Why on earth would a trans person be bigoted towards trans people. Do you maybe think she's just putting her opinion out there on biological sex and people that don't like it cry bigot? It's exactly the same as the 'you're racist' brigade.
Trans people can be bigoted towards other trans people, they aren't a monolithic group. Trans men, women and non-binary people can and will hold transphobic views about one another. Just like gay, bi and lesbian people can and will hold homophobic views about each other.
As for Blaire White, I've already given taste of her behaviour towards other trans women. She has a very narrow view of who qualifies as trans, and had any cis person said the things she says, they'd rightly be labeled a bigot.
And then we get to her views on non-binary people. She treats them like a racist treats a minority. Among other things she has referred to them as "trans-retarded" and doesn't consider them to be trans.
I don't know enough about Rowling's timeline to say for sure but I know she used to enjoy trolling Corbyn supporters. She definitely had quite a nasty, patronising streak in her before this all blew up. That sort of stuff is fine though when it's just party political pie throwing. However that same belligerent tone doesn't go down quite so well when it's swathed in bigotry.
I think there is definitely truth in the double down suggestion. Rowling seems to have access to the same Martingale system that bankrupted Glinner. Rowling though has more clout and money than Glinner, so she's good for a few more rounds. But as I always say exponentials, exponentials, exponentials, exp... I can do maths jokes.
Also on a deeper level (Trigger Warning: Marxist perspective), she very much encompasses the white bourgeois feminism that Angela Davis criticises so adroitly. The last video I posted is a clip from an excellent lecture/book on these subjects. But let's not run before we can walk.
a bookstore here has banned Harry Potter books, whether you agree with that decision or not (I don't personally) banning books is probably the best PR an author can get to increase sales
I dislike her for her transphobic views but for me it's important to draw a distinction between that and her right to write what she wants - which I'd support
I suppose the one caveat to that would be if her books incited hate or violence (never read one myself)
I think we can be clearer about what this actually means, they have banned Harry Potter books in the sense that they have chosen to not spend money on Harry Potter books for the purpose of selling them on to others for a profit, i.e. they haven't banned anything at all. I have a Christian bookstore relatively close, which means that they offer specific types of books (explicitly Christian works, works with themes related to or important to Christianity, and some unrelated works that do at minimum not go against what they view as Christian values). There is a bookstore that focuses on domestic authors, one that focuses on international authors (typically not the blockbusters), etc.
Choosing to not sell Harry Potter books might or might not be a bad decision, but bookstores make a lot of choices about what kind of books and authors they offer and don't offer every single time they order new ones, and the vast majority don't make the cut. That doesn't mean that they got banned or that anyone's rights were violated.
I think there is definitely truth in the double down suggestion. Rowling seems to have access to the same Martingale system that bankrupted Glinner. Rowling though has more clout and money than Glinner, so she's good for a few more rounds. But as I always say exponentials, exponentials, exponentials, exp... I can do maths jokes.
I genuinely feel sorry for the guy. He was once a well loved comedy writer. He had money, success and handled his public persona well (even if stories of him being an arsehole behind the scenes are easy to find). In the grand scheme of things I can imagine he may have done more to promote trans rights through the backlash he received than most activists. What a fecking disaster.
Was that Mumsnet stuff real afterall? It wouldn't surprise me. Frankly I'd probably prefer to keep the truth a mystery.
I have to admit I'm not familiar with Linehan, not least because I tend to stay away from Twitter shitstorms; it is clearly beneficial for one's mental health to do so. And sure, I can see someone being pushed to extremes by hostile reactions - but I think only if they were strongly leaning that way anyway; no radical feminist is going to convince me to hate women. There were also many considered, intelligent rebuttals of Rowling's arguments but clearly, they don't seem to hold much weight.
It’s not that black and white though. The whole trans woman’s rights vs cis woman’s rights debate is full of nuance and grey areas. As “extreme” as Rowling’s opinions have got she’s very clear that she still has compassion for trans women. We’re not talking about hate speech here.
