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

jam_mac_jam

Burning books? Seriously? The world has actually gone mad.

Errashareesh

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

so Brown is wrong but Jedward are also wrong for saying that Brown is wrong. gotcha

For jumping on the bandwagon. Why do you folks behave so dishonestly and pretend to be stupid so so much?

ohnonotgmail

Errashareesh wrote: »

For jumping on the bandwagon. Why do you folks behave so dishonestly and pretend to be stupid so so much?

they are expressing an opinion. why does that bother you so much?

Sir Oxman

AllForIt wrote: »

This is worth a watch for the giggles of it. Benjamin Butterworth does it again. Trans activist doesn't even agree with him.

Just goes to show that all these racism/transphobic/whatever controversies are given oxygen by not the supposedly oppressed but by middle class white loons.

That did give me a huge laugh at Butterworth's expense.



Rose of Dawn nailed it, Benjamin Button (kudos to Galloway for that) has just peaked thousands more in the UK

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Benjamin Butterworth is the guy that went to an event as a BAME representative because he has a black step-parent, taking the place of a genuine BAME person. The guy’s a moron.

Danzy

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Benjamin Butterworth is the guy that went to an event as a BAME representative because he has a black step-parent, taking the place of a genuine BAME person. The guy’s a moron.

He is a moron, he is entitled, arrogant and judgemental.

He'll be a Labour MP someday.

LLMMLL

I'm still shocked at J K's making fun of the assaults of trans women in prisons, and their physical characteristics:

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.’”"

It's some of the most blatant transphobic writing I've seen.

ceadaoin.

LLMMLL wrote: »

I'm still shocked at J K's making fun of the assaults of trans women in prisons, and their physical characteristics:

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.’”"

It's some of the most blatant transphobic writing I've seen.

Thats not from this latest novel though. Strange how nobody noticed this egregious transphobia for the past 6 years. Its only when her latest book, which doesn't mention trans women at all, is due for release.

Of course, a police officer would never talk in such a way to a person who tried to stab them. Its clearly Rowling venting her own transphobic views and not just writing a work of fiction.

LLMMLL

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Thats not from this latest novel though. Strange how nobody noticed this egregious transphobia for the past 6 years. Its only when her latest book, which doesn't mention trans women at all, is due for release.

Of course, a police officer would never talk in such a way to a person who tried to stab them. Its clearly Rowling venting her own transphobic views and not just writing a work of fiction.

Why does it matter if it's her latest novel or not. She made light of the assault of trans women in male prisons.

ohnonotgmail

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Thats not from this latest novel though. Strange how nobody noticed this egregious transphobia for the past 6 years. Its only when her latest book, which doesn't mention trans women at all, is due for release.

Of course, a police officer would never talk in such a way to a person who tried to stab them. Its clearly Rowling venting her own transphobic views and not just writing a work of fiction.

AHEM

An review of the novel in Britain's Daily Telegraph on Sunday described the "meat of the book" as an investigation into the cold case of a missing doctor who is believed to have fallen victim to a murderous cross-dresser.
"One wonders what critics of Rowling's stance on trans issues will make of a book whose moral seems to be: never trust a man in a dress," reviewer Jake Kerridge wrote.

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/09/15/entertainment/jk-rowling-troubled-blood-book-trans-gbr-scli-intl/index.html

LLMMLL

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

AHEM




https://edition.cnn.com/2020/09/15/entertainment/jk-rowling-troubled-blood-book-trans-gbr-scli-intl/index.html

They're going to say that that's not a trans person but a "crossdresser". And while that's correct, given JKs previous sensitive portrayal of a trans person desperately trying to hide their mannish hands and Adams apple, I don't believe she sees much of a distinction herself.

ceadaoin.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

AHEM




https://edition.cnn.com/2020/09/15/entertainment/jk-rowling-troubled-blood-book-trans-gbr-scli-intl/index.html

Except thats not what the book is about at all, apparently. Its a passing mention.

Strike and his business partner Robin Ellacott are hired by a middle-aged woman to investigate the disappearance of her mother in the 1970s. Detectives at the time thought Creed had killed her, but no one knew the truth and the woman’s body had never been found. Strike and Ellacott investigate Creed, but then they investigate a good dozen others. You have to search hard to find a justification for the belief that the book’s moral ‘seems’ to be ‘never trust a man in a dress’. But then relentless searches for the tiniest evidence of guilt are the marks of heresy hunters

It amounts to this. On page 75, Strike is listening to the son of an investigating officer tell him what he knows about Creed.

