They ran out of time.
You see it’s like this. When a guy like India Willoughby publicly fantasizes about kidnapping Joanna Cherry, Maya Forstater, and JK Rowling, it’s social justice. When we talk about guys like India Willoughby fantasizing about kidnapping women who make him angry, it’s transphobia, and deserving of harsh punishment, like kidnapping for example. Head Willoughby wins, tails women lose.
Originally a comment by Artymorty on And finally move on.
The corollary of the argument that only trans people should be allowed to play trans characters is that trans isn’t a neutral attribute that can be ignored.
Speaking to GQ magazine, Schafer said being known simply as a “trans actress” was “ultimately demeaning to me and what I want to do”. She continued: “I’ve been offered tons of trans roles, and I just don’t want to do it. I don’t want to talk about it.”
In a sense I get what he means, or what he thinks he means: something like how, say, Black actors were tired of playing “Black” characters, instead of just regular characters who happened to be Black. When Nichelle Nichols played Uhura on Star Trek, for example: here was a capable officer whose Blackness wasn’t front-and-centre in her character, and this earned praise from MLK and made Nichols a role model to many future Black actors.
Or perhaps it’s like how actors who were born with achondroplastic dwarfism might get tired of playing “dwarf characters” instead of just regular characters who happen to be dwarves. Peter Dinklage has broken that barrier somewhat, beginning to take on roles that aren’t explicitly written for dwarves, following his star turn in Game of Thrones.
But here we run into a bit of a problem: because dwarfism is kind of a major life changer, so it’s not easy to have characters who just happen to be dwarves leading films meant to have wide appeal, where their dwarfism never comes up in the story, or if it does, it’s mostly peripheral to the story.
I would argue trans is more analagous to the second than the first: a major life-changer that can’t easily be ignored in a story. This is in part because the transgender movement can’t decide whether transness is the most special thing in the world and must be advertised at all times, or if the movement’s goal is for trans-identifying people to integrate and settle into the population at large. Within the “transgender umbrella” there are members of both camps, the ones who are at least trying to move past their dysphoria via medical “transition” (however misguided they might be about the efficacy of that line of treatment), and the ones who live for their oh-so-special trans status and won’t shut up about it.
I think that tension, the inability to agree on whether trans should be highly visible or not so visible, is a result of the fact that the theory behind transgender doesn’t really work — that humans don’t really change sex, and trans people can never fully transcend their sex. Sex plays a huge part in their lives, in a fundamental, material way that isn’t analagous to having a minority racial or ethnic background that’s only an issue because people haven’t familiarized themselves enough with it.
But even the dwarf analogy isn’t perfect, and I would argue it doesn’t go far enough, because there’s another factor that makes “transness” different from ethicinity or disability or congenital abnormality: audiences cannot really see beyond sex, and most people are tired of being told they have to pretend that they can, and they’re only getting more tired of it. Choosing not to discriminate against women or men (or any other attribute) in, say, roles where their sex (or other attribute) isn’t typically represented, isn’t the same thing as pretending not to see what sex they are.
It’s not the same thing to appreciate Sigourney Weaver playing a strong, confident woman holding her own alongside a group of Marines in Aliens as it would be if we were instructed to pretend she was really a man all along. Her femaleness is integral to the character.
Likewise, when Jaye Davidson played the transgender character in The Crying Game, it wouldn’t have been the same if we were insructed to pretend he was a woman all along. His maleness is integral to the character.
When Hunter Schafer says he feels transgender roles are “demeaning to me”, he means he wants roles that don’t merely downplay his transgenderism, he means he wants roles that pretend he isn’t male with a transgender identity and a history of cosmetic surgeries, at all.
I feel bad for him, though. I looked at his Wikipedia entry, and he is among the cohort of gay boys who got infected with gender dysphoria after he immersed himself in teen trans social media culture.
If Hunter truly wants his trans status not to matter in the roles he plays, he has to acknowledge that he’s not an “actress” at all, and it’s not going to be easy to find lead roles for males who’ve undergone medical transition therapies, in which that isn’t a major part of their character.
Sounds like it’s going to be a while before he learns this.
Wait what century is this?
