I, along with many others, just don’t think Rowling is transphobic. I don’t see any evidence that she hates trans people, just that she doesn’t agree with some of the extreme trans activists takes, just like most people who aren’t extreme.
This doesn’t mean there’s no such thing as being canceled, but I do think that it shows more and more people have caught on to some of tactics that are used to cancel others. It’s going to continue to have less impact as time goes on, which is good, imo. Cancelation has its merits, but we’re coming out of an overreach period.
Some of the things that she has said have been a little dogwhistly, and she doesn’t come right-out and say “Trans people are icky and I hate them”, but if you look at what she’s said/done publically you should be able to see why people are mad at her.
I’m not trans, but when you look at and compare it to other minorites that have had to fight to be accepted, it lines up with what they had to go through.
Here’s an even shorter version:
It starts with Joanne puiblically liking the works of someone who is saying the quiet parts out loud.
This person’s work contract ended and it was not renewed.
Joanne then publically claimed that the scary trans people are getting women fired.
About a month later she is using menstration the line in the sand about what it means to be a women. She then mixed up sex and gender, and implies that trans people are erasing cis people.
Daniel Radcliff then publically posts “Transgender women are women, any statement to the contrary erases the identity and dignity of transgender people and goes against all advice given by professional health care associations who have far more expertise on this subject matter than either Jo or I.”
Another month goes by and she then claims that “we are watching a new kind of conversion therapy for young gay people”. Trans people aren’t real, they are just confused gay people.
A couple months later she puts out a book where the serial killer is a “Man in a dress”, once again “trans people are scary and dangerous”.
I think the issue comes down to what is pushed as transphobic. We have this issue a lot right now, where certain terms have been stretched out to encompass more and more. The major downside to this tactic is that eventually you cram enough people under that term that no one cares anymore.
Nothing she’s said has lined up with “trans people are icky and I hate them”. Trans woman are trans women. They’re not women. The trans label is there to diffentiate the two terms, because biological women are different than tran women are, and we require terms that alert us to differences when we discuss things.
For example, her character in a dress in a serial killer who dresses up as a woman not because he feels like a woman on the inside - it’s so he can lure victims in. Hes not fundamentally “a man in a dress” hes "a man who puts on a dress for a short, specific purpose. He doesnt wear a dress when hes not luring in victims. He in no way thinks, acts or feels like a woman or a trans woman. He does not wish to be one, and puts on a dress and wig for the sole purpose of committing a crime. In my eyes, anyone who looks at that character and thinks he in any way is tied to trans is the actual transphobe.
Your list is examples of things she said, and then immediately putting words into her mouth that are the worst possible interpretation you can make, and interpretations can easily be wrong.
Again, most rational people who have gone through what she’s said don’t see transphobia there.
Also, we’re also seeing the effects of pushing physical transitions on younger people in detransitioners that are speaking out about it. It’s not crazy to understand that gay people who are confused can easily make the wrong decision that can never be made right again. Understanding that and approaching the issue with extreme caution is a good thing.
Oh wow, where to begin. Let’s start with your first paragraph. What terms are you talking about when you say “certain terms have been stretched out?”
Secondly, trans women are women, just as much as short women are women, or blonde women are women. Trans is a descriptor meaning “on the other side of”, signifying that their biological sex is different to their gender expression. The opposite of this is cis, meaning “on the same side of”, describing that their gender expression matches their biological sex.
When you interact with people, you’re generally interacting with them in regard to how they present in the world, their gender, their appearance, their personality. Very rarely do you interact with them in regard to their genetics, so that’s not really a useful thing to talk about. Interacting with trans women or cis women on a day to day basis is no different than interacting with short women or tall women.
Gender is a constellation. You may have heard “gender is a spectrum”, but it’s actually even more complicated than that. Not only does XX and XY not cover everyone (XXX, XXY and XO are all observed in humans), but genetic expression is very bad at doing binary. You can see this by looking into people’s eyes. While there are dominant brown eye genes, and recessive blue eye genes, even people’s eyes we’d describe as blue or brown have so much variation it’s almost unimaginable. When it comes to all the ways sex characteristics develop in the body, external and internal organs, muscle mass, fat distribution, body hair and so on, sex expression dramatically fails to be binary. This is why I say it’s a constellation that is over simplified by just talking about someone’s sex chromosomes.
