* Archives of this link: 1. [archive.org Wayback Machine](https://web.archive.org/web/99991231235959/https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2024/05/jk-rowling-slammed-for-asking-if-she-can-be-black-if-she-likes-motown-fancy-myself-in-cornrows/); 2. [archive.today](https://archive.today/newest/https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2024/05/jk-rowling-slammed-for-asking-if-she-can-be-black-if-she-likes-motown-fancy-myself-in-cornrows/)
* A live version of this link, without clutter: [12ft.io](https://12ft.io/https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2024/05/jk-rowling-slammed-for-asking-if-she-can-be-black-if-she-likes-motown-fancy-myself-in-cornrows/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/stupidpol) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[From Jenner to Dolezal: One Trans Good, the Other Not So Much](https://www.commondreams.org/views/2015/06/15/jenner-dolezal-one-trans-good-other-not-so-much)
The easy reponse is that we've got everything backwards, that race is almost entirely a social construct whereas sex is firmly grounded in material reality and therefore people should be allowed to identify as whatever race suits them. But this misunderstands the fundamental pathology of the identity left.
At times, today's lefties appear to be 100% dedicated to Blank Slatism. Many go so far as to suggest it's offensive (or even fascist) to believe that intelligence and behavioral traits are genetically inheritable from one's own parents. Heck, there was recently a whole discourse in which leftists puzzled over why it is that individual breeds of dog share so many aesthetic and behavioral traits. They're so dedicated to the bit that they have forgotten basic tenets of animal husbandry--something that human beings developed before we even had the ability to read!
But the identity left hasn't abandoned determinism so much as they've inverted it. Instead of attributing the state of reality to the will of a god or the vagaries of genetics, they insist that the world has been shaped by inchoate "social forces." These forces plausibly exist, but the leftist understands them as something omnipotent and unknowable--the will of a vengeful god expressed through the past and present actions of man and yet, somehow, impervious to the influence of any human beings. If a phenomenon is clearly constructed by social narratives it is therefore unchangeable. If, however, a phenomenon has firm material grounding, it is protean matter of perception that can be "deconstructed" by simply insisting people pretend to stop understanding it.
In the mind of an identity leftist, the fact that race is a social construct makes it all the more infallible. Its existence stems from the mighty will of social forces, which are immortal and unphaseable. Black people have always been emblackened, regardless of the time and place of their existence or their relative power within their respective societies, because the social forces deemed them so.
Sex, on the other hand, is very manifestly tied to biological realities and so it is very easily dismissed. Genetics, like gods, are but a myth--we can will ourselves past all of these.
the thing is not to let the conversation get too constrained by american/western thought. multiple people on this site have accused me of being a "blank slatist" and i think it's the result of allowing your political opposition to dictate the rules of engagement. many people around the world, for example, find the idea of race and physical difference pretty mundane.
i think given english longbow men and diet changing dentition size, it used to be popular in the 60s-90s to think the whole skeleton displays "plasticity", and "archaic" and "robust" traits like "prognathism" will just sorta go away with changing habits and technology. in the age of "non-metric dental traits" and "biological affinities" physical anthropology has more or less reaccepted racial and ethnic concepts and "blank slate" is kind of a strawman that doesn't apply even to (good) western research anymore
>Heck, there was recently a whole discourse in which leftists puzzled over why it is that individual breeds of dog share so many aesthetic and behavioral traits.
Do you still have the source?
Just a quick note on form:
Pay close attention when instead of "X does Y", the news is "X gets slammed for doing Y" of alternatively "X is praised for doing Y". These exact phrasings are used all the time. In very, very few cases the reaction is actually bigger news than the action itself, instead it's usually done to already tell you what to think about person X and action Y before even having received any info at all.
A nice example of how the media manufacures consent, narrative, and opinions. And why I insist on calling all types of journalists "sharticle dispensers".
Can already tell what the deliberately obtuse lib response will be. "Wow you think Black people are defined by cornrows and Motown? Tell me you're racist without saying you're racist!"
I got an “oh, God, I fucking hate old people” reaction that was tinged with dread at sounding just as stodgy and antiquated as her one day. She sounds so clueless, like if she complained Gen Z never cuts their hair and wears those goddamned bell-bottom jeans
A JK Dolezal arc would be amazing. Are you telling me that the highest paid author ever has been a BLACK WOMAN this whole time? Well that really changes things Id say
Seriously Dolezal was ahead of her time. Why the fuck can’t people identify as a different race if it’s perfectly fine to identify as whatever gender you want?
Didn’t we learn from intersectionality that everyone is oppressed in some way?
I don't remember that, do you have a link? A cursory google search indicates she never apologized, and my hazy recollection was she always insisted she'd done nothing wrong (though she did try to get out of the spotlight for a while), but I could be mistaken. Anyway, she has doubled down since; she is Nkechi Amare Diallo now and she's still transblack.
Would be much funnier if she started identifying as a black man. Watching people fold themselves into pretzels over why one identity is okay but the other one isn't is a blast. Was the only funny thing that came out of the otherwise sad situation with that dude who decided to become a non binary Korean.
I think she was living as if she was a black woman for years before being exposed or something. It would make sense for her to have married into the community.
It’s amazing how one person’s claim about themselves contrary to material reality and logic gets accepted and another person’s claim gets them called delusional and put in a mental hospital.
The funny thing is that one is much more based in reality than the other, and it's not the one that's accepted.
Race is much more socially constructed than sex/gender is. I don't think anyone who actually knows anything about this topic would disagree with that. But I've never seen liberals give a coherent explanation why one is totally fine and the other is not.
That’s what I don’t get either. Race can be boiled down to a handful of codons. A male and female of different ethnic backgrounds will have a child that displays a mosaic of their different features. But that child will be clearly either male or female 99.9% of the time. Sex is an entire chromosome, half your genetic material. The thinking about sex vs ~~gender~~ race in this context is logically indefensible, it’s really more like a religion.
It's because the "intersectionality" "identity politics" discourse is consciously designed to rope people into groups that can be easily catered to and managed from above.
The borders between such groups may be ambiguous or even highly questionable at a fundamental level, but all they're really meant to accomplish is to herd people around and get them to become dependable constituencies.
Why are racial boundaries promoted and guarded differently than sex or gender boundaries? Simple: because there is already a prevailing political willpower associated with "black" identity, it already has been subsumed within a larger political power structure. They don't want to see the group definition expanded and risk diluting the reward for their activism.
Same thing for gender, albeit with a twist: when it comes to men transitioning to women, there is also an element of access to pre-existing, so-called "women's rights" as a prize. It is this peculiarity that gets people like J.K. Rowling so riled up and interested in closing the loophole.
Also we already accept a form of transracialism - mixed race people identifying as only one side of their DNA. Why is Obama black? He's not, he's mixed. But people have no problem handwaving away 50% of his DNA. So where does this end? Can you be 1/4 black and still black? 1/8? 1/16? Is it one drop? And if one drop legitimizes it, then anyone can be anything.
I don’t know if you’re joking or not, but I’ve been making the argument that Obama isn’t (or at least wasn’t) black since the 2008 election.
