If you go to JKR’s website, scroll down to rumours and misinformation, you get these wonderful questions

@yassie_j My FAQ has people asking a lot of questions already answered by my FAQ

@ignaloidas @yassie_j

They don't understand that nobody outside their dumb little echo chambers take these accusations really seriously. So they think it's hilarious that her website would just calmly refute all the BS.

@yassie_j let me answer those for you
1. yes
2. no
3. hopefully
4. probably
5. yes
6. evil
7. yes

@yassie_j do you have cancer if you *are* cancer

@yassie_j
1: yes
2: yes
3: okay look, I know, I get it, i wouldn't wish cancer on even my worst enemies, it fucking sucks.... but..., if she DID, I'm not exactly gonna shed a tear for her.
4: Almost certainly yes, not that I know who or what Beira's Place is?
5: why do you think?
6: aaaaand almost certainly - If not, gimme about a week and she will have far worse things in there than mold.

@mjdxp all answers I agree with

@taylan oh, look, there’s a terf that decided to show up

If it’s such an obvious BS that nobody takes seriously, why even bother refuting it?

@ignaloidas

Oh god are you also one of those guys screeching about "muh evil women oppressing men"?

Because some people will hear someone screeching on social media and ask themselves wtf that's about. So they can read the FAQ.

@taylan no I’m one of those people who doesn’t think that exclusion is a solution to anything

and JKR is certainly advocating for a whole lot of exclusion

@ignaloidas

There are many cases in life where exclusion is a good solution.

Excluding men from female-only spaces is a good solution to men bothering women.

@yassie_j
THE MOLD THICKENS

@taylan for your own very specific definition of women, of course, because why not also exclude people from that 😉

And no, I in fact do not believe that excluding people by gender is a good solution in any case. It’s no different than excluding people by skin color, or religion, or place of birth, etc. This stuff is operating on stereotypes and only stereotypes. If you have to exclude, exclude on based on actions, not based on labels.

It really is just racism in different clothes

@ignaloidas @taylan doesn't this preclude women only spaces completely, no matter how you define woman

@ignaloidas

It's incredible that otherwise smart people can believe something as utterly insane as what you've just said. It's close to being a flat earther.

So you're advocating for the complete abolition of:

* Female-only sports
* Female-only restrooms
* Female-only locker rooms
* Female-only political groups

This is a return to medieval sexism.

Women won't be able partake in sports at all with the exception of a few tiny niches.

Many women will avoid traveling because they'll be scared about what might happen if they need to use the toilet. (See: "urinary leash." Historically known phenomenon before wide availability of female-only restrooms.)

Women generally won't be able to attend swimming pools, gyms, etc. unless they find some safe opportunity to change their clothes, because otherwise they'll need to get naked in front of male strangers.

Women won't be able to challenge any of this because any time they try to organise, men will barge in and say they're plotting evil schemes to exclude men.

This is morally and intellectually on the same level as being a far-right extremist lunatic like Nick Fuentes. Do you not see how utterly insane it is?

By the way, I don't decide who is and isn't a woman. Physical reality does.

I'm not excluding people with penises from whatever word we use to describe people with vulvas. It's a physical reality that these two different types of anatomy exist.

It's also a physical reality that members of the former group have very significant advantage in athletic performance, such that separation in sports becomes necessary if you want people in the latter group to be included in sports.

And it's a social reality that the former group endanger and bother the latter group to such an extent that separation becomes necessary.

You're drunk on insane theories whose application would lead to a complete exclusion of women from public life.

Get out of this extremist echo chamber man.

You're turning left/liberal politics into a fucking joke. This is why society has moved so much to the right, and even women and gay people who care about their rights are going more and more towards "right-wing" politics.

@sun @taylan yes, and I mean it’s kinda intentional?

