J. K. Rowling

[jewelkitty]

Apparently there's also some wackjobs out there who believe JK Rowling didn't actually write the HP books. Imagine being so bigoted that you erase a woman's name from her life's work.

And there's these disgusting misogynists, how bleeping dare they

Harry Potter Fans Declare Daniel Radcliffe the Series' Author After Denouncing JK Rowling's Tweets

Fans of the Harry Potter franchise were reminded that series creator J.K. Rowling is the holder of [...]

comicbook.com

 

[chocolate choux]

Apparently there's also some wackjobs out there who believe JK Rowling didn't actually write the HP books. Imagine being so bigoted that you erase a woman's name from her life's work.

And there's these disgusting misogynists, how bleeping dare they

Harry Potter Fans Declare Daniel Radcliffe the Series' Author After Denouncing JK Rowling's Tweets

Fans of the Harry Potter franchise were reminded that series creator J.K. Rowling is the holder of [...]

comicbook.com

Whatever happened to the simple times of ‘your fave is problematic’?

Regardless of what anyone thinks of her opinions, I don’t see the value in claiming she isn’t the author whether stated jokingly or not. Of course it’s upsetting when someone whose art you enjoy and who you consequently look up to has a wildly different opinion to your own. Even more so when you perceive that opinion as an attack on yourself or those you care about. But at the end of the day, she wrote the books, you enjoyed them, people are multifaceted and you can separate liking art from liking/agreeing with a person

Personally, I like mostly 20th century literature. When I learned of certain writers being overtly sexist and/or racist, I did find it off putting as a woman of colour. But I learned to accept that liking their work didn’t mean I had to like their opinions. If these writers were modern and alive like JK Rowling, I might decide not to fund them which would be fair enough. There’s nothing wrong with voting with your wallet. However, declaring them no longer the author because you don’t agree with them is petty and pointless

I know ‘your fave is problematic’ became a meme but there’s value in the concept. Someone can produce amazing work yet be flawed. They (or their work) can still be your fave, but it’s healthy to acknowledge their perceived downfalls. Categorising people as good/bad with no grey area is dangerous and upholds them to a superhuman standard as no one is fully good or bad (and that’s subjective anyway)

 

[Hallowmaiden]

Thought I'd take the opportunity and throw in the friendly reminder that this isn't the first time Daniel Radcliffe decided to be "woke" and speak up about something he clearly doesn't know anything about. He also spoke against JK Rowlings decision to keep Johnny Depp on the Fantastic Beasts franchise back in 2017 despite the (false) allegations being thrown at him at the time.

JK Rowling, being a former victim of domestic abuse herself, had spoken to Johnny, she had seen the evidence, his witnesslist, the recordings, everything that now the rest of the world also has seen, and made the wise decision to keep him on because she knew he was the real victim in that relationship.

Daniel however, not being in the franchise, not having spoken to Johnny, not being educated on domestic abuse and not knowing anything of what went on in that relationship, still took upon himself to throw in a shady comment on the issue saying it was outrageous that Johnny was kept on the franchise considering that an actor on Harry Potter were kicked out when being arrested for drug dealing. You'd think he'd found the clue in the word "arrested". Something Johnny never was. Because there was no evidence. But hey, why be picky about words when you can be woke?

For the second time Daniel, take a seat.

 

[jewelkitty]

Whatever happened to the simple times of ‘your fave is problematic’?

Regardless of what anyone thinks of her opinions, I don’t see the value in claiming she isn’t the author whether stated jokingly or not. Of course it’s upsetting when someone whose art you enjoy and who you consequently look up to has a wildly different opinion to your own. Even more so when you perceive that opinion as an attack on yourself or those you care about. But at the end of the day, she wrote the books, you enjoyed them, people are multifaceted and you can separate liking art from liking/agreeing with a person

Personally, I like mostly 20th century literature. When I learned of certain writers being overtly sexist and/or racist, I did find it off putting as a woman of colour. But I learned to accept that liking their work didn’t mean I had to like their opinions. If these writers were modern and alive like JK Rowling, I might decide not to fund them which would be fair enough. There’s nothing wrong with voting with your wallet. However, declaring them no longer the author because you don’t agree with them is petty and pointless

I know ‘your fave is problematic’ became a meme but there’s value in the concept. Someone can produce amazing work yet be flawed. They (or their work) can still be your fave, but it’s healthy to acknowledge their perceived downfalls. Categorising people as good/bad with no grey area is dangerous and upholds them to a superhuman standard as no one is fully good or bad (and that’s subjective anyway)

Someone made the very good point that problematic male creators have never, ever had to face people claiming they didn't actually create their works. JK Rowling just said biological sex is real, but the likes of Roman Polanski, Woody Allen, etc (literal RAPISTS) have never had to suffer losing their credit to their work.