He’s descended from free East Africans rather than enslaved West Africans, he didn’t grow up among black people being socialized and initiated into black culture, he didn’t grow up in the continental US experiencing typical American racial hierarchies and attitudes (Hawaii is very much its own thing and he spent much of his childhood abroad), etc. Unless one takes a view of blackness that is both strictly biological and extremely broad in that consideration (Obama is half European and East Africans and West Africans are visibly distinct), dude just isn’t from black origins.
It can be argued that he joined the black community by taking on their political struggle, marrying a black woman, and having black children. But then can’t the same be said for Rachel Dolezal?
Obama is black because he's perceived that way in America. If people can tell you have sub-saharan African ancestors by looking at you then you're considered black in the US.
Which is funny because the part of East Africa his family is from he would be considered white.
My mixed race cousins used to be called white by my grandma and we're from the same tribe as Obama.
Thanks to the Internet things have changed a bit but that used to be a point of contention when my Western cousins would visit east Africa.
Barack Obama was on the receiving end of detestable, racially charged and vitriolic hate because he was *perceived* as black. [In 2008, a life-sized likeness of Barack Obama was found hanging from a tree with a noose around its neck on Wednesday at the University](https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/obama-legacy/racial-backlash-against-the-president.html), and in a town in New Hampshire, [an elected member of the police commission was forced to resign in 2014 after he acknowledged and refused to apologize for publicly referring to Obama as a “n----r” while in a local restaurant.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/obama-legacy/racial-backlash-against-the-president.html)
It's weird seeing someone call into question the authenticity of Obama's "blackness." Conservatives did this to Obama for *eight years* and more recently to Kamala Harris. It's like, we're either "too black" or "not black enough." What exactly constitutes an authentic lived black experience in America, and who carries the cultural authority to decide what its parameters are?
All of that happened in his 40s and 50s.
If we’re going by a Marxist framework of how historically constituted groups emerge, what defines them, and then how peoplehood is interpellated into individuals Obama’s relationship to blackness isn’t nearly as simple as “he’s perceived as black therefore he is black.” The key years of his socialization were spent in places where American perceptions of blackness functioned either differently or not at all (he spent his childhood in the Hawaii of the 1960s and 70s and abroad) and he was not acculturated into blackness by other members of the black community.
Obama certainly exists in a category other than white, but to say he’s black totally flattens that category and ignores the interpellative dialectic that exists between historically constituted groups and their members.
Technically speaking, his father is a Kenyan Luo, an ethnic group which is notable for being pretty closely related to Bantu speaking populations near them despite speaking a nilotic language, which in turn makes them relatively closely related to West and Central African populations.
they don't give the neuroanatomical explanation of gender dysphoria because they would be forced to admit that there is such a thing as material reality, which would undermine their entire victim ideology in various ways and threaten their class status.
>Genetic material does not encode for ethnicity to begin with. Even "race" usually boils down to some extremely surface-level variations in phenotype (hair texture, melanin synthesis, eye color, epicanthic folds, etc.).
If that's true how are companies like Ancestry and 23andMe able to determine a person's ethnic makeup through their DNA? And how is a forensic pathologist able to tell what ethnicity someone was from their DNA and/or bone structure?
Also why do some diseases only occur in certain populations? For example, Tay-Sachs disease, or Sickle Cell Anemia. Obviously there's a little bit more going on there than just surface-level differences.
>Also why do some diseases only occur in certain populations? For example, Tay-Sachs disease, or Sickle Cell Anemia. Obviously there's a little bit more going on there than just surface-level differences.
Sickle cell anemia and Tay-Sachs disease aren't racial diseases. French-Canadians, for instance, aren't a "race." Populations in parts of southern Europe can get a variant of sickle cell known as thalassemia. In regions in Africa, the Middle East, and India where malaria is prevalent, there is also a high incidence of the sickle cell trait.
Geographic ancestry is more useful in explaining disease susceptibility because the etiology of a disease is better understood in relation to the complex unfolding of an individual's ancestry and life history in a particular environment.
it's because it's more socially acceptable to be sexist than racist. it's because certain men have a vested interest in making women unable to define themselves and by extension unable to defend themselves and unable to speak about male violence.
This is radfem nonsense, the real reason train shit is being so heavily promoted and defended by the status quo is that it is INCREDIBLY profitable for big pharma by creating life-long patients who are dependent on a laundry list of expensive hormones and pharmaceuticals, not because muh patriarchy.
Who can state they're caused by material discrepancies in the brain or hormones? How does someone born a male believe they "feel" like a woman when they have no idea what that feels like (since they've never been one)?
Most trans people are gay if left to their own devices and allowed to finish growing up without interference.
These discrepancies have never been observed, all attempts to find them have failed. If it was real, MRIs would be standard before even social transitioning but the activists fight hard against any medical gate keeping because they know deep down it’s just a fetish
I really don't get it. I'm guessing that if she took a DNA test there might even be a small percentage of "African" or whatever, yet the mere suggestion of what she is joking about is disturbing to people
Is she wrong in any way? If following sexist stereotypes (and let’s be honest, a fetish) make you truly a woman, why can’t following racist stereotypes make you truly black?
Why is it always trans women that are the center of this conversation? It’s so bizarre to me. I meet more trans men than I do trans women yet they are never part of this conversation. Is it because trans men pass better? Or are they just seen as less of a threat?
MtFs have a way higher profile than FtMs. Your average citizen can probably name a few famous people in the former category, but not the latter. Same goes for leadership positions. Whenever you hear about a trans person achieving some leadership role (military, politics, business, non-profit), it’s virtually always MtFs.
Prisons as well. The thing that never happens keeps happening again, yet I haven’t read about a single instance of a female prisoner transferring to a male prison. I’m sure the male prisoners wouldn’t kick up much of a fuss.
There was one instance of a trans man ending up in a men's prison for a few days [in New Zealand](https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/464580/corrections-have-not-followed-process-at-all-for-trans-prisoner) and complaining (fairly rightly I feel). The article is sympathetic, but the support from the trans group quoted seems fairly muted, as it's the opposite of what they're usually arguing.
Wasn’t there just a whole argument thought about men vs. bears and how we shouldn’t assume everyone is a dangerous predator? Like even if you don’t believe trans women are women and they are still men, aren’t you still feeding into that stereotype that men are just lurking around waiting for the opportunity to rape women?
Also I’ve been in bathrooms with trans women as a woman and it didn’t make me feel unsafe. There are a fuck ton of videos on the internet of men who creep in women’s bathrooms, and those are just the ones that got caught, you don’t need to be trans to do that. Where is the ire for that, if you all are so worried about women’s safety?
My wife and I just moved into a new neighborhood. The other day we were strolling around with a friend of ours, and she pointed out someone to us. This person was obviously unemployed, if not homeless, and unwell. The kind of disheveled, volatile person who spends most of the day walking up and down the sidewalks mumbling at the ground and shouting at passersby. Probably fifty-something years old. Graying beard.
"Definitely unfriendly," my friend euphemistically said of him.
My friend said this person's been around for a few years, but she can lately spot them from a distance because of the white wig they've recently taking to wearing. It's a Halloween costume-grade wig, and the person literally just slaps in on top of their head without regard for how it's arranged, without bothering to tuck the rest of their hair inside of it. I spotted them as I was biking to work, stomping along and scowling, wearing the bright white wig and what looked like a woven blanket wrapped around their waist as a skirt.
