JK Rowling 'profoundly grateful' for supportive letter over transphobia allegations

[Josy]

JK Rowling 'profoundly grateful' for supportive letter over transphobia allegations

The letter shows "solidarity with all the women who're currently speaking up for their own rights," Rowling said.


More at sky

https://news.sky.com/story/jk-rowling-profoundly-grateful-for-supportive-letter-over-transphobia-allegations-12084520?dcmp=snt-sf-twitter

Still think shes perfectly entitled to her (not transphobic) opinions without people actually wishing her dead for it.

[Oliver_W]

Nice, it's been uncomfortable seeing her dogpiled for no discernible reason.

[DouglasS]

Glad she’s getting support :clap:

[Liam-]

It’s no surprise people that think like her are supporting her

[Crimson Dynamo]

Amazing woman

[Oliver_W]

It’s no surprise people that think like her are supporting her

What has she said to not deserve support?

[Mitchell]

Does she deserve death threats? No.

Will I ever read anything written by her or support someone who seems to be filled with such hate towards a community who already are targeted and unfairly treated? No.

[Elliot]

Emma Watson <3

[MB.]

What a wonderful and concise list of irrelevant old TERFs to ignore from this moment on! :love:

[Tom4784]

I'm always a bit dubious of hate figures who come out and say they've received death threats, the sceptic in me thinks it's nothing more than a publicity stunt to garner sympathy. If someone sent me death threats, I'd pull out the receipts but these people never do.

Does JK Rowling deserve death threats? Nope, but all opinions have consequences and I think she's just trying to curb the negative views of her by garnering sympathy.

[user104658]

I'm always a bit dubious of hate figures who come out and say they've received death threats, the sceptic in me thinks it's nothing more than a publicity stunt to garner sympathy. If someone sent me death threats, I'd pull out the receipts but these people never do.


There have been death and rape threats/wishes posted openly on Twitter :think:

[Oliver_W]

Does she deserve death threats? No.

Will I ever read anything written by her or support someone who seems to be filled with such hate towards a community who already are targeted and unfairly treated? No.

What has she said that's hateful?

[DouglasS]

I'm always a bit dubious of hate figures who come out and say they've received death threats, the sceptic in me thinks it's nothing more than a publicity stunt to garner sympathy. If someone sent me death threats, I'd pull out the receipts but these people never do.

Does JK Rowling deserve death threats? Nope, but all opinions have consequences and I think she's just trying to curb the negative views of her by garnering sympathy.

She’s not a hate figure? She’s the most popular and successful author of the past 4 generations..

She’s a very popular person

[Marsh.]

Does she deserve death threats? No.

Will I ever read anything written by her or support someone who seems to be filled with such hate towards a community who already are targeted and unfairly treated? No.

Hate?

It's one thing saying you believe she has problematic opinions, but hateful?

[Ninastar]

I still don’t really know what she said that is supposedly so awful. Anyone able to explain for me plz?

[Ninastar]

I still don’t really know what she said that is supposedly so awful. Anyone able to explain for me plz?

[Ammi]

:joker:

Obviously I'm not owed a reply by anyone, but I find it interesting how no-one can say what it was that she said they take exception to, and what was wrong withthkse things...

...obviously it’s entirely your prerogative to find it ‘interesting’ Oliver...I do sometimes see things like.’can anyone answer’/‘I’m waiting for an answer’ type things etc...and obviously we can all think and overthink about that until our heads find an answer we think we’ll settle on because we have our own ‘input’ into what we think reasons are...But this particular topic...(..as with other topics if applicable..)...it’s very much been prominent with much discussion recently to the point of ‘circles and circles and dead ends and etc..’...so if and when something isn’t responded to...it could also very much be that it’s all been said before and just not having the enthusiasm to keep on saying, etc if nothing new is felt to be created...

[Ammi]

...I just can’t imagine what it would feel like to have a death threat...and celebrity fame would create a ‘vulnerability’ as well as a sense of safety, I would think...but just an awful thing to experience...I’m glad that she’s feeling much support and I hope that the people who are making these threats, face the law for their threats ...the irony of what they’re doing..targeting for what they believe to be ‘hating on’...while voicing the most extreme ‘hating on’ themselves...just awful and some hateful Internet comments that can be made by people, which can come in many shapes and sizes...really do need to be focused on much more with the legal system and policing them...

[Oliver_W]

...obviously it’s entirely your prerogative to find it ‘interesting’ Oliver...I do sometimes see things like.’can anyone answer’/‘I’m waiting for an answer’ type things etc...and obviously we can all think and overthink about that until our heads find an answer we think we’ll settle on because we have our own ‘input’ into what we think reasons are...But this particular topic...(..as with other topics if applicable..)...it’s very much been prominent with much discussion recently to the point of ‘circles and circles and dead ends and etc..’...so if and when something isn’t responded to...it could also very much be that it’s all been said before and just not having the enthusiasm to keep on saying, etc if nothing new is felt to be created...

Well, sure ... but there's literally no examples of anything hateful coming from JK :joker: at absolute worse she's guilty of female-focused feminism, which is pushing the definition of hate quite a bit.

[Ammi]

Well, sure ... but there's literally no examples of anything hateful coming from JK :joker: at absolute worse she's guilty of female-focused feminism, which is pushing the definition of hate quite a bit.

...hmm, I’m not going to comment further, Oliver... other than to say that ‘no’ can’t be applied but interpretation most definitely can be...

[Cherie]

I still don’t really know what she said that is supposedly so awful. Anyone able to explain for me plz?

Hopefully some of her irrational haters will explain

[Jessica.]

Awful hateful woman, I hope people will start avoiding work by all of the people who signed in support of her too.

[DouglasS]

Awful hateful woman, I hope people will start avoiding work by all of the people who signed in support of her too.

People aren’t avoiding work by her so why would they do that? Her new book was a top seller and topped the charts


According to the Bookseller, Troubled Blood has ‘by far’ the biggest single week sale for any Galbrath title, nearly doubling that of its predecessor Lethal White.

[Jessica.]

I still don’t really know what she said that is supposedly so awful. Anyone able to explain for me plz?

She says that trans people are just confused or misguided.

Here's an article you can read.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/danidiplacido/2020/06/07/jk-rowling-is-destroying-her-legacy-one-tweet-at-a-time/#3a436d6a12c7

[Niamh.]

I still don’t really know what she said that is supposedly so awful. Anyone able to explain for me plz?She's basically of the opinion that women's sex based rights are being affected by some trans "gender" based rights (women's sports being an example) she also object's to the erasure of the word "woman" in women's health information and women's products (sanitary products being an example) apparently that translates to literally killing transpeople

[Cherie]

She's basically of the opinion that women's sex based rights are being affected by some trans "gender" based rights (women's sports being an example) she also object's to the erasure of the word "woman" in women's health information and women's products (sanitary products being an example) apparently that translates to literally killing transpeople

in a nutshell

[Oliver_W]

She's basically of the opinion that women's sex based rights are being affected by some trans "gender" based rights (women's sports being an example) she also object's to the erasure of the word "woman" in women's health information and women's products (sanitary products being an example) apparently that translates to literally killing transpeople

I wish someone could say what is wrong with these views? There's absolutely nothing hateful there :shrug:

[Ninastar]

She says that trans people are just confused or misguided.

Here's an article you can read.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/danidiplacido/2020/06/07/jk-rowling-is-destroying-her-legacy-one-tweet-at-a-time/#3a436d6a12c7

So is all of this hate stemmed from those two tweets?

She's basically of the opinion that women's sex based rights are being affected by some trans "gender" based rights (women's sports being an example) she also object's to the erasure of the word "woman" in women's health information and women's products (sanitary products being an example) apparently that translates to literally killing transpeople

Honestly to me it just sounds like the media and cancel culture over reacting, as per.

