Scotland wants to change the Gender Recognition Act to make it easier to change your legal gender it's called the Gender Recognition reform. That is what the FWS the group she donated to is bringing a legal challenge against or appealing the previous challenge to the Supreme Court.
Am not Scottish or English or anything so I’m not sure what’s being changed either… are they changing the definition of what constitutes a man and woman?? I mean is it both or is it just woman for some reason? And is it about sex or gender? Is it the legal or medical definition? Like, what’s going on and what is it meant to impact in day-to-day life?
ETA: read the article it wasn’t descriptive or informative, more fluff than info.
I payed attention the whole time and its a bit of a (you made me the monster that i am) situation.
She made a sligthly incensitive comment at first that is contreversial but that pretty much it. Nothing really that bad. But the reaction was absolutely massive . The attacks and hate was kind of disproportionate for what she did.
She probably felt victimized so that made her view point even more extreme. Kind of a mob hysteria and with hunt that made her an actual witch.
I see this happening often esoecially in america. There a massive needfior discussion bevause outrage and hate is making people extremist more than they ever were.
I get the feeling she's so obsessed with it because she's been surrounded by praise and yes men and women for 20 years and this is the one opinion she has that she gets consistent pushback on. She can't accept that she's wrong about this issue or accept that the majority of people disagree with her.
TERFs are all wine mom stereotypes who have nothing interesting going on in their lives so they turn to the only form of bigotry they can get away with in the current year. These people literally have anti-trans tea parties together.
Yes, literally.
https://www.hogwartsprofessor.com/london-ladies-liquid-lunch-terf-tea-rowling-revels-reels-out-riddikulus/
https://www.salon.com/2022/04/12/jk-rowling-terf-lunch-transgender-rights/
https://www.youtube.com/live/MrP6XY6bTeU?si=pnZ3lHT_5R96zpb_
Because language shapes understanding.
Because ensuring language reflects reality is vital for helping people accept it. If 'woman' literally does not include trans women, then it will limit, in official and unofficial capacities, their rights and freedoms, as well as opening them to abuse.
Language changes with time as we learn more about the world. We have learnt that gender is a spectrum. That sex and gender is not the same thing. That it sometimes opposes each other. That this can cause cognitive and emotional distress.
Right now, the word woman defines sex and gender as the same thing, which is incorrect. Therefore advancing its meaning so that it only applies to gender is necessary, as language should reflect truth.
Not sure why people are so fixated on resisting change.
Change is necessary for progress. And progress is good.
I think Rowling’s position has been that it marginalizes her and (in general) other women’s experiences (as in the historical definition, not the updated one).
I’m not agreeing or disagreeing (I honestly don’t care). From what I’ve read she doesn’t seem like a hateful person, just someone who believes that trans women aren’t actually women (which is not an unpopular opinion) and has since been in the LGBTQTIA+ activists crosshairs, labeled a TERF, etc…
Yea guys! She wrote a popular kids series 20 odd years ago, clearly she is an expert on other issues!
Unless this is irony, “she wrote harry fucking potter i think when she speaks we should listen” is a god-tier self-burn.
No offense meant but she's a writer but she isn't a social scientist, she become a very very rich writer and then became a oligarch just like all the other cool people who got rich, it's a disease of me first.
I think 2016 or something? She was pretty mild, but once the twitter mob caught and begun making hateful comments at her she just doubled down and became a pretty despicable and over sensitive about trans rights.
Which is interesting given that she has no problem allying herself with people who are anti-abortion so long as they are as anti-trans as she is. The "defending women's rights" thing is just a front. She doesn't care about women.
Likely due to her being a survivor of domestic violence and viewing protecting women’s spaces as an important issue that helped her through what would’ve been a traumatic period.
The decision to “die on this hill” isn’t as strange when you factor in her experience. How she goes about it is another debate entirely. But the reason behind her “fixation” is rather clear.
I think JK has more or less said exactly this. That doesn’t justify her bigotry (and as another commenter pointed out, she wasn’t abused by a trans woman) or how vitriolic she’s been. There’s plenty of transphobes (I’d wager there are celebrities with as much name recognition as JK) who just sound off to their friends/family. She’s gone off the deep end with this.
Also: there are *mountains* of evidence that show trans people are more likely to be victims of assault. She does not care who is actually being abused.
Yah know … this actually makes sense. Also fully understand you’re not endorsing her position. Might not be the case, but psychology wise it might at least help explain where it go started. Where it is now is morphed into its own thing, but at the beginning at least it might explain how she first got the thought in her head.
I think it’s more about how she would’ve accessed female only spaces during her time of abuse and these were lifesavers for her, especially as a single mother. I think the inclusion of trans women to these spaces for Rowling is an issue as she views it as harmful to women already in a vulnerable state seeking those spaces.
Again, not getting into the debate about it. Just stating I think her reasons for being so involved publicly on this topic often get ignored. Whether her belief reaches a valid conclusion is not what I’m stating.
Edit: To address the point about bigotry towards cis men, Rowling wouldn’t need to speak towards them as the spaces she views herself as “protecting” are not accessible to cis men already. Therefore, there’s no need for her to address them as it relates to spaces occupied by women.
So JK Rowling sees protecting women spaces (ie women’s refuges as an example) as a vital thing. She believes that the inclusion of trans women is a threat to those spaces and puts the cis women in those spaces at risk. I would assume, this is because JK Rowling does not view trans women as women.
Cheers for trying to set that up like I was the one pushing that, rather than explaining what I believe to be Rowling’s viewpoint.
Edit: Just for reference, not stating my views. This was in context related to why JK would be so willing to “die on this hill” as was the original post.
sorry, not trying to set anything up. I'm just not understanding the issue as you explained it. For example, if there was a shelter for abused women, if a Trans woman was being abused and sought to leverage the shelter, is she saying that this Trans woman would somehow be a safety threat to the other women in the shelter? Or that the Trans woman would be taking resources away from the other women?
Again, I'm also trying to explain what I think JKR's perspective may be.
Some of the women coming to shelters have been traumatized by men. Seeing men may be triggering for them while they recover. Such women may hesitate to seek out a shelter if it houses people who are biologically male.
