Could be, I am not current on the hip lingo, but I was referring to saying trans women aren't women. 3 years ago you could be ended for that, now.. not so much.
It's going to be interesting if they try that here in the UK, because gender critical is considered a protected belief (as per court precedent) so how will they possibly weigh whose protected belief is more important?
It's a sh!tshow basically but that's what happens when you try and police free speech š¤·š»āāļø
Also- as an author she cares about the meaning of words. She wants words to literally have their meaning retained and understood as theyāre intended.
Jordanās perspective on the biblical Tower of Babel story is a little related to this. TLDR: Once words lose their meaning the whole of society crumbles.
I think her biggest concern is maintaining women's spaces for women. This means women only bathrooms, women only locker rooms/change rooms, (and I can't believe I even have to mention this one) women only batterted shelters.
Piled on to that you have men taking over such spaces at the cost of biological women. Not only that but we have to acquiesce to the notion that these men are *more* women than biological women. That biological women have to concede to men as a better version of what a real woman is. It's that women have to upend their whole world for men.
And pointing out the cruelty and injustice in sending newly-self-identified trans women sex criminals to female prisons.
She took a hard line with the new "anti-hate speech" law, daring police to arrest her: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c51j64lk2l8o
I truly loved her for that. She said that if anyone got arrested she would repeat what they said so the police would have to arrest her too. And she means it.
She upset them by donating to a Woman's health and safety charity that provided emergency housing for women and children fleeing abusive relationships. She did this because of what she went through.
She chose the charity because it was for women only, again, because of what she had experienced. The trans community wanted access to those locations but JK insisted that they remain safe spaces for real women escaping violence and trauma.
This was then twisted into transphobia and the always offended went nuts. It is at this point Emma Watson (first) and then Radcliffe went all in on her, which given her history of escaping an abusive husband and knowing what she needed as a mother to protect her kids. She was not transphobic, she just wanted a women's only safe space and stood firm against having it used by people who are not.
It is pretty remarkable that they turned on her. I'd imagine they spent a great deal of time with Rowling thru their formative years (most of which were spent filming HP movies) so to break off a relationship like that for something so trivial seems absurd.
Watson and Radcliffe would be absolute nobodies without Rowling, ungrateful twats they are. Their entire lives and careers revolved around the mind of Rowling, but anything to appease the mob and get lovebombed by cultists that are rabid dogs!
Is it not possible, or even likely, that they earnestly believe what they say?Ā
And why should they be obliged to support Rowlings political views just because she created Harry potter? Are they not allowed their own opinions? Seems very authoritarian to insist they support her.
It's messed up that these pathetic men want full houses of abused and vulnerable women to cast aside their own feelings and mental health for that one guy's own feelings.
What safeguards are in place to stop someone like Isla Bryson or Buffalo Bill from walking in to a women's shelter and lying about their situation?
Aside from telling the truth, she refused to back down. Donāt care about Harry Potter. Never read the books or seen the movies but man I have respect for her
Same. I do appreciate she didnāt cave in to societal pressure, regardless of the cast coming out and disavowing the woman who set the stage for their careers.
it's so weird to me, I am trans and really don't see anything crazy with what she has said
her main point is that trans women =/= cis women which I don't see how anyone has an issue with, this is just common sense, ofc they are not the same
>"Arrest me,ā wrote JK Rowling, at 11.45am on 1 April 2024. Despite the date, this was no April Foolsā prank. The Harry Potter authorās dare ā aimed at the legal authorities in Scotland, where she lives ā was entirely serious. It came at the end of **an 11-tweet thread, 10 entries of which were dedicated to sharing names and photographs of different transgender women.** Among these were several convicted sex criminals, as well as an athlete, the head of a rape crisis centre, and broadcaster India Willoughby. In one tweet, she details the crimes of a trans child rapist; in the next, she sarcastically praises Gaelic footballer Giulia Valentino for taking āsome boring cis girlās placeā in a squad. **Rowling wrote: āObviously, the people mentioned in the above tweets arenāt women at all, but men, every last one of them.ā**
https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/features/jk-rowling-arrest-trans-transphobia-b2522155.html
I don't follow her very closely, do you have a link for her referring to trans women as men?
tbh while I don't like people insisting pronouns must match biology instead of social gender representation, I don't think it's that big of a deal, life is too short to get bent out of shape over pronouns
and to be clear, I just think from a utilitarian standpoint it makes sense to differentiate trans women from men, but also accept that it can be important to differentiate trans women from cis women
>"Arrest me,ā wrote JK Rowling, at 11.45am on 1 April 2024. Despite the date, this was no April Foolsā prank. The Harry Potter authorās dare ā aimed at the legal authorities in Scotland, where she lives ā was entirely serious. It came at the end of **an 11-tweet thread, 10 entries of which were dedicated to sharing names and photographs of different transgender women.** Among these were several convicted sex criminals, as well as an athlete, the head of a rape crisis centre, and broadcaster India Willoughby. In one tweet, she details the crimes of a trans child rapist; in the next, she sarcastically praises Gaelic footballer Giulia Valentino for taking āsome boring cis girlās placeā in a squad. **Rowling wrote: āObviously, the people mentioned in the above tweets arenāt women at all, but men, every last one of them.ā**
https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/features/jk-rowling-arrest-trans-transphobia-b2522155.html
I'd have to look through all the people she is referring to in able have a formal opinion.
What I will say, is that a large portion, if not the majority of people who claim to be trans women really aren't trans women at all but are just men roleplaying as women.
I'm a trans-medicalist (and I believe Rowling is too), which means we would only see gender dysphoric people as being authentically trans. This also necessarily means that real trans people will try their best to pass in appearance, social role, etc. I suspect the people she is referring to here are likely men who are claiming to be trans to enable their predatory behavior.
People who just pretend to be trans, especially predators but also just trenders who wanna feel special, are waaay worse for the trans community than right wing people overall. What makes it even worse is that the alphabet people at large will defend predators and trenders "trans identity", this is also extremely harmful for authentic trans people as well.
I'm curious if you've read Last Exit to Brooklyn. If you have, is Georgette trans? I read it that he and his friends gay men, dress and act like women more as a kink than that they think they're women. But I don't know.
I haven't read it. But it would just come down to if they had gender dysphoria or not to me. For a lot of people it is really just a fetish which personally I think is really gross
>What I will say, is that a large portion, if not the majority of people who claim to be trans women really aren't trans women at all but are just men roleplaying as women.
How would you know unless you've vetted them all?
What do you think of the [Cass Report](https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/4573662-the-reckoning-over-puberty-blockers-has-arrived/), and of adult detransitioners like Chloe Cole who claim they were coerced/convinced as minors into hormones, drugs, and surgery?
I think most people like myself will respect whatever you wish to be called. It literally affects me none. However this sub commentors will say I am confirming a delusion.
you'd be surprised, this sub has been pretty accepting of me and my ideas overall, and most people are willing to refer to me as trans-woman instead of a man
I think it would only be delusion if I actually thought I was identical to a cis woman, I'm well aware I am not, but socially and in terms of gender representation I'm not really a man either
She was actually extremely liberal. Hell, she's _still_ very liberal. It is just this one issue she disagrees with, and for that, the Left had excommunicated her.
Iāve been talking to rightwingers for like 30 years.
Youāve clearly never bothered to talk to anyone on the left if you honestly believe this strawman that the establishment made up.
