I imagine most of the people mad at her don't actually have any idea what her comments actually were. I guarantee they cherry pick words and don't include the full context. Nothing I've seen seems that unreasonable, just a different perspective than the liberal view. What exactly did she say that was so out of line?
shareIt's almost as if someone or some people VERY powerful are pushing the trans agenda with more gusto than maybe even the trans community itself wants. Even black in people in the 1950s and 1960s didn't get this much support from the establishment.
shareIt's appealing to a moment rather than a genuine care about results. I think it's all structured to attract voters. Fortunately, the woke movement is considered a joke at this point, and it's starting to blow up in their face.
shareYou have to kind of admire the trans lobbyists to gain such a powerful footing. Politicians look visibly uncomfortable when asked the most basic question as reality is at such odds with this ideology.
I don't know anyone with gender dysphoria but I imagine they just want to quietly live their lives and the activists are putting them right in the spotlight.
They probably are. Liberals today suffer from what commentator Hans Fiene calls "Selma envy," referring to the civil rights march on Selma, Alabama. As he wrote: "Once upon a time, my generation learned in first-grade social studies, everyone thought it was good to hate African-Americans. But then a group of saintly figures arose who were better human beings than the rednecks from the South, and they changed the world for the better. This story captivated us, and we wanted to change the world, too."
Basically, people revere the heroes of the civil rights era -- and justly so, to be sure -- but later generations wanted a moral cause as noble and righteous as that one so they too could bask in the glory of resounding moral victory. Problem was, there wasn't one on offer. There simply is no cause today comparable to the plight of pre-civil rights era black Americans. The LGBTQ+ crusade is as close as it gets, and it's not really remotely comparable, especially now that laws criminalizing homosexuality have long since been repealed, and coming out is no longer a social and career death sentence. The gay/trans movement isn't really comparable.
But they're trying. The SJWs sure are trying to make it so.
I could not have stated it better.
shareI learned first-grade social studies before the Civil Rights movement. My parents learned first-grade social studies in the early 1930s. My grandmother learned first-grade social studies in the 1890s. None of us were ever taught that "everyone thought it was good to hate African-Americans" ("negroes", as they were politely referred to then).
shareI was quoting someone else with that; it's probably an overstatement. Nonetheless, it unquestionably was a commonly accepted attitude in the pre-Civil Rights era to regard blacks as inherently inferior, and this attitude prevailed in the north as well as the south. It's true the south had it encoded into law in ways the north did not, but the attitude was no less pervasive in the north, it just manifested in different ways. For example, there is an old saying: in the south, whites didn't care how close blacks got, as long as they didn't get too high, in the north, whites didn't care how high blacks got, as long as they didn't get too close.
In other words, because white southerners had been used, for centuries, to employing (or enslaving) blacks as field hands, domestic servants, etc. and living cheek by jowl with them, they were comfortable having them in close quarters -- as long as blacks remained in decidedly socially and economically inferior positions. In the north, on the other hand, with little to no tradition of slavery, whites simply weren't used to living in close proximity with blacks -- but they were still racist and disapproving, so blacks were shoved off into their own, de facto if not de jure, segregated areas, though apart from that they didn't care at all how much wealth blacks amassed.
Whites in the post-reconstruction south enacted Jim Crow laws to reclaim political power. That wasn't necessary in the north, but pervasive racism meant blacks were still every bit as much discriminated against, however, and up north -- rather unlike the south -- there were geographical areas into which you didn't dare venture if you were black, not because of legal sanction, but because you'd be taking your life into your hands.
I wish that celebrities and CEOs (That's YOU , Musk and Chik Fil A, and Nike) would just keep their mouth shut when it comes to Politics and social issues. They're so full of themselves they think they can influence others' opinions.
Musk - Will sell way fewer Teslas now that he has exposed himself as being a Right winger. Because Libs love to boycott.
Nike - Ha ha, Conservatives can boycott too! I will never buy another pair of Nikes because of their support of pretend-black-Kaepernick money-grabber. Can't compete anymore, so he becomes an activist instead. Worked for Obama! He's no more black than Elizabeth Warren is Indian.
Chik Fil A - I know they're doing just fine, but many liberals will never eat here b.c they support anti-gay religious groups.
Not just trans. It’s a concerted push by the entire alphabet cult.
shareJK Rowling is a professional troll along the likes of Bill Maher, Ann Coulter or Dave Chappelle, who does this thing of pretending to be fighting the good fight when all she does is flame bait to escalate rather than say anything intelligent. That's her problem.
