Hogwarts Legacy Vs Jk Rowling Haters

Did she 'start' it?

Genuine question, I don't really know.

 

Coming from someone who used to work in a transgender health and research, I think the JK Rowling hate is overblown.

I personally don’t think it’s transphobic or even should be controversial to say biological sex is important and a biological, empirical truth, nor that gender is a constructed concept, shaped iteratively by society and by biology.

Saying the colour pink or long hair is for girls is as stupid as saying sex is not at all important: trans people, even after operations and hormone treatments, are still predisposed to certain medical problems related to their biological sex, and not by their chosen gender.

JK Rowling has actually argued for better protection for trans people. But as someone who was sexually abused, feels there should be greater protections for safe spaces such as toilets and changing rooms, for which access of biologically males can be challenged.

To me, the question is what harm is greater. Asking a very small proportion of trans people, who suffer horrific abuse, to use toilets, changing rooms, prisons etc that are either for their birth sex or gender neutral, such as disabled spaces.

Or allowing people born in the male sex at birth access to women’s toilets, changing rooms and prisons without being able to challenge them, knowing that a tiny percentage of men would enter with malign intentions.

Either way, it’s a complex and nuanced philosophical debate that should have no impact on whether you like a game, LGBT or not. I think those arguing to boycott the game will have the opposite effect: driving people to google it, see how good the reviews are and be more likely to purchase it.

 

I don’t think it’s helpful to boycott a game or even to particularly fix on Rowling. Trans people have a more positive narrative to tell.

Rowling has had lots of opportunities to dial down her rhetoric and try to find common ground. She seems to prefer to ally herself with very hateful people indeed and a very hateful ruling class agenda, intent on weaponising the debate in order to skewer the Labour Party and more generally, liberals of all hues. So, boo hoo and all that.

And are we not done with HP now, it’s derivative elite fantasy of being born to a life where everything is magical and made bespoke for you? Where you are educated apart in a *** off big castle and do not share your power with the dismal (working class) muggles?

 

That’s exactly what was said before Harry Potter appeared.

My niece (now 12) has certainly read some, although she isn’t a “superfan” as such.

 

Can you clarify? Are you saying that only a very small proportion of trans people would wish to use gender neutral facilities / facilities for their new gender, or that trans people make up only a small proportion of the general population?

 

She has not at all done that. She has voiced support for LGBT+ people over and over again, but has said that males should not be allowed to enter spaces for vulnerable females simply because they say they feel that they are a woman.

 

You might be done with Harry Potter but as a middle aged man so you should be! Judging by the success of the HP world in Leavesden I imagine it remains highly popular with youngsters.

 

That doesn’t follow. Plenty of middle aged people read the books when they first came out, as any Tube journey would demonstrate.

 

True. Adults reading children's books. Says everything about modern Britain

 

It’s a straw man though, because men don’t usually bother to dress up as women to attack women. They usually just have a relationship with them or marry them or meet them for a date online.

The numbers of transwomen using female toilets and other spaces must be vanishingly small. You just wouldn’t go there in this climate. There are lots of good reasons to have some single space toilets in public buildings and this is one of them.

All in all, there is nothing about keeping gender recognition hard and humiliating that makes anyone safer.

 

Being a parent of a certain age, the last 15 years seems saturated with it. I’ve read it out loud, watched it and played fecking board games about it. Just when I thought it was done our Scandinavian friends come over and they have to do the HP tour.

The shop at the end is an eye-opener. £300 for Dumbledore’s dressing gown? No wonder Rowling can indulge her dubious causes.

 

That's my take on it too. When I first read about her transphobic comments a number of years ago, I went to look at what she had said in its entirety and it wasn't at all what people had made it out to be. For me, it's another cautionary tale about believing what you read without checking the facts yourself.

Here's what Rowling wrote a mere 3 years ago:



Hardly the words of a rampant transphobe there, really.

I don't agree that's the case. Up until now, society hasn't been remotely tolerant of people entering women-only spaces while looking physically male. If that were to change, I think it's beyond doubt that predatory types will absolutely abuse vulnerabilities created by new social policies if given half a chance, and it's important to discuss the potential impact of that as part of the discovery process.

For example, I doubt anyone considered the risk of trans-female inmates raping other women/inmates, but it has come up more than once recently. Examples:

US inmate:

https://nypost.com/2022/04/25/transgender-rikers-inmate-gets-7-years-for-raping-female-prisoner/

Scotland:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...ty-rape-not-be-held-in-womens-prison-sturgeon

These are not easy legal and social issues to traverse. It should be noted that they are the thin end of the wedge, since we're talking about a tiny percentage of an already tiny demographic here. But given that we already know that some transwomen are raping other women, I don't think it's much of a stretch to assume that some predatory men will pretend to be trans in order to gain access to otherwise unavailable areas. It's important to have that discussion openly because throwing around inappropriate labels will only solidify opposition and give shelter to actual transphobes.

 

Tough cases make bad laws.

