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

joeguevara

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

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.

That’s not what i asked you nor what was opined by you.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

joeguevara wrote: »

That’s not what i asked you nor what was opined by you.

You asked if I am in favour of conversion therapy. I said no. It’s not my problem if you are not communicating effectively. I’m answering the questions you asked. Work on your clarity, perhaps? Don’t assume that the problem is on my end. I thought you didn’t make assumptions, after all.

If you can’t succinctly explain yourself, I can’t help you.

joeguevara

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.

This is what i asked. And you quoted me when I outlined that it’s crazy that people make opinions without knowing what they are making them on,

joeguevara

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

You asked if I am in favour of conversion therapy. I said no. It’s not my problem if you are not communicating effectively. I’m answering the questions you asked. Work on your clarity, perhaps? Don’t assume that the problem is on my end. I thought you didn’t make assumptions, after all.

If you can’t succinctly explain yourself, I can’t help you.

Attack the poster when you know that you did a knee jerk assumption of what the bill contained.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

joeguevara wrote: »

This is what i asked. And you quoted me when I outlined that it’s crazy that people make opinions without knowing what they are making them on,

Oh, will you stop. You’re completely versed in everything you give an opinion on here? You are in your hole. A few days ago, you emphatically stated the notion that biological sex is real was “inherently incorrect”. You quickly capitulated when it was pointed out that it was nonsense but that didn’t stop you swaggering into the thread to make that statement. So please, stop the BS, Joe. :pac: You are not knowledgeable in everything you spout off about here as you neatly demonstrated two days ago.

joeguevara

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Oh, will you stop. You’re completely versed in everything you give an opinion on here? You are in your hole. A few days ago, you emphatically stated the notion that biological sex is real was “inherently incorrect”. You quickly capitulated it was pointed out that it was nonsense but that didn’t stop you swaggering into the thread to make that statement. So please, stop the BS, Joe. :pac:

That does sound like me. I would have characterised it more of falling flat on my face. Capitulated sounds classier. Inherently is such a good word to use though. I taught this kid all he knows
https://youtu.be/6ymGlmPP4n8

paddar

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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 -

But that simply isn't true.

She explains in quite detail why she choose the pseudonym in 2013 in an interview with The Guardian.

JK Rowling chose her alter ego of Robert Galbraith by conflating the name of her political hero Robert F Kennedy and her childhood fantasy name "Ella Galbraith", the Harry Potter writer has explained on her alternative persona's official author website

"When I was a child, I really wanted to be called Ella Galbraith, I've no idea why. The name had a fascination for me.

She even constructed a fake life and background around the pen name.

Her military contacts also helped to construct a fake CV for Robert Galbraith. "One of these friends is from the Special Investigations Bureau. So while Strike himself is entirely fictional, his career and the experiences he's had are based on factual accounts of real soldiers."

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/jul/24/jk-rowling-robert-galbraith-harry-potter

What is the adage? A lie is half way around the world before truth has the time to put its pants on?

It is not your fault, a ridiculously large numer of tweets have the same claim. Apparently nobody fact checks anymore. I find it fascinating/interesting/horrifying how easy it is to demonize someone on so little evidence. I mean it is too late now, the genie is out of the bottle, the truth has been rewritten and it is official that she literally chose that name as an homage to conversion therapy and to hurt LGBT kids. Try to counter that with an actual facts and you will be labelled an accessory to TERFdom and cast down. Salem witch trials ver 2.0

One eyed Jack

paddar wrote: »

But that simply isn't true.

...

She even constructed a fake life and background around the pen name.

I think it’s been well established that JK is considerably talented when it comes to constructing fictional narratives :pac:

I was well aware of her explanation, hell I could nearly cite you that Guardian article from six years ago word for word I’m so familiar with it at this stage, and as I suggested then and I suggest now, her explanation is nothing more than a fabrication. I’d be surprised if the woman could lie straight in the bed ffs!

paddar wrote: »

What is the adage? A lie is half way around the world before truth has the time to put its pants on?

