kindness in a backdrop of anti-trans laws that are taking over large parts of the US (where contrapoints lives)... not sure if society is better for them if kindness norms are better observed. they may feel a better society is one that is less kind to the people who write and support and argue for those laws.
Other The Witch Trials of J.K. Rowling
- Thread starter Murder on Zidane's Floor
- Start date
Obligatory Letter from a Birmingham Jail. It doesn't hit quite as solidly as it did during the George Floyd protests, for obvious reasons, but there's still something there.
(I'm not accusing Pogue of being the "white moderate" in this scenario, it's not quite that direct a comparison)
That’s a bizarre definition of kindness. In this context, kindness is obviously being accepting and non-judgemental of trans people. Which is surely more likely in a scenario without the constant hostility and aggression that flares up every time anyone questions trans orthodoxy online.
Going back to the antivax analogy, in my experience , patient explanations (even when you feel you’re banging your head off a wall) have been far more productive than insulting those who hold a different worldview.
Last edited:
Because no one knew she was part of the podcast series?! That's why people weren't having a go, they didn't know she was on it.
She tweeted her comments on the 16th, five days before it was released.
Yes, exactly. You're the one saying it was because of backlash, which means that it had to be about future backlash that she anticipated would come later.
Meaning either she is lying about having regrets and always planned to do damage control like this, or she is now having regrets but is lying about why: what happened is that she suddenly realised that some people would criticise her, something she didn't consider when asked, when accepting, or when doing the podcast.
Which do you think it is?
Little of column A, little of column B probably
We've gone from obviously to probably over a few hours, we're relying on your mind reading abilities on something you clearly know nothing about, and you think I'm the one here acting in "bad faith"? You're so transparently full of it.
Those quotes don't say she was misled? The first is about the title and has no relevance to that particular question. The second says she did not fully understand the nature of the project and regrets participating. Again that doesn't mean she was misled. She may feel 'used' but that's meaningless.
If she is willing to do a few interviews on Pink News about it, then it doesn't seem too much of a stretch to say 'post some form of supporting evidence'. I'm not sure what definition of juvenile that fits in to, but requesting evidence before accepting a claim isn't it.
Natalie may be on the right side of any 'trans debate' but that doesn't excuse her from acting without thinking or putting in proper research before agreeing to participate.
If you can point out any area where she is willing to say the journalist lied to get her to participate then we can look into that.
Otherwise, it's simply a case of sometime people we like and tend to agree with can do stupid things.
Did you just gloss over when I said in my earlier reply that I could be wrong?
No, I figured that's why you downgraded from obviously to probably.
I used to work in a transgender health and research centre and do think 'witch hunt' is a pretty apt way of describing a significant amount of the J K Rowling abuse.
Definitely will listen to the podcast hoping it will illustrate some of the philosophical and ethical complexity, but the whole debate is so polarised from both sides that I wont hold my breath.
Definitely will listen to the podcast hoping it will illustrate some of the philosophical and ethical complexity, but the whole debate is so polarised from both sides that I wont hold my breath.
I see Rowling is back to works of fiction, which is her strong point
I don't understand what this is all about. Someone showed up for a discussion, and then regretted it because it didn't turn out how she wanted? Was it edited in a manipulative way or something?
Last edited:
Well doesn't seem that way, the sections with ContraPoints is really good
It seems any disagreement on this subject or say, drag story hours or anything really nowadays just descends into one side screaming fascist and the other side screaming groomer.
So weird.
I absolutely disagree that the first line is how kindness is seen, especially in the context of online trans discourse. Indeed your very next line is the "unkindness" that this is all about. Trans rights are a separate thing.
And while I've definitely gotten very angry at antivax/climate change deniers on here, there's a visceral anger I felt towards one ex-poster who glorified british rule in india, which i didn't feel in the other threads. so i think i get why online trans discourse is so heated.