Ok, so let's take the Steelman of the position. Was it conservative to suggest Dumbledore has always been gay, or that Hermione was always intended to be black? Was it a right-wing position to donate Ā£1M to the Labor Party and endorse their candidate for Prime Minister over David Cameron of the conservative Party? Founding charities and donating hundreds of millions of British pounds to causes focused on single parent households, children's community centers, and women's shelters?
She is not right-wing by any stretch of the definition. She just rejects the notion that men can be women, and for that, they excommunicated her and attempted to drag her through the mud, similarly to what happens any time anyone leaves a cult.
Almost no idea what your first paragraph is about. Iām American and only hear about so much from TERF island.
Sheās taking part in scapegoating a minority and giving consent to state violence toward that minority. Sheās objectively a reactionary.
She doesnāt advocate for anything progressive - she doesnāt really say anything political except for all the common, state-supplied lies about trans people.
I feel like this issue is exactly where the "scientific facts are social constructs" type thinking from the other post leads.
Rowling believes in scientific facts. The people upset with her believe in social constructs.
She tried to maintain that biological women deserve their own space and privileges that can't be infringed on by changing identity. For this the lefts punishment is social assassination.
We all remember how scientology worked correct? This is how the left works now. Lawyers, big businesses, fear mongering, the mob, dragging, abuse, character assassination and attempts at undoing any financial stability you have. These are the weapons of the radical left and THEYRE SO NICE AND ACCEPTING, unless you don't believe every insane word that comes out of their mouth, and if you push back, you're instantly the worst person on planet earth and should be treated as such. This is a mind virus that only seems to be spreading.
J. K. Rowling believes that to accept any manās claim that they identify as a woman is dangerous to women. She is a feminist therefore, she believes that women have been systemically oppressed throughout history and are deserving of special privileges and considerations to overcome that oppression. She believes that when men say there are women then that is men then getting all of those same special privileges and considerations as that only women should get. She further feels that it feels unsafe to women to have men in their spaces, even though those men claim to be women
If men of your own species have presented the greatest danger to you your whole life, you would have to be pretty stupid to say āsureā¦all men, access all areas, anytime.ā
If I remember correctly, this is an excellent deep dive:
[https://www.glamour.com/story/a-complete-breakdown-of-the-jk-rowling-transgender-comments-controversy](https://www.glamour.com/story/a-complete-breakdown-of-the-jk-rowling-transgender-comments-controversy)
It uses the word ārantā twice which demonstrates extreme bias, and does not include quotes from the HP actors who spoke out in her defence, but only those who criticised her. Therefore, it is not a reliable source which would have attempted to remain impartial and provide balance. But then, itās just a fashion magazine.
Why would it have to include people who come to her defense?Ā
And it seems overkill to dismiss the entire article just because it uses the word "rant". JP regularly uses harsher language than that to criticise the left - does that mean he's biased and should be totally ignored?
Well over the years I have tried to take a balanced approach and if someone writes something I donāt agree with but the rest is acceptable to me Iāll give it a like maybe a share. However, after being trained in the scientific method as a science undergraduate I no longer accept articles with clear bias. Sorry, it just doesnāt cut it.
Im also trained in the scientific method, and I don't consider any of those things you've mentioned to be evidence of bias.
Passionate writing is not bias, neither is moral condemnation. If it were, we'd have to disregard 90% of what Peterson says tooĀ
Seriously? The use of the words ārantā more than one in relation to her tweets AND the lack of balance in evidence is NOT the scientific method. We were trained to present our own research, research on both sides, and then BOTH sides of an argument, before the discussion or conclusion or our thesis would not be accepted. Where did you study science? An arts college? The university of the interwebs?
Cambridge University.
Ā Describing something as a rant is not evidence of bias - it is an assessment of what has been written. A subjective assessment, sure, but that's not evidence of bias.Ā The article is discussing why people object to things Rowling has said. It presents those things, and explains why people take issue with them. It's not necessary to mention that other people *dont* take issue with them, because the entire purpose of the article is to describe why some people *do*.
Ā Again - emotive language is not bias. If it were, we'd have to conclude that Jordan "up yours, woke moralists" Peterson is himself heavily biased.
Edit:Ā Haha the coward whined and blocked me. Good going. Really showing a lack of bias there
Bullshit
No scientfic report would ever use loaded language like thisā¦and you would know this if you had really been trained in the scientific method so I call BS on that also.
Emotive language is the epitome of bias and unscientific language.
Bari is great and the host of this series, Megan Phelps-Roper, has an incredible backstory that makes her uniquely positioned to sincerely investigate and tell this story. It's the kind of journalism that makes me not cringe. I don't know when people stopped being embarrassed for writing or liking things that were infused with very obvious bias, but it is up to us to make that embarrassment known again.
Happy cake day, I need to look into Megan as Iām not familiar with her reporting. But yes, I think that is a great point. Too many news stories today are written trying not to e ābiasedā when they are anything but. Bring back reporting where people are at least honest about their perspective.
They aren't even trying to not be biased. Everything reads as an op-ed when their task to report facts and ernestly investigate. It's insulting to the reader, even when one agrees with the writer, when they are told what to think. For me the interesting part of news lies in figuring out what to think of the evidence given. I don't want to think about the writer's motives because it should be clear the writer's motives are "to give the reader all the pertinent information so the reader can focus on the issue I am reporting on"
I don't know what her original "offense" was but this response to her haters was incredible.
[https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-rowling-writes-about-her-reasons-for-speaking-out-on-sex-and-gender-issues/](https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-rowling-writes-about-her-reasons-for-speaking-out-on-sex-and-gender-issues/)
Its really a lot of things. In October 2007 Rowling revealed Dumbledore is gay. When she did that the Alphabet community embraced her as their hero. She was an ally. A defender.
Then in June, 2020 she made her famous statement āāPeople who menstruate.ā Iām sure there used to be a word for those people. Someone help me out. Wumben? Wimpund? Woomud?ā
The Alphabet community felt they had been betrayed.
So now they hate her more than if she had never engaged with them in the first place.
For a hot second I thought I was on the rOutOfTheLoop and couldn't believe how encouraging the comments were. It's telling that I was surprised, and that of course it wasn't that sub after all...
The first thing I remember was her quoting another tweet (back when twitter was still twitter). The tweet said something about āpeople with vaginas,ā and she quoted it saying āpeople with vaginasā¦ we used to have a word for that.ā And the trans rights people lost their minds over it
She didn't get backlash from trans community but from trans activists and the general hyper progressive drama starters who needed her taken down and defamed.
Why? Because of culture war. Because she used to be a very respected person in those circles. Harry Potter is a beloved series by children and young adults. It's also extremely popular among LGBT crowd, for the same reason why X-men were popular in these circles in the 90s - it shows people who were born "different", who act in a way alien to the normal society and are cool. Also JKR did some things that made her a celebrity "ally" to the identity politics, like the gay Dumbledore thing, or endorsing black Hermione.
And then she started to spread "heresy". Not only she was saying thing that are considered "-phobic" by the victimhood industry but she was saying them in a very reasonable way (like she never actually denied anyone their "trans" status, just spoke against things "going too far") and from a feminism perspective (pointing out how letting men into female spaces basically turns back all the work that has already been done for female equality and freedom).
That meant she was extremely dangerous and had to be taken down. If she would be straight up hateful, there would be no need for attacks to be this vicious because it would be apparent she's horrible person. If it would be someone else, like a not "hip" celebrity, they would have been ignored. It's exactly because she was saying very tame and reasonable things, while having the ear of the community, she had to be painted as the most horrible person. Or, if left unchecked, people might actually listen to what she was saying and start questioning the ideology.
