JK Rowling's court victory over definition of a woman makes Tannie Helen turn orange with glee
After the executive order from US President Donald Trump insisting that there are only two genders (male and female), the UK obviously felt it had to keep up with the Joneses and its supreme court declared that, in law, women are to be defined in biological terms only – which is to say, really, that men and women are defined biologically.
This basically means that those who don't want to switch pronouns, or even think about which is the right pronoun for someone who isn't exactly matched as far as sex and gender go, no longer need bother to apply their minds.
Jordan Peterson, the Canadian psychologist who has been blathering on for decades about how the West had better militarise its men a bit more or face the downfall of its civilisation, will surely be pleased. He has been huffing and puffing about how onerous it is for a big, strong masculine man like him, men so confident in their masculinity that they can give advice on how to be men, to have to use they/them pronouns when referring to a person not desirous of being called he/him or she/her. Peterson is obviously very much wedded to his kind of 'Jungian' male/female binary, as well as to a highly gendered kind of grammar – imagine if the nouns and verbs don't agree! The world ends!
It is clearly an offence to his exquisitely sensitive soul to have to imagine that there are any genders beyond the standard male and female, or that biological sex might not align perfectly with gender and/or a person's inner sense of what their gender might be – see what I did there?
The stones cry out. They cry out against such grammatical and genderous aberrations! Surely Peterson, who spent several months in Russia in an induced coma to get over his opioid addiction, must, while in that limbo state, have dreamt wildly of being persecuted by creatures of genders he could not bear to contemplate.
It was, however, JK Rowling, billionaire author of the Harry Potter books, who funded the legal challenge in the UK Supreme Court. She has been campaigning strongly for some time now against trans people, particularly trans women, because in her old-fashioned form of reactionary feminism she cannot possibly see that that trans woman using ladies' toilets is anything but a man in disguise.
She may be more worried about the state of her mascara than she may be wanting to rape anyone in the toilet area with her, but as far as Rowling is concerned, she hasn't had the life experience of being a woman so she can't be a woman. Finish and klaar.
This position is tagged Terf, as in trans-exclusionary radical feminism, though in South Africa we might be more comfortable calling Rowling a teef (bitch).
Anyway, Rowling celebrated the court victory by flooding social media with pictures of her sitting on her yacht, somewhere in the Mediterranean perhaps, smoking a cigar. Never mind that a cigar is distinctly masculine-coded, so JK is doing a little trans-smoking here. What that image tells us is that what seems a fairly basic legal redefinition is a big issue for Rowling, and its significance goes beyond the surface declaration and vindicates her war on trans women.
Enter Zille
Bully for her. Or bully for the bully. More to the point, for us anyway, was the reaction in South Africa. One reaction.
Barely had Rowling lit that cigar than Helen Zille, grande dame and reigning ideologue of the DA, was furiously agreeing with her on the socials. God forbid that Tannie Helen, the face that launched 1,000 shits, should be left behind if there's an opportunity to bash the woke. This has been her stock-in-trade ever since she imported some crusty Republican talking points from the US, and gawd knows stuff that comes from the US is so much better than anything we could actually produce here on the continent of Africa.
Anyway, Zille said on the Musk propaganda platform that the judges in this case 'have protected the rights of women across the English-speaking world from a contagion as dangerous, socially, as Covid was, medically. We thank you from the Southern tip of Africa.'
Just the tip? Zille later went on to elaborate on her utterance in an ostensibly more nuanced way, or at least in a more wordy way, admitting that this trans business applies to a very tiny proportion of the population and failing to tell us why, then, it looms so large in her fevered imagination. It's clear, at any rate, that this great legal victory is not only about protecting 'women's spaces', but also about the plague of kids 'suddenly' discovering themselves as trans, a plague that has swept across the 'English-speaking world' and… what? Killed as many people as Covid?
This is getting unpleasantly Musky. Elon, as we know, has been bemoaning the transness of one of his many children (he wanted only male children, dammit), regarding her as dead and railing against the 'woke mind virus' that caused this particular transformation to happen, as though his daughter entirely lacked agency. Note the echo in his language of Zille's 'contagion', and how the disease metaphor is so favoured by people stirring up a moral panic even as they discount the effects of actual disease.
