J. K. Rowling is cancelled because she is a T.E.R.F [ADMIN WARNING IN POST #1]

Sir Oxman

Ah stop out of that
I'm chuckling at that 'crossing the aisle' bit
I can assure you not all homosexuals (that'll trigger the critical 'thinkers') are lined up like little worker bees - what you hear are the mouthiest, never the majority.

Pressure from rabid identitarian activists will never affect me but then again, I'm a man and they don't tend to try that with men for some odd reason in this particular sh1tshow.

It's women's voices that need to be amplified and by fck, women with rational questions and concerns are being heard and I stand with you and rationality.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Gruffalox wrote: »

If there is a roll of honour being listed Sir Oxman should be mentioned. He has bravely come across the aisle, so to speak, which is very hard to do publicly even on an anonymous board. I have read on different threads where members of the LGBT community can be particularly scathing of homosexual people who will not get into lock step with so called trans rights. Sir O has been a staunch supporter of reason.

Yes, true. Very true.

Gruffalux

Sir Oxman wrote: »

Ah stop out of that
I'm chuckling at that 'crossing the aisle' bit
I can assure you not all homosexuals (that'll trigger the critical 'thinkers') are lined up like little worker bees - what you hear are the mouthiest, never the majority.

Pressure from rabid identitarian activists will never affect me but then again, I'm a man and they don't tend to try that with men for some odd reason in this particular sh1tshow.

It's women's voices that need to be amplified and by fck, women with rational questions and concerns are being heard and I stand with you and rationality.

It's appreciated
By the way I saw TedX have started calling women womxn, and some are saying why are they not calling men mxn. It's xll bollx xnywxy!

GreeBo

Regarding the term cis, it just seems like a tautology to me.
Why do I need to tell people that I believe I'm the gender that matches my sex?

Am I also cis-caucasian?
Cis-irish?
Cis-6foot?

suicide_circus

GreeBo wrote: »

Regarding the term cis, it just seems like a tautology to me.
Why do I need to tell people that I believe I'm the gender that matches my sex?

Am I also cis-caucasian?
Cis-irish?
Cis-6foot?

In short, yes! So long as you subscribe to the doctrine that believing you are X means that you are X. Complete twaddle obviously but that's where we are.

Errashareesh

Another spineless organisation that's so open-minded their brains have fallen out. I'm enjoying the slating they're getting on Twitter though.

Gruffalox wrote: »

If there is a roll of honour being listed Sir Oxman should be mentioned. He has bravely come across the aisle, so to speak, which is very hard to do publicly even on an anonymous board. I have read on different threads where members of the LGBT community can be particularly scathing of homosexual people who will not get into lock step with so called trans rights. Sir O has been a staunch supporter of reason.

There's a bunch of ye. I just picked two off the top of my head. And your way with words is delightful G.

volchitsa

Errashareesh wrote: »

Pretty cool that this and the sports thread are still open. Feels like the only place where we aren't relentlessly shouted down and accused of being horrific bigots. Much due to the well written posts by folk like ODB and Neyite. Thanks for sticking it out these many months. I'm sure you have made people rethink things.

I see elsewhere on Boards they're drinking the Kool-Aid - "a male to female is a female"... and then I remember I would have said the very same thing myself... maybe only six months ago (although I was simultaneously questioning things). Then I started to peel back the layers below that mostly well meaning statement, and see the ramifications of it.

I think that's quite a lot of people, including me. It wasn't until I actually started to inform myself (partly thanks to what I saw on here, TBH) that I really questioned it.

So thanks to those of you who've been busy here for a while now! It does have an effect on others.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

The hashtag #RIPJKRowling trended on Twitter yesterday (and perhaps still is trending). Accompanied by more whining about how she has retroactively ruined people's childhoods. Anyone who makes that claim doesn't know they're born, quite frankly.

It was sparked by the release of her new book where a man dresses up as a woman to kill his victims. This is apparently transphobic. How, I'm not quite sure, seeing as the character seems to be doing cross-dressing as opposed to actually being transgender. Transgender activists make a distinction between being transgender and being a cross-dresser. And even if it was about a transgender character, are people saying that in fiction, transgender characters must only ever be portrayed in a positive light? Is there any group in society that is only ever portrayed positively in fiction?