And that Guardian article has more mileage on it than JK’s face (if we’re to ignore the Botox injections).

paddar wrote: »

It is not your fault, a ridiculously large numer of tweets have the same claim. Apparently nobody fact checks anymore. I find it fascinating/interesting/horrifying how easy it is to demonize someone on so little evidence. I mean it is too late now, the genie is out of the bottle, the truth has been rewritten and it is official that she literally chose that name as an homage to conversion therapy and to hurt LGBT kids. Try to counter that with an actual facts and you will be labelled an accessory to TERFdom and cast down. Salem witch trials ver 2.0

You’re having a laugh surely? Nobody checks facts any more, and yet you’re prepared to take JK at face value when she purports that an article makes claims it doesn’t? Demonising people on the basis of no evidence whatsoever is far worse than any claim of demonising people on the basis of very little evidence (you’ll note earlier I wasn’t too het up about her “liking a tweet”, I think that sort of following her around social media is Graham Linehan levels of obsessive behaviour).

I was even prepared as I suggested earlier to give JK the benefit of the doubt before her “sorry not sorry” essay where she removed all doubt of any “senior moments, copy and paste errors” and so on, and just because she removed evidence of her fawning over Stephen King when she realised he didn’t agree with her opinions, doesn’t mean the evidence didn’t exist at one point (I’m too lazy and frankly can’t be arsed to bother using the wayback site to view the cached page).

I still wouldn’t label her as a terf as I see no evidence that she cares for anyone else but herself, and to label her a terf would be assuming that she actually does care about anyone else but herself. Salem Witch trials though? That’s pretty dramatic, but not entirely unexpected. However if you are going to bandy around that sort of nonsense, then you need look no further than JK who has been the instigator and adjudicator of a few of these online witch-hunts in her time. This latest one being just her latest one which just happens to have backfired somewhat unexpectedly.

paddar

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I think it’s been well established that JK is considerably talented when it comes to constructing fictional narratives :pac:

I think her talent at fictional narratives is one thing we can agree on, I mean she sold over a bizillion books :pac:

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I was well aware of her explanation, hell I could nearly cite you that Guardian article from six years ago word for word I’m so familiar with it at this stage, and as I suggested then and I suggest now, her explanation is nothing more than a fabrication. I’d be surprised if the woman could lie straight in the bed ffs!

Hmmm, this I don't buy, You posted a tweet that seemed to suggest she supported conversion therapy and then progressed to the connection with Robert Galbraith Heath. Her explanation as to why she chose the pen name should be taken on board especially for those of us not familiar with the Guardian article in question. I find her explanation much more believable than an homage to a psychiatrist who dabbled in conversion therapy.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

And that Guardian article has more mileage on it than JK’s face (if we’re to ignore the Botox injections).

I don't think commenting on her appearance really adds anything.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You’re having a laugh surely? Nobody checks facts any more, and yet you’re prepared to take JK at face value when she purports that an article makes claims it doesn’t? Demonising people on the basis of no evidence whatsoever is far worse than any claim of demonising people on the basis of very little evidence (you’ll note earlier I wasn’t too het up about her “liking a tweet”, I think that sort of following her around social media is Graham Linehan levels of obsessive behaviour).

I was even prepared as I suggested earlier to give JK the benefit of the doubt before her “sorry not sorry” essay where she removed all doubt of any “senior moments, copy and paste errors” and so on, and just because she removed evidence of her fawning over Stephen King when she realised he didn’t agree with her opinions, doesn’t mean the evidence didn’t exist at one point (I’m too lazy and frankly can’t be arsed to bother using the wayback site to view the cached page).

There is a lot here, I am not sure what article you are referring to or the connection with un liking a Stephen King tweet.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I still wouldn’t label her as a terf as I see no evidence that she cares for anyone else but herself, and to label her a terf would be assuming that she actually does care about anyone else but herself

I would disagree with. The charities supported by her include, AIDS & HIV, Cancer, Children, Creative Arts, Education, Family/Parent Support, Health, Homelessness, Human Rights, Hunger, Literacy, Physical Challenges, Poverty, Refugees, Women.

Compelled by an article in the Sunday Times newspaper back in 2004 about children being kept in caged beds in an institution, she set up Lumos a charity which would seek to end the institutionalisation of children.

