Not wanting to go too far off topic, but JK Rowling "denying someone's rights to existing" isn't what she's done at all and I've still not seen anyone come up with any evidence of anything like that.
Gaiman = Wrong'un
JK Rowling = Wrong-think
Draw your own conclusions:
https://twitter.com/jk_rowling
Toilets, prisons... She also seems to have a ladyboner for grooming gangs so we can probably add racism to the list despite, well:
The majority of perpetrators – 83 per cent – were white, while some 7 per cent were defined as Asian, 5 per cent as black and 3 per cent as mixed race.
J.K. Rowling
@jk_rowling
‘A woman’, said some random prick,
‘Is a sense or a pathway you pick.’
He felt very clever
He’d solved the dilemma
Of how to do ‘girl’ with a dick.
A woman replied ‘Run along.
‘You’ve set your parameters wrong
‘I’ve lived it, you see,
‘So can tell you for free,
‘You can’t be a girl with a dong.’
https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1875158942034153979
And on and on it goes. It's literally her entire Twitter stream. Remember when she used to write about wizards and everyone applauded when she suggested that Dumbledore was gay?
Not wanting to go too far off topic
Good luck with that.
To paraphrase Donald Trump, I think it's fair to say there are dicks on all sides in the trans rights "debate".
Would be nice to see people being positive instead of fixating on JK ****ing Rowling's opinions.
There is no debate. Is there a gay people debate? A black people debate?
These people exist, whether someone else likes it or not. Trans people exist, whether someone else likes it or not. Fin, end of debate. Someone's existence is not a matter of opinion, thank you for coming to my TED Talk.
I still don't see anything about her saying people can't exist. She just doesn't think someone's belief trumps science or women's rights. Agree with her or not, she's never said people can't exist or have no right to exist.
No matter what she thinks, I'll still watch the Harry Potter series when it comes out if it's any good.
She just doesn’t think someone’s belief trumps science
Would you consider being gay to be a belief system at odds with science?
This right here is exactly the reason why Rowling is problematic. The science backs up conditions such as gender dysmorphia and does not require "belief" because it just is. Her parroting lazy tropes about toilets isn't just demeaning, it is dangerous.
Anyway. Gaimen, then?
I’ve obviously missed the bit where Rowling has called for Trans folk to be rounded up and killed.
I’ve obviously missed the bit where I said that.
...maybe this bit?
Comparing JKR with Glinner a bit like arguing “who was the least worst Nazi”*
You went Full Godwin.
Never go Full Godwin.
You went Full Godwin.
Dude, I even said that in the post.
I still don’t see anything about her saying people can’t exist. She just doesn’t think someone’s belief trumps science
"Science" is quite happy with the idea of transgender, intersex, and plenty of other stuff. Don't get it confused with "[insert religion here] science"
or women’s rights.
Which implies what, that the other component of the debate isn't a woman?
Agree with her or not,
For the avoidance of doubt, I'm a not
she’s never said people can’t exist
See her poem above
Well, that’s not strictly true. “Hurty words” / incitement can land you in prison.
I didn't say the right to share your views was consequence free, at the minimum an individual runs the risk of outing themselves as a bit of a prick, in the worst cases they can end up in court for incitement, possibly the kind of trajectory Joanna is on? (although she's probably rich enough to lawyer such things away)...
Science says gender dysphoria exists and that you can believe you are born in the wrong body. It's different to being born intersex, gay or black. JK Rowling has never disputed that, she's said on numerous occasions live whatever life you want and be whoever you want but it shouldn't impinge on the rights of others. Agree with her or don't, she's not stopping anyone living the way they want to. As I've said before, it's very different from what Neil Gaiman has been accused of.
Science says gender dysphoria exists and that you can believe you are born in the wrong body. It’s different to being born intersex, gay or black.
Are you sure?
I have friends who are trans, at various degrees along their journey. I could ask them if you like, I'm sure they'd be delighted to hear your insights.
Lest we not forget, at least one trans woman was hectored off this site by a select few with opinions like Rowling's. Not STW's finest moment if I'm honest. Who knows how many more left silently.
JK Rowling has never disputed that, she’s said on numerous occasions live whatever life you want and be whoever you want but it shouldn’t impinge on the rights of others.
We've done this before. The problem with this line of pleading is that one does not avoid "impinging on the rights of others" by throwing another minority under the bus.
