JK Rowling and her trans views

[Ripper]

Yes, it's pretty loathsome stuff. I think the reason it has to be part of the conversation around Rowling and others labelled 'TERFs', is that it's necessary to understand exactly what they are responding to in a hostile way.

I didn't really understand it initially - I was puzzled by why Rowling, of all people, would suddenly reveal she had a bee in her bonnet about trans people, as was being widely claimed. It seemed rather odd. But then you get an understanding of what she's actually upset about, and retaliating with harsh comments. It's a particular, extreme, political faction, and not, as she tries to make clear, about ordinary trans people trying to live their lives. I'm sure there are a great many of those folks who are speechless with horror at this demented movement that's essentially hijacked them and dragged them along for the insane ride.

 

[SveNitoR]

Why express hate towards recently deceased? It only makes you look like a person devoid of compassion. Media really should stop focusing on the extremes, so that these people get less attention.

 

[Ripper]

Why express hate towards recently deceased? It only makes you look like a person devoid of compassion. Media really should stop focusing on the extremes, so that these people get less attention.

Yes, I think it's the similarity of the psychologies - a sense of absolute righteousness justifying malevolence, whether grounded in a perverted concept of God, or their own conceit.

I don't particularly blame the press for this issue. I think a lot of this is to do with the Twittersphere, where, until quite recently, Rowling would have been attacked by many for being an outspoken 'SJW', or such. I think after this stuff expanded from its originating online communities, Twitter is where it went. It seems to me that this is when she started spitting fire - when she encountered this brigade.

I noticed the other day, in another thread, you mentioned that you might describe yourself as quite 'woke', and I wanted to make sure you understand where I'm coming from. I'm not using that as a derisive term for people who hold many 'progressive' views, which would include me. I see woke as a new and distinct strand of politics, a new school of thought, that in many ways combines the worst aspects of left and right, backed by whole lot of third-rate scholarship and bad thinking. If you put the foremost exponent of woke thinking on a debate stage with a real socialist, a liberal, and a conservative, I know who's going home with the participation award.

And I am keen to see that movement lose influence, because to me it seems obvious that they hand political power to the far right; these fools think they're doing good, and they cannot see what they're actually bringing about.

 

[SveNitoR]

Yes, I think it's the similarity of the psychologies - a sense of absolute righteousness justifying malevolence, whether grounded in a perverted concept of God, or their own conceit.

I don't particularly blame the press for this issue. I think a lot of this is to do with the Twittersphere, where, until quite recently, Rowling would have been attacked by many for being an outspoken 'SJW', or such. I think after this stuff expanded from its originating online communities, Twitter is where it went. It seems to me that this is when she started spitting fire - when she encountered this brigade.

I noticed the other day, in another thread, you mentioned that you might describe yourself as quite 'woke', and I wanted to make sure you understand where I'm coming from. I'm not using that as a derisive term for people who hold many 'progressive' views, which would include me. I see woke as a new and distinct strand of politics, a new school of thought, that in many ways combines the worst aspects of left and right, backed by whole lot of third-rate scholarship and bad thinking. If you put the foremost exponent of woke thinking on a debate stage with a real socialist, a liberal, and a conservative, I know who's going home with the participation award.

And I am keen to see that movement lose influence, because to me it seems obvious that they hand political power to the far right; these fools think they're doing good, and they cannot see what they're actually bringing about.

Don't worry about me thinking you wrote stuff with bad intentions. I usually don't take stuff out of context, and I don't think I've ever seen you insult other people on purpose.

I only wrote I was sort of woke in that I do think language matters and that we should try to accept other people's worldviews to a certain point.

When "politically correct" was the newest thing to use as an attack, I also ascribed sort of to to that, since most people who used it as an attack were outright assholes who thought they should be able to say anything without any consequences. And I believe in basic decency.

My worldview is that we are biological beings, that the natural world exists and some things are changeable, some not. I do not believe everything is a cultural and linguistic construct.

Politically speaking I'm more left than right in a Swedish context, though not by far. I used to be further left, and I'd say that's where my heart is. The problem is that the further from the center one comes, the fewer members the parties have, and therefore the bigger the risk is of fundamentalists getting voted into power.

 

[dteowner]

When "politically correct" was the newest thing to use as an attack, I also ascribed sort of to to that, since most people who used it as an attack were outright assholes who thought they should be able to say anything without any consequences. And I believe in basic decency.

Bah, a lot of half-completed thoughts in there.

#1- it's called self-esteem for a reason. That's not to say that outside affirmation isn't nice (the usual strawman that gets drug out at this point), but it's not necessary and certainly shouldn't be a regulated requirement. It's not called required-to-be-handed-to-me esteem.

#2- you've managed to propose an argument, completely undercut it, and then throw a good pile of straw on top...all in a single sentence. You say that those decrying PC accept no consequences (I smell straw) immediately after spelling out the consequence- you defining them as outright assholes. We'll skip over the textbook hypocrisy hiding in there for now.

