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

Rothko

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

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

Just another word that's been overused to the point of meaninglessness.

CtevenSrowder

LLMMLL wrote: »

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.

No it isn't. This is total rubbish.

LLMMLL

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

No it isn't. This is total rubbish.

Oh Cteven, it's completely uncontroversial and widely accepted. It's the basis for every class of English you ever took. But now it's being used to defend trans rights and suddenly there are screams of "FICTION IS JUST FICTION". Only on boards.

Gentlemanne

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

No it isn't. This is total rubbish.

It absolutely is and it's not controversial whatsoever to say to anyone who knows the bare minimum about literary analysis and criticism.

Gentlemanne

I wonder if in a different culutural context eighty years ago would ye be arguing about HP Lovecraft's use of racial slurs in his work not being any indication whatsoever of racist attitudes, because after all, he's just writing FICTION.

What an absurd notion that in some contexts the content of a creation might indicate something about a creators attitude!

iptba

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.

If this was the only example of talking about rape in male prisons one ever heard, it might suggest attitudes to transsexual people. However joking about rape in male prisons has been common for a long time. If it says anything, I’d say it is more about there being less of a concern for the safety of males than females in society.

Gervais08

Watching both Mrs America and Why Women Kill recently and I’m wondering why anyone would think it “progressive” to keep to that kind of gender stereotyping??? It’s outdated and garbage.

If you are a woman and you want to play sports, get dirty, wear “boyish” clothes etc - or for that matter be a man who wears pink, make up, cries openly, is “effeminate” (but I hate that word, it’s been used an insult too many times) then bloody go for it!!!

These nut jobs looking at a perfectly normal kid who just wants to be happy and getting them in therapy, medication and surgery ? Abuse. No other word for it.

Yes. transsexual people should have absolutely whatever rights non-transsexual people do. But people should allow their kids to be kids, whatever expression that takes.

And there is ZERO justification for allowing someone who has committed assaults on women into spaces for women only.

There have already been rapes and there will be more but you know - apparently it’s worse when it is written about being threatened by one made up person to another made up person than happening to a real live woman. Ffs.

jaxxx

Gervais08 wrote: »

Watching both Mrs America and Why Women Kill recently and I’m wondering why anyone would think it “progressive” to keep to that kind of gender stereotyping??? It’s outdated and garbage.

If you are a woman and you want to play sports, get dirty, wear “boyish” clothes etc - or for that matter be a man who wears pink, make up, cries openly, is “effeminate” (but I hate that word, it’s been used an insult too many times) then bloody go for it!!!

These nut jobs looking at a perfectly normal kid who just wants to be happy and getting them in therapy, medication and surgery ? Abuse. No other word for it.

Yes. transsexual people should have absolutely whatever rights non-transsexual people do. But people should allow their kids to be kids, whatever expression that takes.

And there is ZERO justification for allowing someone who has committed assaults on women into spaces for women only.

There have already been rapes and there will be more but you know - apparently it’s worse when it is written about being threatened by one made up person to another made up person than a real live woman. Ffs.

Just about the kids bit, the part of it all I find hugely immoral is how it's perfectly acceptable to use hormone blockers and stop a child's natural growth. It's just another big "f*ck you" to the natural world where we see ourselves as gods to do whatever the hell we so damn wish.

ceadaoin.

Gervais08 wrote: »

There have already been rapes and there will be more but you know - apparently it’s worse when it is written about being threatened by one made up person to another made up person than happening to a real live woman. Ffs.

Obviously the only logical response a short passage in a 6 year old book which portrays a fictional trans woman as an attempted murderer who is threatened by another fictional character with prison and possible rape there(unfortunately a common trope in movies and TV shows too), is to issue real life rape and death threats to the author. Thats fine and proportional isn't it?

LLMMLL

iptba wrote: »

If this was the only example of talking about rape in male prisons one ever heard, it might suggest attitudes to transsexual people. However joking about rape in male prisons has been common for a long time. If it says anything, I’d say it is more about there being less of a concern for the safety of males than females in society.

I agree to an extent. The male rape in prison thing used to be common. Law and order used to do it constantly but they wised up in 2008 and even had an episode entirely about how wrong it was. That's how outdated JK is.

And if JK had just threatened the character with prison rape I would say it's an example of this. She obviously doesn't view trans women as women, that's hardly surprising.

BUT JK does not just threaten the trans character with prison rape. She makes specific mention of her being trans and how it'll be soooo much worse for her because of this.

This is not just a case of the very outdated ****ty attitude to prison rape. This is a case of belittling the rape of trans people to a even greater extent.

