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

jaxxx

LLMMLL wrote: »

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

So if she threatened her non trans character with rape then it'd be okay then? The hypocrisy of you lot is insane, it really is.

*you lot not referring to trans people, more so so-called trans "allies" who actually do more harm than good for their so called cause.

Edit: just to add, I have no problem with trans people; just all these fascists who jump on the bandwagon simply because they've nothing better to do other than being offended at the slightest thing.

LLMMLL

jaxxx wrote: »

So if she threatened her non trans character with rape then it'd be okay then? The hypocrisy of you lot is insane, it really is.

*you lot not referring to trans people, more so so-called trans "allies" who actually do more harm than good for their so called cause.

Edit: just to add, I have no problem with trans people; just all these fascists who jump on the bandwagon simply because they've nothing better to do other than being offended at the slightest thing.

No it wouldn't be ok to threaten a non trans character with rape. And she didn't do that ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Sand

LLMMLL wrote: »

I hope to achieve the highlighting of J Ks transphibia.

All that is being highlighted is an irrational fear/hatred of J.K. Rowling.

LLMMLL

Sand wrote: »

All that is being highlighted is an irrational fear/hatred of J.K. Rowling.

I must admit, I am JKphobic

Gervais08

LLMMLL wrote: »

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

No, she threatens a fictional character with rape because he assaults a woman - literally what happens in books and films (and life, often) when a rapist is convicted. During the Ulster rugby players’ trial one “protestor” said “when they’re convicted I hope their cell mate is a 20 stone sex crazed monster.”

It’s crass yeah, but it’s not “transphobic”.

look

its a bit of a loop here

but when "transphobic" is essentially defined as "anyone who disagrees with me about how transphobia is defined" then the whole conversation is a hiding to nothing.

and i really dont think that that style of "death by aggressive definition" has been a positive development for trans rights discussion, gay rights, the fight against racism, gender rights, class rights.

its been probably 15 years (in my observation) or so since this stuff started to bleed into everyday discussion across many of the above struggles.

and the extremist-in-an-argument as activist role has exploded now that social media is the ground where these discussions seem to mainly occur.

but im more and more convinced that the arenas with the most distance and least connection between those involved are the very last places for progress to be made- *real* progress, not ****in k-pop stans screaming yasss queeens in their millions at gifs or, relevantly, millions of people attacking a fairly untalented and disturbingly salty rich author.

entire realms where you only get encouraged into the extremities of your own opinion or, conversely, where you get to speak to those you disagree with in any way you wish with only the slightest of repercussions in the real world, have pushed online discourse into an explosive spectrum where at the slightest hint of a disparate view on a topic too many either shut down with a rush to lock the other into a prefabricated response pattern or escalate immediately into no-going-back insults

the vagueness around what any one person means around "trans rights" or "transphobia" makes them both too strong and too weak terms to throw around, but one thing is for sure- as we've seen with racist, misogynist, homophobic before them, the terms soon cease to have any real impact beyond ending any useful discourse when they are flung around in situations where many people aren't going to agree with their use.

seems a self-defeating approach to me anyway. real progress (whatever that looks like) is not as easy as alienating the normies.

jam_mac_jam

LLMMLL wrote: »

No it wouldn't be ok to threaten a non trans character with rape. And she didn't do that ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

She didn't threaten anyone with rape. A character in a book did. Novels are going to become very boring if everyone has to be nice to each other.

It's a character, there are the most deplorable characters in some of the best books. If the characters are racist or homophobic or transphobic then they will say as much.

Maybe the policeman would have made the same comment to a young man. Still a disgusting thing to say but maybe the policeman in the books is not a very nice person.

LLMMLL

Gervais08 wrote: »

No, she threatens a fictional character with rape because he assaults a woman - literally what happens in books and films (and life, often) when a rapist is convicted. During the Ulster rugby players’ trial one “protestor” said “when they’re convicted I hope their cell mate is a 20 stone sex crazed monster.”

It’s crass yeah, but it’s not “transphobic”.

It is trabsphobic as it's not just a threat. It's a threat based on the individual being trans. He refers to prison being particularly bad for her considering she's "pre-op".