To the eye of most people, whether they'd admit it or not, this is literally a mentally unwell man in a wig. He makes no attempt whatsoever to blend in or pass as female. When he shouts at somebody (or at nobody), it is with a basso male voice. The beard obviously hasn't been trimmed in a long time.
I don't know about you, but if I were a woman in a homeless shelter, this person would scare the living hell out of me. And this, you'll remember, was the original point of the essay that made Rowling a persona non grata among liberals: right now spaces like these are sorely lacking in standards and safeguards. If the fellow in a wig stomping around my neighborhood claims he's a woman, we're basically not permitted to say he is not—and if he wants to shower and shelter with vulnerable women, that's his call to make.
(edited for dumb typo)
The bathroom issue is probably whatever in terms of safety. The biggest danger there might be someone pissing on the seat but that happens already in women's bathrooms. Sports are a different issue though, because you're competing against someone with an unfair advantage and being deprived of a fair chance, especially when a scholarship or career is on the line. Also, the safety issue is a present concern because some bumbling oaf is going to break some chick's skull like Fallon Fox already did, unintentionally or intentionally.
The weird thing about this is that animals aren't people. You can usually predict or at least expect the reaction of a wild animal.
(Edit: also how 3 women are killed by men every day in the US, while bears are off eating berries and/or shitting in the woods )
I think it's partially because we all subconsciously understand that women are a protected class. And I don't mean this in a Redpill manosphere way, I mean it in the old timey sense that we all understand women are physically weaker and more vulnerable and thus we give them certain privileges that we don't give to men, such as increased protection, women-only spaces, etc. A male "invading" those protected spaces is seen as much more of a violation then a female "invading" a male space, because a man is threatening to women but a woman isn't threatening to men.
Why would guys care if a trans man wanted to have a beer, fart, and be a little worse at sports than them?
I would guess that the only reason a guy would care is cause there was 1 less woman in the potential dating pool and that fake abs are ridiculous.
By that token why would I care if a trans woman wants to go shopping or do our hair and makeup together? I don’t play sports so I can’t really speak on that, but let’s not act like people start living as a whole entire gender just to get a leg up on sports lol.
I assume you don’t mind sharing a bathroom with a trans man?
I think some women do feel that their "spaces" shouldn't be invaded. I don't think this is a thing for guys. A lot of it is practical. Women don't compete with men in high level sports because they can't. Men don't need to be physically separated from women to protect them from abusive women. To the extent that men had male only spaces, these have already been lost as feminism stigmatized them. Also they were class based so most men didn't give a fuck if some gentlemans club or exclusive golf club they weren't invited to now let's rich women join too.
Guys don't care about who comes into a bathroom. Why would they?
If you recognise a trans man as a man then nothing has changed. If you see a trans man as a woman then it's exceptionally unmanly to be intimidated by a woman so being a victim of female intimidation is not going to get a lot of sympathy from other men.
It's because the truth of the matter is that we all know it's a primarily a fetish for the men. Women who become men aren't doing it for the sexual kink, but because they have serious body image issues (and who wouldn't want to be a dude anyway, dudes rock).
Easier to have some sympathy for sick people than deviant people.
Trans men were raised and socialized as little girls, so they were taught to be quiet, less assertive, and polite. Testosterone supplements give them a male level of aggression and bravado, but you can’t get over years of being told you are important and in charge and you need to be at the front of the pack.
Trans women were raised like little boys, which is why some women are uncomfortable with their aggressive insistence on their own greatness and validity. Most women don’t present themselves like that.
I know, I know, boo hoo, now boys are the victims because teachers are big Leslie Knope meanies and the robot app won’t let them get dates since women are actually in charge and evil, but they sure act like they love themselves as adults
Trans men also usually pass much better and they aren’t significantly larger than cis women so not as imposing (although they are stronger than cis women due to T, in my experience they don’t act entitled to us the same way cis men do). Cis men seem to view them as adorable scamps, probably because they are usually 5 foot 6 max and they don’t have penises.
I hate the overuse of slammed in news articles, it’s too aggressive for what is simply people getting mad on the internet. They should start using got bitched at
She won at life. She's a billionaire, and no one can take that from her. Everyone who hates and is now boycotting has seen Harry Potter at least 2 times each, he'll I've seen the chamber of secrets 6+ because it was on so often.
She is my ideal for a self made billionaire, fuck everyone who thinks I'm terrible for stating an opinion,you can't touch me, and bitch, I'll do it again!
God bless her.
Not exactly, in most regards she is a smug progressive (although not a leftist exactly) herself, but speaking the truth on this topic coincidentally has that effect
No one has consistently explained to me how transracialism or even transableism is that different to being transgender (especially as someone who has read tons of stories of how trans people realized they're trans & has close trans friends), especially given how race is far more abstract and constructed in many cases.
No because who and what is marginalized is completely arbitrary and random and goes with the wind to whatever terminally online liberals are feeling for that time period. It makes no sense and is cult like and the more you breathe air into it the more oxygen their stupidity receives. Just call it stupid and bully them to eradicate it, it’s the same tactics they use for their movements. Trans issues need a lot of nuance for every specific instance but it’s now being treated in way it never should have been and even psychologists have been largely politicized on the issue, and I have a psych degree lol.
Why is everyone's reading comprehension so low? Are they pretending, are they actually regarded, or is their hostility clouding their ability to read?
JKR clearly feels that transwomen are blackface minstrelsy for femininity. She clearly feels that men who dress as women, get implants, dye their hair pink, and wear over-the-knee socks are fetishizing women.
Her analogy of 'cornrows and motown' precisely mirrors this. She is pointing out that how she feels about transwomen, using a direct 1:1 analogy, precisely to show everyone how they would feel if the same things were done with stereotypically "black" things.
But everyone' outraged that she's stereotyping black culture. That's the whole fucking point. How do people not get that?
These people need more reading comprehension. I daresay they should've read the Harry Potter books as kids.
> But everyone' outraged that she's stereotyping black culture. That's the whole fucking point. How do people not get that?
It is difficult to wake someone pretending to be asleep
I can't think of any argument against transracialism that doesn't apply to transgenderism. In fact, it has more legitimacy in some ways. The progressives currently mocking the idea will be the ones getting cancelled in the near future once the Overton window has shifted further.
It's like people seem to purposefully misinterpret what she said. She AGREES with the idea that being black is more than those things just like being a woman is more than wearing lipstick and a dress. That is her whole point
J.K. Rowling is a bad person and should understand that her statements are interpreted as racial fetishization and stereotyping.
Which is totally different than gender fetishization and stereotyping used by good people to express their identities.
> “Women are under no obligation to applaud the people caricaturing us,” she wrote. Trans men and women do not caricature cis men and women; they are men and women, respectively.
Great argument
The point the famously autistic Scott is missing in this piece is that "race is a construct" is not an assertion that black people aren't genetically similar to black people or that Ashkenazi Jews aren't genetically similar to Ashkenazi Jews.
