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

Lillyfae

Delaney Nice Salesclerk wrote: »

By that logic it’s just another misogynistic man.

Yes, exactly!

mazcon

Delaney Nice Salesclerk wrote: »

Alejandro isn’t trans according to Doctors.

'Acceptance without exception' innit?

One eyed Jack

Justin Credible Darts wrote: »

the woman JK Rowling backed was sacked "for believing in biology"...as basically what she did.

what next, sacked for believing in the theory of evolution ?

Or refusing to believe the Eath is flat ?

Maya Forstater wasn’t sacked by her former employer. Her contract with her employer ended, and they chose not to renew her contract. She claimed under the UK Equality Act that she was the victim of discrimination by her employer. So the Tribunal first had to establish whether what she claimed are her beliefs were entitled to the protection of the UK Equality Act, before they could make any determination as to whether or not her former employer could be found liable for discrimination under the Equality Act.

The Judge in the case determined that her beliefs did not amount to a protected characteristic under the Equality Act, and therefore she was not the victim of discrimination under the Act. It’s all here in the Judgement -


88. As set out above, I draw a distinction between belief and separate action based on the belief that may constitute harassment. However, if part of the belief necessarily will result in the violation of the dignity of others, that is a component of the belief, rather than something separate, and will be relevant to determining whether the belief is a protected philosophical belief. While the Claimant will as a matter of courtesy use preferred pronouns she will not as part of her belief ever accept that a trans woman is a woman or a trans man a man, however hurtful it is to others. In her response to the complaint made by her co-workers the Claimant sated “I have been told that it is offensive to say "transwomen are men" or that women means "adult human female". However since these statement are true I will continue to say them”.

89. When in an, admittedly very bitter, dispute with Gregor Murray, who alleged that they had been misgendered by the Claimant, rather than seeking to accommodate Gregor Murrays legitimate wishes she stated: “I had simply forgotten that this man demands to be referred to by the plural pronouns “they” and “them”, “Murray also calls it “transphobic” that I recognise a man when I see one. I disagree”, “In reality Murray is a man. It is Murray’s right to believe that Murray is not a man, but Murray cannot compel others to believe this.” and that “I reserve the right to use the pronouns “he” and “him” to refer to male people. While I may choose to use alternative pronouns as a courtesy, no one has the right to compel others to make statements they do not believe.”

90. I conclude from this, and the totality of the evidence, that the Claimant is absolutist in her view of sex and it is a core component of her belief that she will refer to a person by the sex she considered appropriate even if it violates their dignity and/or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. The approach is not worthy of respect in a democratic society.

91. I do not accept that this analysis is undermined by the decision of the Supreme Court in Lee v Ashers that persons should not be compelled to express a message with which they profoundly disagreed unless justification is shown. The Claimant could generally avoid the huge offense caused by calling a trans woman a man without having to refer to her as a woman, as it is often not necessary to refer to a person sex at all. However, where it is, I consider requiring the Claimant to refer to a trans woman as a woman is justified to avoid harassment of that person. Similarly, I do not accept that there is a failure to engage with the importance of the Claimant’s qualified right to freedom of expression, as it is legitimate to exclude a belief that necessarily harms the rights of others through refusal to accept the full effect of a Gender Recognition Certificate or causing harassment to trans women by insisting they are men and trans men by insisting they are women. The human rights balancing exercise goes against the Claimant because of the absolutist approach she adopts.

92. In respect of the belief that the Claimant contends she does not hold, that everyone has a gender which may be different to their sex at birth and which effectively trumps sex so that trans men are men and transwomen are women. I consider that this is a good example of why, at least in certain circumstances, one needs to apply the Grainger criteria to the lack of belief, rather than the alternative belief. Believing that a trans woman is a woman does not conflict with the approach of the European Court of Human Rights in Goodwin, or the Gender Recognition Act, or involve harassment. It does not face the same issue of incompatibility with human dignity and fundamental rights of others as the lack of that belief does because that lack of belief necessarily involves the view that trans women are men. The lack of belief fails to meet the Grainger criteria.

93. It is also a slight of hand to suggest that the Claimant merely does not hold the belief that transwomen are women. She positively believes that they are men; and will say so whenever she wishes. Put either as a belief or lack of belief, the view held by the Claimant fails the Grainger criteria and so she does not have the protected characteristic of philosophical belief.


Forstater v CGD Judgement

Quantum Erasure

Yeah but still, she was sacked, for believing in biology

Regis779

I used to look at her as one of the writers I would aspire to be like, but the way she likes to be loud about thing she may not know about much (and i mean political views too or just generally trending things that she manages to get herself involved into) is rather annoying in my eyes. She is trying to appear righteous and relevant but instead messes up big time

Gervais08

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

Yeah but still, she was sacked, for believing in biology

I’ve never skimmed through a post so fast!!

There’s a medical school near me, I would dearly love to take these blinkered TRAs into the fridge where they keep the specimens and go - “male - female and errr that’s it”.

Anything else is just your feelings and science doesn’t care about your feelings - or i could identify as a six foot Amazonian warrior!!!

