Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Transphobia is still fairly normalised in a way racism and homophobia aren't (or aren't as much).
Is it?
All hate crime is bad (lol all lives matter), but it still seems racism is still fairly normalised.
Well, I can see where she's coming from. Widening the definition of group identity has the potential (in some cases) to make the definition itself redundant, because if the treshold, criteria or rules around the definition of identities are too easy to challenge, change and/or abolish, that makes the definition a very loose one at best, which can in turn lead to uncertainty, leading to anxiety and identity crisis (for the individual and groups as a whole) or other kinds of problems regarding communication and mental health, which the definition was meant to prevent in the first place. Lesbians for example had to establish a community and a definition of who they are and their value as human beings, against religious and/or cultural oppression which gave them a sense of agency and a sense of belonging/existence, enabling women struggling with social norms and ostracisation to feel seen, heard and accepted for their sense of self. Trying to dictate the definition those women found for themselves is a fascist trait and should imo be called out as such. The community itself has every right to change the rules and beliefs around their identity and those outside the group have every right to make recommendations in good faith. A consensus has to be found within the group though, not outside of it.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Hard to make any sense of that without knowing what they mean by “trans hostile”.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
For a political party so besotted with capitalism, the republican party sure seems to hate choice.
Yeah, that’s a pretty common paradox on the right. They want a small, non-interventionist government. Expect when it comes to stuff they don’t like. Then they want the government all over that shit.
They view trans and other non hetero people as defective and their elitism has an inate predilection towards eugenics that outweighs any other considerations their Christian faith might otherwise lead them to such as compassion and leaving judgement to god.
I would say this is the most extreme form of confirmation bias, but at this point, they do not even need confirmation.
All that suggests is that there’s been a massive increase in articles about anything to do with trans issues since 2012. Is that really a big surprise?
Forstater has recently been going off on twitter, in a really Glinneresque way, because a library has an alien mascot from a species that is genderless. Of course it's trans propaganda, that goes without saying, but it's also completely implausible and unscientific that this species doesn't reproduce sexually (I don't remember if the library said this or if she figured it out because of no gender) because the alien is a bit anthropomorphic rather than a slime and because it has a spine. It's quite the spectacle.
The likes of Forstater and other TERFs just can't stop thinking about genitalia, it's pathological. They're dangerous.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Sure is.
That's the fifth time I have done that today. Clearly copying and pasting too many tweets. Thanks for the heads up. Hopefully the Times video excerpt should be showing for you?
Tis, much appreciated!
I've watched this now. It's 30 minutes long so most understandably won't bother, so I thought I'd give some notes. As the title says it's not mainly about Rowling, but the people she associates with; those in the picture and other people she pals around with online and in real life. A theme that keeps repeating is that these people say they're not anti trans, they're just worried about women's rights, and how this is hard to square with how most of them work with and support the right wing. Here there are examples of everything from "normal" conservatives to far right fascists and white nationalists, it's people who oppose the right to abortion, the right to gay marriage and people who want to criminalize gay sex. The last two points aren't directly related to women's rights, but they are rights that have historically been important for and supported by feminist movements, and maybe more on the nose is the fact that these people very often use lesbians as a shield for their views. They say they just want to protect lesbians from men who think they are women, but they don't have a problem with people who want to throw lesbians in jail.
Here are just two out of many, many of Berns' tweets. She was also a fan of Milo, a nazi and an apologist for peadophilia. Rowling is aware of all this:
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Sensational post. Thanks for this.I've watched this now. It's 30 minutes long so most understandably won't bother, so I thought I'd give some notes. As the title says it's not mainly about Rowling, but the people she associates with; those in the picture and other people she pals around with online and in real life. A theme that keeps repeating is that these people say they're not anti trans, they're just worried about women's rights, and how this is hard to square with how most of them work with and support the right wing. Here there are examples of everything from "normal" conservatives to far right fascists and white nationalists, it's people who oppose the right to abortion, the right to gay marriage and people who want to criminalize gay sex. The last two points aren't directly related to women's rights, but they are rights that have historically been important for and supported by feminist movements, and maybe more on the nose is the fact that these people very often use lesbians as a shield for their views. They say they just want to protect lesbians from men who think they are women, but they don't have a problem with people who want to throw lesbians in jail.