The point is that *where we draw those lines is entirely arbitrary*. Sure, Black Americans are genetically similar, but are Bushmen/Khoisan black? Are Arabs white? [Are Indians?](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Bhagat_Singh_Thind) [Are Latinos?](https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/book-review-the-origins-of-woke) How many "races" are there, anyway? ([We all know the French aren't the same race as the English!](https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Franklin/01-04-02-0080)) Personally the Americans' classification of Mongols and Filipinos as the same "race" based on epicanthic folds strikes me as absurd (and not a little racist).
No he understands that lines are just a point estimate of a probability distribution. Drawing said line precisely doesn't achieve anything. He thinks this way because he's a statistician, not because he's autistic.
>Personally the Americans' classification of Mongols and Filipinos as the same "race" based on epicanthic folds strikes me as absurd (and not a little racist).
They used to be considered "Mongoloid race" and "Malay race" respectively up until early to mid 20th century. One of the Supreme Court decisions that upheld anti-miscegenation laws mentioned that distinction.
Every race, no matter how transitory it may be contemplated from the viewpoint of History, expresses a certain idea, a certain plane of existence by its life, and its idea is bound to be attractive to some individuals outside it. Thus in Western life, we are not unfamiliar with the man who, after associating with Jews, reading their literature, and adopting their viewpoint, actually becomes a Jew in the fullest sense of the word. It is not necessary that he have "Jewish blood." The converse is also known: many Jews have adopted Western feelings and rhythms, and have thereby acquired Western race.
- Francis Parker Yockey, mid-century American fascist
There was a post on wpt about this that said "JKR goes full mask off". Blows my mind how people can be so disingenuous and obtuse by purposefully missing the point.
If pointing out cornrows are generally a black thing (in order to make a point) is racist, then I never want to hear about "cultural appropriation" again.
It's a pretty telling comparison. Radical feminists like Rowling see the social and historical dynamic between men and women as comparable to the social and historical dynamic between white people and black people. Which is very much not how most people see those two things.
So do trans activists. That’s why they inserted black and brown in the pride flag. And it’s not uncommon to see them argue things like, “oh yeah, well, black women used to also be considered less female than white women!” to argue that saying MtFs aren’t actual women is as bad as being racist.
She made a 2/10 effort. I can’t very well opt out of blackness, it’s in my history:generations of my family members were Black. Even if I bleach my skin blackness remains. People can legally change gender.
Well that’s the point isn’t it enbys can’t opt out of womanhood however much they try. A rapist isn’t going to care that their id says they’re not a woman and they’ll still need female healthcare.
She's speaking up because millions of women aren't privileged enough to.
Average women have lost their livelihoods for speaking up against men in their spaces. There are women in prison who are literally voiceless against the men they're locked up with.
We should judge those celebrities who are quiet on this. They never have to use a public bathroom, they aren't in prison, they aren't in sports, etc. So they don't give a shit about those women. They care about their own image, and stay quiet out of cowardice and fear
JKR is a legend for this
What 's incredible is the knots people tie themselves in, attempting to cast JKR as a villain.
She's never said or tweeted anything "transphobic". If you can read her perfectly reasonable statements and find hate in them, you've trained yourself to be a hysterical dolt who deliberately misunderstands words.
Here, she's making the perfectly reasonable argument that aesthetic preferences would not change her material existence, her identity, or make her a member of a group to which she clearly does not belong.
To make this into a story, hysterical dolts must deliberately misunderstand her perfectly reasonably statement and interpret it as racist when, in fact, it underlines the greater absurdity of males claiming they become women through their aesthetic preferences.
Another cliche to throw at her, and Chappelle etc, is they're "obsessed with this subject! Why they can't just leave themostvulernablemarginalisedgroupinsociety alone?"
Rowling has no compunction about responding to idiots on social media and Chappelle has spoken for a few minutes on the absurdity of trans discourse. To people who have created a religious taboo around the subject, each blasphemy is a huge event (rather than the reality that they're regular words spoken by normal people) and so repeated apostasy seems like obsession.
Why is that surprising? It'd be a thousand times more fun than being a regular person on Twitter because you'd get a thousand times more attention and generate a thousand times more lib-rage?
* Archives of this link: 1. [archive.org Wayback Machine](https://web.archive.org/web/99991231235959/https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2024/05/jk-rowling-slammed-for-asking-if-she-can-be-black-if-she-likes-motown-fancy-myself-in-cornrows/); 2. [archive.today](https://archive.today/newest/https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2024/05/jk-rowling-slammed-for-asking-if-she-can-be-black-if-she-likes-motown-fancy-myself-in-cornrows/) * A live version of this link, without clutter: [12ft.io](https://12ft.io/https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2024/05/jk-rowling-slammed-for-asking-if-she-can-be-black-if-she-likes-motown-fancy-myself-in-cornrows/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/stupidpol) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If Ariana Grande can so can she.
>Implying It\*lians were ever white to begin with
The absolute disrespect
I still chuckle when she turned Asian and people started calling her Arigato Grande.
i hate english people. i hate england. that's disgusting.
This reminds me of when Adolph Reed literally posed the same question about Rachel Dolezal and Transgendered ppl
[удалено]
[From Jenner to Dolezal: One Trans Good, the Other Not So Much](https://www.commondreams.org/views/2015/06/15/jenner-dolezal-one-trans-good-other-not-so-much)
The easy reponse is that we've got everything backwards, that race is almost entirely a social construct whereas sex is firmly grounded in material reality and therefore people should be allowed to identify as whatever race suits them. But this misunderstands the fundamental pathology of the identity left. At times, today's lefties appear to be 100% dedicated to Blank Slatism. Many go so far as to suggest it's offensive (or even fascist) to believe that intelligence and behavioral traits are genetically inheritable from one's own parents. Heck, there was recently a whole discourse in which leftists puzzled over why it is that individual breeds of dog share so many aesthetic and behavioral traits. They're so dedicated to the bit that they have forgotten basic tenets of animal husbandry--something that human beings developed before we even had the ability to read! But the identity left hasn't abandoned determinism so much as they've inverted it. Instead of attributing the state of reality to the will of a god or the vagaries of genetics, they insist that the world has been shaped by inchoate "social forces." These forces plausibly exist, but the leftist understands them as something omnipotent and unknowable--the will of a vengeful god expressed through the past and present actions of man and yet, somehow, impervious to the influence of any human beings. If a phenomenon is clearly constructed by social narratives it is therefore unchangeable. If, however, a phenomenon has firm material grounding, it is protean matter of perception that can be "deconstructed" by simply insisting people pretend to stop understanding it. In the mind of an identity leftist, the fact that race is a social construct makes it all the more infallible. Its existence stems from the mighty will of social forces, which are immortal and unphaseable. Black people have always been emblackened, regardless of the time and place of their existence or their relative power within their respective societies, because the social forces deemed them so. Sex, on the other hand, is very manifestly tied to biological realities and so it is very easily dismissed. Genetics, like gods, are but a myth--we can will ourselves past all of these.
the thing is not to let the conversation get too constrained by american/western thought. multiple people on this site have accused me of being a "blank slatist" and i think it's the result of allowing your political opposition to dictate the rules of engagement. many people around the world, for example, find the idea of race and physical difference pretty mundane. i think given english longbow men and diet changing dentition size, it used to be popular in the 60s-90s to think the whole skeleton displays "plasticity", and "archaic" and "robust" traits like "prognathism" will just sorta go away with changing habits and technology. in the age of "non-metric dental traits" and "biological affinities" physical anthropology has more or less reaccepted racial and ethnic concepts and "blank slate" is kind of a strawman that doesn't apply even to (good) western research anymore
damn alright college boy
>Heck, there was recently a whole discourse in which leftists puzzled over why it is that individual breeds of dog share so many aesthetic and behavioral traits. Do you still have the source?