Gervais08

Regis779 wrote: »

I used to look at her as one of the writers I would aspire to be like, but the way she likes to be loud about thing she may not know about much (and i mean political views too or just generally trending things that she manages to get herself involved into) is rather annoying in my eyes. She is trying to appear righteous and relevant but instead messes up big time

JKR isn’t the one trying to be “righteous” - she’s just trying to be rational in an an increasingly hysterical and antiscience world - and for someone who made her name inventing strange worlds, I’d say she finds TRAs more bizarre than anything she dreamed up.

ILoveYourVibes

What a mental drama queen.

She must be bi polar or something.

Gervais08

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

What a mental drama queen.

She must be bi polar or something.

Who ?

One eyed Jack

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

Yeah but still, she was sacked, for believing in biology

There’s no ‘but still’ about it? She wasn’t sacked, her contract was not renewed. If I hire a person on a term limited contract and that contract ends, I’m under no obligation to hire them again. It certainly doesn’t qualify as discrimination if I terminate their employment before the end of the contract because they are creating a hostile work environment for other employees within the organisation. Complaints about her behaviour were received by her employers from her co-workers, and she was given proper warning about her behaviour. She chose to continue in a way which gave her employer very little choice, and they were even generous in allowing her to see out the term of her current contract.

It’s a bit rich if I may say so to be complaining about other people’s attitudes to facts while ignoring the facts of this particular case to perpetuate ones own beliefs.

JoannaJag

The Maya Forstatder case has been widely misinterpreted As described above, including by Jk Rowling. It’s really unfortunate because a lot of people agree with both of them on wanting the right to openly believe males can’t be female and vice versa..

I think most people would use preferred pronouns where possible as a matter of courtesy - but being compelled to use preferred pronouns is jarring. For example, in a courtroom where the male has committed a violent assault against a woman (which also happened to Maya I think?). Day to day purposeful misgendering is provocative - probably the point.

Changing facts to suit never helps a cause.

JoannaJag

JoannaJag wrote: »

Day to day purposeful misgendering is provocative - probably the point.

Is it though? Genuine Trans people are an extreme minority in any country, so people should be forgiven for making mistakes. Any lack of patience is on the Trans person. Also people should be allowed to hold to their own convictions... the expectation that the majority to change for such a minority, and for something that is still relatively new for western societies, is unreasonable. --- which is also probably the point. [The Trans people I know don't demand recognition... which makes me think that those who do, are seeking attention and conflict]

Self-ID should be considered different to normal Trans groups, as it just confuses the overall situation. In any case, demanding others to use a chosen pronoun is fine, if that pronoun stays the same, but I know two people who have changed their pronoun a few times within a short period of time.

Changing facts to suit never helps a cause.

Except it does. It worked for feminism, and it will continue to work because people are increasingly uninterested in researching a subject for themselves... instead relying on "experts" or opinion type articles.

The aspect of the Trans argument that doesn't help the cause is the level of aggression that have become associated with it. It could be Trans people themselves acting in an aggressive manner (hormonal imbalances or other reasons), or the activist supporters who are intolerant of others opinions, who don't immediately declare Transgenderism as a wonderful state,.(this thread is very representative of that intolerance).

In the last two years, I've noticed more and more people becoming wary of even acknowledging the Trans topic, because it has become so aggressive and offensive. The lack of tolerance for a middle ground, or the impatience for acceptance to be given immediately has encouraged many to become fearful of the topic. It doesn't help that the Trans topic includes so many different issues, and is overly complicated.

Sir Oxman

I see Maya Forstater's name and case re-emerging on the thread.
Have a read.
https://medium.com/@MForstater/five-myths-and-truths-about-my-case-8466d69f9489

And here https://medium.com/@MForstater/claimants-witness-statement-abe3e8073b41 is her witness statement seeing as the obviously non-binding and IMO hugely flawed outcome of the Employment Tribunal case is quoted often without her own argument included or indeed, the facts of how she lost her job (UK Equality Act 2010)

Also:
"The judgment sets out (at 5.1 and 5.2) the question that was being asked in the preliminary hearing. It was not about pronouns or the specific situation of how I lost my job — it was simply about whether my belief that sex is real, immutable and important is a philosophical belief for the purpose of the Equality Act 2010 (and conversely whether other people’s belief that everyone has a gender identity which effectively trumps sex is also a philosophical belief). Questions about the specific circumstances in which I lost my job are for a further hearing."

Pronoun-in-bio professors, academics and assorted 'blue ticks' on Twitter have had to publicly apologise to Forstater for completely misrepresenting her case for purposes other than the truth.
C'est la vie.

And this was the beginning of the misogynistic, insane theoretical ideology cancel attempt of JKR tweet from last year juxtaposed with a reverse-ferret of gigantic proportions (since last week funnily enough)from Mermaids UK who were really promoting the JKR pile-on:

Gruffalux

Lots more people saying publicly that they would have signed the most recent letter supporting Rowling.

