Well they’re primarily angry feminists. So, in a way, they’re taking that to a logical extreme. They hate men so much they refuse to sleep with them.
Yeah, at this stage I’m flat-out trolling. Mea culpa.
Transgender rights discussion
- Thread starter crappycraperson
- Start date
Well they’re primarily angry feminists. So, in a way, they’re taking that to a logical extreme. They hate men so much they refuse to sleep with them.
Yeah, at this stage I’m flat-out trolling. Mea culpa.
The lack of effort is really impressive tbh.
The loathing of trans people (trans Women in particular) by a lot of rad fems emanates from a position of misandry, in Rowling's case this most likely grew out of her abusive relationship with her ex husband who is completely detestable. This then becomes the very thing they claim to be victims of, misogyny, when they attack trans Women (for not being effeminate enough, for being too effeminate, for being just a "man in a dress")...
The problem with Twitter is that opinions are already formed, people are on there to convince others, not have their own opinions changed. The ferocity and arguments used get more extreme on both sides in an effort to disprove the other person. Until the point whereby their original arguments are defunct and it's a concoction of extreme views and falsification - on both sides. As Friedrich Nietzsche said - 'He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster.' Twitter is the abyss and these people spend all of their lives hitting refresh for the next battle.
Rowling has rather intelligently used this to spearhead her reputation as a writer, the rather ludicrous fallout over the character of a man who wore a dress to murder victims was the accumulation of an extremely calculated plan. The right people fell for it.
However, Rowling has now shown her full hand - Robert Galbraith, her rather unfortunate pseudonym, is steeped in historical anti gay sentiment. One of the real Robert Galbraith's was a pioneer of gay conversion therapy claiming to have successfully converted a homosexual man to heterosexuality using electroshock therapy to the brain.
Promotion of an online store which is steeped in misandry, with anti male bric-a-brac ("Dead Men Don't Rape!?") and transphobic paraphernalia has shown just how extreme her views have become.
However, people may and still do argue that her views aren't extreme, that Mermaids are wrong and that there hasn't been any damage whatsoever. It could be said, that her antics have proved to be diversionary. Hidden behind the Cold Twitter War something more sinister has happened, the reformation of the Gender Recognition Act was announced in England and Wales. Whilst everyone's attention was turned towards a character in a dress and the author's merciless barrage; behind the scenes the real issue of trans rights were being settled and the results were shocking - they slapped a discount on the process, keeping all that is wrong with it intact.
Let's be clear, like in Hungary the reversal of trans rights didn't just affect trans people. There are now LGBT free areas. Women's rights have taken massive steps backwards. The attacks on trans people aren't just a concerted effort to demean and eradicate trans people's legal rights, trans people are just the easier target. They're not just coming for my rights, they'll be knocking on your doors as Men, Fathers, Husbands and Homosexuals. They are the personification of a Karen.
Hi,
I've edited down your post a little bit in my response, just because it is fairly lengthy and I can see it has been quoted a few times already, and I don't disagree with a lot of what you have said. There are a couple of points that you made about her that seem a bit of a stretch to me, though.
1. Rowling has rather intelligently used this to spearhead her reputation as a writer, the rather ludicrous fallout over the character of a man who wore a dress to murder victims was the accumulation of an extremely calculated plan. The right people fell for it.
I don't know that she needs to use something like this to 'spearhead her reputation as a writer'; she might be using her position as a famous writer to give a platform to her views, but I don't believe there is a particularly calculated plan. Obviously she's a fantastically successful author already, and I don't particularly see her writing style being due to improve at this point. Who were the right people who fell for it?
2. However, Rowling has now shown her full hand - Robert Galbraith, her rather unfortunate pseudonym, is steeped in historical anti gay sentiment. One of the real Robert Galbraith's was a pioneer of gay conversion therapy claiming to have successfully converted a homosexual man to heterosexuality using electroshock therapy to the brain.