‘He had his failures you know. Penny Hiskett, she got away from him and gave the police a description in ’71, but that didn’t help them much. She said he was dark and stocky, because he was wearing a wig at the time and all padded out in a woman’s coat. They caught him in the end because of Melody Bower. Nightclub singer, looked like Diana Ross. Creed got chatting to her at the bus stop, offered her a lift, then tried to drag her into the van when she said no. She escaped, gave the police a proper description and told them he’d said his house was on Paradise Park.’

Creed mentions the advantage of lipstick and a wig in making women think he’s ‘a harmless old queer’ when Strike interviews him, and that’s about that. A novelist uses a passing detail to explain how a murderer got close to one of his victims — for presumably the victim who gave the police a ‘proper description’ did not see him in a woman’s coat and wig

There are many works of fiction, and even real life cases, where male killers use women's clothes as a disguise or a fetish. It doesn't make them trans and it doesn't make it transphobic to use it as a plot device. This is getting ridiculous now.

AllForIt

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

AHEM




https://edition.cnn.com/2020/09/15/entertainment/jk-rowling-troubled-blood-book-trans-gbr-scli-intl/index.html

CNN: FAKE NEWS

Gruffalux

Hagrid is with JK.

“I don’t think what she said was offensive really,” Coltrane told Radio Times. “I don’t know why but there’s a whole Twitter generation of people who hang around waiting to be offended. They wouldn’t have won the war, would they?”
Coltrane continued: “That’s me talking like a grumpy old man, but you just think, ‘Oh, get over yourself. Wise up, stand up straight and carry on.’”

The Cracker actor declined to comment further, however, adding: “I don’t want to get involved in all of that because of all the hate mail and all that s***, which I don’t need at my time of life

ceadaoin.

LLMMLL wrote: »

They're going to say that that's not a trans person but a "crossdresser". And while that's correct, given JKs previous sensitive portrayal of a trans person desperately trying to hide their mannish hands and Adams apple, I don't believe she sees much of a distinction herself.

Are they even a "crossdresser"? The short passage in question describes someone in a wig and a woman's coat as a disguise or as a means to hide his identity to get close to victims. That's it really. There isn't any further detail.

LLMMLL

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Are they even a "crossdresser"? The short passage in question describes someone in a wig and a woman's coat as a disguise or as a means to hide his identity to get close to victims. That's it really. There isn't any further detail.

I actually don't think JK has any real understanding of the difference between a trans person, a "crossdresser" or an opportunistic person wearing female clothing. Her hideous portrayal of a trans person in her earlier novel shows a complete disregard for trans issues. They all have giant hairy hands you know.

Gruffalux

LLMMLL wrote: »

I actually don't think JK has any real understanding of the difference between a trans person, a "crossdresser" or an opportunistic person wearing female clothing. Her hideous portrayal of a trans person in her earlier novel shows a complete disregard for trans issues. They all have giant hairy hands you know.

I would say Rowling knows the difference. She is very smart, you know. A really clever, talented, successful woman.

You know, all the hideous people portrayed in novels and movies etc are all men or women or transgender people. Gasp, shudders! It's crazy. One man famously eats people in a movie. One woman makes coats out of dogs in a movie. Horrific. I know! Make it stop.

A transwoman will have large hands usually. And large feet. It goes with their biological reality and cannot be changed by surgery. I have read commonsense transwomen bemoaning how difficult it is to get nice shoes. If I was starring in a novel and disguised as a man Rowling would probably have to note the fact that there was some suspicious swelling under my trench coat where boobs might be because it would be a mighty and yet to be invented binder that would flatten these girls. She might note that I had small hands for someone purporting to be a man. Writers describe. It's their thing.

LLMMLL

Gruffalox wrote: »

I would say Rowling knows the difference. She is very smart, you know. A really clever, talented, successful woman.

You know, all the hideous people portrayed in novels and movies etc are all men or women or transgender people. Gasp, shudders! It's crazy. One man famously eats people in a movie. One woman makes coats out of dogs in a movie. Horrific. I know! Make it stop.