Woman removed from flight for not wearing a bra
Lisa Archbold was due to fly from Salt Lake City to San Francisco when airline staff, she said, took issue with her clothing — a loose white T-shirt.
The incident was in January and received some media attention, but Archbold now has legal representation. Her attorney is Gloria Allred, who has been involved in several high-profile women’s rights cases — including representing women who accused Donald Trump and R. Kelly of sexual misconduct.
In a recent letter to the airline’s president, Allred said Archbold wasn’t questioned when she boarded the plane but was later escorted off the flight by a Delta gate agent.
For wearing a T shirt while in possession of breasts?
Maybe Delta should keep a supply of binders on hand.
Euphoria actress Hunter Schafer has said she no longer wants to play transgender roles. The 25-year-old transgender star shot to fame playing a trans character, Jules Vaughn, in HBO’s hit teen drama.
But Schafer said she felt she could go further as an actress by “not making it the centrepiece to what I’m doing”. She said: “I worked so hard to get to where I am, past these really hard points in my transition, and now I just want to be a girl and finally move on.”
That’s not going to happen. The entertainment industry is about making money, it’s not about showing off one’s trans-allyship. The people who make movies and tv dramas aren’t going to choose a man instead of the thousands of eager women available to them.
Speaking to GQ magazine, Schafer said being known simply as a “trans actress” was “ultimately demeaning to me and what I want to do”. She continued: “I’ve been offered tons of trans roles, and I just don’t want to do it. I don’t want to talk about it.”
Then don’t. Find a different line of work.
Willoughby longs for a trans woman to be murdered so that he can claim they are Uniquely Vulnerable.
Labour MP Jess Phillips took more than five minutes to read a list of women killed over the past 12 months where the perpetrator or suspect was a man.
Before entering the Commons chamber on Thursday, she had to add another name to the list in pen – that of Helen Harrison, who was found dead in Yorkshire on Sunday.
Bereaved families, including the newly formed group Killed Women, reacted angrily to the fact that just three male MPs were present for the reading of the names a day after International Women’s Day.
Well, you know how it is: they’re just women. The boring kind, not the glamorous exciting trans kind that we can all be so thrillingly ProGressive about.
Uppity women are Karens, or if they’re not Karens then they’re whiny hysterical babies.
Describing a pregnant woman as “very emotional and tearful” in the workplace amounted to discrimination, a tribunal has ruled. The ruling relates to an email sent by the boss of an account manager after she raised concerns about her workload.
…
Roger Tynan, an employment judge, said Hinds’s boss, Nav Kalley, had stereotyped her as “an emotional, hormonal pregnant woman and that in the particular circumstances his description of her as emotional and tearful was dismissive and belittling”.
That’s one version of The Art of Making Women Shut Up and Go Away. Another is this flower:
The full tweet reads:
Beautifully nuanced & punches pulled to devastating effect . I suspect the vulva atrophied some years ago, following mucho self congratulation & over consumption of vino collapseau? Any connotation of sexual congress since, has brought a tear to her eye rather than any joy jelly leaks to the knickers…..is my guess as to why she tastes soo bitter?
I suppose it’s too much to hope that he’s in Scotland…
Now isn’t she crafty.
Social media comments made by JK Rowling challenging Scotland’s new hate crime law are not being treated as criminal, Police Scotland has said. The Harry Potter author described several transgender women as men, including convicted prisoners, trans activists and other public figures.
The new law creates a new crime of “stirring up hatred” relating to protected characteristics. The force said complaints had been received but no action would be taken.
Reacting to the news, Ms Rowling posted on X: “I hope every woman in Scotland who wishes to speak up for the reality and importance of biological sex will be reassured by this announcement, and I trust that all women – irrespective of profile or financial means – will be treated equally under the law.
HaHA. See what she did? If they had taken action, there would have been an eruption. Since they didn’t take action, she’s set a precedent.
Nice.lee.done.
Katie Neeves, a trans woman who was appointed a UN Women UK delegate, was mentioned by Ms Rowling in a previous thread on X. The author claimed Ms Neeves “switched from straight man to lesbian at the age of 48”.
Ms Neeves told BBC News she was “very disappointed” with Police Scotland. She said: “JK Rowling is a bully and this act was designed to stop bullying, and if they’re not going to enforce it then that’s very disappointing.”
