While we’re on the topic of that film JK has endorsed, here’s a great article about how they made an trans supporting LLC to con trans folk into speaking to them, and how they got found out,
Rowling uses the term "gender identity movement"... She talks elsewhere about trans activists.
I can't say I follow her particularly closely, but I can't think of a time she's addressed a specific trans rights argument made by a specific person. Compare and contrast with Walsh, who she addresses directly and indivudually: "a man who believes..." rather than part of an ideological collective.
Quote:
I can't say what she means by that...
Do you think this might be deliberate on her part?
Okay. Do you think everyone who waves that flag is a "shut up or we'll bomb you" charmer who is cloaking their misogyny with it? I certainly don't.
Good for you, but we’re not talking about what you think.
I’m pretty much done with your single line vague responses. You’re going to need to use your words more if you want any more replies.
Well, since you and I think differently about something here and I am trying to find out what you think, you're right. But not in a way that gets you to flounce off with a victory sneer.
I'll put my point this way: "the 'shut up or we'll bomb you' charmers who cloak their misogyny in a pretty pink and blue flag" clearly doesn't have to include everyone who waves the trans pride flag. I wonder why you thought it might.
If you’re trying to ‘figure out what I think’ this has got to be the worst way to go about it.
Frankly I think you’re just being a contrarian, and I’ve given you quite a bit of leeway assuming you’re a heavy literalist but more and more it seems like you’re contrarian for contrarian’s sake and I’m done with trolling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mickthinks
I'll put my point this way: "the 'shut up or we'll bomb you' charmers who cloak their misogyny in a pretty pink and blue flag" clearly doesn't have to include everyone who waves the trans pride flag. I wonder why you thought it might.
What it clearly shows is that JK can’t not take a swing at trans people. When accused of siding with Rotten people she has to point out that Trans people are bad too!
In her four tweet response to why she’s suddenly buddy buddy with an anti-feminist, she attacks people who call her TERF, she attacks liberals, and ends by pointing out Trans people on twitter are just as bad.
You can use your words to explain what you think she means, but I’m no longer replying to “O really?” That’s done.
So you think it's purely accidental that she uses language that allows her to rhetorically conflate any and all "trans rights activists" with "'shut up or we'll bomb you' charmers"? OK.
Are you going to tell me she doesn't do that rhetorical conflation now?
"the 'shut up or we'll bomb you' charmers who cloak their misogyny in a pretty pink and blue flag" clearly doesn't have to include everyone who waves the trans pride flag.
What it clearly shows is that JK can’t not take a swing at trans people.
No it doesn't, precisely because "the 'shut up or we'll bomb you' charmers who cloak their misogyny in a pretty pink and blue flag" is not the same as "trans people." That means Rowling can denigrate* the first group without denigrating everybody in the second group.
It's the same outrage-manufacturing process as was used to attack Clinton for her 'Basket of Deplorables' comment:
"Hillary and her supporters despise and disrespect anyone who loves God, country, family and our Constitution" ..."and revealed her true contempt for everyday Americans”.
No, she didn't. Clinton revealed she despised, disrespected, and had true contempt for a portion (albeit a significant portion) of Trump's supporters.
Now, whether it was wise for her to reveal that is debatable. What is not up for debate is whether it's okay to misrepresent events and circumstances so as to make your target look bad for crossing a line that they didn't in fact cross.
I get that you aren't interested in any of this. That's okay. I'm happy to leave it there if you are.
* You said "JK can’t not take a swing at" which makes Rowling seem like a drunken bar-room brawler. That is also a part of the rhetorical misrepresentation here, I think.
Who then exactly was she talking about with sources to support your side please. Is there a ‘bomb the cis’ terrorist group I’ve not heard of?
In her denial of supporting Walsh, why do you think she just had to bring trans folk into it? Is it not possible for her to deny an anti-feminist without mentioning trans folk as well?
But yes, in a way you’re right, just like Walsh she probably wasn’t talking about FtM trans folk because they are often ignored by right wing vitriol, MtF trans are the ones that freak them out the most and the ones that both Walsh and Rowling reserve their largest distaste for. Although I’m not sure it helps the case of her being a liberal if she ignores the same people anti-feminist right-wingers do.
(and yes I noticed you used most of your words to talk about Clinton and complain about me, not to actually support your case about Rowling).
"the 'shut up or we'll bomb you' charmers who cloak their misogyny in a pretty pink and blue flag" clearly doesn't have to include everyone who waves the trans pride flag.
What it clearly shows is that JK can’t not take a swing at trans people.
It's the same outrage-manufacturing process as was used to attack Clinton for her 'Basket of Deplorables' comment:
"Hillary and her supporters despise and disrespect anyone who loves God, country, family and our Constitution" ..."and revealed her true contempt for everyday Americans”.
No, she didn't. Clinton revealed she despised, disrespected, and had true contempt for a portion (albeit a significant portion) of Trump's supporters.
The full context of Clinton's speech has an important difference though:
Quote:
You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right?
The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic — you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people — now how 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive hateful mean-spirited rhetoric. Now, some of those folks — they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America. But the other basket — and I know this because I see friends from all over America here — I see friends from Florida and Georgia and South Carolina and Texas — as well as, you know, New York and California — but that other basket of people are people who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures, and they’re just desperate for change. It doesn’t really even matter where it comes from. They don’t buy everything he says, but he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won’t wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroine, feel like they’re in a dead-end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well.
