Octopus Overlords

Enough wrote: Wed Jun 10, 2020 3:58 pmI do appreciate the self-awareness of the Dunning–Kruger effect. That's something JK is not doing. But, do you apply this same logic to all black lives matter? JK calls for exclusion of trans women from feminism, bathrooms of their gender, is for erecting barriers/gate-keeping to gender confirmation, tells trans men that they are just but hurt over homophobia and are just lesbians and pretty much calling into question the identity of any self-identified trans person and on and on.

I get where you are coming from here but I think part of that is assigning a motive on her based on how the group perceives her actions. It is thought crime to some extent. In particular I understand calling out the bathroom thing since that is a right-wing culture war touchpoint. So I would specifically challenge her to consider that what she is saying there could be construed in a negative light. That said I'll again say I've seen multiple instances of this where biological women are uncomfortable with trans women in their locker rooms. And they have no way to say this without the scarlet 'TERF' and instead often pretend to be shy and change in a bathroom stall. I'm not sure this is what Rowling is saying but I suspect that is the gist.

Take a look at the mainstream LGBTQ orgs calling her out here (Human Rights Campaign, GLADD, Pink, etc. She's basically saying, I'm not racist, but....

Of course they would.

malchior wrote: Wed Jun 10, 2020 4:10 pm

Enough wrote: Wed Jun 10, 2020 3:58 pmI do appreciate the self-awareness of the Dunning–Kruger effect. That's something JK is not doing. But, do you apply this same logic to all black lives matter? JK calls for exclusion of trans women from feminism, bathrooms of their gender, is for erecting barriers/gate-keeping to gender confirmation, tells trans men that they are just but hurt over homophobia and are just lesbians and pretty much calling into question the identity of any self-identified trans person and on and on.

I get where you are coming from here but I think part of that is putting motive on her based on what a group of people say her motives are based on how they perceive her actions. It is thought crime to some extent. In particular I understand calling out the bathroom thing since that is a right-wing culture war touchpoint. So I would specifically challenge her to consider that what she is saying there could be construed in a negative light. That said I'll again say I've seen multiple instances of this where biological women are uncomfortable with trans women in their locker rooms. And they have no way to say this without the scarlet 'TERF' and instead often pretend to be shy and change in a bathroom stall. I'm not sure this is what Rowling is saying but I suspect that is the gist.

Take a look at the mainstream LGBTQ orgs calling her out here (Human Rights Campaign, GLADD, Pink, etc. She's basically saying, I'm not racist, but....

Of course they would.

Pepperidge Farms remembers when white folks used to have a problem with black folks in their bathrooms. I know women who used to feel that way, but once they met a trans woman or man and realized they were already long using their bathrooms they realized the folly of their thinking. We already have laws on the books to deal with rando pervs in bathrooms that hijack being trans, pretend to be a maintenance worker to place a camera, or what have you. I also know that growing up in a town where I only met one black person that my unfamiliarity led me to be stupidly afraid of black Americans as a youngster. It's something that happily went away as I had more experiences and also as I got called out for my thinking.

Enough wrote: Wed Jun 10, 2020 4:23 pm

malchior wrote: Wed Jun 10, 2020 4:10 pm

Enough wrote: Wed Jun 10, 2020 3:58 pmI do appreciate the self-awareness of the Dunning–Kruger effect. That's something JK is not doing. But, do you apply this same logic to all black lives matter? JK calls for exclusion of trans women from feminism, bathrooms of their gender, is for erecting barriers/gate-keeping to gender confirmation, tells trans men that they are just but hurt over homophobia and are just lesbians and pretty much calling into question the identity of any self-identified trans person and on and on.

I get where you are coming from here but I think part of that is putting motive on her based on what a group of people say her motives are based on how they perceive her actions. It is thought crime to some extent. In particular I understand calling out the bathroom thing since that is a right-wing culture war touchpoint. So I would specifically challenge her to consider that what she is saying there could be construed in a negative light. That said I'll again say I've seen multiple instances of this where biological women are uncomfortable with trans women in their locker rooms. And they have no way to say this without the scarlet 'TERF' and instead often pretend to be shy and change in a bathroom stall. I'm not sure this is what Rowling is saying but I suspect that is the gist.

