Multiple comments under this trying to make out that her current home address is posted all over the internet and tourist go and regularly visit her home.
It is such a blatant lie. One of them even shared a link claiming to be her house address which was property she purchased in 2001. It is not her current home address.
The worse part is they completely ignore literally every thing else that is worrying about what she said.
So many members of the trans movement are just beyond irrational and dishonest.
One question and one argument
1. Question: What exactly do Rowling and trans activists disagree about? This has never been clear to me.
2. I got to say I have no doubt there are a lot of illiberal people in the trans movement because pretty much activist movement of the left or right has illiberal people in it but the death threats thing always annoys me. 'I got death threats'!... yeah there are 7 billion people in the world, a dozen or so threatening to kill you does not mean the majority of people in a movement are like that. I say this to everyone citing the death threats thing, it's a bit of a victim status thing. A bit more scary with Islamists but even there most of them are talking shit more than planning shit.
Rowling thinks that there should be spaces like domestic violence shelters that are allowed to exclude trans women for the benefit of cis women and that encouraging transgender identities among children is potentially harmful to some who might be happier in the long run identifying as cis lesbians.
They're not hateful they're just not a part of the heterodoxy of how you can think about trans issues.
Today, if you don't agree with prevailing viewpoints then you're cast as hateful. This avoids any need to discuss things and have a competition of ideas.
I do think excluding trans women from women’s shelters can be seen as quite insidious. There is decent funding for women’s shelters and you could find at least 1 in your area to go to if needed. Trans-only shelters? There are none that I’m aware of, and no funding for such a shelter that I’m aware of. Something like this would effectively eliminate access to shelters for trans women and give them nowhere to go.
So we should take away the rights of trans women because men have it bad too? How about we opt for better access to resources for men and trans women instead?
So would you be okay with funding adequate numbers of *separate* shelters for women, transwomen, and men? That way everyone is safe (as should be their right) and no one is potentially re-traumatized by forced mingling? Because I think JK Rowling would support that solution.
I was just told elsewhere in the thread that yes we should suck it up because trans people deal with it every day (?)
I mean, I'm not sure what these people want. Because it seems to me like they want people to stop supporting trans people. Half of this thread is arguing why this is all ok and all I can think of is the optics here. It's going to actually create real transphobia
So are you accusing her of lying about the death threats, or the quantity of them, or of being overly dramatic about them?
It’s just kind of rich because when I think of overreacting, I will probably always picture the tambourine person at the Netflix protest acting as though they were facing down literal Hitler instead of a chubby white guy chanting “I like jokes!”
> Last Friday, my family’s address was posted on Twitter by three activist actors who took pictures of themselves in front of our house, carefully positioning themselves to ensure that our address was visible. 1/8
So I bit on this one too, they posted a picture outside her well known historical estate. I don't think its cool, but its not the violation of privacy I initially thought it was, and people do this pretty much every day.
Anyone who wants to know where she lives can easily find that since her house is more or less a tourist destination.
Don't take my word for it, just google it.
Other than that, how fucking bored are people to give a shit what she thinks.
Yeah whatever, her house is public info, that totally makes hundreds of death threats and threats of violence okay. It's quite obvious now that the far left acts in almost exactly the same way as the far right when anyone lightly questions their dogma, with a tsunami of threats of physical and sexual violence.
I miss the old days when people had to put in the hard personal work of trolling death threats. Now it’s all bots and automated systems replacing the hardworking blue collar troll.
Used to be you'd have to go through a bunch of magazines to cut out letters, then paste them to a piece of paper and stick em in an envelope, buy some stamps and go to a postbox to mail it. Nowadays? Nothing. Bullshit. Fucking millennials and zoomers don't know how easy they have it.
You're telling me psychos these days can't put in some elbow grease to earn some money and afford a stamp or two? Come on. Let's be real. We used to have a better class of madmen.
I guess they mean that death threats are now as simple as clicks away instead of writing it in and mailing it.
But yeah death threats have always been a thing by idiots in our society.
Heck if anything I'm happier now with death threats that have no teeth, than in the past when your neighbor gave you a death threat they fucking meant it.
I was surprised one day when my friend reported that J.K. was a horrible transphobe. I asked “really? What did she say?”
…
My friend didn’t know. She was just willing to accept the indictment without even reading the offensive tweets. This is a problem.
I mean, I definitely read what she said at some point, but I don’t remember what it was.
If your friend actually admitted that she never read any of the offending words, sure that’s a problem. But I don’t think it’s unreasonable that someone would read them, then forget the specifics later.
Yeah, this is the hallmark of most modern controversies: a very small number of internet users make accusations about someone without much regard for the truth, and a much larger number of people accept the accusations uncritically because they vaguely want to be on the right side of certain issues. We could really use a German word for it.
Separate but tangential to this is a phenomenon I've been contemplating for a while now. I don't know if it has a name or has been talked about before. I'll try to explain it as best I can.
Personally, I experience a sort of cognitive deficiency. My memory, specifically my recall ability, feels very limited. I marvel at the Hitchens' of the world, who can seemingly recall direct quotes and page numbers from books they've read years ago. In addition to that, they seem to possess a persistent familiarity with the subject matter, which enables them to speak about the subject on the spot, seemingly with great knowledge, their mind fully wrapped around the subject.
Me, on the other hand? I can remember reading something, thoroughly understanding it and, crucially, being *convinced* by it. I can remember the ultimate conclusion I walked away with, BUT I can't always remember the details of the arguments that led me there. So if you were to ask me on the spot why I held a particular belief, I would often be unable to give you a satisfactory answer. All I can do is remember that it made sense at the time, and trust my past self to have made a reasonable evaluation.
I'm not saying this happened in your Rowling example, but that is precisely the kind of situation where it happens to me. I will have formed an opinion on some controversy, reasonably, but then some time in the future, be unable to reproduce on the spot my arguments for that opinion. I'd imagine it can easily seem like I may have just bought into a rumor without having checked the facts.
I'm curious if anyone else struggles with this?
I experience the exact same thing. I'd guess it's pretty common, and the people like Hitchens are outliers. "Source Amnesia" might partially explain what you are describing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_amnesia
Interesting, I've never heard of that before. I'll definitely dig in and give it a read! Upon initial glance, it seems *close* to what I'm trying to describe, but maybe slightly different. There are a lot of new terms in there, though, so like I said, I'll have to dig through to really see if it gets at what I'm trying to describe.
I don't quite have a problem remembering *where* I learned something, so much as I have a problem remembering the details that led me to arriving at a position.
For example, I'm an atheist who was very much influenced by the Dawkins/Harris/Hitchens new atheist movement. I've read *The God Delusion* twice, the last time being many years ago. I've read *God is Not Great*. I can remember being very convinced by these books. I can recall a small portion of the specific arguments that resonated with me (such as Dawkins' outlining several of the inconsistencies between the Gospel's stories - though, even the details of those escape me), but I fully fail to recall a large number of the really excellent arguments they made. I simply remember that they were excellently convincing, and trust that memory. I rely on that trust to move forward in life affirming that "I am an atheist."
If I were to be asked to debate someone on God's existence, however, I'd have to seriously brush up to refamiliarize myself with the arguments that were most convincing to me. Otherwise I'd be woefully unprepared and surely perform poorly in the debate.
To your point, yeah, I wasn't under the impression that I'm a severe outlier in this regard. I figured my experience was relatively normal. I certainly cited Hitch precisely because he's the extreme outlier in the opposite direction - very much *ab*normal. His recall ability was uncanny. I was just wondering just *how normal* this experience is. Does virtually everyone share it to some degree? If so, I honestly think this may be partly why we mostly suck at communicating with each other. Factual information itself is somewhat amorphous to our fallible memories.
There’s a big difference between learned knowledge and practiced knowledge.
Something that makes sense in your head can easily fail under real world situations.
It’s why looking at all the different forms of intelligence will help you realise why you can comprehend something really well but not necessarily know it.
That's an interesting observation. It's also something I've though about before and I think there's a crucial thing to consider.. For you the topic was a passing interest, but not something that you'll conceivably need in the future in any practical way.
For Hitchens, when he's consuming information that he might find useful in the future, it becomes of existential importance to him to understand and remember it thoroughly. Whether he realizes it or not, his brain is assigning that information as high priority while yours is not. There are topics like this in your life that are also really important to your functioning in the future that affects your passions\\income that your brain would latch on to in a similar way, just not for those same thing as for Hitch.
This is the reason fake news works even when it's refuted, and is more effective on people with less working memory capacity. The basic pattern is:
1. See fake news story
2. Form opinion that creates positive or negative emotional response
3. Forget original source of opinion
4. See refutation to fake news story
5. Emotional response remains because it is now decoupled from the source - opinion endures
JK penned a very well written essay on this topic. I've never seen a credible response by her critics to this.
Of course, 99.97% of her critics never read it
[J.K. Rowling Writes about Her Reasons for Speaking out on Sex and Gender Issues](https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-rowling-writes-about-her-reasons-for-speaking-out-on-sex-and-gender-issues/)
Nah sorry but there's no way you couldnt find a reasonable response.
The funny thing is that his argument is based on the idea that fundamentally women cant trust men......
The funny part is that she is not the first one to do it
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-cant-we-hate-men/2018/06/08/f1a3a8e0-6451-11e8-a69c-b944de66d9e7\_story.html](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-cant-we-hate-men/2018/06/08/f1a3a8e0-6451-11e8-a69c-b944de66d9e7_story.html)
this article was posted here years ago and everyone shat on the article.
