JK Rowling Cancellation

KRWright 2020-09-18 20:29:48 UTC #106

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

Dane_Sherbet 2020-09-18 20:30:11 UTC #107

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.

KRWright 2020-09-18 20:35:06 UTC #110

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.

HGohwell 2020-09-18 20:36:32 UTC #111

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.

IntoTheTempest 2020-09-18 20:36:50 UTC #112

It's not that they're better than anyone else. It's that they have more influence.

scribesunlimited 2020-09-18 20:38:41 UTC #113

Sadly, very true. But it's not gonna discourage me from enjoying her work. 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. That's up to our common senses. Or should I say "uncommon sense" because I rarely see common sense in the world today.

IntoTheTempest 2020-09-18 20:40:58 UTC #114

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

HGohwell 2020-09-18 20:41:08 UTC #115

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.

Dane_Sherbet 2020-09-18 20:42:37 UTC #117

Maybe they didn't want to have this kind of influence. Maybe what they do, doesn't really make them fit to wield that influence. But the fact is that they do have this platform, this power, and if we don't do damage control, who will?

We live in a world where a Playboy bunny became the face of the antivaxx movement.

byelacey 2020-09-18 20:46:34 UTC #119

I'm gonna have to agree with KR on this one. Supporting a transphobe is transphobia. It's very simple.

Dane_Sherbet 2020-09-18 20:47:05 UTC #120

We're merely accusing you of acting the way you've been acting in this thread.

EDIT: When we challenge your opinions, that doesn't mean we're attacking you as a person. We are simply dealing with your statements the way adults do.

KRWright 2020-09-18 20:48:36 UTC #121

That isn't what happened here at all. There are lots of posts in this thread that counteract the points you wrote and I suggest that you do read them. Perhaps I should have made the general you clearer in my second sentence of that post though and for that I apologise.

scribesunlimited 2020-09-18 20:51:07 UTC #122

No offense, but I'm staying out of it.

domisotto 2020-09-18 20:51:26 UTC #123

To counter her new book with yet another nefarious or comic cross-dresser I would like to instead read a book with a high-achieving trans-woman main whose accomplishments came after they have transitioned. Can someone suggest something like that? I so far read three books with trans mains, and I haven't seen one like that. Preferably adventure/fantasy.

DukeOfOool 2020-09-18 20:52:43 UTC #124

Ok, Thanks for the go ahead. Well then.

This here has nothing to do with JKR. If you want to join my headache go ahead. If not just ignore my blabbering.

My question was..., wait first I need to explain:
-I think after following the public discourse long enough I found my 'believe' shattered that man/woman where words for sex and actually words for gender. This doesn't bother me, I just want clear definition by which I can talk.-
So I'm thinking why do we still add 'trans-' in front of man/woman when talking about people who don't fit the general sterotype of gender matching their sex? Is it out of courtesy for less interested people, like I was? Is is just because this term is already well established, used by the people of the community? I'm thinking this because if man/woman means then wouldn't it be redundant to state that it doesn't match with sex? Like talking about red and blue and stating btw. this isn't about sweet or sour.
Or am I just to utopic with my way of thinking. (Or just a moron, lol, me is very confused.)

liamhernandezlucas 2020-09-18 20:54:02 UTC #125

I kind of want to see an adaptation of the story of Periocles where the curse is actually a blessing in disguise because Periocles was feeling there was something missing in life and is now a badass Huntress under Artemis.

Though that doesn't really adress the realities of physical transition. Because magic and all.

Ah, maybe a business drama where the protagonist reenters the office after transition and climbs up the corporate ladder with newfound confidence.

KRWright 2020-09-18 20:57:42 UTC #126

Non-binary, agender, third gender, two spirit and other genders still exist. Some people also do wish to still acknowledge their transition as well. Some trans people do not use trans to describe themselves post-transition, but some do. It's really down to each individual. The term still gets used though because there are some issues in healthcare, the justice system, social work, etc. that still will only affect transgender people and won't affect cisgender people. So we need a way to talk about those issues without confusion, thus the distinction is still made even for binary trans people sometimes.

domisotto 2020-09-18 20:59:04 UTC #127

Something like that would be great. Just to break the stereotype that if a woman presents or becomes a man she is filling a hero’s shoes, but the reverse is a misfortune.

HGohwell 2020-09-18 21:00:47 UTC #128

In my experience (I'm not an authority, this is just my experience) transman and transwoman are generally used when discussing LGBT+ topics or instances where it's relevant, like talking to a doctor, it can help them to know. Day to day, I think you would just call them a man or a woman, that's certainly the case with transpeople I've known. It's like how generally, one doesn't describe oneself as a cisman/woman or a gay man/woman ect unless the conversation is around a topic that requires that information, like this one.

indagold 2020-09-18 22:06:33 UTC #129

you're acting like she's a supervillain when she's not. She's just a person who made unsavory takes on twitter. I think this is the main problem with cancel culture, we idolize someone to the point we either make them a monster or a saint in our eyes.