Take a look at the mainstream LGBTQ orgs calling her out here (Human Rights Campaign, GLADD, Pink, etc. She's basically saying, I'm not racist, but....

Of course they would.

Pepperidge Farms remembers when white folks used to have a problem with black folks in their bathrooms. I know women who used to feel that way, but once they met a trans woman or man and realized they were already long using their bathrooms they realized the folly of their thinking. We already have laws on the books to deal with rando pervs in bathrooms that hijack being trans, pretend to be a maintenance worker to place a camera, or what have you. I also know that growing up in a town where I only met one black person that my unfamiliarity led me to be stupidly afraid of black Americans as a youngster. It's something that happily went away as I had more experiences and also as I got called out for my thinking.

Yes education is the answer. But this isn't being called out. People are literally ostracized for not thinking like the group. That isn't education. It is intellectual tyranny. Surely you can see the difference, right? This is pertinent to me right now because some EMT on the team - who is dumb as a bag of rocks - posted a Blue Lives Matter meme on her FB wall. The team is baying for her blood and to kick her off the team. And this happens several times a year when someone steps on some land mine. It's ridiculous.

As far as I can understand it, the TERF argument is that trans women are somehow cheating by not having struggled for equality as "real" women before they transitioned. They're getting a free ride into the... struggle to be accepted as equal?

I don't think the math checks out.

This thread justifies Twitter.

https://twitter.com/edsbs/status/1270762503304294400

malchior wrote: Wed Jun 10, 2020 4:35 pm

Enough wrote: Wed Jun 10, 2020 4:23 pm

malchior wrote: Wed Jun 10, 2020 4:10 pm

Enough wrote: Wed Jun 10, 2020 3:58 pmI do appreciate the self-awareness of the Dunning–Kruger effect. That's something JK is not doing. But, do you apply this same logic to all black lives matter? JK calls for exclusion of trans women from feminism, bathrooms of their gender, is for erecting barriers/gate-keeping to gender confirmation, tells trans men that they are just but hurt over homophobia and are just lesbians and pretty much calling into question the identity of any self-identified trans person and on and on.

I get where you are coming from here but I think part of that is putting motive on her based on what a group of people say her motives are based on how they perceive her actions. It is thought crime to some extent. In particular I understand calling out the bathroom thing since that is a right-wing culture war touchpoint. So I would specifically challenge her to consider that what she is saying there could be construed in a negative light. That said I'll again say I've seen multiple instances of this where biological women are uncomfortable with trans women in their locker rooms. And they have no way to say this without the scarlet 'TERF' and instead often pretend to be shy and change in a bathroom stall. I'm not sure this is what Rowling is saying but I suspect that is the gist.

Take a look at the mainstream LGBTQ orgs calling her out here (Human Rights Campaign, GLADD, Pink, etc. She's basically saying, I'm not racist, but....

Of course they would.

Pepperidge Farms remembers when white folks used to have a problem with black folks in their bathrooms. I know women who used to feel that way, but once they met a trans woman or man and realized they were already long using their bathrooms they realized the folly of their thinking. We already have laws on the books to deal with rando pervs in bathrooms that hijack being trans, pretend to be a maintenance worker to place a camera, or what have you. I also know that growing up in a town where I only met one black person that my unfamiliarity led me to be stupidly afraid of black Americans as a youngster. It's something that happily went away as I had more experiences and also as I got called out for my thinking.

Yes education is the answer. But this isn't being called out. People are literally ostracized for not thinking like the group. That isn't education. It is intellectual tyranny. Surely you can see the difference, right? This is pertinent to me right now because some EMT on the team - who is dumb as a bag of rocks - posted a Blue Lives Matter meme on her FB wall. The team is baying for her blood and to kick her off the team. And this happens several times a year when someone steps on some land mine. It's ridiculous.

Should we never ostracize those with racist, sexist or homophobic behavior? I suspect you would agree there is no hard and fast line and thus I have a difficult time not thinking some of these folks are snowflakes that can't take what they dish out to trans people. I also appreciate the perspective, that sounds like a challenging work environment to say the least.