[Niamh.]

So is all of this hate stemmed from those two tweets?







Honestly to me it just sounds like the media and cancel culture over reacting, as per.Yeah pretty much, fortunately she's pretty uncancellable

[Jessica.]

So is all of this hate stemmed from those two tweets?

If you read it you'd know that she composed an essay on her thoughts and also has put problematic trans stereotypes in her writing. Also it doesn't matter how many tweets there are if there is even one that's problematic.

[Oliver_W]

and also has put problematic trans stereotypes in her writing.
When? If you're referring to the latest book, the part where a non-trans dude wore a wig and women's coat for like five seconds in order to attack someone? If you think that relates to transwomen, it kind of reflects more on you than JK :shrug:
Also it doesn't matter how many tweets there are if there is even one that's problematic.
Which tweet/s did you perceive as ... "problematic" (lol) ?

[Ninastar]

If you read it you'd know that she composed an essay on her thoughts and also has put problematic trans stereotypes in her writing. Also it doesn't matter how many tweets there are if there is even one that's problematic.

Wasn’t there a movie a few years ago, called Split iirc that had a man with a personality disorder who would ‘dress as a woman’ occasionally and killed ppl?

Did people want that cancelled? Or is it just J.K that deserves to be cancelled?

[bots]

michael caine in dressed to kill

https://images2.fanpop.com/images/photos/5000000/Dressed-to-Kill-michael-caine-5094347-550-310.jpg

[DouglasS]

Wasn’t there a movie a few years ago, called Split iirc that had a man with a personality disorder who would ‘dress as a woman’ occasionally and killed ppl?

Did people want that cancelled? Or is it just J.K that deserves to be cancelled?

It’s just JK Rowling! What she said wasn’t even offensive. She was just pro women’s rights and people seem to feel insulted.

[user104658]

Wasn’t there a movie a few years ago, called Split iirc that had a man with a personality disorder who would ‘dress as a woman’ occasionally and killed ppl?

Did people want that cancelled? Or is it just J.K that deserves to be cancelled?

Great film but tbf I don't think any of his female personas were killers... the main "murderous" one was definitely male.

[Shaun]

I think she's just become the figurehead for anti-trans sentiment (which is rife at the moment, with everyone making a big hoo-ha about Facebook gender options, the "people who menstruate" thing, bathroom choices, trans rights being infringed upon by the Trump administration - specifically in the military - etc.) I don't necessarily believe she is transphobic but I do believe she is amplifying transphobic voices: she endorsed some little online store the other day that freely sells badges like these:

1308709858775048193

The last one in particular should surely ring alarm bells ("transwomen are men" is such a blanket, incorrect and disrespectful statement). This whole "hivemind" thing that TS is having great fun in building up works both ways, and a whole lot of actual trans people are being told to shut up and grow up without actually being listened to.

[user104658]

This whole "hivemind" thing that TS is having great fun in building up works both ways, and a whole lot of actual trans people are being told to shut up and grow up without actually being listened to.

I don't disagree and if you browse around you'll see me expressing a general disdain for dumb tribalism; all I've ever advocated for is open and nuanced discussion of a contentious issue. You're certainly not wrong in saying that Rowling is at high risk of being adopted as the PosterLady of the opposite extreme and she should be very wary of that, not least because it ultimately is counter-productive to her own original message, just as on-prescription, stonewallish trans-rights dogma is proving to be counter productive to furthering trans rights.

That has no bearing at all on my opinions on those who vehemently deny that any discussion at all is necessary, and that brand all those who want that discussion to take place as "hateful transphobes and TERFs".

[Marsh.]

1309192315467116547

Hmm

[DouglasS]

Blair white a trans you tuber says she does not find any of JK Rowling said transphobic or even remotely insulting. Claims people are over reacting and are insulted over Facts and science

jyzZ3J6IG6s

Worth a watch imo

She says that it’s “trans ally’s” painting trans people to be easily offended and To be perpetual victims over basic tweets/pro women tweets, when actually a lot of the trans community agree with what JK Rowling has said and it’s actually these ‘allies’ putting words in the trans communities mouths (people who actually can not relate)

[Elliot]

Another trans you tubers perspective, worth a watch as very fair and balanced and well researched

6Avcp-e4bOs

[Ninastar]

I think she's just become the figurehead for anti-trans sentiment (which is rife at the moment, with everyone making a big hoo-ha about Facebook gender options, the "people who menstruate" thing, bathroom choices, trans rights being infringed upon by the Trump administration - specifically in the military - etc.) I don't necessarily believe she is transphobic but I do believe she is amplifying transphobic voices: she endorsed some little online store the other day that freely sells badges like these:

1308709858775048193

The last one in particular should surely ring alarm bells ("transwomen are men" is such a blanket, incorrect and disrespectful statement). This whole "hivemind" thing that TS is having great fun in building up works both ways, and a whole lot of actual trans people are being told to shut up and grow up without actually being listened to.

Is there a chance she wasn’t actually aware of those ****ty badges/phrases on those shirts?

I just don’t see a woman who wrote something as motivating and forward thinking as the HP series to believe in things like those quotes on that website.

I actually like the shirt she’s wearing. It’s like it’s relevant to HP and it’s kind of a FU to her haters

[Elliot]

Is there a chance she wasn’t actually aware of those ****ty badges/phrases on those shirts?


That’s like claiming she also wasn’t aware when she retweeted a tweet comparing trans people to black face, which she actually tried claiming at the time but doubled down in her essay thing

[Niamh.]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">2. Retribution is instant. Mslexia magazine, which says it champions women's writing, tells her she is dropped as a judge on one of its competitions.</p>&mdash; Nick Cohen (@NickCohen4) <a href="https://twitter.com/NickCohen4/status/1310992315578814470?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 29, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">4. Every honest person who reads the book knows it isn't true. Yet it's easier for cultural bureaucrats to go along with the lie than risk their careers by stating the truth. (If you want chapter and verse, I reviewed the novel here <a href="https://t.co/X21FXyl4Wk">https://t.co/X21FXyl4Wk</a>)</p>&mdash; Nick Cohen (@NickCohen4) <a href="https://twitter.com/NickCohen4/status/1310992587650670592?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 29, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

[Marsh.]

This is kind of the problem these days. You can't agree with someone on one issue without the "but, but, but" brigade assuming it means you're best friends with them and agree wholeheartedly with every opinion and action from their entire lives.

[Tom4784]

As I always say when it comes to JK, she had some valid points in the beginning but in the face of criticism, she's doubled down and rolled in the mud with transphobes and gave them her support while tweeting transphobic stuff herself. Mud sticks and she kind of lost her original point almost in a way to 'stick it' to the people who criticised her.

[user104658]

Mud sticks and she kind of lost her original point almost in a way to 'stick it' to the people who criticised her.

I do actually think that's the case, she's unfortunately let the flak that she took in the immediate aftermath affect her and has been "lured to the dark side" in flirting a little too closely with the opposite extreme. They offered her support when she was under attack and that drew her into the tit-for-tat that can get pointed and nasty... for example the shirt she endorsed - I doubt she meant to endorse the other things made by the site, but she also clearly put her voice behind something in a kneejerk fashion without actually looking into who they were which is an extremely naive "internetting". Plenty of big YouTubers etc. have fallen into that trap and ended up having to apologise, to the extent that most "new internet celebrities" are aware of how important it is to do your homework. It's not JK's playground and she's been drawn into some unfortunate missteps.