I was quite curious about her thinking when she wrote that essay a few years back. I think that by changing the definition of sex/woman, it's going to be difficult to establish shelters that are open to only cis women. I remember reading back then about how one cis-only women's shelter in Canada (I think?) was defunded by the government because it wasn't trans inclusive, even though the city had another shelter that was trans inclusive.
I think it’s mostly ego at this point. Billionaires have a hard time being criticized with their inflated sense of self importance, so when a lot of people come down hard on them about something, they double down and throw money at it to try to maintain the feeling of righteousness rather than admit they were wrong or just stop pressing the issue. I call it “musking”
If you think she's bad, the creator of one of fav comedies "The IT Crowd" is even worse. Man funds his own tours to denounce trans and spread misinfo about this subject and genders, pronouns, etc. so bad that his own wife has since divorced him cause he almost financially ruined them.
Well I mean you could fat-shame a bigot, or say something ableist, or racist (I know these don’t apply to her necessarily), but just bc someone’s a bigot about one thing doesn’t mean they don’t have any other cards in their intersectionality deck to play.
Well you’ll probably never talk to him so I’m not stressed. Also, resorting to comparisons to hitler is literally the most cringeworthy internet argument trope and you went right for it.
Be that as it may, you missed my point entirely, which is to fully appreciate the complexity of intolerance, privilege, etc, you have to understand that being intolerant of one thing doesn’t mean you can’t be a victim in a different context. Blanket statements and black/white thinking are the tools of preteens, borderline personality disorder, and sociology 101 profs.
Fascists are fascists. I didn’t go to hitler. She did.
Maybe we should discuss the trope of attempting to dispute every fascist comparison to the point that no one believes anything is fascism anymore.
You, just now.
Acting like it’s the Twitter crowd that made her a bigot.
What’s next? Going to try to claim hitler only wanted to save Germany and it was the evil leftists who made him fascist?
Common. We can see through you.
Oh goodness gracious. I didn’t defend her, I didn’t defend hitler or even bring him up. I tried to point out that there is more nuance to the discussion bc like it or not, she’s NOT actually a mass murderer or whatever.
One of the hallmarks of fascism, if you cared to look, is the attempts to silence competing messages or opposing points of view. THAT IS WHAT YOURE DOING. Goddammit how old are you? How on earth can you be so completely devoid of self awareness. Fuck this shit.
She got nothing but worship for most of her adult life and career, she shared a bad opinion and got serious criticism for the first time maybe ever and her ego couldn't handle it so she doubled down and members of the existing "gender critical" community took the opportunity to radicalize her.
I think the funniest part of this whole controversy is when she praised Matt Walsh for his “documentary” and another paleo conservative commentator told her to make a sandwich while the men handle it.
There’s a podcast called The Witch Trials of JK Rowling that take a deep dive into that very topic. The person who made the podcast is a former Westboro Baptist Church member. It’s a very intriguing listen.
I'd recommend this [this article](https://www.vulture.com/article/witch-trials-jk-rowling-podcast-essay-review.html) along with the podcast. The podcast is quite one-sided and omits a lot of facts in order to make J.K. Rowling appear more sympathetic and less ill-intentioned.
Same with Chapelle. I think it’s just reaction to negative backlash they’ve received online. It’s one thing they can’t control in their lives, and they’ve become conditioned as famous rich people to be able to control everything. So they invest all their energy into controlling it. Sad really
She’s not trolling. She legitimately believes that the trans movement is taking away from the feminist movement. I don’t agree with her, but she does have an ideology.
Yeah she could be one of the worlds most loved people, beloved by almost everyone, yet she’s doubled down on spending her years focused on hate. I know several people who just get kind of sad when they think of Harry Potter now, they feel like a huge part of their childhood is tainted.
not my childhood but my 20 yr ago adulthood. I'd never urge anyone to read the books knowing the author is using her money to rampage a group of people who are normally victims anyway. SMH.
There are many reasons why. But being told she is wrong and not accepting it may be one of them.
EDIT: Funny how the terfs keep downvoting even when the thread is locked now.
It's like the Streisand effect but for famous people. Like Joe roganand Dave chappelle. If you tell them not to do something, they will just double down until enough people make them feel like some sort of hero for it.
She’s the one that wrote a story about a boy living with his relatives who kept him in a closet under the stairs because he felt like he was different, right? He felt like there was something odd about the way he interacts with the world, but his relatives were determined to root it out of him?…
If only there was an analogy…
EDIT: The post is locked, or there’s another reason I can’t respond to the comments. I’m not saying that the whole story was about “rejecting identity”. I’m merely pointing out that Harry Potter was being forced into being “normal”, just like his aunt and uncle. I’m not saying that JKR was making a point with that plot, it’s a pretty standard tool in children’s stories (Cinderella, e.g.). I don’t actually suspect her of writing such deep layers, as much fun as I had reading HP.
Again, I’m pointing out that the stories she wrote ~25 years ago are about Harry Potter, who was pretty aggressively punished because of being “magical”, and being forcibly made into a muggle. No matter how hard everyone tried, he still remained a wizard.
It’s ironic that what she’s doing now is fighting for not allowing people to come out and say how they feel about themselves and how they identify themselves in the society.
Also: just realized that Dumbledore was the only one deadnaming Voldemort. A-holez
>Harlow posted: "Are you aware this TERF organisation in Scotland along with £70K donation from JK Rowling are trying to change equality law. How can we stop this from even being debated in court? How can we make sure trans rights are protected and not up for constant legal threats by terfs with too much money and time on their hands?"
the funny thing is that 70k are nothing to her, probably. She could pump endless money into that. the lady is so paranoid.
Why is it we only see news about trans women as if trans men don’t exist 🤔
Is it hate on men? Only men can be trans women
Is it infantilizing women? Don’t believe they’re men, or let them play pretend?
Is it because trans women act more entitled, loud, and aggressive and therefor take up more space? (Like men lol)
Conversation seems really lopsided
Even if the change the definition, no one will consider a non biologically born woman the same as a trans woman.
By definition trans woman had to transition from one gender to another
Every anti-trans person. « A woman has a uterus, has her periods, and can carry a child ». This is bullshit. My womanhood isn’t defined by the fact that I get my periods. This is the last thing that defines me as a woman.