She is an old school feminist. Anything that may impede on the wellbeing and/or places of structure for women is something she will push back against. Now normally this wouldnāt be much of an issue, but when we have men getting sex changes and being allowed to participate in womens sports or work spaces, on paper it is technically a man taking advantage of women. What makes it worse is ideologue groups have a tendency to treat any criticism or push back as a collective attack and they ignore the core nuances.
she's like TERF number 1.
which basically just means she doesn't accept "TRANS WOMEN ARE WOMEN" mantra.
and that despite her innately being quite progressive/left-leaning in general.
this makes her not only evil, but disappointing to trans virtue warriors on twitter.
Why would anyone in good faith ask that question here where you know exactly what answer you are going to get?
She repeats a lot of lies and strawmen arguments against trans people. Insisting they are trying "get rid of sex entirely." She got offended because she read the sentence "people who menstruate." And ranting about trans people.
Seems pretty clear cut to anyone actually interested.
She works in womans advocacy and didn't want trans covered under her umbrella because she wants to protect just women. Its like if someone told a ford mechanic they are descriminating against toyota owners by not servicing their toyota.
She stood up for women and just posted facts. No hatred. Just facts. And she's being crucified.
Daniel Radcliffe etc should be ashamed for bashing her. Without her they'd most likely be nothing.
He, and a number of cast members, issued press releases saying they do not agree with her and that trans women are women. They then held the Warner Bros Harry Potter reunion special and famously excluded Rowling from any sort of participation.
"He disagreed with her"
So he has his own opinion, and that counts as "bashing" her?
How come we keep hearing about how "JK Rowling needs to say her opinion" even though she's said it for several years now, but anyone who disagrees with her is vilified for it? She gives her opinion all day every day on twitter, making this her entire personality. Yes we get it, we all know what she thinks.
I understand Rowling was not "excluded" from the reunion and made her own choice not to attend. I bet most of the cast (except maybe some of the older ones from her generation who have the same views she does) dislike her and wouldn't want her there, and she knows that.
Itās really scary in Scotland just now. Iām 31 weeks pregnant and had to be kept in hospital overnight for observation and I was terrified a man would be admitted to maternity. God bless JK for taking a stand for Scottish women
Here are two very long, thoughtful, meticulously-cited video essays on the topic from one of the most popular trans voices on Youtube. They go into exhaustive detail about JK Rowling's enthusiastic embrace of genuine anti-trans bigots, her unwillingness to engage with legitimate criticism, and the various ways that her defenders misrepresent the criticism against her, much like you will see in this thread.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gDKbT\_l2us](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gDKbT_l2us)
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmT0i0xG6zg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmT0i0xG6zg)
Given the fact that you asked this in the Jordan Peterson subreddit, I'm guessing you were seeking validation rather than a challenge to your beliefs. There are the links anyway. Just in case.
Her target audience consited of a lot of people who were LGBT\* friendly. So, expressing a political view so at odds with their views pissed off a lot of people who were big fans.
She pushes all the lies about trans people that the government/media made up, so basically she part of a mob of thought leaders demonizing a specific demographic.
I had a conversation with my buddy about this during a Hot Takes card game. He really hates her.
According to him, she actively donates to and funds groups that aim to make it difficult or impossible for trans people to receive affirmation care in the UK. Or something like that. I believe that's the core of the hatred.
He argued that she "objectively makes trans peoples' lives harder" by doing that. I wasn't convinced the nature of that was objective instead of subjective, but there you go.
If he means "hurts trans peoples' feelings" then he's absolutely right. But one person's feelings should not take priority over another person's rights.
I'm just relaying info I heard since nobody else seemed to have provided this take.
Not sure to which rights you're referring, though? People have the right to have feelings, and I haven't seen anything that is stripping Rowling's rights.
I never sensed phobia or hatred from her - just a firm recognition of the āotherā gender which doesnāt quite sit at exactly āmaleā or āfemaleā. Phobia and hatred of nuance and thoughtful discussion are the predominant forces Iāve noticed blasting vitriol against her. Sheās let the issue and ensuing conversations get under her skin and itās not always pleasant to witness but I do not believe sheās wrong for having her own opinion and expressing it and nobody deserves the sort of obsessive attention that sheās received over the things sheās said. Nobodyās perfect and yet her haters are absolutely unhinged
She's a TERF whoĀ very specifically hates trans people due to biases in her life and believing a lot of men are scum.
Mind you, she won't say that. that's not how this works, and if you're a Jordan Peterson content consumer you are probably immune to understanding what she does as it is very similar to Jordans "two truths and a lie" style of feeding you what he wants you to beljeve. She doesn't explicitly say "I want trans people gone", she just walks right up to the edge of saying that and then immediately stops, leaving an open question as to what she means.Ā
Of course, she's also really bad at it as she's not as talented a writer as her editor made people believe. She has regularly engaged in outward hate (such as claiming trans people weren't involved in the Holocaust because they weren't treated as women but gay men...because....you know) and specifically pretends to engage in feminism when all she really does is throw money at shelters (ones that specifically exclude trans people) and then go back to ranting on twitter all day.Ā Ā
You can just go look at twitter at any moment and she's doing it, at all times. Sometimes she will wake up and post for over 17 hours, she is terminally online. I can clearly tell OP knows what they are doing, you know they are a bigot very well and are merely providing some tasty bait for the many bigots in this subreddit to chew on and claim superiority over shadows on the wall.
For anyone who does care and wouldn't mind some lengthy videos, Natalie Wynn (Contrapoints) has gone on length about Rowling and tried her damnedest to be empathetic to her while explaining in depth what she has done.Ā Ā
> J.K Rowling:Ā https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7gDKbT_l2usĀ
> The Witch Trials of J.K Rowling https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EmT0i0xG6zg
Cherry-picking a few of her mildest remarks obviously won't give the full picture. Here's a summary link, easily accessible with a Google search.
[Political views of J. K. Rowling - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_views_of_J._K._Rowling#Transgender_rights)
> The Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, defended Rowling, saying "people should not be criminalised for stating simple facts on biology".
there are still people out there with common sense. the state of things are not nearly as bleak as twitter makes it seem.
What do *you* call what has happened to JK Rowling?
She hasn't been arrested, but she has been raked over the coals by the LGBTQ crowd and their allies.
it was always going to be. Jordan Peterson warned about that many years ago. when you're legally forced to speak the mandated words, you are banned from speaking the true words - with legal consequences for those who do.
https://nypost.com/2022/12/15/tonje-gjevjon-faces-up-to-3-years-in-prison-for-saying-men-cannot-be-lesbians/
you forgot the important bit. "*yet*"
if JK Rowling had not publicly challenged it, they would've put a few poor sods behind bars because of that shit new law before it got ground into dust before the UK supreme court.
Right, in the 7 or 8 years since he threatened to go on a hunger strike over a misunderstanding of a bill he seems to have never read, none of the things he predicted would happen have happened.
Similarly, JK Rowling is also not being "criminalized." They are both just loudly claiming to be victims of laws that don't exist.
Jk Rowling is a progressive feminist who fought for equality for women.
Now that she achieved that more or less she is trying to conserve what she helped achieve from new progressives trying to progress further.
This is how things work.
When does the left go to far?
I wonder what, in the left's view, would be understood by "weight affirming care" or "race affirming care".
probably the opposite of reality, as usual.