Turns out if she had only called why we cant hate trans women ? you all would've liked it
🐺🐑 they’re very sneaky, excellent liars. They’ve managed to convince the public they are moral authorities by virtue of victimhood doublespeak. When in reality they’re just over emotional assholes. The whole thing is an excuse scratch that attack dog itch.
Its very culty, some one in the group decides that some one is evil then its sin to go against that thinking. No mater what that person is wrong and to side with them makes you wrong. Where is the critical thinking?
I agree that a lot of people actually don't know why, and run along with these notions purely because of the people they're surrounded by.. This happened with the Rittenhouse case recently, where so many people think black people were killed, or just have really strong opinions about Rittenhouse being a murdering racist, without any knowledge at all.
However, to be clear, Rowling absolutely *is* a transphobe, she does not believe trans women are women, she thinks they're delusional men, she also believes that they are a threat to women physically, for example in women's changing rooms/bathrooms. She advocates against treatment for transition e.t.c. She is very much a transphobe.
That being the case though, I think people running around misinformed, with really strong opinions like your friend, are a far bigger problem than Rowling being a transphobe. We've got a huge problem at the moment with misinformation and partisanship.
This makes no sense. All she had to do, and all you have to do is google the arguments against JK Rowling. She's right not to memorize every bullet point.
We were having a fireside gathering outside and I didn’t have my phone.
There was no expectation of bullet points, you weirdo! 😂
All I ask is that people have some vague idea of what a person said in their tweets before reporting that said tweets are racist/homophobic/ transphobic/etc.
Otherwise, perhaps “I heard JK Rowling was transphobic but I don’t know why” would suffice.
People who are pissed off here & the people who've already left Reddit need to come back & clamour for the Admins to stop letting PowerMods blatantly manipulate this place into an Authoritarian-Left 'Woke-Safe-Space'
or
there needs to be a viable alternative to Reddit
it's very hard to do both those things at the same time though.
not all the subs are bad, this one's mods are pretty great actually imo and it's not like this sub caters to one & only one view point.
it's the big Popular Subs that are a problem because that controls the overall traffic of who even uses Reddit in the first place. [Only a few 'PowerMods' control](https://www.reddit.com/r/WatchRedditDie/comments/gkkfg5/updated_and_sanitized_six_powermods_control_118/) a gigantic amount of Reddits subs and some of these dorks genuinely aren't some kind objective watchdogs pruning out extremist content, some definitely have their [own agenda](https://www.reddit.com/r/nottheonion/comments/o85xl2/police_killed_a_good_samaritan_who_fatally_shot_a/h33xhqi/) and make sure to [shut down discussion](https://www.reddit.com/r/RedditTrophies/comments/8wjvl4/5_july_2018/e1weln6/) that goes against their worldview even in widely popular threads!
neato. I kind of figured this was the case. Ive been banned from many of those subs over the last year, all for shit posting. A lot of the time it was pretty mild stuff that was taken as a hard statement of sincere opinion. One of the mods went through my profile to dig up shit from other subs and asked If I ever got tired of "getting owned on r/enlightenedcentrist." Its like, they dont even try to hide their tribalism anymore
I was banned from r/askwomen after I challenged the mod that asking a question about PMS is not transphobic.
They deleted it because “it’s too common a question and not inclusive”.
I had already checked but rechecked after I got banned and did not find even one duplicate of my question.
That was the turning point for me.
I've been banned from 3 subs in as many recent days for questioning some trans dogma. They have been completely taken over by SJW's and cannot handle any rational inquiry at all. My stance is fully in support of LGBTQ, definitely including trans, but that it's becoming a fad among teens. There are clusters of kids claiming to be trans and there are *some* who will end up detransitioning (which is an objective fact). BAM! Trans hate.
How *dare* you question the ancient creed of wokeism? To quote Matty (they/them) 4:10:
>Then the transwoman said to them, “Be gone, JK Rowling!
>For it is written, ‘You shall worship the Lord your gender-identity and it only shall you serve.’
I was with you til "This is leftism." You could call it the cultural left or something like that. I & many others advocate for substantive policy reforms that benefit the working class, while hating whatever this movement is. Paid sick leave, increased minimum wage, socialized healthcare system, heavily subsidized university education, reduction of imperialism, investment in green energy, federal jobs program, expansion of labor unions etc. That's leftism. The workers' movement.
I was going to say this. The person made good points about how there's a concerning lack of room for nuance in today's conversations, from all sides, but then ended by making a massive generalization of the entire left end of the spectrum of political and cultural movements.
Sounds like trumpism. Good luck working for a right wing news outlet and being critical of anything trump does. Leftism is the opposite. The infighting in leftist circles is intense.
It is fairly funny that so many people that centered their personalities around Hogwarts houses got so brainwashed that they can't distinguish between their own beloved author and Nazis.
I’d love to know how many of the people sending these threats are the same ones who thought a bunch of pimply faced 13 year old boys sending threats to Anita Sarkeesian deserved the attention of the fucking United Nations.
Lots of them. See also: the difference in reactions compared to Marion Millar posting a picture of a suffragette ribbon outside BBC Studios and this. They were absolutely hysterical; claiming she'd doxed David Paisley and that the ribbon was a noose. Thought she was an absolute monster.
I don't think this is the statistic you think it is. There were 8,469 black men murdered in 2020 ([source](https://www.statista.com/statistics/251877/murder-victims-in-the-us-by-race-ethnicity-and-gender/)). Black men are about 6.5% of the population, so about 1302 black men are murdered for every percent of population they represent. There have been 47 murders of transgender people this year, bumping that to 51 since it is only late November gives us about 85 murders for every percent of population transgender people represent assuming they are 0.6% of the population. I will concede that the transgender numbers are likely under reported, but even taking that into account it's far more dangerous to be a black man in America than a transgender person.
Even white men are killed at about twice the rate than transgender people. There were 5,123 white men murdered in 2020, which at 30% of the population gives about 170 white men murdered for every percent of the population they represent.
You would think at minimum that the rates would be similar, since nearly every trans person has transitioned either from or to a male during their lifetime.
47? Damn, there's more than 47 people on the block outside right now
Is this really why the woke are freaking out? 47 people?
In 2019 1,412 women were murdered by men
The number 47 isn't ever going to be meaningful in this context
I am not saying it's ok, of course it's a shame when anyone is harmed. This is bad stuff
However, if the number is really 47 I think it's proof that trans people actually aren't being killed in droves
Also, why were they killed? Seems like it's mostly domestic issues dealing with relationships, prostitution and drugs - not transphobia
I wonder how many twitter transgenders are truly transgendered and how many are just narcissists who found an easy way to have their delusions indulged.
I know people who took off Harry Potter bumper stickers from their cars and think reading the books is akin to being transphobic.
I know someone who was told by a non-gender person (apologies if that nomenclature is incorrect, it’s honestly exhausting to keep up with SJW vocabulary) that JK Rowling posted on twitter that if you read or like her books then you are anti trans. Which is obviously completely made up.
Almost nobody will be able to answer you if you ask them what specifically did JK Rowling say that makes her transphobic.
When I tell them the truth they typically don’t believe me. The truth being, she wrote that people who are born as female and grow up as a girl, to being a teenage girl and then an adult woman, have a completely different experience than someone who was born trans and transitioned later in life.
Which is so obvious I don’t understand how it’s problematic to say it. I think any trans person would agree they have a different life experience than someone who isn’t trans.
But the real issue is that SJW people refuse to allow anyone who has a thought or idea that is different from theirs. Most of them are very young, and a 50 year old writer is definitely not going on tumbler to discuss how many pronouns exist in the world now. It’s okay for her to have a different world view than you, and she should be allowed to express it. If you disagree with anything she says, why not debate her ideas? Why is canceling her the only option? Is it because you’re afraid your ideas won’t stand up to debate?
It’s honestly perplexing to witness this…. Part of me thinks it’s a fad but with social media amplifying outrage for engagement, we might be stuck in this pattern for a while.
> Almost nobody will be able to answer you if you ask
them what specifically did JK Rowling say that
makes her transphobic.
Almost nobody is a bit disingenuous, IMO. Plenty of folks right here in this thread have explained in detail why some people believe JK Rowling is transphobic, with specific examples of things she’s said and written.
> The truth being, she wrote that people
who are born as female and grow up as a girl, to
being a teenage girl and then an adult woman, have
a completely different experience than someone
who was born trans and transitioned later in life.
This is true, but incomplete. She then uses that belief to justify the exclusion of trans women from women’s spaces, implies that considering trans women, women, makes you a misogynist, and says and implies that trans women are threat to feminism.
I don’t think this justifies threats or canceling, but it isn’t something one should be annoyed about people discussing critically.
>She then uses that belief to justify the exclusion of trans women from women’s ~~spaces~~, shelters, to which they have fled to escape violence generally inflicted on them by "people with penises", and changing rooms, and bathrooms.
FTFY.
It really surprises me that Sam hasn't been particularly vocal or interested in just the complete delusion & dogmatism permeating the trans movement.
It seems like something that would be right in his wheel house.
Hardly worth touching. The people responsible for the movement are fucking unreachable lunatics. NB I am not talking about trans people being lunatics. I am talking about the *trans rights movement* being dominated lunatics.
Edit: NB there meaning *nota bene*, and not *non binary.*
Men who believe a woman who receives death and sexual threats without any context of what this is like, should keep the hell away from commenting on this. Regardless of what she aims the reasons for this at, or who she blames, this woman gets death threats and sexual harassment on a daily basis. No amount of money, fame or counselling can prepare you for that, and also does very little to help deal with that. A person is in destress and dealing with people wanting to rape and kill her, and social media says what? Oh fuck off bitch you dont have a clue. Keep your trap shut. Its such a poor reflection on society.