Enough wrote: Wed Jun 10, 2020 6:26 pm

malchior wrote: Wed Jun 10, 2020 4:35 pm

Enough wrote: Wed Jun 10, 2020 4:23 pm

malchior wrote: Wed Jun 10, 2020 4:10 pm

Enough wrote: Wed Jun 10, 2020 3:58 pmI do appreciate the self-awareness of the Dunning–Kruger effect. That's something JK is not doing. But, do you apply this same logic to all black lives matter? JK calls for exclusion of trans women from feminism, bathrooms of their gender, is for erecting barriers/gate-keeping to gender confirmation, tells trans men that they are just but hurt over homophobia and are just lesbians and pretty much calling into question the identity of any self-identified trans person and on and on.

I get where you are coming from here but I think part of that is putting motive on her based on what a group of people say her motives are based on how they perceive her actions. It is thought crime to some extent. In particular I understand calling out the bathroom thing since that is a right-wing culture war touchpoint. So I would specifically challenge her to consider that what she is saying there could be construed in a negative light. That said I'll again say I've seen multiple instances of this where biological women are uncomfortable with trans women in their locker rooms. And they have no way to say this without the scarlet 'TERF' and instead often pretend to be shy and change in a bathroom stall. I'm not sure this is what Rowling is saying but I suspect that is the gist.

Take a look at the mainstream LGBTQ orgs calling her out here (Human Rights Campaign, GLADD, Pink, etc. She's basically saying, I'm not racist, but....

Of course they would.

Pepperidge Farms remembers when white folks used to have a problem with black folks in their bathrooms. I know women who used to feel that way, but once they met a trans woman or man and realized they were already long using their bathrooms they realized the folly of their thinking. We already have laws on the books to deal with rando pervs in bathrooms that hijack being trans, pretend to be a maintenance worker to place a camera, or what have you. I also know that growing up in a town where I only met one black person that my unfamiliarity led me to be stupidly afraid of black Americans as a youngster. It's something that happily went away as I had more experiences and also as I got called out for my thinking.

Yes education is the answer. But this isn't being called out. People are literally ostracized for not thinking like the group. That isn't education. It is intellectual tyranny. Surely you can see the difference, right? This is pertinent to me right now because some EMT on the team - who is dumb as a bag of rocks - posted a Blue Lives Matter meme on her FB wall. The team is baying for her blood and to kick her off the team. And this happens several times a year when someone steps on some land mine. It's ridiculous.

Should we never ostracize those with racist, sexist or homophobic behavior? I suspect you would agree there is no hard and fast line and thus I have a difficult time not thinking some of these folks are snowflakes that can't take what they dish out to trans people. I also appreciate the perspective, that sounds like a challenging work environment to say the least.

https://twitter.com/cmclymer/status/1270841718477291520

Not very off the record

Unagi wrote: Wed Jun 10, 2020 7:39 pm Not very off the record

I think you're misreading that tweet.

Unagi wrote: Wed Jun 10, 2020 7:39 pm Not very off the record

Erm?

I did, kinda.

I was just commenting on when any institution reveals that they wanted an off the record comment, but were not given one - they betray a little of the trust with the person I assume they thought they had some to bargin with.

I honestly, hadn't read a single thing but the one sentence when I made that comment. almost deleted it, cause it sounded off - but then though - well - I think what triggered my response still kinda stands.

(and I admit, I may still totally not be getting it, I'm distracted and not able to really look into what I'm talking about - forgive me)

I think when you use the bathroom defense in the transgender debate you’ve lost.

JK Rowling:

"So I want trans women to be safe. At the same time, I do not want to make natal girls and women less safe. When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman – and, as I’ve said, gender confirmation certificates may now be granted without any need for surgery or hormones – then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside. That is the simple truth," she wrote.

https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out ... c-n1229351

Yeah it's really disappointing. It would be one thing if Rowling just always came off as right-leaning, but she has a history of progressive ideas such as outing Dumbeldore as gay, defending the casting of Hermione as an African-American, etc. Her books shine a light on prejudice and inequality.

Her views on transgender issues just seem to run totally counter to all that. I can only assume she had some very specific encounter in her past that shaped all that, as she implies. Doesn't make her views right, but it's really odd.

The perfect is the enemy of the good.

Actually, it's more than that. The good is an easier target than the bad.

YellowKing wrote: Thu Jun 11, 2020 8:47 amHer views on transgender issues just seem to run totally counter to all that.

