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

suicide_circus

Dante7 wrote: »

This Trans activist sums up their argument. This is what the fight is about. Choose you sides wisely.

https://twitter.com/biggaypaul92/status/1269593417480310784?s=20

could you copy n paste the text of the tweet into a post?

Dante7

suicide_circus wrote: »

could you copy n paste the text of the tweet into a post?

The bearded wokebro has since locked his account, but this is what he tweeted.

"I've answered it!! If a teenager doesn't want to change somewhere then they shouldn't have to be forced to! But that doesn't mean you can kick trans women out of the changing area. If a teenager is uncomfortable, they can leave. There's my answer! Smiling faceSmiling face"

suicide_circus

can see why he locked his account!

iguana

storker wrote:

I don't disagree with Ms Rowling, but she does seem to have become a bit of a rent-a-quote, making pronunciations as if they carry additional weight because they come from her. Perhaps I'm being unfair; she may just see herself as a just another Twitter user giving her opinion, to which she's certainly entitled, and the "weight" is attributed to her her statements not by her but by others (I'm looking at lazy mainstream hack "journalists") She's an author, that's it. Anyone who thinks this makes her more right about something needs to read up on the Appeal to Unqualified Authority fallacy. As it happens I agree with her, but I agreed with her before she said anything, not because of it.

Right so I don't follow twitter, haven't read any of Rowling's books and have only seen the first Potter movie and a Fantastics Beast movie, both of which bored me. So I may not be the best person to answer this but this is how I understand it. A few years back I read an article on the feminist sci-fi fandom site, The MarySue. I can't remember exactly what the article was about, something about Rowling or her work. But I do remember the comment section being full of the most hateful comments about her because on Twitter she was following a trans-woman who was critical of trans-activism. Rowling may even have liked one of her tweets.

Some of the comments about her were genuinely disturbing. As far as I can tell from around that time Rowling has been increasingly vilified, called a TERF and worse. Whatever she said or did about anything drew these comments on her. I've been on parenting sites or hobby sites and if someone mentions Harry Potter, someone will inevitably pop up to educate everyone that Rowling is bad now. To the best of my knowledge (and I could be completely wrong) Rowling ignored it all for ages. But in the last few months has made a number of tweets about it and every time she does, twitter goes nuts. So I don't think it's that Rowling herself thinks herself a great authority on the matter but that she just got fed up with being vilified.

Dyr

This is what happens when a large section of society places itself in ideological thrall to a zealot cult. Obedience to the cult no matter how extreme the position. In fact, the more extreme the better, as it will encourage obedience above all else, even rational thought.

In this country, you think we would have learned from the Catholic Churchs heyday.

spurious

Pherekydes wrote: »

My point was that many people who don't menstruate are women.

Most of the non-menstruating women are not trans women.
None of the trans women menstruate.
Does that cover it?

I think that the point that she is making is that one needs a womb to menstruate.

suicide_circus

spurious wrote: »

Most of the non-menstruating women are not trans women.
None of the trans women menstruate.
Does that cover it?

Getting into semantics and the ancillary minutia is a diversionary tactic; it's the central tenet that is untrue. It falls at the first hurdle.

Gruffalux

I think the point is not so much about a womb as lots of women don't have wombs, but when NGOs or public bodies seem to stumble over language re female processes it all gets rather weird. Rowling being a writer knows the power of manipulating language and words. Casting the spell by repeating the incantation "transwomen are women" has resulted in mesmerised public figures who are repeating this obviously incorrect set of words.
To help those people or organisations who may be befuddled -
The people who menstruate are women.
The people who give birth are women.
The people who have cervixes are women.
Etc.


It is just too weird.

Sheeps

The issue is the sheer intollerence from people who are labelling what she said as "hate".

suicide_circus

Sheeps wrote: »

The issue is the sheer intollerence from people who are labelling what she said as "hate".

When we don't have logic on our side, our only recourse is emotional.

Mad_maxx

Bambi wrote: »

This is what happens when a large section of society places itself in ideological thrall to a zealot cult. Obedience to the cult no matter how extreme the position. In fact, the more extreme the better, as it will encourage obedience above all else, even rational thought.

In this country, you think we would have learned from the Catholic Churchs heyday.

WOKE,ism is the new religon in ireland , the media - progressive left SJW,ers have replaced the bishops in terms of telling us how to think

AllGunsBlazing

I'm guessing she's given up on trying to tap into the woke demographic in order to flog a few more of her children's books.

Didn't she imply that some of the characters in the Harry Potter series were sexually ambiguous or something? The whole thing reeked of opportunism imo.