I will admit I had to google this, but I wouldn't be surprised if a fair number of other people had to look it up as well. There are a few Robert Galbraith's mentioned on wikipedia, one of them under the see also section is Robert Galbraith Heath who sounded thoroughly unethical, but is the argument that she selected the name of a homophobic, discredited scientist deliberately? Was it to secretly appeal to people who hate gay people, but most of us missed the reference? Was it a plan that began prior to 2013 (god knows when she chose the pen name, but that is when the book was published). Is it a campaign that began back then to undermine the rights of gay people?
3. It could be said, that her antics have proved to be diversionary. Hidden behind the Cold Twitter War something more sinister has happened, the reformation of the Gender Recognition Act was announced in England and Wales. Whilst everyone's attention was turned towards a character in a dress and the author's merciless barrage; behind the scenes the real issue of trans rights were being settled and the results were shocking.
Do you mean that this was a deliberate long term ploy to turn people against the Gender Recognition Act? You mention the authors 'merciless barrage', was this designed to distract while people used the cover to undermine the Act? Who was she working with? I might just have misread the scope of your comment to be fair. I think in general the public didn't really give too much of a crap about the Twitter thing though.
4. a) steeped in misandry, with anti male bric-a-brac -
b) Let's be clear, like in Hungary the reversal of trans rights didn't just affect trans people. There are now LGBT free areas. Women's rights have taken massive steps backwards. The attacks on trans people aren't just a concerted effort to demean and eradicate trans people's legal rights, trans people are just the easier target. They're not just coming for my rights, they'll be knocking on your doors as Men, Fathers, Husbands and Homosexuals. They are the personification of a Karen.
I've linked a couple of things you said together here. Not to misrepresent, as people can and should read your original post. I've never felt any particular hatred, or an attack on my rights from her, and I don't feel threatened by feminists. I know that, as a heterosexual, white male, I'm in a privileged position, but I don't see a big overarching plot to restrict trans+womens+lgb+men's rights. I think that's something of an unedifying route to go down. I think what has happened in Hungary, as what happened here, has little to do with any radical feminism, and a lot to do with a bunch of conservative, men who hold disproportionate amounts of power.
If I have misread your post, I'd like to apologise in advance.
Hello, no problem, I'll stick to the point this time.
1. She's never been known as a great writer outside of Harry Potter and even then the earlier books were questionable, she's a good story teller though but I doubt many people will have read her crime series or heard much about them until recently.
The right people, meaning the people she was deliberately baiting with her book. The extreme opposite who saw it like a red flag to a bull. She knew what she was doing and playing to their salivating mouths, waiting for her next move. Her book made it to the top of the charts.
2. If by chance you'd created a pseudonym which had links to someone so horrific, like Hitler, wouldn't you change it as soon as you found out? I'm not sure how she picked the name but not changing it speaks volumes.
3. There was a lot of talk all over the mainstream media, not just on twitter about her book and her comments, the Caf is a great example of this, everyone was talking about trans rights and transphobia in regards to Rowling but very little discussion about the GRA reforms happened outside of the LGBTQ community. This very thread for example.
It's well known that she's friends with a lot of high profile rad fems. I don't think it was a deliberate ploy but she did take focus off what was the real issue at hand for trans people in the UK and I believe this had a negative effect on the discussions.
4. A badge which states "dead men don't rape" is pretty indicative. There were leaked reports regarding the roll back of trans rights from the same paper who broke the GRA reform news before the public announcement. I've no doubt that our Conservative government, like Hungary, had thought about it.
I don't know how much influence radical feminism has but when you have such a figure as Rowling then I'd like to guess it's somewhat bolstered.
Last edited:
Thank you for coming back to me. I have had a drink this evening, so forgive me if I ain't got smarts.
1. I've never considered her a great writer. The Harry Potter books were a fun read when I was young. On a random point you made, I actually thought the earlier books were more fun, the longer they got, the more convoluted she got. Never read the Strike books. My point is though, after Harry Potter she is bloody loaded, she's fairly acclaimed by the general public, and she could probably type gibberish for 500 pages and still hit the number one spot. If it was literary acclaim she was after, why stick with the crime novels? I can't agree it was to drum up sales.