My wife has different views on transgender women as well. She doesn't seem to have any opinion of transgender men, but has mental difficulty letting someone into her "female space" who wasn't born that way biologically. She sees a lot of the shit she had to deal with growing up as a girl and becoming a woman as a badge of honor that a transgender woman just doesn't get to have for free. Being harassed and cat-called, fearing rape when jogging alone, worrying about being drugged at bars, etc. Someone who spent the first 20 or 30 years of their life as a man just never had a day of concern over this. In her mind, the experiences are simply not equal, and she can't see them as exactly the same.

Her ex went through a realization a few years ago and came out as transgender. They've stayed in touch over the years off and on, and my wife has tried to be supportive of the change - but they've had fights now about how she (the ex) wants to be fully accepted as a woman despite never having suffered through the problems women face. My wife just doesn't think you can step into that place in life and throw your hands up and expect to be seen as an equal. Is it possible to be an elitist feminist? My wife may be one.

I'm probably speaking poorly on her behalf when I try and explain it, and I can't really argue it with anyone who wants to but am happy to engage in dialog.

It could be that JK is feeling a little bit of the same? I don't know.

YellowKing wrote: Thu Jun 11, 2020 8:47 am Yeah it's really disappointing. It would be one thing if Rowling just always came off as right-leaning, but she has a history of progressive ideas such as outing Dumbeldore as gay, defending the casting of Hermione as an African-American, etc. Her books shine a light on prejudice and inequality.

Wasn't that all retcon, though?

I've only read the first book, but my understanding is that there's nothing actually in the novels about Dumbledore's sexuality. She just announced it at a fan gathering or something? She didn't actually write a gay character so much as slap an identity on him as a footnote.

YellowKing wrote: Thu Jun 11, 2020 8:47 amI can only assume she had some very specific encounter in her past that shaped all that, as she implies. Doesn't make her views right, but it's really odd.

It's only odd in the sense that everyone expects lockstep views on the issue when it is an emerging and evolving topic. She is making common errors about sex and gender. And for that she gets bigot yelled at her on the Internet by a small vocal minority.

Holman wrote: Thu Jun 11, 2020 9:01 amWasn't that all retcon, though?

I've only read the first book, but my understanding is that there's nothing actually in the novels about Dumbledore's sexuality. She just announced it at a fan gathering or something? She didn't actually write a gay character so much as slap an identity on him as a footnote.

Correct.

LawBeefaroni wrote: Thu Jun 11, 2020 8:51 am The perfect is the enemy of the good.

Actually, it's more than that. The good is an easier target than the bad.

Fail better continues to be a thing that sticks with me and probably will for the rest of my life. I didn't know who Cornel West was until two weeks ago and my exposure to Samuel Beckett amounts to having to have read Waiting for Godot in an existentialist heavy philo class in college. But "Try again, fail again, fail better" strikes a chord, especially when I'm finding The Golden Rule so hard to live up to right now.

Holman wrote: Thu Jun 11, 2020 9:01 am I've only read the first book, but my understanding is that there's nothing actually in the novels about Dumbledore's sexuality. She just announced it at a fan gathering or something? She didn't actually write a gay character so much as slap an identity on him as a footnote.

I kinda like the footnoting. A sort of way of saying "It just doesn't matter." Sexuality or race lines weren't drawn. I can make that decree and doesn't change a damned thing because these characters weren't defined by sex or race. And now that they are in a footnote, so what? What changed?

malchior wrote: Thu Jun 11, 2020 9:06 amIt's only odd in the sense that everyone expects lockstep views on the issue when it is an emerging and evolving topic. She is making common errors about sex and gender. And for that she gets bigot yelled at her on the Internet by a small vocal minority.

It's odd in that she has the opportunity to change and has steadfastly and militantly refused. She's surrounded by people who want to correct those errors and she clearly has no interest. She's definitely a bigot and deserves to be called out.

LordMortis wrote: Thu Jun 11, 2020 9:17 am

Holman wrote: Thu Jun 11, 2020 9:01 am I've only read the first book, but my understanding is that there's nothing actually in the novels about Dumbledore's sexuality. She just announced it at a fan gathering or something? She didn't actually write a gay character so much as slap an identity on him as a footnote.