You spend a lot of time trying to justify JK’s use of cross dressing as a characteristic of a serial killer. This is just sad. Look at the constellation of everything that the previous poster brought up. JK has done a whole bunch of things that are anti-trans, from using the old trope of protecting children from the scary trans, to opening a women’s shelter to specifically deny trans women from it (which is against the law in Scotland, where she did this), to all the times she’s promoted very bigoted anti-trans sentiments on twitter (including anti-abortionists, anti-semites, and actual fascists when they agree with her anti-trans sentiments). This is a pattern that you absolutely can draw conclusions from. Anti-trans sentiment has been used in crime stories so many times, it’s kinda pathetic at this point. While JK does hide behind enough of a distinction for some people by calling the killer a cross-dresser, rather than trans, it’s very clear what she’s suggesting once you’ve looked at the pattern of her work, her thoughts, and who she allies with.
You bring up “trans regret” but this is such an overblown talking point, again it’s sad you’re doing that. Studies have shown that those who do transition, socially and/or medically, regret it very little, with a regret rate of less than 1% in most studies that observed good scientific process. This is not too discount detransitioners. They deserve respect and support just like anyone else. But to put barriers in the way of trans healthcare because of a less than 1% regret rate, when knee surgery has a regret rate of almost 30% and you don’t hear anyone trying to stop that, do you?
When it comes to trans teens, no surgery is done on anyone under 16, with the biggest intervention being puberty blockers, which delay the onset of puberty. This is fully reversible, has almost no long-term side effects, and has been shown to be so incredibly effective at treating disphoria that again the regret rate is minimal. Also more cis teens are prescribed puberty blockers than trans kids.
The previous poster was not putting words in JK’s mouth, they were observing the pattern that JK has created. She’s good enough at disguising her true thoughts that calls to bigots through dog whistles, emotionally harms her targets, and gives herself enough plausible deniability that those who aren’t paying attention can fail to see the issue. Then bigots use that deniability to continue all three of these tactics. Just like you’re doing now.
It says more about you that you’re incapable of seeing hate unless the person spreading it literally says the quiet part out loud. Rowling does the bare minimum, couching her hate in the thinnest veneer of plausible deniability, and you just gobble it up. She freely associates with TERFs and White Nationals, simply because they agree with her views on transwomen.
The UK has made a hard turn against trans rights in the last decade, and Rowling had been the driving force behind that reversal.
You’re making up a quiet part that you can’t possibly know is true, that’s the problem. You’re reading into something that’s not there. Again, you do you, but most people outside of the trans activist community aren’t going to agree, including some trNs people themselves.
Agreeing with someone isnt gobbling anything up, it’s just coming to the same conclusion and not believing that transphobia encompasses what she is.
The UK made a hard turn because they saw the damage that treating disphoria physically first and mentally second is having. There were dire consequences. I agree there’s going to be some overreach in response to the overreach from what more of the extreme activists have done. I think we’ll eventually get to a good place and figure it out, but until then, things will get rocky.
This is after Sweden, who was first to start the extreme treatments we’ve seen, pulled back as well.
No, you see, I included evidence for this, her friends that are TERFs and White Nationals. If she “wanted the best” for trans people, she wouldn’t associate with people who wanted them eradicated. You ignored it. She also uses Motte-and-Bailey Fallacies to maintain distance from her less friendly views. I can get receipts if you want.
The UK made a hard turn because
Prove it. Cause from where I’m sitting, a right-leaning government took over and ran back social progress, a thing right-leaning governments do. What were the negative ramifications from allowing trans people to exist without needing to jump through hoops? They were “dire” in your own words, so you must have some examples.
This is after Sweden
Appeal to Authority. And meaningless to this conversation. It’s not proof of anything, just that a fairly socially conservative country ran back a socially progressive policy. Shocker.
I mean, she’s straight up said she thinks that trans women are not women and that she believes being transgender is a mental illness. She said she’d rather go to jail than be forced to call trans people by their preferred pronouns (which is insane and not a real scenario that would happen, but still telling nonetheless lol). She’s buddied up with some far-right extremists, one of which has likened being transgender to doing blackface and another that said trans men should be sterilized.
I also don’t agree with extremist takes on either side, but promotion of trans erasure and mocking/minimizing/invalidating a margininalized group that is frequently at risk of being targeted for violence are not victimless acts.
I haven’t seen her support any fascists, though I can’t say for sure she hasn’t spoken with any on twitter. Supporting someone is different than agreeing with one thing they say though. I agree with lots of people that vanilla ice cream is delicious. It doesn’t mean I support everyone who agrees with that statement.
I knew a girl who lost her uterus in an accident before she hit puberty. We lost touch, but im pretty sure that precludes her having a period. Is she not a woman? Is she less of a woman because of this?
I, along with many others, just don’t think Rowling is transphobic. I don’t see any evidence that she hates trans people, just that she doesn’t agree with some of the extreme trans activists takes, just like most people who aren’t extreme.
This doesn’t mean there’s no such thing as being canceled, but I do think that it shows more and more people have caught on to some of tactics that are used to cancel others. It’s going to continue to have less impact as time goes on, which is good, imo. Cancelation has its merits, but we’re coming out of an overreach period.