Gruffalux

LLMMLL wrote: »

It is trabsphobic as it's not just a threat. It's a threat based on the individual being trans. He refers to prison being particularly bad for her considering she's "pre-op".

This is maybe going to be shocking to you but in her other books Rowling has a small boy being confined to living in a tiny cupboard, acting as a servant for his keepers, and that boy has a scar because an evil wizard tried to kill him when he was a baby, while killing the baby's parents in front of him. I think Rowling really hates boys.

tritriagain

To kill a mockingbird should never have been written if these rules apply. It would be considered racist, sexist and whatever ist all the permanently offended constantly get worked up over.

CtevenSrowder

BattleCorp wrote: »

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.

It all reminds me of a video I saw of a priest complaining about the portrayal of Jesus in Monty Pythons film The Life of Brian on a talk show in the UK in the 70's or 80's.

It's bizarre how things have flipped.

CtevenSrowder

LLMMLL wrote: »

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

No, they can't.

CtevenSrowder

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.

The poster in question doesn't understand the definition of female. You are wasting your time.

Sand

tritriagain wrote: »

To kill a mockingbird should never have been written if these rules apply. It would be considered racist, sexist and whatever ist all the permanently offended constantly get worked up over.

To kill a mockingbird is considered racist. It's a story of racism told from a white perspective with a 'white savior' character. Hence racist. In the modern paradigm, whites may be sometimes portrayed as allies, but even then the non-whites must be seen to liberate themselves from whites. Any dependency on whites -well meaning or otherwise - is problematic.

randomchild

Sand wrote: »

To kill a mockingbird is considered racist. It's a story of racism told from a white perspective with a 'white savior' character. Hence racist. In the modern paradigm, whites may be sometimes portrayed as allies, but even then the non-whites must be seen to liberate themselves from whites. Any dependency on whites -well meaning or otherwise - is problematic.

Dear lord. Demanding art that cover certain topics only have the point of view of a certain race is racism. Saying that a novel showing a white man struggling against the prejudices of his peers is suffering under those same prejudices per se is frankly ludicrous.

Danzy

Sand wrote: »

To kill a mockingbird is considered racist. It's a story of racism told from a white perspective with a 'white savior' character. Hence racist. In the modern paradigm, whites may be sometimes portrayed as allies, but even then the non-whites must be seen to liberate themselves from whites. Any dependency on whites -well meaning or otherwise - is problematic.

This has to be trolling.
If not I frankly worry for you.

That's some righteous stricture you have put on yourself.

Sand

Danzy wrote: »

This has to be trolling.
If not I frankly worry for you.

That's some righteous stricture you have put on yourself.

Oh it's not my belief. I'm just explaining that 'the rules' tritriagain mentioned do indeed apply. A book like TKAMB if written today would be considered hugely problematic. So criticism of JKR isnt unusual.

volchitsa

Sand wrote: »

Oh it's not my belief. I'm just explaining that 'the rules' tritriagain mentioned do indeed apply. A book like TKAMB if written today would be considered hugely problematic. So criticism of JKR isnt unusual.

It might well be, by some - but if so I think it's more an illustration of how dumb people will always misunderstand the nuances of the very cause they think they're defending.

TKAMB is about how the justice system discriminated against black men. A black lawyer would have been most unusual in those courts, and inventing one would have weakened the whole point of the story.

Whereas if you take, say, "The Help", by making the main character a young white woman who goes into black homes and incites black women to speak up, that's not a fair representation of the civil rights movement. There were of course many whites in it, but they weren't going in as heroes helping the more childlike blacks to organise and to be heard.

Sand

volchitsa wrote: »

It might well be, by some - but if so I think it's more an illustration of how dumb people will always misunderstand the nuances of the very cause they think they're defending.

TKAMB is about how the justice system discriminated against black men. A black lawyer would have been most unusual in those courts, and inventing one would have weakened the whole point of the story.

Whereas if you take, say, "The Help", by making the main character a young white woman who goes into black homes and incites black women to speak up, that's not a fair representation of the civil rights movement. There were of course many whites in it, but they weren't going in as heroes helping the more childlike blacks to organise and to be heard.