I kinda like the footnoting. A sort of way of saying "It just doesn't matter." Sexuality or race lines weren't drawn. I can make that decree and doesn't change a damned thing because these characters weren't defined by sex or race. And now that they are in a footnote, so what? What changed?

That was some of the positive commentary at the time. The negative was PC culture attacks, aka the usual.

noxiousdog wrote: Thu Jun 11, 2020 9:33 am

malchior wrote: Thu Jun 11, 2020 9:06 amIt's only odd in the sense that everyone expects lockstep views on the issue when it is an emerging and evolving topic. She is making common errors about sex and gender. And for that she gets bigot yelled at her on the Internet by a small vocal minority.

It's odd in that she has the opportunity to change and has steadfastly and militantly refused. She's surrounded by people who want to correct those errors and she clearly has no interest. She's definitely a bigot and deserves to be called out.

I mean it is totally possible or another perspective is she has been under a relentless attack, got pissed off, and is not listening anymore. Mostly because she is a regular human person. And I'll admit I've seen this *so many times* now that I just express great skepticism when people run afoul of these trip lines on the left *and* right.

malchior wrote: Thu Jun 11, 2020 9:51 am

noxiousdog wrote: Thu Jun 11, 2020 9:33 am

malchior wrote: Thu Jun 11, 2020 9:06 amIt's only odd in the sense that everyone expects lockstep views on the issue when it is an emerging and evolving topic. She is making common errors about sex and gender. And for that she gets bigot yelled at her on the Internet by a small vocal minority.

It's odd in that she has the opportunity to change and has steadfastly and militantly refused. She's surrounded by people who want to correct those errors and she clearly has no interest. She's definitely a bigot and deserves to be called out.

I mean it is totally possible or she has been under a relentless attack and is pissed off and not listening anymore. Because she is a regular human person.

Icons aren't allowed to be human anymore. They have to be made of both flawless diamond character yet flexible iron will. They need to ebb and flow with the tide of humanity, yet remain a consistent rock we can all trust in. Anything less and they are cast down from Olympus.

noxiousdog wrote: Thu Jun 11, 2020 9:33 am

malchior wrote: Thu Jun 11, 2020 9:06 amIt's only odd in the sense that everyone expects lockstep views on the issue when it is an emerging and evolving topic. She is making common errors about sex and gender. And for that she gets bigot yelled at her on the Internet by a small vocal minority.

It's odd in that she has the opportunity to change and has steadfastly and militantly refused. She's surrounded by people who want to correct those errors and she clearly has no interest. She's definitely a bigot and deserves to be called out.

How much of it is people who really want to correct those errors, and how much of it is anonymous woke people on Twitter yelling into the ether because it's the cool thing to do?

pr0ner wrote: Thu Jun 11, 2020 9:56 am

noxiousdog wrote: Thu Jun 11, 2020 9:33 am

malchior wrote: Thu Jun 11, 2020 9:06 amIt's only odd in the sense that everyone expects lockstep views on the issue when it is an emerging and evolving topic. She is making common errors about sex and gender. And for that she gets bigot yelled at her on the Internet by a small vocal minority.

It's odd in that she has the opportunity to change and has steadfastly and militantly refused. She's surrounded by people who want to correct those errors and she clearly has no interest. She's definitely a bigot and deserves to be called out.

How much of it is people who really want to correct those errors, and how much of it is anonymous woke people on Twitter yelling into the ether because it's the cool thing to do?

It's probably a mix of both. I'd say the former probably outweighs the former but they are dogmatic and don't listen to the other side. I could get into the bathroom issue but that has been hopelessly relegated to a 'right-wing' thing even though it really shouldn't be if people were interested in listening.

LordMortis wrote: Thu Jun 11, 2020 9:17 am

Holman wrote: Thu Jun 11, 2020 9:01 am I've only read the first book, but my understanding is that there's nothing actually in the novels about Dumbledore's sexuality. She just announced it at a fan gathering or something? She didn't actually write a gay character so much as slap an identity on him as a footnote.

I kinda like the footnoting. A sort of way of saying "It just doesn't matter." Sexuality or race lines weren't drawn. I can make that decree and doesn't change a damned thing because these characters weren't defined by sex or race. And now that they are in a footnote, so what? What changed?

It smacks of claiming credit for something she didn't do.