If I'm going to be completely blunt on that one though, it's probably because she's ... umm ... not MASSIVELY bright. She has an exceptional imagination as I've said before, I think her overall world-building is exemplary in the entirity of literary history. The "wizarding world" is a marvel. But if you compare her actual WRITING to others who have created very detailed fictional worlds - Tolkien, Terry Pratchett, Frank Herbert - it's functional but basic. These "Cormoran Strike" books (that I honestly had no idea existed until recent events) sound like such pulpy formulaic trash I don't even know where to begin :umm2:.

But yeah with my harsh hat on, I think JK had a point to make, made it well in the first instance, and then was drawn into an ongoing twitter spat that has been totally unnecessary. I think we all understand that temptation on our worst day but when you're so firmly in the public eye it's even more important to resist :shrug:. Read the comments, make notes, write and publish another opinion piece later... don't get down scrapping in the mud with the muggles.

[Marsh.]

I don't think there's a correlation between her writing (I mean the Strike stuff is just basic whodunnit stuff) and her intelligence.

In interviews and when discussing the world in general she doesn't strike me as particularly unintelligent. Probably more naive when it comes to the internet.

[Black Dagger]

****ty people support equally ****ty person.

Next.

[Marsh.]

****ty people support equally ****ty person.

Next.

Cherie needs knocking down a peg or two but this is hardly the thread for it. :nono:

[user104658]

I don't think there's a correlation between her writing (I mean the Strike stuff is just basic whodunnit stuff) and her intelligence.

In interviews and when discussing the world in general she doesn't strike me as particularly unintelligent. Probably more naive when it comes to the internet.

I'm not saying she's thick I just think probably no less likely to be drawn into it than, let's say, your average Tibber. Not a smart one like you or me obviously but your basic ones like Cherie or LT.

Obviously she wouldn't go around saying properly dumb things like "****ty people support equally ****ty person. Next."

[user104658]

Cherie needs knocking down a peg or two but this is hardly the thread for it. :nono:

:joker: the fact that we independently chose to roast Cherie for no reason at the same time on the same thread.

[Marsh.]

I'm not saying she's thick I just think probably no less likely to be drawn into it than, let's say, your average Tibber. Not a smart one like you or me obviously but your basic ones like Cherie or LT.

Obviously she wouldn't go around saying properly dumb things like "****ty people support equally ****ty person. Next."

:joker: the fact that we independently chose to roast Cherie for no reason at the same time on the same thread.

:omgno: We love a clique.

[Cherie]

Cherie needs knocking down a peg or two but this is hardly the thread for it. :nono:

I'm not saying she's thick I just think probably no less likely to be drawn into it than, let's say, your average Tibber. Not a smart one like you or me obviously but your basic ones like Cherie or LT.

Obviously she wouldn't go around saying properly dumb things like "****ty people support equally ****ty person. Next."

Not soggy ground and Toy slapper having fun at my expense :oh:

[Niamh.]

This is kind of the problem these days. You can't agree with someone on one issue without the "but, but, but" brigade assuming it means you're best friends with them and agree wholeheartedly with every opinion and action from their entire lives.

Sorry Marsh I missed this comment when I was reading the thread but you're so spot on there, we don't all have to agree 100% on everything surely to just be able to get on normally in real life (or forum life) people should never always agree on everything

[Ninastar]

I agree with niamh.

Also I’m not a big fan of those whole “you have a similar opinion to person X on this, so therefore you’re automatically a bigot/homophobe/terfs/racist etc” thing that the super left people tend to do. It does more damage than good

[Oliver_W]

It's interesting how people supporting JK come from all over the political spectrum, while hating on her for being a female-focused feminist seems to be a left wing thing.

[Elliot]

Yeah her essay was cited as a reference for a republican politician trying to oppose lgbtq+ protections for housing and employment. That’s really when you know you’re on the right side of history, when you become an ally to the anti lgbt right wing

[Elliot]

I agree with niamh.

Also I’m not a big fan of those whole “you have a similar opinion to person X on this, so therefore you’re automatically a bigot/homophobe/terfs/racist etc” thing that the super left people tend to do. It does more damage than good

Sorry people aren’t super nice and accepting of people trying to take away trans people’s and lgbtq+ peoples protections and rights?

[Oliver_W]

Yeah her essay was cited as a reference for a republican politician trying to oppose lgbtq+ protections for housing and employment. That’s really when you know you’re on the right side of history, when you become an ally to the anti lgbt right wing

Anyone can cite anyone else, it doesn't mean the person being quoted agrees with everything the person using their words says :shrug:

[Oliver_W]

Sorry people aren’t super nice and accepting of people trying to take away trans people’s and lgbtq+ peoples protections and rights?

It's not that she wants to take rights away from LGBT people, but she's prioritising female rights to single sex spaces.

When it comes down to it, females' rights to single sex spaces, and transwomen's rights to use female spaces are incompatible. She's a feminist, so of course she'd prioritise the former.

She's never shown any indication of wanting to take away other LGBT rights.

[Ammi]

...wonders what type of feminist I am..I don’t ‘hate on her’...and neither do many other people../left/right or centre...male to female are female as well and a part of equality in consideration and inclusion of female...

[bots]

i find it difficult to comprehend that thousands of people can physically hate someone and wish death on them from a single text snapshot on the web.

[Oliver_W]

...wonders what type of feminist I am..I don’t ‘hate on her’...and neither do many other people../left/right or centre...male to female are female as well and a part of equality in consideration and inclusion of female...

Their sex is male, and always will be. That can't be changed. If your feminism includes male people, that's fine, but not all forms of it do :)

[user104658]

Yeah her essay was cited as a reference for a republican politician trying to oppose lgbtq+ protections for housing and employment. That’s really when you know you’re on the right side of history, when you become an ally to the anti lgbt right wingAnyone can cite any essay or article in whatever context they want to, it has absolutely NO bearing on the original piece nor on the author of that piece. It's this sort of confused anti-intellectualism that's causing half of the problem at the moment in all honesty. "A group that my group hates liked something that you wrote... you are ENEMY toot toot sound the horns alert the troops target acquired".

[Ammi]

Their sex is male, and always will be. That can't be changed. If your feminism includes male people, that's fine, but not all forms of it do :)

...honestly, Oliver...I don’t know what to say to you ...so forgive me, I’m going to say very little and not continue with any possible conversation that could have been had...the born gender is not what trans is...otherwise trans wouldn’t exist and any thoughts or views on it wouldn’t exist either...Harry Potter style, magic-ed away...but so far as the gender of males is concerned as well in the way you’re also referencing it...?...of course, feminism includes males because it supports equality of genders which I would hope that, that is something that male gendered people, strive for as well...I really would hope that, Oliver...I’ll leave it at that...

[Oliver_W]

...honestly, Oliver...I don’t know what to say to you ...so forgive me, I’m going to say very little and not continue with any possible conversation that could have been had...the born gender is not what trans is...otherwise trans wouldn’t exist and any thoughts or views on it wouldn’t exist either...Harry Potter style, magic-ed away...but so far as the gender of males is concerned as well in the way you’re also referencing it...?...of course, feminism includes males because it supports equality of genders which I would hope that, that is something that male gendered people, strive for as well...I really would hope that, Oliver...I’ll leave it at that...

I didn't bring gender into it at all, only biological sex. One can change the "gender role" in which they choose to live, and make an effort to look physically like the one they weren't born in. But biological sex is fixed.

You can treat transwomen as women, in fact you should, but when it comes to sex-based rights, there is a bit of a conflict with single sex spaces. Some women are happy to allow transwomen into their spaces, but some aren't. Both views are valid, but it hinges on if they want to uphold the rights of females or transwomen.

[Nicky91]

I didn't bring gender into it at all, only biological sex. One can change the "gender role" in which they choose to live, and make an effort to look physically like the one they weren't born in. But biological sex is fixed.

