|
Post by TylerDeneuve on May 30, 2024 17:40:37 GMT
Rowling's argument is that straight, cisgender men will use trans-inclusionary policies/spaces to gain easier access to women in order to hurt them. She might genuinely believe this, I'm really not sure... There isn't any empirical evidence to support this theory, though... The examples she uses are purely anecdotal. Right-wing politicians frame anti-trans legislation as a women's rights/children's safety issue, too.
|
|
Film Socialism
Based
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_lavender.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_lavender.png)
99.9999% of rock is crap
Posts: 2,571
Likes: 1,409
|
Post by Film Socialism on May 30, 2024 18:01:13 GMT
Rowling's argument is that straight, cisgender men will use trans-inclusionary policies/spaces to gain easier access to women in order to hurt them. She might genuinely believe this, I'm really not sure... There isn't any empirical evidence to support this theory, though... The examples she uses are purely anecdotal. Right-wing politicians frame anti-trans legislation as a women's rights/children's safety issue, too. her argument of course immediately begs some extremely obvious questions, such as "would someone who is this terrified of this situation be somehow totally fine with a passing trans man in the same context in a "women's" space?" or, "could a cis man not just say that he is a trans man when interrogated on what he's doing in a women's space?" or, "do you really think men will take HRT for the sole purpose of integrating themselves among women?" not that any of this matters, as their concern is not actually for safety of women.
|
|
|
Post by stabcaesar on May 30, 2024 18:12:14 GMT
this line of logic would have maybe worked like 10 years ago but come on man lol, she's engaged in holocaust denial over the historic treatment of queer people by the nazis, has repeatedly voiced her support for insane terfs, talks about this issue constantly. she is absolutely the poster child for public-facing terfs and is an example of the vileness of this ideology. if you think somehow that nobody has been able to identify anything offensive about her tweets, that says more about your illiteracy than anything else - there might be a vitamin deficiency in your life somewhere is my guess. This here is exactly what I mean by "blown out of proportions". ^This = Holocaust denial? K ![:roll:](//storage.proboards.com/6692321/images/eXQbS33vZiVoxdwsBOPb.gif) And you are really embodying the unhinged prototype with your personal attacks. I'm sure this tactic has helped Rowling gain a few more supporters, lol. even taking your defense of her at face value - which i shouldn't do in the first place because it's blatantly incorrect - what are the contexts that cis women and trans women should be forcefully separated from each other? why do cis women need spaces apart from trans women, and how does highlighting this over the struggles that the trans community continues to endure help them at all? why are you trying to good faith someone who has spent the last decade making it crystal clear that she is transphobic? That is irrelevant. The point is her views/tweets are mild af but she's being treated like she personally killed transpeople, which is laughable. I don't see how tweets like these can be remotely be seen as transphobic, but I guess everything is offensive in 2024: With the way rabid idiots are behaving on the internet, no wonder more and more people are voting far right.
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on May 30, 2024 18:15:43 GMT
this line of logic would have maybe worked like 10 years ago but come on man lol, she's engaged in holocaust denial over the historic treatment of queer people by the nazis, has repeatedly voiced her support for insane terfs, talks about this issue constantly. she is absolutely the poster child for public-facing terfs and is an example of the vileness of this ideology. if you think somehow that nobody has been able to identify anything offensive about her tweets, that says more about your illiteracy than anything else - there might be a vitamin deficiency in your life somewhere is my guess. This here is exactly what I mean by "blown out of proportions". ^This = Holocaust denial? K ![:roll:](//storage.proboards.com/6692321/images/eXQbS33vZiVoxdwsBOPb.gif) It's literally Holocaust denial lol
|
|
Film Socialism
Based
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_lavender.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_lavender.png)
99.9999% of rock is crap
Posts: 2,571
Likes: 1,409
|
Post by Film Socialism on May 30, 2024 18:18:22 GMT
i'm curious as to what would be considered transphobic if joanne rowling of all people does not meet that threshold. i mean seriously, listen to yourself here
|
|
|
Post by TylerDeneuve on May 30, 2024 18:20:08 GMT
Rowling's argument is that straight, cisgender men will use trans-inclusionary policies/spaces to gain easier access to women in order to hurt them. She might genuinely believe this, I'm really not sure... There isn't any empirical evidence to support this theory, though... The examples she uses are purely anecdotal. Right-wing politicians frame anti-trans legislation as a women's rights/children's safety issue, too. her argument of course immediately begs some extremely obvious questions, such as "would someone who is this terrified of this situation be somehow totally fine with a passing trans man in the same context in a "women's" space?" or, "could a cis man not just say that he is a trans man when interrogated on what he's doing in a women's space?" or, "do you really think men will take HRT for the sole purpose of integrating themselves among women?" not that any of this matters, as their concern is not actually for safety of women.Oh, 100%. This is why I'm willing to give Rowling a little bit of grace by saying "she may actually believe this" - i.e. she actually is supportive of women's rights/the well-being of children in every other political issue but this one. But, having said that... Her Twitter feed is not at all indicative of her being a happy, healthy person. Her dogged response to trans people in general has me wondering if she wouldn't benefit from psychiatric help?
