J.K. Rowling's TERF War

[elengil]

The teardown of J.K. Rowling in particular really gets under my skin. She's done so much over so many years to promote tolerance and understanding; if even she isn't good enough to get into woke heaven, then I suppose we must all be damned.

I think that's actually a good point you've touched on. Must we all be damned? We really shouldn't ever become complacent with where we are. None of us are perfect, none of us are the untouchable epitome... "All have sinned and fallen short..." But we also shouldn't simply marinate in our imperfections and use "everyone sucks somehow" as an excuse not to attempt to better ourselves when given the opportunity.

We shouldn't overlook the good she's done for her failings, but neither should we be content to overlook someone's failings in light of other good. It shouldn't be an all or nothing kind of thing. But there is a point at which someone's views become so destructive that you can't soften them with some other good aspect.

I don't believe Rowling is in this latter category by any means, but I also don't want to say that just because someone has done some good, they should be therefore above any public criticism.

[Alatar]

I hate the use of 'cancel culture' as if it is an extreme over-reaction to any little perceived slight.

But I do believe this is an extreme over-reaction to a perceived slight

She is not being executed, metaphorically or otherwise.

https://twitter.com/hashtag/ripjkrowling?lang=en

[elengil]

I hate the use of 'cancel culture' as if it is an extreme over-reaction to any little perceived slight.

But I do believe this is an extreme over-reaction to a perceived slight

I don't think we can claim the slight is 'perceived' when it's been repeated, confirmed, doubled-down on. It's not like she said something that was misconstrued, she's repeatedly stated exactly what it is that is being claimed. I suppose 'extreme over-reaction' is in the eye of the beholder.

She is not being executed, metaphorically or otherwise.

https://twitter.com/hashtag/ripjkrowling?lang=en

Oh good god.

Still, I will point out that transmen and women are literally being killed in some places, or their rejection drives them to much higher suicide rates. If we want to discuss what constitutes cancel culture, transpeople have been being "canceled" or are literally "executed" in some places. This is why I don't see the pushback on such views as being extreme or an over-reaction.

[Alatar]

Two wrongs don't make a right. I'm not equating the two or saying this is worse than that Trans people suffer. Its still wrong.

[elengil]

Two wrongs don't make a right. I'm not equating the two or saying this is worse than that Trans people suffer. Its still wrong.

Literally calling for death or violence against anyone is certainly wrong, full stop. I won't attempt to justify that kind of behavior from anyone against anyone.

I will say that generally speaking, vocal public criticism of a celebrity/public figure and boycotts are age-old tactics. I am seeing more legitimate criticisms being decried as 'cancel culture' rather than just... public criticism and boycotts.

[Alatar]

Out of interest do you think JK Rowling has said anything that deserves boycotting?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[elengil]

Out of interest do you think JK Rowling has said anything that deserves boycotting?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't think that's really the right question, at least not one I can answer as you've asked it.

Anyone/thing can be boycotted for saying or not saying, doing or not doing, supporting or not supporting anything. It happens all the time. One company gets boycotting for having a Black Lives Matter ad, another for *not* having one. One company is lauded in one group for supporting a certain president, and boycotted by another group for exactly the same thing. A boycott is just a wide-spread "we don't want to buy your stuff." We just don't really have a word for the opposite, even though it's just as common.

So I don't think it's so much a matter of does anyone or anything deserve to be boycotted, but rather to ask, is it not up to the consumer to decide whether or not they wish to give their money to any particular person, company, or brand?

[Alatar]

But this is what I mean when I refer to "cancel culture" in this instance. This was a huge pile on , based on very little (from what I've read). It was a completely over the top toxic reaction by a group who were virtue signalling without understanding the nuance of her statements.

This started because Ms Rowling tweeted support for a woman who lost her job because she complained that Philip/Pippa Bunce was listed as "#32 on the Financial Times’s 2018 list of Britain’s top 100 female executives", yet identifies as male 50% of the time. She posted the following:

Dress however you please.
Call yourself whatever you like.
Sleep with any consenting adult who’ll have you.
Live your best life in peace and security.
But force women out of their jobs for stating that sex is real?
#IStandWithMaya #ThisIsNotADrill

This was the horrifying transphobic tweet that started the vitriol against her.

In response she wrote a lengthy article stating her beliefs:

https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k- ... er-issues/

This is not a hate filled essay slamming trans people. Its a measured response to sustained abuse and threats from a woman who calmly and clearly states her beliefs. Beliefs that some (a tiny minority of whom actually read the article I would guess) feel mark her as a "transphobic bitch" and worse.

If anyone believes that article deserves the hate mail, threats and calls for boycotts, then I'm not really sure where people will ever find common ground.

[elengil]

This was the horrifying transphobic tweet that started the vitriol against her.

I realize that was what started the hate, but it seems (and honestly I haven't followed this really) that she doubled down further on her views. Not that holding to a view is a bad thing, that's perfectly fine. But so is disagreeing with that view.

Calls for violence I will again unequivocally say are absolutely wrong (and probably criminal, anyway). But calls for boycotts? People do have the right to decide where to spend or not spend their money. I won't pretend that any one issue is less deserving of that choice than any other.