I do agree with people who think her opinions come across as transphobic. I also think these opinions were probably much less firmly held and problematic before she felt the full wrath of progressive Twitter. I guess it is possible she’s always held toxic opinions about trans women, which couldn’t possibly change if they were challenged in a compassionate and reasonable manner. Although what we do know about her political inclinations before this shit show makes that seem unlikely.
It’s not that black and white though. The whole trans woman’s rights vs cis woman’s rights debate is full of nuance and grey areas. Especially for someone who has been the victim of domestic abuse by a cis male. As “extreme” as Rowling’s opinions have got she’s very clear that she still has compassion for trans women. We’re not talking about hate speech here.
I do agree with people who think her opinions make her come across as transphobic. I also think these opinions were probably much less firmly held and problematic before she felt the full wrath of progressive Twitter. I guess it is possible she’s always held toxic opinions about trans women, which couldn’t possibly change if they were challenged in a compassionate and reasonable manner. Although what we do know about her political inclinations before this shit show makes this seem unlikely.
It's not that clear to me. She says she does have compassion for trans women - but almost every single point she makes undermines this statement, most notably when stating that "radical feminists aren’t even trans-exclusionary — they include trans men in their feminism, because they were born women." - it's impossible to read this in any other way but that those same radical feminists don't include trans women in their feminism because they don't consider them women. I think flat-out denying someone's identity like that is the very opposite of compassionate. Saying that 'I have compassion for trans women' after that is a little bit like North Korea calling itself 'Democratic'. I mean, in that lengthy post she's championing Magdalen Berns who, well, wasn't exactly sympathetic and understanding towards trans women: "men who get sexual kicks from being treated like women", "trans women are men".
I generally tend to stay out of trans rights debates because unlike Rowling, I'm not very well versed in the subject. Truth be told, I find the concept itself a little hard to wrap my head around; the idea of being non-binary is far easier for me to understand than being trans. But even so, flat-out invalidating someone else's identity is pretty much always a dick move so I tend not to do that. This is something that, regardless of Twitter reactions, Rowling doesn't seem to get.
I think we can be clearer about what this actually means, they have banned Harry Potter books in the sense that they have chosen to not spend money on Harry Potter books for the purpose of selling them on to others for a profit, i.e. they haven't banned anything at all. I have a Christian bookstore relatively close, which means that they offer specific types of books (explicitly Christian works, works with themes related to or important to Christianity, and some unrelated works that do at minimum not go against what they view as Christian values). There is a bookstore that focuses on domestic authors, one that focuses on international authors (typically not the blockbusters), etc.
Choosing to not sell Harry Potter books might or might not be a bad decision, but bookstores make a lot of choices about what kind of books and authors they offer and don't offer every single time they order new ones, and the vast majority don't make the cut. That doesn't mean that they got banned or that anyone's rights were violated.
I'm not sure why you're trying to draw an equivalence between whats happened here and bookstores making decisions based on what they think will sell. We know it was for political reasons.
I definitely could have my timelines wrong. My memory is that she first got shit over something to with the sexuality of an elf? And then it spiralled from there. If you allow yourself get immersed in a Twitter war like that I’m sure it’s easy enough to get up to speed on all the literature very quickly. Especially a person with thousands of followers, all taking sides and sharing links/youtube videos. Plus her day job allows her take as much time as she wants going down trans activist vs TERF rabbit holes.
Like I said, the whole thing reminds me very much of Graham Linehan. He’s a similarly damaged individual (bullied at school) who seemed to get triggered by mean-spirited Twitter arguments and ended up getting ludicrously over-invested in a debate that would have completely passed him by if he didn’t have a Twitter account. He ended up trying to become some sort of authority on feminism and gender because of a long running argument that was originally about video game journalism!