Some of the things that she has said have been a little dogwhistly, and she doesn’t come right-out and say “Trans people are icky and I hate them”, but if you look at what she’s said/done publically you should be able to see why people are mad at her.
I’m not trans, but when you look at and compare it to other minorites that have had to fight to be accepted, it lines up with what they had to go through.
This article has a pretty decent timeline:
https://theweek.com/feature/1020838/jk-rowlings-transphobia-controversy-a-complete-timeline
Here’s an even shorter version:
It starts with Joanne puiblically liking the works of someone who is saying the quiet parts out loud.
This person’s work contract ended and it was not renewed.
Joanne then publically claimed that the scary trans people are getting women fired.
About a month later she is using menstration the line in the sand about what it means to be a women. She then mixed up sex and gender, and implies that trans people are erasing cis people.
Daniel Radcliff then publically posts “Transgender women are women, any statement to the contrary erases the identity and dignity of transgender people and goes against all advice given by professional health care associations who have far more expertise on this subject matter than either Jo or I.”
Joanne then puts out her Essay:
https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-rowling-writes-about-her-reasons-for-speaking-out-on-sex-and-gender-issues/
It’s very “Trans people are scary, think of the children, trans-inclusive language hurts real women, accepting trans-people means that bathroom rapes are going to go up”
Another month goes by and she then claims that “we are watching a new kind of conversion therapy for young gay people”. Trans people aren’t real, they are just confused gay people.
A couple months later she puts out a book where the serial killer is a “Man in a dress”, once again “trans people are scary and dangerous”.
I think the issue comes down to what is pushed as transphobic. We have this issue a lot right now, where certain terms have been stretched out to encompass more and more. The major downside to this tactic is that eventually you cram enough people under that term that no one cares anymore.
Nothing she’s said has lined up with “trans people are icky and I hate them”. Trans woman are trans women. They’re not women. The trans label is there to diffentiate the two terms, because biological women are different than tran women are, and we require terms that alert us to differences when we discuss things.
For example, her character in a dress in a serial killer who dresses up as a woman not because he feels like a woman on the inside - it’s so he can lure victims in. Hes not fundamentally “a man in a dress” hes "a man who puts on a dress for a short, specific purpose. He doesnt wear a dress when hes not luring in victims. He in no way thinks, acts or feels like a woman or a trans woman. He does not wish to be one, and puts on a dress and wig for the sole purpose of committing a crime. In my eyes, anyone who looks at that character and thinks he in any way is tied to trans is the actual transphobe.
Your list is examples of things she said, and then immediately putting words into her mouth that are the worst possible interpretation you can make, and interpretations can easily be wrong.
Again, most rational people who have gone through what she’s said don’t see transphobia there.
Also, we’re also seeing the effects of pushing physical transitions on younger people in detransitioners that are speaking out about it. It’s not crazy to understand that gay people who are confused can easily make the wrong decision that can never be made right again. Understanding that and approaching the issue with extreme caution is a good thing.
Oh wow, where to begin. Let’s start with your first paragraph. What terms are you talking about when you say “certain terms have been stretched out?”
Secondly, trans women are women, just as much as short women are women, or blonde women are women. Trans is a descriptor meaning “on the other side of”, signifying that their biological sex is different to their gender expression. The opposite of this is cis, meaning “on the same side of”, describing that their gender expression matches their biological sex.
When you interact with people, you’re generally interacting with them in regard to how they present in the world, their gender, their appearance, their personality. Very rarely do you interact with them in regard to their genetics, so that’s not really a useful thing to talk about. Interacting with trans women or cis women on a day to day basis is no different than interacting with short women or tall women.
Gender is a constellation. You may have heard “gender is a spectrum”, but it’s actually even more complicated than that. Not only does XX and XY not cover everyone (XXX, XXY and XO are all observed in humans), but genetic expression is very bad at doing binary. You can see this by looking into people’s eyes. While there are dominant brown eye genes, and recessive blue eye genes, even people’s eyes we’d describe as blue or brown have so much variation it’s almost unimaginable. When it comes to all the ways sex characteristics develop in the body, external and internal organs, muscle mass, fat distribution, body hair and so on, sex expression dramatically fails to be binary. This is why I say it’s a constellation that is over simplified by just talking about someone’s sex chromosomes.
