The left eats JK Rowling over transgender comments

[Metaphor]

JK Rowling had already raised the hackles of trans activists when she tweeted that she found it absurd that somebody (Maya Forstater) should be fired for suggesting sex was real. Then she Tweeted her dismay about the term 'people who menstruate' in a policy paper titled 'Creating a more equal post-COVID-19 world for people who menstruate'.

Of course, Twitter went mental and Rowling published a lengthy response on her website. Incredibly, the Guardian wrote about the story and mentioned Rowling's response but didn't even link to it.

Of course, the weight of opinion pieces were firmly against Rowling, slamming her as a TERF such as the piece by Dr Veronica Ivy, formerly Rachel McKinnon, writing for NBC. Ivy is a trans-identified biological male who competes in women's cycling and thinks that trans women have no unfair biological advantages in sport. (This author makes false representations about the UK's Gender Recognition Act).

An author called A.J. Sass (who identifies as "non binary") also wrote that Rowling's comments were transphobic.(This author also felt the need to say that JK Rowling's pen-name Robert Gailbraith is also the name of an anti-LGBTQ psychologist, as if there were any connection).

Harry and Hermione also spoke out against Rowling's views.

But for the life of me, nobody has been able to tell me what is transphobic about Rowling's views. One person on Facebook wrote, when I asked if she could tell me what was transphobic, said 'No - you either see it or you don't'.

Incredibly, I now find myself in agreement with feminists like Meghan Murphy on this, and other feminists with whom I would agree on almost no other issue.

Rowling is too rich and too famous to be actually be cancelled. But god help the rest of us who believe facts like that biological sex is real and you cannot change sex.

 

[Politesse]

Yes, her pejorative views on this subject are most unfortunate. But we've still got the books, I guess.

 

[Jokodo]

JK Rowling had already raised the hackles of trans activists when she tweeted that she found it absurd that somebody (Maya Forstater) should be fired for suggesting sex was real. Then she Tweeted her dismay about the term 'people who menstruate' in a policy paper titled 'Creating a more equal post-COVID-19 world for people who menstruate'.

Of course, Twitter went mental and Rowling published a lengthy response on her website. Incredibly, the Guardian wrote about the story and mentioned Rowling's response but didn't even link to it.

What's incredible about that? Newspapers are, as a rule, pretty bad at linking to sources.

Of course, the weight of opinion pieces were firmly against Rowling, slamming her as a TERF such as the piece by Dr Veronica Ivy, formerly Rachel McKinnon, writing for NBC. Ivy is a trans-identified biological male who competes in women's cycling and thinks that trans women have no unfair biological advantages in sport. (This author makes false representations about the UK's Gender Recognition Act).

An author called A.J. Sass (who identifies as "non binary") also wrote that Rowling's comments were transphobic.(This author also felt the need to say that JK Rowling's pen-name Robert Gailbraith is also the name of an anti-LGBTQ psychologist, as if there were any connection).

Harry and Hermione also spoke out against Rowling's views.

But for the life of me, nobody has been able to tell me what is transphobic about Rowling's views. One person on Facebook wrote, when I asked if she could tell me what was transphobic, said 'No - you either see it or you don't'.

Incredibly, I now find myself in agreement with feminists like Meghan Murphy on this, and other feminists with whom I would agree on almost no other issue.

How's that incredible? This can't be the first time you notice that your views on trans people are in close alignment with a significant faction of radical feminism? Or is it really? are you so blinded by your cartoonish view of feminism as a monolithic prophetic movement that you never noticed there are different strains, some of which actually tend to agree with you on some issues?

Rowling is too rich and too famous to be actually be cancelled. But god help the rest of us who believe facts like that biological sex is real and you cannot change sex.

 

[repoman]

Talking only about MTF now and am not supporting this theory I will now mention.

There is a theory that radfems (mostly fron Blanchard) hold that there are two major types of trans with some exceptions.

The first are one that havd felt like girls since extremely young and are attracted to men and are called HSTS (homosexual transsexuals).

The second are autogynephiles AGP that are turned on by seeing themselves as women are attracted to women. They did not feel like women since childhood but got that way from odd events and from a form of pornsickness. Think Buffalo Bob.

These gender critical radfems focus on AGPs and see them as creepy predators.

They are super creeped out by "sissy hypno" porn that they think will make more AGPs. Look up sissy hypno on porn hub it is fucking crazy.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Talking only about MTF now and am not supporting this theory I will now mention.

