93 / 136
Sep 2020

I'm going to reiterate my previous point about the use of the phrase "cancel culture" because I'm seeing what I was critiquing being used in this same thread. There is no formal definition or consistent ideology for "Cancel Culture", it is literally what you believe it to be. People keep saying "I don't support cancel culture" and citing things like "fans sending death threats over a couple of tweets" but all this does is completely ignore the large number of people who have legitimate grievances with the person being "canceled" and lump them in with the worst people outraged.

The phenomenon of "Cancel Culture" encompasses as wide a range from Harvey Weinstein (who I hopefully believe everyone would agree should have been "canceled") and small creators who may just have a bad way with words. But when the term can apply to so many things, it no longer has any meaning, because the people who associate it with the latter example will just assume everyone who is a victim of "cancel culture" is in the same camp. That's why as soon as you hear "J.K. Rowling is being canceled for controversial views on trans issues" a lot of people immediately think "Oh, that's cancel culture, right? Then she probably said nothing bad and it's people just overreacting." and they don't even bother listening to the countless legitimate critics who have very eloquently explained why Rowling's statements are so volatile in the first place.

I know I'm probably just shouting into the wind, but I'd really like the people who hate the idea of "cancel culture" try to narrow down exactly what they believe it to be and not just assume every instance of someone being "canceled" is the same.

The issue comes from the fact that her essay alone isn't the only thing that she's been sharing and saying. She's also been sharing bad science and ignoring the trans charities and organisations that are trying to show her the scientific evidence that she is overblowing her concern for children on this issue.

Mermaids posted a good letter that explains how she's been harmful towards trans children - Warning: please be aware that the following post discusses issues which may cause distress.

This was followed by this one after her essay:

Thanks for the info! It's a fascinating read, and I'll have to take the time to read it properly. It seems reliable and believable browsing through it.

I also want to add that most people with harmful opinions such as JK aren't going to blatantly tweet "f**k trans people!"

Dogwhistles exist for the sole reason of plausible deniability. You need to listen to the analysis of others over her tweets that CAN come off as seemingly innocent because she knows how to word them. She's a writer. She isn't just confused or bad at getting her point across.

As @KRWright says, it's not the only thing she's written, this was her response to people telling her she was being offensive. I posted the essay because it seems people haven't read it and have only seen her tweets. The video I linked way early breaks down the separate parts of her essay and the issues starting at about 10minutes in. Especially in conjunction with her previous tweets and her new book. It was just me giving another piece of evidence people don't seem to be aware or are just aware of but haven't seen.

And shaky statements is a nice way of saying outright lies. This is why I caveated that you should research her points and look up the videos, because yes the way she worded it can come off as reasonable and just concerned. Because she's a writer. That's her craft. There are plenty of videos other than the one I linked above explaining why she is willfully misinformed at best or (given she insists she's researched this thoroughly) lying at worst and how this harms transpeople.

And let's not forget, a lot of these arguments that seem "reasonable", also once seemed "reasonable" when it came to homosexual people. Would it really be ok if people were worried gay men in men's locker rooms would attack people? Or lesbians in women's locker rooms would assault people? Would it seem reasonable to say "but we might be convincing children they're gay just because they're a bit feminine"? Is it ok to say "but groups of lesbians hang out together and that's suspicious, maybe they're converting each other as a fad"?

I think one of the biggest things people can do here is trust trans people. Transgender people are able to spot the harmful language, dog whistles and issues far more than those who are unaffected. Despite what JKR and the movement that she's part of say: the majority of trans individuals speaking out about this are eloquent, educated, and non-violent in their responses. If you want help in spotting these things, following some trans activists on twitter will always help in dissecting what's at the heart of the matter and why it raises alarm bells for those in the community.

Advocating restrictions to transgender healthcare is a form of transphobia. While some minors might be OK just talking to a therapist, others aren’t. And for trans youth in the second group, they are at higher risk of suicide. And if their parents take advice from people like JK Rowling, these teens may also fall victim to abuse and homelessness.

Her mindset and her new book could also encourage her supporters to seek out transwomen and male crossdresser To attack and kill in an act to “protect women”. Most of these victims tend to be low income and POCs and are often ignored by police. I heard of one guy who got away with murdering a black transwoman in the middle of the day on a crosswalk.

I was in the middle of writing almost exactly what you wrote, but I scrapped it when I saw I'd just be redundant.