She doesn't simply refer to deplorables and leave it at that.
Is there some long commentary from Rowling about how most trans people or activists are reasonable, if perhaps misguided in who they support?
I'm guessing not, since Rowling is opposed to trans women using women's restrooms, which is not something you're going to find that many trans people agree with Rowling about.
Who then exactly was she talking about with sources to support your side please.
She's talking about 'shut up or we'll bomb you' charmers who cloak their misogyny in a pretty pink and blue flag. Do you need me to strip that of its figures and metaphors? I take it to refer to people who support trans rights and who have threatened her with violence for speaking out in defence of women.
I take it to refer to people who support trans rights and who have threatened her with violence for speaking out in defence of women.
Oh I see, you believe she’s defending women by attacking trans people. (and if not, can you source where trans people have attacked her for defending women where that ‘defense’ had nothing to do with trans people?)
From what I can gather, Rowling sees trans people existing in the same space as women as an attack on women. Hence her panic about trans people peeing in women’s restrooms. As far as I can tell, she started it, and then declared herself the real victim when people pushed back.
I ask again, In her denial of supporting Walsh, why do you think she just had to bring trans folk into it? Is it not possible for her to deny an anti-feminist without mentioning trans folk as well?
Rowling believes she's defending women. But neither she nor I believe she's attacking trans people.
From what I can gather, Rowling sees trans people existing in the same space as women as an attack on women.
That's what trans rights activists claim, but (from what I gather) this is outrage manufactured by processes similar to the one we were discussing.
Is it not possible for her to deny an anti-feminist without mentioning trans folk as well? You mean trans activists? It is certainly possible, yes.
From what I can gather, Rowling sees trans people existing in the same space as women as an attack on women.
That's what trans rights activists claim, but (from what I gather) this is outrage manufactured by processes similar to the one we were discussing.
Here is Rowling arguing that trans women shouldn’t be allowed in women’s restrooms for the safety of women,
Rowling constantly misrepresents the truth.
That is false.
That is false as well.
She didn’t lose her job, her contract was not renewed, she didn’t ask about a philosophical belief, she asked if misgendering trans people was protected speech.
You can read about it here,
JK Rowling is literally, not figuratively defending the right to call trans women “males” and “A man in a dress”. As far as every trans person I’ve talked to is concerned, that is an insult. One promoted by and used by the patriarchy.
She knows full well that the patriarchy hates men acting like women, a ‘man in a dress’ is a target, and this is born out in many cases of violence and even murder. I’ve known multiple trans people who were attacked by men in the mens restroom, on the other hand cases of trans women attacking women in the womens restroom are quite rare and often only valid if you do indeed consider any ‘man in a dress’ to be trans. (which isn’t even getting into the sexist idea that being in a dress means woman).
Fighting to keep trans women in the mens restroom is fighting to allow the patriarchy to straighten them out behind closed doors under the guise of ‘women’s safety’.
She even mined this for cash, writing a fictional book about a man in a dress who murders women. “The book reportedly follows a detective on the hunt for a cis male serial killer who dresses as a woman in order to hunt and murder cis women.”
She also refers to "the naked misogyny of the gender identity movement". Not some subset who issues violent threats*, the whole movement. Implying everyone who supports trans rights is at least complicit.
*I think we should take it as a given that some proportion of the violent threats prominent women receive is just straight out arseholes who like to threaten women and don't care about the supposed issue involved. There's pretty good evidence for bad faith actors hammering at wedge issues by encouraging threats too.
Rowling’s new novel, The Ink Black Heart — part of her crime-thriller series Cormoran Strike and penned under the pseudonym Robert Galbraith — involves a storyline that appears to mirror Rowling’s public downfall after she continually made statements that have been widely condemned as transphobic.
Im sure she created a nuanced story and the work isn’t more polemical than Atlas Shrugged.
Quote:
In her new book, Rowling introduces readers to Edie Ledwell, a creator of a popular YouTube cartoon who sees internet trolls and her own fandom turn on her after the cartoon was criticized as being racist and ableist, as well as transphobic for a bit about a hermaphrodite worm.
Well that seems a bit over the top.
Quote:
The creator is doxxed with photos of her home plastered on the internet, subjected to death and rape threats for having an opinion, and was ultimately found stabbed to death in a cemetery. The book takes a clear aim at “social justice warriors” and suggests that Ledwell was a victim of a masterfully plotted, politically fueled hate campaign against her.
I realize JK Rowling's new novel might seem a little long at 1200 pages but a good portion of the space is taken up by fictitious mean tweets pic.twitter.com/6xaH27fUUT
The villain of the book is a mysterious person going by the handle Anomie- which means “ lack of the usual social or ethical standards in an individual or group.” Eventually murdering the poor cartoonist TERF stand in Edie.
Wow, that’s not heavy handed at all, JK!
Quote:
"I would like to be very clear that I haven't written this book as an answer to anything that happened to me," said Rowling. "Although I have to say when it did happen to me, those who had already read the book in manuscript form were [like,] 'Are you clairvoyant?' I wasn't clairvoyant ... it was just one of those weird twists."
I recently learned about "longtermism", which is a philosophy that takes the above very seriously as a moral imperative and is embraced by the likes of Elon Musk. I bought a book that looked interesting called "What We Owe The Future", by William MacAskill that fell more than a few notches in my queue when I learned that it is a longtermist manifesto at the same time I learned about the concept itself.
Re: Return to Gender 101
Linear Mode
