Does anyone know why she’s extremely active in the transphobic rhetoric? Is she just bored now that she has all the money one could hope for? It’s strange to me.
As far as I can make sense of the “why”, she’s been deeply affected by past abuse and has been an avid supporter of abused women for most of her life. And when she got push back in milder comments of hers about concerns on trans individuals in what she sees as exclusively cisgendered women’s spaces, she chose to take it as an attack on the groups she values instead of a chance to adapt. Since then she’s just dug in further and further. I’d like to think that one day she’ll be able to see the common ground, but it seems unlikely at this point.
And fwiw, none of this is meant as a defense of her actions. Just an explanation.
@ech@Pilferjinx Well she never actually believed Trans woman are woman even though she said that she supports us. All started to come out when a Terf got fired for discriminating against Trans colleague and Jo raised her voice in support of the Terf. She basically sounded like a white cishet misogynist man. And from there she is just on revenge path and she doesn’t care who she hurts (kids included). Even if she finds a common ground, there is absolutely nothing she can do to compensate for the damage she has done.
Not fired; the woman in question was on a fixed contract which wasn’t renewed when it came to an end, because she was bullying and acting like an unpleasant arse.
The judgement was careful and thoughtful, but was glossed as “you can’t even say you’re a woman without going to prison these days”. When you read about a judgement that sounds so bizarre as to be unbelievable, there is a good chance (in the UK at the least) that it didn’t say what is reported. (Cf. “We can’t deport terrorists because it’s against their pet cat’s human rights”.) Social media is a machine for making people insane. The rest is history.
The ruling makes for excellent reading. Anyone has a right to their beliefs, but professing those beliefs is not protected if they are not “worthy of respect in a democratic society, being not incompatible with human dignity and not conflicting with the fundamental rights of others”. In terms of the paradox of tolerance, it’s a remarkable bit of good sense.
Maya Forstater was the name IIRC; that doesn’t spring readily to mind but that line really stuck.
No actions will be sufficient to undo the harm, but there are actions that can demonstrate change and shift the balance of harm to help away from where it is. Her actions are like with climate change, what’s done is done and there are consequences that can’t be avoided, but it still is worth doing a full 180
i would largely agree with you, though it seems to me that (as is often the case) the resposes to her milder comments had a sort of push-and-pull effect: she was critizised by lgbt-activists on the one side, yes. but I think the approval she got from the other side (ranging from confused older people like herself at the time, all the way to basically nazis) might have had an even bigger effect. she is now pretty entrenched in the transphobic circles, and i dont think that just happens by virtue of being told off on the internet.
youtuber shaun has 2 pretty good videos on rowlings new friends:
Some people get a little success and think that that justifies being a condescending and cruel alleged expert on everything in the world, free from consequences.
See: The creator of Dilbert, Elon Musk, Shia LaBeauf, Andrew Tate, etc.
Fuck that transphobic rich old bag. No one owes her anything, least of all an apology for being inclusive…
Does anyone know why she’s extremely active in the transphobic rhetoric? Is she just bored now that she has all the money one could hope for? It’s strange to me.
As far as I can make sense of the “why”, she’s been deeply affected by past abuse and has been an avid supporter of abused women for most of her life. And when she got push back in milder comments of hers about concerns on trans individuals in what she sees as exclusively cisgendered women’s spaces, she chose to take it as an attack on the groups she values instead of a chance to adapt. Since then she’s just dug in further and further. I’d like to think that one day she’ll be able to see the common ground, but it seems unlikely at this point.
And fwiw, none of this is meant as a defense of her actions. Just an explanation.
@ech @Pilferjinx Well she never actually believed Trans woman are woman even though she said that she supports us. All started to come out when a Terf got fired for discriminating against Trans colleague and Jo raised her voice in support of the Terf. She basically sounded like a white cishet misogynist man. And from there she is just on revenge path and she doesn’t care who she hurts (kids included). Even if she finds a common ground, there is absolutely nothing she can do to compensate for the damage she has done.
Not fired; the woman in question was on a fixed contract which wasn’t renewed when it came to an end, because she was bullying and acting like an unpleasant arse.
The judgement was careful and thoughtful, but was glossed as “you can’t even say you’re a woman without going to prison these days”. When you read about a judgement that sounds so bizarre as to be unbelievable, there is a good chance (in the UK at the least) that it didn’t say what is reported. (Cf. “We can’t deport terrorists because it’s against their pet cat’s human rights”.) Social media is a machine for making people insane. The rest is history.
The ruling makes for excellent reading. Anyone has a right to their beliefs, but professing those beliefs is not protected if they are not “worthy of respect in a democratic society, being not incompatible with human dignity and not conflicting with the fundamental rights of others”. In terms of the paradox of tolerance, it’s a remarkable bit of good sense.
Maya Forstater was the name IIRC; that doesn’t spring readily to mind but that line really stuck.
No actions will be sufficient to undo the harm, but there are actions that can demonstrate change and shift the balance of harm to help away from where it is. Her actions are like with climate change, what’s done is done and there are consequences that can’t be avoided, but it still is worth doing a full 180
i would largely agree with you, though it seems to me that (as is often the case) the resposes to her milder comments had a sort of push-and-pull effect: she was critizised by lgbt-activists on the one side, yes. but I think the approval she got from the other side (ranging from confused older people like herself at the time, all the way to basically nazis) might have had an even bigger effect. she is now pretty entrenched in the transphobic circles, and i dont think that just happens by virtue of being told off on the internet.
youtuber shaun has 2 pretty good videos on rowlings new friends:
JK Rowling’s New Friends
and
Kellie-Jay & the Neo-Nazis
Some people get a little success and think that that justifies being a condescending and cruel alleged expert on everything in the world, free from consequences.
See: The creator of Dilbert, Elon Musk, Shia LaBeauf, Andrew Tate, etc.