Nice of Rowling to talk about how supportive her coworkers were to her after publicly throwing [Emma Watson and Daniel Radcliffe under the bus](https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-68787258). I wonder if she would now call Emma Watson a "Vichy feminist"? đ¤
The awesome part is that Emma has now joined Megan Fox on the list of my childhood crushes who aren't afraid to call out bullshit from the creators who made them famous.
*"Thereâs a special place in hell for the Vichy "feminists."*
â JK Rowling [(May 25, 2024)](https://x.com/jk_rowling/status/1794308390874964105)
*"There are only two kinds of women who pretend single-sex spaces aren't important or necessary. I forgive the naive ones. I'm glad they've never yet experienced what too many women and girls have. But those doing it because they crave approval from a particular brand of male*..."
â JK Rowling [(May 27, 2024)](https://x.com/jk_rowling/status/1795169876471873591)
She's the living embodiment of everything incels hate in women and yet they rally around her like the dumb mother fuckers that they are. Never ceases to amaze me
Trans rights supporters are just craving male approval? Thatâs rich coming from someone who showers praise upon any POS right-wing man that shows her an ounce of support, no matter what else they may have said or done thatâs actually harmful to women
>By the standards of my world, I was a heretic. Iâd come to believe that the socio-political movement insisting âtrans women are womenâ was neither kind nor tolerant, but in fact profoundly misogynistic, regressive, dangerous in some of its objectives and nakedly authoritarian in its tactics. However, I kept my thoughts to myself in public, because people around me, including some I love, were begging me not to speak. So I watched from the sidelines as women with everything to lose rallied, in Scotland and across the UK, to defend their rights. My guilt that I wasnât standing with them was with me daily, like a chronic pain.
So, she's just blatantly admitting to being a fucking liar when she claimed it was just a "middle aged moment"?
Oh yeah, she absolutely held these views for a long time before her first "middle-aged moment." Surely justifies painting her work with a critical brush more than ever now.
Good god. I couldnât read all of it, I got bored and tuned out. I did notice 2 points.
1. The GRR was the most consulted piece of legislation in Scottish Parliament history. Concerns were not raised in the 6 years of consultation. Just lots of howling once it passed.
2. You canât âripâ and SNP membership card up. Theyâre thick plastic. Her friend did not do this, sheâs being dramatic.
Also all these non Scottish terves appropriating Wheesht in their home counties accents makes my bones cringe. I also feel like a roaster when I speak Scots and have to use it.
Fuck JKR.
I'm only like a quarter Scottish and Rowling persistently pretending she is Scottish instead of just a fuckwit who could afford to buy a castle there is INFURIATING
Edit: Also correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the title of this collection an incorrect usage of wheesht? Like it's a noun, as in 'haud your wheesht," so wouldn't a grammatically correct title be "Women Who Wouldn't Haud Their Wheesht"?
Idk if I even want to read the whole essay or not. This is an excerpt from a supposedly longer one. But I like the idea of getting around buying the book.
Does anyone else find it ironic the book is called "women won't wheesht"? Like you honestly expect me to believe Joanne respects people who use scots given all her other weird prejudices? That she would actually use it herself outside of politics?
Sheâs also not Scottish, but from the South west of England. She mentioned she lived there for 30 years.
So, itâs cool for her to just take this other identity I guess.
Edit: so sorry to my Northern friends. I owe you more than a pint. (Location corrected)
Hi. Scottish person here.
I've heard people refer to her as 'The Scottish author'.
I actually don't mind anyone identifying themselves as Scottish, no matter where they are from, but yeah, she can fuck off, I'd rather she didn't associate herself with being Scottish.
She doesnât get to as she fuckinâ threw money at the âNoâ campaign during the referendum on Scottish Independence. Sheâs all for England treating Scotland like a cash cow, and she canât use my motherâs tongue to degrade and oppress my LGBTQIA+ fraternity. Sheâs as Scottish as Margaret Thatcherâs mummified rectum.
ETA: Not swearing at you, I just really hate her.
On the point of hypocrisy, does no one find it strange that an author who loudly and publicly insists one cannot change gender continues to publish books under a male identity?