She hasn't actually said that the editing is manipulative. Taking solely the sources posted earlier in this thread - https://www.thepinknews.com/2023/02/21/jk-rowling-podcast-trans-youtuber-natalie-wynn-contrapoints/ https://www.thepinknews.com/2023/02/28/witch-trails-of-jk-rowling-podcast-contrapoints-trans/ she has said:
She said agreeing to chat with Phelps-Roper was “a serious lapse in judgment” after she was grilled about her decision to transition.
Wynn explained that, because of Phelps-Roper’s history as what she called a “famous reformed bigot“, she originally believed the interview could be worthwhile.
“She’d spoken to JKR about me, and thought it seemed only right to speak to me about JKR,” Wynn wrote. “This is what was pitched to me.
“I took the bait and consented to a pretty miserable three-hour interrogation about my own transition, as well as the usual ‘concerns’ about trans rights.”
After the interview was over, Wynn was asked for tips about how to approach the subject of the podcast series. She responded to by urging Phelps-Roper not to frame it as a “debate between two equally legitimate sides”.
Wynn said: “It’s now clear that this is exactly what she’s done, how she’s conceptualised the project from the outset.
“Her stance seems to be that trans people and transphobes are equally dogmatic and combative. That if we could all just have a calm, civil conversation, empathy would prevail.”
“She thinks this way because of her experience leaving the WBC,” Wynn argued. “She’s extrapolated an entire political worldview: the basic problem facing humanity is too much ‘polarisation’.
“Megan does not seem to grasp that trans people are fighting for our lives, our right to exist in society.”
Wynn said she regretted her participation in the series and does not want her involvement to “lend any legitimacy to this”.
She concluded by saying: “I regret my participation and would not have participated had I fully understood the nature of the project.
“I feel I’ve been used and I share the sentiments of other trans people who are speaking out against it.”
“She seems to think she’s just presenting information and letting listeners come to their own conclusions,” Wynn told PinkNews.
“But the thing is that details of presentation and framing lead an audience to certain conclusions. And, the way this is presented, it is setting up JKRowling as this deep complex person who has this traumatic past and who everyone has hated irrationally.
“Everything about this so far screams that what we’re supposed to conclude is an equivalency between evangelical Christians in the 90s burning Harry Potter books and the current backlash.”
Megan Phelps-Roper reportedly told Natalie Wynn her video’s examination of Rowling’s arguments was what prompted her to contact the YouTube creator.
Wynn explained: “I saw this message from Megan Phelps-Roper. She says, ‘I’m doing a podcast about the controversy surrounding JKRowling. I liked your video and I thought it made some really good points. Would you be willing to talk?'”
After ruminating over whether she would accept the interview, Wynn received a follow-up email from Phelps-Roper. It said she had spoken to Rowling about Wynn’s video.
"She wrote back saying: ‘Just checking in again. I spent four days at Jo’s castle in Edinburgh and I confronted her about some talking points in your video.’
“That’s what drew me in,” Wynn added.
“It seemed like this was going to be a really high-profile thing. It’s a chance to defend my ideas and potentially a chance to be able to actually directly challenge JKRowling in a way that I’ve never really seen.”
However, upon meeting for the interview, Wynn was instead subjected to an “emotionally heavy” three-hour call. During this, Phelps-Roper asked several invasive questions about her transition.
“I did know pretty early on that this was going to be a mess,” she said. “There were a lot of framing questions about why I was trans, what was it like, and if it’s hard.
“I understand that she’s trying to elicit sound bites that give the audience a frame of reference. But I was being prompted to go through a lot of traumatic and difficult memories that a lot of people like to pick through to decide why you’re trans.
“I was also being asked things like: ‘Well, what about women who feel unsafe in locker rooms around trans women?’
“I forget what the question was about, but at one point I started to break down and cry because I started to realise that there’s some suppressed part of me that cares about what JKRowling thinks about trans people.”
“This is not about hating Harry Potter for most of us. I think that any warmth I’ve had towards it has evaporated in the last four years, but I loved it when I was a kid. I even made a Harry Potter fan page when I was in sixth grade.
“In the same way that it hurts to be rejected by your parents, it hurts to be rejected by people you looked up to and admired in your childhood.”