 

[chocolate choux]

Someone made the very good point that "problematic" male creators have never, ever had to face people claiming they didn't actually create their works. JK Rowling just said biological sex is real, but the likes of Roman Polanski, Woody Allen, etc (literal RAPISTS) have never had to suffer losing their credit to their work.

That is a good point. It just strikes me as incredibly childish to take away credit, as if their opinion has any correlation with their ability to produce great work. I mean, Roman Polanski and Woody Allen are not only still acknowledged as creators, but praised

I just don’t get it

Also I feel like other celebrities are being baited to get involved. Saw a tweet claiming Shakira was the author of Harry Potter - obviously a joke but she’s completely irrelevant to the situation so I don’t know why she’s being put on the spot

 

[Harrybosch]

Quite the massive leap there to eating disorders which are classified as a mental illness which have nothing to do with my post.

Many trans people have mental illnesses as a result of their gender dysphoria and feeling unable to get access to a body they feel happy with.

Read about turner's syndrome, triple x, kilnefelter etc. Rare doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And these have nothing to do with gender dysphoria. I was simply showing that biological sex isn't binary.

Would you like me to put you in touch with a close friend who has turner syndrome and is very clearly and obviously a woman (she's given birth to a child, which she wouldn't have been able to do, were she a man). You can then explain to her why she actually isn't a woman. I'm sure she'd love to hear your thoughts on her biological sex.

 

[jewelkitty]

There are two main differences between the cases:
1. JK Rowling is a woman, and Polanski and Allen are men. No further explanation needed.
2. The people who are upset and so called victimised by Rowling are trans/men. The REAL victims of Polanski and Allen were women and children. And we all know who matters more in the eyes of the 'woke'

It's all incredibly childish, but that's the only way the trans activists know how to act. Forever throwing tantrums and name-calling. They haven't a leg to stand on in any real adult discussion about the issue.

 

[totallytaz]

I’m getting confused by how confusing this really is.

People are upset by Rowling saying that women would be the word you’re after and not ‘people who menstruate’. Now transgender people are upset because they can’t menstruate, yet neither can my mum because she’s gone through the menopause both still women, so what was the issue? Indeed, wouldn’t women actually have been the more inclusive term of the two?

 

[Ginger_roots]

There are many many different branches (and holes) in the transactivism, I could talk about it all day. This has snowballed from the movement about certain styles of clothes being aimed towards male and female children, certain toys, certain ideologies and the argument that boys are pushed towards being rough and tumble and will most probably go on to grape our daughters. Girls are being forced to be princesses and be precious and delicate. The activists declared that gender is a social construct and categorically does not exist. Then a few short years later there's this massive uproar because they now want us to believe that there is an epidemic of millions of people being oppressed because they've been born into the wrong body. And you kind of think, hold up how can that possibly be? If gender is social construct then that's a total impossibility - you simply can't have it both ways because if males and females are actually the same on an internal level then being 'born into the wrong body' would never be an issue. As a leaping off point, transactivism is just wrong from the get go...

I’m getting confused by how confusing this really is.

People are upset by Rowling saying that women would be the word you’re after and not ‘people who menstruate’. Now transgender people are upset because they can’t menstruate, yet neither can my mum because she’s gone through the menopause both still women, so what was the issue? Indeed, wouldn’t women actually have been the more inclusive term of the two?

I don't even know that trans women are upset by this? It's always trans activists like Jameela Jamil that kick off. I actually saw a lovely post from a trans lady supporting JK. I did see a few posts from ladies who'd had a hysterectomy criticising JK though, wtf

 

[Inforapenny]

Don't you just love a man telling women they must accept trans women.
Daniel Radcliffe joins the ranks of Owen Jones now.

 

[ShowMeYourFeline]

Although genderists are wrong, and 99.999% of people with intersex conditions don’t actually fall outside of the sex binary:

Even if they did, that doesn’t mean humans don’t have binary sex. That’s like saying humans aren’t bipedal because some people are born with more or less than two legs.

