J.K. Rowling and the TERF wars

[LVAllen]

Interesting how law and order folks start cheering for civil disobedience when it's a law they think is bad. Not referring to anyone on this forum, just making an observation.

[Moliere]

Interesting how law and order folks start cheering for civil disobedience when it's a law they think is bad. Not referring to anyone on this forum, just making an observation.

It’s not just a bad law, it’s a law that would be unconstitutional in this country. I also don’t see what point the law is trying to make. If misgendering someone is offensive, and this worthy of a law prohibiting the action, then why not outlaw all offensive behavior? There should be laws against calling people names like “dummy” and “Pooh Pooh head”.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I thought you guys were against virtue signaling?

The laws design was to streamline a hate crime law that’s been on the books in the UK since 1986. Misgendering someone does not make you susceptible to prosecution and has provisions to protect the free speech protections already in existence. It’s not a trans specific law, it’s a law to protect a wide range of minority groups.

JK is not under any threat of arrest or criminal prosecution by misgendering a few people. She does lay bare her intentions when she purposefully adds some pedophiles into a group of trans individuals to misgender them. She’s not trying to protest against a questionable law, or stand up for free speech, or use her considerable platform and resources to fight the good fight, shes heading down the same path of Elon, Jordan Peterson, RFK, Vance, and countless others who a few years ago were considered thoughtful and serious thinkers.

Virtue signaling. Oh brother.

Nobody claimed that the law was exclusively targeted to gender issues, so let's put that straw man to bed.

Pedophiles/abusers taking advantage of gender identity laws to commit crimes is exactly the point she was addressing.

The law was ambiguous and there was a wide perception that the law would apply to misgendering as evidenced by the countless trans activists saying that exact thing before her April 1 thread and then insisting that she be charged. She has now forced the police to issue a clarification and ensure it won't be applied that way.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Anyone who genuinely wants to understand why JKR is doing this should listen to the "The Witch Trials of JK Rowling" podcast. It goes into her history as an abuse victim and her stances on women's rights. It also does a good job exploring both sides of the issue, including interviews with several trans activists.

[Maximus]

This topic might as well be cb. Ouch. again. do better.

i wonder if JKR has address trans bullying?

[fusnik]

Virtue signaling. Oh brother.

Nobody claimed that the law was exclusively targeted to gender issues, so let's put that straw man to bed.

Pedophiles/abusers taking advantage of gender identity laws to commit crimes is exactly the point she was addressing.

The law was ambiguous and there was a wide perception that the law would apply to misgendering as evidenced by the countless trans activists saying that exact thing before her April 1 thread and then insisting that she be charged. She has now forced the police to issue a clarification and ensure it won't be applied that way.

Well you kinda did in your first post, you said that Scotland passed a law that made it illegal to misgender someone.

That didn’t happen.

She mixed trans folks with pedophiles. You would cry foul if someone posted images of RMN and Warren Jeffs.

The law clarifies an existing law on the books since 1986. Did anyone care about the 1986 law?

[Pelado]

Denying parts of the holocaust is denying the holocaust. If I said jews died but not 6 million is that denial? According to adl etc it is

What part(s) of the holocaust did she deny?

Taking around someone since you refuse to respond to particular posters or address the accusations is pretty childish behavior.

What is more childish - refusing to respond to someone, or responding to sincere questions with non-responsive retorts?

And you actually cited the accused in defense of the accused. Lmao.

Donald says he isnt racist. He must not be racist !

Like you didn't even research this at all and just believed what she said. Hook. Line. Sinker.

My recollection is that our justice system is supposed to operate using a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. AFAIK, JK is not a US citizen, but I am willing to extend that presumption to her, as well. What is the evidence of her alleged holocaust denial?

[Maximus]

shes mocking/denyinh the claim hitler targeted trans people as well in the holocaust.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Well you kinda did in your first post, you said that Scotland passed a law that made it illegal to misgender someone.

Which is exactly what it was widely assumed to cover following the recent changes. Again, as evidenced by the words of countless trans activists.

That didn’t happen.

Thanks partly to JKR.

She mixed trans folks with pedophiles. You would cry foul if someone posted images of RMN and Warren Jeffs.

You are being deliberately obtuse on this point. No sense in debating it.

[YOhio]

This topic might as well be cb. Ouch. again. do better.

i wonder if JKR has address trans bullying?

This deserves an old school JL "Oh brother" and it's not worth debating.

[Jeff Lebowski]

The law clarifies an existing law on the books since 1986. Did anyone care about the 1986 law?

I forgot to respond to this. In reference to the recent change that took effect on April 1, the Scotland Police said,

The act brings together existing laws. Under the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021, it is a crime to make derogatory comments based on age, disability, religion, sexual orientation, transgender identity or being intersex.

The 1986 law effectively bans hate speech. We have no such laws in the US because of our belief in and our commitment to freedom of speech. With very narrow exceptions, US courts have repeatedly rejected attempts to define hate speech or to curtail it.

https://www.thefire.org/research-lea...1929%20dissent.

Banning hate speech without restricting political speech is prohibitively difficult because of the target’s inherent subjectivity. Each American all but certainly has a different understanding of exactly what expression should lose First Amendment protection as hate speech. One citizen’s hateful screed is another’s religious text; one citizen’s slur is another’s term of endearment; or, as the Court put it, “one man’s vulgarity is another’s lyric.”

As a result, crafting a generally applicable definition of hate speech is all but impossible without silencing someone’s “legitimate” speech.

Chief Justice John Roberts (2011):

Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and—as it did here—inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker. As a Nation we have chosen a different course—to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate.

So to answer your question, the 1986 Scottish law is a bad law.

[Maximus]

This deserves an old school JL "Oh brother" and it's not worth debating.

it is just sad to see people defending this shit. JKR is not a good person on this.

[tooblue]

it is just sad to see people defending this shit. JKR is not a good person on this.

JK Rowling was possibly miss-informed, and possibly mis-spoke but the conflation here by you and others is egregious. It's not helpful, nor is it as compelling an argument as you or others suggest. But let's turn this around. Your denial of any part of her defence of woman's rights is a denial of woman's rights. That makes you a misoginyst.

[YOhio]

it is just sad to see people defending this shit. JKR is not a good person on this.

This debate reminds me of the quote by William Buckley, “A conservative is someone who stands athwart history, yelling Stop, at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who so urge it.”

I appreciate that JKR is willing to yell stop while defending women's private spaces, sports, prisons, etc. I think it's worthwhile to have these kinds of discussions and hear all perspectives before promoting a pretty significant shift in societal norms.

[fusnik]

This debate reminds me of the quote by William Buckley, “A conservative is someone who stands athwart history, yelling Stop, at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who so urge it.”

I appreciate that JKR is willing to yell stop while defending women's private spaces, sports, prisons, etc. I think it's worthwhile to have these kinds of discussions and hear all perspectives before promoting a pretty significant shift in societal norms.

I don’t think that’s what she is doing.

I just spoke with someone who works for the NHS in Scotland.

They said there are some serious issues in Scotland surrounding trans healthcare. They’ve removed some restrictions to trans healthcare, they’ve broken away from the greater NHS recommendations on puberty blockers, and have made it more difficult for parents to participate in these decisions with minor children.

These are serious issues and I’m sure JKR could have a substantial voice in shaping the discourse in Scotland, instead of targeting a minority group that comprises .5% of the British populace. She’s not a hero when she lumps in pedos with trans folks, it’s gross and similar to how gays were treated in the 80s and 90s and 00s. It’s far closer to transphobia than enlightening.

Of course we all run to our corners and this becomes a virtue signaling/culture war contest between the right and the left.