Current Events > Is JK Rowling really sincere on where she stands?

(+) Yeah! (+)

It doesn't invalidate her being transphobic and less horrible cause of such, but given this piece I've linked to:
https://insidethemagic.net/2023/02/rowling-under-fire-hogwarts-legacy-greg-ellis-jc1/

I just wonder if her fear of men (or women who were once such, apology for the clumsy description) is just playing for sympathy.

I suppose she feels that his predatory action was done openly and thinks it's less of a problem.

Even without this, she'd still be in the wrong, but I'm surprised it's not brought up more.

Not sure

Yes.

ellis123 posted...

Yes.

How so? Even if I had issues with trans, Ellis being non-trans doesn't mean he is trustworthy.

Don't worry, I'm sure Gob will be here soon to defend her words as "not hate speech"

https://youtu.be/Ou_xvXJJk7k?si=jOx2fKAl56lYjulx

as far as i'm aware, probably yes, and that's what makes her so dangerous. She's deluded herself to thinking she's fighting for the right cause while doing everything she can to harm people

Do I care?

Is being sincerely shitty somehow better than insincerely shitty?

Antiyonder posted...

How so? Even if I had issues with trans, Ellis being non-trans doesn't mean he is trustworthy.

One does not actively and knowingly fund neo-Nazi groups for the expressed reason of you wanting to prevent trans people without being sincere in that belief.

Like, this isn't even the degrees of separation thing. WTF is your point?

AldousIsDead posted...

Is being sincerely shitty somehow better than insincerely shitty?

They're the same picture.

Sincerely wrong anyway.

Who gives a fuck. She's still pushing dangerous rhetoric that puts trans people at risk, so it functionally makes no difference if she's sincere or not

This is completely part of the anti-trans movement. Ignoring and even defending real predators because it was never about fighting predators. It's just about hating trans people.

So now she's a liar or something? Is there a history of that?

I'd say she's actually been pretty open to speaking her mind, but maybe that's just me.

I don't know what her being sincere or not changes.

She's definitely sincere and that just makes her worse

Dude, she's not afraid of interacting with men. She just believes that in general, they are a threat to women's safety.

So no, her thanking a man that complimented her, does not mean she doesn't believe all of the horrible things she repeatedly doubles down on.

She created a problem for herself and then chose to keep doubling down in the face of criticism that she wasn't expecting, becoming more extreme and more hateful.

She probably doesn't know herself any more, and it really doesn't matter.

NoxObscuras posted...

Dude, she's not afraid of interacting with men. She just believes that in general, they are a threat to women's safety.

So no, her thanking a man that complimented her, does not mean she doesn't believe all of the horrible things she repeatedly doubles down on.

And she's taking it out on people who are in huge danger. Trans peoples lives are in danger, and it is the hateful rhetoric that people like her spread that puts their lives in danger. That gets highschool students beat up, and people killed during dates, simply for being non binary or trans.

Trans people are in general not a threat to women.

Taking out a justified fear on innocent people is wrong.

She's a millionaire who would be a billionaire if not for how much money she donated to charity, who spent a decade pissing off conservatives by supporting gay rights.

I don't think someone would like that would turn around and start passionately hating transgender people for any reason they weren't "sincere" about.

There's no clout for her here, no money she needs to make, she wasn't short of attention.

She 100% believes the hateful rhetoric. She literally believes she would be a transgender man if she was born 20 years ago and that thought terrifies her.

He words, not mine.

ellis123 posted...

One does not actively and knowingly fund neo-Nazi groups for the expressed reason of you wanting to prevent trans people without being sincere in that belief.

Like, this isn't even the degrees of separation thing. WTF is your point?

Curiosity and nothing more. Only difference really is that we wouldn't have dishonesty as an additional offense.

She certainly seems sincere.

ellis123 posted...

actively and knowingly fund neo-Nazi groups

What neo-Nazi groups does Rowling fund?

The whole notion that tomboys being told they are actually and groomed to transition isn't happening. All that was happening was people were more comfortable coming out as trans.

Tenlaar posted...

What neo-Nazi groups does Rowling fund?

Unfortunately I've never been able to re-dig up the article about it. It was from about 5-6 years ago and the group has since been arrested/disbanded.

@UnfairRepresent

I don't think someone would like that would turn around and start passionately hating transgender people for any reason they weren't "sincere" about.

Possibly. I mean there is the whole idea that if you lie to yourself (rhetorica) often, you believe it.

There's no clout for her here, no money she needs to make, she wasn't short of attention.