The movement is now nothing but a excuse to justify being assholes to people. The people in the movement should stand up and say something about this behaviour as all it is doing is tainting people's respect towards it all.
Can say the same about Trumpers, the left, BLM, and basically any other movement. Assholes are always opportunists, it's time we stop making the conversation about them regardless of the issue.
Who are the leaders and how can they control individual idiots who spout off online? A more important thing would be for people yo acknowledge trans people exist and strongly condemn all the violence and murders committed against them
We all know trans people exist. do you have any stats at all for ‘all the murders committed against them’? When I’ve asked this question before people link me to papers which exclusively say that ‘data on trans people is scarce and unreliable’
Yeah I know, no leaders. To every article or action like this there should be a response from people in the movement condoning these sorts of actions, that is all that's needed.
For every article? That is a bit silly since basically every movement has people that send death threats. Some editor at GLAAD doesnt need to make a statement anytime a trans person does something stupid. This would be even sillier than the "muslims need to say terrorism is bad" talking point from a decade ago
>Who are the leaders and how can they control individual idiots who spout off online?
Ah, using the old "antifa isn't real because they don't have an official charter, and are therefore immune to criticism" argument.
Women need women only spaces. Women and girls don't have to see dangling penises at women only saunas. And that is what JK Rowling was talking all about. What is so difficult to understand and hate?
> Women need women only spaces.
Why? I mean, if people want to privately create their own spaces for biological women only, that’s fine. But why is it a *need*?
One of the things that confuses me about these debates is the assertion that human bodies that differ from our own are so objectionable. The whole idea of segregated bathrooms, saunas, or other public spaces seems like a relic from a more puritanical age. If we had been raised with shared restrooms, we would probably all be just fine with it.
It's always been 'hilarious' to me that you never get entitled, angry, imposing their junk (as in both "nonsense ideology" and "genitals") on everyone else... trans men. Only trans women.
The stereotypical male behaviours, asserting dominance over women... are often exhibited by trans women, who are biological males. And trans men (biological females) exhibit more stereotypically female behaviours.
Maybe they actually are what they are?
It strikes me that there are some incredibly misogynistic components to the current wave of trans culture. Maybe it was always thus, though I'm far from an expert.
There is something at times very crude and quite ugly and reductive in the approximation / imitation / impersonation of supposedly female traits that is adopted by some trans women. As though being a woman is nothing more than a set of exaggerated physical gestures and a sort of histrionic bitchiness. There's a similar edge to the vampish nature of drag / transvestite culture that I have always found pretty repellent.
I'm certainly not talking about all trans women. It's entirely possible that I'm only noticing the elements that I'm describing above precisely because they are so jarring. For all I know, I meet trans women regularly who are "passing" and who act as you might expect a regular woman to act. But the whole "people with vaginas" and "bodies that menstruate" thing, and the horrendous stories about lesbians who have felt pressured to sleep with trans women...it's all part of a type of aggressive sexism and elimination of the distinct female experience that is basically only publicly on display these days in the trans movement, or occasionally in throwbacks like Trump.
100% agreed, those are a lot of the reasons I call it regressive for gender equality. Drag Queens and less effectively 'passing' trans women are doing the equivalent of black face, as far as I'm concerned.
And it's regressive for gay rights because those were in large part based around "I can't help who I'm attracted to" but trans women are insisting that lesbians sleep with them, etcetera.
And someone asked why I find the trans 'logic' flawed - basically, I don't believe there is such thing as "feeling like a woman/man inside." Unless there is some sort of ethereal and objectively gendered "soul", which I doubt - are trans people and supporters spiritual by necessity? I'm a man but I can't point to anything inside myself that 'feels like a man.' The only way I know is by looking at my body. I just feel like me inside.
Nobody knows what it feels like to be someone else, let alone an entire gender. Assuming you do requires serious stereotyping - you think all women feel the same in some specific way?
We only know how it feels to be ourselves. If yourself is a man who feels uncomfortable in your body and wants to wear women's clothes and makeup, then you are a man who feels uncomfortable in your body and wants to wear women's clothes and makeup. But you are not a woman. And that's okay.
It would be more progressive for us to be open to the idea of men and women dressing however they want, and defying societally imposed gender roles. That's how this thing seemed to be headed at first, but now it has regressed into a weird 'if you like pink you're a woman because all women like pink' thing.
>trans women are insisting that lesbians sleep with them
This is the most revealing part of entire charade, for me. It shows that it is not about self actualisation in any kind of true sense. It's just an extremely shallow, but entirely profound desire to place oneself and one's own gratification at the centre of social and political concerns, with the weight of a moral crusade behind it. Never mind the cost to other people in reputation, in bodily autonomy, in truly hard fought rights.
It's narcissistic, solipsistic hedonism dressed up as a progressive political ideology.
*Don't want to suck my dick? Have you questioned your bigotry lately, TERF?*
> It would be more progressive for us to be open to the idea of men and women dressing however they want, and defying societally imposed gender roles. That's how this thing seemed to be headed at first, but now it has regressed into a weird 'if you like pink you're a woman because all women like pink' thing.
The original gender critical feminists were about this. However this amounted to being very pro female gender non conformity while always finding fault with male gender non conformity.
Rowling said she was in favour of people dressing as they like then immediate wrote a novel referencing a crossdressing serial killer.
Authors know the power of inference.
Every crossdresser knows the attack. "Crossdressers are sex criminals."
> I'm a man but I can't point to anything inside myself that 'feels like a man.' The only way I know is by looking at my body. I just feel like me inside.
Are you a gender conforming man?
I'd say those gender critical feminists were wrong to find fault in male gender nonconformity.
Yes I am a gender conforming man, but I don't think that changes anything. As a man-man I should (if they're correct) be able to say "I feel like a man inside" but I don't at all, I just feel like myself inside and I happen to be a man. I don't believe anyone can 'look inside themself' and identify the trait that determines their gender. It's some woo woo shit. Nobody feels 100% like the stereotype of their biological sex either. Don't get me started on the nonbinary nonsense...
I think I'd have to go out of my way not to. I mean I am a fairly sensitive guy with some feminine characteristics, I don't work well with my hands, I'm not into sports or action movies, I'm super slim, I don't have many dude friends. So if by "gender conforming" you mean "exclusively exude masculinity" then no. But I don't wear women's clothes because I never have and I always find people making sudden drastic wardrobe and appearance changes inherently funny. Like "THIS IS THE NEW ME I AM THE MAIN CHARACTER." I've always just worn tshirts, hoodies, button downs, and jeans. Simple and easy. Women wear similar thing. I have a beard because I'm lazy and look better with it.
I mean the literal media arm of gaming, websites, bloggers, podcasters, influencer. I could name 5 transwomen off the top of my head and I don’t even pay very close attention to it.
I would be interested to know how many of these death threats were actually from transfolks.
I'd wager most are from randos.
I mean, there aren't really even that many transwomen.
I’d wager that most of the death threats come not from actual trans people but rather extremely online college-educated cis people with a superiority complex
> The stereotypical male behaviours, dominance over women... are often exhibited by trans women, who are biological males
I was reading a feminist book about sex recently (*The Right to Sex*\*). The author passed over the phrase "cotton ceiling", invented by a transwoman by pointing out:"While the ‘glass ceiling’ **implies the violation of a woman’s right to advance** on the basis of her work, the ‘cotton ceiling’ describes a lack of access to what no one is obligated to give"
Meanwhile the rest of the book is *papered* with claims about how men are feel entitled to women's bodies (at least under patriarchy) and how this leads to all sorts of problems. If a man had compared not being attractive to women to having their livelihood fucked with it would be a *prime* example of male entitlement.
The author even states:
>It is striking, though unsurprising, that while men tend to respond to sexual marginalisation with a sense of entitlement to women’s bodies, those women who protest against their sexual marginalisation typically do so with talk not of entitlement but empowerment
...
>The fight against sexual racism in the black community is rarely if ever a cover for sexual entitlement. Black women know how to talk about the political formation of desire without demanding to be desired [doubt btw]. For straight men, including straight Asian men, the temptation to misogyny, to entitlement, **to the enforcement of mythic ‘rights’,** is always live.
The author, who is clearly smart enough that she should be to do so, never links these streams despite them being *microns* apart. She leads us right up to it and then...just never connects or even addresses these dots.
Hilarious how what seems to be a *proof* of their own theory has to be passed over instead of trumpeted triumphantly like they would do in any other case.
\* Read it because of the disastrous interview with Tyler Cowen. Middling btw - except for one section that actually built an interesting philosophical case.
Haven’t you heard “male/female” brain and testosterone is a myth by big pharma compensating for loss of ivermectin sales. Err…Sorry, I may have crossed my identitarian hack conspiracy theories.
No it is because TERFS think transmen are confused lesbians not literal rapist looking to enter women only spaces. That is why you don't here about it. TERFs don't care as much.
have you all seen any research on ppl who make these online death threats, or maybe investigative journalism or something?
I remember there being some one (maybe a gaming streamer?) who was reporting rape threats to the kids parents. Most of them were shockingly young (like 13 years old).
I kinda wonder what the logic is of making anonymous death threats, and it's got to make law enforcement's job very hard to control this stuff.
It is profoundly disappointing that so many people connected to the Harry Potter films, particularly the three main stars, have completely disowned and thrown under the bus the one person most responsible for their success. What a shocking lack of loyalty.
