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

Dyr

Bonniedog wrote: »

Did King get a bang on the head?

Or is the absurdity of men deciding they are women a plot for a new book?

King posted an opinon a while back that brought the twitter mob down on him and he rolled over quick smart. Fiction writers are not known for their testicular fortitude

And the SJW weirdos have a real thing for fiction authors, maybe because that industry is so aligned with their loony tune outlook.

hetuzozaho

Bambi wrote: »

King posted an opinon a while back that brought the twitter mob down on him and he rolled over quick smart. Fiction writers are not known for their testicular fortitude

And the SJW weirdos have a real thing for fiction authors, maybe because that industry is so aligned with their loony tune outlook.

I think both sides like who ever tweets in agreement with them. For a few mins JK loved King. It's hard to keep up

volchitsa

Penn wrote: »

I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of her talking about how important her gender is to her when she repeatedly throws it to the side to increase her book sales and make more money.

Err, no, it's actually evidence that she knows what she's talking about - and that you don't. A man writing the exact same book will make more money than a woman - and you think that makes it hypocritical of a woman to write under a man's name? What should she do - suck it up?

Were the Bronte sisters hypocrites too?

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

Err, no, it's actually evidence that she knows what she's talking about - and that you don't. A man writing the exact same book will make more money than a woman - and you think that makes it hypocritical of a woman to write under a man's name? What should she do - suck it up?

Were the Bronte sisters hypocrites too?

It was never her idea to use a pen name to write the Harry Potter series in the first place? It was her publishers idea -


We all know J.K. Rowling as the woman behind the über-successful Harry Potter series, but her ambiguous initials were originally intentional. Her publisher, Barry Cunningham, thought Harry Potter’s target young male audience might be put off by a book written by a woman. Furthermore, Rowling published her 2013 crime mystery The Cuckoo’s Calling under the pseudonym Robert Galbraith, which attracted some criticism when its true author was revealed. Rowling defended her choice, saying, “I was yearning to go back to the beginning of a writing career with this new genre, to work without hype or expectation and to receive totally unvarnished feedback.”


12 Women Writers Who Wrote Under Male Pseudonyms


Her pen name of Robert Galbraith appears to be a rather unfortunate coincidence given that Robert Galbraith was also the name of a curious oddball psychiatrist who practiced “gay conversion therapy“ - Robert Galbraith Heath. I’ve heard the explanations for her chosen pen name, and I don’t find them particularly credible given her considerable talent for creative fiction -


JK Rowling tells story of alter ego Robert Galbraith


I don’t think she’s a hypocrite though. I absolutely understand her reasoning for wanting to disassociate herself from... herself? :pac: It was simply due to her own prejudices that she imagined her work would be taken more seriously if it was thought to have been written by a man. Essentially she perpetuates the very thing she’s afraid of, instead of writing as Joanne Rowling and allowing her creative endeavours to be assessed on their own merits.

Mary Shelley had the same train of thought when Frankenstein was first published anonymously, and then upon finding out that the author was female, some critics did indeed pounce on this fact, but it didn’t stem the books popularity -


In two other reviews where the author is known as the daughter of William Godwin, the criticism of the novel makes reference to the feminine nature of Mary Shelley. The British Critic attacks the novel's flaws as the fault of the author: "The writer of it is, we understand, a female; this is an aggravation of that which is the prevailing fault of the novel; but if our authoress can forget the gentleness of her sex, it is no reason why we should; and we shall therefore dismiss the novel without further comment". The Literary Panorama and National Register attacks the novel as a "feeble imitation of Mr. Godwin's novels" produced by the "daughter of a celebrated living novelist". Despite the reviews, Frankenstein achieved an almost immediate popular success.