You can treat transwomen as women, in fact you should, but when it comes to sex-based rights, there is a bit of a conflict with single sex spaces. Some women are happy to allow transwomen into their spaces, but some aren't. Both views are valid, but it hinges on if they want to uphold the rights of females or transwomen.

transwomen well they always felt like women which is why they make the gender change

NikkieTutorials i have always recognized as women, even before her coming out as trans (which i was surprised about given how feminine she just looks already)

i find Nikkie looking more feminine than Caitlyn (and yes i've only since recently started accepting Caitlyn as a women, but that was more because i knew her for such a long time as Bruce Jenner, the olympic champion athlete) so in Caitlyn's case i wasn't being transphobe, but it was more down to the fact i knew her as Bruce for a longer time, so i needed time to get used to seeing now as Caitlyn in the media

[user104658]

To be fair, when we're talking gender identity that's where there really SHOULD be a distinction.

"Man"/"Woman" is a social gender term and thus open to interpretation; the idea that a man can become a woman is fine and certainly, the idea that gender roles are almost entirely social constructs seems quite likely.

"Male"/"Female" should be reserved as biological terminology because, otherwise, there IS no meaningful biological terminology and that presents a whole host of problems.

So a male can be a woman, but a male can't become female.

[Nicky91]

To be fair, when we're talking gender identity that's where there really SHOULD be a distinction.

"Man"/"Woman" is a social gender term and thus open to interpretation; the idea that a man can become a woman is fine and certainly, the idea that gender roles are almost entirely social constructs seems quite likely.

"Male"/"Female" should be reserved as biological terminology because, others ie, there IS no meaningful biological terminology and that presents a whole host of problems.

So a male can be a woman, but a male can't become female.

South Park has worked this into their series storyline too, remember

Mr Garrison who had become Mrs Garrison

[Marsh.]

Yeah her essay was cited as a reference for a republican politician trying to oppose lgbtq+ protections for housing and employment. That’s really when you know you’re on the right side of history, when you become an ally to the anti lgbt right wing

Having her words taken out of context for dubious means does not make her their ally. That's just dumb.

[Oliver_W]

South Park has worked this into their series storyline too, remember

Mr Garrison who had become Mrs Garrison

:joker: forgot all about that! Kyle's dad became a dolphin, and Kyle (or Stan?) had a race change!

[Marsh.]

Sorry Marsh I missed this comment when I was reading the thread but you're so spot on there, we don't all have to agree 100% on everything surely to just be able to get on normally in real life (or forum life) people should never always agree on everything

:smug:

[Niamh.]

If you read it you'd know that she composed an essay on her thoughts and also has put problematic trans stereotypes in her writing. Also it doesn't matter how many tweets there are if there is even one that's problematic.

Sorry to be bringing this up again but I've just finished reading it and there is zero trans stereotypes in that book, none of the characters in it are trans for a start. I didn't want to properly comment on it until I'd read the whole thing but

I'll spoiler this even though it's not really that spoilerish -
the one male character who wore a womens coat and wig wasn't trans and he wasn't a cross dresser, he just literally put a victims coat on to look vaguely like a woman in the dark to grab another victim. It's not an out there idea to think that a woman alone at night would be less afraid of another woman coming towards her than a man. Anyone who's claimed that her book was in anyway trans-phobic clearly has not read it

[Niamh.]

Oh and to add (this is a big spoiler so don't open if you do ever plan on reading the book)

The actual killer was a woman anyway

[UserSince2005]

shes a disgrace

[Mystic Mock]

There have been death and rape threats/wishes posted openly on Twitter :think:

As you do of course.:laugh:

[Stu]

JK Rowling's been an interesting one. And a far more palatable figurehead for 'contentious' trans views than smelly Graham Linehan. What's intriguing about Rowling is that she's traditionally been a figure of veneration for those who are at the beating heart of this debate, so it's almost like the village chieftess is being ousted, a bit. I try not to follow social media, but it's very telling how vicious some of these folk are being towards what I still suspect is a traditionally well reasoned, intelligent woman. It's been a rather ugly reflection. That's not me aligning myself with her views, either. All I have on this is my heart, and my heart loves and accepts anyone at any stage of that journey for who they are and who they would like to be. The problem is that from what I can take from it she's raising difficult questions, and they seem to be a genuine no-go area for some people.

They will inevitably assume the position of harmful rhetoric for some, where others will applaud her courage in doing so. I've not seen any tweets of hers that I myself would take to be destructive sloganeering etc and am basing most of my character assessment of her on her blog post she made awhile back addressing all of this. But again as respectful as I found that piece of writing, I'll say again that I'll relent at aligning myself with her views. I will freely admit to not having the nous or practice to weigh on in trans issues save for what I've said above based on my gut, my heart. I've just found her a fascinating exhibit in online extremities.

That's a really long way of saying I still find her measurably more palatable than the digital army of "bitch plz, you're over" morons who brandished the pitchforks for her.

[Mystic Mock]

Sorry Marsh I missed this comment when I was reading the thread but you're so spot on there, we don't all have to agree 100% on everything surely to just be able to get on normally in real life (or forum life) people should never always agree on everything

I agree with this, it's an unhealthy mindset to have imo.

[user104658]

JK Rowling's been an interesting one. And a far more palatable figurehead for 'contentious' trans views than smelly Graham Linehan. What's intriguing about Rowling is that she's traditionally been a figure of veneration for those who are at the beating heart of this debate, so it's almost like the village chieftess is being ousted, a bit. I try not to follow social media, but it's very telling how vicious some of these folk are being towards what I still suspect is a traditionally well reasoned, intelligent woman. It's been a rather ugly reflection. That's not me aligning myself with her views, either. All I have on this is my heart, and my heart loves and accepts anyone at any stage of that journey for who they are and who they would like to be. The problem is that from what I can take from it she's raising difficult questions, and they seem to be a genuine no-go area for some people.

They will inevitably assume the position of harmful rhetoric for some, where others will applaud her courage in doing so. I've not seen any tweets of hers that I myself would take to be destructive sloganeering etc and am basing most of my character assessment of her on her blog post she made awhile back addressing all of this. But again as respectful as I found that piece of writing, I'll say again that I'll relent at aligning myself with her views. I will freely admit to not having the nous or practice to weigh on in trans issues save for what I've said above based on my gut, my heart. I've just found her a fascinating exhibit in online extremities.

That's a really long way of saying I still find her measurably more palatable than the digital army of "bitch plz, you're over" morons who brandished the pitchforks for her.

Her major mistake was engaging with it honestly. She responded, it gathered pace, she responded again... etc... at some point she started defensively retweeting things that were in support of her, but were coming from questionable sources if you did a little digging, when ideally she should have stuck to the better thought out dialogue and ignored the sniping (at least in public).

It's the only way to do Twitter really. It's a toxic mess of hive-mind idiots and if you don't ignore them, you'll get drawn into a back-and-forth that's a waste of everyone's time. "They'll drag you down to their level, and beat you with experience" as the saying goes.

[Niamh.]

JK Rowling's been an interesting one. And a far more palatable figurehead for 'contentious' trans views than smelly Graham Linehan. What's intriguing about Rowling is that she's traditionally been a figure of veneration for those who are at the beating heart of this debate, so it's almost like the village chieftess is being ousted, a bit. I try not to follow social media, but it's very telling how vicious some of these folk are being towards what I still suspect is a traditionally well reasoned, intelligent woman. It's been a rather ugly reflection. That's not me aligning myself with her views, either. All I have on this is my heart, and my heart loves and accepts anyone at any stage of that journey for who they are and who they would like to be. The problem is that from what I can take from it she's raising difficult questions, and they seem to be a genuine no-go area for some people.