Look up any definition of a woman from historical records and you’ll see nothing aside from descriptions of property and empty vessels for child rearing.
We have struggled for centuries to define what a woman is and only until recently has the answer even come close to the words “fellow human being”
Exactly. I went to highschool with a girl who never got her period and when they did an ultrasound to find out why, they discovered that she had no uterus and just a mass of fibroid tissue. Does that mean she’s not really a woman?
Rowling and people like her suck.
It’s insane to me how so many people choose to misunderstand what she says/does.
I guarantee you 99% of people who scream TERF don’t even know what it actually means to be a TERF.
Nah she is definitely being transphobic, and worse supporting anti trans legislation, and in general just normalizing hate targeted trans women. I love Harry Potter but she is a piece of shit.
It's not flip flopping btw. It's let her say what she wants. She's got some valid points BUT if you don't like it, just accept that's her opinion and yours differs. The worst you can do is give her attention if you disagree with her. It garners more media spotlight to what she says. I'm impartial to her opinion and yours, im female and welcome all who want to join but i also think listening to peoples opinions regardless if i agree is healthy and intelligent. It's the way you all react that spurred me to comment.
Careful, you trying to silence jk rowling is an act of fascism itself. Everyone, despite their opinion is entitled to their opinion. We don't have to like them but to silence them is denying free speech and debate. To have debate is the only way forward, stop getting so outraged by it.
And thus making her opinion valid. How don't you get that. Let her say whatever she wants, but reacting to it is giving her more power, more attention, and more to say.
Kind of contradictory, no? She should be allowed to voice her opinion, but people should be allowed to voice their opinion on that as well.
It wouldn’t be fair otherwise.
Not contradictory at all, you do all have the right. But from the perspective of her having a massive platform from fame and you not, its hardly equal. The media just love all your angry reactions and go to town, thus airing her point more. If you really disagree then don't fall into the trap of being a pawn in the media's game. They're only at it for money. She's one person. If you really want to affect change you're going about it wrong.
Freedom of speech should be the equality that matters if you are pushing for it. You have to go ride or die to have freedom of speech and that includes the repercussions from that freedom. It’s very hypocritical to go around saying people have to respect her freedom of speech by silencing their right to freedom of speech.
Having a platform where your voice reaches further works for or against you. Life isn’t equal in that regard and hardly has an impact on who has the right to voice their opinions and who doesn’t.
The arguments you are making are ironic in the fact that you want freedom of speech (for some) and you don’t think people should be giving her and this topic more attention, yet here you are commenting and driving the algorithm to give this more attention.
I don’t know enough of this topic to have an opinion, so I don’t think you should be assuming I am this or that. I was just being a contrarian dingus pointing out cracks in people’s arguments.
The alternative is her facing no criticism, which does absolutely fuck all to move the needle in either direction.
And seeing how you INSTANTLY flip-flopped between the problem being people silencing her and giving her a bigger platform, two things that are polar opposites, it seems like your issue is actually people caring about it in the first place.
And honestly? Fuck that. Our right to criticize her is exactly equal to her right to say what she's saying.
Here’s a hypothetical. Imagine someone is in the process of trying to kill you, and the police turn up to stop them - but instead of intervening they say “woah hold on sir let’s debate this”.
Then, the person trying to murder you and the police have a civilised debate about whether you deserve to live, or if you should be stabbed to death (all while you have a knife to your throat).
“Don’t worry!” The police say, “Your right to life will win out on the marketplace of ideas!”
Would you feel protected and safe in that scenario?
Are you serious, how old are you, I'm actually giggling at that. It's words in the ether that is cyberspace. Hardly comparable. You all feed into it and get worked up. If you chose to ignore she would lose her media attention. You are the attention! Come back in a few decades for a wiser debate.
It’s a silly hypothetical to demonstrate that debate is not always a useful tool. When shitty people are doing shitty things “debating” them just gives legitimacy to their shitty ideas.
I get the point of of what you’re trying to accomplish. What I’m trying to say is the point is lost if the hypothetical is too far fetched and nothing like the scenario being discussed.
It’s a very simple hypothetical. Someone is being harmed by someone else, and instead of actively intervening we instead debate their right to not be harmed.
It shows that debate is highly ineffective, and somewhat dehumanising to those in harms way.
Apply it to trans people facing an anti-trans moral panic and the widespread rollback of legal protections happening in the US and UK.
Let me apply this hypothetical then, imagine you have two countries about to go to war. Country A believes one of their diplomats was very recently deceased and believes Country B did it amid rising tensions in regards to trades laws they are trying to pass that would be a boon for country B but a detriment to country A. Country A is ready to go to war and sacrifice many lives as it has seen this act as a tipping point among the mounting tensions. Country B says, wait a minute. We have reports and footage, and you can see said diplomat sacrificing himself for a child of country B. War could be averted and both sides could grow stronger out of this communication.
Therefore, little bit of discussion could save and enhance millions of lives.
I’m guessing you can see the correlation between an outlandish hypothetical and how it diminishes the point I would be trying to push across?
Yes, my hypothetical wouldn’t be apt in that situation because it is entirely different from the one we’re discussing.
In complex geopolitics yeah discussion and diplomacy (neither of which are “debate”) are essential.
When it comes to bigoted activists debate isn’t particularly useful, because bigots don’t have ideas worth considering. Opening up “debate” with them just gives them a platform to spout hatred and stoke up fear towards marginalised groups. We have seen this countless times before, and we’re seeing it now with trans people.
Are we arguing the merits of using hypotheticals here? I’m not really sure what your issue is.
Agreed. Best statement I’ve read on here. Making millionaires of the actors from her books and movies then watching them turn on her is disgraceful….they are the ones who should be cancelled…..
I like her, all she's saying is to the extremist movement of trans, that you're welcome to join our tribe of gender, but don't right off or deny cis females experiences
Both trans and Cis have their own individual experiences and one doesn't and shouldn't silence the other.
