[Greg!]

JK Rowling has come under fire from her fans after she appeared to 'like' a tweet which referred to transgender women as 'men in dresses'.

The tweet was posted during a row about the status of transgender women in the Labour party.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ansphobia.html

She's such a disappointment. And I don't buy her claim that it was an accident.

[MB.]

Well I suppose that's one way for her to take the attention away from her endorsing a perpetrator of domestic violence

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by MB.

Well I suppose that's one way for her to take the attention away from her endorsing a perpetrator of domestic violence

You mean the domestic violence that police found no evidence of, he's never been charged for, the accusations the other party withdrew and engaged in a joint statement after getting the payout she was more concerned with?

[MB.]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

You mean the domestic violence that police found no evidence of, he's never been charged for, the accusations the other party withdrew and engaged in a joint statement after getting the payout she was more concerned with?

No, I mean the domestic violence that his own managers filed written evidence of in court and that is referred to when it states in their joint statement that she made no false claims for financial gain

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by MB.

No, I mean the domestic violence that his own managers filed written evidence of in court and that is referred to when it states in their joint statement that she made no false claims for financial gain

"Written evidence" being her word and hers alone.

[MB.]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

"Written evidence" being her word and hers alone.

The written evidence was written and filed by his former managers, as I said in my post

[Marsh.]

People need to look a little deeper. Twitter doesn't allow that so you get ridiculous overreactions like this.

[Greg!]

Oh what a coincidence that she's "accidentally" done this before.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Greg!

Oh what a coincidence that she's "accidentally" done this before.

There's nothing transphobic about that though?

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Greg!

Oh what a coincidence that she's "accidentally" done this before.

She made a perfectly valid point. Criticism of it sounds intensely sexist to me.

[Ashley.]

Originally Posted by Greg!

Oh what a coincidence that she's "accidentally" done this before.

I wouldn't want to undress next to a stranger with a penis either.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Ashley.

I wouldn't want to undress next to a stranger with a penis either.

I don’t think most women would Ashley which seems to be the
Point that many simple aren’t getting- conveniently I might add.

Womens’’ rights to privacy and safety are clearly being eroded in an attempt to appease an increasingly hostile trans community - we are effectively being sacrificed against our will. It is not on!

[Marsh.]

I regret posting now, I see a repeat of the thread we had here only a few days ago.

[Oliver_W]

If I were feeling charitable, I'd say she skimread the tweet, and was liking it to show support to the MP(?) who said she got yelled out when she was 18 and asked for a page three calendar to be taken down, and the accident was missing the "men in dresses" bit.

[Marsh.]

Yes, aggressively ordering someone to do what you want is definitely the way to go about it.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Yes, aggressively ordering someone to do what you want is definitely the way to go about it.

Ms Gwendoline Smith sounds very controlling with a hint of ‘I dare you’ in that message - almost menacing. Dare I say it - what a hypocrite.

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

Ms Gwendoline Smith sounds very controlling with a hint of ‘I dare you’ in that message - almost menacing. Dare I say it - what a hypocrite.

If the passive aggressive in the tweet is a journalist she could start with learning to spell hear correctly.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by jaxie

If the passive aggressive in the tweet is a journalist she could start with learning to spell hear correctly.

I noticed that too Jaxie.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Yes, aggressively ordering someone to do what you want is definitely the way to go about it.

A journalist? Seriously? And she wrote that?

JK Rowling is entitled to her own opinion, whatever it is. The world doesn't actually revolve around transsexual women, although you would think it kind of does. We rarely hear about women who have transitioned to men... oh no... that is not where the drama lies.

Do what you need to do to make yourself happy, but don't round on born women if their opinion isn't exactly the same as yours.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Livia

A journalist? Seriously?

Well a quick Google search says she writes for something called the Bay Area Reporter, "a free weekly newspaper serving the LGBT communities in the San Francisco Bay Area".

So kind of a journalist, I guess... ... you know in the way "community support officers" are kind of police. Except they're actually Edna the primary school dinner lady in a high-vis jacket telling you to pick up litter.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Well a quick Google search says she writes for something called the Bay Area Reporter, "a free weekly newspaper serving the LGBT communities in the San Francisco Bay Area".