They will inevitably assume the position of harmful rhetoric for some, where others will applaud her courage in doing so. I've not seen any tweets of hers that I myself would take to be destructive sloganeering etc and am basing most of my character assessment of her on her blog post she made awhile back addressing all of this. But again as respectful as I found that piece of writing, I'll say again that I'll relent at aligning myself with her views. I will freely admit to not having the nous or practice to weigh on in trans issues save for what I've said above based on my gut, my heart. I've just found her a fascinating exhibit in online extremities.

That's a really long way of saying I still find her measurably more palatable than the digital army of "bitch plz, you're over" morons who brandished the pitchforks for her.

Well this is the thing, the idea that JK Rowling was always some sort of intolerant monster and was just waiting all these years to reveal herself (and lose a lot of fans in the process) just doesn't make a lot of sense. All she has done is speak about genuine concerns she has around the topic but it seems like you are just not allowed to ask any questions at all or raise any concerns or else you're a TERF and are banished from the left forever.

[Elliot]

Sorry to be bringing this up again but I've just finished reading it and there is zero trans stereotypes in that book, none of the characters in it are trans for a start. I didn't want to properly comment on it until I'd read the whole thing but

I'll spoiler this even though it's not really that spoilerish -
the one male character who wore a womens coat and wig wasn't trans and he wasn't a cross dresser, he just literally put a victims coat on to look vaguely like a woman in the dark to grab another victim. It's not an out there idea to think that a woman alone at night would be less afraid of another woman coming towards her than a man. Anyone who's claimed that her book was in anyway trans-phobic clearly has not read it

He didn’t just wear them as disguises. He wore women’s clothing for pleasure in private that he stole off family members and also wore it to ‘imitate’ a female pop star in public, and the reason given for it was that he wanted to live out a fantasy

[Elliot]

Well this is the thing, the idea that JK Rowling was always some sort of intolerant monster and was just waiting all these years to reveal herself (and lose a lot of fans in the process) just doesn't make a lot of sense. All she has done is speak about genuine concerns she has around the topic but it seems like you are just not allowed to ask any questions at all or raise any concerns or else you're a TERF and are banished from the left forever.

I mean she hasn’t had these views for a while has she, like I think she said she was researching trans people for a book in a pretty recent timeframe? Anyway she’s always been kinda problematic and has made quite a few enemies in the lgbtq community with her clumsy attempts at representation and her comments about Hermiones race.

[user104658]

Anyway she’s always been kinda problematic and has made quite a few enemies in the lgbtq community with her clumsy attempts at representation and her comments about Hermiones race.

The thing that really bothers me here is that this is a pretty much textbook definition of intolerance, and frankly I have no idea how people have come to the belief that they can campaign for (let alone achieve) progress for ... well ... anything at all with outrage and inflexibility. "You got this WRONG so BYE BYE NOW" is only ever going to be counterproductive when it comes to mainstream thinking, so all you end up with is increasingly insular communities, full of confirmation bias, preaching-to-the-choir, and resentment.

This is the real "culture" problem we're facing right now, and it applies to countless groups from all across the spectrum. I see a tonne of practical similarities between LGBTQ, BLM, MAGA and Trumpites, Tommy Robbo and his ilk, and at the extreme end of the scale, extremist groups across the political spectrum.

https://media.giphy.com/media/X8sWg5Ka6m4qQ/giphy.gif

[Stu]

Her major mistake was engaging with it honestly. She responded, it gathered pace, she responded again... etc... at some point she started defensively retweeting things that were in support of her, but were coming from questionable sources if you did a little digging, when ideally she should have stuck to the better thought out dialogue and ignored the sniping (at least in public).

It's the only way to do Twitter really. It's a toxic mess of hive-mind idiots and if you don't ignore them, you'll get drawn into a back-and-forth that's a waste of everyone's time. "They'll drag you down to their level, and beat you with experience" as the saying goes.
Yeah, I agree with this. There's no problem using the platform to put your balls on the table, but there's no need to get under the table to do a back and forth with various people.

I mean, she's a millionaire. If I won a grand on a scratch card I wouldn't be on the internet all day. I'd be drinking in traffic.

Well this is the thing, the idea that JK Rowling was always some sort of intolerant monster and was just waiting all these years to reveal herself (and lose a lot of fans in the process) just doesn't make a lot of sense. All she has done is speak about genuine concerns she has around the topic but it seems like you are just not allowed to ask any questions at all or raise any concerns or else you're a TERF and are banished from the left forever.
Yeah, and therein lies another problem. I don't want these knee jerks getting sole patent on the left. Yet their snappy, wholly ironic intolerance just enables genuine nazi scum and gifts them a rotten platform to try and sell back to the politically disenfranchised.

I'm all for punching a nazi in the face. I just don't see the hate in Rowling, though. Yeah, sorry, that doesn't work for me. I don't think it'll work for a lot of other people either once they grow up a bit. Then they can be better equipped to respond to her views with nous if they find them troubling, rather than begetting irrational hate in the face of - well - not hate.

[Niamh.]

He didn’t just wear them as disguises. He wore women’s clothing for pleasure in private that he stole off family members and also wore it to ‘imitate’ a female pop star in public, and the reason given for it was that he wanted to live out a fantasy

She was clearly building his back story and his weird relationship with women and how it began. He wasn't trans, he was a crazy serial killer who wanted to kill women. This is a crime novel, it isn't a new idea

I mean she hasn’t had these views for a while has she, like I think she said she was researching trans people for a book in a pretty recent timeframe? Anyway she’s always been kinda problematic and has made quite a few enemies in the lgbtq community with her clumsy attempts at representation and her comments about Hermiones race.

Why is it "problematic" for her to try and please the LGBT community?, surely that's a good thing, even if it was with clumsy attempts. And doesn't her clumsy attempts kind of show that she is in fact a genuinely nice woman who doesn't really want to upset or hurt people and therefore maybe, just maybe the only reason she is going against the party line this time could be because she is genuinely concerned about women's rights and issues between the two that may clash or be incompatible with each other? I mean do you really truly believe that she's just an evil woman who hates trans people for the sake of it?

[Stu]

Anyway at least tattoo artists are getting to send their kids to college off the back of endless hilarious cover up jobs of rubbish Deathly Hallows neck stamps.

[Niamh.]

Anyway at least tattoo artists are getting to send their kids to college off the back of endless hilarious cover up jobs of rubbish Deathly Hallows neck stamps.

:laugh:

[user104658]

Why is it "problematic" for her to try and please the LGBT community?, surely that's a good thing, even if it was with clumsy attempts. And doesn't her clumsy attempts kind of show that she is in fact a genuinely nice woman who doesn't really want to upset or hurt people and therefore maybe

Because she "didn't do it right" and thus it's seen as offensive, mercenary "virtue signalling" - which is, of course, language borrowed directly from people who would traditionally be anti LGBTQ.

I mean, I don't even disagree that her attempts have at times been woefully misjudged and ham-fisted but the idea that it's constructive to stick the boot into people who aren't trying to be offensive is just maddening. By all means, explain to them why it might be misjudged... if you do that accepting that they were trying, the vast majority of people are going to be receptive, at the very least to the conversation.

[Niamh.]

Because she "didn't do it right" and thus it's seen as offensive, mercenary "virtue signalling" - which is, of course, language borrowed directly from people who would traditionally be anti LGBTQ.

I mean, I don't even disagree that her attempts have at times been woefully misjudged and ham-fisted but the idea that it's constructive to stick the boot into people who aren't trying to be offensive is just maddening. By all means, explain to them why it might be misjudged... if you do that accepting that they were trying, the vast majority of people are going to be receptive, at the very least to the conversation.

Well yeah, if a person is trying to be on your side, why not help them do it properly?