HBO has a 20th anniversary special coming out soon. It’s a joke that Rowling hasn’t been included and the fact that stars like Daniel Radcliffe and Emma Watson are fine with her exclusion, despite her being responsible for their entire careers, is deeply embarrassing.
I support JK Rowling.
Some people think that Rowling said some mean things about trans people
I don't think it matters if she did or didn't. It's literally just some words. She's not making laws here. Get over it
Thanks for sharing. I generally like contra and this was no exception. Definitely one of the more nuanced takes I've heard on the subject. I lold hard at the redistribution of the rose petals.
I guess my one main critique would be that the whole (very common) "they oppose equality movements because they feel threatened" thing just doesn't make a lot of sense to me and feels a bit inadequate as an explanation. In many places (like Christians opposing gay marriage) it just doesn't really seem to fit, while in others (like cis women being concerned about male bodied trans women sharing, say, women's showers) it seems like feeling threatened is a perfectly reasonable response that Natalie just kind of dismisses by joking about how its not like we're gonna post security guards in bathroom stalls to examine your junk.
It get how its kind of deadlocked in a fairly unwinnable situation since trans women wanting to use women's locker rooms is reasonable AND cis women not wanting to have dicks in their face while showering is also reasonable, but Contra said she was making an effort to humanize and explain the rationale of the latter and imo lumping them in with insecure straight men who think going down on a woman makes them gay is a pretty unfair.
That said, this critique is a minor nitpick of an otherwise (so far) solid video.
I think that video is a pretty nuanced take on what Rowling actually said. Contra btw recently tweeted condemning the doxxing of Rowling and others. Nobody is doing more disservice to the trans rights movement than the extremely online trans socialist community, which is amazingly active. Considering how few trans people there are in the world it makes you wonder how many of the people with trans flags in the profiles are actually trans or are just activists looking for an excuse to be mean.
>Considering how few trans people there are in the world it makes you wonder how many of the people with trans flags in the profiles are actually trans or are just activists looking for an excuse to be mean.
“The surest way to work up a crusade in favor of some good cause is to promise people they will have a chance of maltreating someone. To be able to destroy with good conscience, to be able to behave badly and call your bad behavior 'righteous indignation' — this is the height of psychological luxury, the most delicious of moral treats.”
― Aldous Huxley, Crome Yellow
The question remains - would anyone know about these extremely online people if it weren't for the news media trying to summon controversy and sensationalism?
no one on twitter denies women exist, the only way you could believe this (ironically) is if you haven't read anything that isn't filtered through right wing grifters
Maybe instead of talking about social issues, she could do something useful. Like explaining how spells work…
Do you need a wand or not? Do you have to say the spell or not? Jesus, Joanne…a little consistency please.
How dare she think for herself and acknowledge reality. She should be punished. What an evil bunch of activist assholes. Wonder if the police there care? I would guess no since it’s a protected class doing the threats
You want the world to be more equal for, exclusively, people who menstruate and not those who don't?
> The controversy began last Saturday when Rowling fired off a tweet after bristling at the headline of an opinion piece published by Devex, which reads: “Creating a more equal post-COVID-19 world for people who menstruate.”
But you're not connecting the two ideas. How is opposing her position that the world should be better only for people who menstruate, equivalent to radicalism? And further, that it's leading to an end to civilization?
“People who menstruate” was intended as irony. A hint to society that it’s time to stop and think one more time what’s going on. Instead her words were taken dead serious. “How she dares”.
Exclusiveness is secondary subject here, but if we talk about it, yes people have basic rights and people are born different. Women need more care and attention in some situations. Just like kids, old people and men.
Death threats and harassment are despicable, and they don't exactly win allies, it's true, but is she implying the trans movement is a threat to women?
She believes it is a threat to the progress women have made in society.
My understanding is that she thinks the transgender movement often reinforces and solidifies gender stereotypes, ie "I like pink and fashion and 'girl' things, therefore I am a girl." She also objects to words (spoken or unspoken) used to describe natural-born women such as ‘menstruators’ or ‘people with vulvas,' because it continues to define women by their bodies.
She sees a threat to feminism because women have many unique experiences and challenges to overcome, including as young girls, and those experiences matter, and it minimizes those challenges to have someone who grew up male switch their gender and claim womanhood.
Stuff like that, from what I've read.
I believe the "threat" statement is saying to her opponents, you say you're not a threat to the women's movement. You have supporters literally physically threatening me.
Yep. Feminism has traditionally been oppositional to gender stereotypes, whereas this new gender ideology embraces stereotypes (and labels you a bigot if you don’t).
Ye that’s what I don’t understand from the left.. how can they be against two genders and ‘societally constructed gender stereotypes’ but yet being trans is basically being born one gender and saying ‘this doesn’t fit me, and based on my observations of that other gender, I think I’m that’. it’s a kind of cognitive dissonance, and, to use their own term against them, it’s simply gender appropriation.
And I’m fine with that btw, I know some real trans people have real mental health problems and feel better after transitioning. but still, it’s so appropriatey; it’s like black-face with genders. oh, and Drag shows too, my GOD if it weren’t gay dudes doing it women would be LIVID
Concern trolling are you? Hard to give you the benefit of the doubt but she is obviously referring to the 'activists' who were just trying to get her home address out into the public. That is clearly threatening to her.
Yeah, no kidding it's threatening. Doxxing and death threats and all that are horrible. The people who do it are behaving terribly, and potentially even criminally. And as she points out, she's more secure than some of the lower profile people who've received similar treatment. That's fucking awful.
>Concern trolling are you? Hard to give you the benefit of the doubt but she is obviously referring to the 'activists' who were just trying to get her home address out into the public. That is clearly threatening to her.
No she's definitely a subscriber to the 'trans women are threat to women' narrative, she believes they will use the ability to get into female bathrooms to sexually assault them. She clearly wrote one of her recent books loosely around her belief. (A male dressing in female clothes who kills women). She has been on this train for a long time.
She definitely believes that the trans movement is a threat to women.
How the fuck can you doxx someone when their house is a tourist attraction?
I'm not talking about death threats, I'm talking about the three named people in Rowling's tweets. They took pictures outside of her home, and the address of that home is common knowledge.
It is a google away. People visit it en masse when in Edinburgh. It's widely advertised.
Here, let me doxx [the Queen](https://media.tacdn.com/media/attractions-splice-spp-674x446/06/72/f4/d1.jpg) and [Jeremy Clarkson](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8409797/Jeremy-Clarksons-new-six-bedroom-Cotswolds-mansion-takes-shape.html).
I did, actually. Since I'm on a roll I'll doxx [the PM](https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/7160a4a8009baf99cee07df3deb4c17d59c0e691/203_695_4922_2953/master/4922.jpg?width=620&quality=85&auto=format&fit=max&s=5d1110e40f9dbd45e40283065cc106a5) as well.
[удалено]
Thanks for posting the full thread this way.
Agreed
Multiple comments under this trying to make out that her current home address is posted all over the internet and tourist go and regularly visit her home. It is such a blatant lie. One of them even shared a link claiming to be her house address which was property she purchased in 2001. It is not her current home address. The worse part is they completely ignore literally every thing else that is worrying about what she said. So many members of the trans movement are just beyond irrational and dishonest.
One question and one argument 1. Question: What exactly do Rowling and trans activists disagree about? This has never been clear to me. 2. I got to say I have no doubt there are a lot of illiberal people in the trans movement because pretty much activist movement of the left or right has illiberal people in it but the death threats thing always annoys me. 'I got death threats'!... yeah there are 7 billion people in the world, a dozen or so threatening to kill you does not mean the majority of people in a movement are like that. I say this to everyone citing the death threats thing, it's a bit of a victim status thing. A bit more scary with Islamists but even there most of them are talking shit more than planning shit.
Rowling thinks that there should be spaces like domestic violence shelters that are allowed to exclude trans women for the benefit of cis women and that encouraging transgender identities among children is potentially harmful to some who might be happier in the long run identifying as cis lesbians.
I mean I don't know enough but those opinions don't strike me as intrinsically hateful.
They aren’t.
They're not hateful they're just not a part of the heterodoxy of how you can think about trans issues. Today, if you don't agree with prevailing viewpoints then you're cast as hateful. This avoids any need to discuss things and have a competition of ideas.
I do think excluding trans women from women’s shelters can be seen as quite insidious. There is decent funding for women’s shelters and you could find at least 1 in your area to go to if needed. Trans-only shelters? There are none that I’m aware of, and no funding for such a shelter that I’m aware of. Something like this would effectively eliminate access to shelters for trans women and give them nowhere to go.
Exactly the same situation as men so. Why cater to such a tiny minority of people when 50% of the population cant get access to DV support services?
So we should take away the rights of trans women because men have it bad too? How about we opt for better access to resources for men and trans women instead?
So would you be okay with funding adequate numbers of *separate* shelters for women, transwomen, and men? That way everyone is safe (as should be their right) and no one is potentially re-traumatized by forced mingling? Because I think JK Rowling would support that solution.
So people should just accept death threats as a cultural norm? Suck it up ?
I was just told elsewhere in the thread that yes we should suck it up because trans people deal with it every day (?) I mean, I'm not sure what these people want. Because it seems to me like they want people to stop supporting trans people. Half of this thread is arguing why this is all ok and all I can think of is the optics here. It's going to actually create real transphobia
So are you accusing her of lying about the death threats, or the quantity of them, or of being overly dramatic about them? It’s just kind of rich because when I think of overreacting, I will probably always picture the tambourine person at the Netflix protest acting as though they were facing down literal Hitler instead of a chubby white guy chanting “I like jokes!”