The validity of your entire argument about the woke left being a root cause of the problem rests on the timeline, so best to be sure about it. Did a significant number of people call her out over this elf thing? Or did most people only start calling out her opinions about trans women after she'd made them public?
Ultimately I think Linehan and Rowling is a poor comparison. Linehan effectively entered the debate the second he delivered that transphobic IT Crowd episode, but at the time he probably didn't know he was doing it (he just thought portraying a trans woman as being really manly was dead funny). It got picked up a few years later when trans issues started to gain traction amongst the wider left. On the other hand, Rowling knowingly entered the debate by publically showing sympathy with anti-trans figures and sentiments and eventually tweeting anti-trans dog whistles to her enormous following. I'm not sure at what point in that process the softly softly approach to bigotry you're advocating was meant to show her the error of her ways. She had clearly made up her mind long before she started talking about it publically.
Linehan you can argue has been radicalised by critique of his work, but that speaks more to his character rather than that of mean twitter lefties. The first time I ever saw Linehan engaging in critique of the transphobia in his work was a really innocuous comment from a member of the public in about 2013 like:
'Wow, just saw this IT Crowd episode for the first time in a while and it's really transphobic, I'm sure @glinner knows better now'
In response to which Linehan, in a situation where most people would hold their hands up and say 'yeah I did a bad thing there but I'm sorry and I'm less ignorant now', booted off and got defensive. If someone is so incapable of self-reflection that they will throw their entire life into being a bigot to avoid admitting fault, that reflects extremely badly on them and no-one else.
I'm not sure why you're trying to draw an equivalence between whats happened here and bookstores making decisions based on what they think will sell. We know it was for political reasons.
The bookstores I mentioned explicitly do not make decisions based on what they think will sell, they make decisions based on ideology, personal values, literary preferences and they want to influence what people read. Bookstores generally, which to be fair I also mentioned, do make choices based on financial calculations. I agree that it's not equivalent, except that it might be for reasons mentioned below, but there are similarities.
We also don't know that it was political. Rowling is a very polarizing figure right now, maybe they think this move will motivate potential customers who dislike Rowling. Or, maybe they have a moral problem with financially supporting and profiting off of a bigot. This would be analogous to how people might be fine with buying books written by extreme racists when they're dead (like H.P Lovecraft) but not when they're alive (Jean Raspail), because they won't personally contribute to Lovecraft having a better quality of life for obvious reasons. These are not political acts, or if they are then we're defining it pretty broadly.
Edit: Shit, turns out Raspail recently died, there goes my example. At least we live in a world without Jean Raspail now, that's nice.
It's not that clear to me. She says she does have compassion for trans women - but almost every single point she makes undermines this statement, most notably when stating that "radical feminists aren’t even trans-exclusionary — they include trans men in their feminism, because they were born women." - it's impossible to read this in any other way but that those same radical feminists don't include trans women in their feminism because they don't consider them women. I think flat-out denying someone's identity like that is the very opposite of compassionate. Saying that 'I have compassion for trans women' after that is a little bit like North Korea calling itself 'Democratic'. I mean, in that lengthy post she's championing Magdalen Berns who, well, wasn't exactly sympathetic and understanding towards trans women: "men who get sexual kicks from being treated like women", "trans women are men".
I generally tend to stay out of trans rights debates because unlike Rowling, I'm not very well versed in the subject. Truth be told, I find the concept itself a little hard to wrap my head around; the idea of being non-binary is far easier for me to understand than being trans. But even so, flat-out invalidating someone else's identity is pretty much always a dick move so I tend not to do that. This is something that, regardless of Twitter reactions, Rowling doesn't seem to get.
I don’t really want to rehash the whole debate on here but it’s definitely possible to feel compassionate towards trans women while “denying their identity “ as you put it. At the most basic level she’s essentially arguing that there are four categories to consider when discussing issues of relevance to sex/gender. Cis men, cis women, trans men and trans women. All of whom need to be considered separately when it comes to a certain, very limited, set of rights and requirement (safe spaces and sports being the most obvious examples).