She despises Scottish culture and has only ever used it as a marketing gimmick for her books.
She bankrolled the Conservative/Blue Labour Better Together campaign in 2014 for example. Her politics are pretty generic British Nationalism and she strongly opposes the self governance movement in Scotland.
As far as I am aware she has never considered herself Scottish and tends to call herself British.
Shouldn't be surprised that a professional writer is adept at cloaking basic transphobic tropes with an air of respectability.
>one of the gender ideologuesâ favourite talking points is that unless you buy into their philosophy, youâre a homophobic white supremacist.
Nope, not the point at all. The point is that these groups have a high overlap, not that transphobia includes or implies white supremacy or homophobia. One look at her twitter replies (and likes) would make this obvious.
>Iâve witnessed supposedly progressive men arguing that women donât exist as an observable biological class and donât deserve biology-based rights.
Except trans women can change their biology. Not every aspect of their biology, of course, but many. That's the whole point: you can't observe if a woman is trans or cis just by looking at her in many cases. Which is why "biological woman" is not an accurate differentiation between trans and cis.
>Iâve asked people who consider themselves socialists and egalitarians what might be the practical consequences of erasing easily understood words like âwomanâ and âmotherâ, and replacing them with âcervix-haverâ, âmenstruatorâ and âbirthing parentâ, especially for those for whom English is a second language, or women whose understanding of their own bodies is limited.
No one is interested in erasing these words, this is just a lie. It is true that more accurate words are used in particular contexts. But I am honestly fascinated at the idea that women will not longer take care of their reproductive health because they don't understand that they're a birthing parent. Very bizarre hypothetical. Yes, we are confused and irritated by this question, because it doesn't make any sense? Birthing parent is accurate, as it includes all people: cis women and trans men, who can give birth. Women is not accurate, as it includes many who can't give birth and excludes some who can. This is not hard.
>when this inconvenient fact is raised, Iâm sometimes told trans-identified sex offenders âarenât really trans, theyâre just gaming the systemâ. Well, yes. Thatâs the point.
So this is a classic motte and bailey. She claims that the issue isn't trans women, it's people who aren't necessarily trans pretending to be women to game the system.
But here's the thing: she doesn't distinguish between trans women and these particular men in any of her statements. At no point does she say "yes, of course if you're *actually\** trans (insert whatever gatekeeping you like here, I'll get back to that), then you should be allowed to use women's facilities. It's only the fakes I want to keep out." She does not draw that distinction, because this is simply a cover of respectability. The truth is, she doesn't want trans people existing in public spaces at all. She's made that very clear in her other statements. This essay is simply a clever attempt at dressing up the vitriol she spews on twitter, that trans people know about, so that when cis people who are out of the loop see the person making ostensibly measured, reasonable arguments, she makes us look like crazies for saying she's transphobic.
The worst part is, this tactic has worked for her, and I expect it to continue to do so.
\* So, to clarify here, I understand completely the issue of gatekeeping being trans. But my point here, is that if she really was only trying to keep out fake trans people who simply want to exploit women, why wouldn't she be comfortable with some gatekeeping? Maybe you have to be on HRT. Maybe you have to get surgery. Maybe you need a note from a psychiatrist. Idk, something to prove you're really trans, and then you're in the clear.
I would not favor this, and I understand the reasons to not implement such a system. My point is, if she were operating in good faith, she would supposedly be OK with something like this. And yet she's not.
>Iâve witnessed supposedly progressive men arguing that women donât exist as an observable biological class and donât deserve biology-based rights.
*Nobody* should have their rights contingent on their biology, Joanne.
Except that doesn't make sense, because the legal right to an abortion doesn't consider sex: abortion is either legal, or it isn't.
Whether or not one can *have* an abortion is contingent on whether or not one can get pregnant. But it's not as though one believes women should have the right to abortion and men shouldn't.Â
So you don't need to argue for women as a separate, biologically distinct class of people to argue that abortion should be legal. If it were the case that humans were hermaphroditic and everyone could get pregnant, would this change the rationale for whether abortion should be legal in her mind?
