About J.K Rowling... · 1:04pm Jun 19th, 2020
Okay, it's going to come out sooner or later on this site and it's going to be a big thing in the UK.
Which probably says something about how trivial the UK can be but hey-ho.
Recently, a bit of a scene came up on Twitter (What else is new) regarding J.K Rowling's opinions on whether or not transgender people can or cannot biologically change the gender they were born with no matter how hard they might want to and the lack of seriousness she showed towards it.
I'm conflicted.
While I don't think what she said was very clever, particularly in this current social climate...I don't see a whole lot that actually came across as prejudiced.
Insensitive maybe but she never said that trans people 'shouldn't' act the way they wish, just to remember that it wasn't always the case.
Rowling is middle-aged at this time and trans rights and ethics have only come up in around the 2010s. For a lot of people, this is all very new.
That's no excuse for intolerance but I don't see a whole lot of intolerance in what she said.
Having recently graduated, I remember questionnaires in uni or work and often, below the Gender M or F, there was the question "Is this the same gender you were born with."
Despite not being trans myself, I can understand how this could be a difficult question.
But I think the issue here is actually kind of backwards.
I think there's too much pressure on the trans community to not actually call themselves trans! Just man or woman.
Having an identity as trans is not as easy as we might think as there are some aspects of the trans community who do not see themselves as trans but instead prefer gender absolutes. Ironically similar to the people who prejudice against them.
So in the mind, both in and outside of the trans community, there's a fear that calling someone trans essentially implies a confusion or uncertainty in gender.
So personally, I think more community action needs to go into helping people come out as trans as an identity rather than simply a gender-reversal.
As to Rowling, well, I hope she understands that what she said was quite foolish and apologise to any she may have offended.
But that's it.
She has, at times, shown herself to be a bit out of touch and over-eager to please.
A kind of 'Hello, fellow kids' thing.
But I don't really hold that against her.
I don't think we can really put her on the same level as other celebrities who were recently revealed to be prejudiced (Not to mention any names).
As I said, I hope she realises it wasn't as simple a matter to others as she realised.
But I also hope others realise that it also wasn't as complicated.
And here I should say that I hope I haven't offended anyone.
Please understand that I support LGBTQ+ rights and identity in all forms and am heartened by the work that's gone into it.
I just believe in keeping the peace.
Can only agree with you
Thank God, someone who has a pretty rational and levelheaded take about this whole kerfuffle.
—Martin Luther King, Jr.
—Plaque in San Francisco, dedicated in 2006
I hope you haven't offended everyone you're speaking about. Transgender women are women. Cisgender women are women. Stop perpetuating violence. It's not complicated.
5288544
I realise.
I don't think the trans community don't have a reason or right to be angry here.
I hope Rowling realises this.
But I just hope things can be resolved peacefully.
I'm sorry if I came across as trivialising things I didn't understand.
I just felt concerned and I just thought the internet could use a little less conflict at this time.
5288665
JK Rowling came out against voluntourism last year because volunteering in orphanages is harmful, right?
Her ill-informed attitudes and opinions against transgender people is causing irreparable harm. Rejection of trans people's identities increases suicidality. Misgendering people and denying their identity is not just rude; it is actively harmful. Her unfounded beliefs about the threat that transgender women pose to other women perpetuates prejudice. Just today, Rowling was cited in the rejection of a bill that extends equality to transgender Americans.
We don't have peace now. Demand it, and reject those who perpetuate violence and unfounded stereotypes.
5288544
Hey. Stop trying to brew up a storm where one isn't fucking needed.
5288689
Oh you mean like the kind that tries to start up a shitstorm because they see some kind of seemingly easy mark in someone who has never once intended to start a argument or stand by hurtful stereotypes? You mean people like that?
5288740
Just having a friendly conversation, mate. No need to get testy. Do you have something constructive to contribute to the conversation?
5288742
Guess not
5288743
Do you have anything that isn't just copying and pasting comments from other people so you can justify TRYING to start what is clearly a flame war or make Purple feel bad about where he stands? Because if not PLEASE do back off and bother someone else. Purple has made his stance and if he hurt someone it was entirely unintentional.
5288746
Posting a blog here is an invitation to discussion. If Purple has a problem with what I've said, there's a block button by my name. I won't be hurt. Why don't you back off and let Purple speak, or make an actual argument that doesn't amount to ”shut up.”
5288752
Look I apologize immensely. I just have seen stuff like this JUST lead to bigger issues in the long run mostly in the perpetual flame war stuff and causing problems on both sides. I just didn't want that to happen to a good friend of mine and I'm VERY sorry for insulting you.
5288754
I'll take your apology in good faith. Sounds like a flame war elsewhere got your hackles up. Happens to even the best of us sometimes.
5288764
I'm defensive of friends. Otherwise I... probably wouldn't have said anything. Again. REALLY sorry.
5288752
Okay. Sorry about the delay. I had work.
Look, I'm not saying Rowling was okay in what she said.
But I am saying that attacking her is not the answer.
Educate her. Show reason and patience with someone who clearly doesn't understand what a serious issue it is so that this kind of thing can't happen again.
Nothing I've seen from Rowling convinces me she wants anyone committing suicide.
