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

Sir Oxman

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

Yes, knowledge is generally acquired, not inherited. Nobody is born knowing the name of Robert Galbraith, you hear about it, you learn about it, and then you condemn him as an evil man. You probably don't use it as your pen name. You definitely don't use it as your pen name if your views on a community in which he tortured are called into question, unless of course you aren't entirely against that kind of thing. If the shoe fits and all that...

I mean I'm not pasting the article here for you, I sent a link.

What words, or actions, of hers would make you believe she isn't a transphobe? Infact wouldn't her association and recommendation of noted transphobes on social media make one believe her to be far more likely to be a transphobe than not a transphobe. For example, if I go to the shop each day and buy a scone, I walk into the office with that scone each day, I eat the scone, my co-workers see me eat the scone, we go to the cafe together, they offer to buy me a scone, I say no I'm gluten intolerant I can't eat scones. Because I've said it does not make it true, my co-workers have seen a pattern of behaviour emerge over the course of several months and many scones. See what I'm getting at here?

I mean, what exactly are you telling everyone that reads this thread?
Do you really mean to show you have zero capability to think for yourself? To delineate from actual words to someones (ever moving) definition of transphobia/hate?


Then you have the neck to ask me 'what words and actions of hers would make you believe she isn't a transphobe?'
!!!:D!!!


Thanks for the laugh and really, via reading your own words and argument, you are a massive laugh.

LineOfBeauty

Bob Gray wrote: »

Who?
Genuine question.

There's pages of stuff on this thread about Maya Forstater, who Rowling publically supported, whose views were described by a court to be "not worthy of respect in a democratic society"- credit the New York Times for that one.

Gruffalux

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

Yes, knowledge is generally acquired, not inherited. Nobody is born knowing the name of Robert Galbraith, you hear about it, you learn about it, and then you condemn him as an evil man. You probably don't use it as your pen name. You definitely don't use it as your pen name if your views on a community in which he tortured are called into question, unless of course you aren't entirely against that kind of thing. If the shoe fits and all that...

I would say you are reasonably safe trying to peddle that line of libel here on an anonymous board behind a pseudonym. Be aware however that Rowling does not hesitate to sue people who defame her, so I would not, under my real name in the real world, be putting about the absolute bollicking scutter that JK Rowling chose as a nom de plume the name of a person who burned the brains of gay people because she hates homosexuals so much.

Sir Oxman

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

There's pages of stuff on this thread about Maya Forstater, who Rowling publically supported, whose views were described by a court to be "not worthy of respect in a democratic society"- credit the New York Times for that one.

Her views being?

LineOfBeauty

Sir Oxman wrote: »

I mean, what exactly are you telling everyone that reads this thread?
Do you really mean to show you have zero capability to think for yourself? To delineate from actual words to someones (ever moving) definition of transphobia/hate?


Then you have the neck to ask me 'what words and actions of hers would make you believe she isn't a transphobe?'
!!!:D!!!


Thanks for the laugh and really, via reading your own words and argument, you are a massive laugh.

Now I'm excited. Sure go on, give us a completely unique and original thought of yours that is entirely uninformed by any opinion you've ever had over the course of your life. Because that's kinda what you're claiming everyone should do, so help, give us an example to follow.

And the exclamation marks too. Quality.

Gruffalux

Sudden Valley wrote: »

I'm not sure where a transwoman is supposed to go then if fully transitioned and no longer looks like a bloke. Hard to see the safety in having them go to the gents or male changing rooms and be safe from harassment. I hate the use of the term phobic as an irrational fear is not the same as hating someone for what they are.

As has been said before Transwomen have been using the ladies unimpeded for a very long time. And can continue to do so in an informal arrangement based on women's notorious compassion and sense. It is when statute or regulation commands that every Mick who decides that he has the right to identify as a women will thus become a woman in reality and gain all access to all female spaces that the people who still actually have brains left between their ears say fcuk off mate.

LineOfBeauty

Sir Oxman wrote: »

Her views being?

It's funny when you argue with somebody on here, they completely and suddenly lose the ability to Google anything. This isn't a court mate. I'm not presenting evidence to you. I've actually gone to the trouble of even citing the source for my quote (far more trouble than you deserve).