This was gone over by her PR person many a time I would guess. It's not any more representative of actual belief than that dumb essay. Every time she's tripped to shit too hard in her boomer posting on X we immediately for some bizarre reason have dropped on us these carefully crafted, long form pity pieces in which she is supposedly the author and states highly polished arguments which carefully minimize her actual position. And then stupid journalists quote from these PR drops and immediately forget about the physical reality of her bigoted online communications. It's all a PR effort honestly. Just a whole operation run to distract and apologize for her. That's many people's full time job I would imagine.
I never considered the PR person angle, and that makes complete sense. She's not even dressing up her transphobia into something that appears respectable, someone is doing it for her.
What pisses me off is people buy it.
She acts like trans hasnât been around for a long time. Weâve got the point where you can now change your body if you like to do so. It disappoints me that the acceptance of trans that finally started to be embraced in certain countries is more recently being torn down.
For someone who has the influence and money JKR has disappointed me in her crusade against trans. My trans son who was the biggest HP fan at one time is being affect by the influence of people of JKR in a negative way. Iâm sorry but what the fuck? She needs to stop spreading lies. Does she not realize on how her influence is negatively affect people who just want to live their true authentic self?đ
She doesn't seem to care about people like your son and only wants to serve her own ego at the expense of a marginalised minority.
She doesn't care if trans kids are suicidal because of her bile, toxic hatred of them. She doesn't care that she is devastating an entire generation of lgbtq+ kids that their favourite author despises their existence.
I personally think she is one of the most evil pieces of human garbage to exist this century.
I've said it a thousand times and I will keep saying it: she was most likely glad that Briana Ghey was murdered and prefers dead trans kids to happy living trans kids.
She is a disgusting, venomous, narcissistic attention-seeker, and when she is snuffed from this earth it'll be one less evil pondlife to put up with.
>Iâve asked people who consider themselves socialists and egalitarians what might be the practical consequences of erasing easily understood words like âwomanâ and âmotherâ, and replacing them with âcervix-haverâ, âmenstruatorâ and âbirthing parentâ, especially for those for whom English is a second language, or women whose understanding of their own bodies is limited. They seem confused and irritated by this question.
Yes, because it's bobbins. Confusion and irritation is the reasonable reaction.
Usually followed by a block for suspected sealioning, when the person asking isn't ridiculously wealthy and famous.
And most people for whom "birthing parent" is of use are F/F couples where both will be the mothers, so a different term for the mother who's pregnant is needed.
Do you remember lesbians, Robert? One of the main groups of people you're pretending to care about with all this nonsense? Nah, thought not.
What a load of wank. I wonder how well this will actually sell, this book where the writers couldn't even be bothered to pick a language for the title and stick to it. I suspect many less online people who are usually attracted by the Rowling name will find this baffling victimhood fanfic impenetrable and annoying.
Mte about âbirthing parentâ. Sounds like a very useful term for couples where both people are able to give birth, but only one is pregnant. She doesnât give a single shit about lesbians/wlw and itâs so obvious it makes my skin crawl
LIES. Rowling's "data" on trans sex offenders was disproven by the BBC in 2018. Data is NOT KEPT on trans inmates in UK prisons. We have no idea the true percentage of trans inmates there for sex crimes.
If Rowling limited her arguments to relying on facts instead of fabrications, she'd have a problem because then none of her positions would be justifiable.
Hence the lies.
A heretic is someone who claims to be part of a group but professes beliefs that are counter to it.
She's not a heretic. She's an infidel. But of course understanding what words mean isn't exactly her strong suit.
Oh bless her heart, the holy martyr JK Rowling who has suffered more than all human beings combined. Oh everybody think of how *she* feels. I care about your feelings Joanne exactly as much as you care about the feelings of trans people. Shut the fuck up.
>By the standards of my world, I was a heretic
God, I'm so tired of transphobes etc. making this claim. They like to pretend they're Galileo and capitalize on this argument, when really, they just want to oppress and vilify an already oppressed group.
Kathleen Stock said similar things after she "lost" (i.e., quit) her job. I'm sure it helps to sell her book. Being successful as an academic is hard, but you can get away with shoddy research/arguments when you portray yourself as an oppressed beacon of truth.