Ficheall

The topic in general is one I try to ignore, but JK definitely went seeking to provoke.



If I wrote an article about toilets called "An article for people who poop", and someone commented that it should just be called "An article for people", I think I'd be justifiably of the opinion that said person was either trolling, an idiot, or a terrible writer.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

iguana wrote: »

Right so I don't follow twitter, haven't read any of Rowling's books and have only seen the first Potter movie and a Fantastics Beast movie, both of which bored me. So I may not be the best person to answer this but this is how I understand it. A few years back I read an article on the feminist sci-fi fandom site, The MarySue. I can't remember exactly what the article was about, something about Rowling or her work. But I do remember the comment section being full of the most hateful comments about her because on Twitter she was following a trans-woman who was critical of trans-activism. Rowling may even have liked one of her tweets.

Some of the comments about her were genuinely disturbing. As far as I can tell from around that time Rowling has been increasingly vilified, called a TERF and worse. Whatever she said or did about anything drew these comments on her. I've been on parenting sites or hobby sites and if someone mentions Harry Potter, someone will inevitably pop up to educate everyone that Rowling is bad now. To the best of my knowledge (and I could be completely wrong) Rowling ignored it all for ages. But in the last few months has made a number of tweets about it and every time she does, twitter goes nuts. So I don't think it's that Rowling herself thinks herself a great authority on the matter but that she just got fed up with being vilified.

Like you, iguana, I am no Rowling fangirl. I’ve never read any of her books nor seen any of her films. And I’m very aware that she is as much of a layperson as anyone else on this topic. I don’t put her on a pedestal.

But she is saying things that so many of us agree with and I think she is realising that she has fuck off money and so is insulated and the ugly accusations towards her in the last week or so seem to have been the final straw for her. I think she’s realised that she’s in a position where she can empower others.

I do admit that I am getting some pleasure from seeing the “YOU RUINED MY CHILDHOOD” type posts. So goddamn infantile.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Ficheall wrote: »

The topic in general is one I try to ignore, but JK definitely went seeking to provoke.



If I wrote an article about toilets called "An article for people who poop", and someone commented that it should just be called "An article for people", I think I'd be justifiably of the opinion that said person was either trolling, an idiot, or a terrible writer.

Huh? I think you’ve misunderstood. If Rowling had said it shouldn’t be an article about people who menstruate but just about people, your comparison would make sense.

Gruffalux

Ficheall wrote: »

The topic in general is one I try to ignore, but JK definitely went seeking to provoke.



If I wrote an article about toilets called "An article for people who poop", and someone commented that it should just be called "An article for people", I think I'd be justifiably of the opinion that said person was either trolling, an idiot, or a terrible writer.

Ummmmmm.
Nope cannot think what that possibly means or how it relates.

Rowling was likened to Jimmy Saville and accused of being a danger to children. She has been publicly called terrible names. She did not go seeking to provoke, but yeah, I would say the people calling her all manner of paedophile cnut did provoke her. To stand up to the bullies.

Gruffalox

Gruffalox wrote: »

I think the point is not so much about a womb as lots of women don't have wombs, but when NGOs or public bodies seem to stumble over language re female processes it all gets rather weird. Rowling being a writer knows the power of manipulating language and words. Casting the spell by repeating the incantation "transwomen are women" has resulted in mesmerised public figures who are repeating this obviously incorrect set of words.
To help those people or organisations who may be befuddled -
The people who menstruate are women.
The people who give birth are women.
The people who have cervixes are women.
Etc.


It is just too weird.

Women are women. Men are men.

I'll gladly concede that gender can be fluid. It means nothing.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Deleted User wrote: »

Tbh mate i dont have a daughter

But i have never heard of this actually happening tbh??,and i wouldnt want it to happen either


A wee bit of cop on too geos along way imo, let them off,any business/places that let it happen,boycott them?

Dont see point in spending sunday mornings rage posting on what to me,seems so insignificant it simply deosnt register IRL

Well yeah, many women and definitely many girls keep the creepy things that happen to them to themselves. Of course you don’t hear about most of them. But gather a group of women and ask them to tell their stories and you’ll hear some tales.

I know this creepy stuff happens anyway but eroding societal barriers further is not the way to go especially as it might make a girl unsure if she can object to a man being in a sex-segregated space because she’s afraid of being branded a bigot for assuming gender. Safeguards are being undermined in insidious ways.

Ficheall

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Huh? I think you’ve misunderstood. If Rowling had said it shouldn’t be an article about people who menstruate but just about people, your comparison would make sense.