#3- you believe in basic decency. Interesting, for someone so quick to call people outright assholes, but we'll skip over that textbook hypocrisy for now. I'm more interested in when you earned your position as Global Arbiter of Decency. Clearly, "decency" is a nebulous term at best, which changes dramatically over time based on the social situation at the time. You can have no defined standard, which means that attempts to force PC must be whimsical and arbitrary. Not a good system, me thinks.

#4- I can already hear the worn out platitude about how insult is determined by the insulted party. It's gotten even worse now because the "aggrieved" party now gets to determine what contrition, if any, is sufficient to move forward. As such, I'm deeply insulted by your "outright assholes" label, and you're obligated to accept my determination of insult as such. After I have a good cry in the corner from your hurtful words, I will await your 5 page heartfelt apology and then, after another good cry from being forced to relive the traumatic event, determine whether it's sufficient to salve my wounded feels. By the way, you're canceled until (if) I accept your deeply held contrition.

 

[SveNitoR]

Bah, a lot of half-completed thoughts in there.

#1- it's called self-esteem for a reason. That's not to say that outside affirmation isn't nice (the usual strawman that gets drug out at this point), but it's not necessary and certainly shouldn't be a regulated requirement. It's not called required-to-be-handed-to-me esteem.

#2- you've managed to propose an argument, completely undercut it, and then throw a good pile of straw on top...all in a single sentence. You say that those decrying PC accept no consequences (I smell straw) immediately after spelling out the consequence- you defining them as outright assholes. We'll skip over the textbook hypocrisy hiding in there for now.

#3- you believe in basic decency. Interesting, for someone so quick to call people outright assholes, but we'll skip over that textbook hypocrisy for now. I'm more interested in when you earned your position as Global Arbiter of Decency. Clearly, "decency" is a nebulous term at best, which changes dramatically over time based on the social situation at the time. You can have no defined standard, which means that attempts to force PC must be whimsical and arbitrary. Not a good system, me thinks.

#4- I can already hear the worn out platitude about how insult is determined by the insulted party. It's gotten even worse now because the "aggrieved" party now gets to determine what contrition, if any, is sufficient to move forward. As such, I'm deeply insulted by your "outright assholes" label, and you're obligated to accept my determination of insult as such. After I have a good cry in the corner from your hurtful words, I will await your 5 page heartfelt apology and then, after another good cry from being forced to relive the traumatic event, determine whether it's sufficient to salve my wounded feels. By the way, you're canceled until (if) I accept your deeply held contrition.

Hehe, I enjoyed your final arguments there. Not bad at all. And fair enough, it was hypocritical of me to use the term asshole.

1. I'm not sure why you brought up self esteem at all? I didn't write anything about it, I think? Anyway, self-esteem is not a very well defined concept (just like 'decency' - imagine that!). There are loads of different constructs trying to be more specific (self-efficacy, self-liking, self confidence, locus of control being a few related concepts I know of). Just like all human characteristics there's a mix of genes and environment which influence them.

2. You missed my points (maybe I didn't explain them clearly). It's not that there weren't people who rightfully claimed that too narrow an opinion (the so called political correctness) can be harmful, but that a lot of people (I didn't write "all people" on purpose) who used the term 'politically correct' publicly, did so after they got called out for being rude and judgemental. And I did not intend to claim there were no consequences, there surely was. More that the people who threw around the term PC as some sort of blanket statement for saying anything, got angry when they were confronted with that.

3. I also don't want to force PC (isn't that a strawman?). People can talk however they like. I just don't enjoy people who are rude most of the time and might critizise or avoid talking to them. So let me specify what I meant with 'decency': trying actively not to hurt other people even if we disagree. It might still happen, and it might be reasonable to apologize.

4. I'm not a person who claims the one who takes offense is always right and apologies need to be said. We need to be able to handle some conflict and insults, since that's a part of life. It's good though, to be able to apologize if one does do wrong.

5. Feel free to pick apart what I write if you feel like it. No hard feelings from my side.

 

[SveNitoR]

I listened to the fourth part yesterday. It gets more and more to the subject itself and it is interesting to hear different explanations of how the trans activism related to Rowling and feminism could get so aggressive.

Some of the audio from demonstrations is really chilling to listen to. Very aggressive and hateful.

 

[SveNitoR]

I'm currently listening to part five of the podcast. It's interesting how extremely black and white the thinking of the activists (or at least the vocal ones) are. It's almost all the time something akin to: "Either you think exactly like us, or you hate us, want to kill us and are our sworn enemy from now on."

 

[SveNitoR]

Also good that the interviewer looked up some people who are disappointed, but not threatening in any way. They do not see bad intent, but see Rowling as misguided. It is a much more constructive way to engage with other people over issues where one disagrees.

 

[Alrik Fassbauer]

I fear that Mrs. Rowling might see herself "proven" via that terrible mass shooting that happened yesterday or the day before that.

 

[OverIt]

I fear that Mrs. Rowling might see herself "proven" via that terrible mass shooting that happened yesterday or the day before that.