Men kill women in the home at the rate of six a week. Hundreds of murdered women a year. Hundreds.

Why are we letting men marry women?

 

That's exactly the sort of whataboutism you'd rightly criticise if one of the right wing weirdos on here used it.

The simple question for me is, if the only thing you need to access women's spaces is to say 'I am a woman' then what safeguards are there to prevent that being abused?

Sex and gender are different - that is a fundamental tenet of trans rights activism. Things like prison, shelters, female sports etc should be defined on sex, not gender.

The 'trans community' is not a homogenous entity of old style transsexuals. There are a whole rainbow of people with different reasons and definitions of transitioning in there. They don't all need to be granted unfettered access to women's spaces.

 

No, bad lawmakers make bad laws.

If you think this example is remotely comparable then I think you may have fundamentally misunderstood the point being made.

 

Trans women would not have got unfettered access to women’s spaces through the Scots gender ID bill.

I made a daft argument to show up the fallacy of saying one group can’t have something because some people are bad.

But we are not going to agree.

 

The the most eloquent account (I was going to say 'defence' but that seems too strong for what you've written) of JKR's 'actions' that I've ever read.

 

Also, the 'Trans Battles' (as viewed up as the ongoing Woke Wars) through up some very odd things. My area of 'expertise'/interest was the use of puberty blockers - this came about through 'membership' of the most marginalised/discriminated against community there is SEND children (early puberty is not uncommon in our kids and the drugs are generally used for 'extreme' cases, particularly in girls, it was quite eye-opening to be told by an endocrinologist that at almost 9 my son was borderline for such treatment). Now the latest 'odd' thing is a book review by Private Eye's "Bookworm". Why "odd"? Well in my nearly 40 years of being a subscriber to the rag Bookworm has published two non-negative reviews, they're usually hatchet jobs basically, of a book. The first, a few years ago was, ISTR, Paul O'Grady's autobiography and the second was in this week's edition of the rag:

PDF of large scan.

FWIW I *think* JKR's (and Graham Linehan's) statements on 'trans' have been woefully and disingenuously 'reported' by the media and misrepresented/misconstrued by a very vocal section of the trans lobby - but isn't this just another example of the confusion between the artistic output of an 'artist' and 'the artist'? A 21st century version of say the debate about, the repulsive, Eric Gill's work?

I remember listening to R4's PM 'feature' on this (apologies it's a Scottish Daily Express piece with a link to the piece from GL) where the, frankly ludicrous, trans activist was allowed to continually describe their claims as "...anecdotal evidence...." - I dunno about you but in my world there's 'anecdote' and there's 'evidence': they're two very different things.

 

Putting aside Rowling’s ‘support’ how is it you feel the law should be framed?

I’m presuming that you are not against transgender per se? If so, how is it you want this recognised in law? Are you saying that transgender women should never be allowed to use female spaces, even say 20 years post transition? This for clarity.

 

So. You are on record saying that over 300 women are killed at home by men each year?

Of the 696 recorded homicides in England and Wales in 2021/22, 498 of the victims were male and 198 of the victims were female.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1221306/homicides-in-england-and-wales-by-gender/

And that is before the location of each homicide is taken into account, or the sex of the perpetrator, understanding that a woman is far more likely to kill another woman than they are a man. 10% of homicides are carried out by women.

Men kill far more men than they do women.

But when it comes down to it, 0.0000005% of the population being murdered, whether at home or not, whether by men or not, is a very different figure to six women a week.

It is not the first time this has been pointed out to you. Where are you getting your statistics from?

And just as an aside, are you aware that a trans person is less likely to be assaulted than a person who is not trans? In the UK.

 

APOLS - It wasn't PM (although this interview was quite nasty) - it must have been the Media Show.

I'm searching for the clip and I'm going down all sorts of deeply unpleasant rabbit holes I'll think I'll stop.

 

I think he is actually just pointing out, factually, what Rowling said. Sorry if I got that wrong.

But the issue is not necessarily about men directly entering women’s spaces, but them being permitted by law to allow themselves to do so, simply because they can.

Literally, Rowling and TERFS are pushing back on movement by society towards that position, of men being able to walk into women’s spaces and say it is a hate crime to complain. And you are still here saying men won’t dress up as women to assault women, yet the Scottish first minister will be standing down because the arguments she and you are making do not stand up to reality.

This is a very strange hill to want to die on, but if your argument has the likely affect of making a few more people feel a bit icky, making them consider that a reasonable voice is not a hateful voice, then please go ahead. I suspect that, like Sturgeon, you will do more for those who oppose your views than you will your allies.

And for all your pointing out the nature of men as women’s great enemy, do you not think it is ironic that you are standing up for a man to put on a dress and say “I am an equal woman to you.” It is the ultimate act of misogyny, and here you are. Again, this is behaviour usually associated with right wing tories, often given the label of gammon. Only you are claiming to be progressive.

Trust women when they say they have concerns about it, and maybe don’t go mansplaining why they should shut up and do what they are told by men who know better.