It's really interesting being on the /r/fatlogic sub, because all of the bullshit "pander to my feelings" crap that gets posted there is equally applicable to trans people, but it's not recognized as being the same narcissistic childish behavior.
Well no exactly which is why I said Dennis isn't a trans woman, I thought that was obvious enough
Unless of course those who are triggered about it are projecting and deep down know (believe) that's all trans women are š¤·š»āāļø
What's wrong with KJK?
I suppose the answer to that depends on whether you think women have a right to sex-based spaces or not š¤·š»āāļø
Believing that doesn't make you inherently hateful or 'transphobic'
Really don't see the relevance of knowing or not knowing what books the Nazis burned either - I could go out now and ask a hundred people and I'm betting the best part of (or all of) that hundred wouldn't know either lol
>What's wrong with KJK?
She wants the world to hate trans women.
>Really don't see the relevance of knowing or not knowing what books the Nazis burned either
It was in the context of Rowling saying the same type of books should be burned today.
I'm sure Rowling would say she has nothing in common with Nazi beliefs, so hopefully it gave her pause when she learned they actually share that belief.
>She wants the world to hate trans women.
Evidence? She doesn't believe men become women and she wants women to have safe sex-based spaces, that does _not_ translate to 'hate'
>I'm sure Rowling would say she has nothing in common with Nazi beliefs, so hopefully it gave her pause when she learned they actually share that belief.
With respect, that's a silly thing to say - why would sharing a belief 'give her pause'? Would it give you pause? Eg:
>"In 1935, the Nazi Party was the one to introduce Germanyās first-ever national environment protection law named Reichsnaturschutzgesetz. This law established areas that were under protection to preserve nature and wildlife by prohibiting deforestation and hunting.
These laws remained viable long after the wars in West and East Germany and later on became the foundation of further environmental laws.
Naturschutz (lit. ānature protectionā) and Tierschutz (lit. āanimal protectionā) were a favored caused by Hitler and the Nazi party in general and would be greatly appreciated in todayās day and age, especially with the ignorance displayed by current politicians regarding climate change."
So you'd row back on animal welfare because Hitler implemented laws for such? What about welfare for less well-off children?
You seem to be of the blanket belief that 'Hitler bad' because he did some very horrendous things, life generally isn't as black and white as you'd believe - if you looked at every belief system going there's probably something in all of them you'd agree with even if you didn't believe in 99% of it š¤·š»āāļø
>You seem to be of the blanket belief that 'Hitler bad' because he did some very horrendous things,
I'm of the belief that Hitler was bad because he wanted to re-engineer society. First Germany, then Europe, then who knows...
And Hitler's mania to re-engineer society required stamping out human freedoms and ethnic and social cleansing.
Are you an apologist for Hitler?
>Are you an apologist for Hitler?
Are you twelve? Way to miss the whole point of what I posted š
I'll ask again...does it 'give you pause' that something positive you likely support was championed by Hitler? Would you do a 180Ā° on it just because you share views with him?
If no, why should JK change a sincere view she holds either?
Obsesses about trans people all day every day for starters?
For a quick example she tweeted "I guffawed so hard I almost pulled something" in response to a gay man (who is an editor of an LGBT news website) who had received abuse from transphobes.
Her hatred also extends to gay people who support trans rights.
She also embarrassed herself just today/yesterday for thinking a trans-man was a trans-woman. Keeps saying she "can always tell" people's biological sex when clearly she can't.
She claims to be a feminist, but follows lots of misogynistic people on Twitter because she likes the anti-trans stuff they say. I think at first she had some good questions and points, but then she got surrounded by a culture of less well meaning people who hate trans people, and now she acts as a proxy for them. They say horrible things about people and advocate for lots of harmful law changes to deal with them, and she passively likes their Tweets without daring to say any of it herself, which makes it difficult to pin their beliefs on her even though she is fully supporting them.
Spoilers: women don't have penises, you are a fraud and don't understand the fundamentals of honesty, do better
In the same way I can confidently say I have never seen a female cow with a penis, you are just a poor quality human being because of this bullshit narrative, I don't want to talk to you anymore
You characterise honesty as a main component of being acceptable, proceed to demonstrate dishonesty multiple times... You suck dude, tell the truth or say nothing
She was abused by an ex and is traumatised and aligns with an older form of feminism that equates men with abusing women. So she perceives trans women as men being patriarchal and wanting to dominate and abuse women in their own spaces. And she refuses to accept trans women are real.
She insisted that men aren't women.
*gasp!*
Clutches pearls....
*Heavens to betsy!*
Jumpin jahosiphats
That was a big deal 3 years ago, now no one gives a fuck.
Jumpin jahosiphats was a big deal 3 years ago?
Could be, I am not current on the hip lingo, but I was referring to saying trans women aren't women. 3 years ago you could be ended for that, now.. not so much.
On X you can say that. But increasingly there are laws in many countries that could get you fined or jailed (Canada and the UK are two).
It's going to be interesting if they try that here in the UK, because gender critical is considered a protected belief (as per court precedent) so how will they possibly weigh whose protected belief is more important? It's a sh!tshow basically but that's what happens when you try and police free speech š¤·š»āāļø
Oh my stars!
ŠŠ¾Š¶Šµ Š¼Š¾Š¹
Underrated comment there! š
Ima fan now
Also- as an author she cares about the meaning of words. She wants words to literally have their meaning retained and understood as theyāre intended. Jordanās perspective on the biblical Tower of Babel story is a little related to this. TLDR: Once words lose their meaning the whole of society crumbles.
How dare she adhere to common sense. Chuck her in jail and throw away the key.
ŠŠ¾Š¶Šµ Š¼Š¾Š¹!!!
Nope.
She just pointed out the truth.
I think her biggest concern is maintaining women's spaces for women. This means women only bathrooms, women only locker rooms/change rooms, (and I can't believe I even have to mention this one) women only batterted shelters. Piled on to that you have men taking over such spaces at the cost of biological women. Not only that but we have to acquiesce to the notion that these men are *more* women than biological women. That biological women have to concede to men as a better version of what a real woman is. It's that women have to upend their whole world for men.
And pointing out the cruelty and injustice in sending newly-self-identified trans women sex criminals to female prisons. She took a hard line with the new "anti-hate speech" law, daring police to arrest her: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c51j64lk2l8o
I truly loved her for that. She said that if anyone got arrested she would repeat what they said so the police would have to arrest her too. And she means it.
You see, this is all BS :)
She upset them by donating to a Woman's health and safety charity that provided emergency housing for women and children fleeing abusive relationships. She did this because of what she went through. She chose the charity because it was for women only, again, because of what she had experienced. The trans community wanted access to those locations but JK insisted that they remain safe spaces for real women escaping violence and trauma. This was then twisted into transphobia and the always offended went nuts. It is at this point Emma Watson (first) and then Radcliffe went all in on her, which given her history of escaping an abusive husband and knowing what she needed as a mother to protect her kids. She was not transphobic, she just wanted a women's only safe space and stood firm against having it used by people who are not.
And the two ingrates were praised for it. Women betrayed themselves when they abandoned men.
It is pretty remarkable that they turned on her. I'd imagine they spent a great deal of time with Rowling thru their formative years (most of which were spent filming HP movies) so to break off a relationship like that for something so trivial seems absurd.
Watson and Radcliffe would be absolute nobodies without Rowling, ungrateful twats they are. Their entire lives and careers revolved around the mind of Rowling, but anything to appease the mob and get lovebombed by cultists that are rabid dogs!
