[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.]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

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]

'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.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

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.

[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]

[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.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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.

[Stu]

Originally Posted by DouglasS

a great writer also

Steady on.