LineOfBeauty

Gruffalox wrote: »

I would say you are reasonably safe trying to peddle that line of libel here on an anonymous board behind a pseudonym. Be aware however that Rowling does not hesitate to sue people who defame her, so I would not, under my real name in the real world, be putting about the absolute bollicking scutter that JK Rowling chose as a nom de plume the name of a person who burned the brains of gay people because she hates homosexuals so much.

Are you threatening me with JK Rowlings lawyers? Does that not sound ridiculous to you? Also it's not libel to say her pen name is the same name of a man who fried the brains of homosexuals. That's a fact.

Gruffalux

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

Are you threatening me with JK Rowlings lawyers? Does that not sound ridiculous to you? Also it's not libel to say her pen name is the same name of a man who fried the brains of homosexuals. That's a fact.

What sounds beyond ridiculous is what you are trying to peddle and don't go all disingenuous on me now by saying you were only innocently noticing the names are the same. Your whole sales pitch is that she purposely chose that name as she is such a transphobe and homophobe .

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Sudden Valley wrote: »

I'm not sure where a transwoman is supposed to go then if fully transitioned and no longer looks like a bloke. Hard to see the safety in having them go to the gents or male changing rooms and be safe from harassment. I hate the use of the term phobic as an irrational fear is not the same as hating someone for what they are.

That's something that needs to be worked out for sure. But why is the answer women giving up their spaces?

And you mention the safety of transgender women and acknowledge that there is some risk around men. Why then are women admonished for citing concerns for their safety? It's hypocritical to not take them seriously if you take transgender women seriously about their safety concerns.

raclle

@LineOfBeauty In reality what she said wasn't offensive. You are, like many others, trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill. Is all of this just geared towards JKR or is it for everyone with any offensive terminology in any book, movie, song etc...? If something that is misinterpreted offends you so much then I'm sorry you have some serious problems ahead.

LineOfBeauty

Gruffalox wrote: »

What sounds beyond ridiculous is what you are trying to peddle and don't go all disingenuous on me now by saying you were only innocently noticing the names are the same. Your whole sales pitch is that she purposely chose that name as she is such a transphobe and homophobe .

Gruffalox this isn't Harry Potter, you aren't in control of a 3 headed dog that you can set on people at will. Also if you want to take a deep dive down a rabbit hole of articles which accuse Rowling of exactly those things then go right ahead. By the way, as someone who is actually homosexual, I do find her choice of name (Rowling being the only person allowed to assume a different gender it seems) to be a tad homophobic yes.

LineOfBeauty

raclle wrote: »

@LineOfBeauty In reality what she said wasn't offensive. You are, like many others, trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill. Is all of this just geared towards JKR or is it for everyone with any offensive terminology in any book, movie, song etc...? If something that is misinterpreted offends you so much then I'm sorry you have some serious problems ahead.

You say this but there's a few people on this thread literally up in arms at the suggestion of Rowling being a homophobe. I'd say those people have far bigger issues ahead than I do if this is how they get about somebody pointing out the actions of their favourite child fiction author.

Sir Oxman

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

Now I'm excited. Sure go on, give us a completely unique and original thought of yours that is entirely uninformed by any opinion you've ever had over the course of your life. Because that's kinda what you're claiming everyone should do, so help, give us an example to follow.

And the exclamation marks too. Quality.

You deserve those, don't sell yourself short.


Again you don't get it.
At this stage, I completely doubt you read her own words for yourself.
My example is I did and there is not one word of 'hate' or 'transphobia' contained within by any normal, compos mentis measure.

I didn't require some outsider to enable me to understand what she was saying either.



Her words are very simple - they couldn't be less complicated unless someone didn't bother reading them and received a timeline of anime characters telling them not to read it and receiving that absolutely non-skewed, absolutely non-ideological culty take on it as absolute truth and ran with that.


That is why it's important to read the origin for yourself whenever you can.

LineOfBeauty

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

That's something that needs to be worked out for sure. But why is the answer women giving up their spaces?

And you mention the safety of transgender women and acknowledge that there is some risk around men. Why then are women admonished for citing concerns for their safety? It's hypocritical to not take them seriously if you take transgender women seriously about their safety concerns.

You always bring this back to toilets. Everytime. Toilets. Changing rooms. Sports.

LineOfBeauty

Sir Oxman wrote: »

You deserve those, don't sell yourself short.