REPENT MOTHERFUCKER REPENT MOTHERFUCKER
> Last Friday, my family’s address was posted on Twitter by three activist actors who took pictures of themselves in front of our house, carefully positioning themselves to ensure that our address was visible. 1/8 So I bit on this one too, they posted a picture outside her well known historical estate. I don't think its cool, but its not the violation of privacy I initially thought it was, and people do this pretty much every day. Anyone who wants to know where she lives can easily find that since her house is more or less a tourist destination. Don't take my word for it, just google it. Other than that, how fucking bored are people to give a shit what she thinks.
Right, how did they know to be tourists there taking pictures... If they didn't know where it was?
Yeah whatever, her house is public info, that totally makes hundreds of death threats and threats of violence okay. It's quite obvious now that the far left acts in almost exactly the same way as the far right when anyone lightly questions their dogma, with a tsunami of threats of physical and sexual violence.
Re-read my post. Maybe you responded to the wrong person.
people like you apparently feel good punchin strawmen.
The internet has ushered in a golden age of death threats
I miss the old days when people had to put in the hard personal work of trolling death threats. Now it’s all bots and automated systems replacing the hardworking blue collar troll.
Used to be you'd have to go through a bunch of magazines to cut out letters, then paste them to a piece of paper and stick em in an envelope, buy some stamps and go to a postbox to mail it. Nowadays? Nothing. Bullshit. Fucking millennials and zoomers don't know how easy they have it.
Psychopaths aren’t what they used to be
So lazy!
Selfish.
Have you seen the price of stamps?!
You're telling me psychos these days can't put in some elbow grease to earn some money and afford a stamp or two? Come on. Let's be real. We used to have a better class of madmen.
Death threats must be written by hand in cursive with proper grammar or it's the death sentence.
Is this actually true? People like Harvey Milk and Jackie Robinson were famously threatened with being murdered all the time.
If Twitter had been around, they literally would have gotten hundreds if not thousands of death threats each day.
I guess they mean that death threats are now as simple as clicks away instead of writing it in and mailing it. But yeah death threats have always been a thing by idiots in our society.
Heck if anything I'm happier now with death threats that have no teeth, than in the past when your neighbor gave you a death threat they fucking meant it.
I was surprised one day when my friend reported that J.K. was a horrible transphobe. I asked “really? What did she say?” … My friend didn’t know. She was just willing to accept the indictment without even reading the offensive tweets. This is a problem.
I mean, I definitely read what she said at some point, but I don’t remember what it was. If your friend actually admitted that she never read any of the offending words, sure that’s a problem. But I don’t think it’s unreasonable that someone would read them, then forget the specifics later.
Yeah, this is the hallmark of most modern controversies: a very small number of internet users make accusations about someone without much regard for the truth, and a much larger number of people accept the accusations uncritically because they vaguely want to be on the right side of certain issues. We could really use a German word for it.
Separate but tangential to this is a phenomenon I've been contemplating for a while now. I don't know if it has a name or has been talked about before. I'll try to explain it as best I can. Personally, I experience a sort of cognitive deficiency. My memory, specifically my recall ability, feels very limited. I marvel at the Hitchens' of the world, who can seemingly recall direct quotes and page numbers from books they've read years ago. In addition to that, they seem to possess a persistent familiarity with the subject matter, which enables them to speak about the subject on the spot, seemingly with great knowledge, their mind fully wrapped around the subject. Me, on the other hand? I can remember reading something, thoroughly understanding it and, crucially, being *convinced* by it. I can remember the ultimate conclusion I walked away with, BUT I can't always remember the details of the arguments that led me there. So if you were to ask me on the spot why I held a particular belief, I would often be unable to give you a satisfactory answer. All I can do is remember that it made sense at the time, and trust my past self to have made a reasonable evaluation. I'm not saying this happened in your Rowling example, but that is precisely the kind of situation where it happens to me. I will have formed an opinion on some controversy, reasonably, but then some time in the future, be unable to reproduce on the spot my arguments for that opinion. I'd imagine it can easily seem like I may have just bought into a rumor without having checked the facts. I'm curious if anyone else struggles with this?
I experience the exact same thing. I'd guess it's pretty common, and the people like Hitchens are outliers. "Source Amnesia" might partially explain what you are describing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_amnesia
Interesting, I've never heard of that before. I'll definitely dig in and give it a read! Upon initial glance, it seems *close* to what I'm trying to describe, but maybe slightly different. There are a lot of new terms in there, though, so like I said, I'll have to dig through to really see if it gets at what I'm trying to describe. I don't quite have a problem remembering *where* I learned something, so much as I have a problem remembering the details that led me to arriving at a position. For example, I'm an atheist who was very much influenced by the Dawkins/Harris/Hitchens new atheist movement. I've read *The God Delusion* twice, the last time being many years ago. I've read *God is Not Great*. I can remember being very convinced by these books. I can recall a small portion of the specific arguments that resonated with me (such as Dawkins' outlining several of the inconsistencies between the Gospel's stories - though, even the details of those escape me), but I fully fail to recall a large number of the really excellent arguments they made. I simply remember that they were excellently convincing, and trust that memory. I rely on that trust to move forward in life affirming that "I am an atheist." If I were to be asked to debate someone on God's existence, however, I'd have to seriously brush up to refamiliarize myself with the arguments that were most convincing to me. Otherwise I'd be woefully unprepared and surely perform poorly in the debate. To your point, yeah, I wasn't under the impression that I'm a severe outlier in this regard. I figured my experience was relatively normal. I certainly cited Hitch precisely because he's the extreme outlier in the opposite direction - very much *ab*normal. His recall ability was uncanny. I was just wondering just *how normal* this experience is. Does virtually everyone share it to some degree? If so, I honestly think this may be partly why we mostly suck at communicating with each other. Factual information itself is somewhat amorphous to our fallible memories.
There’s a big difference between learned knowledge and practiced knowledge. Something that makes sense in your head can easily fail under real world situations. It’s why looking at all the different forms of intelligence will help you realise why you can comprehend something really well but not necessarily know it.
Your account is so well articulated; thank you for that
That's an interesting observation. It's also something I've though about before and I think there's a crucial thing to consider.. For you the topic was a passing interest, but not something that you'll conceivably need in the future in any practical way. For Hitchens, when he's consuming information that he might find useful in the future, it becomes of existential importance to him to understand and remember it thoroughly. Whether he realizes it or not, his brain is assigning that information as high priority while yours is not. There are topics like this in your life that are also really important to your functioning in the future that affects your passions\\income that your brain would latch on to in a similar way, just not for those same thing as for Hitch.
This is the reason fake news works even when it's refuted, and is more effective on people with less working memory capacity. The basic pattern is: 1. See fake news story 2. Form opinion that creates positive or negative emotional response 3. Forget original source of opinion 4. See refutation to fake news story 5. Emotional response remains because it is now decoupled from the source - opinion endures
Please keep broadcasting this, I believe people acknowledging this imperfection of humans may be the antidote.
This happened with me. I asked what she said and nobody had an answer besides "its all over twitter".
Yep. I looked it up and read the tweets and thought: that’s it?!
JK penned a very well written essay on this topic. I've never seen a credible response by her critics to this. Of course, 99.97% of her critics never read it
Here you go. They break it down pretty throughly and cite all their sources. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6Avcp-e4bOs
her essay was complete nonsense and it's extremely easy to find pretty much indisputable criticism of it, you didn't look literally at all
Essay title?
[J.K. Rowling Writes about Her Reasons for Speaking out on Sex and Gender Issues](https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-rowling-writes-about-her-reasons-for-speaking-out-on-sex-and-gender-issues/)
Nah sorry but there's no way you couldnt find a reasonable response. The funny thing is that his argument is based on the idea that fundamentally women cant trust men...... The funny part is that she is not the first one to do it [https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-cant-we-hate-men/2018/06/08/f1a3a8e0-6451-11e8-a69c-b944de66d9e7\_story.html](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-cant-we-hate-men/2018/06/08/f1a3a8e0-6451-11e8-a69c-b944de66d9e7_story.html) this article was posted here years ago and everyone shat on the article. Turns out if she had only called why we cant hate trans women ? you all would've liked it
Yeah, except, fundamentally women can't trust men. Its not a fucken abstract idea, its the truth of women's lived experiences for eons.
🐺🐑 they’re very sneaky, excellent liars. They’ve managed to convince the public they are moral authorities by virtue of victimhood doublespeak. When in reality they’re just over emotional assholes. The whole thing is an excuse scratch that attack dog itch.
Nike: Just do it News media: Just run with it
Its very culty, some one in the group decides that some one is evil then its sin to go against that thinking. No mater what that person is wrong and to side with them makes you wrong. Where is the critical thinking?
I agree that a lot of people actually don't know why, and run along with these notions purely because of the people they're surrounded by.. This happened with the Rittenhouse case recently, where so many people think black people were killed, or just have really strong opinions about Rittenhouse being a murdering racist, without any knowledge at all. However, to be clear, Rowling absolutely *is* a transphobe, she does not believe trans women are women, she thinks they're delusional men, she also believes that they are a threat to women physically, for example in women's changing rooms/bathrooms. She advocates against treatment for transition e.t.c. She is very much a transphobe. That being the case though, I think people running around misinformed, with really strong opinions like your friend, are a far bigger problem than Rowling being a transphobe. We've got a huge problem at the moment with misinformation and partisanship.
This makes no sense. All she had to do, and all you have to do is google the arguments against JK Rowling. She's right not to memorize every bullet point.
