Sfdebris.net

She really always can get more despicable. After using rape survivors as a shield from criticism for so long, Joanne is throwing them under the bus because this particular survivor shelter had a trans person in its administration. Sure, lots of survivors will be harmed if she succeeds, but it'll also hurt trans women, and that's the important thing.

Seriously, I think Joan Rowling cannot take criticism AT ALL and became super transphobe just because people called her out on it.

It's like her whole identity now.

I mean, her whole brand basically having her fans defend her from any criticism weather genuine or not. The Harry is the Satanist backlash, and the various call of how her writing is a little racist.

CharlesPhipps wrote: ↑Wed Sep 18, 2024 5:09 am Seriously, I think Joan Rowling cannot take criticism AT ALL and became super transphobe just because people called her out on it.

It's like her whole identity now.

Has she ever posited what’s at stake by having born males under the umbrella of feminism?


I mean I believe the principal concern for transwomen in a feminist sense would center more around inclusiveness to consideration of trans issues rather than hijacking proactive measures that only apply to female born women.

BridgeConsoleMasher wrote: ↑Thu Sep 19, 2024 7:14 pmHas she ever posited what’s at stake by having born males under the umbrella of feminism?

I mean I believe the principal concern for transwomen in a feminist sense would center more around inclusiveness to consideration of trans issues rather than hijacking proactive measures that only apply to female born women.

I mean, Joan's bigotry is irrational and emotional so asking her to deconstruct it won't work.

CharlesPhipps wrote: ↑Thu Sep 19, 2024 9:34 pm

BridgeConsoleMasher wrote: ↑Thu Sep 19, 2024 7:14 pmHas she ever posited what’s at stake by having born males under the umbrella of feminism?

I mean I believe the principal concern for transwomen in a feminist sense would center more around inclusiveness to consideration of trans issues rather than hijacking proactive measures that only apply to female born women.

I mean, Joan's bigotry is irrational and emotional so asking her to deconstruct it won't work.

But I do wonder before she really went down the rabbit hole that she ever articulated the whys, the how's, of her position the trans community.

McAvoy wrote: ↑Thu Sep 19, 2024 10:24 pm But I do wonder before she really went down the rabbit hole that she ever articulated the whys, the how's, of her position the trans community.

I think she started off saying it was an issue of feminism and men doing something-something by "pretending" to be women something-something and then as people kept pointing out holes in her argument and people turned against her, she became frothing mad.

CharlesPhipps wrote: ↑Thu Sep 19, 2024 11:19 pm

McAvoy wrote: ↑Thu Sep 19, 2024 10:24 pm But I do wonder before she really went down the rabbit hole that she ever articulated the whys, the how's, of her position the trans community.

I think she started off saying it was an issue of feminism and men doing something-something by "pretending" to be women something-something and then as people kept pointing out holes in her argument and people turned against her, she became frothing mad.

My first and only Terf I ever met in person gave me the vibes of it never had to do with feminism but just because thought they 'were too weird' for her. She was my neighbor for a year before moving, but early on I was friendly with her. Eventually she gave off those vibes and she just broke through on her anti-trans stance. It went downhill after that.

It wasn't the anti-trans stance but her view of female on male domestic violence which was fresh on my mind at the time. My brother went through that. Her view was that women are naturally not violent and my brother must have done something to his wife off. Or if she is abusive why didn't he just leave? Nevermind the two kids they had together.

This interaction changed my view on Terfs. They may share the same views on women when it comes to feminism but they are not true feminists. I know that is a No True Scotsman fallacy and perhaps gatekeeping.

But is what it seems to me with JK Rowling. Her stance has nothing to do feminism but her personal bias. A bias that she refuses to change but doubles down or triples down. Or hundred down I guess now.