Yeeeah you’d like that, wouldn’t you, Martin. Who is the bully here? Is it really JK Rowling, who doesn’t want to see people thrown in prison for saying men are not women? Really?
King Lear without the peripeteia.
It took Donald Trump less than 24 hours to test the boundaries of Judge Juan Merchan’s gag order in his New York criminal trial.
In two posts on his Truth Social account, the former president attacked Merchan for issuing the gag order – and he went after the judge’s daughter for her liberal political work, exploiting the ambiguous language in the order that didn’t explicitly forbid discussion of Merchan’s family.
On Monday, Merchan pushed back, expanding the gag order to cover his family – though the judge remains fair game for Trump – and attempting to limit Trump’s vitriol two weeks before the trial is set to begin.
Merchan’s need to issue a second gag order highlights the significant and unique challenge that Trump poses for the judge overseeing the unprecedented first criminal trial in US history of a former president and current presidential candidate.
It’s unprecedented because Trump is an unprecedentedly awful human being. Your average self-dealing sleaze would go to quite a lot of trouble to avoid all this courtroom stuff and the disgrace that goes with it, but not Trump. He loves being the worst human on the planet, and he keeps breaking new ground in order to hang onto the title.
In the past six months, Trump has sat in a half-dozen different courtrooms before judges overseeing his four criminal and two of his civil cases, along with a federal appellate court. A CNN review of Trump’s appearances shows how the former president has taken repeated steps both inside and outside the courtroom to test the limits of judges – and the judicial system – trying to rein him in.
Who does that? A childish vain bully, that’s who.
The prime minister has said people should not be criminalised “for stating simple facts on biology” in response to JK Rowling’s criticism of Scotland’s new hate crime law.
Cue global gasps. What can he mean?? People should be beheaded for such an outrage.
The author took to social media to
hit out atcriticize the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act which came into effect on Monday.
Seriously, Beeb – stop that. Stop calling dissent you dislike “hitting out at.” It’s childish at best. Some metaphors are best left on the cutting room floor.
In a series of social media posts, Ms Rowling described several transgender women as men, including convicted prisoners, trans activists and other public figures.
What do you mean “described as”? Of course they’re men. That’s what “transgender” means in that sentence.
The prime minister would not be drawn on whether he supported her approach, saying that it was “not right for me to comment on police matters, individual matters”. But he added: “We should not be criminalising people saying common sense things about biological sex, clearly that isn’t right.”
Well, apologies for agreeing with a Tory, but it can’t be helped.
Furthermore, there’s the scandalous situation where gynecologists don’t know how to take care of a “neo-vagina”:
…the aftercare, becuzz a lot of times these women have a neovagina, and then the gynecologists aren’t trained to do the routine gyn care – and that’s a real problem, becuzz you go back to yer home state, and you wanna get yer well woman exam and the gynecologist tells you, like, “I don’t know how to take care of you.” That’s really not acceptable.
But gynecologists specialize in women’s reproductive health. Women’s. Not men’s, not men’s who call themselves women, not men’s who have “neovaginas.” Just women’s; women’s only.
BBC dutifully repeats that JK Rowling is bad awful horrible outrageous and above all of course transphobic.
The presenter tells us, in full BBC RP smug confident style:
…and now with a series of pretty explosive social media posts campaigner and provocateur on free speech. In response to the Hate Crime and Public Order Act coming into force in Scotland yesterday Ms Rowling posted critical and sarcastic comments about ten transgender women, rounding off her series with the remark “The people aren’t women at all but men every last one of them.” She ended by saying “Arrest me, Hate Crime Act Scotland.” As culture war interventions go, this was no holds barred.
Easy for him, isn’t it, just as it’s easy for Jolyon Maugham and Owen Jones and all the rest of them. Not their problem. No threat to their rights. How dare all these stupid bitches try to hang on to their hard-won rights! Gather ’round to sneer and frown at the bad woman with her culture war intervention. Meanwhile let’s ask a man what he thinks about it. Let’s ask the very cool Katie Neeves.