|
|
|
Post by stabcaesar on May 30, 2024 18:20:54 GMT
This here is exactly what I mean by "blown out of proportions". ^This = Holocaust denial? K ![:roll:](//storage.proboards.com/6692321/images/eXQbS33vZiVoxdwsBOPb.gif) It's literally Holocaust denial lol She responded to someone who claimed she was "desperate to uphold their ideology around gender" by saying that they had a fever dream. That is "Holocaust denial"? What kind of twisted logic would result in this type of thought process? Exactly where in her tweet does she even indicate what the "fever dream" is referring to?
|
|
|
Post by stabcaesar on May 30, 2024 18:26:08 GMT
But, having said that... Her Twitter feed is not at all indicative of her being a happy, healthy person. Her dogged response to trans people in general has me wondering if she wouldn't benefit from psychiatric help? She tweets/retweets like a couple of times/day. I'd call that much healthier than the rabid, self-proclaimed "activists" who make it their life mission to exaggerate to a comical degree every single thing that comes out of her twitter account. She's had a series of interviews about writing recently and I'd say she seems particularly well-adjusted for a billionaire.
|
|
Archie
Based
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_lavender.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_lavender.png)
Eraserhead son or Inland Empire daughter?
Posts: 4,014
Likes: 4,688
|
Post by Archie on May 30, 2024 18:32:01 GMT
You know it's bad when fucking Elon tells you to calm down. She's a monster. ![](https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/ff2860d8507bcedd664d8915b7677ed0691b6b2a325f3972c75aee3db607d715.jpg)
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on May 30, 2024 18:33:12 GMT
It's literally Holocaust denial lol She responded to someone who claimed she was "desperate to uphold their ideology around gender" by saying that they had a fever dream. That is "Holocaust denial"? What kind of twisted logic would result in this type of thought process? Exactly where in her tweet does she even indicate what the "fever dream" is referring to? The tweet I referred to wasn't even quoting the "fever dream" one but an entirely separate J.K. Rowling tweet where she linked to a thread that starts with "The LGBTQ+ lobby likes to claim trans people were a key target of the Nazis. They weren't." THAT is textbook Holocaust denial and if I were you I wouldn't be trying to make an excuse for it.
|
|
|
Post by stabcaesar on May 30, 2024 18:34:06 GMT
i'm curious as to what would be considered transphobic if joanne rowling of all people does not meet that threshold. i mean seriously, listen to yourself here I'm more curious as to a) which exact tweet(s), writing, or any form of communication from JK Rowling is transphobic, and I mean actually transphobic, not "transphobic if you apply some deranged logic onto your thought process" transphobic, and b) if you believe whatever she put out is transphobic, what wouldn't be considered transphobic?