A transwoman will have large hands usually. And large feet. It goes with their biological reality and cannot be changed by surgery. I have read commonsense transwomen bemoaning how difficult it is to get nice shoes. If I was starring in a novel and disguised as a man Rowling would probably have to note the fact that there was some suspicious swelling under my trench coat where boobs might be because it would be a mighty and yet to be invented binder that would flatten these girls. She might note that I had small hands for someone purporting to be a man. Writers describe. It's their thing.

Disguised as a man? The character in question is trans. There's a difference between you disguising yourself as a man trying not to have your disguise revealed and portraying a trans person as desperately trying to avoid showing off their big hands while being taunted with rape threats. Pretty shocking that you can't see that.

if a writer writes something from the perspective of say genghis khan, what horrible crimes would they be assuming guilt for

its such blatant tripe to attack an author of fiction based on the fiction they write

whether that fits into a wider pattern of traits is a valid question, alright, but only where you're talking seriously bad behaviour in real life.

differing in your beliefs from trans rights extremists- and sticking to your beliefs despite abuse over it- does not come under the heading of "seriously bad behaviour in real life" for most people.

ohnonotgmail

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Except thats not what the book is about at all, apparently. Its a passing mention.



There are many works of fiction, and even real life cases, where male killers use women's clothes as a disguise or a fetish. It doesn't make them trans and it doesn't make it transphobic to use it as a plot device. This is getting ridiculous now.

to use it as a plot device twice? probably just a coincidence

Pac1Man

It's a book. Don't buy it is it's not to your taste.

ohnonotgmail

Pac1Man wrote: »

It's a book. Don't buy it is it's not to your taste.

Its a post on a message board. you're not obliged to read it.

LLMMLL

The FNG wrote: »

You've no right not to be offended. Stop being so fragile.

Who said anything about a right not to be offended. Im simply pointing out the evidence of JKs transphobia.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

The FNG wrote: »

You've no right not to be offended. Stop being so fragile.

Well, people can be offended. But nobody has to care about it thankfully.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

if a writer writes something from the perspective of say genghis khan, what horrible crimes would they be assuming guilt for

its such blatant tripe to attack an author of fiction based on the fiction they write

whether that fits into a wider pattern of traits is a valid question, alright, but only where you're talking seriously bad behaviour in real life.

differing in your beliefs from trans rights extremists- and sticking to your beliefs despite abuse over it- does not come under the heading of "seriously bad behaviour in real life" for most people.

These are all criteria you've made up. Why does someone have to display "serious bad behaviour" to draw conclusions from their writing themes? And who gets to decide what is seriously bad behaviour?

JK argues against trans rights while portraying trans characters as pathetic characters who when faced with danger can only think to hide their mannish hands, and deserving of rape threats. That's enough to draw a conclusion on how she views trans people.

LLMMLL

The FNG wrote: »

Yeah you're offended but so what? You being transgender makes you so unique and special that you can demand what others say and what authors can write?

Come on now, grow up, be a big boy and accept you can't control the world.

I haven't made any demands. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

LLMMLL

The FNG wrote: »

No you've just gone mental over a ****ing fictional character

Where did I go mental? Is pointing out someone's trabsphobia going mental now?

Gruffalux

LLMMLL wrote: »

These are all criteria you've made up. Why does someone have to display "serious bad behaviour" to draw conclusions from their writing themes? And who gets to decide what is seriously bad behaviour?

JK argues against trans rights while portraying trans characters as pathetic characters who when faced with danger can only think to hide their mannish hands, and deserving of rape threats. That's enough to draw a conclusion on how she views trans people.

I think you may be selectively ignoring the part in that novel where Pippa, the young transwoman character, had just stalked and then tried to violently drive a sharp implement into the body of Strike in order to, like, KILL him, and thus Strike, the detective character, was not feeling overly empathetic towards the young wee scamp. Character is an important word in this sentence. As is novel.

BattleCorp

LLMMLL wrote: »

I actually don't think JK has any real understanding of the difference between a trans person, a "crossdresser" or an opportunistic person wearing female clothing. Her hideous portrayal of a trans person in her earlier novel shows a complete disregard for trans issues. They all have giant hairy hands you know.

Why does a novelist need to show regard for trans issues in their books?

ohnonotgmail

BattleCorp wrote: »

Why does a novelist need to show regard for trans issues in their books?

if you insist on putting trans people in your books do a bit of homework first.