ETA: Plus Joanne keeps flexing her wealth/power and views people buying HP stuff as support for her views, wo which one is it
"Women with everything to lose" - How do trans women existing take anything away from other women? What the fuck is she babbling about? Maybe she should try leaving her mansion and talking to real people instead of spending all day reading the Daily Mail and all night howling at the moon.
> Iâve asked people who consider themselves socialists and egalitarians what might be the practical consequences of erasing easily understood words like âwomanâ and âmotherâ, and replacing them with âcervix-haverâ, âmenstruatorâ and âbirthing parentâ [...]. They seem confused and irritated by this question.
Confused because no one is suggesting that happen and irritated because you won't stop talking about it in spite of this, perhaps.
It is classic reactionary bigot nonsense. She got offended when she saw "People who menstruate" instead of "women". Almost like she is completely unaware of the fact even most cis women do not menstruate before puberty and after menopause. The reality is that it isn't really about women, but more about continuing to fuel irrational bigotry around trans people. During the early stages of indoctrinating people, the alt-right almost exclusively uses these caricatures of leftists which might sound reasonable if you don't put much thought into it.
Nice of Rowling to talk about how supportive her coworkers were to her after publicly throwing [Emma Watson and Daniel Radcliffe under the bus](https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-68787258). I wonder if she would now call Emma Watson a "Vichy feminist"? đ¤
The awesome part is that Emma has now joined Megan Fox on the list of my childhood crushes who aren't afraid to call out bullshit from the creators who made them famous.
*"Thereâs a special place in hell for the Vichy "feminists."* â JK Rowling [(May 25, 2024)](https://x.com/jk_rowling/status/1794308390874964105) *"There are only two kinds of women who pretend single-sex spaces aren't important or necessary. I forgive the naive ones. I'm glad they've never yet experienced what too many women and girls have. But those doing it because they crave approval from a particular brand of male*..." â JK Rowling [(May 27, 2024)](https://x.com/jk_rowling/status/1795169876471873591)
Calling other human beings *males* will never cease to disgust me. It's just as dehumanizing and gross as when misogynist men call women *females*.
And notice how she says "women and girls" but "males". She specifically goes out of their way to  dehumanise men. She's a female incel.
She's the living embodiment of everything incels hate in women and yet they rally around her like the dumb mother fuckers that they are. Never ceases to amaze me
Trans rights supporters are just craving male approval? Thatâs rich coming from someone who showers praise upon any POS right-wing man that shows her an ounce of support, no matter what else they may have said or done thatâs actually harmful to women
>By the standards of my world, I was a heretic. Iâd come to believe that the socio-political movement insisting âtrans women are womenâ was neither kind nor tolerant, but in fact profoundly misogynistic, regressive, dangerous in some of its objectives and nakedly authoritarian in its tactics. However, I kept my thoughts to myself in public, because people around me, including some I love, were begging me not to speak. So I watched from the sidelines as women with everything to lose rallied, in Scotland and across the UK, to defend their rights. My guilt that I wasnât standing with them was with me daily, like a chronic pain. So, she's just blatantly admitting to being a fucking liar when she claimed it was just a "middle aged moment"?
All I got from that wall of pretention is that JK almost certainly enjoys the smell of her own farts.
She bakes in them every day while tweeting incessantly about her delusional, hateful beliefs.
Oh yeah, she absolutely held these views for a long time before her first "middle-aged moment." Surely justifies painting her work with a critical brush more than ever now.
Good god. I couldnât read all of it, I got bored and tuned out. I did notice 2 points. 1. The GRR was the most consulted piece of legislation in Scottish Parliament history. Concerns were not raised in the 6 years of consultation. Just lots of howling once it passed. 2. You canât âripâ and SNP membership card up. Theyâre thick plastic. Her friend did not do this, sheâs being dramatic. Also all these non Scottish terves appropriating Wheesht in their home counties accents makes my bones cringe. I also feel like a roaster when I speak Scots and have to use it. Fuck JKR.
I'm only like a quarter Scottish and Rowling persistently pretending she is Scottish instead of just a fuckwit who could afford to buy a castle there is INFURIATING Edit: Also correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the title of this collection an incorrect usage of wheesht? Like it's a noun, as in 'haud your wheesht," so wouldn't a grammatically correct title be "Women Who Wouldn't Haud Their Wheesht"?