If the books are truly a long plea for tolerance and diversity, it seems like a leading character's sexuality and identity would be relevant to the project, no? Not mentioning it (except as an afterthought) is the opposite of inclusivity.

malchior wrote: Thu Jun 11, 2020 9:59 am <snip>
I'd say the former probably outweighs the former....

Are you convinced of that?

Paingod wrote: Thu Jun 11, 2020 9:55 am
Icons aren't allowed to be human anymore. They have to be made of both flawless diamond character yet flexible iron will. They need to ebb and flow with the tide of humanity, yet remain a consistent rock we can all trust in. Anything less and they are cast down from Olympus.

On the other hand, it's possible that JKR is merely a mediocre writer who struck gold with the right formula just as YA fiction sales were taking off into the stratosphere.

I know people love the books, but what I've read of them was really disappointing. And this has nothing to do with JKR's views or politics.

Holman wrote: Thu Jun 11, 2020 10:41 am

LordMortis wrote: Thu Jun 11, 2020 9:17 am

Holman wrote: Thu Jun 11, 2020 9:01 am I've only read the first book, but my understanding is that there's nothing actually in the novels about Dumbledore's sexuality. She just announced it at a fan gathering or something? She didn't actually write a gay character so much as slap an identity on him as a footnote.

I kinda like the footnoting. A sort of way of saying "It just doesn't matter." Sexuality or race lines weren't drawn. I can make that decree and doesn't change a damned thing because these characters weren't defined by sex or race. And now that they are in a footnote, so what? What changed?

It smacks of claiming credit for something she didn't do.

If the books are truly a long plea for tolerance and diversity, it seems like a leading character's sexuality and identity would be relevant to the project, no? Not mentioning it (except as an afterthought) is the opposite of inclusivity.

I could have sworn, in the books, she had written and described (with re: to Dumbledor) of a bit of a secret / special relationship with whast-his-wizard-locked-away, etc. But that's as much as I recall.

Unagi wrote: Thu Jun 11, 2020 10:42 am

malchior wrote: Thu Jun 11, 2020 9:59 am <snip>
I'd say the former probably outweighs the former....

Are you convinced of that?

Whoops!

malchior wrote: Thu Jun 11, 2020 9:51 am

noxiousdog wrote: Thu Jun 11, 2020 9:33 am

malchior wrote: Thu Jun 11, 2020 9:06 amIt's only odd in the sense that everyone expects lockstep views on the issue when it is an emerging and evolving topic. She is making common errors about sex and gender. And for that she gets bigot yelled at her on the Internet by a small vocal minority.

It's odd in that she has the opportunity to change and has steadfastly and militantly refused. She's surrounded by people who want to correct those errors and she clearly has no interest. She's definitely a bigot and deserves to be called out.

I mean it is totally possible or another perspective is she has been under a relentless attack, got pissed off, and is not listening anymore. Mostly because she is a regular human person. And I'll admit I've seen this *so many times* now that I just express great skepticism when people run afoul of these trip lines on the left *and* right.

I don't think you'd give the same benefit of the doubt to a social conservative.

That being said, she actively voices her opinion on these things without being solicited. That's what makes it ridiculous. The article in question was about poverty and menstruation. Completely out of the blue, she decides to take the stance to equate menstruation and women which does two things:

1) with her past history, she is clearly denying trans-women the status of women.
2) saying anyone who doesn't menstruate isn't a woman.

She's using her fame to be a bigot actively. These are not private conversations that are getting released. It is her using her fame and platform to make a statement.

malchior wrote:

pr0ner wrote: Thu Jun 11, 2020 9:56 am

noxiousdog wrote: Thu Jun 11, 2020 9:33 am

malchior wrote: Thu Jun 11, 2020 9:06 amIt's only odd in the sense that everyone expects lockstep views on the issue when it is an emerging and evolving topic. She is making common errors about sex and gender. And for that she gets bigot yelled at her on the Internet by a small vocal minority.

It's odd in that she has the opportunity to change and has steadfastly and militantly refused. She's surrounded by people who want to correct those errors and she clearly has no interest. She's definitely a bigot and deserves to be called out.

How much of it is people who really want to correct those errors, and how much of it is anonymous woke people on Twitter yelling into the ether because it's the cool thing to do?