People are saying that this is her way of getting her views on transgender people across. I think it's more likely that her involvement in this debate over the last year or so just gave her a story idea. I'm sure that's how it works for many writers. There have also been cases of serial killers being into cross-dressing. So who knows what her influences are. And at this point, I think she might also be obliquely trolling. She seems to not give a fuck. Good for her. :cool:

But yeah, #RIPJKRowling. Classy stuff.

Errashareesh

"Childhood - ruined! "

What a whiny little bitch thing to say. Let alone how lacking logic it is. Nobody has made anyone go back in time to live a different childhood based on something in the future.

First noticed that whine being used when the all female Ghostbusters was released. Now I didn't like such pandering/tokenism either but my god, the nappy wetting! And from guys who no doubt consider themselves "alphas".

Space Dog

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

The hashtag #RIPJKRowling trended on Twitter yesterday (and perhaps still is trending). Accompanied by more whining about how she has retroactively ruined people's childhoods. Anyone who makes that claim doesn't know they're born, quite frankly.

It was sparked by the release of her new book where a man dresses up as a woman to kill his victims. This is apparently transphobic. How, I'm not quite sure, seeing as the character seems to be doing cross-dressing as opposed to actually being transgender. Transgender activists make a distinction between being transgender and being a cross-dresser. And even if it was about a transgender character, are people saying that in fiction, transgender characters must only ever be portrayed in a positive light? Is there any group in society that is only ever portrayed positively in fiction?

People are saying that this is her way of getting her views on transgender people across. I think it's more likely that her involvement in this debate over the last year or so just gave her a story idea. I'm sure that's how it works for many writers. There have also been cases of serial killers being into cross-dressing. So who knows what her influences are. And at this point, I think she might also be obliquely trolling. She seems to not give a fuck. Good for her. :cool:

But yeah, #RIPJKRowling. Classy stuff.

Well at least she has you and the #IStandWithJKRowling crowd (or #IStandWithJKRolling, because apparently it's difficult for some of her supporters to even spell her name right).

Yeah, good for her for digging out an old trope that's been done to death (Psycho, The Silence of the Lambs, Dressed to Kill). I'm sure she had her "reasons" and did lots of "research".

BTW, this article is quite insightful, but don't let this ruin your mental acrobatics for defending a woman who has made it her mission to be hostile to trans people.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Space Dog wrote: »

Well at least she has you and the #IStandWithJKRowling crowd (or #IStandWithJKRolling, because apparently it's difficult for some of her supporters to even spell her name right).

Twitter was actually autocorrecting the former hashtag to the latter. An easy thing to not to notice. But, hey, if you need to resort to insults, you do you.

Yeah, good for her for digging out an old trope that's been done to death (Psycho, The Silence of the Lambs, Dressed to Kill). I'm sure she had her "reasons" and did lots of "research".

Why not revisit a trope? People create fiction based on tropes all the time. The key is putting a new and interesting spin on it. And, again I ask, why would anyone who is transgender object to a cross-dresser being depicted as a murderer? They're different, aren't they? And are they saying that transgender characters should never be written as anything but positive? How foot-stampingly controlling.

BTW, this article is quite insightful, but don't let this ruin your mental acrobatics for defending a woman who has made it her mission to be hostile to trans people.

The Independent? Yeah, hard pass. I've read that article though actually. It was written by somebody who clearly has not given any thought to the most vulnerable women in society, who will be the most affected by the erosion of sex-based rights. Who cares about them though, amiright?

Space Dog

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Twitter was actually autocorrecting the former hashtag to the latter. An easy thing to not to notice.



Why not revisit a trope? People create fiction based on tropes all the time. The key is putting a new and interesting spin on it. And, again I ask, why would anyone who is transgender object to a cross-dresser being depicted as a murderer? They're different, aren't they?



The Independent? Yeah, hard pass.

Maybe Roman Polanski or Victor Salwa have ideas for a new spin on a Lolita story! I'm sure some people would also argue it has nothing to do with their own life or actions in the past.

But it's fine, I won't add anything else to this debate, you can buy her books for all I'm concerned.

Sonics2k

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

The hashtag #RIPJKRowling trended on Twitter yesterday (and perhaps still is trending). Accompanied by more whining about how she has retroactively ruined people's childhoods. Anyone who makes that claim doesn't know they're born, quite frankly.