I always find it disingenuous the way people on the side of the trans activists in this debate insist on referring to biological females as “cis women” (examples in this thread) but anyone who thinks we need to use the prefix “trans” when referring to women born male - in a few, specific contexts - is denying their identity, or committing some sort of hate crime.
I genuinely feel sorry for the guy. He was once a well loved comedy writer. He had money, success and handled his public persona well (even if stories of him being an arsehole behind the scenes are easy to find). In the grand scheme of things I can imagine he may have done more to promote trans rights through the backlash he received than most activists. What a fecking disaster.
Was that Mumsnet stuff real afterall? It wouldn't surprise me. Frankly I'd probably prefer to keep the truth a mystery.
I feel a bit sorry for him too. He seems confused and lost. I'm not sure how true the mumsnet thing is to be honest. I do recall seeing the post of him apologising for asking for sexual hookups somewhere though.
After he got banned from Twitter he (apparently) took his disappointment to mumsnet and posted on there. Some users claimed he was messaging them for sexual favours.
The bookstores I mentioned explicitly do not make decisions based on what they think will sell, they make decisions based on ideology, personal values, literary preferences and they want to influence what people read. Bookstores generally, which to be fair I also mentioned, do make choices based on financial calculations. I agree that it's not equivalent, except that it might be for reasons mentioned below, but there are similarities.
We also don't know that it was political. Rowling is a very polarizing figure right now, maybe they think this move will motivate potential customers who dislike Rowling. Or, maybe they have a moral problem with financially supporting and profiting off of a bigot. This would be analogous to how people might be fine with buying books written by extreme racists when they're dead (like H.P Lovecraft) but not when they're alive (Jeap Raspail), because they won't personally contribute to Lovecraft having a better quality of life for obvious reasons. These are not political acts, or if they are then we're defining it pretty broadly.
I guess 'cultural decision' would have been a more apt phrase there - sorry.
The reason given in their statement was "we are always trying to make Rabble a safer space for our community, and part of that is trying not to put books by transphobes on the shelves"
The statement goes on to explain that "Robert Galbraith Heath was a psychologist who helped develop conversion therapy". Holy shit I didn't even know about this part!
I don’t really want to rehash the whole debate on here but it’s definitely possible to feel compassionate towards trans women while “denying their identity “ as you put it. At the most basic level she’s essentially arguing that there are four categories to consider when discussing issues of relevance to sex/gender. Cis men, cis women, trans men and trans women. All of whom need to be considered separately when it comes to a certain, very limited, set of rights and requirement (safe spaces and sports being the most obvious examples).
I always find it disingenuous the way people on the side of the trans activists in this debate insist on referring to biological females as “cis women” (examples in this thread) but anyone who thinks we need to use the prefix “trans” when referring to women born male - in a few, specific contexts - is denying their identity, or committing some sort of hate crime.
I don't know how trans women feel about being labelled trans women. That's not the point.
The point is that she repeatedly quotes, promotes, champions people who unequivocally believe that trans women are men. Again, let me refer to Berns, whom Rowling refers to as a "brave young feminist". She called trans women sick fecks, men who want to be treated as women for sexual kicks. In light of that, it's hard to take it at face value when she claims to have compassion and understanding. It feels like nothing but PR to temper the backlash against her actual views. Like when corporations speak about their commitment to human rights and then turn around and cater to China's every whim.
I don't know how trans women feel about being labelled trans women. That's not the point.
The point is that she repeatedly quotes, promotes, champions people who unequivocally believe that trans women are men. Again, let me refer to Berns, whom Rowling refers to as a "brave young feminist". She called trans women sick fecks, men who want to be treated as women for sexual kicks. In light of that, it's hard to take it at face value when she claims to have compassion and understanding. It feels like nothing but PR to temper the backlash against her actual views. Like when corporations speak about their commitment to human rights and then turn around and cater to China's every whim.