 

What a nasty post. Transgender defined as misogynistic cross dressing.

Still, better that others know who they are getting into bed with.

 

Very silly Moose.

I am explaining that men telling women what to do is misogynistic, whatever clothes they are wearing, or however they choose to deliver their message.

You are explaining that it is not misogynistic if that man is wearing a dress, or simply if they are identifying as a woman at the time they said it. That is the perfect example of why these women, like Rowling, are pushing back.

So, are you saying that a trans woman accusing other natural women of hate crimes is a case of women self hating? And not a complex form of misogyny? Go on. Answer that please. I’ll bet Sturgeon is glad she doesn’t have to answer questions like that any more.

Of course you won’t, but here’s hoping.

Thank you for letting others know, on here, exactly what level of misogyny you yourself are capable of.

 

Fair question and yes, I feel that if a woman has transitioned fully, with hormones, lived as a woman etc. Then I'd support them being treated exactly the same as natal women, as long as there were no objections to them being in such spaces from the other occupants (eg fearful abused women).

 

Thing is, isn’t this just the same then, just over a longer time period?

Trans women, by this proposal, would be allowed in (some) women’s spaces. If men are going to use permissive law to dress as women to attack women, then surely nothing changes unless you ban transgender women from those spaces in perpetuity? Men could, in theory, just pose as the example of a fully transitioned woman you provide?

The SNP bill allowed for a less punitive approach to transition, which currently is extremely lengthy and medicalised. Theresa May proposed similar relaxation of the requirements until the issue became very politicised.

There are 30 Countries that have a more relaxed approach to self ID, including Denmark and the Irish Republic. Surely their experience can indicate whether there has been an increased threat?

 

Given the miniscule percentage of the population that are said to be transgender I'm amazed the 'issue' gets the attention that it does. And, of course, the idea that a chap can put on a frock and say he's a woman and we all have to accept that he is a woman is, frankly, so ludicrous that I can only assume that people must have run out of things to protest about to get worked up about 'trans rights'

 

Well yes, other than this is an issue given Daily rocket fuel by the Telegraph, Spectator etc. Daily, almost hourly, one of them writes about it. And sure, there are hot heads on the other side too.

But why the inordinate attention? Look at the effect on Hooter. Rallying the base for their Daily Hate.

 

It certainly isn't all transgender women, but it it does accurately describe some people who fall into the thinly defined group under the umbrella.

Autogenophiles

You seem to work under the assumption that all trans women are natal males who experience some sort of dysphoria and want to transition as far as possible to becoming as much of a woman as they physically can.

That just isn't the case.

There are people who claim to be trans because they wear a bit of lippy and a wig. They are phsyically 100% male but claim to be women. The argument that all a person has to do to become a woman is say they believe they are a woman is not any sort of acceptable level.

I'm not saying I know where the line should be drawn, but without the SNP proposal, trans women can already be allowed to enter women's spaces, but there are some checks and balances in place.

The self ID ideology doesn't make sense, but state that and you are accused of transphobia and wishing death on all trans people

 

Laws are applied in different ways based on risk factors.

You can speed as much as you like, provided you don’t get caught, and when you do you face the consequences.

Genuine trans women, on the whole, are regarded sympathetically, something that Rowling recognises in that quote of Moog’s.

My trans friends are unlikely to get stopped by anyone if they entered an all women’s space. And they would not be seen to be men, accidentally or otherwise, if changing in a communal area.

The issue is not with genuinely trans people. It really isn’t. It is to do with Fetishists and Sex pests, none of whom I would consider trans, other than because you people will insist on describing them as such. Take them out of the equation, and the trans issue becomes virtually non-existent. Yet I would say they outnumber the genuine trans community by many times.

I am not concerned that a genuine trans person, who has identified themselves as such not by making a statement, but by undergoing their own physical transformation after counselling and therapies, would enter a women’s space.

I am concerned that a very small proportion of society wants any man who identifies as a woman, no matter the state of their masculinity, to be able to argue the toss, with scared and vulnerable women, as they stand naked in front of them, asserting that they have every right to do so because the law says he is just as much a woman as they are.

It is not about how society is being pushed towards acceptance of trans people, but how, instead, and unnecessarily, it is being pushed towards an acceptance of any man being able to enter a woman’s space and insist he has every right to do so.

Because that is what you are defending here. Yet you seem to struggle even to recognise that it is a situation that a man might take advantage of.

 

I don’t agree with most of that, but I’m only interested in this notion that women are at risk from non-trans males, if trans rights are extended.

I don’t see how your checks and balances on who can transition impact at all on that risk. Surely it’s there if anyone can transition and if so, it’s either a big risk or not?

Again, what is the experience of other countries? Are they stuffed full of men pretending to live as women (bit of lippy and a wig) because of their lower bar? And has this impacted on safety?

 

The whole thing is Orwellian... The political purpose of the Two Minutes Hate is to allow citizens to vent their existential anguish and personal hatreds towards non-existent external enemies thereby re-directing their feelings away from the government