Also, the fact that her quote was cited in a transphobic act is not proof that she concurs with those views or approves of the act itself. Bigots take the words of people better than them out of context all the time if it'll give their opinions weight.
As I said, I hope Rowling understands the consequences but I also hope no-one thinks she's a monster. She was just foolish in this instance.
I just hope this thing is resolved and both parties can reach an understanding, know what went wrong and can avoid a repeat.
It probably won't end that way but I just wanted to get my wish across.
I'm sorry if I spoke for any communities I'm not part of.
I tried to talk about something I'm concerned about but I realise it doesn't affect me as a person and I'm sorry if I was abrasive.
I just heard about something I was concerned about and I always try to convince people on the internet to keep their heads in situations like these.
Because that's the only way things improve safely and efficiently.
Acting on anger just sends a bad message no matter who you are. You should always try to negotiate on a fair and reasonable level first. If refused, you have the right to escalate the debate through other means but not before. That's just self-defeating.
5289287
First, thank you for the lengthy response. This message is much clearer than your original post.
Let's be clear. Violence is bad. Nobody should be physically attacking her. I think you mean verbal attacks, however. Spewing an unfounded, ill-informed hot take into a public manifesto, however, is an invitation to criticism.
Her manifesto and other statements show that she's looked into transgender issues enough to have been able to form a sympathetic position. Every time she sets her quill to the topic, she is confronted by people who would seek to educate her. She rejects them. She owns her intolerance. Her continued misgendering.
Wanting it and being indifferent to it are not identical, but both are reprehensible.
If Rowling were to have a sudden change of heart, to listen to the voices she has rejected thus far, to understand the data, the facts--stops misgendering people, accept people for who they are--then I would consider this point as possibly valid. But no, she stands with them. Supports the same discrimination that they support.
I do think she's a monster. She's put herself out in this topic before, and she's only gotten worse as the conversation goes on. I would forgive all and accept her with open arms if she were to have an about face and embrace human rights for transgender people.
You and me both. It disturbs me greatly that I won't ever be able to completely disentangle her works in my mind from her positions. But there can't be compromise on transgender recognition.
You're fine to speak your opinion, mate. Just be ready for discussion when you do. When you're not affected by an issue, it might help to discuss it in private with someone who is before you go public. Or at the very least, make sure to do your homework. I don't know where you personally came from in posting this, so I'm more speaking to the room here.
I used to think like this too, but when peoples lives and rights are on the line, that's about the time to get mad.
I think Rowling has had this opportunity. Repeatedly. She's perpetuating harm, and it's getting worse.
I'm not a fan of Rowling or anything.
But I think this is a pretty reasonable response. It's been a while since I saw the messages she sent so I don't remember them clearly.
But I don't remember what I read coming off as that offensive, so I think I mostly agree with you here. It definitely wasn't smart to say those things in the current climate however.
I'm going to take this a bit out of context here (not for malicious reasons) and ask a question. What do you think about "forced tolerance" (for lack of a better term).
I miss the days where people didn't have to clarify things like this. Like it used to be assumed the person wasn't bad unless their behavior showed otherwise. Unrelated I know, but just reminiscing I guess.
(I'm generally not very comfortable talking about things like this, for a number of reasons.)
5289940
If by 'forced tolerance' you mean in a sense of not being allowed to talk about a community for fear of saying something offensive, intentionally or otherwise...
I am quite concerned. It's not my biggest fear but I do feel as though giving all communities a voice and a way to reasonably get their points across and establish what makes them who they are is key rather than burying the issue entirely.
But if you mean how others call 'forced tolerance' in regards to law and rights, I say that's basic human decency.
Frankly, I've lived with that fear all my life.
I have Aspergers.
I was a strange little kid and I often said very silly things to people of equal or higher authority that would wind me in a lot of trouble.
Growing up, people knew they could wind me up by saying things I disagreed with. I wasn't good with sarcasm or satire and didn't understand it when I saw it.
When meeting someone new, I would often have no idea how to start a conversation or progress it when I became part of it.
It took me a while before I met people on my level.
Foundation Year was fun because in your first year of Art School, before official uni starts, you learn more about yourself.
I certainly did.
I didn't start using the internet until this was kind of the norm and I probably would have done so even if it wasn't.
I just try to help people keep their heads. I'm not always good at it but I feel as though someone has to try.
5289956
"Forced Tolerance" I think I basically meant where people tell you that you have to completely agree with something or else you're the bad guy. No matter your reasoning. No exceptions
I don't think I have Aspergers so I don't really know what that is like. I do kind of wonder if I might have some form of OCD, I haven't been tested by a professional or anything so I don't want to say for sure. But it could help explain why i feel such a need to cover every possible thing that could be misunderstood when I write something. I dunno, I'll probably get a test for this someday.
I saw the internet before the change, but didn't really start being on it regularly until around the time I'd say this change was beginning.
I try to do the same whenever I can. :)
5289975
I wouldn't say that should be called tolerance.
Agreement, really. And forced agreement is essentially coercion.
'Forced tolerance' isn't the right word for it.
I mean, you can tolerate something without agreeing with it.
Take for instance something less controversial or hard-hitting like, say, Anti-Stratfordianism.
I don't agree with it. And I especially don't like their films (Cough-Anonymous-Cough!)
But I don't mind the idea or the people who consider it.
Good to know I'm not alone.