 

[Scotch Mist]

Don't you just love a man telling women they must accept trans women.
Daniel Radcliffe joins the ranks of Owen Jones now.

Yes I agree. I'm sick of men telling women that trans women are women when they are biologically not women. They can all duck off with their bloody male entitlement. This is disguised female oppression all over again.

And how dare he apologise for her, the bleeping arrogance of it. He wouldn't be anywhere if it wasn't for her!

 

[ShowMeYourFeline]

Who the duck does he think he is thinking he can apologise on her behalf?

 

[holliebollie]

For those confused about what she said and why it was hurtful. And full caveat that I still have a long way to go in educating myself about the trans community as an ally for the LGBTQ++ community.

-The most recent (and not the first tweets jk has made upsetting the trans community): JK questions the use of “people who menstruate” rather than women.

-This was followed up by suggesting that the concept of being trans is reducing/removing the concept of sex.

Why this was faced with backlash:
-Not all women menstruate- M to F trans people do not menstruate and that doesn’t mean they aren’t a woman. Plenty of women don’t menstruate, it doesn’t make them less of a woman.
-Not all people who menstruate are women. M to F trans people may also menstruate. Non binary people may menstruate.
-by inferring that the trans community are responsible/the cause of dismantling gender is essentially like she called a load of people the lord voldemort of sex discourse
Etc etc.

this is just a few of the arguments as to why it was hurtful. I’m posting this here to help people who are asking why/ curious as to how this is being perceived.

We have to be allowed to use statements that explain biological differences between the two sexes without a million caveats. For example, ‘Men have erections’... yes, many men don’t have them but would we quibble about someone using that statement? ‘Women are less hairy than men’... YES, there will be exceptions to the rule (my moustache is flourishing under lockdown ) but GENERALLY they are less hairy. Women have periods. They give birth. What’s the obsession with picking at every statement about biological differences between male and female humans? This isn’t at you, I just meant the whole ‘there are soooo many discrepancies so we can’t use this statement’ thing that’s popular.

 

[Inforapenny]

It's only male entitlement and arrogance that would have someone demand women accept men who 'feel' they are women.
I'd never ever dream of shouting men down and saying they must accept F2M trans as men. And that's without the danger women who are forced into with potential trans women.....who are men.

So men are telling women to shut the duck up and accept men in to their spaces. And sadly many women are so brain washed they are actually helping the misogyny and male oppression. It's beyond dystopian!

The whole trans women facing so much oppression, Domestic violence (which is male on male) discrimination is forever the narrative and constantly thrust into the public sphere because guess what it's a man's issue pushed by men!

If it were a female issue it would be buried or better still women would be shat on from a great height. This is clearly seen when women don't accept the misogynistic narrative and fight for justice....we are called witches, TERFS , transphobic

Believe me men are NOT at the bottom of the pile in any way.

 

[Sunflower91]

We have to be allowed to use statements that explain biological differences between the two sexes without a million caveats. For example, ‘Men have erections’... yes, many men don’t have them but would we quibble about someone using that statement? ‘Women are less hairy than men’... YES, there will be exceptions to the rule (my moustache is flourishing under lockdown ) but GENERALLY they are less hairy. Women have periods. They give birth. What’s the obsession with picking at every statement about biological differences between male and female humans? This isn’t at you, I just meant the whole ‘there are soooo many discrepancies so we can’t use this statement’ thing that’s popular.

I completely agree. As you acknowledged, my post was just sharing what was said and the argument around it. I hate feeling like I have to police what I say - and without the aid of facial razors I would also be in the moustache group . As well as having to explain why I don’t always have periods and have a bit of arm hair.

In an unrelated note, I personally know a couple of people who are trans but female to male transitioners who have waited until they are an adult to make that change. I think they have a completely different experience than m to f, one of them being growing up with female programming. They’re also a whole less likely to criticise the way we talk about our bodies (based on my experience of talking with them). I guess I just take people at face value, anyone who is a nice person I’ll be friends with.

And I recognise that there are a lot of problematic areas- unisex toilets aren’t a personal issue for me (saves on the queue and I see them a lot in London) but I can completely see how they can be an issue for others. As for sports - there are a few biological females that aren’t allowed to compete due to having too high testosterone too and keeping certain sports single sex is only fair. But I do have that refusal in my head to accept that because I’m female, I’m “weaker” and can’t play on the same playing field- it would be interesting to see some sports that are open to both genders (although that’s curiosity on my part).
There’s a few blind items actually about celebrities (ange jo encouraging their children from birth to transition to the opposite sex, whether that’s true or not is another thing- that is absolutely abhorrent.