Again you don't get it.
At this stage, I completely doubt you read her own words for yourself.
My example is I did and there is not one word of 'hate' or 'transphobia' contained within by any normal, compos mentis measure.

I didn't require some outsider to enable me to understand what she was saying either.



Her words are very simple - they couldn't be less complicated unless someone didn't bother reading them and received a timeline of anime characters telling them not to read it and receiving that absolutely non-skewed, absolutely non-ideological culty take on it as absolute truth and ran with that.


That is why it's important to read the origin for yourself whenever you can.

From the perspective of the hero character whose world view is supposed to reflect the truth how is the following not a bit questionable

"In the scene, a trans woman, Pippa, follows and tries to stab the protagonist, Cormoran Strike, before getting trapped in Strike’s office. After demanding Pippa’s ID, her trans status is revealed and her visible Adam’s apple is noted, while it's noted that her hands were jammed in her pockets. Pippa tries several times to escape the office before Strike finally says, “‘If you go for that door one more time I’m calling the police and I’ll testify and be glad to watch you go down for attempted murder. And it won’t be fun for you Pippa,’ he added. ‘Not pre-op.’”"

Give me your entirely unblurred, pure take of that paragraph.

Errashareesh

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

There's pages of stuff on this thread about Maya Forstater, who Rowling publically supported, whose views were described by a court to be "not worthy of respect in a democratic society"- credit the New York Times for that one.

Ah here... Maya Forstater? Really really not a good example. All she did was stand up for women and got demonised for it, with capitulation from a spineless body.

Can you not understand how that is actually concerning for women? It's nothing to do with hating trans folk. Identify how you personally want, dress how you want... but don't seek to redefine the meaning of woman and try to get people fired for that view, which does not state hatred of trans people.

ceadaoin.

Gruffalox wrote: »

I would say you are reasonably safe trying to peddle that line of libel here on an anonymous board behind a pseudonym. Be aware however that Rowling does not hesitate to sue people who defame her, so I would not, under my real name in the real world, be putting about the absolute bollicking scutter that JK Rowling chose as a nom de plume the name of a person who burned the brains of gay people because she hates homosexuals so much.

Here is an article from 2013 explaining why she chose that name. I'm sure she foresaw that 7 years into the future she would be accused of being a witch, sorry, terf, so planted this story as a defence though. Despite the fact that no one had even heard of this homophobic person, who apparently didn't even use that name at all, in 2013. Definitely. Playing the long game for sure.

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

Sir Oxman

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

It's funny when you argue with somebody on here, they completely and suddenly lose the ability to Google anything. This isn't a court mate. I'm not presenting evidence to you. I've actually gone to the trouble of even citing the source for my quote (far more trouble than you deserve).

You see, I know about that case which is being appealed (it was an employment tribunal case, not a court of criminal law case)

Next you'll be saying that Forstater...oh well, I'll let you fill that one in.



It's forum etiquette that the poster asserting something provide backup to what they are saying.
Mind you, in my purity politics past I've done that stupid thing too but I have to say never three assertions in a row with multiple face saving posts strewn in between.


I think we're finished here (EDIT - probably not)

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

You always bring this back to toilets. Everytime. Toilets. Changing rooms. Sports.

Of course I bring it back to sex-segregated spaces. Without shame.

- hospital wards
- women's shelters
- locker rooms
- bathrooms
- prisons (already happening in Ireland with a male sex offender housed in a women's prison and needing extra guarding. But who cares about the female inmates, most in for non-violent crimes and amongst the most vulnerable women in society?)

In addition, other things to consider: is it transphobic to request a female doctor for an intimate exam if a transgender woman arrives to examine you? If is transphobic to request to be searched by a female Garda? How about counselling for sexual abuse or domestic violence? Is wanting a female counsellor wrong? In sports, is it transphobic for females to only want to compete against other females and to fear injury from competitors who have gone through male puberty?

So yes, I do bring it back to these things. That's the whole point. It's funny that you were attempting that as an insult.

LineOfBeauty

Errashareesh wrote: »

Ah here... Maya Forstater? Really really not a good example. All she did was stand up for women and got demonised for it, with capitulation from a spineless body.