I don’t see any value in women-only spaces, just like I don’t see any value in men-only spaces or trans-only spaces

If you only/mostly socialize with people that have a certain label, you’re building stereotypes and disdain in your mind for people who don’t have that label. E.g. see support for migration control vs. number of migrants in Germany - the more people can interact with others, the less hatred there is for them

I’m quite sure that I could show that any argument for women-only spaces can be shown to be parallel to an argument for a racially segregated space

@ignaloidas @taylan I don't know what my opinion on it is tbh, seems like there are benefits to either way. However, you cannot side with feminists and be against women-only spaces, because almost all feminists, and certainly all feminists connected to notable organized feminist movements, completely disagree with you on this. severely.

@sun @taylan I don’t really care about that, because I think that opinion is stupid and is counter to the goals.

Exclusion builds disdain from both sides, and I don’t think it’s in the interest of women to create a divide between them and men. The whole action of wanting exclusion grows from an existing disdain for those with a label, it comes from stereotyping, and exclusion makes it worse.

Take fucking incels for example: it’s a group of men who felt excluded by women, and they started excluding women from their group, which meant that women’s disdain for them grew and they started excluding them, and it just cyclically repeats with the disdain from both sides growing. The only way to break the cycle is to force the exclusion to stop in some way, so that the disdain can stop growing.

If feminists want this, then I don’t want to be with feminists.

@ignaloidas @taylan fair point, I don’t agree with everything but it seems true that persisting divisions works counter to long term progressive goals

@taylan

So you’re advocating for the complete abolition of:

• Female-only sports

Honestly, I’m against sports in general - at a high level it’s mostly just a dumb competition of genetics in the end, these days training can only bring you to the level your genetics limit you to. And “who won the genetic lottery” is just an awful concept in the end.

• Female-only restrooms

I don’t like traditional gender separated restrooms in general, more private gender neutral restrooms are just better, I’m like 10x more comfortable in them compared to male-only ones.

• Female-only locker rooms

Same argument as with restrooms - give more private, secure spaces and that’s fine. I will be more comfortable too.

• Female-only political groups

Yes. I don’t think it’s healthy, just like male-only political groups aren’t

You’re assuming like I want that these things just disappeared and got replaced with nothing, where in actuality, they can be replaced with better solutions than we have today. The fact that we’re doing things by gender roles these days is the limiting factor on how good things can be.

“Physical reality” is a very fun way to define things, because I haven’t seen anything defining whether some matter is male or female in physics. The “physical reality” is your own definition, just like everything else, you’re just trying to hide behind some “objective” definition to throw labels. Fun exercise: how would “physical reality” define what is a car and what isn’t?

“Social reality” comes into stereotyping. You could make (and some people do make) the same arguments about racial minorities. How is this different from racism again?

@ignaloidas @taylan > competition of genetics

at the pro level yes, everyone at that level maxes out their discipline and practice regimen so the only differentiator they can't max is genetics. not for like kids sports tho fwiw

@taylan @ignaloidas
boy fight! boy fight! boy fight!

@ageha @ignaloidas

@sun @taylan Even for kids, genetics plays a big role. I think it’s fine if it’s not seen as a competition but rather as self-improvement, but the whole system as it is today is honestly over competitive and in a very bad place (see reports from referees over kid sports about how insane parents are with their kids results)

@ignaloidas @taylan I think I agree

@sun @taylan @ignaloidas did not read the whole giant thread. but i think sports is overblown in society. not the act of doing actual sport. but celebrating soccer, football, basketball, hockey, wrestling ,etc.

it is all useless. it is entertainment at best and people should treat it as that. not some holy competition. there is no fairness. genetics and wealth matter. it is as serious as seeing robo fights. there reason divide certain sports by gender is simply for entertainment. not for any other good reason. i would be for more fun stuff at sport events. mixed gender, add some non athlete dude to compete. make maybe mixed teams of disabled and non disabled people for sports that could be fun. make it all more inclusive, fun and entertaining. it is not sacred

@grillchen @taylan @ignaloidas the entire reason that sports are gender segregated in the modern world is that at every level including school, some men would beat almost all women.

@ignaloidas @taylan I disagree. Exclusion is fantastic and necessary.

@yassie_j Oh yeah completely normal sections to add on your personal website. I’m sure everyone has sections like these on their website.