She’s got sucked into the never ending Twitter war on the subject. And if she’s decided to side with the TERFs then it’s inevitable that she will mention Berns, who has become an almost Christ-like figure for that movement; being both charismatic and dying young.
I know you say you don’t spend time on Twitter, so this might not make sense to you. But, believe me, it’s a fecking mad house. It’s so easy to get sucked into drinking the kool aid of one extremist opinion or another on contentious issues like these. All the more so if your initial reason for getting sucked in is a concerted assault from seasoned veterans of the never-ending war. And the most vulnerable people are those who have a job that lets them spend hours and hours every day online (or no job, as per elderly QAnon nutters)
To be clear, I know I give the impression of saying this is all the fault of “SJW Twitter warriors” but for the likes of Linehan and Rowling to end up having a public meltdown like this (obviously one more extreme than the other!) takes pull as well as push. And both sides of the war are equally responsible for the radicalisation of new recruits. The whole thing is face-meltingly toxic, with absolutely nobody coming out of it looking good.
She’s got sucked into the never ending Twitter war on the subject. And if she’s decided to side with the TERFs then it’s inevitable that she will mention Berns, who has become an almost Christ-like figure for that movement; being both charismatic and dying young.
I know you say you don’t spend time on Twitter, so this might not make sense to you. But, believe me, it’s a fecking mad house. It’s so easy to get sucked into drinking the kool aid of one extremist opinion or another on contentious issues like these. All the more so if your initial reason for getting sucked in is a concerted assault from seasoned veterans of the never-ending war. And the most vulnerable people are those who have a job that lets them spend hours and hours every day online (or no job, as per elderly QAnon nutters)
To be clear, I know I give the impression of saying this is all the fault of “SJW Twitter warriors” but for the likes of Linehan and Rowling to end up having a public meltdown like this (obviously one more extreme than the other!) takes pull as well as push. And both sides of the war are equally responsible for the radicalisation of new recruits. The whole thing is face-meltingly toxic, with absolutely nobody coming out of it looking good.
I hope this particular Twitter war eventually ends, much like there's no longer a culture war on women's suffrage - there isn't, right? Not in the western world?
But yeah, I get you. Still, no matter how Rowling got her opinions on the subject, she is entitled to those opinions just as others are entitled to call her a transphobe over it. Even if she never changes her mind or gets sucked into the war even deeper, the debate between her and her critics - not those who sent death threats but those who wrote lengthy, analytic refutals - helped me and probably others like me a lot to understand the different perspectives. It pushed me a bit further away from Rowling and her views but I'm sure she won't lose much sleep over that.
I hope this particular Twitter war eventually ends, much like there's no longer a culture war on women's suffrage - there isn't, right? Not in the western world?
But yeah, I get you. Still, no matter how Rowling got her opinions on the subject, she is entitled to those opinions just as others are entitled to call her a transphobe over it. Even if she never changes her mind or gets sucked into the war even deeper, the debate between her and her critics - not those who sent death threats but those who wrote lengthy, analytic refutals - helped me and probably others like me a lot to understand the different perspectives. It pushed me a bit further away from Rowling and her views but I'm sure she won't lose much sleep over that.
That’s definitely a possibility. The more high profile figures get sucked into this insane battle the more it raises awareness of these issues and in turn people who might not otherwise give a shit get better educated and informed. With the high profile people basically patsies, sacrificed for the greater good.
My inner optimist likes this take. My inner pessimist remains sceptical!
I always find it disingenuous the way people on the side of the trans activists in this debate insist on referring to biological females as “cis women” (examples in this thread) but anyone who thinks we need to use the prefix “trans” when referring to women born male - in a few, specific contexts - is denying their identity, or committing some sort of hate crime.
This is the main point to take from any of these situations where people claiming to have originally been in support of something are apparently 'driven to' changing their stance. Everyone's initial internal reaction to criticism is one of self defence, being able to reflect on it before responding, and possibly changing your stance or at least trying to clarify if you feel you are being misrepresented is the correct course of action, becoming an arsehole is not an acceptable way of dealing with it, and shouldn't be excused just because it's the easiest thing to do.