[Dave_LF]

Sure, but disagreeing with someone doesn't mean you need to destroy their future and erase their past, which is very much the direction the woke left is headed.

[yovargas]

This was the horrifying transphobic tweet that started the vitriol against her.

I realize that was what started the hate, but it seems (and honestly I haven't followed this really) that she doubled down further on her views.

She says something, many people attack her, so she doubles downs on her statement, so her attackers get even angrier, so her supporters get even angrier, so her attackers get even angrier, and on and on and on until we're left with a country that is seething with bitterness and anger and division and partisanship. And all that gets accomplished in the end is that everybody gets to feel self-righteous about themselves, while our societies are tearing themselves apart.

[elengil]

I thought about this more on the way home. I think the ferocity of the reaction is directly proportional to how emotionally betrayed people felt. Now whether that is justified or not - but we rarely justify our emotions or reactions based on them. Sadly. People felt that she was something more than or other than she was, when their expectations of their perceptions met reality they reacted emotionally based on just how let down they felt.

When people don't have any emotional investment or expectation to be disappointed in there is less negative reaction.

[Inanna]

People before principles.

I wish folks would focus on that. Rowling was right to defend the woman who got fired - people before principle. That woman should have not been fired (really this whole firing thing at the drop of a hat is bloody ridiculous. It’s awful! Lives torn
apart in one sentence). But that woman did not put the person before the principle
(50% male/female on some list. Nonsense. The person matters; let him/her be on the list).

People before principles. I always always try to keep that in mind.

[Alatar]

People before principles.

I wish folks would focus on that. Rowling was right to defend the woman who got fired - people before principle. That woman should have not been fired (really this whole firing thing at the drop of a hat is bloody ridiculous. It’s awful! Lives torn
apart in one sentence). But that woman did not put the person before the principle
(50% male/female on some list. Nonsense. The person matters; let him/her be on the list).

People before principles. I always always try to keep that in mind.

I agree almost 100%. I think the concern here (and I realise I’m saying this as a white Male) is that women struggle so hard to be taken seriously in business that it feels unfair to award one of the few accolades for women to someone who identifies as male, however rarely. I can see how that would rankle.

[Inanna]

I read up a bit about Philip/Pippa. And I agree, Al. Still, it was likely hard for him too.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

People before principles.

I wish folks would focus on that. Rowling was right to defend the woman who got fired - people before principle. That woman should have not been fired (really this whole firing thing at the drop of a hat is bloody ridiculous. It’s awful! Lives torn
apart in one sentence). But that woman did not put the person before the principle
(50% male/female on some list. Nonsense. The person matters; let him/her be on the list).

People before principles. I always always try to keep that in mind.

I agree almost 100%. I think the concern here (and I realise I’m saying this as a white Male) is that women struggle so hard to be taken seriously in business that it feels unfair to award one of the few accolades for women to someone who identifies as male, however rarely. I can see how that would rankle.

I also agree with this. And I think it is a complicated issue. Another area where it comes into play is girls sports in school. There have been several lawsuits in which biological girls were denied a place on a team because it was taken by someone who has the biological body of a boy but identifies as female. I have significant issues with that. If I were a public figure (which thankfully I will never be), would I be castigated for that view?

[yovargas]

I also agree with this. And I think it is a complicated issue. Another area where it comes into play is girls sports in school. There have been several lawsuits in which biological girls were denied a place on a team because it was taken by someone who has the biological body of a boy but identifies as female. I have significant issues with that. If I were a public figure (which thankfully I will never be), would I be castigated for that view?

If I am not mistaken, famous UFC fighter Ronda Rousey was indeed fiercely attacked for expressing views about female fighters that were deemed unacceptable by parts of this movement. I should probably look it up before posting that, but, well, I don't really want to go googling around that particular cesspit.

[River]

Yeah I'm not sure how I feel about letting transwomen who developed a man's muscles before transitioning compete with ciswomen in anything that requires physical strength. There's a reason the genders get broken up.

Honestly Al, you kind of hit the nail on the head with some of my more visceral reactions to discussions of transwomen getting upset about something. Feels like a dude's just invading my space in some way. I know that's not really what's happening, but still...

[Inanna]

Yes, I agree.

[elengil]

Is Caster Semenya male or female?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caster_Se ... %20testing.

The reason I bring this up is because we actually have no idea how many people have had 5α-Reductase deficiency - or any other chromosomal or hormonal differences - throughout history that might have resulted in biological males being raised, treated, and who identified as women, because we had no ability to test for genetic chromosomal make-up. Even now we don't test kids' chromosomes at birth. We look at pretty much one specific area of their body and make a determination.

To the degree that we have historically been able to know our biology, Caster Semenya is a woman. Her birth certificate says F, she was raised as an identifies as a woman. Her genetic make-up is XY. And yet to be considered male, she would have to become transgender by all the 'rules' we have right now - she'd have to transition to living and identifying as a man, she'd be doing so despite what her birth certificate says, and she would in some places legally be required to use the woman's bathroom. Despite her actual biology.

Knowing this, how many transmen are actually really biologically men and just didn't know it?

So is she male or female? Is she what her birth certificate says or what her chromosomes say? Would she be denied a place on a list of women's achievements? Do we end a woman's right to privacy at pregnancy or can we include their chromosomes in that right?