2. I would. I think at this moment though, she has almost drawn up 'battlelines' (I can't think of the term - but when someone lashes out under perceived criticism), not necessarily a good response, but a human one rather than a diabolical one.
3. There was a lot of talk, but I'm not sure how much resonance it had on the general public. I saw a lot of anger on twitter, but lots of that will be from people who have active interest on either side of the debate, likewise on here - A site I would consider predominantly left of centre with socially liberal attitudes- There was a lot. But it had a tendency to become very angry very quickly, people don't exactly have a responsibility to educate or inform with their posting, but I think the people who were posting had very much already picked their side. Outside of people who already had some interest in the subject I'm not sure how much it registered with the general public though? I mentioned it to people I work with and no one really knew anything, or they had glanced over the article.
I do think that is a shame, and I think the focus on people like J.K.Rowling do a disservice to a big issue. There should really be a thread on here talking about the GRA, where people would focus on the real issues without it becoming focused on on person. I don't think she has the werewithal to orchestrate anything like this. I think she's a person with a very big platform, who isn't going to be a real expert in this debate.
4.. It is a crappy website, but I saw it as a bit pathetic more than anything (I'm aware that is probably a privilege thing). I just don't see any participation in a plot. If a particular group is working to rescind the rights of various groups I just really don't see them inviting her to be a part of it. I think it ascribes her too much power.
I have never thought of Rowling as a great writer and I've read the strike series books as well. I actually read a Robert Galbraith book before it was revealed it was rowlings pseudonym and I thought it was written well. But I admit I would not have read another book if I didn't know it was Rowling. I could be wrong but I don't think its some sort of a marketing ploy to manufacture this controversy. She's more likely to lose merch and money on this but that's what makes it more dangerous in my mind, that she really believes in it and doesn't mind losing further financial damage as j bet she is already loaded
About her psydonym back in 2013 https://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/jul/24/jk-rowling-robert-galbraith-harry-potter
However or not it's a concidence, she's definitely an out of the closet Terf now anyway.
However or not it's a concidence, she's definitely an out of the closet Terf now anyway.
Perfectly summed up.
Just why has a writer of such shit books been anointed with such power? It’s embarrassing.
Well obviously because if millions people didn't think her original books were shit.
Did feminists ever have an issue with gay rights?
Maybe 1st wave for unrelated reasons?
I know very little about the history of feminism, so will have to take your word for it. It is quite an important point, though, because I see the key difference between this and gay rights is the role of feminists in the debate.
Obviously, conservatives are pushing back against trans rights for the same reasons they did against gay rights (making the same arguments) but the arguments being made by feminists on this issue seem very different.
Pretty sure this is only a subsection of present day feminism. Feminism has always been a broad spectrum.
yes, the feminists involved tend to be 2nd wave feminists who have left their idealogy back in the 1960s and not embraced intersectionality. therefore they tend to be middle aged, middle class, white women. god forbid you're a man and you mention you're a feminist to a terf.
I don't think gay rights were anywhere near the agenda during the times of first wave feminism. A few isolated figures were the early proponents of LGBT rights and some early feminists did talk about a possible alliance but as far as I'm aware - and I'm not particularly knowledgeable on the subject, just trying to recall stuff I read over the years now - the vast majority of early feminists focused exclusively on political rights.
Second wave feminism was criticised for ignoring the voices of women of color and lesbian women. But this is a minefield that I don't want to wade into too deep because I haven't really read the relevant literature.
The cartoon says "feminists" not feminists, implying a scepticism towards the accuracy of the label, in the same way that many people baulk when the label is applied to Hilary. And yes homophobia is easy to find in factional feminism.
I don't know, most of the arguments look pretty similar to me. Only two genders, biological sex defines your gender, trans people are mentally ill, trans women are predators.
I think the novel argument brought by TERFs is that allowing trans women into women's spaces, or even accepting them, is the patriarchy infringing on women's rights.
Anyone who defends or condones the actions of these people can just feck off.