Sand

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.

The main thing is that it doesn't really matter what the vast majority of ordinary people believe. They don't have institutional power, they are subject to it. Public opinion is shaped and formed by the media the consume and what they are taught to believe. Its the 'fringe' element that are setting the media narrative and setting the educational curriculum. They decide what the vast majority of people will believe.

I guess my main point is that people over the past 30-40 years have rolled their eyes and snorted in derision at the latest caper from the so called crazy radicals . And ignored it, safe in the belief those views would never catch on. Meanwhile the radicals have simply got on with implementing their views in media, academia, corporations and governments. There is a temptation to laugh at the irrational fixation on JKR by activists/extremists. But 'common sense' views will not naturally assert themselves somehow.

CtevenSrowder

LLMMLL wrote: »

Oh Cteven, it's completely uncontroversial and widely accepted. It's the basis for every class of English you ever took. But now it's being used to defend trans rights and suddenly there are screams of "FICTION IS JUST FICTION". Only on boards.

It is not widely accepted that fiction represents the views of the author. That is a ridiculous claim.

Sir Oxman

'The Balkanisation of culture into silos of unreason means that the responses have not followed what might be loosely called the pre-digital rules of discourse. These rules assume that the purpose of public debate is to discern truth and that interlocutors on opposing sides—a reductionist bifurcation, because, in fact, there are many sides—engage in argument because they are interested in something higher than themselves: an ideal of truth, no matter how complicated, multifaceted and evolving.'

'Three decades of postmodernism and ten years of Twitter have destroyed these conventions.'

'This is why the furore over Rowling’s blog post misses the point: whether we agree with her or not, the problem is the collapse of our capacity to disagree constructively. If you deal primarily in subjective experience and impulse-driven reaction, under the assumption that you occupy the undisputed moral high ground, and you’ve been incited by fake news and want to signal your allegiances to your social media friends, then you can’t engage in rational discussion with your opponent. Your stock in trade will be unsubstantiated accusations and social shaming.'

https://areomagazine.com/2020/06/23/an-apology-to-jk-rowling/
There's a handy link to JKR's actual words in the first paragraph of that piece.

PS
'The Social Dilemma' documentary is worth a watch/listen (once you get over the dramatised bits IMO) - the people who invented the algorithms that rule the digital world warn us that this will only get worse if enough people remain docile...

LLMMLL

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

It is not widely accepted that fiction represents the views of the author. That is a ridiculous claim.

It is very widely accepted. Have you ever seen an author being interviewed? Been at a literary festival? Read a book review? Taken an English class? All these things will show you how it is widely accepted that fiction reflects the author.

ceadaoin.

LLMMLL wrote: »

It is very widely accepted. Have you ever seen an author being interviewed? Been at a literary festival? Read a book review? Taken an English class? All these things will show you how it is widely accepted that fiction reflects the author.

omg someone needs to arrest Stephen King right away. He's clearly been up to all sorts of messed up stuff

Gervais08

ceadaoin. wrote: »

omg someone needs to arrest Stephen King right away. He's clearly been up to all sorts of messed up stuff

Thomas Harris bears watching too. clearly ðŸ˜

I’ve read some guff online but some things take the absolute cake eh ?

LLMMLL

ceadaoin. wrote: »

omg someone needs to arrest Stephen King right away. He's clearly been up to all sorts of messed up stuff

Nah he's great!

https://twitter.com/StephenKing/status/1277351371784818692?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">

Sheeps

He is a fiction writer.

Rothko

ceadaoin. wrote: »

omg someone needs to arrest Stephen King right away. He's clearly been up to all sorts of messed up stuff

Chuck Palahniuk is even worse.

Gruffalux

LLMMLL wrote: »

Nah he's great!

https://twitter.com/StephenKing/status/1277351371784818692?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">

You are with Stephen King who says Transwomen are women.
I believe you are a scientist.
Do you hold that transwomen are male or female? Scientifically speaking.

CtevenSrowder

Gruffalox wrote: »

You are with Stephen King who says Transwomen are women.
I believe you are a scientist.
Do you hold that transwomen are male or female? Scientifically speaking.

Here we go. Let's all brace ourselves. The next 20 pages are going to be rough reading

Gervais08

Transwomen are transwomen.

They are not women.

Source: Science..

jaxxx

Gervais08 wrote: »

Transwomen are transwomen.

They are not women.

