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

BattleCorp

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

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

It's a work of fiction. What homework do you need to do?

Sir Oxman

Ireland appears to have it's very own (maybe more than one) Benjamin Button oops, Butterworth.
A burgeoning, albeit unintentional comedy career beckons - we all need a good laugh these days.

But please keep peaking the vast, vast majority of readers.

raclle

The FNG wrote: »

Because transgenders are now the sacred master race and we must never speak badly of them in any way.

And sadly this is becoming reality.

This thread is getting ridiculous. Is every little comment from now on going to become so offensive that's its blown out of proportion. Everyone has issues in their lives not just transgenders but cyber harassment is going a bit far.

BattleCorp

I don't see why a novelist writing a fictional novel can't portray anybody, including transgender people, in any light they see fit.

It's a fictional novel FFS.

patnor1011

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 am curious how do you feel about cancelling Alfred Hitchcock. You know, Psycho and all... That was some hideous stuff too and if J.K.Rowling is transphobic Alfred was most likely too.
There may be slight problem with cancelling Alfred considering he died 40 years ago but this here is a nice opportunity to vent some anger for activists who do have extra free time.

LLMMLL

Gruffalox wrote: »

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.

Ah so rape threats against trans people are ok as long as they tried to kill you. Gotcha. Would it be ok for J K to include a racial slur as well? I mean her main character being attacked excuses everything.

LLMMLL

The FNG wrote: »

What do you hope to achieve by pointing out this 'transphobia'?

I hope to achieve the highlighting of J Ks transphibia.

LLMMLL

BattleCorp wrote: »

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

They don't need to do anything. However conclusions can even drawn from the derogatory way they portray trans characters.

BattleCorp

LLMMLL wrote: »

Ah so rape threats against trans people are ok as long as they tried to kill you. Gotcha. Would it be ok for J K to include a racial slur as well? I mean her main character being attacked excuses everything.

Apologies, I haven't read the full thread, only the last page or so but are you seriously arguing about how someone was portrayed/acted in a fictional book?

looks like somebody is seriously femaleauthorphobic

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

looks like somebody is seriously femaleauthorphobic

Considering my favourite author is female I'd say that's a no

BattleCorp

LLMMLL wrote: »

They don't need to do anything. However conclusions can even drawn from the derogatory way they portray trans characters.

So fcuking what if they portray a trans character in a negative way. Seriously.

I've news for you. Trans people aren't special. If you can portray black, white, straight, tall, fat or skinny people in a derogatory way, you can do the same with trans people.

Quantum Erasure

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.

what makes you say this?

(I'm sure most trans women still have masculine features, even giant hairy hands, or should trans women be ultra feminine looking)

LLMMLL

BattleCorp wrote: »

So fcuking what if they portray a trans character in a negative way. Seriously.

I've news for you. Trans people aren't special. If you can portray black, white, straight, tall, fat or skinny people in a derogatory way, you can do the same with trans people.

Uh people who portray a black person Ina. Derogatory way would commonly be called racists.

Quantum Erasure

LLMMLL wrote: »

Considering my favourite author is female I'd say that's a no

I'm not a racist, my best friend is black....

Quantum Erasure

BattleCorp wrote: »

If you can portray black, white, straight, tall, fat or skinny people in a derogatory way, you can do the same with trans people.

I was going to say, it won't be long till till that kind of thing isn't allowed any more....

Gervais08

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

what makes you say this?

(I'm sure most trans women still have masculine features, even giant hairy hands, or should trans women be ultra feminine looking)

The transsexual (her word of choice, please respect it) lady I was talking about yesterday takes a size 12 shoe and is over six feet tall.

She finds these sensitive doilies getting offended on her “behalf” hilarious. In her words “my bits may be a foo foo now but I’m built like a prop forward and hips and boobs won’t change that”.

I think we should listen to people who have suffered for their life now - not well meaning but naïve fools getting their knickers in a twist over a book.

BattleCorp

LLMMLL wrote: »

Uh people who portray a black person Ina. Derogatory way would commonly be called racists.

Eh, no.

People who say racist things about a black person are racist. People who discriminate against a black person are racist.

Do you not know the difference between someone writing a story and someone doing the stuff in the previous two sentences?

Do you look at movies and think that every single writer who writes about black gangs or black criminals is racist because he/she/they portray them in a derogatory way?

Is Roddy Doyle racist because he portrayed Irish people in a negative light by having Charlo be a wife beater in the series The Family?

I don't know you from Adam but you seem to struggle between fiction and reality.

LLMMLL

BattleCorp wrote: »

Eh, no.

People who say racist things about a black person are racist. People who discriminate against a black person are racist.

Do you not know the difference between someone writing a story and someone doing the stuff in the previous two sentences?

Do you look at movies and think that every single writer who writes about black gangs or black criminals is racist because he/she/they portray them in a derogatory way?

Is Roddy Doyle racist because he portrayed Irish people in a negative light by having Charlo be a wife beater in the series The Family?

I don't know you from Adam but you seem to struggle between fiction and reality.

Nope but if Charlo was portrayed as beating his wife BECAUSE of his irishness then yes that would be racist.