[Marsh.]

The Hermione backlash was utterly absurd. All she was trying to illustrate was that Hermione did not NEED to be white. She could have been black from the start and it would not change her character or the story in the slightest. So, therefore limiting the actresses considered to play her on stage just because Emma Watson is white is ludicrous. The stage play takes many liberties with the source material but it's a stage adaptation, it's neither the novels nor the films.

But that's probably another instance where no response at all would have been better because the backlash was nonsensical.

[Tom4784]

She aligned herself with transphobes and then doubled down when she got called out on it. The company you keep can be telling and she chose to align herself with a bunch of dubious people.

She's a bit of a moron that couldn't cope with criticism and so she decided to make it worse by doing the exact opposite of what she should have done.

[Niamh.]

As a side note the book is actually very good, hadn't read any of her stuff before

[Tom4784]

As for Virtue signalling, it is a thing but the wrong people often try to claim it. A straight person can't claim virtue signalling towards gay people for example, and Dumbledore being gay was an example of Virtue signalling since it hasn't to date actually been mentioned or come to light in any official works. If it actually played a part or was spotlighted than it would be different but it's not. Grindelwald was his friend in the books and in the Fantastic Beasts films and the only thing that states otherwise isn't present in either works.

As for the Hermione thing, it's often said that the stage is colourblind and while her attempts to make out that Hermione was potentially always black in the books was misguided as it's easy enough to see that's not the case, it's one instance that JK almost had the right of it. Hermione can be played by any race because her race isn't a defining part of her character.

[Marsh.]

She aligned herself with transphobes and then doubled down when she got called out on it. The company you keep can be telling and she chose to align herself with a bunch of dubious people.

She's a bit of a moron that couldn't cope with criticism and so she decided to make it worse by doing the exact opposite of what she should have done.

Don't think that's fair, she responded because she was called a transphobe in the first instance. That's not "criticism".

[Marsh.]

As for Virtue signalling, it is a thing but the wrong people often try to claim it. A straight person can't claim virtue signalling towards gay people for example, and Dumbledore being gay was an example of Virtue signalling since it hasn't to date actually been mentioned or come to light in any official works. If it actually played a part or was spotlighted than it would be different but it's not. Grindelwald was his friend in the books and in the Fantastic Beasts films and the only thing that states otherwise isn't present in either works.

As for the Hermione thing, it's often said that the stage is colourblind and while her attempts to make out that Hermione was potentially always black in the books was misguided as it's easy enough to see that's not the case, it's one instance that JK almost had the right of it. Hermione can be played by any race because her race isn't a defining part of her character.

It wasn't misguided, it was simply misconstrued. Hermione could have been black the whole time and, as you say, not make an iota of difference.

[Tom4784]

Don't think that's fair, she responded because she was called a transphobe in the first instance. That's not "criticism".

I'd say that's fair criticism, if you do something that can be perceived as transphobic, be prepared to be called out on it. She could have poured water on that fire easily but she chose to pour gas on it instead by retweeting people and sources that anyone could have seen would be a bad idea.

[Niamh.]

I'd say that's fair criticism, if you do something that can be perceived as transphobic, be prepared to be called out on it. She could have poured water on that fire easily but she chose to pour gas on it instead by retweeting people and sources that anyone could have seen would be a bad idea.

What? you mean that tweet about women being called women when it comes to sanitary products, you mean you think that was transphobic or am i misunderstanding you?

[Marsh.]

I'd say that's fair criticism, if you do something that can be perceived as transphobic, be prepared to be called out on it. She could have poured water on that fire easily but she chose to pour gas on it instead by retweeting people and sources that anyone could have seen would be a bad idea.

You said "a moron who couldn't cope with criticism" well being called a transphobe isn't on the level of fair criticism, it's an accusation she had full right to respond to.

Not being able to handle criticism would be her kicking off about someone disliking her work. Defending herself against accusations is not that. She shouldn't have to stop sharing her views or just get on with it because a group of people tell her she's a transphobe just because they don't want to acknowledge the finer details and points beyond a slogan or catchphrase.

Would you say people who took offence were "morons who couldn't cope with criticism" when they responded to her? It works both ways.

ETA: She also posted a full thought out essay that was categorically not transphobic. Not just retweets.

[Tom4784]

You said "a moron who couldn't cope with criticism" well being called a transphobe isn't on the level of fair criticism, it's an accusation she had full right to respond to.

Not being able to handle criticism would be her kicking off about someone disliking her work. Defending herself against accusations is not that. She shouldn't have to stop sharing her views or just get on with it because a group of people tell her she's a transphobe just because they don't want to acknowledge the finer details and points beyond a slogan or catchphrase.

Would you say people who took offence were "morons who couldn't cope with criticism" when they responded to her? It works both ways.

Point out to me where I said she didn't have a full right to respond? I'll wait.

She's a moron for how she chose to respond, I'm not denying her right to respond. Trying to misconstrue what I'm saying to make out that she doesn't have a right to respond won't really work.

[Tom4784]

What? you mean that tweet about women being called women when it comes to sanitary products, you mean you think that was transphobic or am i misunderstanding you?

At this point, there's enough incidents of her either supporting transphobes or spouting something akin to it that it's fair for people to call her out on it.

At this point, personally, I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt and think she's just an idiot that keeps putting her foot in her mouth by not checking the sources or people she retweets or supports.

[Marsh.]

Point out to me where I said she didn't have a full right to respond? I'll wait.

She's a moron for how she chose to respond, I'm not denying her right to respond. Trying to misconstrue what I'm saying to make out that she doesn't have a right to respond won't really work.

No. I said you called her a "moron unable to take criticism" for responding. It's literally what you said.

Which leaves the people opposing her views what exactly?

She's a moron for not allowing herself to be shouted down, but they're not for not being able to respond to a reason argument in anything other than venemous attacks.

[Oliver_W]

The Hermione backlash was utterly absurd. All she was trying to illustrate was that Hermione did not NEED to be white. She could have been black from the start and it would not change her character or the story in the slightest. So, therefore limiting the actresses considered to play her on stage just because Emma Watson is white is ludicrous. The stage play takes many liberties with the source material but it's a stage adaptation, it's neither the novels nor the films.

But that's probably another instance where no response at all would have been better because the backlash was nonsensical.
The backlash for black Hermione was dumb af. All she had to say was "it's not how I imagined her, that's true, but I support this casting." By engaging with the trolls beyond that she acted as if they were worth attention at all.

Well this is the thing, the idea that JK Rowling was always some sort of intolerant monster and was just waiting all these years to reveal herself (and lose a lot of fans in the process) just doesn't make a lot of sense. All she has done is speak about genuine concerns she has around the topic but it seems like you are just not allowed to ask any questions at all or raise any concerns or else you're a TERF and are banished from the left forever.

I never will understand how a feminist focussing on female issues is seen as "problematic." Also term TERF (aside from being a slur) makes no sense to begin with - feminism is about females, so why would it include males?

[Elliot]

The thing that really bothers me here is that this is a pretty much textbook definition of intolerance, and frankly I have no idea how people have come to the belief that they can campaign for (let alone achieve) progress for ... well ... anything at all with outrage and inflexibility. "You got this WRONG so BYE BYE NOW" is only ever going to be counterproductive when it comes to mainstream thinking, so all you end up with is increasingly insular communities, full of confirmation bias, preaching-to-the-choir, and resentment.

This is the real "culture" problem we're facing right now, and it applies to countless groups from all across the spectrum. I see a tonne of practical similarities between LGBTQ, BLM, MAGA and Trumpites, Tommy Robbo and his ilk, and at the extreme end of the scale, extremist groups across the political spectrum.

https://media.giphy.com/media/X8sWg5Ka6m4qQ/giphy.gif

All that because I said she’s kinda problematic, god you must have learned a thing or two about taking criticism from miss Rowling herself

[Oliver_W]

All that because I said she’s kinda problematic, god you must have learned a thing or two about taking criticism from miss Rowling herself

How is she problematic?