Frankenstein


I’ll admit to being biased, Frankenstein was one of my favourite books as a child, along with the works of Oscar Wilde and Sue Townsend, most famously known for creating the character of Adrian Mole. I honestly can’t say that knowing the author was a woman put me off reading the books. I judge books by their content, not by their authors. Whether I think a book is crap or not has never had anything to do with who wrote it. It’s the same way I judge posts on here - whether I think a post is crap or not, has nothing to do with who wrote it.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Penn wrote: »

Unlike Joanne Rowling who pretends to be a man for her new books. JK Rowling, a name she chose despite not even having a middle name and therefore no middle initial because it sounds like it could be a man's name, and then being one of the most prominent writers in the world and writing new books under the name Robert Gilbraith.

Funny how her womanhood is so important to her except when there's profit in it for her.

What a pathetic post. I can practically see the spittle on your keyboard. Pseudonyms have a long history in literature and it’s known that boys and men often won’t read books written by women. Harry Potter might not even have been published had she not gone with a pseudonym. I’m sure she would have preferred to use her real name.

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

The fact that she had to change her name to sound like a man doesn't show how your life is shaped by being a woman?

The lack of self awareness in that point is telling.

Ha ha! Boom!

FVP3

hetuzozaho wrote: »

A roller-coaster for jk Rowling! Gas.

https://twitter.com/sims/status/1277381145706053632

I get the impression that he looked at the oncoming storm and said "f*ck this".

One eyed Jack

FVP3 wrote: »

I get the impression that he looked at the oncoming storm and said "f*ck this".

I get the impression he had what JK might refer to as “a senior moment” :pac:


That, or drunk posting (hey we’re all human, even Stephen King) or perhaps it was upon reading JK’s sycophantic arse-licking that he became nauseous and by sheer coincidence instead of posting what JK and her supporters expected of this literary giant who would not compromise his values, he didn’t.

The same people who moments earlier had championed Stephen as a paragon of uncompromising integrity, now viewed him as of no more value to their cause than “well, he’s entitled to his opinion”. It’s no coincidence they’re the same people who complain about JK being “cancelled”, who complain incessantly about “cancel culture” generally, who “cancelled” Stephen King, when he doesn’t share their opinions. Fickle fcukers.

FVP3

Sittingpretty wrote: »

That or “trans women are women” copied and pasted into the full character limit as if repetition of “the earth is flat” will make it so.

Did they put the claps in between words as well? That generally convinces me.

Twitter could easily put in a filter on posting to determine tone. I think that Journal.ie or something similar does that. If they did that it would make the place much more hospitable.

FVP3

One eyed Jack wrote: »

. It’s no coincidence they’re the same people who complain about JK being “cancelled”, who complain incessantly about “cancel culture” generally, who “cancelled” Stephen King, when he doesn’t share their opinions. Fickle fcukers.

Yeh, but nobody cancelled Stephen, did they. We mostly just are bemused at his change of opinion in one day.

That said, the mob knows where he lives.

Bonniedog

FVP3 wrote: »

I get the impression that he looked at the oncoming storm and said "f*ck this".

Anyone who wrote Misery knows exactly what mad yokes are out there

One eyed Jack

FVP3 wrote: »

Yeh, but nobody cancelled Stephen, did they. We mostly just are bemused at his change of opinion in one day.

That said, the mob knows where he lives.

He didn’t change his opinion though. When he first shared JK’s essay, he gave no opinion on it either way. It was only when he was pressed for an opinion on the matter that he gave an opinion, one which JK was less than pleased with as she has since deleted her fawning praise of Stephen that she only gave when she too thought he agreed with her.

I don’t imagine Stephen King cares too much about mobs of any description, no matter what their views are either way. He maintains his integrity, unlike any of the people who elevated him as some sort of an authority when they imagined he shared their opinions.

FVP3

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don’t imagine Stephen King cares too much about mobs of any description, no matter what their views are either way. He maintains his integrity, unlike any of the people who elevated him as some sort of an authority when they imagined he shared their opinions.

You are a strange one, in a post where you elevate King as a man of integrity because you agree with him, you condemn people who elevated him as " some sort of an authority" because they agreed with him.

One eyed Jack

FVP3 wrote: »

You are a strange one, in a post where you elevate King as a man of integrity because you agree with him, you condemn people who elevated him as " some sort of an authority" because they agreed with him.