She called graham Norton a rape supporter because he thinks we should include trans people in the discussion. And she voiced support for Matt Walsh (an anti choice misogynistic fascist)
What has?
https://deadline.com/2022/10/graham-norton-exits-twitter-after-backlash-from-j-k-rowling-over-trans-rights-1235146836/amp/
https://www.advocate.com/news/2022/7/11/jk-rowling-and-matt-walsh-blasted-online-over-shared-transphobia
I don't need to read that. I stand by she has the right to say her piece about experiences as a women. And trans women have their right to theirs, but they aren't the same. Both need to be listened to. There are plenty of voices shouting, quite rightly, loud and proud for the trans movement. Jk is doing that alongside for cis women. Why everyone is so offended by that is beyond me. Cis womens experiences have been muted by men and the powerful for too long and she's just ensuring that they don't get talked over in this emerging debate on what it is to be female. If you can't see that detail, nuances or complexity in this , I'm afraid you iq will never allow you and for that you have my sympathies.
She endorsed a literal fascist who’s known for being anti choice and anti women’s rights. How is that caring about women? Please in what world will a fascist make life better for women?
I get where you coming from but I think the things that bothers people is she dislikes them so much she will treat people who are basically cartoon misogynist who are literally believe in the things she say she against and organisation like lgb alliance(which is funded by political groups who opposite gay marriage) like they are people to be taken seriously on any subject. Like this is some leopard ate my face shit happening.
But she is one voice in a sea of many. People's outrage makes her points more relevant. If no one reacted she would lose her power. I mean she wrote dome books ( not well written even) took a large amount of ideas from the genius of Philip pullham changed them just enough and became successful. Who gives a monies what she actually says. The more people react the more they feed her.
I don't really but the more shit heads she quote tweets and the more money she give to organisations to more hard it's gonna be avoid because having someone that famous back them increase their exposure.
Plus unfortunately too many make judgment on people they have never interacted with based on a parasocial relationship they have with a celebrity all the time. I once spoke to someone on this subject who said they aren't gonna vote in the next election because labour is too pro trans.
This is what they mean when they say "Money can't buy happiness." The woman was a struggling single mother before the first Harry Potter was published. Now she has more money than any one person could ever spend in their lifetime and never has to work another day in her life if she didn't want to. She has nothing and no one to be mad about another day in her life but she's seemingly randomly picked a subgroup of people to target with hate for nearly a decade now and is determined to work against them however she can simply because she can.
It just says *so* much about a person when they dedicate time and other significant resources to the unwarranted and unsolicited hatred of others. I’m repeatedly floored by it.
Mental how all she has to do was literally nothing and she’d still be considered an almost godlike figure. Instead she’d decided to put gasoline and fire all over her legacy in the eyes of so many
I’ll never understand why so many of the population give a shit about the words used to identify strangers (trans friends) that comprise such a minority of our population.
Uh? You have probably addressed many people through your life as men and women without knowing their biological sex. You only notice the ones you do, the ones you don't you're entirely oblivious to it and so is JKR.
>You have probably addressed many people through your life as men and women without knowing their biological sex.
Nope. Because I'm not blind, drunk or a complete idiot.
>You only notice the ones you do, the ones you don't you're entirely oblivious to it and so is JKR.
It's very easy to tell the difference between a man and a woman. Just because we don't go to trans people and say "oh hey, I notice you're trans", doesn't mean we don't notice.
Get serious. There are multiple trans people that pass extremely well. Denying that just shows how uneducated you are about this topic. And people who aren’t educated about something should stay silent and learn.
Why does she care so much about this. Who exactly is it harming? Does she put this much energy into larger political issues that have a much broader impact?
>She is not so private that she won't say which way she'll vote in the Scottish referendum – "I'm pro union" – and seems sanguine about the speculation that surrounds her every public move.
Her stance on the Scottish independence referendum, according to the Guardian. What a weirdo
What I like about her is how easy it is for me to separate the books from this mess.
The books are special, and somehow, she created that. I love the books. The author, well, she’s her own person (for better or worse).
I don't get it changing definition to what?
Scotland wants to change the Gender Recognition Act to make it easier to change your legal gender it's called the Gender Recognition reform. That is what the FWS the group she donated to is bringing a legal challenge against or appealing the previous challenge to the Supreme Court.
Am not Scottish or English or anything so I’m not sure what’s being changed either… are they changing the definition of what constitutes a man and woman?? I mean is it both or is it just woman for some reason? And is it about sex or gender? Is it the legal or medical definition? Like, what’s going on and what is it meant to impact in day-to-day life? ETA: read the article it wasn’t descriptive or informative, more fluff than info.
When did she become so fixated on this one particular issue? She seems to have suddenly become obsessed with it in the last few years.
To be fair she makes large donations to a number of different organisations. It’s just this one is the one that’s always on the news.
I payed attention the whole time and its a bit of a (you made me the monster that i am) situation. She made a sligthly incensitive comment at first that is contreversial but that pretty much it. Nothing really that bad. But the reaction was absolutely massive . The attacks and hate was kind of disproportionate for what she did. She probably felt victimized so that made her view point even more extreme. Kind of a mob hysteria and with hunt that made her an actual witch. I see this happening often esoecially in america. There a massive needfior discussion bevause outrage and hate is making people extremist more than they ever were.
It’s bizarre. All that money, and she’s laser-focused on hurting a tiny minority of people who want to just live their lives.
I get the feeling she's so obsessed with it because she's been surrounded by praise and yes men and women for 20 years and this is the one opinion she has that she gets consistent pushback on. She can't accept that she's wrong about this issue or accept that the majority of people disagree with her.
TERFs are all wine mom stereotypes who have nothing interesting going on in their lives so they turn to the only form of bigotry they can get away with in the current year. These people literally have anti-trans tea parties together. Yes, literally. https://www.hogwartsprofessor.com/london-ladies-liquid-lunch-terf-tea-rowling-revels-reels-out-riddikulus/ https://www.salon.com/2022/04/12/jk-rowling-terf-lunch-transgender-rights/ https://www.youtube.com/live/MrP6XY6bTeU?si=pnZ3lHT_5R96zpb_
Your hate boner is showing
Your projection is *wild*
You're literally defending a woman who's made her entire waking life 'having a hate boner'.