The character of Pippa is portrayed as pathetic in light of her transness. Her main concern while she is taunted with assault/rape threats (specifically based on her being trans) is to hide her presumably mannish hands.

4068ac1elhodqr

Just heard the other day that she has a very random but specific tattoo on her wrist, the Latin phrase “Solve et Coagula” which means “dissolve and coagulate”.

Solve et Coagula expresses transmutation from base to a finer state (from alchemy and occult witchcraft), the image representation of such a phrase points to a goaty type with big horns and all that jazz. Others suggest it points to spiritual technology, and to actual trans-humanism, and even some more specifically to a free-masonic cult of Sabbatic Goat (where it is also tattoed on both goat arms).

While I agree all the jizz about 'trans-gender' can be slightly woke, it seems on the other hand, she's all for 'trans-humanism', which is a bigger 'step up' in such gameplay.

She sure is an interesting 'hocus pocus occulty charachter'
https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=solve+et+coagula&qpvt=Solve+et+Coagula&form=IGRE&first=1&scenario=ImageBasicHover

Also...
Archbishop Viganò, the former Papal Nuncio to Washington DC, published an open letter to President Donald Trump quoting a warning of and using the same JK Rowling phrase of “Solve et Coagula” claiming that pandemic misinformation and unrest in the cities are signs of a Deep State and a Deep Church inspired by forces of darkness.

There ye go, all very Harry Potter.

LLMMLL

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

I'm not a racist, my best friend is black....

That's kinda hilarious given the amount of people on this thread who "have a trans friend who has no time for all this trans rights stuff". Mmhmmm

BattleCorp

LLMMLL wrote: »

Nope but if Charlo was portrayed as beating his wife BECAUSE of his irishness then yes that would be racist.

The character of Pippa is portrayed as pathetic in light of her transness. Her main concern while she is taunted with assault/rape threats (specifically based on her being trans) is to hide her presumably mannish hands.

Once again, so what? It's a fictional story. You seem to have difficulty grasping that it's a fictional story. Fictional = made up.

I'm well aware that transgender people face difficulties in everyday life but arguing over how a fictional character acts in a fictional book is absolutely ridiculous in my opinion.

Anyway, I've said my piece. Bye bye.

BattleCorp

LLMMLL wrote: »

That's kinda hilarious given the amount of people on this thread who "have a trans friend who has no time for all this trans rights stuff". Mmhmmm

Sorry, one last thing.

How a trans character is portrayed in a fictional book has absolutely nothing to do with trans rights.

Anyway, for real this time, I'm out.

Quantum Erasure

I'm surprised there hasn't been more backlash against The Silence of The Lambs....

Gervais08

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

I'm surprised there hasn't been more backlash against The Silence of The Lambs....

“Billy isn’t a transsexual but he fancies himself as one..’ - H Lecter, Psych

Quantum Erasure

Gervais08 wrote: »

“Billy isn’t a transsexual but he fancies himself as one..’ - H Lecter, Psych

I know, and yet I'm still surprised

LLMMLL

BattleCorp wrote: »

Sorry, one last thing.

How a trans character is portrayed in a fictional book has absolutely nothing to do with trans rights.

Anyway, for real this time, I'm out.

Actually it does. When written by an author who argues against trans rights while pretending her views are based in reason and not on tranaphobia.

Her books expose that her views are based on transphobia.

Gervais08

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

I know, and yet I'm still surprised

Wouldn’t it be discriminatory if transgender people were not allowed to be villains in popular culture ??

jaxxx

LLMMLL wrote: »

Actually it does. When written by an author who argues against trans rights while pretending her views are based in reason and not on tranaphobia.

Her books expose that her views are based on transphobia.

She's not f*cking transphobic... do the world a favour and get a f*cking grip on reality.


What was it she said several months back? "Only women can menstruate"? Err, well she ain't wrong! That's not being transphobic, that's stating a fact, a biological fact.



Humans cannot biologically/naturally undergo a change in their sex. Clownfish are probably the most well known species for changing sex. They live in large schools. When the dominant female dies, the dominant male undergoes change and becomes the dominant female. Then another fish becomes the dominant male. That's their biology, as is the case in pretty much all classes of the animal kingdom except for mammals. There are no known mammals that can change their sex like the other classes of animals [feel free to correct me if I'm wrong]. That is not transphobic, that is a biological fact. QED: stop looking to take offense from something where offense is not given.

LLMMLL

jaxxx wrote: »

She's not f*cking transphobic... do the world a favour and get a f*cking grip on reality.


What was it she said several months back? "Only women can menstruate"? Err, well she ain't wrong! That's not being transphobic, that's stating a fact, a biological fact.



Humans cannot biologically/naturally undergo a change in their sex. Clownfish are probably the most well known species for changing sex. They live in large schools. When the dominant female dies, the dominant male undergoes change and becomes the dominant female. Then another fish becomes the dominant male. That's their biology, as is the case in pretty much all classes of the animal kingdom except for mammals. There are no known mammals that can change their sex like the other classes of animals [feel free to correct me if I'm wrong]. That is not transphobic, that is a biological fact. QED: stop looking to take offense from something where offense is not given.

She threatens her trans character with rape because she is trans.