Source: Science...nature/common sense

Fixed that for you :rolleyes:


I sympathise with those with gender dysphoria. But it needs to be recognised for what it is, and that is a mental condition. Sometimes our brains aren't in sync with reality. Take OCD for instance, which I have. Let's say I have €50 in my wallet. If I go to a shop and use it, once I leave the shop I'll need to check my money is in my wallet. Once I get into the car I need to check my money is still in my wallet. I know that my money is there, but there is something inside my mind that is telling me that there isn't. So I have to check up to 10 times before I'm truly satisfied that my money is still there. A very mild example there, but the point is that our brains can play tricks on us.


The fact is that we have no say or control in what we are. If there is such a thing as fate, then it is decided at the moment of our conception. What colour our eyes are, what colour our hair will be, how tall we'll be, etc; ALL of that is determined when that 1 single sperm out of hundreds of millions breaks through and fertilises the egg. In most cases, what develops is what I refer to as a biological standard, i.e. male and female. Life being life however, it is never one to conform to the rules all the time. Sometimes things won't go properly, sometimes small mutations might happen. This is what happens to those born intersex for example, or even those with down syndrome when they have a third copy of a certain chromosome.


My point is, we have no say in what we are, only in who we are and what we can do. Yes sh*t happens in life, but you need to get over it and be happy with what you have. Life is not supposed to be easy, life by definition is a struggle for survival. And too many people nowadays take the actual privilege of being a Homo sapien for granted. For the most part, we have little to worry about when compared to the rest of the animal kingdom. Yes that's not always the case, to this day there are many countries still in severe poverty with little food and even less clean water. Even in our own countries, homelessness is rampant. As I said, sh*t happens in life. Life isn't some simulation where we can pick out exactly what we want to happen to us, we have to play life with the cards we are dealt!

Btw.. .. .. if anyone genuinely thinks anything of the above is 'transphobic', then give a long hard look in the mirror because YOU are what's wrong with the world today.

seenitall

It would be truly depressing to believe that anyone really, truly thinks that transwomen are women. There would be no reason to have ever added ‘trans’ in front of the word woman, were that the case. For a start.

It’s just high-horse posturing and autocratic newspeak, denying biological reality. It will eventually go the way of all autocratic reality denials, but not before it’s wreaked its toxic damage onto societies.

So many people have such pliable, brainwashable brains. We used to be able to think for ourselves a bit more, didn’t we? When did that change, and why?

bilbot79

This thread, juxtaposed with repressive regimes like Iran with what they do to gay people, convinces me there is no political ground worth occupying other than the middle ground.

Flock with me to moderation.

Gruffalux

bilbot79 wrote: »

This thread, juxtaposed with repressive regimes like Iran with what they do to gay people, convinces me there is no political ground worth occupying other than the middle ground.

Flock with me to moderation.

I misread that as fcuk with me to moderation. And it still made sense. It is time to sleep.

LLMMLL

Gruffalox wrote: »

You are with Stephen King who says Transwomen are women.
I believe you are a scientist.
Do you hold that transwomen are male or female? Scientifically speaking.

Transwomen are female

Gruffalux

LLMMLL wrote: »

Transwomen are female

That is not possible. It is scientifically, biologically, realistically impossible. You are making a political statement that defies scientific truth and that is disquieting as you are a scientist
Transwomen are transwomen and good for them. They are entitled to all human rights and protections and respect.

LLMMLL

Gruffalox wrote: »

That is not possible. It is scientifically, biologically, realistically impossible. You are making a political statement that defies scientific truth and that is disquieting as you are a scientist
Transwomen are transwomen and good for them. They are entitled to all human rights and protections and respect.

Your dismissing of what I said shows a complete misunderstanding of science.

I do not believe that transwomen are "of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes."

Whether transwomen fall into the above category IS a scientific matter and if I made the claim that transwomen fall under that description then you could have an issue with my scientific credentials.

However what I am saying is that the above is not the definition of female and/or woman. Scientists have no right to ringfence a word, match it to a concept, and forbid everyone else from using the word in a different way.

If you believe that is a scientific matter then you're just completely mistaken.

Smacruairi

LLMMLL wrote: »

Your dismissing of what I said shows a complete misunderstanding of science.

I do not believe that transwomen are "of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes."

Whether transwomen fall into the above category IS a scientific matter and if I made the claim that transwomen fall under that description then you could have an issue with my scientific credentials.

However what I am saying is that the above is not the definition of female and/or woman. Scientists have no right to ringfence a word, match it to a concept, and forbid everyone else from using the word in a different way.

If you believe that is a scientific matter then you're just completely mistaken.

So if 999 people from many different disciplines, of all qualifications and expertise all agree on the meaning of the word, and you have an issue, then that's that?