JK Rowling

I'd be quite confident in guessing correctly that the reason Dennis Noel Kavanage was 'unbanned' from Twitter is because he is gay. Therefore neither he nor JK can be accused of being homophobic based on what was tweeted by Comeford. I do understand the desperate desire of some to claim JK is though in an attempt to further defame her character but this attempt by Comeford was a big fat fail. Guilt by association is not a bad tactic but the problem here is - there was no association in the first place. How funny. Well not really because some people will believe it.

Comerford is what some would call a 'Cic-Het' ally. Ally's are the worst on this topic because they are usually just Antifa types going after people they can accuse of be some -ism or phobe, as seen on his twitter page. He says in his bio he's not an activists yet all his tweets are majority trans related. Odd.

What qualifies Comerford to say that the above article published in Newsweek is 'arrant nonsense'. How the hell would he know if it's arrant nonsense or not. He hasn't got a clue whether it is or isn't, he's just belligerently responding in the hope some sucker will take his word for it. Which prolly explains why he spends a lot of time on Twitter.

Yes it is. We already know your type say JK is a transpose, but you started the thread because you thought you had evidence that's she's homophobic as well. You have no evidence of any such thing as I have exposed and you're now looking rather foolish.

Threads like this make me glad twitter exists - as much as I hate it, it keeps all the lunatics in one place and is easy to ignore.

Id suggest you do the same, OP. Reading all this nonsense does nobodies brain any good.

Remove twitter from your life, all that goes with it and the world is a much nicer place.

"Your type"?

What "type" is that exactly?

The "type" who notes Mz Rawling's attendance at luncheons with out and proud GCs?

The "type" who questions the motivations behind liking such appalling comments as the one about AIDS victims?

Mz Rawling may not be a transpose but she most certainly is a transphobe, she is also notable for naming her 'ethnic' characters in a frankly off way, presenting her females characters as secondary to the males (strange thing for a self- proclaimed feminism to do...), and threatening to sue people for doxxing her when her home is on the bloody tourist map of Edinburgh.

We won't even go into her "I was poverty stricken" trope.

Or her I'm so supportive of homosexuals I forgot to mention Dumbledore was one until I had made my millions stunt.

No one here is bullying Mz Rawlings - it's a pity we can't say the same about Mz Rawlings.

Interesting - there are other interpretations to what has happened with J.K Rowling you know.

For instance it could be seen as an example of how someone with morals but some disagreeable opinions can get radicalised and pushed towards extreme opinions by violently over-blown reactions to her comparatively reasonable positions.

Of course some of these other interpretations would mean acknowledging nuance, and that violently emotional responses are counter-productive.

That's a bit rich when it was you that started the thread and you that is backing up Comerfords false claims. I didn't claim anything except expose as untrue your propaganda.

Careful now, you'll break your pearls. I never endorsed her in any way, only shown that you and Comerford have not proven that she's a homophobe. I'm not particularly interested in JK actually as I don't believe in centring the trans debate around one particular individual.

That 'vast majority' wouldn't include anyone in the LGB Alliance would it. Or the Australian one or the US one. Or Douglas Murray or DNK or Martina Navratilova or Ben Apell etc etc etc.

Imagine if this mis-interpretation was the other way around.

I wonder would anyone defend JKR?

I wouldn't risk it unless I lived in a castle like JK. That way I could pour buckets of hot water down on top of the ideological zealots when the come for me.

Let's pick this apart.

Let's look at Navratilova who is frequently trotted out by transphobes as 'one of them'. A claim she strenuously denies.

In 2019 She made a statement saying that transgender women who have not medically transitioned should be prevented from competing against biological women as their 'male' body would give them an advantage. It would be quote "cheating".

A month later she publicly apologised for using the term "cheating" and vowed to work with trans athletes to find a solution.

She co-founded the Women's Sports Policy Working Group which has campaigned AGAINST blanket bans of transgender athletes.

In 2021 Navratilova co-authored an op-ed with trans athlete Juniper Eastwood and Dr Doriane Coleman opposing a proposed blanket ban in North Carolina.

The issue Navratilova has is not with transgender women competing against cis women. It is transgender women who have not medically transitioned competing against cis women.

In the Women's Doubles Finals of the US Open in 1977 Navratilova/ Stove defeated Richards/Grubb Stuart.

Renee Richards - a transgender woman who had surgically transitioned - later became Navratilova's coach.

They remain close friends.

The suggestion that all literary criticism of books written for children is henceforth ended is another strange hill to die on.

We must, apparently, now take them at face value and not dig into any recurring themes, notable features, or discuss how the author's life/politics/religion etc etc may have influenced the work.

I assume the same must happen with films?

Regardless of how dodgy they may be we let it all slide because they are "kid's books"?

This is an illustration from Elvira Bauer's best selling 'kid's book' "Never trust a Fox on his Green Meadow and a Jew on his Oath" published in 1936.

The Homophobes had no problem using a children's book to introduce Section 28 in the UK. This is the book in question.

IMO only a person who doesn't understand how powerful books are, and their influence on children, would suggest their contents are not discussed. Letting a children read any old book at all just because it is marketed as a 'kid's book' is akin to allowing a child access any old website at all as long as it says it 'for kid's'

The Far Right has always understood the power of children's books.