“About half an hour into the interview, I was thinking: ‘This is a bad idea,'” she added. “I stuck it out because, I don’t know, I’m an agreeable person. I don’t like conflict.
“But I guess I was also hoping on some level that – even if this project is misguided, if I can speak persuasively – maybe something I say can improve the project.”
“Who knows what’s going to happen in the later episodes. For all I know, I’ve been cut out of it,” she laughed.
“But my optimism that something good will come out of this is pretty low. So we’ll see.”
“I don’t think empathy is a finite resource, but I think that people who want to cover controversies around topics like this need to think about which stories they really want to centre,” she said.
“I understand it’s appealing to centre JKRowling because she is famous and that will get attention because people care about what she thinks.
“Maybe instead of being interested in the sad backstory of JKR comments on trans people, try to get a little more interest in the victims behind these hate movements that are accusing people of being groomers or leading the legislative backlash.”
To give a bit of context, and again this is only from the Pink News link. Contrapoints is a popular Youtuber who's most watched video is:
Her most popular video is an hour-and-a-half-long critique of JKRowling’s history of tweets on trans views, which has gained more than 6.2 million views at the time of writing.
For the purpose of working out if she was in some way misled or manipulated a lot of what she has said is waffle. It may raise valid points in terms of the overall debate, but it's not relevant to that point.
All she has actually stated is:
She was approached by M P-R who said she had seen her video critiquing JKRs views and had spoken to JKR about her and would like to speak to her in turn. -This was done via message.
She ruminated on it for a few days - at which point she received a follow-up email from M P-R saying she had spent 4 days with JKR and had confronted JKR with some of the points raised by Contrapoints.
She considered this an opportunity to defend her points of view in a high-profile setting, and also to be able to potentially challenge JKR. She agreed to be interviewed.
During the interview - she was surprised and upset to be asked questions about her own transition, and if it was hard to be trans. She was also apparently unhappy to be asked: ‘Well, what about women who feel unsafe in locker rooms around trans women?’
Half an hour into the interview, she could see it was going to be a mess, but she carried on for another 2.5 hours as she is an agreeable person who doesn't like conflict.
At the end of her interview - not prior to agreeing to conduct it, when asked for tips on the series she urged M P-R not to frame the podcast as a debate between two equally legitimate sides.
It's also worth noting (when you see posts saying that she hasn't put this out there as an attempt to avoid a backlash) that in her tweet thread on the 16th she seems to directly acknowledge that there are trans people speaking out about this already.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Thanks for the thorough summary. I have to admit I thought it sounded a bit silly at first, but I do actually see what she means.
“Her stance seems to be that trans people and transphobes are equally dogmatic and combative. That if we could all just have a calm, civil conversation, empathy would prevail.”
This is my own stance as well which is why I probably am struggling to understand what the issue is and why she feels the need to distance herself from the podcast. Still haven't listened to it by the way, i'll get to it eventually though.
This is my own stance as well which is why I probably am struggling to understand what the issue is and why she feels the need to distance herself from the podcast. Still haven't listened to it by the way, i'll get to it eventually though.
Would this be your stance as well?
"Gay people and homophobes are equally dogmatic and combative"
If not, then what's the big difference?
Yeah I would say that is my stance as well - two groups on either side that are dogmatic and combative of each other. No doubt if you put both sides in a room together for a debate and you would get the two groups having a combative discussion. It seems fairly obvious to say and think that so I'm not sure of the point you are trying to make.
I think “actually this Trans person who has denounced her involvement and explained why in a long well written statement is actually lying because she’s scared of other trans people and I like the podcast” is a pretty bold take.
But one side is clearly in the right and the other isn't!
Unless you mean that being gay is a choice... If the first statement wasn't enough to make me escape this thread, then that would surely be it!
That is a different point though isn't it. You asked me if I thought gay people and homophobes would be seen as dogmatic and combative with each other - I said yes I did think that. What you are suggesting is that I have said that homophobes are just as right in their views as gay people and that possibly I think being gay is a choice. Why are you jumping to those conclusions? This is ridiculous.But one side is clearly in the right and the other isn't!