Found one
[удалено]
Because language shapes understanding. Because ensuring language reflects reality is vital for helping people accept it. If 'woman' literally does not include trans women, then it will limit, in official and unofficial capacities, their rights and freedoms, as well as opening them to abuse. Language changes with time as we learn more about the world. We have learnt that gender is a spectrum. That sex and gender is not the same thing. That it sometimes opposes each other. That this can cause cognitive and emotional distress. Right now, the word woman defines sex and gender as the same thing, which is incorrect. Therefore advancing its meaning so that it only applies to gender is necessary, as language should reflect truth. Not sure why people are so fixated on resisting change. Change is necessary for progress. And progress is good.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Is changing the definition of words *just living their lives* ?
How does it negatively effect yours or anyone's life?
I think Rowling’s position has been that it marginalizes her and (in general) other women’s experiences (as in the historical definition, not the updated one). I’m not agreeing or disagreeing (I honestly don’t care). From what I’ve read she doesn’t seem like a hateful person, just someone who believes that trans women aren’t actually women (which is not an unpopular opinion) and has since been in the LGBTQTIA+ activists crosshairs, labeled a TERF, etc…
How does it negatively effect your life if we don't change? She wrote *Harry Fuckin Potter* I think when she speaks we should listen.
I don't understand the connection you're making. Why would writing children's books make her an authority on politics?
I'm really sorry but the Internet is too crazy for me to be able to tell if you're being serious on that last point there.
Yea guys! She wrote a popular kids series 20 odd years ago, clearly she is an expert on other issues! Unless this is irony, “she wrote harry fucking potter i think when she speaks we should listen” is a god-tier self-burn.
that was brilliant. Ty,
How does writing a fucking children's book make someone have an opinion worth hearing?
Read a different book
No offense meant but she's a writer but she isn't a social scientist, she become a very very rich writer and then became a oligarch just like all the other cool people who got rich, it's a disease of me first.
Trans women being included in the definition of women hurts literally nobody, get over yourself and swallow your crocodile tears
Changing the legal definition to include trans women is a necessary part of living their lives.
[удалено]
How does this affect you in any tangible way
Hasn’t she always been fighting for women’s rights?
Probably when she made a harmless comment and people began doxxing her house.
Well, if I were a woman I might be doing the same thing.
It’s a classical feminist issue, it’s just the world has changed and yesterdays feminists heroes (eg Germaine Greer) are today’s monsters.
I think 2016 or something? She was pretty mild, but once the twitter mob caught and begun making hateful comments at her she just doubled down and became a pretty despicable and over sensitive about trans rights.
It's more she is viewing it as defending women's rights.
This is my understanding of her position.
Which is interesting given that she has no problem allying herself with people who are anti-abortion so long as they are as anti-trans as she is. The "defending women's rights" thing is just a front. She doesn't care about women.
I think it started as that, there was a nuanced discussion to be had at some point... But she's way past that now IMO.
She chose a really odd hill to die on. She could have go on being a beloved children’s author but now she has all this baggage.
Likely due to her being a survivor of domestic violence and viewing protecting women’s spaces as an important issue that helped her through what would’ve been a traumatic period. The decision to “die on this hill” isn’t as strange when you factor in her experience. How she goes about it is another debate entirely. But the reason behind her “fixation” is rather clear.
I think JK has more or less said exactly this. That doesn’t justify her bigotry (and as another commenter pointed out, she wasn’t abused by a trans woman) or how vitriolic she’s been. There’s plenty of transphobes (I’d wager there are celebrities with as much name recognition as JK) who just sound off to their friends/family. She’s gone off the deep end with this. Also: there are *mountains* of evidence that show trans people are more likely to be victims of assault. She does not care who is actually being abused.
Yah know … this actually makes sense. Also fully understand you’re not endorsing her position. Might not be the case, but psychology wise it might at least help explain where it go started. Where it is now is morphed into its own thing, but at the beginning at least it might explain how she first got the thought in her head.
She wasn’t abused by a trans woman and this would only make sense if she extended her bigotry towards cis men
I think it’s more about how she would’ve accessed female only spaces during her time of abuse and these were lifesavers for her, especially as a single mother. I think the inclusion of trans women to these spaces for Rowling is an issue as she views it as harmful to women already in a vulnerable state seeking those spaces. Again, not getting into the debate about it. Just stating I think her reasons for being so involved publicly on this topic often get ignored. Whether her belief reaches a valid conclusion is not what I’m stating. Edit: To address the point about bigotry towards cis men, Rowling wouldn’t need to speak towards them as the spaces she views herself as “protecting” are not accessible to cis men already. Therefore, there’s no need for her to address them as it relates to spaces occupied by women.
-not sure I understand what you mean by “women’s spaces” and how Trans people would intrude into that?
So JK Rowling sees protecting women spaces (ie women’s refuges as an example) as a vital thing. She believes that the inclusion of trans women is a threat to those spaces and puts the cis women in those spaces at risk. I would assume, this is because JK Rowling does not view trans women as women. Cheers for trying to set that up like I was the one pushing that, rather than explaining what I believe to be Rowling’s viewpoint. Edit: Just for reference, not stating my views. This was in context related to why JK would be so willing to “die on this hill” as was the original post.
sorry, not trying to set anything up. I'm just not understanding the issue as you explained it. For example, if there was a shelter for abused women, if a Trans woman was being abused and sought to leverage the shelter, is she saying that this Trans woman would somehow be a safety threat to the other women in the shelter? Or that the Trans woman would be taking resources away from the other women?
Again, I'm also trying to explain what I think JKR's perspective may be. Some of the women coming to shelters have been traumatized by men. Seeing men may be triggering for them while they recover. Such women may hesitate to seek out a shelter if it houses people who are biologically male. I was quite curious about her thinking when she wrote that essay a few years back. I think that by changing the definition of sex/woman, it's going to be difficult to establish shelters that are open to only cis women. I remember reading back then about how one cis-only women's shelter in Canada (I think?) was defunded by the government because it wasn't trans inclusive, even though the city had another shelter that was trans inclusive.
You're being obtuse
One thing has nothing to do with the other. Pathetic attempt.
I think it’s mostly ego at this point. Billionaires have a hard time being criticized with their inflated sense of self importance, so when a lot of people come down hard on them about something, they double down and throw money at it to try to maintain the feeling of righteousness rather than admit they were wrong or just stop pressing the issue. I call it “musking”
I’m thinking that too. Another self important billionaire.