Can you not understand how that is actually concerning for women? It's nothing to do with hating trans folk. Identify how you personally want, dress how you want... but don't seek to redefine the meaning of woman and try to get people fired for that view, which does not state hatred of trans people.

Oh OK, so that court ruling is wrong, but all others are OK? Do you not see how you can take that line of discrimination and extrapolate it to any minority?

Also have you taken a step back to look at it from the POV of a trans person (male to female or female to male)? Can you imagine what that life is like? I can't. I've not lived it. I know trans people, I'm friends with trans people. I know from hanging with them that some everyday things are way more difficult for them than they are for me. I know they're a target for derision (or worse, physical assault) at a far higher level than I am (even as an out gay man). And that they are among the most vulnerable groups in our society. And also I have to say, I absolutely hate that when we talk on this forum about trans people it is almost always under the guise of male to female.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

Oh OK, so that court ruling is wrong, but all others are OK? Do you not see how you can take that line of discrimination and extrapolate it to any minority?

Also have you taken a step back to look at it from the POV of a trans person (male to female or female to male)? Can you imagine what that life is like? I can't. I've not lived it. I know trans people, I'm friends with trans people. I know from hanging with them that some everyday things are way more difficult for them than they are for me. I know they're a target for derision (or worse, physical assault) at a far higher level than I am (even as an out gay man). And that they are among the most vulnerable groups in our society. And also I have to say, I absolutely hate that when we talk on this forum about trans people it is almost always under the guise of male to female.

For a vulnerable group, they sure wield a lot of power.

You also haven't lived life as a woman but yet feel perfectly comfortable dismissing our concerns. But LOL, we're just silly women, amiright?

LineOfBeauty

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Of course I bring it back to sex-segregated spaces. Without shame.

- hospital wards
- women's shelters
- locker rooms
- bathrooms
- prisons (already happening in Ireland with a male sex offender housed in a women's prison and needing extra guarding. But who cares about the female inmates, most in for non-violent crimes and amongst the most vulnerable women in society?)

In addition, other things to consider: is it transphobic to request a female doctor for an intimate exam if a transgender woman arrives to examine you? If is transphobic to request to be searched by a female Garda? How about counselling for sexual abuse or domestic violence? Is wanting a female counsellor wrong? In sports, is it transphobic for females to only want to compete against other females and to fear injury from competitors who have gone through male puberty?

So yes, I do bring it back to these things. That's the whole point. It's funny that you were attempting that as an insult.

Wow, the trifecta all in one tweet.

So, just to pick up on this because, I actually do know a trans counselor, would you advocate that person not be employed in that role?

Sir Oxman

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

Gruffalox this isn't Harry Potter, you aren't in control of a 3 headed dog that you can set on people at will. Also if you want to take a deep dive down a rabbit hole of articles which accuse Rowling of exactly those things then go right ahead. By the way, as someone who is actually homosexual, I do find her choice of name (Rowling being the only person allowed to assume a different gender it seems) to be a tad homophobic yes.

As someone who is homosexual, I don't at all.
But then, I don't assume insult and sleight at every turn - not a great way to live.


PS look up the history of pen names. You have 'Google' at your fingertips after all.

Gruffalux

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

Gruffalox this isn't Harry Potter, you aren't in control of a 3 headed dog that you can set on people at will. Also if you want to take a deep dive down a rabbit hole of articles which accuse Rowling of exactly those things then go right ahead. By the way, as someone who is actually homosexual, I do find her choice of name (Rowling being the only person allowed to assume a different gender it seems) to be a tad homophobic yes.

Now, now, Line of Beauty, if you are going to freely peddle tripe then you can expect that a lady with limited patience for same, like myself, will indeed set loose her Cerberus, and tear that shyte apart. No controlling the responses you get when you fling scutter, I am afraid.

She did not assume a different gender, by the way. That is not how a nom de plume works. Choosing a male name may hark back to a long practice among female writers to take a male name in order to be taken seriously. Eg George Eliot (Mary Ann Evans), The Bronte sisters wrote as Currer, Ellis and Acton Bell. Precisely because female writers were dismissed as frivolous etc. Ironic, now, in this context.
And to find her name homophobic because you have read somewhere that people have madly decided she deliberately chose Robert Glabraith because he is/was some dreadful person who practised horrible experiments on homosexuals really stretches the bounds of credulity and might be considered paranoid in the extreme. There is no way she did any such thing. Absolutely no way.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

Wow, the trifecta all in one tweet.