It was sparked by the release of her new book where a man dresses up as a woman to kill his victims. This is apparently transphobic. How, I'm not quite sure, seeing as the character seems to be doing cross-dressing as opposed to actually being transgender. Transgender activists make a distinction between being transgender and being a cross-dresser. And even if it was about a transgender character, are people saying that in fiction, transgender characters must only ever be portrayed in a positive light? Is there any group in society that is only ever portrayed positively in fiction?

People are saying that this is her way of getting her views on transgender people across. I think it's more likely that her involvement in this debate over the last year or so just gave her a story idea. I'm sure that's how it works for many writers. There have also been cases of serial killers being into cross-dressing. So who knows what her influences are. And at this point, I think she might also be obliquely trolling. She seems to not give a fuck. Good for her. :cool:

But yeah, #RIPJKRowling. Classy stuff.

Right, so I have no real opinion on this whole thing about JK, by and large I don't share her opinions but I don't really care what hers is.

However, out of pure happenstance this topic came up with a good friend of mine, who's brother is Trans. The book in itself typically wouldn't be considered transphobic, however, due to JK's recent words on Trans people it can be picked up on that this is almost like an opinion of hers, eg man in dress = trans = dangerous to real women and may kill them.

Let's be honest here, no matter your opinion on JK herself or her views, it's very very easy to see why many trans people would have this view of her new book. It suits the tagline of trans people in bathrooms will rape your kids and be perverts that was trotted out for a long long time.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Space Dog wrote: »

Maybe Roman Polanski or Victor Salwa have ideas for a new spin on a Lolita story! I'm sure some people would also argue it has nothing to do with their own life or actions in the past.

But it's fine, I won't add anything else to this debate, you can buy her books for all I'm concerned.

That’s big of you, Space Dog. Thank fuck I have your permission.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Sonics2k wrote: »

Right, so I have no real opinion on this whole thing about JK, by and large I don't share her opinions but I don't really care what hers is.

However, out of pure happenstance this topic came up with a good friend of mine, who's brother is Trans. The book in itself typically wouldn't be considered transphobic, however, due to JK's recent words on Trans people it can be picked up on that this is almost like an opinion of hers, eg man in dress = trans = dangerous to real women and may kill them.

Let's be honest here, no matter your opinion on JK herself or her views, it's very very easy to see why many trans people would have this view of her new book. It suits the tagline of trans people in bathrooms will rape your kids and be perverts that was trotted out for a long long time.

She has been very involved in this debate for the last year. I don’t know why anyone is surprised that it may have given her an idea for a book. And if she is trolling the brittle ninnies of Twitter, good luck to her.

By the way, people are not saying that all transgender women are violent, they are saying that criminality-wise, it makes no sense to not class transgender women under the male banner. Which sex is responsible for the vast majority of violent crime? I mean, why do women have sex-segregated spaces in the first place? Women are not scared of all men. They’re not scared of all transgender women. They just know that a small proportion of males are violent and that self ID makes porous the safeguarding barriers we have erected in society to protect ourselves.

Errashareesh

Space Dog wrote: »

Well at least she has you and the #IStandWithJKRowling crowd (or #IStandWithJKRolling, because apparently it's difficult for some of her supporters to even spell her name right).

Yeah, good for her for digging out an old trope that's been done to death (Psycho, The Silence of the Lambs, Dressed to Kill). I'm sure she had her "reasons" and did lots of "research".

BTW, this article is quite insightful, but don't let this ruin your mental acrobatics for defending a woman who has made it her mission to be hostile to trans people.

I think this book appears like she might be taking a dig too. At those who were so abusive to her though, not trans people in general. Not a great look by her still though imo.

But "a woman who has made it her mission to be hostile to trans people" is so dishonest. All she said was biology is real. I find it insulting the way stating what us women are and aren't = a hostile act.

Let alone "Be extra sensitive about the feelings of trans women - even to the point of telling lies... but feck the feelings of women."

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Errashareesh wrote: »

I think this book appears like she might be taking a dig too. At those who were so abusive to her though, not trans people in general. Not a great look by her still though imo.

But "a woman who has made it her mission to be hostile to trans people" is so dishonest. All she said was biology is real. I find it insulting the way stating what us women are and aren't = a hostile act.

Let alone "Be extra sensitive about the feelings of trans women - even to the point of telling lies... but feck the feelings of women."