Did you read her Twitter feed? It's all she talks about.
As I’ve said before, it’s very different from what Neil Gaiman has been accused of.
And as I said earlier, you're simply arguing now about how far along the completebastardometer they are. Gaiman's an 8 but Rowling's only a 5 so that makes it OK?
I'd be happy to have a conversation with your friends in various stages of their journey, much like I have with people I know who are going through a similar journey. I may agree with them on lots of things and disagree with them on others, I can't and won't judge their lived experience or how they feel. I've not said anything about what I believe or think is right on the topic, I've just stated that judging JK Rowling who has a difference of opinion on something in the same way you would judge an alleged sexual predator seems a little silly but that is what society has come to at this moment in time.
Why not start a JK Rowling thread rather than derailing this one?
Allegedly.
Some of the folks, and more importantly perhaps, some of the parents of folks alleging that Jackson sexually abused their children weren't exactly 'reliable narrators'. I think the final verdict on Jackson is very much not proven to any level of certainty
Why not start a JK Rowling thread rather than derailing this one?
A good point. We could have three exclamation marks.
Denying people’s right to exist is hardly an “opinion,” certainly not one worth defending.
Once again. Rowling is not doing that and has made it perfectly clear she is not denying trans peoples right to exist. Once again you are turning a debate that has much nuance into a binary one and giving off very strong intolerant vibes of " if you do not agree 100% you are a bigot and our enemy"
This is why I and many others will not join this debate. The intolerance shown by the trans rights side is often really unpleasant. You need to take doubters with you not vilify them and totally distort their position
I will not be debating this any more here but I do ask you to listen and think about it
You're one to lecture about binary thinking.
How can you deny people rights and justify it? The likes of Rowling and Linehan would have trans women barred from toilets. Because obviously men are a bit rapey and trans people are clearly deviants, so let's stick them in with the other men. Totally makes sense.
****'s sake man. That's a massive safeguarding issue right there.
And as if to prove tj's point ...
Y'all really need to read her Twitter feed and come back again.
Neil Gaiman, then?
Read her twitter feed, found nothing wishing for people not to exist which I assume was the same for anyone else who's not been able to give examples. Also read Gaiman's twitter feed, he didn't say he was a sex pest either. It's as if twitter isn't everyone's nuanced or deep held opinions and values for all to see and be judged on.
Neil Gaiman, then?
Nominative non-determinism?
You’re one to lecture about binary thinking
Accepted
The intolerance shown by the trans rights side is often really unpleasant. You need to take doubters with you not vilify them and totally distort their position
I'd say it pales in comparison to the intolerance shown by the antis would you not? And the opportunity to come with us was given long ago, that people chose not to is on them, you can't expect people to hang around waiting forever.
But thats an aside, we were talking about Rowling. Denial of existence isn't a call for murder and you all know that fine and well. It's denial of their gender and identity. I'm sorry, you were saying something about folk distorting others positions yes?
Nice to see the tolerance and understanding that ousted Rachel is still alive and kicking.
I’d be happy to have a conversation with your friends in various stages of their journey,
Well, I got a reply from one of them. Like, an actual trans person, who is dealing with this stuff. They're transitioning F>M.
Yeah, differences of opinion are things like whether you prefer latté to cappuccino. If your opinion is that I shouldn't exist, that I'm dangerous and/or that I'm going to somehow oppress women *based on whether I feel comfortable in a skirt*, that's a problem.
If you're repeatedly sharing that opinion on a public forum where you have disproportionate influence, that's a big problem (not to mention libellous).
If you are a leading light of a movement which seeks to deny the rights of a whole demographic, that's basically fascism.
Fascism /fash'i-zm/ (Italy Fascismo /fä-shēz'mō/)
noun
3: (usu without cap) rigid and intolerant enforcement of any doctrine
But that's just, like, their opinion man.
If your opinion is that I shouldn’t exist,
Could someone please quote where Rowling says this? No one is denying trans folks right to exist.
Trump effectively did. In front of a global audience, who can hardly claim to be unaware of it. And the room stood up and cheered when he did, as have many on the internet and several on here.
He then signed an executive order declaring "Agencies will cease pretending that men can be women and women can be men when enforcing laws that protect against sex discrimination”
You can argue semantics of language and clauses that are yet to be enacted; indeed whether they are enacted or whether the US democratic process has a say over this. The intent is clear, and there are people that do not read or understand nuance and will see the signal. I fear for my son more today that I have ever, as bigotry is now mainstream policy. My fears previously were in the main of self harm; today they are of being harmed, AND because he reads the news of the fear of that hurting his fragile mental health again.