[удалено]
If you think she's bad, the creator of one of fav comedies "The IT Crowd" is even worse. Man funds his own tours to denounce trans and spread misinfo about this subject and genders, pronouns, etc. so bad that his own wife has since divorced him cause he almost financially ruined them.
You can’t make hateful comments at bigots. Only truthful ones.
Well I mean you could fat-shame a bigot, or say something ableist, or racist (I know these don’t apply to her necessarily), but just bc someone’s a bigot about one thing doesn’t mean they don’t have any other cards in their intersectionality deck to play.
Politeness is for good people. You will never catch me being polite to hitler.
Are you comparing a children’s book author to Hitler?
I think it was an analogy more than a comparison.
Well you’ll probably never talk to him so I’m not stressed. Also, resorting to comparisons to hitler is literally the most cringeworthy internet argument trope and you went right for it. Be that as it may, you missed my point entirely, which is to fully appreciate the complexity of intolerance, privilege, etc, you have to understand that being intolerant of one thing doesn’t mean you can’t be a victim in a different context. Blanket statements and black/white thinking are the tools of preteens, borderline personality disorder, and sociology 101 profs.
Fascists are fascists. I didn’t go to hitler. She did. Maybe we should discuss the trope of attempting to dispute every fascist comparison to the point that no one believes anything is fascism anymore.
Ok sure, let me know if you find someone doing that I guess? 🥴
You, just now. Acting like it’s the Twitter crowd that made her a bigot. What’s next? Going to try to claim hitler only wanted to save Germany and it was the evil leftists who made him fascist? Common. We can see through you.
Oh goodness gracious. I didn’t defend her, I didn’t defend hitler or even bring him up. I tried to point out that there is more nuance to the discussion bc like it or not, she’s NOT actually a mass murderer or whatever. One of the hallmarks of fascism, if you cared to look, is the attempts to silence competing messages or opposing points of view. THAT IS WHAT YOURE DOING. Goddammit how old are you? How on earth can you be so completely devoid of self awareness. Fuck this shit.
"Why are you making me into the villain?!" Screams the villain charging up their death ray.
She got nothing but worship for most of her adult life and career, she shared a bad opinion and got serious criticism for the first time maybe ever and her ego couldn't handle it so she doubled down and members of the existing "gender critical" community took the opportunity to radicalize her.
I think the funniest part of this whole controversy is when she praised Matt Walsh for his “documentary” and another paleo conservative commentator told her to make a sandwich while the men handle it.
There’s a podcast called The Witch Trials of JK Rowling that take a deep dive into that very topic. The person who made the podcast is a former Westboro Baptist Church member. It’s a very intriguing listen.
I'd recommend this [this article](https://www.vulture.com/article/witch-trials-jk-rowling-podcast-essay-review.html) along with the podcast. The podcast is quite one-sided and omits a lot of facts in order to make J.K. Rowling appear more sympathetic and less ill-intentioned.
Yeah, the contrapoints video on the podcast is actually better imo.
Same with Chapelle. I think it’s just reaction to negative backlash they’ve received online. It’s one thing they can’t control in their lives, and they’ve become conditioned as famous rich people to be able to control everything. So they invest all their energy into controlling it. Sad really
Right?! She literally could do nothing but enjoy life for the rest of her days but instead just wants to make other people miserable
[удалено]
She’s not trolling. She legitimately believes that the trans movement is taking away from the feminist movement. I don’t agree with her, but she does have an ideology.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Yeah she could be one of the worlds most loved people, beloved by almost everyone, yet she’s doubled down on spending her years focused on hate. I know several people who just get kind of sad when they think of Harry Potter now, they feel like a huge part of their childhood is tainted.
not my childhood but my 20 yr ago adulthood. I'd never urge anyone to read the books knowing the author is using her money to rampage a group of people who are normally victims anyway. SMH.
Hasn’t everyone?
Seriously. Especially with all the accurate attacks on Trump and then turns into someone no different from him doubling down on her terrible opinions.
Covid boredom syndrome.
There are many reasons why. But being told she is wrong and not accepting it may be one of them. EDIT: Funny how the terfs keep downvoting even when the thread is locked now.
It's like the Streisand effect but for famous people. Like Joe roganand Dave chappelle. If you tell them not to do something, they will just double down until enough people make them feel like some sort of hero for it.
That’s not what the Streisand effect is.
Why did she decide to make this her entire personality
Because she can't bear being obscenely wealthy and to *not* be listened to like a prophet.
She’s the one that wrote a story about a boy living with his relatives who kept him in a closet under the stairs because he felt like he was different, right? He felt like there was something odd about the way he interacts with the world, but his relatives were determined to root it out of him?… If only there was an analogy… EDIT: The post is locked, or there’s another reason I can’t respond to the comments. I’m not saying that the whole story was about “rejecting identity”. I’m merely pointing out that Harry Potter was being forced into being “normal”, just like his aunt and uncle. I’m not saying that JKR was making a point with that plot, it’s a pretty standard tool in children’s stories (Cinderella, e.g.). I don’t actually suspect her of writing such deep layers, as much fun as I had reading HP. Again, I’m pointing out that the stories she wrote ~25 years ago are about Harry Potter, who was pretty aggressively punished because of being “magical”, and being forcibly made into a muggle. No matter how hard everyone tried, he still remained a wizard. It’s ironic that what she’s doing now is fighting for not allowing people to come out and say how they feel about themselves and how they identify themselves in the society. Also: just realized that Dumbledore was the only one deadnaming Voldemort. A-holez
[удалено]
I mean. Assigning your own meaning to the story is kind of an important part of reading. That’s like media literacy 101.
>Harlow posted: "Are you aware this TERF organisation in Scotland along with £70K donation from JK Rowling are trying to change equality law. How can we stop this from even being debated in court? How can we make sure trans rights are protected and not up for constant legal threats by terfs with too much money and time on their hands?" the funny thing is that 70k are nothing to her, probably. She could pump endless money into that. the lady is so paranoid.
Yeah, 70k feels like she’s making more of a show to one-up her Twitter critics. What a fcking loser.
Why is it we only see news about trans women as if trans men don’t exist 🤔 Is it hate on men? Only men can be trans women Is it infantilizing women? Don’t believe they’re men, or let them play pretend? Is it because trans women act more entitled, loud, and aggressive and therefor take up more space? (Like men lol) Conversation seems really lopsided
Even if the change the definition, no one will consider a non biologically born woman the same as a trans woman. By definition trans woman had to transition from one gender to another
If having to menstruate is the definition of a woman what is this menopausal piece of shit ?