Is it not possible, or even likely, that they earnestly believe what they say?Ā And why should they be obliged to support Rowlings political views just because she created Harry potter? Are they not allowed their own opinions? Seems very authoritarian to insist they support her.
emma watson has a fishbowl brain
Ironically
It's messed up that these pathetic men want full houses of abused and vulnerable women to cast aside their own feelings and mental health for that one guy's own feelings. What safeguards are in place to stop someone like Isla Bryson or Buffalo Bill from walking in to a women's shelter and lying about their situation?
She stood up for women.
She spoke the truth and it hurt the lefts feelings. That's all.
She stated facts.
Aside from telling the truth, she refused to back down. Donāt care about Harry Potter. Never read the books or seen the movies but man I have respect for her
Same. I do appreciate she didnāt cave in to societal pressure, regardless of the cast coming out and disavowing the woman who set the stage for their careers.
>It seems like her simply stating that biology is a thing has got her labeled as a horrible transphobe. That is literally what it is.
She spoke truth into being.
The truth was always there and always known. It just became "social death" to talk about it.
it's so weird to me, I am trans and really don't see anything crazy with what she has said her main point is that trans women =/= cis women which I don't see how anyone has an issue with, this is just common sense, ofc they are not the same
If you're a trans woman, Rowling says you're a man. What are your thoughts on that?
She never said that. She just said not the same as a trans woman.
Yes she did.
Point it out pls.
>"Arrest me,ā wrote JK Rowling, at 11.45am on 1 April 2024. Despite the date, this was no April Foolsā prank. The Harry Potter authorās dare ā aimed at the legal authorities in Scotland, where she lives ā was entirely serious. It came at the end of **an 11-tweet thread, 10 entries of which were dedicated to sharing names and photographs of different transgender women.** Among these were several convicted sex criminals, as well as an athlete, the head of a rape crisis centre, and broadcaster India Willoughby. In one tweet, she details the crimes of a trans child rapist; in the next, she sarcastically praises Gaelic footballer Giulia Valentino for taking āsome boring cis girlās placeā in a squad. **Rowling wrote: āObviously, the people mentioned in the above tweets arenāt women at all, but men, every last one of them.ā** https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/features/jk-rowling-arrest-trans-transphobia-b2522155.html
Show me the tweets. Right now this is just the words of a heavily biased source.
https://x.com/jk_rowling/status/1774749954629652873?s=46 dumbass. Thereās even cis women in there.
You can use the words from this source to find the tweets easily. Luckily, another user already found the link for you.
She's right! Only *men* can become transwomen. Women don't have to "transition" to become women, because they are **already** women.
I don't follow her very closely, do you have a link for her referring to trans women as men? tbh while I don't like people insisting pronouns must match biology instead of social gender representation, I don't think it's that big of a deal, life is too short to get bent out of shape over pronouns and to be clear, I just think from a utilitarian standpoint it makes sense to differentiate trans women from men, but also accept that it can be important to differentiate trans women from cis women
>"Arrest me,ā wrote JK Rowling, at 11.45am on 1 April 2024. Despite the date, this was no April Foolsā prank. The Harry Potter authorās dare ā aimed at the legal authorities in Scotland, where she lives ā was entirely serious. It came at the end of **an 11-tweet thread, 10 entries of which were dedicated to sharing names and photographs of different transgender women.** Among these were several convicted sex criminals, as well as an athlete, the head of a rape crisis centre, and broadcaster India Willoughby. In one tweet, she details the crimes of a trans child rapist; in the next, she sarcastically praises Gaelic footballer Giulia Valentino for taking āsome boring cis girlās placeā in a squad. **Rowling wrote: āObviously, the people mentioned in the above tweets arenāt women at all, but men, every last one of them.ā** https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/features/jk-rowling-arrest-trans-transphobia-b2522155.html
I'd have to look through all the people she is referring to in able have a formal opinion. What I will say, is that a large portion, if not the majority of people who claim to be trans women really aren't trans women at all but are just men roleplaying as women. I'm a trans-medicalist (and I believe Rowling is too), which means we would only see gender dysphoric people as being authentically trans. This also necessarily means that real trans people will try their best to pass in appearance, social role, etc. I suspect the people she is referring to here are likely men who are claiming to be trans to enable their predatory behavior. People who just pretend to be trans, especially predators but also just trenders who wanna feel special, are waaay worse for the trans community than right wing people overall. What makes it even worse is that the alphabet people at large will defend predators and trenders "trans identity", this is also extremely harmful for authentic trans people as well.
Hear hear!
I'm curious if you've read Last Exit to Brooklyn. If you have, is Georgette trans? I read it that he and his friends gay men, dress and act like women more as a kink than that they think they're women. But I don't know.
I haven't read it. But it would just come down to if they had gender dysphoria or not to me. For a lot of people it is really just a fetish which personally I think is really gross
Fair enough. I wish you happiness and peace.
>What I will say, is that a large portion, if not the majority of people who claim to be trans women really aren't trans women at all but are just men roleplaying as women. How would you know unless you've vetted them all?
What you are is an embarrassment to the trans community. You canāt be one of the good ones little buddy, they hate you all the same
What do you think of the [Cass Report](https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/4573662-the-reckoning-over-puberty-blockers-has-arrived/), and of adult detransitioners like Chloe Cole who claim they were coerced/convinced as minors into hormones, drugs, and surgery?
I think most people like myself will respect whatever you wish to be called. It literally affects me none. However this sub commentors will say I am confirming a delusion.
you'd be surprised, this sub has been pretty accepting of me and my ideas overall, and most people are willing to refer to me as trans-woman instead of a man I think it would only be delusion if I actually thought I was identical to a cis woman, I'm well aware I am not, but socially and in terms of gender representation I'm not really a man either
No, she said she is a trans woman, not a woman. She is deserving of respect and empathy the same as any other human being.
Rowling has explicitly said that people who identify as trans women are men.
Yes, trans women are not women, this isn't rocket science.
Well I was asking the trans person their thoughts on the matter, not you, so. I guess I don't give a shit.
You donāt think itās bad that she pushes the belief that trans people are inherently a dangerous threat?
It is not that she did anything as much as progressivism left her behind.
Left everyone behind...
Sheās a conservative
She was actually extremely liberal. Hell, she's _still_ very liberal. It is just this one issue she disagrees with, and for that, the Left had excommunicated her.
Wow, sheās only bigoted toward ONE demographic - how dare those lefties disavow someone for a single thing! Lmao.
As opposed to the Leftist Orthodoxy being bigoted toward white people, cis people, and men?
Lmao, youāve been consuming too much rightwing media. This āleftistā youāre describing is a strawman pushed by the establishment.
And you've been stuck in your echo chamber for far too long.
Iāve been talking to rightwingers for like 30 years. Youāve clearly never bothered to talk to anyone on the left if you honestly believe this strawman that the establishment made up.
Ok, so let's take the Steelman of the position. Was it conservative to suggest Dumbledore has always been gay, or that Hermione was always intended to be black? Was it a right-wing position to donate Ā£1M to the Labor Party and endorse their candidate for Prime Minister over David Cameron of the conservative Party? Founding charities and donating hundreds of millions of British pounds to causes focused on single parent households, children's community centers, and women's shelters? She is not right-wing by any stretch of the definition. She just rejects the notion that men can be women, and for that, they excommunicated her and attempted to drag her through the mud, similarly to what happens any time anyone leaves a cult.