Nope, I didn’t elevate him at all, I said he maintains his integrity, an integrity he has always had, because he has never compromised his integrity in the face of his fiercest critics, unlike many people who assumed he agreed with them, and heaped praise upon him, then withdrew their praise upon finding out that they had assumed wrong.

I didn’t condemn anyone on the basis that they elevated Stephen as an authority when they thought he agreed with their opinions. Condemn is pretty strong, I observed how fickle those same people were that they would turn on someone as quickly as JK did when she deleted her earlier praise of Stephen King. I think it’s fair to say that Stephen King doesn’t give a shìte what JK thinks of him, or what anyone else thinks of him. It’s on that basis that I said he maintains his integrity.

_Godot_

https://twitter.com/Simon_Whitten/status/1277569086885634050?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1277569086885634050%7Ctwgr%5E&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fs9e.github.io%2Fiframe%2F2%2Ftwitter.min.html1277569086885634050

JK Rowling just liked a tweet opposing a bill that will criminalise conversion therapy (both sexual orientation and gender identity) at the federal level in Canada.

Why would you continue supporting her?

Bonniedog

What's wrong with talking to a child about their making a life altering decision based on the fallacy that a male can just decide to become a female and then undergo an irreversible procedure before puberty?

What sort of deviants support that form of child abuse. If i had a 12 year old son who had convinced himself he was female I would certainly try at the very least to avoid puberty blocking, and to wait until he was old enough to make a decision such as that.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

_Godot_ wrote: »

https://twitter.com/Simon_Whitten/status/1277569086885634050?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1277569086885634050%7Ctwgr%5E&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fs9e.github.io%2Fiframe%2F2%2Ftwitter.min.html1277569086885634050



Why would you continue supporting her?

The following is tweet he is quoting there (and this is the tweet Rowling liked).



That seems to be saying that if a therapist helps a child feel comfortable in their body, that will be against the law. I’m taking from that that the only acceptable therapy will to agree with the child that they are in the wrong body. What about detransitioners? Wouldn’t they have been exactly the children who a therapist may have helped feel comfortable in their body? And what is homophobic about that? Please help me here.

The person who quoted the tweet misrepresented it. Quelle surprise.

Just in case Godot deletes his post or the tweet gets deleted, here is how the tweet Rowling liked was misrepresented.

Quantum Erasure

for a minute there i was very confused as to what 'conversion therapy' was referring to....

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

for a minute there i was very confused as to what 'conversion therapy' was referring to....

Helping a child feel comfortable in their bodies = conversion therapy apparently. I’m living in a cuckoo clock.

I’m... actually okay with this being highlighted. Let more people see the utter absurdity of it all.

Godot, are you trying to highlight the dishonesty of tweets such as yer man’s or what?

Quantum Erasure

One eyed Jack wrote: »

He maintains his integrity, unlike any of the people who elevated him as some sort of an authority when they imagined he shared their opinions.

did you see the hate he was getting before he clarified his stance?

One eyed Jack

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

did you see the hate he was getting before he clarified his stance?

I didn’t, tbh. Twitter just isn’t my thing at all. I’ve no doubt though that there were plenty of people supporting him on the basis of what they thought was his position too though?

I guess I’m looking at it from the point of view that the guy has spent his whole life being subjected to criticism and praise in equal measure, I don’t imagine he’s all that concerned about the opinions of a few thousand more people, unlike JK who appears to take even the slightest criticism to heart, and appears to be afraid of being criticised, hence she dipped her toe in and out of the slurry pit, until she just flat out fell in and is now grasping for any sort of a life preserver. As distinct from Linehan who couldn’t take criticism either and just went on an all out assault and tried to drag everyone down with him when he fell into the slurry pit.

I dunno, but as advocates of free speech I expect they would behave with just a little bit more dignity and use their positions to criticise people in power above them, rather than trying to seek out the people beneath them who don’t have their power and position in society, only to mock and belittle those people whom they imagine are easy targets for derision and ridicule.