|
|
|
Post by stabcaesar on May 30, 2024 18:43:25 GMT
She responded to someone who claimed she was "desperate to uphold their ideology around gender" by saying that they had a fever dream. That is "Holocaust denial"? What kind of twisted logic would result in this type of thought process? Exactly where in her tweet does she even indicate what the "fever dream" is referring to? The tweet I referred to wasn't even quoting the "fever dream" one but an entirely separate J.K. Rowling tweet where she linked to a thread that starts with "The LGBTQ+ lobby likes to claim trans people were a key target of the Nazis. They weren't." THAT is textbook Holocaust denial and if I were you I wouldn't be trying to make an excuse for it. First of all, the claim that JK Rowling is a Holocaust denier arised from the fever dream tweet, not this subsequent thread. Besides, how is that tweet textbook Holocaust denial? I thought textbook Holocaust denial = Holocaust never happened. And what even is the problem with that thread? He's claiming that transpeople weren't the KEY target of the Nazis, not that no transpeople were ever victims of the Nazis. Is that Holocaust denial? Are you saying that the Nazis were out there specifically looking for transpeople to exterminate? This is exactly what I meant by "blowing out of proportions". Something that's about one thing gets clearly misinterpreted or deliberately taken out of context to fit a narrative.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on May 30, 2024 18:46:45 GMT
The tweet I referred to wasn't even quoting the "fever dream" one but an entirely separate J.K. Rowling tweet where she linked to a thread that starts with "The LGBTQ+ lobby likes to claim trans people were a key target of the Nazis. They weren't." THAT is textbook Holocaust denial and if I were you I wouldn't be trying to make an excuse for it. First of all, the claim that JK Rowling is a Holocaust denier arised from the fever dream tweet, not this subsequent thread. Besides, how is that tweet textbook Holocaust denial? I thought textbook Holocaust denial = Holocaust never happened. And what even is the problem with that thread? He's claiming that transpeople weren't the KEY target of the Nazis, not that no transpeople were ever victims of the Nazis. Is that Holocaust denial? There are shades of Holocaust denial. You have people out there who straight-up don't believe it happened, and you have people who believe it did happen but that it wasn't nearly as widespread or that the death toll was inflated, or people who say certain subsets of people weren't targeted, etc. All of it falls under the sphere of Holocaust denial.
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on May 30, 2024 18:54:56 GMT
The tweet I referred to wasn't even quoting the "fever dream" one but an entirely separate J.K. Rowling tweet where she linked to a thread that starts with "The LGBTQ+ lobby likes to claim trans people were a key target of the Nazis. They weren't." THAT is textbook Holocaust denial and if I were you I wouldn't be trying to make an excuse for it. First of all, the claim that JK Rowling is a Holocaust denier arised from the fever dream tweet, not this subsequent thread. Besides, how is that tweet textbook Holocaust denial? I thought textbook Holocaust denial = Holocaust never happened. And what even is the problem with that thread? He's claiming that transpeople weren't the KEY target of the Nazis, not that no transpeople were ever victims of the Nazis. Is that Holocaust denial? I'll address every point one at a time: 1. Okay, so is the narrative then that J.K. Rowling was initially called a Holocaust denier for an innocuous tweet... so then she proved them right by engaging in Holocaust denial? 2. Holocaust denial is defined in German law (who obviously take the Holocaust very seriously) as public denial or downplaying of any aspect of the Holocaust - i.e. questioning the statistics on the number of people killed, questioning the means or methods, and denying the populations targeted such as trans people in this instance. 3. The problem with the thread is probably saying that trans people were not a key target of the Nazis when they were and have been widely acknowledged as such. And per the definition I already mentioned in point #2, that is indeed Holocaust denial.
|
|
|
Post by stabcaesar on May 30, 2024 19:05:04 GMT
First of all, the claim that JK Rowling is a Holocaust denier arised from the fever dream tweet, not this subsequent thread. Besides, how is that tweet textbook Holocaust denial? I thought textbook Holocaust denial = Holocaust never happened. And what even is the problem with that thread? He's claiming that transpeople weren't the KEY target of the Nazis, not that no transpeople were ever victims of the Nazis. Is that Holocaust denial? people who say certain subsets of people weren't targeted, etc. Except that's not what JK Rowling or that guy wrote, though. He wrote transpeople weren't the KEY target of the Nazis. Were they? I'll address every point one at a time: 1. Okay, so is the narrative then that J.K. Rowling was initially called a Holocaust denier for an innocuous tweet... so then she proved them right by engaging in Holocaust denial? 2. Holocaust denial is defined in German law (who obviously take the Holocaust very seriously) as public denial or downplaying of any aspect of the Holocaust - i.e. questioning the statistics on the number of people killed, questioning the means or methods, and denying the populations targeted such as trans people in this instance. 3. The problem with the thread is probably saying that trans people were not a key target of the Nazis when they were and have been widely acknowledged as such. And per the definition I already mentioned in point #2, that is indeed Holocaust denial. Actually no, Holocaust denial is a criminal offense in multiple European countries, Israel, and Canada. It's not exclusively German. And that panel is really educational and illuminating, but I don't see how one panel can be argued as the evidence for the claim that transpeople are widely acknowledged as the KEY target of the Nazis. It's like claiming the Chinese were the KEY target of the Nazis. Yes quite a lot of Chinese people died in concentration camps, but if I say that "Chinese people weren't the key target of the Nazis", am I a Holocaust denier now? Actually I find calling some random groups of population Nazi's KEY target more problematic, as that essentially minimises the crimes against the real key targets of the Nazis, aka Jews, Romanis, Slavs (esp. Poles), and gay men. Anyway I'm done here. This is going nowhere.