Right out of the gate, at 0:45, there's an illustrative example of how Rowling frames things. She writes about Magdalen Berns:
Here are just two out of many, many of Berns' tweets. She was also a fan of Milo, a nazi and an apologist for peadophilia. Rowling is aware of all this:
Is this someone who just cares deeply about biological sex and someone who just doesn't want lesbians to be called bigots (this is an extremely common refrain from Rowling in particular, while it is something that is very rare and is not why the TERF crowd is receiving criticism)? No, of course not, it's a laughable thing to say but Rowling does it anyway. It's not an accident, for two reasons: 1) It's a "mistake" she keeps repeating, and 2) it's a "mistake" she never makes when she talks about trans people or activists.
Another example from around the 8 minute mark, here's a tweet:
This is about an event called "Let Women Speak", and Rowling has mentioned this a lot. Now, the thing is, it was a general gender critical event about the alleged dangers of trans ideology, it was not about lesbians. They were mentioned, of course, but it was not the focus of the event. The majority of speakers were not lesbians, either, I don't know if anyone were but it's possible. So right out of the gate Rowling is lying about what sort of an event this is, is she leaving anything else out? The main organizer was Posie Parker, someone who believes that trans people should be forcefully sterilized. Hearts of Oak were there (Tommy Robinson), and other right wingers and fascists.
Around 23:30 Shaun makes a more general point when he asks what it actually means to support gay rights or the right to an abortion. When asked Rowling will say that she supports these things, and I'm sure that this is true. If there was a vote she would vote for. But she's not voting. She's also not campaigning, she's mostly silent. That's fine, most people are, but in addition to being silent she's constantly supporting and working with people campaigning against those rights. What does that mean? On that note, here's another tweet where among other things she showcases her impeccable sense of humor and drops all pretenses about supporting trans people:
Emma Nicholson is a personal friend of Rowlng. She is also a politician, a Baroness who is a member of the House of Lords, who campaigns to restrict abortion rights and against gay marriage. Just to cap all this off, here's a last one:
"innocent gay boys" is referring to trans women. Kavanagh was later banned again from Twitter when he sent death threats to Mermaids and Stonewall. Rowling knows all this because she keeps blocking people who bring it up to her in case she just wasn't aware.
She’s not lying though. That tweet doesn’t even try to describe what the event is about other than alluding to “women speaking out about sex based rights”. Which must be close to the truth, right? The rest is just a rant about what she sees as nasty tactics from trans rights activists.
This is about an event called "Let Women Speak", and Rowling has mentioned this a lot. Now, the thing is, it was a general gender critical event about the alleged dangers of trans ideology, it was not about lesbians. They were mentioned, of course, but it was not the focus of the event. The majority of speakers were not lesbians, either, I don't know if anyone were but it's possible. So right out of the gate Rowling is lying about what sort of an event this is, is she leaving anything else out? The main organizer was Posie Parker, someone who believes that trans people should be forcefully sterilized. Hearts of Oak were there (Tommy Robinson), and other right wingers and fascists.
I notice that you don't mention Rowling herself, only her being used as a figurehead.
Well, in the post I responded to, Rowling’s being criticised based on the opinions of people who are aligning themselves with her cause. They’re the people I’m alluding to. Tommy Robinson, for example.
Not as such, no. She should probably reject their support, though, if they're particularly unsavoury.
Billy Bragg - the singer-songwriter rather than the infamous Cafite - supported Norton's take on Twitter, to which Rowling responded by accusing them of supporting rape and death threats.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Yeah. He was good. The video is doing the rounds. Rowling’s definitely ended up doing that thing which everyone who spends any time involved immersed in the online culture war ends up doing. Divides anyone who gets involved into two discrete categories “with us” or “against us”. A Venn diagram with no overlap. It’s very childish and kind of fascinating to watch. They’re all at it though. On both sides.
I find the both sides rhetoric very problematic considering one of these sides is fighting to to simply live an equal life in peace and the other side is trying to prevent that from happening. I get what you’re trying to say, in that some people are obviously resorting to means that are unwarranted. But painting both sides as equally wrong is unwarranted and dangerous. There is no violence in the simple act of fighting for acceptance and equality. Any violence on this side lies merely with the means chosen to fight.
Ah yeah. I’m not doing the Trump thing here. Implying both sides are as bad as each other. One of these two sides has far more unpleasant and mean spirited people on their side than the other. Which is, at the very least, well intentioned.