It’s not that black and white though. The whole trans woman’s rights vs cis woman’s rights debate is full of nuance and grey areas. As “extreme” as Rowling’s opinions have got she’s very clear that she still has compassion for trans women. We’re not talking about hate speech here.
I do agree with people who think her opinions come across as transphobic. I also think these opinions were probably much less firmly held and problematic before she felt the full wrath of progressive Twitter. I guess it is possible she’s always held toxic opinions about trans women, which couldn’t possibly change if they were challenged in a compassionate and reasonable manner. Although what we do know about her political inclinations before this shit show makes that seem unlikely.
I recognise everything Rowling says because my best friend is a TERF* (with equal helpings of the TE and RF). Everything Rowling says, except the line, "I have compassion for trans women."
My friend has explained to me in some detail why only trans men need compassion. Not that she thinks they're men, but because society has discriminated against women, they transfer their desire for equality into pretending to be men. So one must patronise their delusion. Trans women on the other hand are also pretenders but ones who are taking away the space of oppressed women, and she calls them as they want to be call either because she likes some individuals or because she'll get in trouble otherwise. There is zero compassion.
Her starting point might be slightly different from Rowling (her position is that gender is a construct and sex is biology, being trans is a social construct with no basis in biology and reinforces the bad social construct of gender), but a lot of the things they emphasise are so similar.
*She told me I can't use that word because trans women aren't women, it's the other (wrong) feminists that are TIRFs.
I always find it disingenuous the way people on the side of the trans activists in this debate insist on referring to biological females as “cis women” (examples in this thread) but anyone who thinks we need to use the prefix “trans” when referring to women born male - in a few, specific contexts - is denying their identity, or committing some sort of hate crime.
That's usually only done to differentiate between cis and trans people when discussing the issue, isn't it? In which case both prefixes are valid to use and nobody is offended.
In general I'd say it's bad form to draw attention to the fact that a trans person is trans, just like you wouldn't point out that someone is gay for no reason when talking about/to them. If it's not relevant to anything there's no reason to do it.
I think that only a very small minority of people believe trans women should be considered completely indistinguishable from cis women. There is a difference, but both are still women.
The validity of your entire argument about the woke left being a root cause of the problem rests on the timeline, so best to be sure about it. Did a significant number of people call her out over this elf thing? Or did most people only start calling out her opinions about trans women after she'd made them public?
Ultimately I think Linehan and Rowling is a poor comparison. Linehan effectively entered the debate the second he delivered that transphobic IT Crowd episode, but at the time he probably didn't know he was doing it (he just thought portraying a trans woman as being really manly was dead funny). It got picked up a few years later when trans issues started to gain traction amongst the wider left. On the other hand, Rowling knowingly entered the debate by publically showing sympathy with anti-trans figures and sentiments and eventually tweeting anti-trans dog whistles to her enormous following. I'm not sure at what point in that process the softly softly approach to bigotry you're advocating was meant to show her the error of her ways. She had clearly made up her mind long before she started talking about it publically.
Linehan you can argue has been radicalised by critique of his work, but that speaks more to his character rather than that of mean twitter lefties. The first time I ever saw Linehan engaging in critique of the transphobia in his work was a really innocuous comment from a member of the public in about 2013 like:
'Wow, just saw this IT Crowd episode for the first time in a while and it's really transphobic, I'm sure @glinner knows better now'
In response to which Linehan, in a situation where most people would hold their hands up and say 'yeah I did a bad thing there but I'm sorry and I'm less ignorant now', booted off and got defensive. If someone is so incapable of self-reflection that they will throw their entire life into being a bigot to avoid admitting fault, that reflects extremely badly on them and no-one else.