It's probably a mix of both. I'd say the former probably outweighs the former but they are dogmatic and don't listen to the other side. I could get into the bathroom issue but that has been hopelessly relegated to a 'right-wing' thing even though it really shouldn't be if people were interested in listening.

I could be biased but I think among us forum folk there seems to be a bit more thought behind both sides of the debate. I don't get the same sense from reading JK's tweets but to give her some benefit of the doubt it could be due to the medium of Twitter or feeling piled on.

Then again she sounds at times like some southern politicians whose agenda is rather reprehensible. (shrug)

I'm personally not feeling like she's gone full deplorable, but rather just isn't being PC enough for some people's tastes. I don't think she's on the wrong side of history in terms of moving towards progress. She's just not all the way over to where some want her to be and might be getting upset with everyone pushing her.

Paingod wrote: Thu Jun 11, 2020 11:38 am I'm personally not feeling like she's gone full deplorable, but rather just isn't being PC enough for some people's tastes. I don't think she's on the wrong side of history in terms of moving towards progress. She's just not all the way over to where some want her to be and might be getting upset with everyone pushing her.

This doesn't have anything to do with being "PC." It's about denying fundamental rights and identity to people who deserve it.

It's hard to live all your life with a certain view of how the world works (like 90% of Americans have), then suddenly be asked to realize that your view of the world is wrong, has been wrong all along, and is actually hurting people. For people who consider themselves good people, the suggestion that you've been hurting people all along is a hard one to swallow, and it takes adapting to.

And I'm not talking about hardcore conservatives questioning their positions. I'm talking about progressive, genuinely good hearted people suddenly being asked to realize that the assumptions they took as 'normal' are the very kind of thing they're so against. It leads to a special brand of cognitive dissonance, usually resulting in defensiveness. Only if you're able to stop and question yourself, if you're able to take time to listen to why you might be wrong, and then take more time to internalize and accept the new view will you move past that. It is uncomfortable, it takes time, and if you're a public figure and you speak up during that process, you're going to put your foot in your mouth.

I've been doing this myself for years, and I've been doing it a lot over the last few weeks.

And, of course, a lot of people don't bother. They hit a wall at digging into an idea that makes them that uncomfortable.

noxiousdog wrote: Thu Jun 11, 2020 10:59 am

malchior wrote: Thu Jun 11, 2020 9:51 am

noxiousdog wrote: Thu Jun 11, 2020 9:33 am

malchior wrote: Thu Jun 11, 2020 9:06 amIt's only odd in the sense that everyone expects lockstep views on the issue when it is an emerging and evolving topic. She is making common errors about sex and gender. And for that she gets bigot yelled at her on the Internet by a small vocal minority.

It's odd in that she has the opportunity to change and has steadfastly and militantly refused. She's surrounded by people who want to correct those errors and she clearly has no interest. She's definitely a bigot and deserves to be called out.

I mean it is totally possible or another perspective is she has been under a relentless attack, got pissed off, and is not listening anymore. Mostly because she is a regular human person. And I'll admit I've seen this *so many times* now that I just express great skepticism when people run afoul of these trip lines on the left *and* right.

I don't think you'd give the same benefit of the doubt to a social conservative.

Don't you see the irony of defining my belief here considering the argument. I said this is problem on the left *and* right. I give her the benefit of the doubt because the criticisms are at best 'woke' beliefs that aren't universally accepted despite what people want to think. I think there is a strong assumption that she is well informed and disagrees due to bigotry. That however is in direct conflict with her words which continue to have basic errors while still expressing strong support. That might even indicate some unconscious bias thing. However, I don't know how calling her a bigot at 11 helps address that other than to take down another 'problem person' and claim another head for the mob.

That being said, she actively voices her opinion on these things without being solicited. That's what makes it ridiculous. The article in question was about poverty and menstruation. Completely out of the blue, she decides to take the stance to equate menstruation and women which does two things:

1) with her past history, she is clearly denying trans-women the status of women.

Having read her side of this. She claims they are blunders being misread. That seems plausible.

2) saying anyone who doesn't menstruate isn't a woman.