It’s easy to forget sometimes that both Rowling and Linehan are responsible for the monster that they helped to create, and therefore they bear responsibility for the treatment they are receiving now. The same people who once looked up to them as advocates of free speech are a product of an ideology that both Rowling and Linehan sought to promote, and now it’s come back to haunt them.

2u2me

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

The following is tweet he is quoting there (and this is the tweet Rowling liked).
[...]

Bill c16, the same one Jordan Peterson was against. Remember when everyone was calling him a troll, deluded, etc.. he was getting the same hate Rowling is getting now.

His gripe about compelled speech is only getting realized more with every day that passes.

joeguevara

It is strange that people automatically condemn any therapy for children who believe they are in the wrong body but see it as quite comforting therapy for children to become comfortable in the body they are in. Both are based on whacky pseudo Science or at least experimental. It is clear that so many people immediately thought that Rowling was wrong and I doubt many looked at what the conversion therapy actually entailed. Empirical evidence shows more damage to the children post therapy than if they had never gone.


https://www.hrc.org/resources/the-lies-and-dangers-of-reparative-therapy

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

joeguevara wrote: »

It is strange that people automatically condemn any therapy for children who believe they are in the wrong body but see it as quite comforting therapy for children to become comfortable in the body they are in. Both are based on whacky pseudo Science or at least experimental. It is clear that so many people immediately thought that Rowling was wrong and I doubt many looked at what the conversion therapy actually entailed. Empirical evidence shows more damage to the children post therapy than if they had never gone.


https://www.hrc.org/resources/the-lies-and-dangers-of-reparative-therapy

What? I’m saying every child is different. That bill seems to be trying to make it illegal to do anything but affirm the child’s belief that they are in the wrong body. But while for some children, the belief remains steadfast, for others, it passes. Are they saying that those latter children shouldn’t be helped and that a therapist isn’t allowed to try and figure whether or not it’s something that might pass? That’s quite sinister. And how Godot has misrepresented it is pretty shocking, to me at least.

joeguevara

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

What? I’m saying every child is different. That bill seems to be trying to make it illegal to do anything but affirm the child’s belief that they are in the wrong body. But while for some children, the belief remains steadfast, for others, it passes. Are they saying that those latter children shouldn’t be helped and that a therapist isn’t allowed to try and figure whether or not it’s something that might pass? That’s quite sinister. And how Godot has misrepresented it is pretty shocking, to me at least.

Do you know what the Bill makes illegal i.e. the specific practices and the actual qualifications to do so. You have assumed what it made illegal instead of actually going through it to make a reasoned approach. Do you think it criminalises real assistance from appropriately trained professionals who actually put the child first rather than the approach of messing with a child’s brain and emotion to essentially convince by any means necessary to make them feel bad.

One eyed Jack

joeguevara wrote: »

It is strange that people automatically condemn any therapy for children who believe they are in the wrong body but see it as quite comforting therapy for children to become comfortable in the body they are in. Both are based on whacky pseudo Science or at least experimental. It is clear that so many people immediately thought that Rowling was wrong and I doubt many looked at what the conversion therapy actually entailed. Empirical evidence shows more damage to the children post therapy than if they had never gone.


https://www.hrc.org/resources/the-lies-and-dangers-of-reparative-therapy

That’s exactly why some people pointed out that JK... (honestly I’m even struggling to say this with a straight face) “liked a tweet” that supported opposition to a Bill intended to ban conversion therapy. The harm that conversion therapy causes is widely known, hence the reasoning behind calls for it to be banned. It’s not simply about helping children to feel comfortable in their own bodies, it’s about attempting to convince children that they aren’t either gay or transgender. That’s why it does harm, because it’s detrimental to their mental health and development.