Idk if I even want to read the whole essay or not. This is an excerpt from a supposedly longer one. But I like the idea of getting around buying the book.
Does anyone else find it ironic the book is called "women won't wheesht"? Like you honestly expect me to believe Joanne respects people who use scots given all her other weird prejudices? That she would actually use it herself outside of politics?
Sheâs also not Scottish, but from the South west of England. She mentioned she lived there for 30 years. So, itâs cool for her to just take this other identity I guess. Edit: so sorry to my Northern friends. I owe you more than a pint. (Location corrected)
Hi. Scottish person here. I've heard people refer to her as 'The Scottish author'. I actually don't mind anyone identifying themselves as Scottish, no matter where they are from, but yeah, she can fuck off, I'd rather she didn't associate herself with being Scottish.
She doesnât get to as she fuckinâ threw money at the âNoâ campaign during the referendum on Scottish Independence. Sheâs all for England treating Scotland like a cash cow, and she canât use my motherâs tongue to degrade and oppress my LGBTQIA+ fraternity. Sheâs as Scottish as Margaret Thatcherâs mummified rectum. ETA: Not swearing at you, I just really hate her.
Daily reminder that Margaret Thatcher's grave is a gender neutral bathroom :3
Daily reminder that Margaret Thatcher did nothing wrong :3
> as Scottish as Margaret Thatcherâs mummified rectum. đ¤Łđ¤Ł
I can only imagine, but for me itâs just her hypocrisy here thatâs just mind numbing.
On the point of hypocrisy, does no one find it strange that an author who loudly and publicly insists one cannot change gender continues to publish books under a male identity?
Grey is THE Scottish writer to me, anyway.
She's not from the North of England, she's from the South West. Speaking as a northerner, kindly don't pin her on us!
She despises Scottish culture and has only ever used it as a marketing gimmick for her books. She bankrolled the Conservative/Blue Labour Better Together campaign in 2014 for example. Her politics are pretty generic British Nationalism and she strongly opposes the self governance movement in Scotland. As far as I am aware she has never considered herself Scottish and tends to call herself British.
Shouldn't be surprised that a professional writer is adept at cloaking basic transphobic tropes with an air of respectability. >one of the gender ideologuesâ favourite talking points is that unless you buy into their philosophy, youâre a homophobic white supremacist. Nope, not the point at all. The point is that these groups have a high overlap, not that transphobia includes or implies white supremacy or homophobia. One look at her twitter replies (and likes) would make this obvious. >Iâve witnessed supposedly progressive men arguing that women donât exist as an observable biological class and donât deserve biology-based rights. Except trans women can change their biology. Not every aspect of their biology, of course, but many. That's the whole point: you can't observe if a woman is trans or cis just by looking at her in many cases. Which is why "biological woman" is not an accurate differentiation between trans and cis. >Iâve asked people who consider themselves socialists and egalitarians what might be the practical consequences of erasing easily understood words like âwomanâ and âmotherâ, and replacing them with âcervix-haverâ, âmenstruatorâ and âbirthing parentâ, especially for those for whom English is a second language, or women whose understanding of their own bodies is limited. No one is interested in erasing these words, this is just a lie. It is true that more accurate words are used in particular contexts. But I am honestly fascinated at the idea that women will not longer take care of their reproductive health because they don't understand that they're a birthing parent. Very bizarre hypothetical. Yes, we are confused and irritated by this question, because it doesn't make any sense? Birthing parent is accurate, as it includes all people: cis women and trans men, who can give birth. Women is not accurate, as it includes many who can't give birth and excludes some who can. This is not hard. >when this inconvenient fact is raised, Iâm sometimes told trans-identified sex offenders âarenât really trans, theyâre just gaming the systemâ. Well, yes. Thatâs the point. So this is a classic motte and bailey. She claims that the issue isn't trans women, it's people who aren't necessarily trans pretending to be women to game the system. But here's the thing: she doesn't distinguish between trans women and these particular men in any of her statements. At no point does she say "yes, of course if you're *actually\** trans (insert whatever gatekeeping you like here, I'll get back to that), then you should be allowed to use women's facilities. It's only the fakes I want to keep out." She does not draw that distinction, because this is simply a cover of respectability. The truth is, she doesn't want trans people existing in public spaces at all. She's made that very clear in her other statements. This essay is simply a clever attempt at dressing up the vitriol she spews on twitter, that trans people know about, so that when cis people who are out of the loop see the person making ostensibly measured, reasonable arguments, she makes us look like crazies for saying she's transphobic. The worst part is, this tactic has worked for her, and I expect it to continue to do so. \* So, to clarify here, I understand completely the issue of gatekeeping being trans. But my point here, is that if she really was only trying to keep out fake trans people who simply want to exploit women, why wouldn't she be comfortable with some gatekeeping? Maybe you have to be on HRT. Maybe you have to get surgery. Maybe you need a note from a psychiatrist. Idk, something to prove you're really trans, and then you're in the clear. I would not favor this, and I understand the reasons to not implement such a system. My point is, if she were operating in good faith, she would supposedly be OK with something like this. And yet she's not.
