On how JK Rowling had a drink and a cigar "like Andrew Tate"
An opinion-piece writer goes full transmaiden-mad at terfs and JK Rowling.
Okay, buckle up for one of the most ludicrous, but weirdly entertaining, opinion pieces from NZ about mean feminists – i.e. terfs. We’ve produced a few of these kind of opinion pieces, but this is a real beauty. After reading it, you’ll know for sure that terfs will win this fight to take back women’s rights. Transmaidens, like writer, Kylie, have been trotting out the same dross for years, and it’s looking decidedly past its heyday. They have nothing else, though - dross was the only thing they ever had in their toolkit, and its lost its edge. True, it’s good for a laugh now, but that’s on borrowed time, too.
Then after reading it, go and have a drink and a cigar like JK Rowling - or should I say “like Andrew Tate”. In a stretch, which must have hurt, Kylie Nixon likens the picture of JK celebrating the UK Supreme Court ruling with a whiskey and cigar to Andrew Tate. I expect it’s the ugliest comparison Kylie can think of by which to punish JK, and by extension all the bad feminists who are in league with her, for being pleased that sex has now been clarified as being biological.
I won’t ruin too much of your reading pleasure, but look out for how Kylie bizarrely misunderstands the UK Supreme Court ruling as having defined womanhood in terms of biology. I’m pretty sure the UK Supreme Court ruling didn’t mention womanhood once, but what’s a bit of ‘literary license’ amongst friends. She uses her misinterpretation of the ruling to tell us that feminists railed for years against womanhood being defined by biology, and has ”never let a man define what being a woman means to me”. But, also somehow seems to believe that we need to include men in ‘womanhood’ to show us how not to be defined. Defining women by their biology and calling us “people with uteruses” is okay, though, when we don’t want to upset those men in womanhood.
Kylie’s piece below, although completely absurd, is well worth the read to enjoy the dying days and ways of the era of the transmaiden.
OPINION - by Kylie Klein Nixon
When I was getting divorced, I needed a bit of a distraction from the chaos, as one does. There were my friends, of course, and work. But books also helped. They helped so much I obsessed over them, and chief among the books I obsessed over were the Harry Potter novels.
I’m embarrassed to say this now, but for a girl who grew up on Ursula K Le Guin, Margaret Mahy and Eva Ibbotson, those books felt like coming home.
So, it wasn’t easy to bundle the last evidence of my Harry Potter obsession into a cardboard box and dump it at the Salvation Army this week, but I did. Good riddance.
The final nail in the coffin was a post on X by author JK Rowling following the UK Supreme Court’s bizarre ruling defining womanhood in terms of biology, something feminists have railed against for 50 years.
In the post, Rowling is sitting on what looks like a yacht, a glass of whisky raised, chugging on a cigar, like Andrew Tate three minutes before the Romanian police burst through his front door. The caption says: “I love it when a plan comes together.”
Nothing classier or cooler than gloating. Not one thing.
According to The Telegraph, Rowling donated £70,000 ($156,000) to the organisation that brought the suit to the Supreme Court. The group was doubly lucky, because no trans people or advocacy groups gave evidence during the hearings.
According to the Good Law Project, part of that was because many advocates were too scared of retribution to go to court again, too well aware of the abuse and attacks that happen when they do.
I’m no lawyer, but that sounds a bit dodgy to me. You’d think hearing from trans folk would be a priority when deciding something to do with them, wouldn’t you? And they claim trans folk are the ones doing the attacking, the persecuting and the silencing. Sheesh.
But anyway, that’s trans women told. Cis women can rest easy, having successfully gate-kept our chromosomes; too bad for the 0.1% of Brits who now can’t use public loos in safety. Well done, what a victory for feminism.
Quick question: When I visit the UK next, will I need a chromosome card to confirm I have the stated-approved X and Y configuration to use the public loos? If I don’t want a mandatory genital check, I mean.
Maybe we can just keep a video of ourselves dropping our drawers on our phones for the Dunny Inspectors? Something to think about.
And now our very own Associate Health Minister Casey Costello seems to want to get in on this cool new fad of protecting women in situations where they absolutely do not need protecting, by directing Health New Zealand to say "women" instead of "pregnant people" or “people with uteruses” on account of multiple words that mean the same thing being too confusing.
Almost 40 years after Marie Shear wrote the famous line: “Feminism is the radical notion that women are people”, the idea that “people with uteruses” is in any way confusing spikes my blood pressure in a way Health NZ would surely not approve of.
Not to be outdone, New Zealand First has just announced has introduced a member’s bill to “ensure the biological definition of a woman and man are defined in law”.
Fortunately, NZ First leader and deputy PM (for now) Winston Peters announced this on X, so you know he’s really, really serious about this pressing issue. (FYI, trans folk make up about 0.7% of Kiwi, that’s about 23,000 out of 5 million+, 2000 less than the number of students at Otago university.)
I’m no expert, but I’m pretty sure Health NZ has more important stuff to be doing right now, eh? Ditto the UK Supreme Court. Ditto our deputy PM. And ditto me, now that I come to think about it.
But I will tell you one thing, I have never let a man define what being a woman means to me, and I’m not about to let Winston Peters start now.
To my trans sisters, as ever, you are always welcome in any space I am in, and I am proud to share womanhood with you. It may be cold comfort now, but one day attitudes like those of Rowling and Costello will end up in the same place as those of vintage anti-feminist and anti-LGBTQ conservatives like Phyllis Schlafly and Mary Whitehouse: the ideological dust bin of history.
What do you think? Email sundayletters@stuff.co.nz. Please include your full name and address.
https://www.thepost.co.nz/culture/360661408/when-gloating-andrew-tate-feminist-flex
What a perplexing article from Kylie.
I don't think I've ever read something so incoherent and self contradictory in my entire life.
She says that 0.1% of the UK population are "trans" while (apparently) 0.7% of the New Zealand population is "trans".
Her thought process is so cluttered with idealogy she doesn't stop to query her proposition that there are 7 times more trans people in NZ then the UK.
I guess all the puberty blocker over use is kicking in?
I mean you might expect 50% differences between two countries and that would be pretty high.
But 700%?!
The Andrew Tate comparison is--dare I say it--part of the imported culture war. We have Victoria Smith's brilliant rebuttal to that very point in here. It's very soothing reading this: https://thecritic.co.uk/trans-activism-is-progressive-mans-manosphere/
"Of all the frat boy-style responses to the UK supreme court’s recognition that women exist, there’s one that’s stuck with me the most: “JK Rowling is Andrew Tate for women.” It’s a line that’s been shared in various forms, often with a photo of Rowling celebrating For Women Scotland’s victory. As a response, it’s got everything.
There’s the callousness, comparing a woman who set up a rape crisis centre to a leading representative of the manosphere; the faux progressive posturing (as I wrote in my book Unkind, for a certain type of man, “‘not being the far right’ and ‘not being Andrew Tate’” function primarily as misogyny entitlement tokens); above all, there’s the back-slapping smugness.
Isn’t it funny, likening women’s fight for female-only spaces to men’s fight to abuse women with impunity? Hey, rape victims, you know your rapist? That’s you, that is.
In many ways, it’s beneath engaging with. If women had an Andrew Tate, it would not be JK Rowling. Then again, women cannot have an Andrew Tate because women are not a dominant group with a propensity to violence and a misplaced sense of grievance. Followers of Andrew Tate might view women that way, as do those currently sharing the “JK Rowling is Andrew Tate” meme. Unfortunately, this is not where the similarities between these groups end. "