I will give you a perfect example of professional trolling. Some of these celebrities will make up a non-controversy to keep the fight going. Professional trolls will say something like, "OMG, the woke are going after Snow White; they're trying to rename it Snow Black," when nobody said that. Or they might say something like, "Muslims are trying to install Sharia Law in the United States."
JK Rowling does this all the time. She trolls the trolls. She's so heavily trolled the Transgenderism that she's actually one of the reasons why it exploded the way it did and went down this bizarre track of redefining what a woman was. I remember when Transgenderism was just a fringe thing, but then JK Rowling kept bitterly ranting that transwomen weren't real women BEFORE anyone made that assertion, and that's when she was trolled back with the whole "transwomen are real women/TERF" meme.
Give us some examples of JK's trolling, please.
shareI GAVE an example. If you didn't understand it, I can't help you.
An example would be with credible documentation, a video, a legitimate news source. Her words, not yours claiming to be hers.
shareExactly. all he's doing is proving my point.
shareI gave an example. It's just that you're resorting to that shady Argument Troll tactic of demanding hard quotes, evidence, etc. so you can smack it down regardless. It's like when people do stuff like, Person A: John is a thief. Don't trust him. Person B: Prove that he isn't. Person A: He was just arrested on shoplifting charges this past Thursday. It's in the police blotter. Person B: That doesn't mean anything. Remember, guilty until proven innocent. (Or something like that.)
That's why you want documentation, proof, news statements, etc. You clearly don't believe what I'm saying about Rowling and are just looking for a specific statement that she made that you can smack down. Well, I'll play your game anyway.
From Hers-Magazine: https://hers-magazine.com/mischief-managed-called-a-terf-j-k-rowling-suggests-transgender-women-arent-real-women/
The issue is not and never has been whether or not transgender women are real women or not. The biggest issue of Transgenderism is that perfectly healthy children and teenagers are being brainwashed into mutilating and sterilizing themselves before reaching adulthood. The second biggest issue is how a pseudo-science was able to reach such legitimacy that it seems that everyone--including the medical world--is on board it now.
Arguing that transwomen aren't women is nothing more than a troll response, because it wasn't about trying to argue anything intelligent; it was about needling the more unbalanced members of the trans community who insisted on being able to share in women's spaces based on the logic that they were "female enough" to do so.
To use an analogy, let's take this social media fad that started with attention seekers vandalizing works of art in the name of environmentalism. If someone were really serious about tackling the issue, they'd talk about how social media is having a negative impact on society on both a personal and cultural level. They wouldn't argue with social media clout chasers on Twitter that they're not really environmentalists, and beat that drum every day for three years.
that is one of the most insane arguments i've ever read, and you've even contridicted yourself countless times. why do adults now speak like 12 year old videogamers? "troll" what the fuck is a troll? use adult language.
JK rowling has said that trans women aren't woman that's correct. we need to stop this insanity, you've already said it, we're mutilating children just because one day some 11 year old girl plays baseball "get her in for a sex change tomorrow!" and i'm not exagerating!
rowling doesn't need to come back with some inteligent response to all this, a dude with a wig on his head isn't a woman, it's that simple, theres no need to find some intelectual debate on this, a man can't be a woman and a woman can't be a man. i'm not a troll or a dwarf or a midget because i say that!
Transgender "women" are not female
shareI suspect you are still searching for credible documentation that supports your "paraphrasing".
shareRowling wrote a fairly lengthy explanation of her beliefs. Whatever you might think of her, she seems pretty sincere about them. Definitely not trolling.
shareJust because you've been programmed to believe something doesn't mean those who think for themselves are "trolls."
shareThat's absolutely asinine. Rowling is not "actually one of the reasons why it [transgenderism] exploded the way it did and went down this bizarre track of redefining what a woman was". She speaks reality, and speaking reality is not "trolling".
shareNothing unless you’re a mentally ill leftist.
shareIf a person gives an opinion, then that is their opinion, right or wrong is for you to judge for yourself, if it totally destroys the way you view an authors work, again that’s your opinion, if it makes absolutely no difference to you one way or the other, again that’s also fine.
One of the issues with ‘free speech’ as a concept is most seem to think it is ‘their right’ to say whatever they want…….but ‘in my opinion’ it is actually your right to say whatever you want and maybe offend and upset me……I’d always much rather know what you believe and what values someone holds dear to themselves, that way I can make up my own mind if I want to have anything to do with you.
That's my point. Most people who have judged her don't actually know what her values are. The online echo chamber they dwell in lead to reactionary outrage, but without true knowledge to her comments.
shareShe said that trans women face a lot of persecution and should be protected but they are not real women. Apparently that's like being a member of the KKK. Off to the guillotine she goes!
shareThat line from Kindergarten Cop, you know the one
share