I used to follow Linehan on Twitter, so am more familiar with his timeline than Rowling’s. The crass IT episode was only properly weaponised against him when he was already balls deep in this culture war. He started losing his mind during the gamergate kerfuffle. He seemed to think this was basically waging a war on behalf of womankind against alt right misogynists. Some of whom were fluffies and trans women. The transphobic IT episode got thrown back in the mix when he was already in a bad place and this fired him up even more. Which I’m sure was in part down to him already feeling under attack in the same way that Rowling has been. Next thing gamergate and trans rights were conflated and he dealt with the cognitive dissonance of seeing himself as progressive whilst being accused of being transphobic by doubling down and siding with the TERF cheerleaders in his mentions.
Obviously, he comes out of this very badly. But I just think it’s interesting the way someone who would always consider themselves a left-leaning progressive can be taken to a very dark place thanks to a culture war on Twitter. I do think he’s probably an arsehole. Sadly a lot of people who spend their formative years being bullied can end up as unpleasant, damaged individuals. Who are inherently prickly (hence his unpleasant response when IT show episode first criticised) and prone to being bullies themselves. And that’s how he comes across to me. But I do also think he’s essentially a left-leaning progressive arsehole.
I’m not as familiar with Rowling, so can’t be sure how many similarities there are in their personalities. But they do both seem to be casualties of this toxic online environment, rather than people who have always had strongly held conservative/right wing convictions. Even if they’ve ended up holding specific opinions that fit that description.
Which brings me back to my initial point to @Mockney from a few pages back. I don’t think this is a rehash of the middle-aged conservative folk pushing back against progress we’ve seen in every generation up until now. This is about people who have differing views on what progress looks like. And that’s an important distinction.
As @Mockney and @dumbo sort of mentioned people like Rowling and Linehan were "progressive" for the 90's and their views haven't seem to change since that time period.
It's less of "the left"(Whatever that means anymore)turning these people to the right but rather the left is leaving them behind. Which we see all the time in politics but it's easier for a bunch of gen xers like Rowling to blame Twitter(Which of course is awful) than admit they might actually be conservatives.
Maybe this makes me pro gulag but is it wrong that I think this is quite a good thing ? Ideally people should be compassionate to others for a number of reasons but well if they can't then respect/acceptance due to social norms/pressure isn't a bad alternative outcome, right ?
Please understand the impact of your public statements on trans people.
Today, J.K.Rowling re-stated her position on transgender lives. We have previously reached out to her both publicly and privately, offering a calm conversation around the issues she has raised and today, we sent a further email to her team, renewing that offer. We are yet to receive a response.
As part of that email, we have disclosed something we hoped never to say. We say it now with permission from those involved. Without giving personal detail, without betraying confidences, we must represent the seriousness of the situation. We are aware through our work with families that there have been cases of self-harm and even attempted suicide following J.K.Rowling’s statements and the public response on social media and in the press. Surely this must cause us all to pause and question the way young trans lives are being debated in public.
For those working with transgender children, young people and families, this is not a gladiatorial sport to be won or lost with a tweet here, a forum post there, a weekly radio debate followed by an opinion article and a well-timed blog post preceding a parliamentary decision. this isn’t about a ‘woke’ majority enforcing politically correct beliefs on others. Trans people are far from being accepted by society and suffer real life discrimination, including physical violence, employment discrimination and everyday harassment on the street. Trans young people should not be used to amplify separate issues such as male violence, bodily autonomy or patriarchy. Our service users and supporters are real people with real lives, struggling to live freely in a world which, they say, feels increasingly cruel, hostile and unwilling to listen.
Hopefully all those making jokes out of the situation, laughing, throwing the "woke" term around sarcastically, stating they agree with her and how she's "just saying her opinion" find this just as amusing.
Of course I doubt it'll make much of a different to those that are making the site look more and more like r/kotakuinaction everytime an issue related to a social cause is brought up.
Please understand the impact of your public statements on trans people.