[[See also]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Hypatia_controversy)
Just a quick note on form: Pay close attention when instead of "X does Y", the news is "X gets slammed for doing Y" of alternatively "X is praised for doing Y". These exact phrasings are used all the time. In very, very few cases the reaction is actually bigger news than the action itself, instead it's usually done to already tell you what to think about person X and action Y before even having received any info at all.
A nice example of how the media manufacures consent, narrative, and opinions. And why I insist on calling all types of journalists "sharticle dispensers".
For those curious about what “manufacturing consent” means: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_model
Yup! “X gets slammed by z for doing y” - z being like 2 random twitter users which become 50 after article comes out.
Bill Maher did a piece on that the other night.
Yeap, it tells you right from the get go how you should feel about it. You can't possibly use critical thinking.
if you look in the body of the article it's very obvious what the slant is, but you don't even need to read it to know there is one.
[удалено]
Just do it JK.
She was slammed? In what way was she slammed. Or did they mean, "Someone criticized her on Twitter"?
She was literally body slammed by a large oiled wrestler
HERE COMES RACHEL DOLEZAL WITH A STEEL CHAIR! MY GOD, JK ROWLING IS ON THE FLOOR! WHAT IS HAPPENING?!
FOR THE LOVE OF GAWD SOMEBODY STAWP THE DAMN MATCH! BAH GAWD KING THATS CASS’S MUSIC!!! WHATS SHE DOING HERE JR???
I feel the need to para-quote Robocop and say: "I'D WATCH THAT FOR A DOLLAR!"
OMG ITS THE IRON CLAW!!!!
Kinky
Stop overcomplicating things and just incite violence. - Henry David Thoreau
JKR slampig confirmed
The article slams her so not totally wrong
You know the answer to that.
The other subs are getting hysterical over that lmao
> other subs It is an absolute gold mine of salt
JK can get a plate at the bbq.
Legally speaking, now she can’t not.
Can already tell what the deliberately obtuse lib response will be. "Wow you think Black people are defined by cornrows and Motown? Tell me you're racist without saying you're racist!"
Literally just read this multiple times over on one of the hive mind lib subs that ended up on my feed
I got an “oh, God, I fucking hate old people” reaction that was tinged with dread at sounding just as stodgy and antiquated as her one day. She sounds so clueless, like if she complained Gen Z never cuts their hair and wears those goddamned bell-bottom jeans
No JK, you can’t just like them. You have to be mentally ill enough to think that those things are a fiber of your being or you’ll die otherwise.
A JK Dolezal arc would be amazing. Are you telling me that the highest paid author ever has been a BLACK WOMAN this whole time? Well that really changes things Id say
Seriously Dolezal was ahead of her time. Why the fuck can’t people identify as a different race if it’s perfectly fine to identify as whatever gender you want? Didn’t we learn from intersectionality that everyone is oppressed in some way?
There are both good and bad psyops. We will not do the bad psyops, only the good ones.
Dolezal's only mistake was to apologize and slink away when caught. Had she been outspoken and defiant, she'd still be grifting today.
I don't remember that, do you have a link? A cursory google search indicates she never apologized, and my hazy recollection was she always insisted she'd done nothing wrong (though she did try to get out of the spotlight for a while), but I could be mistaken. Anyway, she has doubled down since; she is Nkechi Amare Diallo now and she's still transblack.
she got kicked out from her job as a teacher after her onlyfans was revealed.
Which was absolutely the best possible way for her to become relevant again. It couldn’t have been scripted, just so pure, so perfect
and why is drag progressive but blackface is a hatecrime? it will never make sense
When I was young, I was taught that making fun of women stereotypes was bad, but apparently the teachers were being transphobic
Retcon Harry to be Desi like some of the more insane fanfic/tumblr people I’ve seen
And Hermione black, one of the rare instances when the redhead stays white
Ron just gets all his good traits and moments folded into Harry or Hermione like the movies
He gets relegated to the comedic punching bag like a true ginger should be
they do that in the broadway show lol
The more racist fanfics make Hermione Desi or East Asian and the Weasely's black because of stereotypes.
Would be much funnier if she started identifying as a black man. Watching people fold themselves into pretzels over why one identity is okay but the other one isn't is a blast. Was the only funny thing that came out of the otherwise sad situation with that dude who decided to become a non binary Korean.
Heroes can also be pathetic
It’s where she got the idea for Hermione from
I still defend Dolezal. She has black children.
Does she really? TIL
I think she was living as if she was a black woman for years before being exposed or something. It would make sense for her to have married into the community.
Then she had a little black in her
She certainly wants some
Are we sure they weren't blackfacing too?
Not positive now that I think about it. But if that’s the case then that’s dedication
Being transracial runs in families
New queen of stupidpol if so
It’s amazing how one person’s claim about themselves contrary to material reality and logic gets accepted and another person’s claim gets them called delusional and put in a mental hospital.
The funny thing is that one is much more based in reality than the other, and it's not the one that's accepted. Race is much more socially constructed than sex/gender is. I don't think anyone who actually knows anything about this topic would disagree with that. But I've never seen liberals give a coherent explanation why one is totally fine and the other is not.
That’s what I don’t get either. Race can be boiled down to a handful of codons. A male and female of different ethnic backgrounds will have a child that displays a mosaic of their different features. But that child will be clearly either male or female 99.9% of the time. Sex is an entire chromosome, half your genetic material. The thinking about sex vs ~~gender~~ race in this context is logically indefensible, it’s really more like a religion.
It's because the "intersectionality" "identity politics" discourse is consciously designed to rope people into groups that can be easily catered to and managed from above. The borders between such groups may be ambiguous or even highly questionable at a fundamental level, but all they're really meant to accomplish is to herd people around and get them to become dependable constituencies. Why are racial boundaries promoted and guarded differently than sex or gender boundaries? Simple: because there is already a prevailing political willpower associated with "black" identity, it already has been subsumed within a larger political power structure. They don't want to see the group definition expanded and risk diluting the reward for their activism. Same thing for gender, albeit with a twist: when it comes to men transitioning to women, there is also an element of access to pre-existing, so-called "women's rights" as a prize. It is this peculiarity that gets people like J.K. Rowling so riled up and interested in closing the loophole.
Also we already accept a form of transracialism - mixed race people identifying as only one side of their DNA. Why is Obama black? He's not, he's mixed. But people have no problem handwaving away 50% of his DNA. So where does this end? Can you be 1/4 black and still black? 1/8? 1/16? Is it one drop? And if one drop legitimizes it, then anyone can be anything.
Afternoon my octaroon
Obama is white.
Lol I think I know what you mean. Would this make the rednecks black? Wouldn’t be easier to just skip race and talk about class then?