So kind of a journalist, I guess... ... you know in the way "community support officers" are kind of police. Except they're actually Edna the primary school dinner lady in a high-vis jacket telling you to pick up litter.

You sound quite prejudiced here, which paper would you have to work for to be considered a professional journalist in your opinion?

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

You sound quite prejudiced here, which paper would you have to work for to be considered a professional journalist in your opinion?

I'm not answering for TS, but as I originally questioned her credentials.... I would expect someone describing themselves as a journalist would know not to use "here" when they meant "hear", wouldn't end a sentence with a preposition and would understand how to use a full stop in a sentence that contains parenthesis.

It's actually interesting what your other post said about male to female and female to male, and the difference in the way they are treated. I have a theory about that... I think it's as simple as men expecting to be heard, they are used to it, to having their opinions heard and getting their way (generally). So when they transition to women they have no idea what it's like to grow up as a woman and continue to stamp their Y chromosome, insisting that everyone sees things their way. Conversely, women who become men are (again, generally) more used to being the peacemakers, the nurturers, and they get on with living as who they want to be without involving the opinions of the rest of the world.

I'm not sure how you feel about all that, but I have to say, I mostly agree with your stance on this.

[Maru]

Originally Posted by Livia

A journalist? Seriously? And she wrote that?

JK Rowling is entitled to her own opinion, whatever it is. The world doesn't actually revolve around transsexual women, although you would think it kind of does. We rarely hear about women who have transitioned to men... oh no... that is not where the drama lies.

Do what you need to do to make yourself happy, but don't round on born women if their opinion isn't exactly the same as yours.

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Well a quick Google search says she writes for something called the Bay Area Reporter, "a free weekly newspaper serving the LGBT communities in the San Francisco Bay Area".

So kind of a journalist, I guess... ... you know in the way "community support officers" are kind of police. Except they're actually Edna the primary school dinner lady in a high-vis jacket telling you to pick up litter.

Twitter is confusing to me now, because I don't understand their checkmarking system anymore. It used to be that the people with it were notable, and I would be like oh I learned something today... now 50% of the them either fit into some activist category (LGBT for example) or a semi-journalist, or a semi-actor and I'm still confused why they have a checkmark... it's like CBB's definition of a celebrity. Like who is going to bother to dupe those accounts when they have almost no activity on them...

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Maru

Twitter is confusing to me now, because I don't understand their checkmarking system anymore. It used to be that the people with it were notable, and I would be like oh I learned something today... now 50% of the them either fit into some activist category (LGBT for example) or a semi-journalist, or a semi-actor and I'm still confused why they have a checkmark... it's like CBB's definition of a celebrity. Like who is going to bother to dupe those accounts when they have almost no activity on them...

I don't think the blue tick means you're necessarily a celebrity, it just means that the identity of the user has been officially verified so it's definitely who they say they are.

Anybody can pay to have that done, you won't always be approved though. I think they take into account how many followers and the amount of "public interest". So "celebs" are more likely due to their high profiles.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Maru

Twitter is confusing to me now, because I don't understand their checkmarking system anymore. It used to be that the people with it were notable, and I would be like oh I learned something today... now 50% of the them either fit into some activist category (LGBT for example) or a semi-journalist, or a semi-actor and I'm still confused why they have a checkmark... it's like CBB's definition of a celebrity. Like who is going to bother to dupe those accounts when they have almost no activity on them...

As far as I know, it's just a confirmation of identity? Like they have supplied evidence to Twitter that they really are the person in their pic / bio, and not a "fake account". I guess back in it's earlier days it would mostly be celebrities that needed verified / official accounts because they would be the most likely to have their account cloned, but these days I guess anyone who "uses their name professionally" might need to protect themselves from cloned accounts and imposters. Especially people who get into "heated subjects" and are likely to be targetted by someone with an axe to grind.

I think it should be offered to everyone as standard really... a "certification" mark if you supply proof of identity. My wife had her facebook account cloned by a malicious little **** half way around the world a few years ago, who she had argued with on a random page, and he had taken her pictures and name and started posting slanderous crap everywhere. It took facebook FOREVER to sort it out and have the account removed.