JK Rowling Cancellation

domisotto 2020-09-18 17:05:13 UTC #85

Does Rowling do any significant work with or donates to charities or organizations that help cis women to escape domestic abuse or similar? Or is her entire weight is thrown behind going down on trans community?

liamhernandezlucas 2020-09-18 17:05:16 UTC #86

Reading that string of tweets, it doesn't seem like the writings of an outright transphobe as much as the writings of someone who doesn't have a way with words. Which is odd, for a writer, but considering the subject matter more than understandable. Half of the words she used have been ascribed multiple meanings by now, and it's easy to get tangled up in your own web of arguments.

As for the new book, I haven't read it, but it sounds more like an attack on transvestites than trans people. It's not like evil cross dressers don't exist, but a story like that usually benefits from showing another cross dresser that isn't evil just to reassure the audience that crossdressing=evil is not the message they should take away from it.

I'm guessing that's just a big fail on her part, rather than malicious intent.

As for her other posts on twitter, most of what I'm seeing is poor word choice, genuine confusion and genuine concern. Is it misguided? Perhaps, i won't be the judge of that. But she's no villain for questioning these things. If it weren't for questioning things, the lgbt community wouldn't be as prosperous as it is today. Adverse arguments provide opportunity for refinement.

HGohwell 2020-09-18 17:12:46 UTC #87

It's literally just come out within the past week or so I believe. And given her rants in her "essay" about how men will dress up as women using the "excuse" of being trans to attack women... yeah. Not good optics to put it mildly.

She did openly claim to be helping migrants and would let them stay in her house and everyone else should do the same or you're awful people she... didn't. And then sued everyone who reported it. And she does support child poverty prevention charities and is big on donating MS research (something that comes up in her essay to further prove why she's "right"). Her wiki has an entire section on her charities, but of course, giving to charity doesn't automatically make you a good person. You can't buy not being a bigot. (In many ways it makes it worse that she constantly uses her charity work and that she's been the victim of domestic abuse as a shield to prove that she can't possibly be hurting other people because she's the victim and a good person)

liamhernandezlucas 2020-09-18 17:19:58 UTC #88

Okay, didn't catch that one. Yikes. it's not like nobody would ever. We should always assume people will take advantage of what they can, but it's really bad to assume it's the norm.

darthmongoose 2020-09-18 17:21:41 UTC #89

The frustrating thing is... yeah actually, she does. She has been extremely generous in her support of women, particularly single mothers, donating vast sums of money.
She just seems very angry and excessively concerned about a hypothetical scenario in which men pretend to be women to sneak into "women's spaces" in order to abuse them, and applies this logic as a reason to oppress trans women, who she categorises as potentially dangerous because they were "Socialised Male" (ie. she thinks cis women can never be safe around trans women because trans women were raised as boys to be violent, abusive and sexually pushy... like men.... Yeah, it's really problematic and kinda insulting towards basically everyone.) She also claims that cis lesbians like me are frequently bullied by trans women into sex etc. (I have never experienced this or heard any example of it).

If you analyse her texts, Rowling has a preoccupation with bad people pretending to be something they're not in order to get things they don't deserve or sneak into places with vulnerable people. Her new book will be about a man who dresses as women to commit murders, but even if you look at previous Galbraith books, there's a big subplot involving a group for "trans-abled" people (people who have no disabilities but who act like they do, going around in wheelchairs etc.), framing it as though it's a much bigger thing than it actually is. Or Peter Pettigrew pretending to be a rat for decades to take shelter with Ron's family is another example. It seems like Rowling imagines a world where loads of people are pretending to be harmless and disadvantaged in order to get special treatment or to trick people so they can attack.

HGohwell 2020-09-18 17:28:25 UTC #90

Ok so I was hesitant to post this because I don't want to spread her stuff, but I lot of people seem to be missing bits and pieces so, much as I don't want to give her attention and much as some of you don't want to watch long videos explaining, I suggest you remember to take this all with a grain of salt (I've already spoken about about why Maya's case is BS) and please know what you're going into pre-reading, if it's going to upset you don't read it. But, for the sake of educating yourselves here is the essay.

domisotto 2020-09-18 17:50:01 UTC #91

Sorry, i am out of likes, but thank you for answering the question!

liamhernandezlucas 2020-09-18 18:28:24 UTC #92

Wait, what? I'm confused. She makes a couple of shaky statements for sure, but where's the blatant transphobia? how is she calling for violence? Most of her argument is just calling for a clear legal definition where relevant, isn't it? Am I reading this wrong?

My takeaway from this is mostly that she doesn't want people to conflate 2a and 2b, doesn't want people to be hasty with big bodily decisions and thinks children are easily influenced. I don't understand how that attacks trans people.

I assume I'm reading this wrong. People clearly have a reason to be upset. If someone can explain, I'd be grateful. I don't want to start spreading bad reasoning.

But_a_Jape 2020-09-18 18:28:57 UTC #93

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.

KRWright 2020-09-18 18:31:18 UTC #94

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:

liamhernandezlucas 2020-09-18 18:41:41 UTC #95

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.

byelacey 2020-09-18 18:41:59 UTC #96

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.

HGohwell 2020-09-18 18:47:17 UTC #97

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"?

KRWright 2020-09-18 18:50:01 UTC #98

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.

NickRowler 2020-09-18 18:54:51 UTC #99

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.

But_a_Jape 2020-09-18 19:03:02 UTC #100

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.

Iris-Grimoire 2020-09-18 19:40:27 UTC #101

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.

HGohwell 2020-09-18 19:52:59 UTC #102

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.

DukeOfOool 2020-09-18 20:13:53 UTC #103

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?

HGohwell 2020-09-18 20:29:20 UTC #105

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".