So why relevant to JKR.
This is an area where to me at least, if you aren't against stuff like that ^ then I'm assuming you're for it. There is no nuance on the intent. And so when he makes pronouncements like this, while I don't expect the world to come out and condemn - someone with a global platform, and views that are at present more with Trump than against - to me failure to even just say 'Woah, too far!' puts them in Trump's corner under that banner.
Personally, I don't like JKR's views but up to now I see the argument and the right to hold them. What she does next will be telling, for me at least.
This will be my only post on this topic, but I had to say it.
Could someone please quote where Rowling says this? No one is denying trans folks right to exist.
Bin dun.
Denial of existence isn’t a call for murder and you all know that fine and well. It’s denial of their gender and identity.
This will be my only post on this topic, but I had to say it.
I was hoping you would, thank you.
I had a reply from another friend. Her partner is pretty far down the road in transitioning M>F.
"For me, and I have been thinking a lot about this, both gaiman and Rowling have opinions and beliefs that I am disgusted by. For me there is a difference between one who has caused harm to the individuals in his vacinity and one who is using their platform and fame to spread their views. One is distant from me, the other is stirring up the violence that impacts my life on a daily basis. They are different"
Yesterday Donald Trump, the leader of the free world denied me my existence as a non binary person. There is no such thing as me apparently and I have to choose which one I am. He made this one of the first priorities of his presidency. This is apparently one of the biggest issues in the USA currently.
Can you exist in any normal sense if you can't use a public toilet? If trans women are banned from women's toilets then they can only use men's toilets. What happens if a young woman (as far as appearances go) in a skirt walks into an inner city men's pub toilet at 10.30 on a Saturday night? From experience if you are lucky you just get lots of verbal abuse, a strong likelihood is physical sexual abuse. Around 10% of the time it's attempted rape. When all you want to do is empty your bladder.
Trump and JKR just don't think these things through. No-one CHOOSES to be trans, or gay or non binary any more than they choose having blond hair. You can choose to hide it but you can't change it. They, along with the right wing media seem to think the only reasons a "man" could want to be a "woman" are to cheat in sport, go to women's prisons and get access to women's toilets.
Really? To go to a women's prison you firstly need to be a criminal. That should tell you all you need to know about these people. If a sexual predator wants to attack women in a toilet, they can just do that anyway without putting on a dress - there is nothing to stop anyone from walking into a woman's toilet if they want to. Presumably that also means trans men have to use women's toilets? No of course not. Sport is more nuanced, but most governing bodies now ban trans women from elite women's sport so that's kind of gone.
Refusing to use someone's pronouns is just rude and disrespectful. Would JKR be OK with me referring to him as the bigoted old man? I personally don't believe he is a woman, can he prove it to me? Just a quick DNA test would be fine...
There's more ways to deny someone their existence than to kill them. It might start with toilets, then healthcare, then education, workplace rights, can't have a bank account, can only buy food in certain places, can't rent etc etc. We are hopefully a long way from that but we need to stop this now otherwise it's just the start. Today it's trans people, tomorrow gays, then who knows who's next, but it won't be straight white cisgender, Christian men.
I know I've deviated from the original thread, but today I'm really hurting and the casual nature with which some on this thread have dismissed the issue is very hard to read.
There is no debate. Is there a gay people debate? A black people debate?
These people exist, whether someone else likes it or not. Trans people exist, whether someone else likes it or not. Fin, end of debate. Someone’s existence is not a matter of opinion, thank you for coming to my TED Talk.
I put debate in inverted commas because it's not really a debate, but you either missed that nuance or chose to ignore it?
My point is that being strident and furious on the internet is perhaps not the best way of progressing the issue (whichever side you take).
You've read the posts I copied from actual trans people, yes? And the others from whom are trans themselves or have trans children?
In case you missed it,
TRANS WOMEN ARE NOT MEN.
It's **** all to do with "male entitlement," it's not about me. I do agree though that this should be a separate thread.
Gaimen, then?
JK Rowling will be happy to know that, if she's ever down to her last Million and looking for a new home, she lives rent-free in Cougars head.