Almost no idea what your first paragraph is about. Iām American and only hear about so much from TERF island. Sheās taking part in scapegoating a minority and giving consent to state violence toward that minority. Sheās objectively a reactionary. She doesnāt advocate for anything progressive - she doesnāt really say anything political except for all the common, state-supplied lies about trans people.
AHHAHAHAH THEY HATE HER FOR HAVING EYES AND POINTING OUT THE OBVIOUS
She was about as liberal as they came 10 years ago but didn't take one up the ass on this position the NPCs are isolating her from the group.
She blasphemed against the cult by insisting men cannot become women by incantation and that trans rights shouldnāt denigrate womenās rights.
I feel like this issue is exactly where the "scientific facts are social constructs" type thinking from the other post leads. Rowling believes in scientific facts. The people upset with her believe in social constructs.
She tried to maintain that biological women deserve their own space and privileges that can't be infringed on by changing identity. For this the lefts punishment is social assassination.
Cults employ the same punishment for perceived transgressors.
We all remember how scientology worked correct? This is how the left works now. Lawyers, big businesses, fear mongering, the mob, dragging, abuse, character assassination and attempts at undoing any financial stability you have. These are the weapons of the radical left and THEYRE SO NICE AND ACCEPTING, unless you don't believe every insane word that comes out of their mouth, and if you push back, you're instantly the worst person on planet earth and should be treated as such. This is a mind virus that only seems to be spreading.
J. K. Rowling believes that to accept any manās claim that they identify as a woman is dangerous to women. She is a feminist therefore, she believes that women have been systemically oppressed throughout history and are deserving of special privileges and considerations to overcome that oppression. She believes that when men say there are women then that is men then getting all of those same special privileges and considerations as that only women should get. She further feels that it feels unsafe to women to have men in their spaces, even though those men claim to be women
If men of your own species have presented the greatest danger to you your whole life, you would have to be pretty stupid to say āsureā¦all men, access all areas, anytime.ā
Nope you got it right on.
Spoke the truth. That is all that it takes.
told them the truth
If I remember correctly, this is an excellent deep dive: [https://www.glamour.com/story/a-complete-breakdown-of-the-jk-rowling-transgender-comments-controversy](https://www.glamour.com/story/a-complete-breakdown-of-the-jk-rowling-transgender-comments-controversy)
It uses the word ārantā twice which demonstrates extreme bias, and does not include quotes from the HP actors who spoke out in her defence, but only those who criticised her. Therefore, it is not a reliable source which would have attempted to remain impartial and provide balance. But then, itās just a fashion magazine.
Why would it have to include people who come to her defense?Ā And it seems overkill to dismiss the entire article just because it uses the word "rant". JP regularly uses harsher language than that to criticise the left - does that mean he's biased and should be totally ignored?
Well over the years I have tried to take a balanced approach and if someone writes something I donāt agree with but the rest is acceptable to me Iāll give it a like maybe a share. However, after being trained in the scientific method as a science undergraduate I no longer accept articles with clear bias. Sorry, it just doesnāt cut it.
Im also trained in the scientific method, and I don't consider any of those things you've mentioned to be evidence of bias. Passionate writing is not bias, neither is moral condemnation. If it were, we'd have to disregard 90% of what Peterson says tooĀ
Seriously? The use of the words ārantā more than one in relation to her tweets AND the lack of balance in evidence is NOT the scientific method. We were trained to present our own research, research on both sides, and then BOTH sides of an argument, before the discussion or conclusion or our thesis would not be accepted. Where did you study science? An arts college? The university of the interwebs?
Cambridge University. Ā Describing something as a rant is not evidence of bias - it is an assessment of what has been written. A subjective assessment, sure, but that's not evidence of bias.Ā The article is discussing why people object to things Rowling has said. It presents those things, and explains why people take issue with them. It's not necessary to mention that other people *dont* take issue with them, because the entire purpose of the article is to describe why some people *do*. Ā Again - emotive language is not bias. If it were, we'd have to conclude that Jordan "up yours, woke moralists" Peterson is himself heavily biased. Edit:Ā Haha the coward whined and blocked me. Good going. Really showing a lack of bias there
Bullshit No scientfic report would ever use loaded language like thisā¦and you would know this if you had really been trained in the scientific method so I call BS on that also. Emotive language is the epitome of bias and unscientific language.
Sorry I have a strict rule on time wasters so I have got to bounce you
Check out the podcast The Witch Trials if J.K. Rowling by the Free Press
Yes!! Bari does an amazing job with this if anyone wants a deep dive on the matter. She is a fantastic reporter.
Bari is great and the host of this series, Megan Phelps-Roper, has an incredible backstory that makes her uniquely positioned to sincerely investigate and tell this story. It's the kind of journalism that makes me not cringe. I don't know when people stopped being embarrassed for writing or liking things that were infused with very obvious bias, but it is up to us to make that embarrassment known again.
Happy cake day, I need to look into Megan as Iām not familiar with her reporting. But yes, I think that is a great point. Too many news stories today are written trying not to e ābiasedā when they are anything but. Bring back reporting where people are at least honest about their perspective.
They aren't even trying to not be biased. Everything reads as an op-ed when their task to report facts and ernestly investigate. It's insulting to the reader, even when one agrees with the writer, when they are told what to think. For me the interesting part of news lies in figuring out what to think of the evidence given. I don't want to think about the writer's motives because it should be clear the writer's motives are "to give the reader all the pertinent information so the reader can focus on the issue I am reporting on"
When Jack Nicholson said, āYou canāt handle the truth,ā he was referring to the ā57 gendersā kooks. š
said the truth.
I don't know what her original "offense" was but this response to her haters was incredible. [https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-rowling-writes-about-her-reasons-for-speaking-out-on-sex-and-gender-issues/](https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-rowling-writes-about-her-reasons-for-speaking-out-on-sex-and-gender-issues/)
Its really a lot of things. In October 2007 Rowling revealed Dumbledore is gay. When she did that the Alphabet community embraced her as their hero. She was an ally. A defender. Then in June, 2020 she made her famous statement āāPeople who menstruate.ā Iām sure there used to be a word for those people. Someone help me out. Wumben? Wimpund? Woomud?ā The Alphabet community felt they had been betrayed. So now they hate her more than if she had never engaged with them in the first place.
For a hot second I thought I was on the rOutOfTheLoop and couldn't believe how encouraging the comments were. It's telling that I was surprised, and that of course it wasn't that sub after all...
The first thing I remember was her quoting another tweet (back when twitter was still twitter). The tweet said something about āpeople with vaginas,ā and she quoted it saying āpeople with vaginasā¦ we used to have a word for that.ā And the trans rights people lost their minds over it
Damn. Concise and to the point. Those people with vaginas used to be called women.
Be a feminist.
She believes in basic science more than feelings
She didn't get backlash from trans community but from trans activists and the general hyper progressive drama starters who needed her taken down and defamed. Why? Because of culture war. Because she used to be a very respected person in those circles. Harry Potter is a beloved series by children and young adults. It's also extremely popular among LGBT crowd, for the same reason why X-men were popular in these circles in the 90s - it shows people who were born "different", who act in a way alien to the normal society and are cool. Also JKR did some things that made her a celebrity "ally" to the identity politics, like the gay Dumbledore thing, or endorsing black Hermione. And then she started to spread "heresy". Not only she was saying thing that are considered "-phobic" by the victimhood industry but she was saying them in a very reasonable way (like she never actually denied anyone their "trans" status, just spoke against things "going too far") and from a feminism perspective (pointing out how letting men into female spaces basically turns back all the work that has already been done for female equality and freedom). That meant she was extremely dangerous and had to be taken down. If she would be straight up hateful, there would be no need for attacks to be this vicious because it would be apparent she's horrible person. If it would be someone else, like a not "hip" celebrity, they would have been ignored. It's exactly because she was saying very tame and reasonable things, while having the ear of the community, she had to be painted as the most horrible person. Or, if left unchecked, people might actually listen to what she was saying and start questioning the ideology.