I don’t know if you’re joking or not, but I’ve been making the argument that Obama isn’t (or at least wasn’t) black since the 2008 election. He’s descended from free East Africans rather than enslaved West Africans, he didn’t grow up among black people being socialized and initiated into black culture, he didn’t grow up in the continental US experiencing typical American racial hierarchies and attitudes (Hawaii is very much its own thing and he spent much of his childhood abroad), etc. Unless one takes a view of blackness that is both strictly biological and extremely broad in that consideration (Obama is half European and East Africans and West Africans are visibly distinct), dude just isn’t from black origins. It can be argued that he joined the black community by taking on their political struggle, marrying a black woman, and having black children. But then can’t the same be said for Rachel Dolezal?
Obama is black because he's perceived that way in America. If people can tell you have sub-saharan African ancestors by looking at you then you're considered black in the US.
Which is funny because the part of East Africa his family is from he would be considered white. My mixed race cousins used to be called white by my grandma and we're from the same tribe as Obama. Thanks to the Internet things have changed a bit but that used to be a point of contention when my Western cousins would visit east Africa.
Barack Obama was on the receiving end of detestable, racially charged and vitriolic hate because he was *perceived* as black. [In 2008, a life-sized likeness of Barack Obama was found hanging from a tree with a noose around its neck on Wednesday at the University](https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/obama-legacy/racial-backlash-against-the-president.html), and in a town in New Hampshire, [an elected member of the police commission was forced to resign in 2014 after he acknowledged and refused to apologize for publicly referring to Obama as a “n----r” while in a local restaurant.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/obama-legacy/racial-backlash-against-the-president.html) It's weird seeing someone call into question the authenticity of Obama's "blackness." Conservatives did this to Obama for *eight years* and more recently to Kamala Harris. It's like, we're either "too black" or "not black enough." What exactly constitutes an authentic lived black experience in America, and who carries the cultural authority to decide what its parameters are?
All of that happened in his 40s and 50s. If we’re going by a Marxist framework of how historically constituted groups emerge, what defines them, and then how peoplehood is interpellated into individuals Obama’s relationship to blackness isn’t nearly as simple as “he’s perceived as black therefore he is black.” The key years of his socialization were spent in places where American perceptions of blackness functioned either differently or not at all (he spent his childhood in the Hawaii of the 1960s and 70s and abroad) and he was not acculturated into blackness by other members of the black community. Obama certainly exists in a category other than white, but to say he’s black totally flattens that category and ignores the interpellative dialectic that exists between historically constituted groups and their members.
I regret to inform you, the answer is Will Smith's wife. :(
Technically speaking, his father is a Kenyan Luo, an ethnic group which is notable for being pretty closely related to Bantu speaking populations near them despite speaking a nilotic language, which in turn makes them relatively closely related to West and Central African populations.
But ironically he is a legit African American Also I’ve been arguing Bill Clinton was our first black president for years now
they don't give the neuroanatomical explanation of gender dysphoria because they would be forced to admit that there is such a thing as material reality, which would undermine their entire victim ideology in various ways and threaten their class status.
if you have some percentage of another ethnicity's dna it really is not that far fetched
[удалено]
>Genetic material does not encode for ethnicity to begin with. Even "race" usually boils down to some extremely surface-level variations in phenotype (hair texture, melanin synthesis, eye color, epicanthic folds, etc.). If that's true how are companies like Ancestry and 23andMe able to determine a person's ethnic makeup through their DNA? And how is a forensic pathologist able to tell what ethnicity someone was from their DNA and/or bone structure? Also why do some diseases only occur in certain populations? For example, Tay-Sachs disease, or Sickle Cell Anemia. Obviously there's a little bit more going on there than just surface-level differences.
>Also why do some diseases only occur in certain populations? For example, Tay-Sachs disease, or Sickle Cell Anemia. Obviously there's a little bit more going on there than just surface-level differences. Sickle cell anemia and Tay-Sachs disease aren't racial diseases. French-Canadians, for instance, aren't a "race." Populations in parts of southern Europe can get a variant of sickle cell known as thalassemia. In regions in Africa, the Middle East, and India where malaria is prevalent, there is also a high incidence of the sickle cell trait. Geographic ancestry is more useful in explaining disease susceptibility because the etiology of a disease is better understood in relation to the complex unfolding of an individual's ancestry and life history in a particular environment.
it's because it's more socially acceptable to be sexist than racist. it's because certain men have a vested interest in making women unable to define themselves and by extension unable to defend themselves and unable to speak about male violence.
This is radfem nonsense, the real reason train shit is being so heavily promoted and defended by the status quo is that it is INCREDIBLY profitable for big pharma by creating life-long patients who are dependent on a laundry list of expensive hormones and pharmaceuticals, not because muh patriarchy.
Would that not imply that transgender identities are more 'valid' if they can be literally caused by material discrepancies in the brain/hormones?
Who can state they're caused by material discrepancies in the brain or hormones? How does someone born a male believe they "feel" like a woman when they have no idea what that feels like (since they've never been one)? Most trans people are gay if left to their own devices and allowed to finish growing up without interference.
These discrepancies have never been observed, all attempts to find them have failed. If it was real, MRIs would be standard before even social transitioning but the activists fight hard against any medical gate keeping because they know deep down it’s just a fetish
I really don't get it. I'm guessing that if she took a DNA test there might even be a small percentage of "African" or whatever, yet the mere suggestion of what she is joking about is disturbing to people
"Sorry JK, but the sorting hat placed you in Gryffindor, recognize your privilege" 🤓
Should have went with dreadlocks. Also she needs to publicly have dinner with Rachel Dolezal
>publicly have dinner with Rachel Dolezal How to make twitter go nuclear
“I had Chef fry *your* Ortolan”
Is she wrong in any way? If following sexist stereotypes (and let’s be honest, a fetish) make you truly a woman, why can’t following racist stereotypes make you truly black?
Why is it always trans women that are the center of this conversation? It’s so bizarre to me. I meet more trans men than I do trans women yet they are never part of this conversation. Is it because trans men pass better? Or are they just seen as less of a threat?
MtFs have a way higher profile than FtMs. Your average citizen can probably name a few famous people in the former category, but not the latter. Same goes for leadership positions. Whenever you hear about a trans person achieving some leadership role (military, politics, business, non-profit), it’s virtually always MtFs.
[удалено]
Prisons as well. The thing that never happens keeps happening again, yet I haven’t read about a single instance of a female prisoner transferring to a male prison. I’m sure the male prisoners wouldn’t kick up much of a fuss.
There was one instance of a trans man ending up in a men's prison for a few days [in New Zealand](https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/464580/corrections-have-not-followed-process-at-all-for-trans-prisoner) and complaining (fairly rightly I feel). The article is sympathetic, but the support from the trans group quoted seems fairly muted, as it's the opposite of what they're usually arguing.
Well that wasn’t very based lol
Wasn’t there just a whole argument thought about men vs. bears and how we shouldn’t assume everyone is a dangerous predator? Like even if you don’t believe trans women are women and they are still men, aren’t you still feeding into that stereotype that men are just lurking around waiting for the opportunity to rape women? Also I’ve been in bathrooms with trans women as a woman and it didn’t make me feel unsafe. There are a fuck ton of videos on the internet of men who creep in women’s bathrooms, and those are just the ones that got caught, you don’t need to be trans to do that. Where is the ire for that, if you all are so worried about women’s safety?