There is a theory that radfems (mostly fron Blanchard) hold that there are two major types of trans with some exceptions.

The first are one that havd felt like girls since extremely young and are attracted to men and are called HSTS (homosexual transsexuals).

The second are autogynephiles AGP that are turned on by seeing themselves as women are attracted to women. They did not feel like women since childhood but got that way from odd events and from a form of pornsickness. Think Buffalo Bob.

These gender critical radfems focus on AGPs and see them as creepy predators.

They are super creeped out by "sissy hypno" porn that they think will make more AGPs. Look up sissy hypno on porn hub it is fucking crazy.

Won't that hypnotize people who look it up?

 

[Politesse]

Talking only about MTF now and am not supporting this theory I will now mention.

There is a theory that radfems (mostly fron Blanchard) hold that there are two major types of trans with some exceptions.

The first are one that havd felt like girls since extremely young and are attracted to men and are called HSTS (homosexual transsexuals).

The second are autogynephiles AGP that are turned on by seeing themselves as women are attracted to women. They did not feel like women since childhood but got that way from odd events and from a form of pornsickness. Think Buffalo Bob.

These gender critical radfems focus on AGPs and see them as creepy predators.

They are super creeped out by "sissy hypno" porn that they think will make more AGPs. Look up sissy hypno on porn hub it is fucking crazy.

Oh god, the autgynephilia thing again... What is it about conservatives and weird discredited psychosexual theories from the death-knell stage Freudian era? Do you guys believe the bulk of Blanchard's nonsense, or just the weirdest sexual stuff?

 

[Rhea]

Thread title is false.

“The Left” did no such thing. There is not a singluar “The Left,” we are not a hive mind, and so this whole premise makes no sense.

Apparently SOME PEOPLE objected to Rowling, and SOME PEOPLE did not object.
Hold the presses.

I am in The Left and had no idea that this happened and reading the post and repoman’s reply, I (being Left) still have no idea what all’y’all are talking about.

 

[repoman]

Ok, assuming that there is a small, but not negligible minority of AGP transgenders, what do the radfems suggest be done in response?

Also, if AGP is NOT a reason for people being transgender are female attracted trans who are weirdos for other reasons (lots of cis are wackos too) being labeled by radfems as AGP.

So then any female attracted transwoman is seen as a sick sex pervert potential rapist, despite almost all of them having respectful boundaries with potential sex partners...?

 

[Politesse]

Thread title is false.

“The Left” did no such thing. There is not a singluar “The Left,” we are not a hive mind, and so this whole premise makes no sense.

Apparently SOME PEOPLE objected to Rowling, and SOME PEOPLE did not object.
Hold the presses.

I am in The Left and had no idea that this happened and reading the post and repoman’s reply, I (being Left) still have no idea what all’y’all are talking about.

No, The Left are a single monolithic entity that is Democratic, Marxist, Muslim, and Vegan. Just like The Right is a single monolithic entity that is Fascist, Capitalist, Christian-Conservative, and closeted Nazi. Don't you read the news?

 

[repoman]

Thread title is false.

“The Left” did no such thing. There is not a singluar “The Left,” we are not a hive mind, and so this whole premise makes no sense.

Apparently SOME PEOPLE objected to Rowling, and SOME PEOPLE did not object.
Hold the presses.

I am in The Left and had no idea that this happened and reading the post and repoman’s reply, I (being Left) still have no idea what all’y’all are talking about.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blanchard%27s_transsexualism_typology

Also you can go to the gendercritical subreddit and see the radfem ideology in action. an hour of reading posts will give a good flavor.

My guess is that Rowling probably lurks on it or similar websites too much.

this is their infographic picture



Ideally a person would want to alter their biology because of an intrinsic feeling not because of desiring different social treatment,

If a very feminine man wants to be treated like a lady but is happy with his parts, I don't want him to take hormones or get surgery to be validated as a pretty princess. Sort of letting the freak flag of 1970's androgyny fly.

Essentially transmedicalists MAY cause some harm by having androgynous people slightly pressured to be medicalized for validation. Are they reinforcing the binary?

I want everyone to respect androgynous and gender dysphoric people and essentially not be too concerned about "what are you", "are you gay, trans?"

Get on with your own life general public, dammit.

 

[Politesse]

Ignoring the complications of gender seems to me a bit like ignoring the complications of race. It may feel good if you're cis to say "why even talk about gender?", but social realities are realities, that people are obliged to deal with constantly.