Unless you mean that being gay is a choice... If the first statement wasn't enough to make me escape this thread, then that would surely be it!
You are however highlighting exactly what I think is the problem with even trying to discuss this topic - if you suggest you might think slightly differently from 'the right way' people jump on you and believe that you are a raging homophobe, transphobic evil person.
That’s insane
The second part of the sentence(which I forgot to include in the gays vs homophobes example) is the crucial bit, though: "... That if we could all just have a calm, civil conversation, empathy would prevail."
How do you even have a calm and civil discussion with dogmatic transphobes? There is no point in reaching a middle ground if the middle ground is still wrong.
I do agree that civil debate is better than insults if you want to convince someone, but I can also understand the sheer frustration involved and not wanting to take part in that. Especially if you in the process risk being misinterpreted by thousands.
The continued comparison between gay people and trans people is misplaced I think, the two things are not the same.
I've also seen people use Jews and Nazis in this phrase as well. Solely to make it seem like you're either a Nazi or a good person.
It's a false equivalence that in my opinion is used solely to frame this subject as "there are only transphobes and trans people/support".
Instantly creates a divide and serves solely to tarnish anyone who don't tow the exacting, yet constantly moving line, as a bigot/transphobe.
It's this sort of framing means the debate just melts down into a puddle of vicious, noisy sea of crap tbh.
It's the constant attributing of malice in banal statements that the internet pushes people to.
Gotta have a zinger or a takedown as we are all on display/marketing ourselves and we want to be the good guys.
I'm hugely guilty of that btw.
Help me understand why you feel so strongly about that statement. I think it's a reasonable stance to have personally.
Last edited:
You have a civil debate with the ACTUAL middle ground.
Again framing it as that there are only two types of people; your side and transphobes.
There is a huge swathe of people who are neither yet people in this debate approach the perceived opponents that they are evil enemies.
Because without a calm and civil discussion there can never be the opportunity to change people's views. Also, there clearly is a middle ground here to be found. This is not a black and white issue, you can respect trans rights but also be concerned about certain issues - this is possible. It's not all or nothing.
The podcast kind of frames it that way by making JKR the subject doesn't it?
Transpeople are not a monolith.
But transphobia is transphobia. Whether you are mildly bothered by it or standing on the frontlines with signs and megaphones only really describes the level of how wrong you are. But you're still in the wrong.
It shouldn't be more complicated than that. It's of course preferable if you are an ally who speaks up when you see transphobia, but transphobia is a million times worse than apathy.
Perhaps, but she is a global icon who is apparently a raging bigot who some people claim wants to see trans people exterminated.
I think her being interviewed about her beliefs to perhaps set the record straight.
She might put herself as a raging transphobe and we can all cancel her/condemn her.
On the whole, the two episodes have been fairly balanced and more focused on internet communities and fandom.
I get that and I am an ally but I also feel that sometimes the charge of transphobia is thrown about when people simply want to discuss certain nuances or challenges faced when legislating in society.
I'm old enough to remember "no debate" as a slogan online.
It’s much more complicated than that. Obviously. The notion that stuff like this is binary and the whole world can neatly be divided into transphobes and trans allies only exists in the (frankly insane) context of social media.
The title bothers me to be honest. I think characterising the reception to her views on trans people as a 'witch trial' is pretty outrageous.
I'm not surprised the trans people who contributed to it regret their participation unless the title is completely unrepresentative of the content, which it doesn't sound like.
I'm not particularly interested in the history or the development of JKR's views - they're dumb. They were dumb the first time they came up years and years ago and don't seem to have developed past the brain dead stupid in that time.
Absolutely, it serves to make an discourse, nuance or understand impossible.
I will add, it's the same on the insane right who want to tarnish anything LGBT as groomer panic.
Fair enough. Out of interest what do you think her views are?
Most people are neither transphobes nor allies. The majority fall somewhere in between because they lack knowledge or interest in the topic.
Transphobia as a concept is pretty binary. The difficulty lies in where we draw the line. There will be plenty of different opinions on that matter.