You spend a lot of time trying to justify JK’s use of cross dressing as a characteristic of a serial killer. This is just sad. Look at the constellation of everything that the previous poster brought up. JK has done a whole bunch of things that are anti-trans, from using the old trope of protecting children from the scary trans, to opening a women’s shelter to specifically deny trans women from it (which is against the law in Scotland, where she did this), to all the times she’s promoted very bigoted anti-trans sentiments on twitter (including anti-abortionists, anti-semites, and actual fascists when they agree with her anti-trans sentiments). This is a pattern that you absolutely can draw conclusions from. Anti-trans sentiment has been used in crime stories so many times, it’s kinda pathetic at this point. While JK does hide behind enough of a distinction for some people by calling the killer a cross-dresser, rather than trans, it’s very clear what she’s suggesting once you’ve looked at the pattern of her work, her thoughts, and who she allies with.
You bring up “trans regret” but this is such an overblown talking point, again it’s sad you’re doing that. Studies have shown that those who do transition, socially and/or medically, regret it very little, with a regret rate of less than 1% in most studies that observed good scientific process. This is not too discount detransitioners. They deserve respect and support just like anyone else. But to put barriers in the way of trans healthcare because of a less than 1% regret rate, when knee surgery has a regret rate of almost 30% and you don’t hear anyone trying to stop that, do you?
When it comes to trans teens, no surgery is done on anyone under 16, with the biggest intervention being puberty blockers, which delay the onset of puberty. This is fully reversible, has almost no long-term side effects, and has been shown to be so incredibly effective at treating disphoria that again the regret rate is minimal. Also more cis teens are prescribed puberty blockers than trans kids.
The previous poster was not putting words in JK’s mouth, they were observing the pattern that JK has created. She’s good enough at disguising her true thoughts that calls to bigots through dog whistles, emotionally harms her targets, and gives herself enough plausible deniability that those who aren’t paying attention can fail to see the issue. Then bigots use that deniability to continue all three of these tactics. Just like you’re doing now.
It says more about you that you’re incapable of seeing hate unless the person spreading it literally says the quiet part out loud. Rowling does the bare minimum, couching her hate in the thinnest veneer of plausible deniability, and you just gobble it up. She freely associates with TERFs and White Nationals, simply because they agree with her views on transwomen.
The UK has made a hard turn against trans rights in the last decade, and Rowling had been the driving force behind that reversal.
You’re making up a quiet part that you can’t possibly know is true, that’s the problem. You’re reading into something that’s not there. Again, you do you, but most people outside of the trans activist community aren’t going to agree, including some trNs people themselves.
Agreeing with someone isnt gobbling anything up, it’s just coming to the same conclusion and not believing that transphobia encompasses what she is.
The UK made a hard turn because they saw the damage that treating disphoria physically first and mentally second is having. There were dire consequences. I agree there’s going to be some overreach in response to the overreach from what more of the extreme activists have done. I think we’ll eventually get to a good place and figure it out, but until then, things will get rocky.
This is after Sweden, who was first to start the extreme treatments we’ve seen, pulled back as well.
No, you see, I included evidence for this, her friends that are TERFs and White Nationals. If she “wanted the best” for trans people, she wouldn’t associate with people who wanted them eradicated. You ignored it. She also uses Motte-and-Bailey Fallacies to maintain distance from her less friendly views. I can get receipts if you want.
Prove it. Cause from where I’m sitting, a right-leaning government took over and ran back social progress, a thing right-leaning governments do. What were the negative ramifications from allowing trans people to exist without needing to jump through hoops? They were “dire” in your own words, so you must have some examples.
Appeal to Authority. And meaningless to this conversation. It’s not proof of anything, just that a fairly socially conservative country ran back a socially progressive policy. Shocker.
I mean, she’s straight up said she thinks that trans women are not women and that she believes being transgender is a mental illness. She said she’d rather go to jail than be forced to call trans people by their preferred pronouns (which is insane and not a real scenario that would happen, but still telling nonetheless lol). She’s buddied up with some far-right extremists, one of which has likened being transgender to doing blackface and another that said trans men should be sterilized.
I also don’t agree with extremist takes on either side, but promotion of trans erasure and mocking/minimizing/invalidating a margininalized group that is frequently at risk of being targeted for violence are not victimless acts.
I kind of agree but I can’t really look past her supporting literal (actually transphobic) fascists because they agree with her
I haven’t seen her support any fascists, though I can’t say for sure she hasn’t spoken with any on twitter. Supporting someone is different than agreeing with one thing they say though. I agree with lots of people that vanilla ice cream is delicious. It doesn’t mean I support everyone who agrees with that statement.
I don’t have time to listen to it again right now so I’m just gonna dump my fairly long video source onto you, but this guy researched it pretty well
All Ive ever seen her say is that trans women don’t know what it’s like to have a period
Which is a true statement. Trans women don’t know what it’s like to have a period. Trans men do, for the most part.
I knew a girl who lost her uterus in an accident before she hit puberty. We lost touch, but im pretty sure that precludes her having a period. Is she not a woman? Is she less of a woman because of this?