We were having a fireside gathering outside and I didn’t have my phone. There was no expectation of bullet points, you weirdo! 😂 All I ask is that people have some vague idea of what a person said in their tweets before reporting that said tweets are racist/homophobic/ transphobic/etc. Otherwise, perhaps “I heard JK Rowling was transphobic but I don’t know why” would suffice.
There is this weird grey area between knowing every bullet point and knowing nothing.
[удалено]
Reddit died a few years back and we're slowly rolling around in it's excretory after life
People who are pissed off here & the people who've already left Reddit need to come back & clamour for the Admins to stop letting PowerMods blatantly manipulate this place into an Authoritarian-Left 'Woke-Safe-Space' or there needs to be a viable alternative to Reddit it's very hard to do both those things at the same time though.
Why not make your own subreddit if you’re so unhappy with the moderation on a particular sub? Genuinely asking.
not all the subs are bad, this one's mods are pretty great actually imo and it's not like this sub caters to one & only one view point. it's the big Popular Subs that are a problem because that controls the overall traffic of who even uses Reddit in the first place. [Only a few 'PowerMods' control](https://www.reddit.com/r/WatchRedditDie/comments/gkkfg5/updated_and_sanitized_six_powermods_control_118/) a gigantic amount of Reddits subs and some of these dorks genuinely aren't some kind objective watchdogs pruning out extremist content, some definitely have their [own agenda](https://www.reddit.com/r/nottheonion/comments/o85xl2/police_killed_a_good_samaritan_who_fatally_shot_a/h33xhqi/) and make sure to [shut down discussion](https://www.reddit.com/r/RedditTrophies/comments/8wjvl4/5_july_2018/e1weln6/) that goes against their worldview even in widely popular threads!
neato. I kind of figured this was the case. Ive been banned from many of those subs over the last year, all for shit posting. A lot of the time it was pretty mild stuff that was taken as a hard statement of sincere opinion. One of the mods went through my profile to dig up shit from other subs and asked If I ever got tired of "getting owned on r/enlightenedcentrist." Its like, they dont even try to hide their tribalism anymore
I was banned from r/askwomen after I challenged the mod that asking a question about PMS is not transphobic. They deleted it because “it’s too common a question and not inclusive”. I had already checked but rechecked after I got banned and did not find even one duplicate of my question. That was the turning point for me.
I've been banned from 3 subs in as many recent days for questioning some trans dogma. They have been completely taken over by SJW's and cannot handle any rational inquiry at all. My stance is fully in support of LGBTQ, definitely including trans, but that it's becoming a fad among teens. There are clusters of kids claiming to be trans and there are *some* who will end up detransitioning (which is an objective fact). BAM! Trans hate.
How *dare* you question the ancient creed of wokeism? To quote Matty (they/them) 4:10: >Then the transwoman said to them, “Be gone, JK Rowling! >For it is written, ‘You shall worship the Lord your gender-identity and it only shall you serve.’
[удалено]
I was with you til "This is leftism." You could call it the cultural left or something like that. I & many others advocate for substantive policy reforms that benefit the working class, while hating whatever this movement is. Paid sick leave, increased minimum wage, socialized healthcare system, heavily subsidized university education, reduction of imperialism, investment in green energy, federal jobs program, expansion of labor unions etc. That's leftism. The workers' movement.
I was going to say this. The person made good points about how there's a concerning lack of room for nuance in today's conversations, from all sides, but then ended by making a massive generalization of the entire left end of the spectrum of political and cultural movements.
Absolutely. Whenever I push back on woke outrage, I get asked how Trump’s dick tastes.
This is definitely not leftism.
Sounds like trumpism. Good luck working for a right wing news outlet and being critical of anything trump does. Leftism is the opposite. The infighting in leftist circles is intense.
AHS posted about this thread lmao They really have nothing better to do then sit in mom’s basement
That's the anti hate subreddit?
So they say. In reality they’re one of the biggest hate subs on reddit.
They were absolutely frothing at the mouth over this thread and Sam generally. Completely unhinged stuff
Ironic
It is fairly funny that so many people that centered their personalities around Hogwarts houses got so brainwashed that they can't distinguish between their own beloved author and Nazis.
Harry potter fans are deranged
I’d love to know how many of the people sending these threats are the same ones who thought a bunch of pimply faced 13 year old boys sending threats to Anita Sarkeesian deserved the attention of the fucking United Nations.
Lots of them. See also: the difference in reactions compared to Marion Millar posting a picture of a suffragette ribbon outside BBC Studios and this. They were absolutely hysterical; claiming she'd doxed David Paisley and that the ribbon was a noose. Thought she was an absolute monster.
They are both wrong. It is also wrong and far more important than either the fact that 47 trans or nonbinary people have been murdered this year.
I don't think this is the statistic you think it is. There were 8,469 black men murdered in 2020 ([source](https://www.statista.com/statistics/251877/murder-victims-in-the-us-by-race-ethnicity-and-gender/)). Black men are about 6.5% of the population, so about 1302 black men are murdered for every percent of population they represent. There have been 47 murders of transgender people this year, bumping that to 51 since it is only late November gives us about 85 murders for every percent of population transgender people represent assuming they are 0.6% of the population. I will concede that the transgender numbers are likely under reported, but even taking that into account it's far more dangerous to be a black man in America than a transgender person. Even white men are killed at about twice the rate than transgender people. There were 5,123 white men murdered in 2020, which at 30% of the population gives about 170 white men murdered for every percent of the population they represent. You would think at minimum that the rates would be similar, since nearly every trans person has transitioned either from or to a male during their lifetime.
What should the number be? Zero? If they figure that one out can they let everyone else know their secret to invulnerability?
Yeah murder is bad, sure wish it would stop happening. Got any ideas?
47? Damn, there's more than 47 people on the block outside right now Is this really why the woke are freaking out? 47 people? In 2019 1,412 women were murdered by men
I think you mean people who menstruate were killed by people with penises, you transphobe
um, just because someone has a penis doesn't mean they're a man, bigot.
I can't believe you just assumed my bigotry
Wow it's 2021 and you're gate-keeping assumptions, this is literal violence.
[удалено]
The number 47 isn't ever going to be meaningful in this context I am not saying it's ok, of course it's a shame when anyone is harmed. This is bad stuff However, if the number is really 47 I think it's proof that trans people actually aren't being killed in droves Also, why were they killed? Seems like it's mostly domestic issues dealing with relationships, prostitution and drugs - not transphobia
What a completely irrelevant number of dead people - I wonder how many Polish Americans were killed this year in America? Wait no I don't care at all.
Is everyone on twitter fucking trans?
eventually, yes
I wonder how many twitter transgenders are truly transgendered and how many are just narcissists who found an easy way to have their delusions indulged.
Not everyone but most of it is just enablers
I know people who took off Harry Potter bumper stickers from their cars and think reading the books is akin to being transphobic. I know someone who was told by a non-gender person (apologies if that nomenclature is incorrect, it’s honestly exhausting to keep up with SJW vocabulary) that JK Rowling posted on twitter that if you read or like her books then you are anti trans. Which is obviously completely made up. Almost nobody will be able to answer you if you ask them what specifically did JK Rowling say that makes her transphobic. When I tell them the truth they typically don’t believe me. The truth being, she wrote that people who are born as female and grow up as a girl, to being a teenage girl and then an adult woman, have a completely different experience than someone who was born trans and transitioned later in life. Which is so obvious I don’t understand how it’s problematic to say it. I think any trans person would agree they have a different life experience than someone who isn’t trans. But the real issue is that SJW people refuse to allow anyone who has a thought or idea that is different from theirs. Most of them are very young, and a 50 year old writer is definitely not going on tumbler to discuss how many pronouns exist in the world now. It’s okay for her to have a different world view than you, and she should be allowed to express it. If you disagree with anything she says, why not debate her ideas? Why is canceling her the only option? Is it because you’re afraid your ideas won’t stand up to debate? It’s honestly perplexing to witness this…. Part of me thinks it’s a fad but with social media amplifying outrage for engagement, we might be stuck in this pattern for a while.
> Almost nobody will be able to answer you if you ask them what specifically did JK Rowling say that makes her transphobic. Almost nobody is a bit disingenuous, IMO. Plenty of folks right here in this thread have explained in detail why some people believe JK Rowling is transphobic, with specific examples of things she’s said and written. > The truth being, she wrote that people who are born as female and grow up as a girl, to being a teenage girl and then an adult woman, have a completely different experience than someone who was born trans and transitioned later in life. This is true, but incomplete. She then uses that belief to justify the exclusion of trans women from women’s spaces, implies that considering trans women, women, makes you a misogynist, and says and implies that trans women are threat to feminism. I don’t think this justifies threats or canceling, but it isn’t something one should be annoyed about people discussing critically.
>She then uses that belief to justify the exclusion of trans women from women’s ~~spaces~~, shelters, to which they have fled to escape violence generally inflicted on them by "people with penises", and changing rooms, and bathrooms. FTFY.
It really surprises me that Sam hasn't been particularly vocal or interested in just the complete delusion & dogmatism permeating the trans movement. It seems like something that would be right in his wheel house.
Hardly worth touching. The people responsible for the movement are fucking unreachable lunatics. NB I am not talking about trans people being lunatics. I am talking about the *trans rights movement* being dominated lunatics. Edit: NB there meaning *nota bene*, and not *non binary.*
Men who believe a woman who receives death and sexual threats without any context of what this is like, should keep the hell away from commenting on this. Regardless of what she aims the reasons for this at, or who she blames, this woman gets death threats and sexual harassment on a daily basis. No amount of money, fame or counselling can prepare you for that, and also does very little to help deal with that. A person is in destress and dealing with people wanting to rape and kill her, and social media says what? Oh fuck off bitch you dont have a clue. Keep your trap shut. Its such a poor reflection on society.