She donated £ 15 million to set up a MS research center
https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/45432474

She donated £1 million during the pandemic to UK homeless services.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/may/02/jk-rowling-donates-crisis-refuge-homeless-domestic-abuse-uk-charities-coronavirus

Hell I think the reason she is not a billionaire is that she donates a lot to charity. She obviously cares about people other than herself

Bonniedog

Good point. Rowling's main sin is that she is liberal who is pissing inside the tent. Virtual Gulag for anyone who does that, as Linehan has also found to his cost.

Those of us who disdain their moral and intellectual bankruptcy are happily immune to their hysterics.

Annasopra

Bonniedog wrote: »

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.

Well it's certainly not helpful calling them deviants or abusers or groomers.

One eyed Jack

paddar wrote: »

Hmmm, this I don't buy, You posted a tweet that seemed to suggest she supported conversion therapy and then progressed to the connection with Robert Galbraith Heath. Her explanation as to why she chose the pen name should be taken on board especially for those of us not familiar with the Guardian article in question. I find her explanation much more believable than an homage to a psychiatrist who dabbled in conversion therapy.

I didn’t post that tweeet, I think the tweet you’re referring to was posted by someone else. What I did post though was this, last week -

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I had a gander at her public twitter profile, appears to be mostly JK showering children with praise for their artistic endeavours, with a sprinkling of her opinions on people who are transgender in between (rather insidious but hey ho :pac:). A real eyebrow raiser however was her tagline underneath her name:

‘Writer sometimes known as Robert Galbraith’
Ohhhk then

paddar wrote: »

There is a lot here, I am not sure what article you are referring to or the connection with un liking a Stephen King tweet.

The article I’m referring to is the one used by JK in attempting to make her point that started all this nonsense off in the first place, that one where she claimed to have no knowledge of what women are called.

She didn’t just unlike a tweet by Stephen King btw. Stephen King retweeted her essay, JK was quite possibly having another of her senior moments when she gushed with praise for whom she thought was her new found admirer, until it turned out he disagreed with her opinions, and then she deleted her praise of him as though it had never happened. Except it did -


”I've always revered Stephen King, but today my love reached - maybe not Annie Wilkes levels - but new heights. It's so much easier for men to ignore women's concerns, or to belittle them, but I won't ever forget the men who stood up when they didn't need to. Thank you, Stephen," Rowling wrote in the since-deleted post.


Stephen has since been unfollowed :pac:

paddar wrote: »

I would disagree with.

...

Hell I think the reason she is not a billionaire is that she donates a lot to charity. She obviously cares about people other than herself

I think we’ll have to agree to disagree then padser, which is fair enough, because from what I see her philanthropic efforts don’t amount to much more than stroking her own ego. For all her support of charity, and I couldn’t care less whether she does or she doesn’t, the point is that she took aim at another charity organisation which was aiming to provide menstrual healthcare for people in developing countries in order to mock them for their use of language she disagreed with. It was simply thoughtlessly tone deaf at best, Insidious but true to form at worst.

hetuzozaho

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

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

From reading the Bill I think that tweet is just being misleading if this is the Bill:

https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/43-1/bill/C-8/first-reading

They are so difficult to read for me though :P I'd need an infographic!

Bonniedog

What sort of person would try to persuade a 12 year old boy to make a life altering decision before he possesses the capacity to make a fully rational decision and before his body or mind has made the transition from childhood to puberty?

If deviant is too strong a word, then perhaps irresponsible, negligent, bullying would be more apt?

There are people who are invested in influencing such decisions. Why? What are they attempting to achieve?

This whole ideology has become pernicious. I know people within my own extended family circle who I've heard talk about one of my nephews who is 11 and THEY have decided what his sexuality and possibly gender is because he is smarter than their own brats and doesnt conform to the Just William conception of pre pubescent masculinity! Thankfully they have no means to intervene regarding the latter.


These advocates by the way include some of same people who were openly rude to gay people I knew through hurling. They are typical of a lot of people, perhaps most people, who just absorb whatever they think is the way they are supposed to think.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

hetuzozaho wrote: »

From reading the Bill I think that tweet is just being misleading if this is the Bill:

https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/43-1/bill/C-8/first-reading

They are so difficult to read for me though :P I'd need an infographic!