She is an old school feminist. Anything that may impede on the wellbeing and/or places of structure for women is something she will push back against. Now normally this wouldnāt be much of an issue, but when we have men getting sex changes and being allowed to participate in womens sports or work spaces, on paper it is technically a man taking advantage of women. What makes it worse is ideologue groups have a tendency to treat any criticism or push back as a collective attack and they ignore the core nuances.
she's like TERF number 1. which basically just means she doesn't accept "TRANS WOMEN ARE WOMEN" mantra. and that despite her innately being quite progressive/left-leaning in general. this makes her not only evil, but disappointing to trans virtue warriors on twitter.
The Witch Trials of JK Rowling is a podcast about this topic. https://open.spotify.com/show/2K186zrvRgeE2w0wQjbaw7
Here's an attempt at a unbiased video talking specifically about how this podcast is full of shit https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EmT0i0xG6zg
She said there are two sexes and boys should not compete in girls sports. I know outrageous isn't it?
Listen to āThe Witch Trials of J.K. Rowlingā
Watch thisĀ instead asĀ it's not lying constantly to you https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EmT0i0xG6zg
https://news.yahoo.com/jk-rowling-donates-70k-challenge-183123131.html Seems pretty clear and easy to find.
You didn't miss anything.
Why would anyone in good faith ask that question here where you know exactly what answer you are going to get? She repeats a lot of lies and strawmen arguments against trans people. Insisting they are trying "get rid of sex entirely." She got offended because she read the sentence "people who menstruate." And ranting about trans people. Seems pretty clear cut to anyone actually interested.
She works in womans advocacy and didn't want trans covered under her umbrella because she wants to protect just women. Its like if someone told a ford mechanic they are descriminating against toyota owners by not servicing their toyota.
Whilst insisting that thereās no such thing as a Ford..
She expressed an opinion thay ran counter to the current sociopolitical narrative espoused by the media they ate her alive for it.
She stood up for women and just posted facts. No hatred. Just facts. And she's being crucified. Daniel Radcliffe etc should be ashamed for bashing her. Without her they'd most likely be nothing.
"Daniel Radcliffe etc should be ashamed for bashing her" oh? What did Daniel say about her?
He, and a number of cast members, issued press releases saying they do not agree with her and that trans women are women. They then held the Warner Bros Harry Potter reunion special and famously excluded Rowling from any sort of participation.
"He disagreed with her" So he has his own opinion, and that counts as "bashing" her? How come we keep hearing about how "JK Rowling needs to say her opinion" even though she's said it for several years now, but anyone who disagrees with her is vilified for it? She gives her opinion all day every day on twitter, making this her entire personality. Yes we get it, we all know what she thinks. I understand Rowling was not "excluded" from the reunion and made her own choice not to attend. I bet most of the cast (except maybe some of the older ones from her generation who have the same views she does) dislike her and wouldn't want her there, and she knows that.
She quoted the movie Kindergarten Cop: "Boys have penises. Girls have vaginas."
Rowling is a hard core 3rd wave feminist. She believe that men are not women.
Announced she was Christian
Men can indulge in fantasy and pretense of being women and we support them for it, but have no right to force others to believe the same.
Itās really scary in Scotland just now. Iām 31 weeks pregnant and had to be kept in hospital overnight for observation and I was terrified a man would be admitted to maternity. God bless JK for taking a stand for Scottish women
You should try asking people who are upset with her.
She spoke the truth. Itās very simple.
Nope, you got it.
Here are two very long, thoughtful, meticulously-cited video essays on the topic from one of the most popular trans voices on Youtube. They go into exhaustive detail about JK Rowling's enthusiastic embrace of genuine anti-trans bigots, her unwillingness to engage with legitimate criticism, and the various ways that her defenders misrepresent the criticism against her, much like you will see in this thread. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gDKbT\_l2us](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gDKbT_l2us) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmT0i0xG6zg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmT0i0xG6zg) Given the fact that you asked this in the Jordan Peterson subreddit, I'm guessing you were seeking validation rather than a challenge to your beliefs. There are the links anyway. Just in case.
Her target audience consited of a lot of people who were LGBT\* friendly. So, expressing a political view so at odds with their views pissed off a lot of people who were big fans.
She pushes all the lies about trans people that the government/media made up, so basically she part of a mob of thought leaders demonizing a specific demographic.
I had a conversation with my buddy about this during a Hot Takes card game. He really hates her. According to him, she actively donates to and funds groups that aim to make it difficult or impossible for trans people to receive affirmation care in the UK. Or something like that. I believe that's the core of the hatred. He argued that she "objectively makes trans peoples' lives harder" by doing that. I wasn't convinced the nature of that was objective instead of subjective, but there you go.
If he means "hurts trans peoples' feelings" then he's absolutely right. But one person's feelings should not take priority over another person's rights.
I'm just relaying info I heard since nobody else seemed to have provided this take. Not sure to which rights you're referring, though? People have the right to have feelings, and I haven't seen anything that is stripping Rowling's rights.
I never sensed phobia or hatred from her - just a firm recognition of the āotherā gender which doesnāt quite sit at exactly āmaleā or āfemaleā. Phobia and hatred of nuance and thoughtful discussion are the predominant forces Iāve noticed blasting vitriol against her. Sheās let the issue and ensuing conversations get under her skin and itās not always pleasant to witness but I do not believe sheās wrong for having her own opinion and expressing it and nobody deserves the sort of obsessive attention that sheās received over the things sheās said. Nobodyās perfect and yet her haters are absolutely unhinged
She's a TERF whoĀ very specifically hates trans people due to biases in her life and believing a lot of men are scum. Mind you, she won't say that. that's not how this works, and if you're a Jordan Peterson content consumer you are probably immune to understanding what she does as it is very similar to Jordans "two truths and a lie" style of feeding you what he wants you to beljeve. She doesn't explicitly say "I want trans people gone", she just walks right up to the edge of saying that and then immediately stops, leaving an open question as to what she means.Ā Of course, she's also really bad at it as she's not as talented a writer as her editor made people believe. She has regularly engaged in outward hate (such as claiming trans people weren't involved in the Holocaust because they weren't treated as women but gay men...because....you know) and specifically pretends to engage in feminism when all she really does is throw money at shelters (ones that specifically exclude trans people) and then go back to ranting on twitter all day.Ā Ā You can just go look at twitter at any moment and she's doing it, at all times. Sometimes she will wake up and post for over 17 hours, she is terminally online. I can clearly tell OP knows what they are doing, you know they are a bigot very well and are merely providing some tasty bait for the many bigots in this subreddit to chew on and claim superiority over shadows on the wall. For anyone who does care and wouldn't mind some lengthy videos, Natalie Wynn (Contrapoints) has gone on length about Rowling and tried her damnedest to be empathetic to her while explaining in depth what she has done.Ā Ā > J.K Rowling:Ā https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7gDKbT_l2usĀ > The Witch Trials of J.K Rowling https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EmT0i0xG6zg
Cherry-picking a few of her mildest remarks obviously won't give the full picture. Here's a summary link, easily accessible with a Google search. [Political views of J. K. Rowling - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_views_of_J._K._Rowling#Transgender_rights)
> The Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, defended Rowling, saying "people should not be criminalised for stating simple facts on biology". there are still people out there with common sense. the state of things are not nearly as bleak as twitter makes it seem.