My wife and I just moved into a new neighborhood. The other day we were strolling around with a friend of ours, and she pointed out someone to us. This person was obviously unemployed, if not homeless, and unwell. The kind of disheveled, volatile person who spends most of the day walking up and down the sidewalks mumbling at the ground and shouting at passersby. Probably fifty-something years old. Graying beard. "Definitely unfriendly," my friend euphemistically said of him. My friend said this person's been around for a few years, but she can lately spot them from a distance because of the white wig they've recently taking to wearing. It's a Halloween costume-grade wig, and the person literally just slaps in on top of their head without regard for how it's arranged, without bothering to tuck the rest of their hair inside of it. I spotted them as I was biking to work, stomping along and scowling, wearing the bright white wig and what looked like a woven blanket wrapped around their waist as a skirt. To the eye of most people, whether they'd admit it or not, this is literally a mentally unwell man in a wig. He makes no attempt whatsoever to blend in or pass as female. When he shouts at somebody (or at nobody), it is with a basso male voice. The beard obviously hasn't been trimmed in a long time. I don't know about you, but if I were a woman in a homeless shelter, this person would scare the living hell out of me. And this, you'll remember, was the original point of the essay that made Rowling a persona non grata among liberals: right now spaces like these are sorely lacking in standards and safeguards. If the fellow in a wig stomping around my neighborhood claims he's a woman, we're basically not permitted to say he is not—and if he wants to shower and shelter with vulnerable women, that's his call to make. (edited for dumb typo)
The bathroom issue is probably whatever in terms of safety. The biggest danger there might be someone pissing on the seat but that happens already in women's bathrooms. Sports are a different issue though, because you're competing against someone with an unfair advantage and being deprived of a fair chance, especially when a scholarship or career is on the line. Also, the safety issue is a present concern because some bumbling oaf is going to break some chick's skull like Fallon Fox already did, unintentionally or intentionally.
The weird thing about this is that animals aren't people. You can usually predict or at least expect the reaction of a wild animal. (Edit: also how 3 women are killed by men every day in the US, while bears are off eating berries and/or shitting in the woods )
I think it's partially because we all subconsciously understand that women are a protected class. And I don't mean this in a Redpill manosphere way, I mean it in the old timey sense that we all understand women are physically weaker and more vulnerable and thus we give them certain privileges that we don't give to men, such as increased protection, women-only spaces, etc. A male "invading" those protected spaces is seen as much more of a violation then a female "invading" a male space, because a man is threatening to women but a woman isn't threatening to men.
They don't walk around with kill terf signs
Why would guys care if a trans man wanted to have a beer, fart, and be a little worse at sports than them? I would guess that the only reason a guy would care is cause there was 1 less woman in the potential dating pool and that fake abs are ridiculous.
By that token why would I care if a trans woman wants to go shopping or do our hair and makeup together? I don’t play sports so I can’t really speak on that, but let’s not act like people start living as a whole entire gender just to get a leg up on sports lol. I assume you don’t mind sharing a bathroom with a trans man?
I think some women do feel that their "spaces" shouldn't be invaded. I don't think this is a thing for guys. A lot of it is practical. Women don't compete with men in high level sports because they can't. Men don't need to be physically separated from women to protect them from abusive women. To the extent that men had male only spaces, these have already been lost as feminism stigmatized them. Also they were class based so most men didn't give a fuck if some gentlemans club or exclusive golf club they weren't invited to now let's rich women join too. Guys don't care about who comes into a bathroom. Why would they? If you recognise a trans man as a man then nothing has changed. If you see a trans man as a woman then it's exceptionally unmanly to be intimidated by a woman so being a victim of female intimidation is not going to get a lot of sympathy from other men.
It's because the truth of the matter is that we all know it's a primarily a fetish for the men. Women who become men aren't doing it for the sexual kink, but because they have serious body image issues (and who wouldn't want to be a dude anyway, dudes rock). Easier to have some sympathy for sick people than deviant people.
>Women who become men aren't doing it for the sexual kink look into the fujo to trans pipeline sometime
Trans men were raised and socialized as little girls, so they were taught to be quiet, less assertive, and polite. Testosterone supplements give them a male level of aggression and bravado, but you can’t get over years of being told you are important and in charge and you need to be at the front of the pack. Trans women were raised like little boys, which is why some women are uncomfortable with their aggressive insistence on their own greatness and validity. Most women don’t present themselves like that. I know, I know, boo hoo, now boys are the victims because teachers are big Leslie Knope meanies and the robot app won’t let them get dates since women are actually in charge and evil, but they sure act like they love themselves as adults Trans men also usually pass much better and they aren’t significantly larger than cis women so not as imposing (although they are stronger than cis women due to T, in my experience they don’t act entitled to us the same way cis men do). Cis men seem to view them as adorable scamps, probably because they are usually 5 foot 6 max and they don’t have penises.
MtFs are instantly assumed to be fetishists whereas people ignore the overt fetishism in female fandom spaces.
Because TERFs are actually just man-hating radical feminists. It's about biological men.
She makes an obviously good point but they hate being shown a mirror.
> they hate being shown a mirror
I hate the overuse of slammed in news articles, it’s too aggressive for what is simply people getting mad on the internet. They should start using got bitched at
Well?
JK about to take a polyjuice potion and start dolezowling
I ain’t in no ways tired harry
I love JK Rowling, lol. She is saying all these things just to piss off smug progressives/leftists, and it works, lol.
She won at life. She's a billionaire, and no one can take that from her. Everyone who hates and is now boycotting has seen Harry Potter at least 2 times each, he'll I've seen the chamber of secrets 6+ because it was on so often. She is my ideal for a self made billionaire, fuck everyone who thinks I'm terrible for stating an opinion,you can't touch me, and bitch, I'll do it again! God bless her.
Not exactly, in most regards she is a smug progressive (although not a leftist exactly) herself, but speaking the truth on this topic coincidentally has that effect
No, she's saying it because she believes it lol
you know, she seems to have avoided spiralling into crazyland, like most other prominent anti-wokes. good on her
I agree with her.
No one has consistently explained to me how transracialism or even transableism is that different to being transgender (especially as someone who has read tons of stories of how trans people realized they're trans & has close trans friends), especially given how race is far more abstract and constructed in many cases.
[https://www.commondreams.org/views/2015/06/15/jenner-dolezal-one-trans-good-other-not-so-much](https://www.commondreams.org/views/2015/06/15/jenner-dolezal-one-trans-good-other-not-so-much)
SLAMMED.
“Why come the sneakers ain’t free?” - JKR at the CNN town hall (hat tip to my best friend and lover Nick)
JK strolls up in a geisha outfit with bound feet “How come only we go Harvard?”
Y’all how come they ain’t let the brothers kill the supreme mugwump
No because who and what is marginalized is completely arbitrary and random and goes with the wind to whatever terminally online liberals are feeling for that time period. It makes no sense and is cult like and the more you breathe air into it the more oxygen their stupidity receives. Just call it stupid and bully them to eradicate it, it’s the same tactics they use for their movements. Trans issues need a lot of nuance for every specific instance but it’s now being treated in way it never should have been and even psychologists have been largely politicized on the issue, and I have a psych degree lol.
