The most famous forms of Holocaust denial and revisionism tend to focus on Jews, casting doubt, for example, on how many were exterminated in the camps. But denying the impact the Nazis had on the other groups they targeted, including queer and trans people, disabled people and Romani people, is still Holocaust denial. Maybe someone should tell J.K. Rowling.

  • Sodis@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    9 months ago

    No, she moved the goalpost to “they were not the first”, her original statement was completely different.

    • Landslide7648
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      9 months ago

      What was it? I’ve only seen the screenshots shared by the other person, it was them who put the focus on it imho. Either way I haven’t seen any other statement, care to share that?

        • Landslide7648
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          25
          ·
          9 months ago

          Yeah it’s because the Alejandra person actually claimed those things.

          As critical as I’m of JK Rowlings trans denial, this appears to be blown way out of proportion by people who want to pin another label on her that will make their fight more righteous.

          This is nothing but culture war

          • Sodis@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            22
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            Where?
            Some person: Nazis burned books on transgenders
            Rowling: That’s a lie. Alejandra: Here sources proving, that nazis did indeed burn books, including a German court ruling that explicitly stated, that nazis moved against transgenders too and the denial of that is Holocaust denial.
            Rowling: But they were not the first victims and they didn’t burn all books.

            Like, her whole argument is completely off. She is the only one, that ever mentioned “all books” and “first victims”.

            • Landslide7648
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              9
              ·
              9 months ago

              She isn’t the one that first spoke of “all”, she’s referring to this message.

              Anyway, I don’t think this entire argument is done in good faith nor by Alejandra nor JK Rowling.

              • Sodis@feddit.de
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                7
                ·
                9 months ago

                That’s a different thread though. Alejandra might not have been aware of it, like I was.

                • Landslide7648
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  5
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  Good point. I didn’t realise that it was a different thread under the same post.

                  But regardless this doesn’t make Alejandra look like she’s acting in good faith. Her accusation of holocaust denial is a reaction to this post

                  I don’t read that as “JKR demands a source for persecution of transgender by the nazis” and more as a “JKR demands a source for her upholding gender ideology of the nazis”.

                  At the very least Alejandra could have asked for clarification before throwing “holocaust denier” in the ring.

                  But I also admit that I don’t actually follow this very closely, so it’s possible I’m wrong and JKR meant to state there was no persecution of transgender.

                  Again, a follow up question would have clarified that. But both sides, her, her supporters and the people who attack her are so deep down that cycle of outrage that they are not really interested in understanding where the other person is coming from. They just want to be right.

                  In my opinion it’s a pointless discussion.