She 100% believes the hateful rhetoric. She literally believes she would be a transgender man if she was born 20 years ago and that thought terrifies her.

He words, not mine.

I think there are plenty of messed up reasons* for it or any LGBTQ+ hate. Bitterness and trying to make others such.

And success doesn't always guarantee someone will be immune to such.

*At least how I see it going beyond Rowling:
- Trying to do something for recognition, but actual problems would be too hard or even dangerous to tackle. Bigotry is more or less the "easy" choice.

- Bigotry in general. If you're part of the winning team, you definitely won't fail or become corrupt.

Except that is ridiculous.

- Not that it is a sin, when it comes to the religious crowd, some seem to believe that being a busy body invalidates their own failings and wipes the slate clean.

Basically ego.

And really, anyone like Rowling. Would she really maintain the "I don't care if my beliefs make me unpopular" claim if she truly was rejected by everyone? Not impossible, just claiming that when you have people going to bat for you just seems like bravado.

fuck jk rowling. i never liked her shitty books but i know a lot of people that did and I feel bad for the fans.

creativerealms posted...

Trans people are in general not a threat to women.

And I'd imagine her hateful rhetoric is more of a threat to cis women because it contributes to this attitude of paranoia over "who is REALLY a REAL woman?" that leads to violence against women merely perceived as possibly trans because they don't pass some bullshit beauty standard some of these deranged people apply.

As for the whole bathroom safety measure, I don't know. If one is fine with women who are gay/big still using the women's bathroom, I'd say that yeah, it would be odd to then draw the line at trans.

Really, even if she is under the genuine concern of such, predatory behavior is a kid of any gender not having behavior boundaries set.

thekosmicfool posted...

And I'd imagine her hateful rhetoric is more of a threat to cis women because it contributes to this attitude of paranoia over "who is REALLY a REAL woman?" that leads to violence against women merely perceived as possibly trans because they don't pass some bullshit beauty standard some of these deranged people apply.

The "we can always tell" crowd are very quick to assume and get nasty. So, yes, her rhetoric is more of a threat to cis women than trans women are.
Antiyonder posted...

As for the whole bathroom safety measure, I don't know.

The vast majority, if they are actually concerned for safety "issues" of trans women using the women's room, that support such measures would absolutely call the cops if they saw a trans man walking in. These "safety measures" only exist to harm trans people and those who don't pass the complainant's standards of what a "real (gender)" is.

Antiyonder posted...

As for the whole bathroom safety measure, I don't know. If one is fine with women who are gay/big still using the women's bathroom, I'd say that yeah, it would be odd to then draw the line at trans.

Big? O_o

Damn those big women?

AldousIsDead posted...

Do I care?

Is being sincerely shitty somehow better than insincerely shitty?

I concur. I always bring up the Candace Owens example of how in an official hearing, meaning under oath, she said the only thing Hitler did wrong was take his policies outside of Germany.

Do I believe she is a genuine white supremacist or has a Nazi SS uniform hanging in her closet at home? No. Does that actually change anything or the effect of the words she just stated as "factual"? No.

People working towards or giving harmful conclusions are still causing harm even if they are not sincerely feeling it in their heart.

UnfairRepresent posted...

Big? O_o

Damn those big women?

Bi.

And yeah given that comment about how predatory behavior is rooted more with negligent parents, yeah going afters trans, seems like something deemed easier.

And unless some good LGBTQ+ news has been withheld, those against as a whole don't even have to try.

Kradek posted...

I concur. I always bring up the Candace Owens example of how in an official hearing, meaning under oath, she said the only thing Hitler did wrong was take his policies outside of Germany.

Do I believe she is a genuine white supremacist or has a Nazi SS uniform hanging in her closet at home? No. Does that actually change anything or the effect of the words she just stated as "factual"? No.

People working towards or giving harmful conclusions are still causing harm even if they are not sincerely feeling it in their heart.

And frankly, maybe such a thought is morally wrong (If nothing else some venting), but I would just like to see a final election to guarantee LGBTQ+ rights (and maybe abortion).

Basically let the antis have their word, but if they choose to vote they agree to random a background check and inspection to prove their moral character. Failing to pass is pretty much a way to get around denying their votes. Random so there is no last minute evidence hiding.

As an added bonus, making said voters and their problems public.

Antiyonder posted...

And frankly, maybe such a thought is morally wrong (If nothing else some venting), but I would just like to see a final election to guarantee LGBTQ+ rights (and maybe abortion).

Basically let the antis have their word, but if they choose to vote they agree to random a background check and inspection to prove their moral character. Failing to pass is pretty much a way to get around denying their votes. Random so there is no last minute evidence hiding.