Given that her pen name is that of a notorious advocate of gay conversion therapy, Robert Galbraith, it would appear that JK has decided to do something of a Linehan and go all-in. This is the sort of thing that the Bill seeks to ban -


Heath was experimenting in 1953 on inducing paroxysms through brain stimulation. During the course of his experiments in deep brain stimulation, Heath experimented with gay conversion therapy, and claimed to have successfully converted a homosexual patient, labeled in his paper as Patient B-19. The patient, who had been arrested for marijuana possession, was implanted with electrodes into the septal region (associated with feelings of pleasure), and many other parts of his brain. The septal electrodes were then stimulated while he was shown heterosexual pornographic material. The patient was later encouraged to have intercourse with a prostitute recruited for the study. As a result, Heath claimed the patient was successfully converted to heterosexuality. This research would be deemed unethical today for a variety of reasons. The patient was recruited for the study while under legal duress, and further implications for the patient's well-being, including indications that electrode stimulation was addictive, were not considered.


That’s not just “helping children feel comfortable with their bodies”.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

joeguevara wrote: »

Do you know what the Bill makes illegal i.e. the specific practices and the actual qualifications to do so. You have assumed what it made illegal instead of actually going through it to make a reasoned approach. Do you think it criminalises real assistance from appropriately trained professionals who actually put the child first rather than the approach of messing with a child’s brain and emotion to essentially convince by any means necessary to make them feel bad.

I’m sure you know that I haven’t looked at the bill in-depth. And it’s pretty clear that I’m not talking definitively either. But Godot appears have to really misrepresented it. Have you no issues with that? You seem rather one-sided here. Interesting, interesting.

joeguevara

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I’m sure you know that I haven’t looked at the bill in-depth. And it’s pretty clear that I’m not talking definitively either. But Godot appears have to really misrepresented it. Have you no issues with that? You seem rather one-sides here. Interesting, interesting.

The issue I have is so many people will automatically read a 280 character tweet, do no research themselves, assume that it will help a child, fight to get a bill that would in fact protect them, jump on a bandwagon, and see themselves as on the right. Who cares what Godot said. I make my mind up on the actual bill and research of what the bill is. Allowing someone i don’t have a clue is to make my mind up is plain idiotic.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

joeguevara wrote: »

The issue I have is so many people will automatically read a 280 character tweet, do no research themselves, assume that it will help a child, fight to get a bill that would in fact protect them, jump on a bandwagon, and see themselves as on the right. Who cares what Godot said. I make my mind up on the actual bill and research of what the bill is. Allowing someone i don’t have a clue is to make my mind up is plain idiotic.

If you’re going to criticise people for reacting to tweets, it seems odd to pick and choose. On the bill, if it’s just outlawing conversion therapy of children who think they are gay, okay. But when it comes to gender identity, it’s far murkier considering not all children continue to feel wrong and medicalising them could change their whole life. I’m not sure it’s even correct to call it conversion therapy if the child decides to stay as they are.

Does it seem likely to you that JK Rowling supports conversion therapy for gay children?

joeguevara

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

If you’re going to criticise people for reacting to tweets, it seems odd to pick and choose. On the bill, if it’s just outlawing conversion therapy of children who think they are gay, okay. But when it comes to gender identity, it’s far murkier considering not all children continue to feel wrong and medicalising them could change their whole life. I’m not sure it’s even correct to call it conversion therapy if the child decides to stay as they are.

Does it seem likely to you that JK Rowling supports conversion therapy for gay children?

Youre deflecting. I’m not picking and choosing. I asked why you felt it was a good idea to back this conversion therapy because you saw it as a good thing without knowing the damage it does?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

joeguevara wrote: »

Youre deflecting. I’m not picking and choosing. I asked why you felt it was a good idea to back this conversion therapy because you saw it as a good thing without knowing the damage it does?

I’m against conversion therapy which I understand is trying to get somebody to change their sexual orientation.

However, when a child says they think they are the wrong gender, that is

a) a completely different issue to sexual orientation

b) a feeling that can persist or it can pass

c) something that if medicalised can cause great changes to the body, possibly irreversible ones.

So that’s already a much a trickier issue. Therapists (highly trained) should be given the freedom to try and figure if the child will persist in those feelings or not. I couldn’t say what those methods are as this is not my field. I’m not sure why it’s being called conversion therapy though. For any child who would have detransitioned in the future, figuring it out before damage is done seems like a good thing to me.