The article, mainly about menstruation etc., was entitled "...for people who menstruate". The title gave an indication of what the subject matter was.
Ditto "A forum for people who eat", "A book for people who can read", "A film for people who really like Scarlett Johannson." etc. Helpful titles and descriptions. Nothing wrong with them.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Ficheall wrote: »

The article, mainly about menstruation etc., was entitled "...for people who menstruate". The title gave an indication of what the subject matter was.
Ditto "A forum for people who eat", "A book for people who can read", "A film for people who really like Scarlett Johannson." etc. Helpful titles and descriptions. Nothing wrong with them.

Rowling’s objection was that only women menstruate. Whereas, to use your examples, both sexes eat, both sexes read and Scarlett has a fanbase across people from both sexes. So the comparison doesn’t stand up.

Ficheall

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Rowling’s objection was that only women menstruate. Whereas, to use your examples, both sexes eat, both sexes read and Scarlett has a fanbase across people from both sexes. So the comparison doesn’t stand up.

No, the gender was not the point I was making. But fine...
"An epidural for people who give birth", "A pamphlet for people who play with their testicles", "A support-group for people who have had their prostate removed."
Would these titles benefit by being assigned to women/men? Not really.

Would you change the ball-playing pamphlet to "A pamphlet for men who play with their testicles?" Or "A pamphlet for boys who play with their testicles?"

Or some sort of amalgamation of the two? "A pamphlet for men and boys who play with their testicles"? That one is not a good title.


"People" is a harmless catch-all. Would you not agree?

Dante7

You think she is doing this to sell more Harry Potter books? You haven't a clue what you are talking about and obviously have no idea about even the broadstrokes of this debate, let alone the nuances.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Ficheall wrote: »

No, the gender was not the point I was making. But fine...
"An epidural for people who give birth", "A pamphlet for people who play with their testicles", "A support-group for people who have had their prostate removed."
Would these titles benefit by being assigned to women/men? Not really.

...

"People" is a harmless catch-all. Would you not agree?

Yes, they would. Public health information and journalism in relation to it should be clear, concise and factual. Sex-specific public health information especially should be in order to reach the people who need to see it. It matters a lot. So no, I would not agree.

The arguments in favour of this obfuscating language tend to be along the lines of “Ah sure, what’s the harm?”. And often from people with no skin in the game.

Ficheall

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Yes, they would. Public health information and journalism in relation to it should be clear, concise and factual. Sex-specific public health information especially should be in order to reach the people who need to see it. It matters a lot. So no, I would not agree.

So you would have changed the title to... "...for women and girls who menstruate"?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

The arguments in favour of this obfuscating language tend to be along the lines of “Ah sure, what’s the harm?”. And often from people with no skin in the game.

The title is NOT obfuscating. It does exactly what it says on the tin.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Ficheall wrote: »

So you would have changed the title to... "...for women and girls who menstruate"?

Bingo. We got there eventually. And Rowling suggesting that has received a massive backlash.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Bingo. We got there eventually. And Rowling suggesting that has received a massive backlash.

From my v.limited knowledge of transgender issues....there is also a tiny possiblity,of women/female identifying as male(im not really sure politically correct way to say what im trying to say :eek: )


Kinda more so a pacific islander/torres strait thing though??

(i think their may be some cultural/mythical reasons behind these though,was explained to me,by a drunk haiwain before,but jesus your headed for v.niche territory perhaps there!)

Ficheall

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Bingo. We got there eventually. And Rowling suggesting that has received a massive backlash.

Well, that would make for an inferior title, gain nothing in clarity, conciseness, or fact, and probably needlessly offend another bunch of people, but if that's what you're after, then fair enough.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Ficheall wrote: »

Well, that would make for an inferior title, gain nothing in clarity, conciseness, or fact, and probably needlessly offend another bunch of people, but if that's what you're after, then fair enough.

I disagree. And of course the title could just be “Women with periods” instead of “Women and girls with periods” because girls are well aware that they will very soon be women and in reproductive terms, they already are women.

And if it offends somebody, well, let them make bedfellows with their offence.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Deleted User wrote: »

From my v.limited knowledge of transgender issues....there is also a tiny possiblity,of women/female identifying as male(im not really sure politically correct way to say what im trying to say :eek: )


Kinda more so a pacific islander/torres strait thing though??

(i think their may be some cultural/mythical reasons behind these though,was explained to me,by a drunk haiwain before,but jesus your headed for v.niche territory perhaps there!)

Why would it be limited to people from that geographical location? Transmen are female so naturally they menstruate or at least had the potential to.