MOD- a reminder to keep this on topic please, else the thread will be closed.
“Yeah but what about the hurty words a women wrote”
It's easy to underestimate the impact of her campaigning on the young people who grew up with her as a cultural linchpin. People who loved her work, were enveloped in it even, at a key stage of their life... now to hear her turn on them. The jokes about "hurty words" ignore her status, her importance, and the damaging impact of what she says. The discussion got into the separation of work and creator. For a generation that thorny issue always brings her up. For my generation it's probably Morrissey, for very different reasons, but we were lucky enough to be old sods by the time he became so, er, vocal. Neither are criminals. Neither have done the equivalent of what Gaiman is accused of. It's not about equivalence... it's just that their names come up when the work/creator issues come up.
Cougar seems to be the very personification of male entitlement; in a discussion of violence against women and girls the only contribution is “Yeah but what about the hurty words a woman wrote”.
Not sure that’s true as here in his own words on another thread that got closed down.
I tolerate homosexuals, trans people, foreigners, immigrants, Trekkies, Christians, vegans, furries.
See he ‘tolerates’ others so we can all rest easy safe in the knowledge of his infallibility. After all I did read he was once a mod on here.
Peace out.
Well if one thing has been proven there is no 'debate'.
This only started because I wanted to talk about the art vs the artist, I'm honestly sorry I did, not because of any offence caused by what I said but for the ugly shit that has since been poured into this thread.
I'm peacing out. Out of this thread and possibly the forum. This isn't the place it once was and quite frankly I'm not sure I'm happy being a part of somewhere with such a nasty and intolerant undercurrent.
Between this thread and others where trolls are just allowed to shitpost I don't think anyone in a position of authority actually gives a toss as long as the engagement is kept up and the clicks are generated. Funny how a few sweary words will earn you a ban lest you upset ad partners but threads like this run on with impunity. Note added: to be clear I'm not talking about tjagain.
This only started because I wanted to talk about the art vs the artist, I’m honestly sorry I did, not because of any offence caused by what I said but for the ugly shit that has since been poured into this thread.
We're talking about a suspected rapist which then segued into a conversation about other unpleasant people. The thread derailment is on me and I apologise for that, but you can't have an argument in an empty room. I've said "Gaimen, then?" several times over and no-one else seems interested in returning to the topic.
I’m not sure I’m happy being a part of somewhere with such a nasty and intolerant undercurrent.
What do you feel we should be being more tolerant of?
Funny how a few sweary words will earn you a ban
Lies.
lest you upset ad partners but threads like this run on with impunity.
You'd prefer more robust censorship?
What order should I read NG books? Is it best to start at the beginning ie first published book written or can I read them in series? Do any characters span all the books he has written?
What order should I read NG books? Is it best to start at the beginning ie first published book written or can I read them in series? Do any characters span all the books he has written?
The ‘Sandman’ books/graphic novels are a series, although they can be enjoyed individually, some characters like Death have their own books, many of NG’s books are standalone stories. He started writing graphic novels and comics, before expanding into actual novels.
I know something of what he’s been accused of, but accusations are just that, a court of law is where the real facts should be taken and judgement passed, not the court of public opinion.
FWIW, I’ve read most of what he’s written, and own most of it, and much of what I own I’ve had personally signed by him, including one book he co-wrote with Sir Terry Pratchett, who also signed it for me. I haven’t read any for a while, mainly because I’ve just got so many books that I haven’t read yet, but I will read them again, because I can separate the work from the artist, in the majority of cases - there are many great paintings in galleries that I can appreciate as works of art, but the artists were often pretty horrible people, Picasso being one example, there were plenty more in the late 19th, early 20th century.
What order should I read NG books? Is it best to start at the beginning ie first published book written or can I read them in series? Do any characters span all the books he has written?
What is it about the man multiply accused of sexual assault that makes you think "that's an artist I need to read"?
I dunno, friends - this place does seem to have taken a dark turn.
I’ve said “Gaimen, then?” several times over and no-one else seems interested in returning to the topic.
That's because the preceding paragraph has been "the last word" on another argument.
If you continue that another argument, then casually toss in three words that summarise the original thread title, you're helping continue that another one, and not really trying to return the thread to topic.
You're capable of putting together intelligent replies on a wide range of stuffs, but sometimes need to just let the other shit go.
Mod - we feel this thread has run its course, so closing.