Male voice:
I thought ‘Oh I’m gunna get a ton of hate now,’ and sure enough that’s exactly what happened, and that’s exactly what she wanted to happen –
And it’s exactly what “Katie” wanted to happen too. It’s what they live for, this fake martyrdom.
Presenter asks him if he thinks Rowling committed hate crime.
Yes, I do actually, and she’s definitely inciting it – she knows she’s pushing the boundaries, and that’s why she made it very clear that she wasn’t in the country when she did it.
Yes, she is pushing the boundaries: the boundaries that men like “Katie” Neeves have set up to prevent women from talking about women’s rights as opposed to the rights of men in skirts.
She doesn’t do it for the hell of it, or to shock prissy BBC presenters, or to annoy guys like “Katie” Neeves. She does it because the brainless ideology that says men are women if they say they are is a locomotive running over women’s rights.
What a colossally stupid question.
What’s the wound to lesbianism, really, if, um. the category of women is expanded to include trans women, what’s the wou – what – where – how do any of the people who live in that category, how are they actually suffering, it seems to me that what they’re suffering from is a kind of hatred or phobia that is overwhelming to them.
Gee, I don’t know, prof, what’s the wound if the category of workers is expanded to include bosses, what’s the wound if the category of poor people is expanded to include rich people, what’s the wound if the category of Black people is expanded to include White people, what’s the wound if the category of indigenous people is expanded to include invaders, what’s the wound if the category of rape victims is expanded to include rapists?
Butler actually wrote a book about power (which I haven’t read and won’t read because I cannot stand her way of writing). You’d think she’d at least know enough not to ask an abysmally stupid question like that.
Jolyon is on the case. Of course he is.
Nothing says ‘social justice campaigner’ like being a White man who lives in a £3 million windmill defending men who take women’s jobs and rape shelters and everything else they can get their hands on.
This is genius.
Not a joke. The screenshot is from their Facebook page.
They reported in another public post ten hours ago:
Important Statement: First Minister Humza Yousaf/Scottish government have been reported to the Police for racism.
(Police Reporting number:
PS – 20240401-0595)
The Indian Council of Scotland/UK are surprised to read Scottish Government Police Scotland Hate Crime guidance highlighting White Men aged 18 to 30 yrs from socially excluded backgrounds (Working Class) in a negative manner, as this could create unfair bias against them. The Equality and Human Rights Commission of Scotland has a duty to ensure public bodies ‘Foster good relations’ between different Ethnic groups, and this information could incite.
Neil Lal, Chairman and President of The Indian Council of Scotland/UK had stated “We are deeply concerned and offended for everyone who is affected with this Hate Crime guidance by the Scottish government/Police Scotland. This is racism to it’s core in my opinion! We have taken the decision to report this to the Police authorities! We have asked to hold the First Minister Humza Yousaf/Scottish government accountable along with Police Scotland. Any form of racism is not acceptable”.
Genius, I say.
Soooo how is day one of Scotland’s hate crime bill going?
3.5k likes at present:
JKR has thrown down the gauntlet.
She starts with a string of parody “behold this lovely trans woman” tweets and then gets down to business.
In passing the Scottish Hate Crime Act, Scottish lawmakers seem to have placed higher value on the feelings of men performing their idea of femaleness, however misogynistically or opportunistically, than on the rights and freedoms of actual women and girls. The new legislation is wide open to abuse by activists who wish to silence those of us speaking out about the dangers of eliminating women’s and girls’ single-sex spaces, the nonsense made of crime data if violent and sexual assaults committed by men are recorded as female crimes, the grotesque unfairness of allowing males to compete in female sports, the injustice of women’s jobs, honours and opportunities being taken by trans-identified men, and the reality and immutability of biological sex. For several years now, Scottish women have been pressured by their government and members of the police force to deny the evidence of their eyes and ears, repudiate biological facts and embrace a neo-religious concept of gender that is unprovable and untestable. The re-definition of ‘woman’ to include every man who declares himself one has already had serious consequences for women’s and girls’ rights and safety in Scotland, with the strongest impact felt, as ever, by the most vulnerable, including female prisoners and rape survivors. It is impossible to accurately describe or tackle the reality of violence and sexual violence committed against women and girls, or address the current assault on women’s and girls’ rights, unless we are allowed to call a man a man. Freedom of speech and belief are at an end in Scotland if the accurate description of biological sex is deemed criminal. I’m currently out of the country, but if what I’ve written here qualifies as an offence under the terms of the new act, I look forward to being arrested when I return to the birthplace of the Scottish Enlightenment. If you agree with the views set out in this tweet, please retweet it.