Nobody has forced Clear Chemist to do anything, GenderGP don't adhere to GMC guidelines and operate outside of the UK, they are unregulated and are supplying medications without any diagnosis or even face to face meetings and zero patient care, they're in it for the money.
This was always going to happen, they're holding on by a thread.
Last edited:
I wonder what their opinion is on an eleven year old girl struggling to understand whether she is a boy, a girl or gender fluid? I'm assuming that she (or perhaps even they) should just sit alone in the playground.
So it would be a teeny bit of an exaggeration to imply that reporting them to the authorities is basically genocide?!
Just a bit, I'd feel for all the people using them for self medication if they aren't able to get their meds from them anymore but they should know the risks involved.
I've been there myself and I'd encourage anyone self medicating to do so only as a temporary stop gap. You certainly run the risk of complications; bad drugs, incorrect dosages or an abrupt end to supply.
There are GMC approved private practises which provide superb levels of support throughout transition. Waiting lists for the NHS are 4 years currently, privately most people will have transitioned before even being seen by the NHS so you could see why people would go down this route.
Not to mention anyone who may not have been approved for treatment for whatever reason yet may still go ahead via genderGP and their affirmative approach.
It's risky and I think a bit disingenuous to blame anyone but genderGP for their failing. Trans care does need vast reforms and improvement though.
https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/doctor-webberley-jayden-trans-sucide-16512678
Last edited:
Throwback Thursday.
New video from Contrapoints is up. This should be required viewing on the topic.
I cannot make out a word said before “there are at least 3.” Even with the subtitles to help, it just sounds like a mumble
Brilliant and comprehensive.
Maybe I'm being too harsh but it was decent until the end when it turned into a wishy-washy argument about how trans people have it tough so just be nice to them please. Which is understandable but in my experience has never really worked when talking to people with reactionary views(I'm guessing thats the target audience for this video). This liberal appeal to a common decency or humanity is mostly dismissed and seen as a weakness.
Although she was spot on about how Rowling and certain trans activists online both seem to be people struggling with a number of issues. Also the tendency to take posting both seriously and personally, can only matters worse for some people.
Also I've never read any of Rowling works(Harry Potter seems to be pure tory propaganda)but from the bits I've seen, she seems a god awful story teller. The Robert Galbraith books come across like a parody/satire on terfs, it's that bad.
Is that the leftie equivalent of curtain-twitching Daily Mail readers who’ve never listened to hip hop but are convinced it’s evil filth that’s ruining society as we know it?
On a side note, I have read one of the Harry Potter books. The first one. It’s ok. But it’s for kids. So manage expectations accordingly.
It's just a joke, mate.
I’m joking too! Although it’s fair to say that “I haven’t read/watched/listened to this thing but I have an opinion on it” is one of my pet peeves.
Fair enough. Tbh you might want to give my posts on marvel films a miss
Life is too short for avengers films.
Fair enough. Tbh you might want to give my posts on marvel films a miss
Life is too short for avengers films.
Ha! To be fair, K-Pop would be my own weakness when it comes to being judgemental without actually checking it out. I just can’t muster up the will. I’m 110% positive I’ll hate it. So I’m being a bit of a hypocrite here.
Pictures of north koreans watching kpop are hilarious, worth it just for those.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...bullied-silence-PROFESSOR-KATHLEEN-STOCK.html
I have followed this quite closely - for context after reading her own story:
https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2020/01/...er-pride-flag-university-sussex-donald-trump/
Dr Kathleen Stock, a University of Sussex philosophy professor who claims that “trans women are still males with male genitalia”, claimed to Times Higher Education that she faces a “hostile environment” in the workplace because of “very targeted behaviour” against her.
Stock claimed that when she was moved to a different academic building, she arrived “to find numerous transgender pride flags hanging from office doors near [her] teaching room”.
On Twitter, she claimed that the flags were “ordered by single faculty member for all colleagues, in response to ‘hostile environment’ I was creating by my writing”.
Not only is she a transphobe but also an awful academic.
Last edited: