The Rowling vs. Trans People Hijack

[Admiral Yi]

https://www.thepinknews.com/2022/06/03/helen-joyce-transgender-lgbtq/

This was one of the earlier embedded links in Beeb's linked article.

"And in the meantime, while we're trying to get through to the decision-makers, we have to try to limit the harm and that means reducing or keeping down the number of people who transition," Joyce said.

"That's for two reasons – one of them is that every one of those people is a person who's been damaged. But the second one is every one of those people is basically, you know, a huge problem to a sane world."

Joyce continued: "If you've got people – whether they're transitioned, whether they're happily transitioned, whether they're unhappily transitioned, whether they're detransitioned – if you've got people who've dissociated from their sex in some way, every one of those people is someone who needs special accommodation in a sane world where we re-acknowledge the truth of sex."

This is troubling to me as a defender of Rowling against the charge of transphobia.

[Barrister]

But what's the connection with Rowling?

The article says they are "friends".  It doesn't source that claim.

Best I can find on google is that Rowling once hosted a lunch for a bunch of "gender critical" women, and Helen Joyce was one of the attendees.

I don't think you can then attribute any/all of Joyce's views to Rowling.

But a lot of that article was similar kinds of "guilty by association", or "guilty by social media like".

[Admiral Yi]

Well that diminishes the troubling part for me.

I was too lazy to tab back and forth to get the quote and then check the relationship/connection in the main article.

I think liking a tweet that demonstrates ill will does mean a certain amount of guilt.

[Josephus]

FWIW....I went to see Harry Potter and the Cursed Child yesterday and it was full capacity and has been since its start, and just got extended into the summer. So any Rowling boycott backlash is clearly unfounded.
Ironically, two millennial types, behind me. Guy to girl: Rowling will never make another penny in her life.

Said, without irony as they probably paid over two hundred bucks for tickets.

[Admiral Yi]

That's 200 Canadian, right?

[PJL]

That's 200 Canadian, right?

FWIW....I went to see Harry Potter and the Cursed Child yesterday and it was full capacity and has been since its start, and just got extended into the summer. So any Rowling boycott backlash is clearly unfounded.
Ironically, two millennial types, behind me. Guy to girl: Rowling will never make another penny in her life.

Said, without irony as they probably paid over two hundred bucks for tickets.

That reminds me of the time I went to see The Wolf of Wall Street at the cinema. It was a great film with an obvious unlikable protagonist. Unfortunately I saw in the credits that it was basically a film adaptation of his story that he wrote so definitely felt
that I had contributed to increasing his fortune in some small way which made me feel a bit used / guilty about it afterwards.

[Josephus]

That's 200 Canadian, right?

Fair 

[celedhring]

That's 200 Canadian, right?

FWIW....I went to see Harry Potter and the Cursed Child yesterday and it was full capacity and has been since its start, and just got extended into the summer. So any Rowling boycott backlash is clearly unfounded.
Ironically, two millennial types, behind me. Guy to girl: Rowling will never make another penny in her life.

Said, without irony as they probably paid over two hundred bucks for tickets.

That reminds me of the time I went to see The Wolf of Wall Street at the cinema. It was a great film with an obvious unlikable protagonist. Unfortunately I saw in the credits that it was basically a film adaptation of his story that he wrote so definitely felt
that I had contributed to increasing his fortune in some small way which made me feel a bit used / guilty about it afterwards.

I think you should feel guiltier about the financier of the movie stealing the money from Malaysian pension funds 

[Sheilbh]

But I was amused atthe final paragraph:

January 2023: Rowling tweets that she is "Deeply amused by those telling me I've lost their admiration due to the disrespect I show violent, duplicitous rapists." The most immediate context for this comment is presumably both the backlash to Hogwarts Legacy and the ongoing backlash over Rowling's views writ large regarding trans women being dangerous predators. So a reasonable implication of Rowling's words seems to be that she considers trans women, by default, to be "violent, duplicitous rapists."

I'm going to suggest that is not in fact a reasonable implication of Rowling's words.

Also I've mentioned the story before, but in January 2023 the Isla Bryson story was happening - which was absolutely massive here (particularly in Scotland where Rowling lives because it very quickly followed the SNP government gender recognition reform).

That was - as I've mentioned before - the story of a double rapist. Before they were charged they began living as a trans woman. They tried to access a woman only self-defence course offered to survivors of domestic or sexual violence. They were subsequently convicted of both rapes and, initially, placed in a solitary unit but in a women's prison.

There was a complaint that some of the media were misgendering and deadnaming Isla Bryson over it. I'm using gender neutral because I don't want to misgender but at the same time I'm not convinced Isla Bryson is a legit transwoman. This was when Sturgeon was pushed on this following Scottish reform and she responded that "she regards herself as a woman. I regard the individual as a rapist."

It seems obvious to me that in January 2023 - that story is what Rowling is referring to. Similarly the first direct link (liking someone's tweet) was in the exact same month that Theresa May announced her proposed reform to gender recognition procedures. It seems to be missing the context of what was actually happening where JK Rowling lives. Social media flattens things so you don't ever know the context but with at least a couple of those examples it seems like there's either deliberate incuriousity about it or just an assumption that the entire world's use of social media is actually best understood through the prism of what's happening in America

Edit: And the suggestion that the "most immediate context for this comment is presumably both the backlash to Hogwarts Legacy and the ongoing backlash over Rowling's views writ large regarding trans women being dangerous predators" is incredible.

[Barrister]

Ep 4 of "Witch Trials of JK Rowling" dropped.

They finally got to the "trans stuff".

I had hoped they would interview some trans activists to give that perspective, but no.  Now it's quite possible that no trans activist would go on a show to discuss JK Rowling - that she's simply beyond the pale - but it is to the detriment of the podcast as a whole.  The host and some of the guests did try to give a good-faith attempt to summarize the trans right activist position, but yes this series is primarily a defence of Rowling.

[Valmy]

Ep 4 of "Witch Trials of JK Rowling" dropped.

They finally got to the "trans stuff".

I had hoped they would interview some trans activists to give that perspective, but no.  Now it's quite possible that no trans activist would go on a show to discuss JK Rowling - that she's simply beyond the pale - but it is to the detriment of the podcast as a whole.  The host and some of the guests did try to give a good-faith attempt to summarize the trans right activist position, but yes this series is primarily a defence of Rowling.

Huh? I haven't noticed this inability of people who criticize JK Rowling from talking about her on shows before.

[Sheilbh]

Huh? I haven't noticed this inability of people who criticize JK Rowling from talking about her on shows before.

This is one that's interviewing her extensively and called "The Trials of JK Rowling".

I think I read an activist on Twitter who said they did speak to this, weren't aware what type of project it would be and hugely regret it etc (although that was before it came out).

[Barrister]

Huh? I haven't noticed this inability of people who criticize JK Rowling from talking about her on shows before.

This is one that's interviewing her extensively and called "The Trials of JK Rowling".

I think I read an activist on Twitter who said they did speak to this, weren't aware what type of project it would be and hugely regret it etc (although that was before it came out).

I think there was a brief bit with an activist in an early episode - perhaps that interview will be played in more length later on.

So far the only trans person that's been interviewed is Dr. Erica Anderson, who is a psychologist and does gender clinic work, but is a controversial figure in trans activist circles as she has doubts about the current state of youth transitions.

[Barrister]

Ep 4 of "Witch Trials of JK Rowling" dropped.

They finally got to the "trans stuff".

I had hoped they would interview some trans activists to give that perspective, but no.  Now it's quite possible that no trans activist would go on a show to discuss JK Rowling - that she's simply beyond the pale - but it is to the detriment of the podcast as a whole.  The host and some of the guests did try to give a good-faith attempt to summarize the trans right activist position, but yes this series is primarily a defence of Rowling.

Huh? I haven't noticed this inability of people who criticize JK Rowling from talking about her on shows before.

OK, so this is from Rowling herself in the podcast.  Supposedly one of the slogans often used (I don't think I've heard it myself) is "no debate" - that rights for trans people are not up for debate, period.  Which she disagrees with as you might expect.

Podcast host does point out that there are some issues that we, as a society, have decided are not up for debate.  You're not going to get very far trying to debate whether the holocaust happened, or trying to argue the genetic inferiority of non-white races.  But I don't think we have that kind of societal near-consensus on all trans issues.

And you can see this attitude from one of our posters (I think it was in TBR so I won't name names) that trans women are women, and that's all that needs to be said.

[Josquius]

The trouble I see there is just what are you wanting to debate.

Trans women are women and there is no room for debate on this fact is absolutely the case.

But do you think this means anyone who claims to be trans must be taken totally at face value?

Is the debate you want to have about fringe cases like how trans criminals are dealt with?

Is it about the eternal struggle of sports governing bodies to determine who is a woman?

That trans rights are not up for debate I would say in the view of most progressive people means their fundamental rights. They have the right to exist and live their lives as women.
When you get people speaking about trans rights as a debate it has huge connotations of stuff like "the Jewish question".

This is not to say however there's not room for discussion around more specific fringe issues and how exactly to reach a conclusion that is better for all.
Again however even here there is a huge tendency for people to stomp into these questions presenting them as the trans debate whit large and very often with goals that absolutely do not consider the wellbeing of trans people.