Also, that 'English-speaking world' – does Zille imagine that laws promulgated in the Scottish high court have some purchase on the southern tip of Africa? Or anywhere other than in the UK, for that matter? Is she some kind of colonialist, then, yearning for the firm hand of control as exercised by the British Empire, which as we know can do no wrong? Oh, wait…
I don't know what all the answers are to the social, familial and personal problems that arise from the upsetting of old-fashioned gender norms, but I know a bit of knee-jerk prejudice when I see it. And I know a kind of glee when it's expressed in relation to the 'other' whose existence bothers you so much, if it really bothers you and this isn't just political opportunism. I fear Zille actually believes this stuff, and/or has come to believe it as she sheds, bit by bit, all that ancient liberal stuff about the personal self-determination of the individual and so forth.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Maverick
5 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
Trump's birthright citizenship order to face first US appeals court review
A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is slated to hear arguments in Seattle in the administration's appeal of a judge's ruling blocking enforcement nationwide of the executive order, which is a key element of the Republican president's hardline immigration agenda. Seattle-based U.S. District Judge John Coughenour issued his preliminary injunction on Feb. 6 after declaring Trump's action 'blatantly unconstitutional' and accusing the Republican president of ignoring the rule of law for political and personal gain. Federal judges in Massachusetts and Maryland also have issued similar orders blocking the directive nationwide. Democratic attorneys general from 22 states and immigrant rights advocates in lawsuits challenging Trump's directive argued that it violates the citizenship clause of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment, long been understood to recognize that virtually anyone born in the United States is a citizen. Trump signed his order on January 20, his first day back in office. It directed federal agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of U.S.-born children who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also known as a 'green card' holder. The administration contends that the 14th Amendment's citizenship language does not extend to immigrants in the country illegally or immigrants whose presence is lawful but temporary, such as university students or those on work visas. The 9th Circuit panel is scheduled to consider the constitutional questions regarding Trump's action. The Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, heard arguments on May 15 in the administration's bid to narrow the three injunctions. Those arguments did not center on the legal merits of Trump's order, instead focusing on the issue of whether a single judge should be able to issue nationwide injunctions like the ones that have blocked Trump's directive. The Supreme Court, which has yet to rule, could allow the directive to go into effect in large swathes of the country. More than 150,000 newborns would be denied citizenship annually if Trump's order takes effect nationally, according to the plaintiffs. Coughenour, an appointee of Republican President Ronald Reagan, has presided over a legal challenge brought by the states of Washington, Arizona, Illinois and Oregon and several pregnant women. The 9th Circuit panel hearing arguments on Wednesday includes two judges appointed by Democratic President Bill Clinton and one appointed by Trump during his first presidential term.
Daily Maverick
21 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
New documentary shines a light on the environmental damage caused by Elon Musk's tech ambitions
In the broiling shadow of rocket flames and broadband dreams, the inconvenient truths of Elon Musk's techno-utopia are being tidily shuffled out of frame. Canadian director Julien Elie's haunting new black-and-white documentary film, Shifting Baselines, does not shout its message. It doesn't need to. The scorched landscapes of Boca Chica, Texas, where Elon Musk's SpaceX has set up shop, speak for themselves. They whisper of seabirds gone silent, of beaches turned to junkyards, and of a natural world redrawn by a billionaire's imagination. Back in South Africa, the airwaves have been thick with chatter about Musk's Starlink satellite network finally getting a potential regulatory green light to operate here after sustained pressure from Musk himself and the Trump administration. Some have hailed the prospect of Musk's high-speed internet in rural areas as a form of digital salvation for South Africans marooned, in a communications sense, in the hinterland. That there could be benefits, in particular, for rural schools and rural police stations seems clear. It has also been notable how many voices have been happy to overlook the reality that there already exist alternatives, some of which have been pioneered by local businesses at considerable expense; and that the projected costs of a Starlink terminal (around R6,000) and the monthly fee (at least two or three times the average internet contract) will put it far beyond fantasy for the vast majority of South Africa's rural citizens. But amid the enthusiastic flag-waving for this latest piece of technological deliverance, there has been an even more deafening silence about its environmental cost. Starlink junk burning up ozone layer Shifting Baselines' title refers to a concept coined by the marine biologist Daniel Pauly, who explains how each generation accepts the ecological degradation of its lifetime as its new normal. Over time, we forget what the planet of our ancestors once looked like, smelled like, sounded like. It is a quiet kind of erasure. The documentary shows us the once-thriving ecosystems around Musk's rocket launch sites reduced to industrial debris, and the community of Boca Chica transformed into a workers' colony for Musk's Starbase operation. The birds are dwindling in numbers. The fish are tiny. And the sky, once a canvas for stars, is now obscured by satellites and space junk. SpaceX's satellite constellation, Starlink, makes up more than 60% of all satellites orbiting Earth. According to the UK-based space firm Space Forge, about 40% of the material now burning up in Earth's atmosphere comes from Starlink satellites, which are designed to last only five years and disintegrate on entry. That translates to at least 500kg of incinerated hardware every day. Harvard astrophysicist Jonathan McDowell told in October 2024 that there is now a Starlink satellite re-entry almost every day. Some days see multiple burn-ups. These are not elegant, imperceptible disappearances. They contribute to atmospheric pollution in ways that are only just beginning to be studied. An October 2024 letter to the US Federal Communications Commission, signed by more than 100 top space scientists, warned urgently that the effects of these satellites have yet to be adequately researched. Their concerns were unequivocal: the pace of satellite deployment has vastly outstripped the regulatory frameworks meant to assess their environmental impact. 