 

[Vanillaco]

There are two main differences between the cases:
1. JK Rowling is a woman, and Polanski and Allen are men. No further explanation needed.
2. The people who are upset and so called victimised by Rowling are trans/men. The REAL victims of Polanski and Allen were women and children. And we all know who matters more in the eyes of the 'woke'

It's all incredibly childish, but that's the only way the trans activists know how to act. Forever throwing tantrums and name-calling. They haven't a leg to stand on in any real adult discussion about the issue.

I am the proud owner of a ban from Digitalspy for saying something similar. That men are never told they are 'people with prostates' or told what they should call themselves. Its just natal women and girls who have to accommodate all the time. And Daniel Radcliffe has no place apologising on behalf of an adult woman. But the Twitterati dont care about that. Let them stay in their echo chamber.

It's only male entitlement and arrogance that would have someone demand women accept men who 'feel' they are women.
I'd never ever dream of shouting men down and saying they must accept F2M trans as men. And that's without the danger women who are forced into with potential trans women.....who are men.

So men are telling women to shut the duck up and accept men in to their spaces. And sadly many women are so brain washed they are actually helping the misogyny and male oppression. It's beyond dystopian!

The whole trans women facing so much oppression, Domestic violence (which is male on male) discrimination is forever the narrative and constantly thrust into the public sphere because guess what it's a man's issue pushed by men!

If it were a female issue it would be buried or better still women would be shat on from a great height. This is clearly seen when women don't accept the misogynistic narrative and fight for justice....we are called witches, TERFS , transphobic

Believe me men are NOT at the bottom of the pile in any way.

I suspect once people find out that their daughters are having to share changing rooms and toilets with a physically intact teenage boy and have to compete with male athletes their eyes will be open in a way it hasn't been by having vulnerable women in prisons and refuges at risk because they aren't on their radar. The woke on Twitter are a minority. They shut down debate so they think they are speaking for everyone. FWIW I dont mind unisex cubicles either, as long as its everyone. All I have seen is mens toilets and unisex toilets. What about mtf trans men? Or do they not count?

 

[Scotch Mist]

I am the proud owner of a ban from Digitalspy for saying something similar. That men are never told they are 'people with prostates' or told what they should call themselves. Its just natal women and girls who have to accommodate all the time. And Daniel Radcliffe has no place apologising on behalf of an adult woman. But the Twitterati dont care about that. Let them stay in their echo chamber.


I suspect once people find out that their daughters are having to share changing rooms and toilets with a physically intact teenage boy and have to compete with male athletes their eyes will be open in a way it hasn't been by having vulnerable women in prisons and refuges at risk because they aren't on their radar. The woke on Twitter are a minority. They shut down debate so they think they are speaking for everyone. FWIW I dont mind unisex cubicles either, as long as its everyone. All I have seen is mens toilets and unisex toilets. What about mtf trans men? Or do they not count?

Well done for getting a ban from that abhorrent cesspool of digital spy. I've long given up on that forum as no deviation from full acceptance is tolerated by the mob on there. As you say in your post it seems that these people will only wake up to what's going on here when it directly affects them or their indoctrinated children in the future and by then women will have no safe spaces left from Male invasion.

 

[HaveSomeMilk]

men are never told they are 'people with prostates'

Finally caught up with everything and to be honest in total agreement with most of everything being said here. But on this point I just wanted to add that there was a TeenVogue article in the last couple years or something that got A LOT of heated debate because it was about how to have anal sex. It got heat for a number of different reasons but one of them was that in the article it mentioned "prostate havers".

Again though, in that article in place of the word female body or woman, women are defined as "non prostate havers" or something like that which again just defines the female body only in relation to a male body.

Spoiler

the article in question

 

[Inforapenny]

I'm pretty impressed that I haven't yet been banned from this forum for expressing the obvious.

I feel solidarity here, thank you for those brave enough to speak out.

We tried to have a woman's meeting back in 2017 in our local town and it got banned the day before because we were discussing women's rights and the trans and those woke allies put so much pressure on the venue they cancelled.

I'm actually more upset with the women who are brain washed by the patriarchy