10 Likes
16 Likes
If I want to hear about trans issues, I think I’ll watch Jessie Gender, Kat Blaque, Mia Mulder, Jim Sterling, Fran Blanche, Verilybitchie, Sophie From Mars, or Philosophy Tube. I’m sure I’ve missed a few.
16 Likes
Person writes neat series of books, which get made into mostly ok movies, then proves repeatedly to be crappy bigoted human being.
Summarized it all for ya
5 Likes
It’s not hatred… it’s being angry about transphobia, which she is actively perpeptuating, at time when the right wing is literally trying to eliminate their existence! FFS… Pay attention.
22 Likes
It’s not at all controversial among the reality-based community that JKR has tweeted and said unquestionably transphobic things. But, for shits and giggles, let’s say that it was, and we needed some kind of rhetorical tiebreaker to determine whether JKR was actually transphobic. There would be this rather obvious point:
All those people are her friends, and she supports some of them and their organizations financially.
“Mystery” solved.
29 Likes
20 Likes
And no one here cares if you are.
Rowling IS a transphobe, and if you are defending her inhumane views, then you are complicit in upholding her transphobia.
Full stop.
25 Likes
15 Likes
Edmund Burke may not have said it, but it’s still true nevertheless:
17 Likes
The description of her as being subjected to a “witch trial” reminds me of how witch trials were described in her books: as something that had completely no effect on the witches in question, and only managed to harm innocent people who got dragged into the situation.
It seems like an apt choice of title.
5 Likes
I guess I’m unclear on your point here? Are you saying she’s the “witch” and that it’s trans people who are the innocent victims? Or that she’s the innocent victim?
8 Likes
That way round. It just struck me as apt, since she’s unaffected by the “trial” that she’s being put through, still having her money, platform and fans.
13 Likes
13 Likes
Okay, thanks for clarifying… although I would argue she’s not being put through any trial at all, witch or otherwise… Rather she’s made the choice, as an incredibly wealthy and culturally powerful white cisgendered women, to use her own previous struggles in life (back when she was suffering from abuse - much more of a real trial) to punch down on people who are already marginalized. She’s focused her anger about being abused in the past on people who had absolutely nothing to do with her abuse. It was by all accounts a cisgendered man who abused her, not a trans person…
She’s more of the Witchfinder general, in this case than anyone being put on trial. She’s started a witch trial, and isn’t the victim of one.
14 Likes
Yeah, the word “trial” really deserves the scare quotes I gave it. In reality, she’s lost nothing for revealing what a horrible person she always was. Nothing, expect of course for the respect of all decent people, which she has made perfectly clear, wasn’t something she valued in the first place.
9 Likes
Language usually matters. Especially when writers are involved.
And I’m not a transphobe. Self hating is so 1980’s.
19 Likes
The idea that the public statements and public conduct of prominent public figures has no impact on public policy is all kinds of absurd.
Rowling is a bestselling author and one of the richest people in the United Kingdom. She has a huge soapbox, and that comes with a lot of responsibility.
19 Likes
From the article:
Glamour recently published "A Complete Breakdown of the J.K. Rowling Transgender-Comments Controversy.
I followed the link, and it’s a strange thing. It’s familiar stuff from JKR: bad biology, bad psychology, and bad sociology being used to justify hate.
But some new awful thing always rolls out whenever I read this stuff. Today it was a tweet of hers that started with
Many health professionals are concerned
“Many”.
Jesus, this level of amateur-hour bullshit?
Speaking as a professional number-cruncher, “many” without reference to “how many” or “what proportion” is a very reliable leading indicator of bullshit. It’s a turn of phrase we’re trained to look for in reports and media releases. If the actual number was impressive, they’d use it. The number isn’t impressive, so “many” gets used instead. It’s not clever. It’s not sophisticated. It’s about two steps dumber than the also-sleazy “a rapidly growing number” [1].
I know that’s not the most important part. But how she’s lying jumped out at me today. This grade-school level misinformation is what some people are defending?
[1] in pretty much anything you can count, the “fastest growing (by percentage)” group is usually the smallest. By far. Think of how Pastafarianism was the “fastest growing” religion for a few years - several thousand percent growth per annum! Because it went from something like 3 to 500 members worldwide.
16 Likes
14 Likes