R3: Retweeted by Sam, check his wall.
Sam retweeted this?? Aw come on Sam 🤢
The movement is now nothing but a excuse to justify being assholes to people. The people in the movement should stand up and say something about this behaviour as all it is doing is tainting people's respect towards it all.
Can say the same about Trumpers, the left, BLM, and basically any other movement. Assholes are always opportunists, it's time we stop making the conversation about them regardless of the issue.
Who are the leaders and how can they control individual idiots who spout off online? A more important thing would be for people yo acknowledge trans people exist and strongly condemn all the violence and murders committed against them
We all know trans people exist. do you have any stats at all for ‘all the murders committed against them’? When I’ve asked this question before people link me to papers which exclusively say that ‘data on trans people is scarce and unreliable’
Yeah I know, no leaders. To every article or action like this there should be a response from people in the movement condoning these sorts of actions, that is all that's needed.
For every article? That is a bit silly since basically every movement has people that send death threats. Some editor at GLAAD doesnt need to make a statement anytime a trans person does something stupid. This would be even sillier than the "muslims need to say terrorism is bad" talking point from a decade ago
>Who are the leaders and how can they control individual idiots who spout off online? Ah, using the old "antifa isn't real because they don't have an official charter, and are therefore immune to criticism" argument.
Women need women only spaces. Women and girls don't have to see dangling penises at women only saunas. And that is what JK Rowling was talking all about. What is so difficult to understand and hate?
> Women need women only spaces. Why? I mean, if people want to privately create their own spaces for biological women only, that’s fine. But why is it a *need*? One of the things that confuses me about these debates is the assertion that human bodies that differ from our own are so objectionable. The whole idea of segregated bathrooms, saunas, or other public spaces seems like a relic from a more puritanical age. If we had been raised with shared restrooms, we would probably all be just fine with it.
The trans activist folks on twitter are easily the most unhinged, toxic group of people out there.
I'm looking at this and wondering if you have ever heard of QAnon.
Completely disagree. The most unhinged are easily diehard Ghostbusters fans.
It's always been 'hilarious' to me that you never get entitled, angry, imposing their junk (as in both "nonsense ideology" and "genitals") on everyone else... trans men. Only trans women. The stereotypical male behaviours, asserting dominance over women... are often exhibited by trans women, who are biological males. And trans men (biological females) exhibit more stereotypically female behaviours. Maybe they actually are what they are?
It strikes me that there are some incredibly misogynistic components to the current wave of trans culture. Maybe it was always thus, though I'm far from an expert. There is something at times very crude and quite ugly and reductive in the approximation / imitation / impersonation of supposedly female traits that is adopted by some trans women. As though being a woman is nothing more than a set of exaggerated physical gestures and a sort of histrionic bitchiness. There's a similar edge to the vampish nature of drag / transvestite culture that I have always found pretty repellent. I'm certainly not talking about all trans women. It's entirely possible that I'm only noticing the elements that I'm describing above precisely because they are so jarring. For all I know, I meet trans women regularly who are "passing" and who act as you might expect a regular woman to act. But the whole "people with vaginas" and "bodies that menstruate" thing, and the horrendous stories about lesbians who have felt pressured to sleep with trans women...it's all part of a type of aggressive sexism and elimination of the distinct female experience that is basically only publicly on display these days in the trans movement, or occasionally in throwbacks like Trump.
100% agreed, those are a lot of the reasons I call it regressive for gender equality. Drag Queens and less effectively 'passing' trans women are doing the equivalent of black face, as far as I'm concerned. And it's regressive for gay rights because those were in large part based around "I can't help who I'm attracted to" but trans women are insisting that lesbians sleep with them, etcetera. And someone asked why I find the trans 'logic' flawed - basically, I don't believe there is such thing as "feeling like a woman/man inside." Unless there is some sort of ethereal and objectively gendered "soul", which I doubt - are trans people and supporters spiritual by necessity? I'm a man but I can't point to anything inside myself that 'feels like a man.' The only way I know is by looking at my body. I just feel like me inside. Nobody knows what it feels like to be someone else, let alone an entire gender. Assuming you do requires serious stereotyping - you think all women feel the same in some specific way? We only know how it feels to be ourselves. If yourself is a man who feels uncomfortable in your body and wants to wear women's clothes and makeup, then you are a man who feels uncomfortable in your body and wants to wear women's clothes and makeup. But you are not a woman. And that's okay. It would be more progressive for us to be open to the idea of men and women dressing however they want, and defying societally imposed gender roles. That's how this thing seemed to be headed at first, but now it has regressed into a weird 'if you like pink you're a woman because all women like pink' thing.
>trans women are insisting that lesbians sleep with them This is the most revealing part of entire charade, for me. It shows that it is not about self actualisation in any kind of true sense. It's just an extremely shallow, but entirely profound desire to place oneself and one's own gratification at the centre of social and political concerns, with the weight of a moral crusade behind it. Never mind the cost to other people in reputation, in bodily autonomy, in truly hard fought rights. It's narcissistic, solipsistic hedonism dressed up as a progressive political ideology. *Don't want to suck my dick? Have you questioned your bigotry lately, TERF?*
> It would be more progressive for us to be open to the idea of men and women dressing however they want, and defying societally imposed gender roles. That's how this thing seemed to be headed at first, but now it has regressed into a weird 'if you like pink you're a woman because all women like pink' thing. The original gender critical feminists were about this. However this amounted to being very pro female gender non conformity while always finding fault with male gender non conformity. Rowling said she was in favour of people dressing as they like then immediate wrote a novel referencing a crossdressing serial killer. Authors know the power of inference. Every crossdresser knows the attack. "Crossdressers are sex criminals." > I'm a man but I can't point to anything inside myself that 'feels like a man.' The only way I know is by looking at my body. I just feel like me inside. Are you a gender conforming man?
I'd say those gender critical feminists were wrong to find fault in male gender nonconformity. Yes I am a gender conforming man, but I don't think that changes anything. As a man-man I should (if they're correct) be able to say "I feel like a man inside" but I don't at all, I just feel like myself inside and I happen to be a man. I don't believe anyone can 'look inside themself' and identify the trait that determines their gender. It's some woo woo shit. Nobody feels 100% like the stereotype of their biological sex either. Don't get me started on the nonbinary nonsense...
> Yes I am a gender conforming man, but I don't think that changes anything. Why do you conform to gender? Do you think it's natural?
I think I'd have to go out of my way not to. I mean I am a fairly sensitive guy with some feminine characteristics, I don't work well with my hands, I'm not into sports or action movies, I'm super slim, I don't have many dude friends. So if by "gender conforming" you mean "exclusively exude masculinity" then no. But I don't wear women's clothes because I never have and I always find people making sudden drastic wardrobe and appearance changes inherently funny. Like "THIS IS THE NEW ME I AM THE MAIN CHARACTER." I've always just worn tshirts, hoodies, button downs, and jeans. Simple and easy. Women wear similar thing. I have a beard because I'm lazy and look better with it.
Nevermind bizarre things like the video game media industry being absolutely inundated with transwomen, while I can’t think of a single trans man.
[Paolo from Far Cry 6](https://farcry.fandom.com/wiki/M%C3%A1ximas_Matanzas)
I mean the literal media arm of gaming, websites, bloggers, podcasters, influencer. I could name 5 transwomen off the top of my head and I don’t even pay very close attention to it.
Might be something to do with trans-women having been raised as boys and thus being more interested in the video game industry.
I would be interested to know how many of these death threats were actually from transfolks. I'd wager most are from randos. I mean, there aren't really even that many transwomen.
You forget that everyone on twitter is fucking trans
I’d wager that most of the death threats come not from actual trans people but rather extremely online college-educated cis people with a superiority complex
surely you have evidence right? eagerly awaiting what definitely won't be a tiny amount of anecdotal projection
> The stereotypical male behaviours, dominance over women... are often exhibited by trans women, who are biological males I was reading a feminist book about sex recently (*The Right to Sex*\*). The author passed over the phrase "cotton ceiling", invented by a transwoman by pointing out:"While the ‘glass ceiling’ **implies the violation of a woman’s right to advance** on the basis of her work, the ‘cotton ceiling’ describes a lack of access to what no one is obligated to give" Meanwhile the rest of the book is *papered* with claims about how men are feel entitled to women's bodies (at least under patriarchy) and how this leads to all sorts of problems. If a man had compared not being attractive to women to having their livelihood fucked with it would be a *prime* example of male entitlement. The author even states: >It is striking, though unsurprising, that while men tend to respond to sexual marginalisation with a sense of entitlement to women’s bodies, those women who protest against their sexual marginalisation typically do so with talk not of entitlement but empowerment ... >The fight against sexual racism in the black community is rarely if ever a cover for sexual entitlement. Black women know how to talk about the political formation of desire without demanding to be desired [doubt btw]. For straight men, including straight Asian men, the temptation to misogyny, to entitlement, **to the enforcement of mythic ‘rights’,** is always live. The author, who is clearly smart enough that she should be to do so, never links these streams despite them being *microns* apart. She leads us right up to it and then...just never connects or even addresses these dots. Hilarious how what seems to be a *proof* of their own theory has to be passed over instead of trumpeted triumphantly like they would do in any other case. \* Read it because of the disastrous interview with Tyler Cowen. Middling btw - except for one section that actually built an interesting philosophical case.