[Marsh.]

All that because I said she’s kinda problematic, god you must have learned a thing or two about taking criticism from miss Rowling herself

Yet, you're the one in a tizzy about Rowling's comments. :shrug: So, what does that say about your ability to take on board her comments? Or do people only have to listen to you and your side of a debate?

[Ninastar]

Well this is the thing, the idea that JK Rowling was always some sort of intolerant monster and was just waiting all these years to reveal herself (and lose a lot of fans in the process) just doesn't make a lot of sense. All she has done is speak about genuine concerns she has around the topic but it seems like you are just not allowed to ask any questions at all or raise any concerns or else you're a TERF and are banished from the left forever.

This is basically what it all boils down to, in the end

[Tom4784]

No. I said you called her a "moron unable to take criticism" for responding. It's literally what you said.

Which leaves the people opposing her views what exactly?

She's a moron for not allowing herself to be shouted down, but they're not for not being able to respond to a reason argument in anything other than venemous attacks.

It's not a venomous attack to call someone out on something they've said or done that screams transphobia, and she's an idiot for, instead of refuting it properly or doing anything useful, doubling down on things instead. If she wasn't an idiot and actually checked who she was agreeing with or retweeting, than this controversy would have been long forgotten.

And she can't handle criticism, she's been criticised loads lately and she's responded, like I've said before, by doubling down on it in a way that screams '**** you! If you don't like it, I'll just do it more!' You can defend yourself and respond to criticism and accusations in a lot of ways but the approach JK has taken has only made things worse for herself when she could have put all of this to bed if she had an ounce of sense.

You can defend yourself without making a situation worse, she did not.

[Stu]

a great writer also
Steady on.

[Marsh.]

It's not a venomous attack to call someone out on something they've said or done that screams transphobia, and she's an idiot for, instead of refuting it properly or doing anything useful, doubling down on things instead. If she wasn't an idiot and actually checked who she was agreeing with or retweeting, than this controversy would have been long forgotten.


Screaming TERF, TRANSPHOBE, Demi Lovato wrote Harry Potter!, SUCK MY LADY DICK is not calling anyone out. It's venom.

She refuted it properly in a thoughtful essay none of them bothered to read.

Reducing the backlash down to a retweet of a t-shirt is being disingenuous. It's not about that at all and she received it long before that for doing nothing more then defend women's sex based rights. Which she's fully entitled to do, and it is not transphobic to do so.

[user104658]

All that because I said she’s kinda problematic, god you must have learned a thing or two about taking criticism from miss Rowling herself

Were you criticizing me? :think: I'm sure I was criticizing you, but it was a few hours ago to be fair and I've not checked back so maybe I'm mistaken...

Also are you new here? Because "all that" was a pretty abridged post by my usual standards :joker:. A tiddler!

[Tom4784]

Screaming TERF, TRANSPHOBE, Demi Lovato wrote Harry Potter!, SUCK MY LADY DICK is not calling anyone out. It's venom.

She refuted it properly in a thoughtful essay none of them bothered to read.

Reducing the backlash down to a retweet of a t-shirt is being disingenuous. It's not about that at all and she received it long before that for doing nothing more then defend women's sex based rights. Which she's fully entitled to do, and it is not transphobic to do so.

You call me disingenuous when you're making the conscious decision to make out that I'm defending everybody that's sent her abuse when that's clearly not the case. Okay.

People are allowed to think that JK Rowling is transphobic, they are allowed to say to someone 'I think you are a transphobe' just as she's allowed to try to refute it. It's no one's fault but her own if she screws the pooch when it comes to her responses.

[Marsh.]

You call me disingenuous when you're making the conscious decision to make out that I'm defending everybody that's sent her abuse when that's clearly not the case. Okay.

People are allowed to think that JK Rowling is transphobic, they are allowed to say to someone 'I think you are a transphobe' just as she's allowed to try to refute it. It's no one's fault but her own if she screws the pooch when it comes to her responses.

I never said people aren't. You're being disingenuous again.

I refuted your claim that the backlash was "criticism" when it is anything but. "Transphobe!" is not criticism, it's nothing. It's not addressing a single point she made in her essay. Shouting "But! But! She may or may not have known the person she retweeted so could quite possibly maybe have been transphobic" is completely ignoring the fact she wrote a nuanced essay on the topic outlining her entire views on the subject that wasn't transphobic in the slightest and didn't just have a knee-jerk reaction to "criticism". Yet that kind of response to her opinions is lauded as simply "criticism" and not a group of people unable to take any reasoned criticism without assuming someone is a phobe.

Someone isn't transphobic simply for having an alternative view when it comes to the cross section of rights for transpeople and women.

She's a "moron" for not accepting a false representation of her opinions, but people who can't accept views that don't align with their own without shouting them down by calling them bigoted are somehow giving valid criticism? No.

[Cherie]

Screaming TERF, TRANSPHOBE, Demi Lovato wrote Harry Potter!, SUCK MY LADY DICK is not calling anyone out. It's venom.

She refuted it properly in a thoughtful essay none of them bothered to read.

Reducing the backlash down to a retweet of a t-shirt is being disingenuous. It's not about that at all and she received it long before that for doing nothing more then defend women's sex based rights. Which she's fully entitled to do, and it is not transphobic to do so.

:clap1:

[Mystic Mock]

He didn’t just wear them as disguises. He wore women’s clothing for pleasure in private that he stole off family members and also wore it to ‘imitate’ a female pop star in public, and the reason given for it was that he wanted to live out a fantasy

I've not read the Book in fairness, but that description doesn't sound too far off Movies like Psycho and Split minus a couple of differences.

[Ammi]

...just to add because I’m not sure if it’s been posted before ...but this seems to be the article that JK was accused of mocking with the tweet...

‘People who menstruate.’ I’m sure there used to be a word for those people. Someone help me out. Wumben? Wimpund? Woomud?

...all through the article it refers to girls, women, and gender non-binary persons who menstruate...so all inclusive...?..it doesn’t exclude ‘woman’ or change ‘woman’ in any way...so I am quite confused by her initial tweet that this seems to have sparked from...because it seems quite defensive and I'm not sure why it would be...and then this whole thing with the reaction to that and to her has escalated into something quite ugly...anyways, the article...which is being inclusive of ‘all menstruating’...because it’s specific to attention through the pandemic to providing sanitary care and giving attention to birth control etc ...when clinics that had usually provided for, had become closed through an extraordinary situation across the world...

...this was at the beginning of the pandemic quarantines and closures etc and has some great points...


https://www.devex.com/news/sponsored/opinion-creating-a-more-equal-post-covid-19-world-for-people-who-menstruate-97312

[Ammi]

...I guess that what could be said about JK is that she was clumsy in addressing concerns that she had and things that she wanted to say... But we’ve had enough discussions on the forum to know that her concerns are something felt by many women and their basis has no ‘phobic’ foundation...these concerns have to be voiced, I mean that’s always the starting point and what JK was attempting...?....and that things can’t ever and shouldn’t ever be silenced or cancelled or whatever because it will only become deeper and deeper so these difficult conversations have to be opened up....JK has tried to do that because maybe she thought that she would be a good person to do it, as an ally of LGBT etc...? ...but her conversation has been rejected ...at some point though, if the conversation isn't opened up in a non hostile way and without all of the ugliness that it’s brought atm...then two groups in society will just remain feeling ‘vulnerable and under threat’ and that will only cause to regress and prevent any progressiveness for either group...