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on May 30, 2024 20:00:06 GMT
people who say certain subsets of people weren't targeted, etc. Except that's not what JK Rowling or that guy wrote, though. He wrote transpeople weren't the KEY target of the Nazis. Were they? I'll address every point one at a time: 1. Okay, so is the narrative then that J.K. Rowling was initially called a Holocaust denier for an innocuous tweet... so then she proved them right by engaging in Holocaust denial? 2. Holocaust denial is defined in German law (who obviously take the Holocaust very seriously) as public denial or downplaying of any aspect of the Holocaust - i.e. questioning the statistics on the number of people killed, questioning the means or methods, and denying the populations targeted such as trans people in this instance. 3. The problem with the thread is probably saying that trans people were not a key target of the Nazis when they were and have been widely acknowledged as such. And per the definition I already mentioned in point #2, that is indeed Holocaust denial. Actually no, Holocaust denial is a criminal offense in multiple European countries, Israel, and Canada. It's not exclusively German. And that panel is really educational and illuminating, but I don't see how one panel can be argued as the evidence for the claim that transpeople are widely acknowledged as the KEY target of the Nazis. It's like claiming the Chinese were the KEY target of the Nazis. Yes quite a lot of Chinese people died in concentration camps, but if I say that "Chinese people weren't the key target of the Nazis", am I a Holocaust denier now? Actually I find calling some random groups of population Nazi's KEY target more problematic, as that essentially minimises the crimes against the real key targets of the Nazis, aka Jews, Romanis, Slavs (esp. Poles), and gay men. Anyway I'm done here. This is going nowhere. Nobody said they were "THE" key target, but they were definitely "A" key target (and that was the phrasing of the Twitter thread Rowling linked to - "a" not "the," he was denying their place as a target entirely). They were specifically victimized for their identity much like the Jews, Romanis, Slavs, and gay men.
|
|
|
Post by Martin Stett on May 30, 2024 20:03:26 GMT
*Raises hand*
What is a "terf?" I thought it was like a milf, but apparently not...
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on May 30, 2024 20:05:31 GMT
*Raises hand* What is a "terf?" I thought it was like a milf, but apparently not... It stands for trans-exclusionary radical feminist. The term has kinda been generalized now to mean any trans-exclusionary feminist, not necessarily just radicals.
|
|
|
Post by mhynson27 on May 31, 2024 0:40:02 GMT
Holy shit, what is happening here ![:laugh:](//storage.proboards.com/6692321/images/30ulL7PvEvGt97femFHx.gif) Getting a slight bit of vindication, for all the times stabcaesar has said something that has rubbed me the wrong way. Never knew they were going to go down this route though ![:uhoh:](//storage.proboards.com/6692321/images/c8bbBnLz3a98Jzy_29H2.gif)
|
|
|
Post by mhynson27 on May 31, 2024 0:43:21 GMT
Anyway I'm done here. This is going nowhere. I wonder who's fault that is
|
|
|
Post by stabcaesar on May 31, 2024 6:31:39 GMT
I have no interest in further engaging in this conversation (esp. with those who have gone personal; grow the fuck up), but I do encourage everyone who's slightly interested in this topic to listen to The Witch Trials of JK Rowling podcast by The Free Press.
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on May 31, 2024 6:51:47 GMT
I have no interest in further engaging in this conversation (esp. with those who have gone personal; grow the fuck up), but I do encourage everyone who's slightly interested in this topic to listen to The Witch Trials of JK Rowling podcast by The Free Press. I'd also suggest checking out Contrapoints's video on that podcast and on the topic of Rowling's views on trans issues.
|
|
|
Post by stabcaesar on May 31, 2024 6:54:26 GMT
I have no interest in further engaging in this conversation (esp. with those who have gone personal; grow the fuck up), but I do encourage everyone who's slightly interested in this topic to listen to The Witch Trials of JK Rowling podcast by The Free Press. I'd also suggest checking out Contrapoints's video on that podcast and on the topic of Rowling's views on trans issues. She's actually interviewed in the podcast.
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on May 31, 2024 6:58:36 GMT
I'd also suggest checking out Contrapoints's video on that podcast and on the topic of Rowling's views on trans issues. She's actually interviewed in the podcast. Yeah, I know and that's also discussed in the video.
|
|