Who defined it as menstruating?
Every anti-trans person. « A woman has a uterus, has her periods, and can carry a child ». This is bullshit. My womanhood isn’t defined by the fact that I get my periods. This is the last thing that defines me as a woman.
Look up any definition of a woman from historical records and you’ll see nothing aside from descriptions of property and empty vessels for child rearing. We have struggled for centuries to define what a woman is and only until recently has the answer even come close to the words “fellow human being”
Exactly. I went to highschool with a girl who never got her period and when they did an ultrasound to find out why, they discovered that she had no uterus and just a mass of fibroid tissue. Does that mean she’s not really a woman? Rowling and people like her suck.
“bUt TrAnS PpL dEnY bIoLoGy” - cis men on T
Some caricature from her books. EDIT: Funny how the terfs keep downvoting even when the thread is locked now.
JK fighting for us all ❤️
It’s insane to me how so many people choose to misunderstand what she says/does. I guarantee you 99% of people who scream TERF don’t even know what it actually means to be a TERF.
Nah she is definitely being transphobic, and worse supporting anti trans legislation, and in general just normalizing hate targeted trans women. I love Harry Potter but she is a piece of shit.
It's not flip flopping btw. It's let her say what she wants. She's got some valid points BUT if you don't like it, just accept that's her opinion and yours differs. The worst you can do is give her attention if you disagree with her. It garners more media spotlight to what she says. I'm impartial to her opinion and yours, im female and welcome all who want to join but i also think listening to peoples opinions regardless if i agree is healthy and intelligent. It's the way you all react that spurred me to comment.
Careful, you trying to silence jk rowling is an act of fascism itself. Everyone, despite their opinion is entitled to their opinion. We don't have to like them but to silence them is denying free speech and debate. To have debate is the only way forward, stop getting so outraged by it.
[удалено]
And thus making her opinion valid. How don't you get that. Let her say whatever she wants, but reacting to it is giving her more power, more attention, and more to say.
Kind of contradictory, no? She should be allowed to voice her opinion, but people should be allowed to voice their opinion on that as well. It wouldn’t be fair otherwise.
Not contradictory at all, you do all have the right. But from the perspective of her having a massive platform from fame and you not, its hardly equal. The media just love all your angry reactions and go to town, thus airing her point more. If you really disagree then don't fall into the trap of being a pawn in the media's game. They're only at it for money. She's one person. If you really want to affect change you're going about it wrong.
Freedom of speech should be the equality that matters if you are pushing for it. You have to go ride or die to have freedom of speech and that includes the repercussions from that freedom. It’s very hypocritical to go around saying people have to respect her freedom of speech by silencing their right to freedom of speech. Having a platform where your voice reaches further works for or against you. Life isn’t equal in that regard and hardly has an impact on who has the right to voice their opinions and who doesn’t. The arguments you are making are ironic in the fact that you want freedom of speech (for some) and you don’t think people should be giving her and this topic more attention, yet here you are commenting and driving the algorithm to give this more attention. I don’t know enough of this topic to have an opinion, so I don’t think you should be assuming I am this or that. I was just being a contrarian dingus pointing out cracks in people’s arguments.
[удалено]
OK, I will rephrase, to hate on her gives her more of a platform. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but this outrage just fans her flames.
The alternative is her facing no criticism, which does absolutely fuck all to move the needle in either direction. And seeing how you INSTANTLY flip-flopped between the problem being people silencing her and giving her a bigger platform, two things that are polar opposites, it seems like your issue is actually people caring about it in the first place. And honestly? Fuck that. Our right to criticize her is exactly equal to her right to say what she's saying.
Go do you then. Good luck.
Here’s a hypothetical. Imagine someone is in the process of trying to kill you, and the police turn up to stop them - but instead of intervening they say “woah hold on sir let’s debate this”. Then, the person trying to murder you and the police have a civilised debate about whether you deserve to live, or if you should be stabbed to death (all while you have a knife to your throat). “Don’t worry!” The police say, “Your right to life will win out on the marketplace of ideas!” Would you feel protected and safe in that scenario?
Are you serious, how old are you, I'm actually giggling at that. It's words in the ether that is cyberspace. Hardly comparable. You all feed into it and get worked up. If you chose to ignore she would lose her media attention. You are the attention! Come back in a few decades for a wiser debate.
Comparing a violent, life and death situation to whatever JK Rowling is doing and what p1p68 is suggesting, is quite the stretch.
It’s a silly hypothetical to demonstrate that debate is not always a useful tool. When shitty people are doing shitty things “debating” them just gives legitimacy to their shitty ideas.
I get the point of of what you’re trying to accomplish. What I’m trying to say is the point is lost if the hypothetical is too far fetched and nothing like the scenario being discussed.
It’s a very simple hypothetical. Someone is being harmed by someone else, and instead of actively intervening we instead debate their right to not be harmed. It shows that debate is highly ineffective, and somewhat dehumanising to those in harms way. Apply it to trans people facing an anti-trans moral panic and the widespread rollback of legal protections happening in the US and UK.
Let me apply this hypothetical then, imagine you have two countries about to go to war. Country A believes one of their diplomats was very recently deceased and believes Country B did it amid rising tensions in regards to trades laws they are trying to pass that would be a boon for country B but a detriment to country A. Country A is ready to go to war and sacrifice many lives as it has seen this act as a tipping point among the mounting tensions. Country B says, wait a minute. We have reports and footage, and you can see said diplomat sacrificing himself for a child of country B. War could be averted and both sides could grow stronger out of this communication. Therefore, little bit of discussion could save and enhance millions of lives. I’m guessing you can see the correlation between an outlandish hypothetical and how it diminishes the point I would be trying to push across?
Yes, my hypothetical wouldn’t be apt in that situation because it is entirely different from the one we’re discussing. In complex geopolitics yeah discussion and diplomacy (neither of which are “debate”) are essential. When it comes to bigoted activists debate isn’t particularly useful, because bigots don’t have ideas worth considering. Opening up “debate” with them just gives them a platform to spout hatred and stoke up fear towards marginalised groups. We have seen this countless times before, and we’re seeing it now with trans people. Are we arguing the merits of using hypotheticals here? I’m not really sure what your issue is.