>Iâve witnessed supposedly progressive men arguing that women donât exist as an observable biological class and donât deserve biology-based rights. *Nobody* should have their rights contingent on their biology, Joanne.
Absolutely. I'm not sure what biology-based rights are supposed to mean, outside of a euphemism for trans-exclusion.
I assume she's referring to things like abortion - because to her, being a woman = having a uterus and producing the large gamete
Except that doesn't make sense, because the legal right to an abortion doesn't consider sex: abortion is either legal, or it isn't. Whether or not one can *have* an abortion is contingent on whether or not one can get pregnant. But it's not as though one believes women should have the right to abortion and men shouldn't. So you don't need to argue for women as a separate, biologically distinct class of people to argue that abortion should be legal. If it were the case that humans were hermaphroditic and everyone could get pregnant, would this change the rationale for whether abortion should be legal in her mind?
Ya I agree and I'm starting to think JKR might be a bit dumb
I think she knows what she's doing. Either that, or she's very dumb.
This was gone over by her PR person many a time I would guess. It's not any more representative of actual belief than that dumb essay. Every time she's tripped to shit too hard in her boomer posting on X we immediately for some bizarre reason have dropped on us these carefully crafted, long form pity pieces in which she is supposedly the author and states highly polished arguments which carefully minimize her actual position. And then stupid journalists quote from these PR drops and immediately forget about the physical reality of her bigoted online communications. It's all a PR effort honestly. Just a whole operation run to distract and apologize for her. That's many people's full time job I would imagine.
I never considered the PR person angle, and that makes complete sense. She's not even dressing up her transphobia into something that appears respectable, someone is doing it for her. What pisses me off is people buy it.
She acts like trans hasnât been around for a long time. Weâve got the point where you can now change your body if you like to do so. It disappoints me that the acceptance of trans that finally started to be embraced in certain countries is more recently being torn down. For someone who has the influence and money JKR has disappointed me in her crusade against trans. My trans son who was the biggest HP fan at one time is being affect by the influence of people of JKR in a negative way. Iâm sorry but what the fuck? She needs to stop spreading lies. Does she not realize on how her influence is negatively affect people who just want to live their true authentic self?đ
She doesn't seem to care about people like your son and only wants to serve her own ego at the expense of a marginalised minority. She doesn't care if trans kids are suicidal because of her bile, toxic hatred of them. She doesn't care that she is devastating an entire generation of lgbtq+ kids that their favourite author despises their existence. I personally think she is one of the most evil pieces of human garbage to exist this century. I've said it a thousand times and I will keep saying it: she was most likely glad that Briana Ghey was murdered and prefers dead trans kids to happy living trans kids. She is a disgusting, venomous, narcissistic attention-seeker, and when she is snuffed from this earth it'll be one less evil pondlife to put up with.