I disagree on that. If it is a dig, I think it's delicious. It neatly highlights the self-absorption, hyperbole and brittleness of the very worst transgender rights activists.

suicide_circus

Would i blame JKR if this book were a deliberate "f*** you" to those engaged in the vitriolic campaign against her for telling the truth? Not really. I would be surprised however.

Errashareesh

This gives the vitriol spreaders ammunition though.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Errashareesh wrote: »

This gives the vitriol spreaders ammunition though.

They don't need much encouragement. :pac: I mean, they have already (before this latest development) accused Rowling of being directly responsible for deaths. They are utterly ridiculous.

Sir Oxman

Errashareesh wrote: »

This gives the vitriol spreaders ammunition though.

To be honest, I wouldn't give a shiney sh1te about anything they use to bolster up their pathetic vitriol.
They've already proved immensely to a global audience that their reading and comprehension skills are zero along with their honesty.

sheepskin1234

Was on reddit thread about JK yesterday and was shocked at the widespread support for hating her for this book.

Should minorities only be heroes anymore?

It's really sad how people can't have opinions anymore. Thought police are real nowadays.

If I think X is wrong or crazy, I should be allowed say it.

LineOfBeauty

For those looking to read more of Rowling's transphobia, here's an article with excerpts from her series of adult fiction books which she writes under a pen name (would you believe Rowling's chosen pen name was of the guy who helped to create gay conversion therapy, which, at that time, involved basically frying the brains of homosexual? Oh Rowling, you misunderstood scamp!)

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/pkeynz/jk-rowlings-transphobia-wasnt-hard-to-find-she-wrote-a-book-about-it

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

For those looking to read more of Rowling's transphobia, here's an article with excerpts from her series of adult fiction books which she writes under a pen name (would you believe Rowling's chosen pen name was of the guy who helped to create gay conversion therapy, which, at that time, involved basically frying the brains of homosexual? Oh Rowling, you misunderstood scamp!)

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/pkeynz/jk-rowlings-transphobia-wasnt-hard-to-find-she-wrote-a-book-about-it

Rowling's explanation for the pen-name as per this 2013 Guardian article:

JK Rowling chose her alter ego of Robert Galbraith by conflating the name of her political hero Robert F Kennedy and her childhood fantasy name "Ella Galbraith", the Harry Potter writer has explained on her alternative persona's official author website.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/jul/24/jk-rowling-robert-galbraith-harry-potter

So you don't believe her explanation and think she's been fomenting a hatred of gay people for the best part of a decade?

suicide_circus

sheepskin1234 wrote: »

Was on reddit thread about JK yesterday and was shocked at the widespread support for hating her for this book.

Should minorities only be heroes anymore?

It's really sad how people can't have opinions anymore. Thought police are real nowadays.

If I think X is wrong or crazy, I should be allowed say it.

You must remember that the majority of people who hate her are confined to the dank musty halls of the internet. Same way plenty of gobshytes have their pronouns on their twitter bios while very few people would engage in that tom foolery in real life.

LineOfBeauty

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Rowling's explanation for the pen-name as per this 2013 Guardian article:



https://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/jul/24/jk-rowling-robert-galbraith-harry-potter

So you think she's been fomenting a hatred of gay people for the best part of a decade?

Jumping through a lot of mental hoops to get to that!!

The equivalent of naming your child Adolf Hitler and saying "oh I'm a big chess guy and Adolf Anderssen was such an influential player and, of course, who can discount the contribution of Adolf Lu Hitler Marak to Indian culture!!"

Nonsense.

suicide_circus

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

Jumping through a lot of mental hoops to get to that!!

You may not want to disparage the jumping through of mental hoops.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

Jumping through a lot of mental hoops to get to that!!

The equivalent of naming your child Adolf Hitler and saying "oh I'm a big chess guy and Adolf Anderssen was such an influential player and, of course, who can discount the contribution of Adolf Lu Hitler Marak to Indian culture!!"

Nonsense.

Yup, you know better than the person who chose the name.

suicide_circus wrote: »

You may not want to disparage the jumping through of mental hoops.

:pac:

recyclops

Havent read this book but find the Cormoran Strike books and tv series to be entertaining in a holiday book or nothing else on tv kind of way. Read/watch and dont take much from them, kind of like a Dan Brown Novel and movie.

Errashareesh

Gotta smear the person who won't deny biology (**** women) at all costs, no matter how dubious. It's so "in" right now.

suicide_circus wrote: »

You may not want to disparage the jumping through of mental hoops.