 

[Metaphor]

Yes, her pejorative views on this subject are most unfortunate. But we've still got the books, I guess.

But...what did Rowling say that was wrong?

 

[Metaphor]

How's that incredible? This can't be the first time you notice that your views on trans people are in close alignment with a significant faction of radical feminism? Or is it really? are you so blinded by your cartoonish view of feminism as a monolithic prophetic movement that you never noticed there are different strains, some of which actually tend to agree with you on some issues?

But what did Rowling say that was wrong?

 

[Metaphor]

Thread title is false.

“The Left” did no such thing. There is not a singluar “The Left,” we are not a hive mind, and so this whole premise makes no sense.

Apparently SOME PEOPLE objected to Rowling, and SOME PEOPLE did not object.
Hold the presses.

I am in The Left and had no idea that this happened and reading the post and repoman’s reply, I (being Left) still have no idea what all’y’all are talking about.

Well, having read it, what did Rowling say that was wrong?

 

[Politesse]

Yes, her pejorative views on this subject are most unfortunate. But we've still got the books, I guess.

But...what did Rowling say that was wrong?

She's in denial about the science of sex as well as the social reality of transgender identities, in a way that's harmful to young folks dealing with these issues.

 

[Metaphor]

Yes, her pejorative views on this subject are most unfortunate. But we've still got the books, I guess.

But...what did Rowling say that was wrong?

She's in denial about the science of sex as well as the social reality of transgender identities, in a way that's harmful to young folks dealing with these issues.

Can you please point to a specific, quoted statement that shows this 'denial'?

 

[Rhea]

Thread title is false.

“The Left” did no such thing. There is not a singluar “The Left,” we are not a hive mind, and so this whole premise makes no sense.

Apparently SOME PEOPLE objected to Rowling, and SOME PEOPLE did not object.
Hold the presses.

I am in The Left and had no idea that this happened and reading the post and repoman’s reply, I (being Left) still have no idea what all’y’all are talking about.

Well, having read it, what did Rowling say that was wrong?

I have no idea. I can’t figure out what she said or what you think she said or whose bits we’re even talking about. There was a lot of jargon that seems to mean something to you but that I’ve never heard of, so rather than give an opinion on something that feels like word salad to me, I’m going with “I have no idea what she said. It didn’t make sense.”

 

[ronburgundy]

Thread title is false.

“The Left” did no such thing. There is not a singluar “The Left,” we are not a hive mind, and so this whole premise makes no sense.

Apparently SOME PEOPLE objected to Rowling, and SOME PEOPLE did not object.
Hold the presses.

I am in The Left and had no idea that this happened and reading the post and repoman’s reply, I (being Left) still have no idea what all’y’all are talking about.

It's not particular to Rowling. There is a fairly publicized fight between a segment of the trans-acitivist community (many aren't trans themselves) against a segment of feminists plus some in the LGB(and even some T) community. The fight is centered on semantics. Many feminists and lesbians (and their allies) feel that their female sex and it's ties to their reproductive biology and how that impacts experience are central to their identity, political struggles, etc.. They feel that trans-activist efforts to erase that concept of sex and declare that "female" and "woman" are determine solely by psychological preferences and are unrelated to reproductive biology is an attack on those things. Meanwhile some trans-activists feel that all trans-women should be considered and referred to by everyone and the law as simply a "female" or "woman" no different than any other, and w/o qualification. Note that Rowling and many others being called "transphobic" by those activists are strong political allies of trans people in most respects.

 

[repoman]

Transwomen are women full stop.

Whatever dude should be the response.

Lots of cool trans make no such demand.


Should be some bookie taking odd on whether the South Park episodes like the one with Macho Ma'am will be aired on streaming 10 years from now. I say no.

 

[prideandfall]

Can you please point to a specific, quoted statement that shows this 'denial'?

i was also confused by the uproar over this until i talked to a friend who is... well let's just say at a nexus of feminism, gender identity, and familiarity with JK rowling in such a way that they had some very specific insight into the situation.

basically there's a lot of context behind it, as some folks in this thread have touched on, but the whole TERF thing is something well known about rowling and this isn't the first time she's said something that got up the hackles of those inclined to get offended at their sensibilities not be catered to.
there isn't really a single quotable thing she said in this instance that can be pointed to as the 'smoking gun', it's more that to the people who are in an uproar about this, her statements are indicative of a history of saying things that aren't kowtowing to their narrative about reality and therefore rowling is evil.