'Over just five years, Starlink has launched more than 6,000 units and now make up more than 60% of all satellites. The new space race took off faster than governments were able to act. Regulatory agencies review individual licences and lack the policies in place to assess the total effects of all proposed mega-constellations,' they wrote. 'Until national and international environmental reviews can be completed, we should stop launching further low Earth orbit satellites as part of constellations that provide consumer internet connectivity.' Meanwhile, light pollution from the Starlink array is already interfering with astronomers' work. It affects projects like South Africa's own Salt telescope, a major scientific facility — and genuine national treasure — whose vision of the stars is now often smeared by the unintended signatures of broadband ambition. If Starlink comes to South Africa, the astronomer Federico di Vruno told Reuters this week, 'it will be like shining a spotlight into someone's eyes, blinding us to the faint radio signals from celestial bodies'. Tech-optimism is eclipsing climate change realities Elie's film returns often to scenes of spectators in lawn chairs, watching Musk's rocket launches with misty eyes. Most are Boomers clearly nostalgic about the Space Race of their youth. Some describe the spectacle of a SpaceX launch as their 'Apollo moment'. SpaceX employees scrawl 'We are explorers' on bollards. But the documentary carefully strips away the romance to reveal a more uncomfortable truth. The rockets and satellites rise and return from land and skies now scarred by the vehicles of Musk's monomaniacal, megalomaniacal ambition. This is the paradox at the heart of the Musk myth. His obsession with space colonisation is sold as a response to climate collapse on Earth. Yet in pursuing that dream, he accelerates the very forces he claims to resist. The rockets that might someday touch down on Mars are poisoning the skies of Earth today. Each new satellite that promises to bridge digital divides also quietly widens the environmental ones. All the while, climate change — once seemingly the moral rallying cry of a generation — appears to be quietly slipping off the agenda. The inevitable reports are now emerging, a veritable flurry this past weekend alone, about the jobs that are already being lost to AI. What is virtually absent from the discourse is the ruinous environmental impact of the Large Language Models (LLMs) like ChatGPT: a November 2024 study found that just 16% of respondents were aware of the huge amount of water required to cool AI servers. Shifting Baselines invites us to look beyond the dazzle of innovation from the tech industry with which we are all bombarded daily to the dull, persistent erosion of the real world. It asks us to consider what we are losing in our quest to win the future — as the sky fills up with ghosts. DM here.
Eyewitness News
2 days ago
- Eyewitness News
Mexico president defends world-first judicial vote despite low turnout
MEXICO CITY - Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum hit back Monday at criticism of her country's unprecedented election of judges, after most voters skipped a ballot that her opponents branded a farce. Sunday's election followed highly contentious reforms making Mexico the only country in the world to let voters select all of their judges, including Supreme Court justices. As officials tallied votes, Sheinbaum hailed the "complete success" of an exercise she said was needed to clean up a judiciary mired in corruption. The National Electoral Institute said around 13% of eligible voters took part in a poll that critics said would erode democratic checks and balances and leave judges more vulnerable to criminal influence. Sheinbaum told Mexicans that they had "nothing to fear." "Mexico is a free, democratic country - that won't change. Nothing will change, except access to justice," she said at her daily news conference. Sheinbaum pushed back at claims "that we're heading toward authoritarianism, and that the president will have a lot of power because she'll control the judiciary." "Now the judges, magistrates and justices answer to the people," she said. The first results were expected Monday, beginning with the Supreme Court justices. With more than half of those votes counted, Hugo Aguilar, a lawyer and defender of Indigenous people's rights, was leading the race to be president of the top court. 'DARK DAY' The leader of the opposition Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI), Alejandro Moreno, denounced the vote as a "farce" and called it a "dark day for democracy." The elections showed Sheinbaum's Morena party was "willing to do anything to concentrate power. They weaken the justice system, trample on institutions, and block the way to democratic debate," he said. Many voters seemed daunted by the long list of largely unknown candidates in an election for around 880 federal judges as well as hundreds of local judges and magistrates. Another election for the remainder will be held in 2027. In the western state of Jalisco, 63-year-old housewife Maria Estrada said she used her "intuition" because she did not know the candidates. Arturo Giesemann, a 57-year-old retiree in Mexico City, said his main reason for voting was "the disgust I have with the current judiciary because of its corruption." Hundreds of opponents of the reforms marched through the capital waving flags and banners with slogans including: "Hands off our democracy" and "No to electoral fraud." The elections send the judiciary "to its grave," said Ismael Novela, a 58-year-old company worker. "It was the last counterweight we had against the totalitarianism of the executive branch." 'GOOD REPUTATION' Critics of the election warned that criminal groups who regularly use violence, threats and bribery would seek to increase their influence over the courts by meddling in the vote. Rights group Defensorxs had identified around 20 candidates it considered "high risk," including Silvia Delgado, a former lawyer for Sinaloa Cartel co-founder Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman. Another aspiring judge, in Durango state, spent almost six years in prison in the United States for drug crimes, despite an official requirement for a clean criminal record. Candidates were also supposed to have a law degree, experience in legal affairs and what is termed "a good reputation." The run-up to the vote was not accompanied by the kind of violence that often targets Mexican politicians, which could in part reflect the "chaotic process," said David Shirk, an expert on Mexico's justice system at the University of San Diego. "Part of the problem for organised crime is they're not sure what judges stand for and who's going to be easy to influence, who's going to be willing to take bribes," he told AFP. "It could be that in the coming year, as judges take office and start making decisions that are unfavourable to organised crime, that's when we'll start to see some of the pressure and violent activities by organised crime groups," Shirk added.