So, just to pick up on this because, I actually do know a trans counselor, would you advocate that person not be employed in that role?

A trifecta refers to three things. Or betting. How does that relate to what I wrote?

They should of course be employed. But a female referral should be entitled to decline their services if it's something they only want to talk to a fellow female about.

And I'll note you ignored everything else.

And I'll ask again, why do you feel so comfortable dismissing women's concerns when you have no experience of being one, seeing as you feel you can't speak for transgender people because you aren't one? You're betraying your misogyny there, Line Of Beauty. Oops.

ceadaoin.

Gruffalox wrote: »

Now, now, Line of Beauty, if you are going to freely peddle tripe then you can expect that a lady with limited patience for same, like myself, will indeed set loose her Cerberus, and tear that shyte apart. No controlling the responses you get when you fling scutter, I am afraid.

She did not assume a different gender, by the way. That is not how a nom de plume works. Choosing a male name may hark back to a long practice among female writers to take a male name in order to be taken seriously. Eg George Eliot (Mary Ann Evans), The Bronte sisters wrote as Currer, Ellis and Acton Bell. Precisely because female writers were dismissed as frivolous etc. Ironic, now, in this context.
And to find her name homophobic because you have read somewhere that people have madly decided she deliberately chose Robert Glabraith because he is/was some dreadful person who practised horrible experiments on homosexuals really stretches the bounds of credulity and might be considered paranoid in the extreme. There is no way she did any such thing. Absolutely no way.

She didn't. No one even knew about that Robert Galbraith, who actually went by the name Robert or Bob Heath, when she came up with the name.

Here is a tweet from the person who unearthed the details of the man explaining how Rowling couldn't possibly have known about him because he had faded into obscurity and his actions didn't come to light until 3 YEARS AFTER she first used the name, in 2016.

https://mobile.twitter.com/rcolvile/status/1270794437967392771?lang=en

Its a conspiracy theory without any basis in reality.

LineOfBeauty

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

For a vulnerable group, they sure wield a lot of power.

You also haven't lived life as a woman but yet feel perfectly comfortable dismissing our concerns. But LOL, we're just silly women, amiright?

Again, your perspective is based purely on MTF. You also disregard any statistics I give you based on trans physical assault numbers (which we've done in the past too) and your insinuation that I'm dismissing your views because you're a woman when you're happy to dismiss and kick down at a small portion of society seems a bit tacky I think.

LineOfBeauty

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

A trifecta refers to three things. Or betting. How does that relate to what I wrote?

They should of course be employed. But a female referral should be entitled to decline their services if it's something they only want to talk to a fellow female about.

And I'll note you ignored everything else.

And I'll ask again, why do you feel so comfortable dismissing women's concerns when you have no experience of being one, seeing as you feel you can't speak for transgender people because you aren't one?

I did, I'm not talking about locker rooms again. And I'm not doing toilets again either. We've done those.

So, let's go for this one. Just to confirm, this counsellor who has undergone gender reassignment treatment, who is legally recognised as a female, you say that person is not a female therefore should not be referred to females who request a female counsellor?

Sir Oxman

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

From the perspective of the hero character whose world view is supposed to reflect the truth how is the following not a bit questionable

"In the scene, a trans woman, Pippa, follows and tries to stab the protagonist, Cormoran Strike, before getting trapped in Strike’s office. After demanding Pippa’s ID, her trans status is revealed and her visible Adam’s apple is noted, while it's noted that her hands were jammed in her pockets. Pippa tries several times to escape the office before Strike finally says, “‘If you go for that door one more time I’m calling the police and I’ll testify and be glad to watch you go down for attempted murder. And it won’t be fun for you Pippa,’ he added. ‘Not pre-op.’”"

Give me your entirely unblurred, pure take of that paragraph.

That's her new book which came out yesterday?
I haven't read the book and probably won't, or maybe I will, who knows.
Have you read it or are you taking received opinion again without at the very minimal reading a few differing opinions/reviews?
Is that someone else's take in their own words from maybe a website like them.us, pinknews maybe?


Everyone is waiting for you to reveal your evidence of her 'transphobia' and 'hate' in the essays she wrote outlining her own opinions - that's not a work of fiction.