[RD] JK Rowling and Explicit Transphobia

[yung.carl.jung]

Her twitter posts.

so what do you actually mean then when you say "her twitter posts are not in dispute"? that sentence does not make sense to me. do you mean the content of her twitter posts aren't being disputed? that they're factual? but then that's just obviously wrong, as in we're currently debating them

Her twitter posts.
Actually that does matter. Degree of influence on policy is the primary question in this context.

So when anti-semites can openly denounce Jews it only matters when politicians are listening and taking it as inspiration for policy choice? that's the argument you're making.

It was never about policy, it's about public opinion. She actively wants people to think of transpeople as deviants and potential rapists. And when people have these kinds of ideas, what has it historically led to?

You're essentially saying public opinion is irrelevant unless it affects policy choice, which is just insane. People lynch or assault other people because of their beliefs, not because of any policy.

 

[Kyriakos]

Then again it is interesting that no one cares about "cis-man" being a synonym for casual rapist

 

[Yeekim]

Then again it is interesting that no one cares about "cis-man" being a synonym for casual rapist

Indeed, as I pointed out earlier, Rowling appears more cis-phobic than transphobic.

 

[Yeekim]

It was never about policy, it's about public opinion. She actively wants people to think of transpeople as deviants and potential rapists.

Rowling does not appear to be concerned about transwomen, but of the town pervert buying a wig and claiming to be trans, so he'd be able to enter womens' changing rooms.

 

[cardgame]

but is that happening? it's not like it's illegal to enter the wrong bathroom anyway, transgender anything has basically nothing to do with it

 

[bernie14]

Rowling does not appear to be concerned about transwomen, but of the town pervert buying a wig and claiming to be trans, so he'd be able to enter womens' changing rooms.

which is no doubt irrational, but then, so are phobias

 

[IglooDame]

The whole "cross dressing rapist in the bathroom" scenario has always seemed highly contrived to me.

In my experience, it's hard to confuse a trans woman with a cross-dressing man. To be sure, there's a spectrum. Physically, they may be at different phases of their transition and may have come from very different starting points. Some may have had less apparent male secondary characteristics to begin with. Those secondary characteristics are likely to become less obvious over time because of hormonal and sometimes surgical interventions. Behaviorally, a trans woman will almost certainly have different mannerisms, body language, and affect from a cis-gendered man in female clothing. I think this would be especially obvious if a cross-dressed sexual predator were to enter a bathroom of the opposite sex.

Agreed. But explaining this to someone who resists acknowledging any distinction between a trans woman and a cross-dressing man in the first place is going to be problematic at best.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

This borders on wilful ignorance, she has a massive fanbase and has more influence than the average writer, you cannot sincerely be this naive

The naive are those that would be meaningfully influenced by a fiction writer. But again, you're simply claiming she has significant influence. Why should we believe that?

I touched on this in post #202, after which someone frothed in the mouth and took it as suggesting burning her books.

The stories they must have read to be fans of hers condemn bullying. Bullying based on her "influence" would therefore require obvious cognitive dissonance.

So either you must accept that no particular evidence is necessary to show hate speech can influence hate, or take your claim to its logical terminus and suppose that no speech influences anyone.

I'm not saying people being jerks has no influence. I'm saying that there's no good reason JKR should have *special* influence compared to other random internet trolls. And that "specific harm" isn't realistically attributable to any one person in this context.

do you mean the content of her twitter posts aren't being disputed?

I meant the content of her posts, yes. Obviously many people disagree with the content of the posts, myself included.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

The naive are those that would be meaningfully influenced by a fiction writer. But again, you're simply claiming she has significant influence. Why should we believe that?

Are you for real?

 

[Crezth]

I'm not saying people being jerks has no influence. I'm saying that there's no good reason JKR should have *special* influence compared to other random internet trolls. And that "specific harm" isn't realistically attributable to any one person in this context.

And what's the point in that?

 

[Cloud_Strife]

And what's the point in that?

