Page 19 of 21

Re: Jo Rowling

Posted: Tue Sep 15, 2020 5:55 pm
by Malcolm Armsteen
I'm amazed at the deterioration of Pink News in the last couple of years. The Telegraph I expect it from.

Re: Jo Rowling

Posted: Tue Sep 15, 2020 6:37 pm
by Silkyman
I often look at things from a PR perspective, given it’s the job and everything, and I think it’s a bit daft of her to go down this route for the next novel given the recent issues.

But I follow this stuff on twitter and really don’t get the visceral hatred. I can fully understand why some women might not want to have an unexpected penis in a situation where they should be fairly able to expect no penises to be involved. But I can also see why trans women will want to feel safe in their space too. (Why not make all areas unisex but with individual cubicles for privacy?)

Apparently this nuance, coming from a woman at least, warrants threats of sexual violence.

Re: Jo Rowling

Posted: Tue Sep 15, 2020 6:45 pm
by Dan
visage wrote:
Tue Sep 15, 2020 1:32 pm
Indeed. The trans community have always been very clear that crossdressers are not trans. So when JKR makes a crossdresser a villain it should presumably be no bother to them.....

Of course fucking not.
This is it exactly.

Trans people explode with rage when you compare them to cross-dressers and I understand the distinction because they are quite correct. Cross-dressers are not transgender.

Now, as soon as it suits the "RIP JK Rowling!" argument, a cross-dressing killer in a story is suddenly "anti trans".

These fuckwits are actually encouraging anti-trans sentiment.

Re: Jo Rowling

Posted: Tue Sep 15, 2020 7:12 pm
by Samanfur
At the last dedicated women's conference I went to (and it was a Labour women's conference, not a low budget dog and pony show from inexperienced organisers, or one especially for extreme feminists), the unisex toilets with cubicles for privacy lasted less than half the first day before someone had to print out signs to segregate them by sex, because Woman's Place representatives and the rest of the people walking around the floor in 'Woman. Noun: adult human female' shirts and dumping buckets of water over trans people objected.

There's a vocal extreme on both sides. But for the hardcore anti-trans types who dress it up as caring about women, simply making the space safer will never be enough. They insist on separation, even though a predator won't simply not predate because a sign says they shouldn't.

I say dress it up as caring about women because the majority of people complaining that trans women are just men in dresses, and everything should be based on biological sex, in my experience don't consider the experience of trans men, or the abuse that a muscular, bearded bloke would go through because Woman's Place think that people with their plumbing are women and shouldn't use the Gents. Which would be at least as traumatic for the cis women they claim they want to protect, as well.

Plenty of non-binary people and cis women've been hassled in public toilets for looking insufficiently feminine, too. Including me.

As I've said elsewhere: you can say that you're a feminist and that means that a woman can look how she likes and nobody can tell her otherwise, or you can gatekeep based on a male gaze standard of femininity. I don't think that you can do both.

Re: Jo Rowling

Posted: Tue Sep 15, 2020 7:21 pm
by mr angry manchester
What is cis?

Re: Jo Rowling

Posted: Tue Sep 15, 2020 7:28 pm
by Samanfur
It's short for cisgender, which is the antonym of transgender: someone who identifies as the same gender as their biological sex.

Re: Jo Rowling

Posted: Tue Sep 15, 2020 7:30 pm
by Boiler
I knew the terms cis- and trans- from molecules in organic chemistry and how the position of individual atoms within a molecule of the same chemical formula could affect how it behaves.

Re: Jo Rowling

Posted: Tue Sep 15, 2020 7:36 pm
by mr angry manchester
Oh, ok. I'm cisgender then. Didn't know until just now :D

Re: Jo Rowling

Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2020 12:42 am
by Malcolm Armsteen
It surprised me when I found I was, too. As a middle-classish white bloke I'd never had a meaningless label before.

Back to JK - this is a sensible review (I think) of Troubled Blood. Which I haven't finished yet, so won't spoil.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/books ... ith-review

Re: Jo Rowling

Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2020 8:58 am
by Samanfur
Definitely more balanced, but the idea of a man who dresses in women's clothing in order to make women drop their guard before he does something terrible does chime with one of Rowling's own arguments for why she finds trans women threatening, whether she describes the character as trans or not.

And this is the second book in the series where she's used a man in women's clothing - explicitly described as trans or not - as a villain, whether they're the main one or not. I don't agree with the extremity of the reaction to it, but I can understand why people rush to judge.

Re: Jo Rowling

Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2020 9:55 am
by bluebellnutter
The way I'm looking at it, would this book have been anything like this controversial had it been written by someone else? In other words, if you will excuse the wording, are they playing the man or the ball? If it's the former then they're no better than the Daily Mail commentariat, just with a different target.

Re: Jo Rowling

Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2020 10:17 am
by Cyclist
I think it's a clear case of " it's not what's being said - it's who is saying it". JKR is a hate-figure now for a lot of the more vocal members of the Trans community. Whatever she says or does, no matter how innocuous, is going to draw this level of bile. Simply because she's J K Rowling and therefore utterly evil.

It's another symptom of the retreat from Reason.

Re: Jo Rowling

Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2020 11:31 am
by Bones McCoy
Never go full Spart'.

Re: Jo Rowling

Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2020 12:37 pm
by The Weeping Angel
Samanfur wrote:
Wed Sep 16, 2020 8:58 am
Definitely more balanced, but the idea of a man who dresses in women's clothing in order to make women drop their guard before he does something terrible does chime with one of Rowling's own arguments for why she finds trans women threatening, whether she describes the character as trans or not.

And this is the second book in the series where she's used a man in women's clothing - explicitly described as trans or not - as a villain, whether they're the main one or not. I don't agree with the extremity of the reaction to it, but I can understand why people rush to judge.
The problem is Samanfur that this was started by The Daily Telegraph and amplified by Pink News these are media outlets monetising this for clicks and traffic.


Re: Jo Rowling

Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2020 1:36 pm
by Malcolm Armsteen
Definitely more balanced, but the idea of a man who dresses in women's clothing in order to make women drop their guard before he does something terrible does chime with one of Rowling's own arguments for why she finds trans women threatening, whether she describes the character as trans or not.
She specifically states that the character is NOT trans.
And I recall that what she said was that she disliked the idea of men who claimed to be trans (but weren't) entering women's spaces in order to abuse them was what she objected to. As do I.

I find it difficult to take a 'trans woman' with a beard at face value.