New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo called the episode “wholly unjustified and utterly disgraceful.” The two officers involved in the incident were suspended.

But on Tuesday morning, the President of the United States suggested — without offering a shred of evidence — that the entire episode was the result of a broad scam involving Antifa, a protest organization “whose political beliefs lean toward the left — often the far left — but do not conform with the Democratic Party platform.”

Trump appears to have developed this, uh, theory from watching a clip on the One America News Network, the Fox News of Fox News.

They came up with that “Oooh he was scanning the police” nonsense, for which there is no evidence of any kind.

What we also know is that Gugino is a longtime activist and peaceful protester. There is no evidence that he is part of Antifa.

Given all of these facts, the level of irresponsibility here on display by Trump is off the charts — even for him. While Gugino remains hospitalized, Trump is suggesting that this is all some sort of orchestrated fake. That the man “fell harder than was pushed.” That he was “aiming a scanner.” That it “could be a setup.”

We have always been at war with reality.

Daniel Radcliffe’s Do it to Julia don’t do it to me:

I realize that certain press outlets will probably want to paint this as in-fighting between J.K. Rowling and myself, but that is really not what this is about, nor is it what’s important right now. While Jo is unquestionably responsible for the course my life has taken, as someone who has been honored to work with and continues to contribute to The Trevor Project for the last decade, and just as a human being, I feel compelled to say something at this moment.

Translation: Yes, I know, nobody would give a rat’s ass what I think about anything if it weren’t for Jo Rowling but I’m going to throw her under the bus anyway because frankly women just don’t matter, ok?

Transgender women are women. Any statement to the contrary erases the identity and dignity of transgender people and goes against all advice given by professional health care associations who have far more expertise on this subject matter than either Jo or I.

What’s that supposed to mean? All professional health care associations give advice that any statement that men are not women is bad bad bad and forbidden? That seems highly unlikely. What does saying men are not women even have to do with health care?

Even if we re-word his claim more narrowly it still seems implausible. Do all health care associations advise that trans women must be told they are indeed women? And that they must be told that by the entire world, in public as well as private? That’s not credible, is it.

According to The Trevor Project, 78% of transgender and nonbinary youth reported being the subject of discrimination due to their gender identity. It’s clear that we need to do more to support transgender and nonbinary people, not invalidate their identities, and not cause further harm.

Now we’re just off in clouds of fluffy wool. What is “gender identity”? What is it to “invalidate” anyone’s “gender identity”? How does it cause harm? And, above all, why is it women’s responsibility to “validate” the “gender identity” of men who like wearing dresses?

I get that it’s difficult for men to wear dresses. I get that if, say, Mike Pence has a secret passion for wearing dresses, he would find it pretty much impossible to do so on the job. Mike Pence would not feel psychologically comfortable wearing a dress while standing next to Trump at one of those “press conferences” we keep seeing. What I don’t get is why such a passion would mean Mike Pence is a woman, and why it’s women’s job to make the dress issue go away.

I am still learning how to be a better ally, so if you want to join me in learning more about transgender and nonbinary identities check out The Trevor Project’s Guide to Being an Ally to Transgender and Nonbinary Youth.

Is there a guide to being a better ally to women anywhere? Anyone? Bueller?

To all the people who now feel that their experience of the books has been tarnished or diminished, I am deeply sorry for the pain these comments have caused you.

Oh fuck off. I’m not a fan of Potter but it’s not Daniel Radcliffe’s job to apologize for what Rowling says.

If these books taught you that love is the strongest force in the universe, capable of overcoming anything; if they taught you that strength is found in diversity, and that dogmatic ideas of pureness lead to the oppression of vulnerable groups; if you believe that a particular character is trans, nonbinary, or gender fluid, or that they are gay or bisexual; if you found anything in these stories that resonated with you and helped you at any time in your life — then that is between you and the book that you read, and it is sacred. And in my opinion nobody can touch that. It means to you what it means to you and I hope that these comments will not taint that too much.

So I guess Daniel Radcliffe is the author now, and that pesky Karen who wrote them is just an old newspaper we can put under the litter box?

Howtobeabetterally.

More tendentious naming and framing.

Radcliffe “voices his support for the transgender community” – and voices his hostility to the feminist community, but of course the headline doesn’t say that, because We Have Chosen Our Side, and it ain’t women.

“Transgender women are women,” Radcliffe said. “Any statement to the contrary erases the identity and dignity of transgender people.”

No it doesn’t. It’s kind of the opposite, really. Humoring people this way doesn’t really promote their dignity. It’s not promoting the dignity of people to pretend they are furries or Star Wars characters or Cleopatra, so why is it promoting their dignity to pretend they are women when in fact they are men? If adults want dignity, they have to lay aside the fantasies and pretend-games of childhood in public. If they want to be humored and indulged in their fantasies, they can’t very well claim dignity at the same time.

But even if it were true, even if Radcliffe were right that trans people’s dignity rests on everyone else’s endorsement of their fantasies, there’s still the issue of everyone else. What about the dignity of women? Why doesn’t Radcliffe pause to think about that at all? Why is it so easy for him to throw women overboard for the sake of “the transgender community”?

There’s also the fact that many tweeps are pointing out: his fame and fortune are entirely the product of JK Rowling, so…this public “do it to her not me” move is disgusting.

A comedian named Sarah Keyworth writes a letter to JK Rowling and asks everyone to share it.

From that letter:

There is no attack on what it means to be a woman, or a lesbian. There is simply a movement to expand what those words mean.

But that is an “attack” on what those words mean, isn’t it. It is a campaign to change the meaning of a word that picks out…well, what does it pick out. Let’s see.

1. Half or rather more than half of all humans
2. The sex that gives birth to all humans
3. The sex that has historically been dominated by the other half
4. The “weaker” sex – the sex that in a dimorphic species is overall the smaller, less muscular, less aggressive one
5. The sex that thanks to 2-4 has always been conceptualized as inferior to the other one
6. The sex that feminism exists to establish as not inferior to the other one

Those are the people the word “women” picks out.

If you “expand” that word to include people who are not described by 2-6 then you are making 6 impossible.

At the end our wise comedian writes

I hope you read this. If you do I hope you take some time, maybe a day before respond [sic] with some scathing quip about sex, butch lesbians or periods. Maybe read it out loud, maybe send it to your editor and ask your husband what he thinks.

Now let’s talk about the word “patronizing.”