Today, J.K.Rowling re-stated her position on transgender lives. We have previously reached out to her both publicly and privately, offering a calm conversation around the issues she has raised and today, we sent a further email to her team, renewing that offer. We are yet to receive a response.
As part of that email, we have disclosed something we hoped never to say. We say it now with permission from those involved. Without giving personal detail, without betraying confidences, we must represent the seriousness of the situation. We are aware through our work with families that there have been cases of self-harm and even attempted suicide following J.K.Rowling’s statements and the public response on social media and in the press. Surely this must cause us all to pause and question the way young trans lives are being debated in public.
For those working with transgender children, young people and families, this is not a gladiatorial sport to be won or lost with a tweet here, a forum post there, a weekly radio debate followed by an opinion article and a well-timed blog post preceding a parliamentary decision. this isn’t about a ‘woke’ majority enforcing politically correct beliefs on others. Trans people are far from being accepted by society and suffer real life discrimination, including physical violence, employment discrimination and everyday harassment on the street. Trans young people should not be used to amplify separate issues such as male violence, bodily autonomy or patriarchy. Our service users and supporters are real people with real lives, struggling to live freely in a world which, they say, feels increasingly cruel, hostile and unwilling to listen.
Hopefully all those making jokes out of the situation, laughing, throwing the "woke" term around sarcastically, stating they agree with her and how she's "just saying her opinion" find this just as amusing.
Of course I doubt it'll make much of a different to those that are making the site look more and more like r/kotakuinaction everytime an issue related to a social cause is brought up.
The statistics are thoroughly depressing in regards to mental health/suicide and self harm in the LGBTQ community - more needs to be done and those with a voice like Rowling has need to use it much better than they currently are.
Not sure I follow the logic of deciding that a high profile debate on trans rights is damaging to the mental health of young trans people, then deciding the most appropriate response is to issue a press release titled “A Call to Very Famous Author”. Talk about fanning the flames...
Not sure I follow the logic of deciding that a high profile debate on trans rights is damaging to the mental health of young trans people, then deciding the most appropriate response is to issue a press release titled “A Call to Very Famous Author”. Talk about fanning the flames...
Seems to me that they're saying the way it's currently being debated is damaging to the mental health of young trans people, and are urging for a more compassionate approach.
Of course I doubt it'll make much of a different to those that are making the site look more and more like r/kotakuinaction everytime an issue related to a social cause is brought up.
Please understand the impact of your public statements on trans people.
Today, J.K.Rowling re-stated her position on transgender lives. We have previously reached out to her both publicly and privately, offering a calm conversation around the issues she has raised and today, we sent a further email to her team, renewing that offer. We are yet to receive a response.
As part of that email, we have disclosed something we hoped never to say. We say it now with permission from those involved. Without giving personal detail, without betraying confidences, we must represent the seriousness of the situation. We are aware through our work with families that there have been cases of self-harm and even attempted suicide following J.K.Rowling’s statements and the public response on social media and in the press. Surely this must cause us all to pause and question the way young trans lives are being debated in public.
For those working with transgender children, young people and families, this is not a gladiatorial sport to be won or lost with a tweet here, a forum post there, a weekly radio debate followed by an opinion article and a well-timed blog post preceding a parliamentary decision. this isn’t about a ‘woke’ majority enforcing politically correct beliefs on others. Trans people are far from being accepted by society and suffer real life discrimination, including physical violence, employment discrimination and everyday harassment on the street. Trans young people should not be used to amplify separate issues such as male violence, bodily autonomy or patriarchy. Our service users and supporters are real people with real lives, struggling to live freely in a world which, they say, feels increasingly cruel, hostile and unwilling to listen.
Hopefully all those making jokes out of the situation, laughing, throwing the "woke" term around sarcastically, stating they agree with her and how she's "just saying her opinion" find this just as amusing.
Of course I doubt it'll make much of a different to those that are making the site look more and more like r/kotakuinaction everytime an issue related to a social cause is brought up.