I would like to add onto your "reasonableness" point in that, just because someone can explain their views in a polite and reasonable manner does not automatically mean there's more legitimacy to their arguments. People see Rowling's essay on her views and think "well, that all looks reasonable, I can see how this was all just a big misunderstanding" but they either ignore, or are not well-versed enough on trans issues to notice, the falsehoods and inaccuracies she's spreading. Very intelligent people have always been able to politely and "rationally" explain all sorts of horrible ideas and if their opponents standing up for human decency end up shouting or getting angry, the audience thinks "Well, that's uncalled for. They probably don't have a good reason for their side if they can't be emotionless about it."

I try to be polite and reasonable whenever I discuss things, only because I'm aware of this tendency in people - but I also try not to completely shut out people's arguments when they're less in control of their emotions and yell or use strong language. Sometimes people have good reason to be angry and frustrated, they still need to be listened to.

It's why I kind of get annoyed when I see debates between two ardently opposed sides that end with "Well, I disagree with you, but I commend you for your ability to be calmly express your ideas. We may be on different sides but there's no reason we can't be civil." Meanwhile the debate was over the legitimacy of ethnic cleansing.

Also, an extra point to the dangerous mindset she's trying to spread with this - that gender reassignment surgery is this easy thing, almost like having a pill, that people can do to change before you even know it. It's already bad in most countries even if they've got laws for it, but it's notorious in the UK how long it actually takes to get surgery - if she keeps pushing that it's super easy(using a tale that dangerous people just do it whenever) and people start asking for bigger restrictions, it's only going to take longer and longer to get the appointments trans people really need.

This is very true. I understand that up until quite recently (I'm not even sure if it has changed yet given how long our politics takes to do anything) you had to live as the gender you would like to transition to for a certain number of years and go through several doctors, including psychologist/physiatrists before you would even be considered for most medical options, or be allowed to put in paperwork for a court to consider you legally transitioned for passports and driver licenses ect. It's not a snap decision like she makes it sound.

I'm just here plopping by, I've listened to the video previously posted and read the articels posted, and I have to say THANK you all for such an orderly discussion, bringing forth an understandable point. I really enjoyed widening my horizon regarding about many things.

...
I have a question not regarding JKR, but trans in general. Should I ask it here directly or create a new thread?

Here's the problem: literally no one is saying X and Y chromosomes and DNA isn't a thing. JK hides behind "I'm just saying biological sex is real" to get away with saying awful harmful things, and we've already covered her outright lies.

What she's really saying is "sure I support transpeople, I just think that they're out of attack women in women's bathrooms and that they're attention seekers or trying to get away from homophobia or sexism by changing gender and it's all medical and social media brainwashing really, but I support them, I dont want them dead, I just don't want them in my spaces or near my kids or anything like that, but I support them".

I'd say it would be most relevant here rather than in a new place for now.

Sure, regular people can have all sorts of opinions and it's no big deal. But we have to hold public figures (and other people of influence) to a higher standard because the potential to cause harm is greater. What's reasonable behavior for you or me, among close friends, is not reasonable behavior for someone with the eyes of the world upon them.

This is not how the world works though, and the larger your influencer, the more likely you are able to change things. Even a minute shift in a small percentage of the people she can reach, and that's a lot of people who could be persuaded into anti-trans views.

This is a rather naïve idea though. JK has the entire population of some countries following her. She's on TV. She gets news coverage. When she says something like "someone lost their job for saying sex is real" it goes out to millions. It only takes her a few seconds to say that and for millions of people hear it. And then way more effort to debunk it as lies. You can say she shouldn't be important all you like, but what she says has reach, and possibly most worryingly, a lot of reach with younger audiences and kids.

Sadly, very true. But it's not gonna discourage me from enjoying her work. :slight_smile: And remember something. Just because someone famous says something, doesn't mean we have to agree with it, either. In the end, the anti-trans viewpoint is entirely up to the person on the other side of the message. NO ONE forces us to accept or agree with what some famous author says. :slight_smile: That's up to our common senses. Or should I say "uncommon sense" because I rarely see common sense in the world today.

You can't say you support trans people and give your money to a transphobe/and support transphobic media.

I really do hope you mean the HP books which are only vaguely problematic and not the new books this very thread has pointed out several times are actually transphobic in their content.