Its a mistake to think the analysis is some fringe element with a blog no one reads which can be safely ignored by the silent majority with common sense. Google either the book or Atticus Finch with phrases like 'problematic' or 'white savior' and you will see article after article after article in NY times, New Yorker, LA Times, Washington Post etc criticizing TKAMB.

People who launch attacks on JKR aren't licking it off a stone. Hyper-criticism of any slight to 'progressive' interests, real or imagined, is the paradigm the US and by extension the rest of the world is operating on.

Sir Oxman

Sand wrote: »

Oh it's not my belief. I'm just explaining that 'the rules' tritriagain mentioned do indeed apply. A book like TKAMB if written today would be considered hugely problematic. So criticism of JKR isnt unusual.

Yep, welcome to the insidious world of critical race/gender/queer/social justice theory.


As seen from the past few thread pages only a coddled, performative mindset could agree with the j'accusers here!
It would be extremely kind to describe them as people with good intentions but very bad ideas.

jaxxx

Sir Oxman wrote: »

Yep, welcome to the insidious world of critical race/gender/queer/social justice theory.


As seen from the past few thread pages only a coddled, performative mindset could agree with the j'accusers here!
It would be extremely kind to describe them as people with good intentions but very bad ideas.

It's the same with that cultural appropriation BS. Adele was harassed online a few weeks back for wearing a bikini with a Jamaican flag and doing her up in a Jamaican style AT some Jamaican festival in London. A young woman in America (in Philadelphia I think, can't quite remember) was harassed because she loves Irish dancing, and is damn well good at it too! Seems more like 'cultural appreciation' to me (or anyone with a logical thinking mind.. .. ..) - she was African American btw, which shouldn't make any difference whatsoever unless you're one of these SJW fascists.


Halloween's coming soon: are all these SJWs gonna be looking around for young kids dressing up as Moana from the Disney movie, accusing them of cultural appropriation of Polynesian culture, or dressing up as Mulan perhaps??



Pathetic, isn't it? This whole philosophy of desperately fabricating offense from something where no offense was actually intended or even actually caused.

Gervais08

jaxxx wrote: »

It's the same with that cultural appropriation BS. Adele was harassed online a few weeks back for wearing a bikini with a Jamaican flag and doing her up in a Jamaican style AT some Jamaican festival in London. A young woman in America (in Philadelphia I think, can't quite remember) was harassed because she loves Irish dancing, and is damn well good at it too! Seems more like 'cultural appreciation' to me (or anyone with a logical thinking mind.. .. ..) - she was African American btw, which shouldn't make any difference whatsoever unless you're one of these SJW fascists.


Halloween's coming soon: are all these SJWs gonna be looking around for young kids dressing up as Moana from the Disney movie, accusing them of cultural appropriation of Polynesian culture, or dressing up as Mulan perhaps??



Pathetic, isn't it? This whole philosophy of desperately fabricating offense from something where no offense was actually intended or even actually caused.

I genuinely got asked before the lockdown was i offended by tourists worldwide dressing as leprechauns on Paddy’s Day!!!

I had to laugh and point out we’re not assholes!!!!

I’d love to know what these halfwits slagging off JKR etc think of the excellent programme at the moment “We’re Here”.

It’s super supportive and empowering of the gay and lesbian community in some horribly conservative towns, but - OH THE HORRORS!!! - features drag.

raclle

Dear god the world has gone to ****

LLMMLL

tritriagain wrote: »

To kill a mockingbird should never have been written if these rules apply. It would be considered racist, sexist and whatever ist all the permanently offended constantly get worked up over.

It's very telling you have to go back to the 1960s to find an equivalent novel to JKs musings.

JKs writings, like her transphobia-laced pull-the-ladder-up-after-me feminism is just as outdated.

BattleCorp

LLMMLL thinks that there is no difference between a fictional character in a book threatening to rape someone and a real life person threatening to rape someone.

You can't have a rational debate with someone who thinks like that.

JK Rowling's character is not real. It's a story. Fictional. A fictional character's actions are not real.

Seriously, if you are going to protest about things, protest about real things, not the actions of a fictional character.