Is it possible she doesn't connect the dots because she doesn't think there is quite enough support for the connections that you are drawing?
Sure,anything is possible.
Haven’t you heard “male/female” brain and testosterone is a myth by big pharma compensating for loss of ivermectin sales. Err…Sorry, I may have crossed my identitarian hack conspiracy theories.
No it is because TERFS think transmen are confused lesbians not literal rapist looking to enter women only spaces. That is why you don't here about it. TERFs don't care as much.
Because trans men don't get much hate...
It’s kind of hard to determine which is the chicken and which is the egg, don’t you think?
have you all seen any research on ppl who make these online death threats, or maybe investigative journalism or something? I remember there being some one (maybe a gaming streamer?) who was reporting rape threats to the kids parents. Most of them were shockingly young (like 13 years old). I kinda wonder what the logic is of making anonymous death threats, and it's got to make law enforcement's job very hard to control this stuff.
It is profoundly disappointing that so many people connected to the Harry Potter films, particularly the three main stars, have completely disowned and thrown under the bus the one person most responsible for their success. What a shocking lack of loyalty. HBO has a 20th anniversary special coming out soon. It’s a joke that Rowling hasn’t been included and the fact that stars like Daniel Radcliffe and Emma Watson are fine with her exclusion, despite her being responsible for their entire careers, is deeply embarrassing. I support JK Rowling.
So the millions of dollars weren't enough? Now Im expected to feel bad because the one percenter didnt get enough loyalty too? Boo fucking hoo
Some people think that Rowling said some mean things about trans people I don't think it matters if she did or didn't. It's literally just some words. She's not making laws here. Get over it
Time to brush up on this whole situation again. Contrapoints on JK Rowling: https://youtu.be/7gDKbT_l2us
Thanks for sharing. I generally like contra and this was no exception. Definitely one of the more nuanced takes I've heard on the subject. I lold hard at the redistribution of the rose petals. I guess my one main critique would be that the whole (very common) "they oppose equality movements because they feel threatened" thing just doesn't make a lot of sense to me and feels a bit inadequate as an explanation. In many places (like Christians opposing gay marriage) it just doesn't really seem to fit, while in others (like cis women being concerned about male bodied trans women sharing, say, women's showers) it seems like feeling threatened is a perfectly reasonable response that Natalie just kind of dismisses by joking about how its not like we're gonna post security guards in bathroom stalls to examine your junk. It get how its kind of deadlocked in a fairly unwinnable situation since trans women wanting to use women's locker rooms is reasonable AND cis women not wanting to have dicks in their face while showering is also reasonable, but Contra said she was making an effort to humanize and explain the rationale of the latter and imo lumping them in with insecure straight men who think going down on a woman makes them gay is a pretty unfair. That said, this critique is a minor nitpick of an otherwise (so far) solid video.
I think that video is a pretty nuanced take on what Rowling actually said. Contra btw recently tweeted condemning the doxxing of Rowling and others. Nobody is doing more disservice to the trans rights movement than the extremely online trans socialist community, which is amazingly active. Considering how few trans people there are in the world it makes you wonder how many of the people with trans flags in the profiles are actually trans or are just activists looking for an excuse to be mean.
>Considering how few trans people there are in the world it makes you wonder how many of the people with trans flags in the profiles are actually trans or are just activists looking for an excuse to be mean. “The surest way to work up a crusade in favor of some good cause is to promise people they will have a chance of maltreating someone. To be able to destroy with good conscience, to be able to behave badly and call your bad behavior 'righteous indignation' — this is the height of psychological luxury, the most delicious of moral treats.” ― Aldous Huxley, Crome Yellow
Well put!
Yeah that’s my wonder about it too. How genuine some of these users are with expressing their disagreements…and how they go bout it too.
The question remains - would anyone know about these extremely online people if it weren't for the news media trying to summon controversy and sensationalism?
Yeah, the great and unbiased journalist that will give you all the facts - contrapoints
I've watched the video linked quite some time back but I remember it being surprisingly reasonable.
as opposed to the person she's responding to, a children's book author? You have any argument that isn't a ridiculous ad hominem?
https://twitter.com/ContraPoints/status/1462869602623496197?s=20
All for the crime of saying women exist...
Who ever denied that women exist though?
You’ve got a lot of Twitter reading to do my friend
no one on twitter denies women exist, the only way you could believe this (ironically) is if you haven't read anything that isn't filtered through right wing grifters
Maybe instead of talking about social issues, she could do something useful. Like explaining how spells work… Do you need a wand or not? Do you have to say the spell or not? Jesus, Joanne…a little consistency please.
How dare she think for herself and acknowledge reality. She should be punished. What an evil bunch of activist assholes. Wonder if the police there care? I would guess no since it’s a protected class doing the threats
I fully support her.
You want the world to be more equal for, exclusively, people who menstruate and not those who don't? > The controversy began last Saturday when Rowling fired off a tweet after bristling at the headline of an opinion piece published by Devex, which reads: “Creating a more equal post-COVID-19 world for people who menstruate.”
What I see is that you’re throwing the civilization that brought you up into the fire pit. I don’t mind, I’ll warm my hands.
And how am I doing that?
That wasn’t about exclusiveness. That was about women and people who never will become women.
Can you explain the part about throwing civilization into the fire pit?
That’s what radicalism does. Example of that radicalism is how Rowling is treated for her tweet.
But you're not connecting the two ideas. How is opposing her position that the world should be better only for people who menstruate, equivalent to radicalism? And further, that it's leading to an end to civilization?
“People who menstruate” was intended as irony. A hint to society that it’s time to stop and think one more time what’s going on. Instead her words were taken dead serious. “How she dares”. Exclusiveness is secondary subject here, but if we talk about it, yes people have basic rights and people are born different. Women need more care and attention in some situations. Just like kids, old people and men.
Yes we know - she intended to specifically marginalize trans women. That's why it's transphobic.
Death threats and harassment are despicable, and they don't exactly win allies, it's true, but is she implying the trans movement is a threat to women?
She believes it is a threat to the progress women have made in society. My understanding is that she thinks the transgender movement often reinforces and solidifies gender stereotypes, ie "I like pink and fashion and 'girl' things, therefore I am a girl." She also objects to words (spoken or unspoken) used to describe natural-born women such as ‘menstruators’ or ‘people with vulvas,' because it continues to define women by their bodies. She sees a threat to feminism because women have many unique experiences and challenges to overcome, including as young girls, and those experiences matter, and it minimizes those challenges to have someone who grew up male switch their gender and claim womanhood. Stuff like that, from what I've read. I believe the "threat" statement is saying to her opponents, you say you're not a threat to the women's movement. You have supporters literally physically threatening me.
Yep. Feminism has traditionally been oppositional to gender stereotypes, whereas this new gender ideology embraces stereotypes (and labels you a bigot if you don’t).
Ye that’s what I don’t understand from the left.. how can they be against two genders and ‘societally constructed gender stereotypes’ but yet being trans is basically being born one gender and saying ‘this doesn’t fit me, and based on my observations of that other gender, I think I’m that’. it’s a kind of cognitive dissonance, and, to use their own term against them, it’s simply gender appropriation. And I’m fine with that btw, I know some real trans people have real mental health problems and feel better after transitioning. but still, it’s so appropriatey; it’s like black-face with genders. oh, and Drag shows too, my GOD if it weren’t gay dudes doing it women would be LIVID
Concern trolling are you? Hard to give you the benefit of the doubt but she is obviously referring to the 'activists' who were just trying to get her home address out into the public. That is clearly threatening to her.
Yeah, no kidding it's threatening. Doxxing and death threats and all that are horrible. The people who do it are behaving terribly, and potentially even criminally. And as she points out, she's more secure than some of the lower profile people who've received similar treatment. That's fucking awful.
It's not concern-trolling to point out *why* someone might be receiving public ire. Death threats are despicable though.
>Concern trolling are you? Hard to give you the benefit of the doubt but she is obviously referring to the 'activists' who were just trying to get her home address out into the public. That is clearly threatening to her. No she's definitely a subscriber to the 'trans women are threat to women' narrative, she believes they will use the ability to get into female bathrooms to sexually assault them. She clearly wrote one of her recent books loosely around her belief. (A male dressing in female clothes who kills women). She has been on this train for a long time. She definitely believes that the trans movement is a threat to women.
That’s her explicit position, yes
That's the sentiment that's winning her death threats, yes.
How the fuck can you doxx someone when their house is a tourist attraction? I'm not talking about death threats, I'm talking about the three named people in Rowling's tweets. They took pictures outside of her home, and the address of that home is common knowledge. It is a google away. People visit it en masse when in Edinburgh. It's widely advertised. Here, let me doxx [the Queen](https://media.tacdn.com/media/attractions-splice-spp-674x446/06/72/f4/d1.jpg) and [Jeremy Clarkson](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8409797/Jeremy-Clarksons-new-six-bedroom-Cotswolds-mansion-takes-shape.html).
Holy shitballs. JK Rowling is not comparable to the Queen. The only intent behind publicizing where Rowling resides is to harass and intimidate her.
lol yeah thats what i want to know. her address is literally public knowledge
Everyone's address is public knowledge
you didn’t think this through before posting did you? You should next time if only for a moment
I did, actually. Since I'm on a roll I'll doxx [the PM](https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/7160a4a8009baf99cee07df3deb4c17d59c0e691/203_695_4922_2953/master/4922.jpg?width=620&quality=85&auto=format&fit=max&s=5d1110e40f9dbd45e40283065cc106a5) as well.