Spot the rad
Michael Deacon at The Telegraph has some questions for Stephen Fry. He wants to know exactly which of JK Rowling’s beliefs about women are “radical” in Fry’s view.
Take, for example, Ms Rowling’s belief that women don’t have testicles. Or her belief that men can’t give birth. Is either of those beliefs radical? Extreme? Wildly at variance with established medical science?
Perhaps he’s thinking of her belief that biological males should not be entitled to enter the female changing room at their local swimming pool and strip naked in front of small girls. Or her belief that confused children should not be pumped with drugs designed to prevent them from going through a normal, healthy puberty. Or her belief that we should not grant a convicted rapist his wish to be placed in a jail full of women merely because he’s suddenly taken to sporting a blonde wig and pink leggings.
In other words is it really JKR who is the “radical” here? Or is it the faction that believes and swears and enforces that yes, some women do have testicles, some men can give birth, some biological males [you can’t say that!!] do get to take their clothes off in front of small girls? You be the judge.
I’d be surprised if Fry has done even the tiniest bit of research on what JKR has actually said rather than relying on trans cult propagandists and their credulous disciples. In fact it’s obvious that he hasn’t. Which puts him in the company of some other notorious ingrates.
I don’t think that anyone who dumps on her takes the time to understand what it is that she has been saying all along. And this has been going on since her famous tweet with the disappearing links, you know the one that says “Do what you want, dress how you want,” etc.
Is it radical to say that “Men aren’t women and shouldn’t be allowed to enter women’s private spaces?” What rankles me and others is that the writers who expounded on Shrodinger’s Rapist to explain why women are leary about men on first encounter, turn and say that men who claim to be trans should not be challenged when entering a locker room or a restroom. What’s radical is the proposition that feeling like a member of the opposite sex is the determinant of sex, and this is also maintained by those who will, when approaching the easily debunked icons of skepticism such as a flat earth, will declare “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”
And here we have Pedro Pascal, piling on:
https://variety.com/2025/tv/news/pedro-pascal-slams-jk-rowling-anti-trans-law-bullies-1236438989/
This all makes it very difficult to see how we will ever be able to walk back to understanding the nature of gender and the meaning of of “The Subordinated Sex.” It’s a blind refusal to see the truth. And it ‘s not “left v right.” There’s such a huge collective of anti-science, even by scientists, and people are not interested in the level of skepticism that it takes to root it out.
Stephen Fry has a reputation of education, knowledge, even erudition. He surely knows what basic words mean. Radical refers to things that are revolutionary, drastic, bold. Things that challenge rather than accept standard views, right? Odd that he has this one exactly 180 degrees wrong.
Then again, another word he has forgotten the meaning of is of course woman. If the meaning of that word is up in the air Humpty-Dumpty style, then I suppose anything goes.
Stephen Fry is also known for this pithy bit of wisdom:
So what happened to bucking up and getting over yourself? Reminds me of another quote:
“If you want to offend a weak person, tell them the truth.
If you want to offend a strong person, lie to them.”