Protesting over stupid sh1t like this will only turn people off and they'll view you as if you are a crackpot who complains over nothing (which to be honest I do), and if they view you as a crackpot, you'll lose their support when it comes to real trans issues.

hatrickpatrick

Sand wrote: »

Its a mistake to think the analysis is some fringe element with a blog no one reads which can be safely ignored by the silent majority with common sense. Google either the book or Atticus Finch with phrases like 'problematic' or 'white savior' and you will see article after article after article in NY times, New Yorker, LA Times, Washington Post etc criticizing TKAMB.

People who launch attacks on JKR aren't licking it off a stone. Hyper-criticism of any slight to 'progressive' interests, real or imagined, is the paradigm the US and by extension the rest of the world is operating on.

The very type of people who use the word “problematic” to refer to art in this manner are cultural authoritarians, and they are a fringe element in society. They just happen to be a fringe element which has been bestowed with an enormous amount of sociopolitical power by the media and academia alike, for reasons I still don’t fully understand but if I had to guess, boil very simply down to the fact that outrageous bullish!t sells advertising revenue.

The vast majority of ordinary people don’t agree with any of this crap that they peddle.

LLMMLL

BattleCorp wrote: »

LLMMLL thinks that there is no difference between a fictional character in a book threatening to rape someone and a real life person threatening to rape someone.

You can't have a rational debate with someone who thinks like that.

JK Rowling's character is not real. It's a story. Fictional. A fictional character's actions are not real.

Seriously, if you are going to protest about things, protest about real things, not the actions of a fictional character.

Protesting over stupid sh1t like this will only turn people off and they'll view you as if you are a crackpot who complains over nothing (which to be honest I do), and if they view you as a crackpot, you'll lose their support when it comes to real trans issues.

Complete misrepresentation of my views.

There is a difference between a fictional characters sayings and a real persons.

However, how an author portrays people in their writing gives insights into their views.

The character in question is the hero of the novel. Can you honestly imagine him threatening a cis female character that she's going to get raped?

We both know that the only person who any novelist would have threaten a cis female character with rape is the lowest of the low psychopathic villain of the novel.

For some reason, those rules don't apply to trans people for JK Rowling.

Her hero character is fully entitled to threaten a trans character with getting raped. It's not portrayed as a fatal flaw. It's portrayed as a completely acceptable thing to say to a trans person by her hero character as he triumphs.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The very type of people who use the word “problematic” to refer to art in this manner are cultural authoritarians, and they are a fringe element in society. They just happen to be a fringe element which has been bestowed with an enormous amount of sociopolitical power by the media and academia alike, for reasons I still don’t fully understand but if I had to guess, boil very simply down to the fact that outrageous bullish!t sells advertising revenue.

The vast majority of ordinary people don’t agree with any of this crap that they peddle.

I used to like the word 'problematic'. Now I cannot bear to even hear it uttered.

Gervais08

LLMMLL wrote: »

Complete misrepresentation of my views.

There is a difference between a fictional characters sayings and a real persons.

However, how an author portrays people in their writing gives insights into their views.

The character in question is the hero of the novel. Can you honestly imagine him threatening a cis female character that she's going to get raped?

We both know that the only person who any novelist would have threaten a cis female character with rape is the lowest of the low psychopathic villain of the novel.

For some reason, those rules don't apply to trans people for JK Rowling.

Her hero character is fully entitled to threaten a trans character with getting raped. It's not portrayed as a fatal flaw. It's portrayed as a completely acceptable thing to say to a trans person by her hero character as he triumphs.

I’m just about to start reading the new Jo Nesbo.

On your “rationale” he should be locked up as clearly he thinks it’s fine to kill women.

Or he’s an author and you know ITS FICTION!!!

LLMMLL

Gervais08 wrote: »

I’m just about to start reading the new Jo Nesbo.

On your “rationale” he should be locked up as clearly he thinks it’s fine to kill women.

Or he’s an author and you know ITS FICTION!!!

And all fiction is capable of giving insights into the culture into which it was written. And the attitudes of the author who wrote it.

Do male characters never get killed in a Jo Nesbo book? If not I'd be like "that's a bit odd”. If Jo Nesbo also wrote anti-women polemics on twitter is be like “oh that’s more than a bit odd. Makes sense now”.

However I’m guessing a wide range of people are actually killed in a Jo Nesbo book and your argument is completely based on misunderstanding what I’m saying.