As an added bonus, making said voters and their problems public.

Not sure I can agree with that, though you are definitely free to vent your view. I'm in favor of easier access to voting even if it is for the sack of shit dregs of society.

Though I can't argue I'm any morally better as living in the U.S. and seeing how right-wingers use free speech to cause one of the most disastrous political climates in a modernized western democracy has turned me against U.S. free speech in favor of more restricted speech centered around not spreading objective lies and/or spreading hatred towards marginalized and discriminated groups via stochastic terrorism.

Germany proved how strongly them outlawing pro-Nazi speech and iconography moved their nation forward, meanwhile in the U.S. we still have shitheads crying over the South's Lost Cause and promising it will rise again, currently promising a new civil war.

Living in this country is frustrating, to say the least.

She has made this her entire personality lately.

TC is really hung up on the idea of using literal purity tests to disenfranchise voters they don't agree with despite how blatantly authoritarian it would be.

Kradek posted...

Not sure I can agree with that, though you are definitely free to vent your view. I'm in favor of easier access to voting even if it is for the sack of shit dregs of society.

Oh they could vote. Just that there isn't much point in honoring someone's view if they don't completely respect themselves (i.e. Owning/Accepting that their vote is based on selfishness, but claiming it's for kids and God).

Regardless where everyone stands on God, look at it this way when religion for example is used to hide from critique:

- You tarnish God's name and the religion you claim to be for.

- Violates the whole "Thou shalt not lie" belief from the start.

And in general in addition to all sorts of harm, you're making the LGBTQ+ look like the ones harming society. Seems fitting that those doing so be made into the outcasts.

Though I can't argue I'm any morally better as living in the U.S. and seeing how right-wingers use free speech to cause one of the most disastrous political climates in a modernized western democracy has turned me against U.S. free speech in favor of more restricted speech centered around not spreading objective lies and/or spreading hatred towards marginalized and discriminated groups via stochastic terrorism.

I think it could be solved with how bullies in general should be dealt with if not capable of being reasoned with.

The one throwing the first punch gives up the right to complain.

And thought policing concerns go out the window if one is identity policing.

I can't think of many just cases where the person who starts the whole thing can be given moral protection.

Living in this country is frustrating, to say the least.

Can't imagine what you mean.

@Tenlaar

TC is really hung up on the idea of using literal purity tests to disenfranchise voters they don't agree with despite how blatantly authoritarian it would be.

Well, like I said in my recent post, they are the school bully throwing the first punch. Why is hitting back somehow worse?

In fact, I'd like you to look at my previous post and your input.

I don't know. Beyond Rowling and just looking at LGBTQ+, I think the big reason I doubt sincerity of their views is that they don't really put effort even in just making the most solid argument possible.

Just make up reasons and hope anyone of importance can't counter the argument.

If making effort is too much, then their views evidently aren't that important and not worth making laws from them.

Stop sending me PMs, it's weird.

@Tenlaar

Stop sending me PMs, it's weird.

Ok then.

Antiyonder posted...

Basically let the antis have their word, but if they choose to vote they agree to random a background check and inspection to prove their moral character. Failing to pass is pretty much a way to get around denying their votes. Random so there is no last minute evidence hiding.

As an added bonus, making said voters and their problems public.

What in the actual fuck?

Also, CE is literally the only place I see that even mentions JK Rowling.

muh recreational outrage

VirtuousWrath posted...

What in the actual fuck?

I said I was venting. But for argument sake, would you go over my comments on Post 39 for example directly?

On the parts I disagree with? Yes. On the parts I agree with? No.

Yes she's sincere and I think she doesn't care. In fact, being an open bigot seems to be popular again.

I mean I don't honestly think what I suggested would be for the best, I just think there's a difference between respecting an honest different opinion that someone is confident in and then there's just aiming to make a thought made on a whim into a law.

And even understanding how it borders on doing what the bigoted folks are guilty of, I don't see how one can believe that hating someone for being say black, gay, trans, nb or a woman is the same as hating someone seeking to harm others for differences they are born with and don't seek to cause problems.

Her intentions are irrelevant, the outcomes are still gonna be dead trans kids.

However, her intentions straight up are to make dead trans kids, so I'm not sure what the point of this topic even is.

Jerry_Hellyeah posted...

So now she's a liar or something? Is there a history of that?

I'd say she's actually been pretty open to speaking her mind, but maybe that's just me.

What is this? She is known for using her platform to spread harmful disinformation.