Shame that they are not releasing the shooter's manifesto. Things don't currently add up. Her conversation to her friend is weird.

 

[SveNitoR]

I fear that Mrs. Rowling might see herself "proven" via that terrible mass shooting that happened yesterday or the day before that.

No, she probably doesn't. The podcast I've listened to (mentioned earlier in the thread), she is very clear she is very unhappy when things like that happen. She becomes upset with the bad faith argument that she supposedly likes when women and children get hurt.

This shooting also has nothing to do with what she's argued. She is worried about predators who are (or in very rare cases: pretend to be) trans women, getting easier access to female only spaces. This school shooter was a trans man, so would already have access to women's spaces by biology alone (unless he'd gone through extensive surgery and hormonal treatment). And a school like this is not locked to one sex/gender/whatever.

Listening to the podcast I think one can boil down Rowling's thoughts to this:

1. Gender dysphoria is serious, but we also need to be careful with treating kids with hormone treatments and surgery until we are reasonably sure it won't cause more harm than it helps.

2. Legally changing one's sex in a way that is too easy can allow predators easier and legal access to women only spaces.

3. Biological women have unique vulnerabilities that trans women do not have.

4. She felt morally compelled to take a stand for women's rights and did so knowing it would be painful.

The trans activists who disagree with her seem to think this:
1. It is already very hard to get treatment, and Rowling expressing this publicly makes it harder (through changing public opinion) . They think the risk of being harmed by the treatment is very small, due to how hard it is to get treatment.

2. The risk of predators abusing this is minuscule, and predators already ignore what's legal or not.

3. Trans women's suffering and vulnerability is similar to cis women's suffering even if they have different biological starts.

4. Using Twitter to discuss such sensitive topics is very bad. Either she shouldn't have said anything at all, or at least been a lot more thoughtful and thorough.

 

[SveNitoR]

There also seems to be a difference in two large ways:

- Sex is mostly biologically determined VS mostly a social construct.
- We need to be able to ask questions about anything VS some things are off limits unless X is fulfilled first.

 

[Couchpotato]

Were living in a clown world. That sums up today's reality Societal collapse.

 

[Alrik Fassbauer]

Okay, thank you for your replies.

@Couch : If you mean with "clown world" the "urge" of a lot of people to do things to get their "15 minutes of fame", then I agree very much with you.

 

[dteowner]

It's going to be interesting to see how the extreme left will deal with this. They've got a loon murderer of children but the perp is from a fiercely protected class that must be draped in victimhood at every opportunity. Even if the whole trans thing happens to be incidental to the loon's motivations (I'm betting they're not and that's why the manifesto isn't being released, but that's completely unsubstantiated theorizing on my part), neither side of the political spectrum will be interested in untwisting the overlap.

 

[KingKragen]

This is rich - seeing the loony right all berserk about the Tennessee shootings.

Meanwhile, we have the GOP fiercely defending their own protected class, the white supremacists. And rationalizing whenever this protected class commits serial killings or other attacks:

2022 alone had - Albuquerque, Colorado Night Club, Buffalo, Cincinnati, and Normandale.

Not to mention the 2021 Jan 6th insurrection and they are still in denial about it.

 

[dteowner]

This is rich - seeing the loony right all berserk about the Tennessee shootings.

Meanwhile, we have the GOP fiercely defending their own protected class, the white supremacists. And rationalizing whenever this protected class commits serial killings or other attacks:

2022 alone had - Albuquerque, Colorado Night Club, Buffalo, Cincinnati, and Normandale.

Not to mention the 2021 Jan 6th insurrection and they are still in denial about it.

Not sure you're actually paying attention. The right doesn't make excuses or defend their loons. Even if they were so inclined, they're generally more interested in defending the misused tool. Remember, the left always accuses the right of blaming the individual instead of the gun. So which flimsy narrative will you espouse? Perhaps you hoped nobody would notice you're playing both sides of the fence, or was it just your haste to blindly demonize the opposition and logic be damned?

 

[JDR13]

There's no doubt the perpetrator had issues. There's no defending that. It's sad that both sides will make this into a left vs right thing.

Of course Fox is already spinning their usual bullshit by trying to make it seem like protesters were there to mourn the shooter instead of demanding gun reform.

 

[SveNitoR]

I'd say extremists (and very angry people) on both sides tend to see things in black and white and always blame it on something the "other" side has done. Even though I'm not an extremist (in my opinion ) I've certainly been guilty of it when I'm in a heated argument.

There can be problems with a lot of things simultaneously, like gun control, mental health care, economic inequality, racism, TV-networks that are propaganda machines more than news providers, overindulging in victimhood, too low expectations of individual responsibility, and so on. Where none, some or all of these can have contributed to increase the risk of a specific mass shooting.

It's pretty easy to predict human behavior when generalizing to big groups, but very hard to predict an individual's behavior. What's the English expression? Hindsight is 20/20 or something like that? That's definitely true in cases like this. But it's risky (and very bad statistics) to generalize from the individual case to all cases of mass shootings.