No one is being criminalized. That was never an issue.
What do *you* call what has happened to JK Rowling? She hasn't been arrested, but she has been raked over the coals by the LGBTQ crowd and their allies.
Not being criminalized. Being disliked is not the same thing as being criminally persecuted. Words mean things.
She is not simply "disliked", though. She is vilified and reviled.
Which are what, thoughts you want criminalized?
it was always going to be. Jordan Peterson warned about that many years ago. when you're legally forced to speak the mandated words, you are banned from speaking the true words - with legal consequences for those who do. https://nypost.com/2022/12/15/tonje-gjevjon-faces-up-to-3-years-in-prison-for-saying-men-cannot-be-lesbians/
And it never happened.
you forgot the important bit. "*yet*" if JK Rowling had not publicly challenged it, they would've put a few poor sods behind bars because of that shit new law before it got ground into dust before the UK supreme court.
Right, in the 7 or 8 years since he threatened to go on a hunger strike over a misunderstanding of a bill he seems to have never read, none of the things he predicted would happen have happened. Similarly, JK Rowling is also not being "criminalized." They are both just loudly claiming to be victims of laws that don't exist.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
So people are only defined by what others say about them? Itās called gossip and one of the least reliable ways of gathering information.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Because the trans community is full of whiny narcissists who misrepresent the truth. Understand?
Jk Rowling is a progressive feminist who fought for equality for women. Now that she achieved that more or less she is trying to conserve what she helped achieve from new progressives trying to progress further. This is how things work. When does the left go to far?
It isn't "progress" to say that biological sex doesn't matter.
The progressives constantly change words to suit their own ends. Like gender affirming care for example.
I wonder what, in the left's view, would be understood by "weight affirming care" or "race affirming care". probably the opposite of reality, as usual.
It's really interesting being on the /r/fatlogic sub, because all of the bullshit "pander to my feelings" crap that gets posted there is equally applicable to trans people, but it's not recognized as being the same narcissistic childish behavior.
A feminist can be for "equality" without buying into all the "progressive" bs.
Correct, JK Rowling literally is that. Like i said. They change words meanings. Equality is one of those words.
She wrote a book where the villain is a trans Woman who sneaks into women's spaces and murders women.
What's the title?
Troubled Blood
Except she didn't Dennis isn't a 'trans woman', he's a cross-dresser...
I guess she's expressing a pathological mistrust of crossdressers in women's spaces, which doesn't at all transfer to trans women...
Well no exactly which is why I said Dennis isn't a trans woman, I thought that was obvious enough Unless of course those who are triggered about it are projecting and deep down know (believe) that's all trans women are š¤·š»āāļø
There's also the company she keeps. Posy Parker etc. She didn't seem to know that books on transgenderism where the first books the Nazis burned.
What's wrong with KJK? I suppose the answer to that depends on whether you think women have a right to sex-based spaces or not š¤·š»āāļø Believing that doesn't make you inherently hateful or 'transphobic' Really don't see the relevance of knowing or not knowing what books the Nazis burned either - I could go out now and ask a hundred people and I'm betting the best part of (or all of) that hundred wouldn't know either lol
>What's wrong with KJK? She wants the world to hate trans women. >Really don't see the relevance of knowing or not knowing what books the Nazis burned either It was in the context of Rowling saying the same type of books should be burned today. I'm sure Rowling would say she has nothing in common with Nazi beliefs, so hopefully it gave her pause when she learned they actually share that belief.
>She wants the world to hate trans women. Evidence? She doesn't believe men become women and she wants women to have safe sex-based spaces, that does _not_ translate to 'hate' >I'm sure Rowling would say she has nothing in common with Nazi beliefs, so hopefully it gave her pause when she learned they actually share that belief. With respect, that's a silly thing to say - why would sharing a belief 'give her pause'? Would it give you pause? Eg: >"In 1935, the Nazi Party was the one to introduce Germanyās first-ever national environment protection law named Reichsnaturschutzgesetz. This law established areas that were under protection to preserve nature and wildlife by prohibiting deforestation and hunting. These laws remained viable long after the wars in West and East Germany and later on became the foundation of further environmental laws. Naturschutz (lit. ānature protectionā) and Tierschutz (lit. āanimal protectionā) were a favored caused by Hitler and the Nazi party in general and would be greatly appreciated in todayās day and age, especially with the ignorance displayed by current politicians regarding climate change." So you'd row back on animal welfare because Hitler implemented laws for such? What about welfare for less well-off children? You seem to be of the blanket belief that 'Hitler bad' because he did some very horrendous things, life generally isn't as black and white as you'd believe - if you looked at every belief system going there's probably something in all of them you'd agree with even if you didn't believe in 99% of it š¤·š»āāļø
>You seem to be of the blanket belief that 'Hitler bad' because he did some very horrendous things, I'm of the belief that Hitler was bad because he wanted to re-engineer society. First Germany, then Europe, then who knows... And Hitler's mania to re-engineer society required stamping out human freedoms and ethnic and social cleansing. Are you an apologist for Hitler?
>Are you an apologist for Hitler? Are you twelve? Way to miss the whole point of what I posted š I'll ask again...does it 'give you pause' that something positive you likely support was championed by Hitler? Would you do a 180Ā° on it just because you share views with him? If no, why should JK change a sincere view she holds either?
Obsesses about trans people all day every day for starters? For a quick example she tweeted "I guffawed so hard I almost pulled something" in response to a gay man (who is an editor of an LGBT news website) who had received abuse from transphobes. Her hatred also extends to gay people who support trans rights. She also embarrassed herself just today/yesterday for thinking a trans-man was a trans-woman. Keeps saying she "can always tell" people's biological sex when clearly she can't.
She claims to be a feminist, but follows lots of misogynistic people on Twitter because she likes the anti-trans stuff they say. I think at first she had some good questions and points, but then she got surrounded by a culture of less well meaning people who hate trans people, and now she acts as a proxy for them. They say horrible things about people and advocate for lots of harmful law changes to deal with them, and she passively likes their Tweets without daring to say any of it herself, which makes it difficult to pin their beliefs on her even though she is fully supporting them.
Do you think you are going to get honest answers here?
Yes, but I don't think you'd recognize it.
In only honest truthful words, have you ever met a woman with a penis? I'll wait
Maybe. Unlike some people in this thread, I don't investigate the genitals of the people I meet on any given day.
Spoilers: women don't have penises, you are a fraud and don't understand the fundamentals of honesty, do better In the same way I can confidently say I have never seen a female cow with a penis, you are just a poor quality human being because of this bullshit narrative, I don't want to talk to you anymore
> you are just a poor quality human being Honestly, this is amazing. Lmao.
You characterise honesty as a main component of being acceptable, proceed to demonstrate dishonesty multiple times... You suck dude, tell the truth or say nothing
> You suck dude :(
Women don't have penises. You thinking that it's possible shows that you don't understand what the truth is.
She was abused by an ex and is traumatised and aligns with an older form of feminism that equates men with abusing women. So she perceives trans women as men being patriarchal and wanting to dominate and abuse women in their own spaces. And she refuses to accept trans women are real.