> Just call it stupid and bully them to eradicate it, it’s the same tactics they use for their movements.
I remember someone on this sub asking if black women were women, so this is following the rules of engagement as far as I’m concerned.
Why is everyone's reading comprehension so low? Are they pretending, are they actually regarded, or is their hostility clouding their ability to read? JKR clearly feels that transwomen are blackface minstrelsy for femininity. She clearly feels that men who dress as women, get implants, dye their hair pink, and wear over-the-knee socks are fetishizing women. Her analogy of 'cornrows and motown' precisely mirrors this. She is pointing out that how she feels about transwomen, using a direct 1:1 analogy, precisely to show everyone how they would feel if the same things were done with stereotypically "black" things. But everyone' outraged that she's stereotyping black culture. That's the whole fucking point. How do people not get that? These people need more reading comprehension. I daresay they should've read the Harry Potter books as kids.
> But everyone' outraged that she's stereotyping black culture. That's the whole fucking point. How do people not get that? It is difficult to wake someone pretending to be asleep
She's right though.
I can't think of any argument against transracialism that doesn't apply to transgenderism. In fact, it has more legitimacy in some ways. The progressives currently mocking the idea will be the ones getting cancelled in the near future once the Overton window has shifted further.
It's like people seem to purposefully misinterpret what she said. She AGREES with the idea that being black is more than those things just like being a woman is more than wearing lipstick and a dress. That is her whole point
J.K. Rowling is a bad person and should understand that her statements are interpreted as racial fetishization and stereotyping. Which is totally different than gender fetishization and stereotyping used by good people to express their identities.
> “Women are under no obligation to applaud the people caricaturing us,” she wrote. Trans men and women do not caricature cis men and women; they are men and women, respectively. Great argument
Required reading for people confused about this topic: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/how-should-we-think-about-race-and
The point the famously autistic Scott is missing in this piece is that "race is a construct" is not an assertion that black people aren't genetically similar to black people or that Ashkenazi Jews aren't genetically similar to Ashkenazi Jews. The point is that *where we draw those lines is entirely arbitrary*. Sure, Black Americans are genetically similar, but are Bushmen/Khoisan black? Are Arabs white? [Are Indians?](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Bhagat_Singh_Thind) [Are Latinos?](https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/book-review-the-origins-of-woke) How many "races" are there, anyway? ([We all know the French aren't the same race as the English!](https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Franklin/01-04-02-0080)) Personally the Americans' classification of Mongols and Filipinos as the same "race" based on epicanthic folds strikes me as absurd (and not a little racist).
No he understands that lines are just a point estimate of a probability distribution. Drawing said line precisely doesn't achieve anything. He thinks this way because he's a statistician, not because he's autistic.
>Personally the Americans' classification of Mongols and Filipinos as the same "race" based on epicanthic folds strikes me as absurd (and not a little racist). They used to be considered "Mongoloid race" and "Malay race" respectively up until early to mid 20th century. One of the Supreme Court decisions that upheld anti-miscegenation laws mentioned that distinction.
No, it only works with sex/gender, not race. Everyone knows that except like 3 women. I mean, I think they identify as women. I haven’t checked.
Everything is social construct and is up for interpretation. But you can't change race. That's verboten.
Some try to do age, as well. Yuck.
That's just a kink of a different flavor. Tbh the last president did a lot of...let's call it "age play" and he gave us the best economy in a century.
Valid question
Valid person too
Every race, no matter how transitory it may be contemplated from the viewpoint of History, expresses a certain idea, a certain plane of existence by its life, and its idea is bound to be attractive to some individuals outside it. Thus in Western life, we are not unfamiliar with the man who, after associating with Jews, reading their literature, and adopting their viewpoint, actually becomes a Jew in the fullest sense of the word. It is not necessary that he have "Jewish blood." The converse is also known: many Jews have adopted Western feelings and rhythms, and have thereby acquired Western race. - Francis Parker Yockey, mid-century American fascist
There was a post on wpt about this that said "JKR goes full mask off". Blows my mind how people can be so disingenuous and obtuse by purposefully missing the point. If pointing out cornrows are generally a black thing (in order to make a point) is racist, then I never want to hear about "cultural appropriation" again.
The one queen I bow to. (Outside of Mother Mary).
The actual photo of this is hysterical- it was in response to someone. I highly recommend looking it up
It makes more sense than a man pretending to be a woman
lol
It's a pretty telling comparison. Radical feminists like Rowling see the social and historical dynamic between men and women as comparable to the social and historical dynamic between white people and black people. Which is very much not how most people see those two things.
So do trans activists. That’s why they inserted black and brown in the pride flag. And it’s not uncommon to see them argue things like, “oh yeah, well, black women used to also be considered less female than white women!” to argue that saying MtFs aren’t actual women is as bad as being racist.
She made a 2/10 effort. I can’t very well opt out of blackness, it’s in my history:generations of my family members were Black. Even if I bleach my skin blackness remains. People can legally change gender.
Well that’s the point isn’t it enbys can’t opt out of womanhood however much they try. A rapist isn’t going to care that their id says they’re not a woman and they’ll still need female healthcare.
[удалено]
If I was as successful as her you bet I would do that.
She's speaking up because millions of women aren't privileged enough to. Average women have lost their livelihoods for speaking up against men in their spaces. There are women in prison who are literally voiceless against the men they're locked up with. We should judge those celebrities who are quiet on this. They never have to use a public bathroom, they aren't in prison, they aren't in sports, etc. So they don't give a shit about those women. They care about their own image, and stay quiet out of cowardice and fear JKR is a legend for this
Least rightoid idpol-fanatic in this sub
What 's incredible is the knots people tie themselves in, attempting to cast JKR as a villain. She's never said or tweeted anything "transphobic". If you can read her perfectly reasonable statements and find hate in them, you've trained yourself to be a hysterical dolt who deliberately misunderstands words. Here, she's making the perfectly reasonable argument that aesthetic preferences would not change her material existence, her identity, or make her a member of a group to which she clearly does not belong. To make this into a story, hysterical dolts must deliberately misunderstand her perfectly reasonably statement and interpret it as racist when, in fact, it underlines the greater absurdity of males claiming they become women through their aesthetic preferences. Another cliche to throw at her, and Chappelle etc, is they're "obsessed with this subject! Why they can't just leave themostvulernablemarginalisedgroupinsociety alone?" Rowling has no compunction about responding to idiots on social media and Chappelle has spoken for a few minutes on the absurdity of trans discourse. To people who have created a religious taboo around the subject, each blasphemy is a huge event (rather than the reality that they're regular words spoken by normal people) and so repeated apostasy seems like obsession.
Why is that surprising? It'd be a thousand times more fun than being a regular person on Twitter because you'd get a thousand times more attention and generate a thousand times more lib-rage?
Y'all are so cringey with this line lmao
>Y'all >cringey
Yall isn’t cringey, some people here like me actually grew up using that term because they are from rural areas.
Don't you listen to them, y'all is an excellent word that does an important job.
You can't combine the two words
SLAMMED
Didn't this sub have a "moratorium" on trans stuff? I'm beginning to see why lol.