JoannaJag

Gruffalux wrote: »

Lots more people saying publicly that they would have signed the most recent letter supporting Rowling.

Yes I was very happy to see Tony Robinson and Anthony Horowitz supporting her. They feel safer to speak now.

JoannaJag

Ok my own understanding of Maya’s work situation was not complete. Thanks for posting the medium article. Has her appeal happened yet?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Gruffalux wrote: »

Lots more people saying publicly that they would have signed the most recent letter supporting Rowling.

That comes across a bit cowardly, IMO. They let others test for landmines.

Sir Oxman

JoannaJag wrote: »

Ok my own understanding of Maya’s work situation was not complete. Thanks for posting the medium article. Has her appeal happened yet?

I think it's due before end of year - ws meant to be summer but covid...
PS I wasn't pointing at you at all but once I saw a reply to a poster about Forstater I had a feeling facts weren't top of the list.:)

JoannaJag

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

That comes across a bit cowardly, IMO. They let others test for landmines.

It does - but I really don’t blame them. I have an author friend who has come under pressure to remove JK Rowling as a “friend” on Twitter. She has never said a word on the topic in public and has ignored the numerous messages “calling her out” for not removing her. But she’s smart and poor enough to keep her head down and I don’t blame her for that either.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

JoannaJag wrote: »

It does - but I really don’t blame them. I have an author friend who has come under pressure to remove JK Rowling as a “friend” on Twitter. She has never said a word on the topic in public and has ignored the numerous messages “calling her out” for not removing her. But she’s smart and poor enough to keep her head down and I don’t blame her for that either.

I know, it’s easy for me to judge but livelihoods are on the line. You can be well-known without being really flush too so the fear of being publicly upbraided must be very real. That’s why I admire Rowling. She’s speaking out because she knows others can’t.

I’ve actually seen a few tweets where people denounce their followers for supporting Rowling and other like-minded individuals. That’s insane, when you think about it. Trying to control who people follow? Creepy as hell. I have no idea who people I follow follow.

CtevenSrowder

Delaney Nice Salesclerk wrote: »

Alejandro isn’t trans according to Doctors.

It doesn't matter what doctors think. This is the whole problem with self I'd, anyone can do it. Nice to see you finally coming round to the problems associated with self Id.

Invidious

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I’ve actually seen a few tweets where people denounce their followers for supporting Rowling and other like-minded individuals. That’s insane, when you think about it. Trying to control who people follow? Creepy as hell. I have no idea who people I follow follow.

Having failed to silence Rowling herself, they're making lower-profile figures shy away from following her or speaking out in support of her. The logic is clear: anyone who associates with Rowling in any way (such as following her on social media, buying her books, or speaking positively about her in any context) must also be a transphobe who also deserves to be canceled.

It's remarkable that this mob of book-burning bullies actually thinks of itself as the "liberal" side in this scenario. They really should look the word up in the dictionary.

jaxxx

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

It doesn't matter what doctors think. This is the whole problem with self I'd, anyone can do it. Nice to see you finally coming round to the problems associated with self Id.

I self I.D as a dragon! You cannot tell me otherwise you dragonphobe!

jaxxx

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

That comes across a bit cowardly, IMO. They let others test for landmines.

I wouldn't say coward exactly. You can't blame people for fearing reprisal. I know JK has posted some pretty wacky stuff in recent years, but her determination to not back down or be intimidated for sticking to her guns and defending what it means to be a woman is amazing (incoming 'transphobe' accusations in 3.. 2.. 1..)

Invidious

jaxxx wrote: »

I wouldn't say coward exactly. You can't blame people for fearing reprisal.

"The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy."—Martin Luther King

Gruffalux

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

That comes across a bit cowardly, IMO. They let others test for landmines.

I think mostly they did not know. One person I follow is DM ing them to get them on another letter. They were not approached before.

jaxxx

Invidious wrote: »

"The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy."—Martin Luther King

I still wouldn't go about describing them as a coward though. The power of fear has a huge control over people. That being said, I think it's very dependent on the situation. Like if you saw someone being assaulted or something, and just walked away and ignored it then I'd consider you a coward. I'm not saying you should jump in and intervene, do if you can and there's not much risk to yourself. But if you can't, at least go get help, call 999, do something rather than nothing.

Gatling

jaxxx wrote: »

I self I.D as a dragon! You cannot tell me otherwise you dragonphobe!

Do you happen to a lady called daenerys by any chance

jaxxx

Gatling wrote: »

Do you happen to a lady called daenerys by any chance

1) I wish


2) G.O.T 'dragons' were not actually dragons, merely wyverns! (the show that is, I never read the books)


3) I'm 40% nerd

Airyfairy12

Out of all the celebrities who stood against JK Rowling im mostly shocked at Daniel Radcliffe & especially Emma watson who built a brand on feminism and supporting at risk women and girls. Not to mention, JK Rowling made Daniel Radcliffe and Emma Watson, they owe her their careers, considering neither of them can actually act and both have personalities like two wooden spoons, they would be nothing without her. How dare they?!