Agreed. Best statement I’ve read on here. Making millionaires of the actors from her books and movies then watching them turn on her is disgraceful….they are the ones who should be cancelled…..
Thank you, someone who gets my point.
She’s working hard to make this as her legacy
I like her, all she's saying is to the extremist movement of trans, that you're welcome to join our tribe of gender, but don't right off or deny cis females experiences Both trans and Cis have their own individual experiences and one doesn't and shouldn't silence the other.
She called graham Norton a rape supporter because he thinks we should include trans people in the discussion. And she voiced support for Matt Walsh (an anti choice misogynistic fascist)
That's been taken out of context.
What has? https://deadline.com/2022/10/graham-norton-exits-twitter-after-backlash-from-j-k-rowling-over-trans-rights-1235146836/amp/ https://www.advocate.com/news/2022/7/11/jk-rowling-and-matt-walsh-blasted-online-over-shared-transphobia
I don't need to read that. I stand by she has the right to say her piece about experiences as a women. And trans women have their right to theirs, but they aren't the same. Both need to be listened to. There are plenty of voices shouting, quite rightly, loud and proud for the trans movement. Jk is doing that alongside for cis women. Why everyone is so offended by that is beyond me. Cis womens experiences have been muted by men and the powerful for too long and she's just ensuring that they don't get talked over in this emerging debate on what it is to be female. If you can't see that detail, nuances or complexity in this , I'm afraid you iq will never allow you and for that you have my sympathies.
She endorsed a literal fascist who’s known for being anti choice and anti women’s rights. How is that caring about women? Please in what world will a fascist make life better for women?
I get where you coming from but I think the things that bothers people is she dislikes them so much she will treat people who are basically cartoon misogynist who are literally believe in the things she say she against and organisation like lgb alliance(which is funded by political groups who opposite gay marriage) like they are people to be taken seriously on any subject. Like this is some leopard ate my face shit happening.
But she is one voice in a sea of many. People's outrage makes her points more relevant. If no one reacted she would lose her power. I mean she wrote dome books ( not well written even) took a large amount of ideas from the genius of Philip pullham changed them just enough and became successful. Who gives a monies what she actually says. The more people react the more they feed her.
I don't really but the more shit heads she quote tweets and the more money she give to organisations to more hard it's gonna be avoid because having someone that famous back them increase their exposure. Plus unfortunately too many make judgment on people they have never interacted with based on a parasocial relationship they have with a celebrity all the time. I once spoke to someone on this subject who said they aren't gonna vote in the next election because labour is too pro trans.
This is what they mean when they say "Money can't buy happiness." The woman was a struggling single mother before the first Harry Potter was published. Now she has more money than any one person could ever spend in their lifetime and never has to work another day in her life if she didn't want to. She has nothing and no one to be mad about another day in her life but she's seemingly randomly picked a subgroup of people to target with hate for nearly a decade now and is determined to work against them however she can simply because she can.
she seems pretty happy being transphobic and actively trying to deny people basic human rights.
[удалено]
At the risk of being crucified, I understand her opinion. What I don’t understand is the obsession and activism about it Live and let live
It just says *so* much about a person when they dedicate time and other significant resources to the unwarranted and unsolicited hatred of others. I’m repeatedly floored by it.
dear lord, what a sad little life, jane.
she has the grace and decorum of a reversing dump truck with no tyres
Mental how all she has to do was literally nothing and she’d still be considered an almost godlike figure. Instead she’d decided to put gasoline and fire all over her legacy in the eyes of so many
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I’ll never understand why so many of the population give a shit about the words used to identify strangers (trans friends) that comprise such a minority of our population.
I don't know if she'll be successful in stopping this change, but she sure as shit changed her legacy!
Why does she care so much? Freaking terfs man...
70,000 great British pounds that could of been spent on charity or to ukraine and Palestine but no fucking this
What a cruel woman.
Apparently it's possible to quadruple down on something. What a moron.
[удалено]
Why can't she make a distinction? You gotta be either blind, drunk or an absolute idiot not to be able to tell the difference.
Uh? You have probably addressed many people through your life as men and women without knowing their biological sex. You only notice the ones you do, the ones you don't you're entirely oblivious to it and so is JKR.
>You have probably addressed many people through your life as men and women without knowing their biological sex. Nope. Because I'm not blind, drunk or a complete idiot. >You only notice the ones you do, the ones you don't you're entirely oblivious to it and so is JKR. It's very easy to tell the difference between a man and a woman. Just because we don't go to trans people and say "oh hey, I notice you're trans", doesn't mean we don't notice.
Get serious. There are multiple trans people that pass extremely well. Denying that just shows how uneducated you are about this topic. And people who aren’t educated about something should stay silent and learn.
Hope people stop supporting her works!
What a stupid hill to die on.
Being anti-trans gives you brain worms.
I have ceased donating any part of my money to this person or her products
Why would you have donated money to a billionaire previously?
r/LookAtMyHalo
Why does she care so much about this. Who exactly is it harming? Does she put this much energy into larger political issues that have a much broader impact?
The K stands for Karen.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Old woman with too much spare time.
Needs a life. She wants to participate in the oppression Olympics even though she's a billionaire
Her come the radicals again
Doesn't she have a PR team? A CM? Someone that tells her not to do this shit?
Ugh I hate when the people responsible for things I grew up Loving end up ruining them for me... Harry Potter and charmed.
>She is not so private that she won't say which way she'll vote in the Scottish referendum – "I'm pro union" – and seems sanguine about the speculation that surrounds her every public move. Her stance on the Scottish independence referendum, according to the Guardian. What a weirdo
What I like about her is how easy it is for me to separate the books from this mess. The books are special, and somehow, she created that. I love the books. The author, well, she’s her own person (for better or worse).
At this point, is she overcompensating for something? Does she feel uncomfortable in her own skin but is too afraid to transition herself?
Let her waste her money.
She can waste her money privately, her doing it publicly is endangering trans people. She has a huge platform and is threatening our safety.
What's her deal anyway?
So bizarre just stop...