[Niamh.]

...I guess that what could be said about JK is that she was clumsy in addressing concerns that she had and things that she wanted to say... But we’ve had enough discussions on the forum to know that her concerns are something felt by many women and their basis has no ‘phobic’ foundation...these concerns have to be voiced, I mean that’s always the starting point and what JK was attempting...?....and that things can’t ever and shouldn’t ever be silenced or cancelled or whatever because it will only become deeper and deeper so these difficult conversations have to be opened up....JK has tried to do that because maybe she thought that she would be a good person to do it, as an ally of LGBT etc...? ...but her conversation has been rejected ...at some point though, if the conversation isn't opened up in a non hostile way and without all of the ugliness that it’s brought atm...then two groups in society will just remain feeling ‘vulnerable and under threat’ and that will only cause to regress and prevent any progressiveness for either group...

Yeah absolutely right Ammi. Not being allowed to speak about these issues properly is just going to worsen relations and bad feeling and I'm sure most people on either "side" just want a solution, a proper line of communication needs to be opened. Sometimes it feels like people are deliberately trying to sabotage those avenues of reasoned debate/discussion for whatever reason and yes agree with others on the thread that social media and more specifically Twitter is making this whole topic so much worse, so full of angry people riling each other up

[Marsh.]

if the conversation isn't opened up in a non hostile way and without all of the ugliness that it’s brought atm...then two groups in society will just remain feeling ‘vulnerable and under threat’ and that will only cause to regress and prevent any progressiveness for either group...

Which, IMO, is exactly the goal of a certain subsection of extreme groups in regards to these issues. Erode women's rights under the pretence that it's benefitting transpeople, in the end benefitting no one but themselves.

[Tom4784]

'Not being allowed' By whom?

No one is being silenced, people are free to have whatever viewpoints they please, and other people are free to have their opinions on that as well. All opinions come with consequence, you'll draw ire from someone if your reach is big enough but the key is how you navigate it.

[Marsh.]

"Transphobia" is not an opinion. It's something that either is or isn't.

Misrepresenting someone as transphobic when they've gone to the trouble of writing an entire essay outlining and explaining their opinions that are categorically not transphobic is just dumb and doesn't help anyone.

You can criticise and pick apart her opinion, but it is not transphobic.

[DouglasS]

I for once agree with what Marsh is saying.

[Marsh.]

In that case I completely take back everything I've said.

;)

[Fetch The Bolt Cutters]

;)

[GoldHeart]

I've not read the Book in fairness, but that description doesn't sound too far off Movies like Psycho and Split minus a couple of differences.

I was thinking the exact same thing , sounds like a Norman bates character. However I haven't read it .

[Niamh.]

I was thinking the exact same thing , sounds like a Norman bates character. However I haven't read it .

He's not even that extreme. Most people complaining about it haven't even read the book, he's not even in the book a whole lot and he doesn't really dress up as women as such

[GoldHeart]

He's not even that extreme. Most people complaining about it haven't even read the book, he's not even in the book a whole lot and he doesn't really dress up as women as such

Yeah I'm just going off the description , as I haven't read it . I don't see the issue either :shrug:.

This whole JK Rowling drama is ridiculous, I think the stick she's getting is unfair .
I think some people already wanted to dislike her for no reason .

Even with her history of depression , I remember hearing some people who I crossed paths with IRL say "ohhh what has she got to be unhappy about with all that money "
:facepalm:
Do they not understand anyone can be affected by mental health issues.

[Oliver_W]

...just to add because I’m not sure if it’s been posted before ...but this seems to be the article that JK was accused of mocking with the tweet...

‘People who menstruate.’ I’m sure there used to be a word for those people. Someone help me out. Wumben? Wimpund? Woomud?

...all through the article it refers to girls, women, and gender non-binary persons who menstruate...so all inclusive...?..it doesn’t exclude ‘woman’ or change ‘woman’ in any way...so I am quite confused by her initial tweet that this seems to have sparked from...because it seems quite defensive and I'm not sure why it would be...and then this whole thing with the reaction to that and to her has escalated into something quite ugly...anyways, the article...which is being inclusive of ‘all menstruating’...because it’s specific to attention through the pandemic to providing sanitary care and giving attention to birth control etc ...when clinics that had usually provided for, had become closed through an extraordinary situation across the world...

...this was at the beginning of the pandemic quarantines and closures etc and has some great points...


https://www.devex.com/news/sponsored/opinion-creating-a-more-equal-post-covid-19-world-for-people-who-menstruate-97312
The only people who can menstruate are women, even if they identify as men or non-binary. The erasure of the word "woman" to appease women who identify as something else, coupled with female spaces being compromised by transwomen, together they don't paint a very feminist pictue.

[Tom4784]

"Transphobia" is not an opinion. It's something that either is or isn't.

Misrepresenting someone as transphobic when they've gone to the trouble of writing an entire essay outlining and explaining their opinions that are categorically not transphobic is just dumb and doesn't help anyone.

You can criticise and pick apart her opinion, but it is not transphobic.

So you oppose people thinking she's transphobic, but you, another random person on the internet (just like those who believe she is) can say with certainty, that she isn't? Your views hold as much weight as those who think she is a transphobe. You can't trash people for saying she's a transphobe and then state that she isn't and that people's views aren't opinions because you disagree with them.

Argue against the views you dislike, don't declare that they aren't opinions and thus, aren't valid.

[Marsh.]

So you oppose people thinking she's transphobic, but you, another random person on the internet (just like those who believe she is) can say with certainty, that she isn't? Your views hold as much weight as those who think she is a transphobe. You can't trash people for saying she's a transphobe and then state that she isn't and that people's views aren't opinions because you disagree with them.

Argue against the views you dislike, don't declare that they aren't opinions and thus, aren't valid.

It's not about "opposing people thinking", I said an opinion being transphobic or not is something factual, not subjective. It either is or it isn't. Labelling anyone who doesn't go along with trans organisations opinions on sex based rights transphobic is moronic. It's far too complex an issue for everyone to agree on. Yet, JK Rowling is the one who can't process criticism?

I can say with absolute certainty that the opinions she has shared on the subject are not transphobic, because I can both read and apply common sense.

I don't oppose people thinking she's wrong, picking apart her words and arguing against her views, but they're not doing that. They're calling her a TERF to shut down her opinion WITHOUT any actual argument against what she's said by simply just telling her that by not agreeing with them she's transphobic. It's utter bull. She can be completely wrong in what she's saying, but that doesn't make her transphobic in the slightest.

She literally explained her opinions in an actual essay (actual opinions not a retweet of a funny slogan on a t-shirt), but people don't want to hear because they say the very fact she has opinions on it at all is transphobic. That's what is invalid.

[user104658]

In short it's all ad hominem (literal definition being a statement that attacks the person, rather than the argument) and it's just rubbish debate and not worth listening to. "I think what Rowling said is transphobia because [analysis of her words]" is an opinion worth listening to. "Rowling is a transphobe because REEEEEE dumb old hag!!!" is... I suppose... an opinion, but not one worth giving the time of day. It's also extremely misogynistic but then (ironically) an absolute boatload of "Anti-TERF" rhetoric is dripping in misogyny.

[Marsh.]

In short it's all ad hominem (literal definition being a statement that attacks the person, rather than the argument) and it's just rubbish debate and not worth listening to. "I think what Rowling said is transphobia because [analysis of her words]" is an opinion worth listening to. "Rowling is a transphobe because REEEEEE dumb old hag!!!" is... I suppose... an opinion, but not one worth giving the time of day. It's also extremely misogynistic but then (ironically) an absolute boatload of "Anti-TERF" rhetoric is dripping in misogyny.

Agreed.