It's a tactic used by rabid free-speech supporters to deny the idea that people in a position of power, be it socially, financially etc, cause elevated levels of harm or distress.

The entire conversation is basically geared towards making bullying acceptable, going back to the old days when minorities would be put in their place by a quip or a string of slurs.

 

[cardgame]

The sheer fact that she has a massive audience who respect her work gives her massive influence even if she doesn't have the damnedest clue what she's talking about. Plus, you know, feed people enough info over and over again and they will believe it regardless of fact...

 

[Cloud_Strife]

The sheer fact that she has a massive audience who respect her work gives her massive influence even if she doesn't have the damnedest clue what she's talking about. Plus, you know, feed people enough info over and over again and they will believe it regardless of fact...

It's disengenuous as well; JK is repeating terfish arguments she's heard before, she's literally exposing more people to them, people who might have otherwise been ignorant of their existence.

@TheMeInTeam would have us believe she's no different and no more dangerous than any other troll but he's wrong and he's exposing his hand here.

 

[Crezth]

It's a tactic used by rabid free-speech supporters to deny the idea that people in a position of power, be it socially, financially etc, cause elevated levels of harm or distress.

The entire conversation is basically geared towards making bullying acceptable, going back to the old days when minorities would be put in their place by a quip or a string of slurs.

Well, like, why would it be acceptable if it was "just" a twitter troll? I mean people do get killed over this, so really any individual person peddling hate speech is a possible killer or friend of killers.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Well, like, why would it be acceptable if it was "just" a twitter troll? I mean people do get killed over this, so really any individual person peddling hate speech is a possible killer or friend of killers.

Because to the free speech zealot word's simultainously don't actually matter when it comes to advocating for bigotry and hate but do start to matter when it comes to claiming censorship or advocating against using them in harmful contexts, it's so obvious you can see it from the way they position themselves on topics like these...

Because to these people our lives are theoretical... whereas their "right" to spout all sorts of rubbish actually has some sort of tangential resonance with them.

It's basically this:

The "right" to debate whether someone's existence or struggles are valid is more important to them than the potential harm doing so could cause.

 

[Robo-Star]

but is that happening?

https://womanmeanssomething.com/wp-...nalysis-of-Media-Reports-at-Target-Stores.pdf

 

[yung.carl.jung]

Rowling does not appear to be concerned about transwomen, but of the town pervert buying a wig and claiming to be trans, so he'd be able to enter womens' changing rooms.

Not at all,, no. All of this was started (and revolved) around Rowling embracing Maya Forstater, whose only claim to fame is that she believes people cannot change their sex, aka transwomen and women and transmen aren't men. that was one year ago.

Then, with the recent controversy, she embraced Forstater again and repeated some of her talking points. Rowling genuinely went out of her way to deny that transwomen are women, and she even went out of her way to say transpeople don't face discrimination. It was never about perverts in bathrooms so much, that's just a slander.

I’d march with you if you were discriminated against on the basis of being trans.

From her Twitter, literal quote.

 

[Crezth]

https://womanmeanssomething.com/wp-...nalysis-of-Media-Reports-at-Target-Stores.pdf

By their own admission these are only media-reported incidents and post-policy, allied media approached the topic with increased scrutiny:

Under heightened scrutiny, sexual crimes at Target stores were reported on conservative blogs and websites, with the amount of incidents surprising some.

A self-fulfilling prophecy indeed. Bad science.

 

[Bugfatty300]

https://womanmeanssomething.com/wp-...nalysis-of-Media-Reports-at-Target-Stores.pdf

"Woman means something .com" Impartial research I'm sure.

Edit: Has an article from "the Federalist" (a right-wing rag) in the sources section.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

All of this was started (and revolved) around Rowling embracing Maya Forstater, whose only claim to fame is that she believes people cannot change their sex, aka transwomen and women and transmen aren't men.

She also followed Magdalen burns, who was an open transphobe. For context (including swearing and slurs):

Spoiler :

But even after this was pointed out to people, people still gave JK the benefit of the doubt.