This is excluding people with hormonal issues. So does she hate people with hormonal issues? What can we read into everything if you want to hold up the right lens?

noxiousdog wrote: Thu Jun 11, 2020 11:45 am

Paingod wrote: Thu Jun 11, 2020 11:38 am I'm personally not feeling like she's gone full deplorable, but rather just isn't being PC enough for some people's tastes. I don't think she's on the wrong side of history in terms of moving towards progress. She's just not all the way over to where some want her to be and might be getting upset with everyone pushing her.

This doesn't have anything to do with being "PC." It's about denying fundamental rights and identity to people who deserve it.

The women she wants to speak for or the youths she's concerned are suffering gender dysphoria and may grow out of it to regret what they did, or some other group?

Right about now in history it feels like a "You're getting peanut butter in my jelly" and "No, you're getting jelly in my peanut butter" moment with regards to Trans rights, women's rights, etc. They both have rights and both deserve respect, but neither group can tell the other how to feel or act.

noxiousdog wrote: Thu Jun 11, 2020 10:59 am

malchior wrote: Thu Jun 11, 2020 9:51 am

noxiousdog wrote: Thu Jun 11, 2020 9:33 am

malchior wrote: Thu Jun 11, 2020 9:06 amIt's only odd in the sense that everyone expects lockstep views on the issue when it is an emerging and evolving topic. She is making common errors about sex and gender. And for that she gets bigot yelled at her on the Internet by a small vocal minority.

It's odd in that she has the opportunity to change and has steadfastly and militantly refused. She's surrounded by people who want to correct those errors and she clearly has no interest. She's definitely a bigot and deserves to be called out.

I mean it is totally possible or another perspective is she has been under a relentless attack, got pissed off, and is not listening anymore. Mostly because she is a regular human person. And I'll admit I've seen this *so many times* now that I just express great skepticism when people run afoul of these trip lines on the left *and* right.

I don't think you'd give the same benefit of the doubt to a social conservative.

That being said, she actively voices her opinion on these things without being solicited. That's what makes it ridiculous. The article in question was about poverty and menstruation. Completely out of the blue, she decides to take the stance to equate menstruation and women which does two things:

1) with her past history, she is clearly denying trans-women the status of women.
2) saying anyone who doesn't menstruate isn't a woman.

She's using her fame to be a bigot actively. These are not private conversations that are getting released. It is her using her fame and platform to make a statement.

This point should have been brought up early in this thread. The context of how this came out was ridiculous.

On a side note, a person I used to supervise in IT started one of the largest HP fan clubs in the world at the time when he was a youngster coming up and he now works at Google. He is beyond gutted as a gay man with no trans tendencies. The majority of queer friends I have feel the exact same way.

Paingod wrote: Thu Jun 11, 2020 11:51 am

noxiousdog wrote: Thu Jun 11, 2020 11:45 am

Paingod wrote: Thu Jun 11, 2020 11:38 am I'm personally not feeling like she's gone full deplorable, but rather just isn't being PC enough for some people's tastes. I don't think she's on the wrong side of history in terms of moving towards progress. She's just not all the way over to where some want her to be and might be getting upset with everyone pushing her.

This doesn't have anything to do with being "PC." It's about denying fundamental rights and identity to people who deserve it.

The women she wants to speak for or the youths she's concerned are suffering gender dysphoria and may grow out of it to regret what they did, or some other group?

Right about now in history it feels like a "You're getting peanut butter in my jelly" and "No, you're getting jelly in my peanut butter" moment with regards to Trans rights, women's rights, etc. They both have rights and both deserve respect, but neither group can tell the other how to feel or act.

Trans men don't need to be sucked into JK's cult of thinking just because they "menstruate" and the transitioned guy I'm buddies with is furious. You are simplifying this way too much.

$iljanus wrote: Thu Jun 11, 2020 8:02 am I think when you use the bathroom defense in the transgender debate you’ve lost.

JK Rowling:

"So I want trans women to be safe. At the same time, I do not want to make natal girls and women less safe. When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman – and, as I’ve said, gender confirmation certificates may now be granted without any need for surgery or hormones – then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside. That is the simple truth," she wrote.

https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out ... c-n1229351

As $iljanus posted, you can't frame the rest of it without this context.

Sure, based on her other stances we should give her the benefit of the doubt. We did. She, however, has made it abundantly clear she is anti-trans. She thinks transwomen makes "real" women less safe. She is deliberately, explicitly, and militantly making this argument.

But hey, twist yourself in knots trying to justify it.