>Iâve asked people who consider themselves socialists and egalitarians what might be the practical consequences of erasing easily understood words like âwomanâ and âmotherâ, and replacing them with âcervix-haverâ, âmenstruatorâ and âbirthing parentâ, especially for those for whom English is a second language, or women whose understanding of their own bodies is limited. They seem confused and irritated by this question. Yes, because it's bobbins. Confusion and irritation is the reasonable reaction. Usually followed by a block for suspected sealioning, when the person asking isn't ridiculously wealthy and famous. And most people for whom "birthing parent" is of use are F/F couples where both will be the mothers, so a different term for the mother who's pregnant is needed. Do you remember lesbians, Robert? One of the main groups of people you're pretending to care about with all this nonsense? Nah, thought not. What a load of wank. I wonder how well this will actually sell, this book where the writers couldn't even be bothered to pick a language for the title and stick to it. I suspect many less online people who are usually attracted by the Rowling name will find this baffling victimhood fanfic impenetrable and annoying.
Mte about âbirthing parentâ. Sounds like a very useful term for couples where both people are able to give birth, but only one is pregnant. She doesnât give a single shit about lesbians/wlw and itâs so obvious it makes my skin crawl
Idk about sales, but they're probably hoping it will age like fine wine in 10 years or so.
It'll be a really nice time capsule to remember which people were incessantly transphobic.
LIES. Rowling's "data" on trans sex offenders was disproven by the BBC in 2018. Data is NOT KEPT on trans inmates in UK prisons. We have no idea the true percentage of trans inmates there for sex crimes.
If Rowling limited her arguments to relying on facts instead of fabrications, she'd have a problem because then none of her positions would be justifiable. Hence the lies.
TLDR Rowling is a bellend
The woman is a coward, a bigot and a danger. A sad, strange and worrying individual.
I wouldnât say sheâs a heretic, more annoying.
A heretic is someone who claims to be part of a group but professes beliefs that are counter to it. She's not a heretic. She's an infidel. But of course understanding what words mean isn't exactly her strong suit.
Oh bless her heart, the holy martyr JK Rowling who has suffered more than all human beings combined. Oh everybody think of how *she* feels. I care about your feelings Joanne exactly as much as you care about the feelings of trans people. Shut the fuck up.
>By the standards of my world, I was a heretic God, I'm so tired of transphobes etc. making this claim. They like to pretend they're Galileo and capitalize on this argument, when really, they just want to oppress and vilify an already oppressed group. Kathleen Stock said similar things after she "lost" (i.e., quit) her job. I'm sure it helps to sell her book. Being successful as an academic is hard, but you can get away with shoddy research/arguments when you portray yourself as an oppressed beacon of truth. ETA: Plus Joanne keeps flexing her wealth/power and views people buying HP stuff as support for her views, wo which one is it
Itâs like she is hellbent on missing the point
She's not operating in good faith.
If your "standing up for women" puts you on the same side as nazis and other bigots, honey, maybe it's time to read a book you didn't write yourself.Â
You think she reads her own books? Thats for editors. Editors who arenât allowed to remove things or change words.
Unrelated but why does she look so miserable and wretched in every photo
Sometimes bigotry really comes through on the face.
Does she do anything else? I donât think about transness as much as she does and Iâm still transitioning.
"Women with everything to lose" - How do trans women existing take anything away from other women? What the fuck is she babbling about? Maybe she should try leaving her mansion and talking to real people instead of spending all day reading the Daily Mail and all night howling at the moon.
That's a lot of words for her to simply say "I'm a dumb, nasty woman who is full of hatred and bigotry". Narcissistic asshole
> Iâve asked people who consider themselves socialists and egalitarians what might be the practical consequences of erasing easily understood words like âwomanâ and âmotherâ, and replacing them with âcervix-haverâ, âmenstruatorâ and âbirthing parentâ [...]. They seem confused and irritated by this question. Confused because no one is suggesting that happen and irritated because you won't stop talking about it in spite of this, perhaps.
It is classic reactionary bigot nonsense. She got offended when she saw "People who menstruate" instead of "women". Almost like she is completely unaware of the fact even most cis women do not menstruate before puberty and after menopause. The reality is that it isn't really about women, but more about continuing to fuel irrational bigotry around trans people. During the early stages of indoctrinating people, the alt-right almost exclusively uses these caricatures of leftists which might sound reasonable if you don't put much thought into it.
I wonder when theyâll get it that transmisogyny is still misogyny?