I expect I’ll be retweeting it all day, and that everyone else will too.
But don’t worry, you have nothing to fret about, unless…
Yes but sir, you and your friends consider it “threatening” and “abusive” and “stirring up hatred” to say that men are not women. That means women in the UK have everything to worry about.
You smug fucking idiot.
Day one of Scotland’s heightened war on women:
JK Rowling could be investigated by police for misgendering trans people under Scotland’s new hate crime legislation, an SNP minister has admitted. Siobhian Brown, the SNP’s community safety minister, initially stated that misgendering – for example calling a trans woman “he” – would “not at all” fall foul of the legislation. But after being challenged over calls for JK Rowling to be prosecuted under the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act, she then admitted it would be for the police to decide.
Speaking as the Act came into force on Monday, Ms Brown said: “It could be reported and it could be investigated. Whether or not the police would think it was criminal is up to Police Scotland for that.”
Ah yes – pass an insane law criminalizing women who object to laws that criminalize women, and then say it’s up to the poleees to decide which women are actually criminals.
The minister was also challenged over the “odd” omission of women from the list of protected groups included in the legislation. This means that threats made against Rowling and other feminists critical of trans ideology could not be investigated under the Bill. Ms Brown admitted “more work needs to be done” and said a misogyny Bill would be introduced.
Point missed. Why were women ignored in the first place? Why did you abject fucking tools pass a law making it a crime to say men are not women while ignoring the things trans “activists” say about women every minute of every day?
The new legislation covers hatred on the basis of age, disability, race, religion, sexual orientation and transgender identity.
However, an amendment to add sex to the list of protected characteristics at this stage was voted down, despite cross-party MSPs raising concerns about why women were excluded.
What does that tell us?
Nothing good.
Trump’s lovely message for today:
HAPPY EASTER TO ALL, INCLUDING CROOKED AND CORRUPT PROSECUTORS AND JUDGES THAT ARE DOING EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO INTERFERE WITH THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION OF 2024, AND PUT ME IN PRISON, INCLUDING THOSE MANY PEOPLE THAT I COMPLETELY & TOTALLY DESPISE BECAUSE THEY WANT TO DESTROY AMERICA, A NOW FAILING NATION, LIKE “DERANGED” JACK SMITH, WHO IS EVIL AND “SICK,” MRS. FANI “FAUNI” WADE, WHO SAID SHE HARDLY KNEW THE “SPECIAL” PROSECUTOR, ONLY TO FIND THAT HE SPENT YEARS “LOVING” HER, LONG BEFORE THE GEORGIA PERSECUTION OF PRESIDENT TRUMP BEGAN (AND THEREBY MAKING THE CASE AGAINST ME NULL, VOID, AND ILLEGAL!), AND LAZY ON VIOLENT CRIME ALVIN BRAGG WHO, WITH CROOKED JOE’S DOJ THUGS, UNFAIRLY WORKING IN THE D.A.’s OFFICE, ILLEGALLY INDICTED ME ON A CASE HE NEVER WANTED TO BRING AND VIRTUALLY ALL LEGAL SCHOLARS SAY IS A CASE THAT SHOULD NOT BE BROUGHT, IS BREAKING THE LAW IN DOING SO (POMERANTZ!), WAS TURNED DOWN BY ALL OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITIES, AND IS NOT A CRIME. HAPPY EASTER EVERYONE!
Notable fact: that’s all one sentence.
Also note that he says happy easter including to all those many people he completely and totally despises.
Send the personalized meteor soon.
Gosh, I remember when NOW was a feminist organization. Now it’s all about men, and telling women to do what men tell them.
How is it white supremacy? What does it even have to do with white supremacy?
As for patriarchy – no, NationalNOW, what’s patriarchy is lying through your teeth about women who refuse to sign up to a religion that deifies men who say they are women. You’re the ones who are going belly-up for men; we are saying No.