Rowling is mentioned in the tweet so that’s just as likely a reason that she had liked it as anything else. I doubt she had read the bill in-depth because very few people will do that. She is more than likely acknowledging the shout-out.

hetuzozaho

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I doubt she had read the bill in-depth because very few people will do that.

The internets biggest problem

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

hetuzozaho wrote: »

The internets biggest problem

In fairness, who likes reading legalese? Even many of the people paid to do it don’t like it.

Quantum Erasure

hetuzozaho wrote: »

From reading the Bill I think that tweet is just being misleading if this is the Bill:

https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/43-1/bill/C-8/first-reading

They are so difficult to read for me though :P I'd need an infographic!

this is the relevant bit, i think: (emphasis mine)

Definition of conversion therapy
320.*101 In sections 320.*102 to 320.*106, conversion therapy means a practice, treatment or service designed to change a person’s sexual orientation to heterosexual or gender identity to cisgender, or to repress or reduce non-heterosexual attraction or sexual behaviour.
For greater certainty, this definition does not include a practice, treatment or service that relates
(a) to a person’s gender transition; or
(b) to a person’s exploration of their identity or to its development.

I think that should be all right? I don't think it would "criminalize a therapist who counsels a child to accept the body they were born in", or maybe it would?

One eyed Jack

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

In fairness, who likes reading legalese? Even many of the people paid to do it don’t like it.

One would imagine anyone who is genuinely interested in “their sex based rights being erased” would make it their business to read up on these things, instead of giving it welly spouting fearmongering nonsense playing to the crowd of people who would rather remain equally as wilfully ignorant because they can’t be bothered to read up on the law, but want people denied equal treatment in law anyway on the basis that they just don’t like it.

hetuzozaho

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

In fairness, who likes reading legalese? Even many of the people paid to do it don’t like it.

True, it's just people don't seem to read anything! Even a short article

A few words that they agree with? Retweet, like and post about it. So much misinformation around due to it.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

this is the relevant bit, i think: (emphasis mine)



I think that should be all right? I don't think it would "criminalize a therapist who counsels a child to accept the body they were born in", or maybe it would?

I’d love a legal eagle to parse it.

suicide_circus

type "women killed" into google, click search and scroll down

Quantum Erasure

suicide_circus wrote: »

type "women killed" into google, click search and scroll down

what am I looking for?
Two Black Trans Women Were Killed in the U.S. in the Past Week as Trump Revokes Discrimination Protections for Trans People

sounds grim, but reading further

According to local authorities, Milton was shot and killed during a robbery ...Two people have been arrested and charged with her murder. A third man, Tyree Cross, has not been apprehended, according to local police.

Only a day earlier, on June 8, Dominique “Rem’Mie” Fells was found dead in Philadelphia, Penn., the Philadelphia Police Department confirmed to TIME. On Friday, her death was ruled a homicide and the investigation is still ongoing.

suicide_circus

Well one of the links google gives you when you search "women killed" is this

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_killed_for_being_transgender

along side a few other links referencing transgender women.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

LOL.

https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1279354455297855490?s=21

I’m not sure how Rowling stays so upbeat in the face of such halfwits.

GreeBo

Oh I can think of a few million reasons!

Gruffalux

https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1279755418621878272

Another pile on to Rowling

Bonniedog

Tweeting porn to kids.

Our nihilists are a class act, no doubt.

Gruffalux

Bonniedog wrote: »

Tweeting porn to kids.

Our nihilists are a class act, no doubt.

Not just kids. I saw this morning that a person had tweeted to Baroness Nicholson, a 78 year old woman, saying feel free to suck my c)ck you old worn out c*nt. Accompanied by a pornographic image of said c)ck. Now since Twitter is seemingly so careful these days and many people reported the tweet one would have imagined that the person would have been banned or at the very least the tweet deleted. But no.
Do not link here.
If you wish to see what some women get on twitter by way of abuse you can google TheMialsabella and see their twitter feed.

Bonniedog

I'll pass.

Of course the people responsible for this filth an hatred would have us believe they are the harbingers of a newer kinder world. Just like Beria and Himmler.