J. K. Rowling is cancelled because she is a T.E.R.F [ADMIN WARNING IN POST #1]

Sheeps

Admin: Thread moved to CA at AH mods request.

CA forum rules apply, of which can be summed up concisely as "don't be a dick". You're welcome to discuss the topic, but any thinly veiled rants at the trans community, broad brush strokes of labelling trans people as having mental issues / are paedophiles etc, or any other attempts at being blatantly offensive will earn a threadban.



The latest victim of cancel culture is J. K. Rowling. She has been cancelled today for being a transphobe, or a TERF (Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist).

Her crime, it seems was sticking up for a woman who had been fired from her job because that woman aired an opinion that a transsexual didn't approve of. That transexual then proceded to get in touch with the womans employer which resulted in her being fired.

The opinion this woman aired was that there were two biological sexes and that transgender women shouldn't be automatically granted permission to be in womens spaces such as womens bathroom's and women's changing rooms, because it may make biological women feel uncomfortable and unsafe.

There was a court case to determine whether it was an unfair dismissal, the result of which has created the battlefield for trans people and supporters of the fired woman to fight their social justic war against each other.

In all of this, J. K. Rowling seems to have picked up the blame for taking a side (the un"woke" side). She posted the following on social media.


https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1207646162813100033?s=20

Now she is cancelled and being labelled a transphobe. I find it very difficult to give my sympathy to trans people when this is the kind of carry on that their struggle bases itself around.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Cancelled where?

Sheeps

Mekhi Large Light wrote: »

Cancelled where?

Everywhere.

Rothko

Mekhi Large Light wrote: »

Cancelled where?

Nowhere

GRACKEA

Was she not cancelled ages ago for being a Tory?

Sheeps

GRACKEA wrote: »

Was she not cancelled ages ago for being a Tory?

It's possible, I don't know. It's hard to keep up with outrage culture.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Sheeps wrote: »

Everywhere.

Nah, she's still going.

As a committed member of the LGBT community, I find what is happening re: gender/sex to be nothing short of appalling.

You cannot change biological sex. There is no standard for "feeling like a woman". I am a man, and I have no idea what "feeling like a man" is, so how can biologically-born women "feel" this?

Second, you cannot be born into stereotypes. Long hair, make-up, attraction to pink etc., are all social constructions. You cannot be born into a social construction.

Third, biological sex is XX and XY. There are some aberrations, such as Kleinfelters, XXY etc., but these are aberrations. The claim here is that biological men or women can switch chromosomal sex. It is not possible.

Fourth, this is the only trans- category that is taken seriously by society. For example - there are some people who are able-bodied, but believe they were "born disabled". There are some in society now arguing that we should have the State pay for these people to become disabled to meet their "mental image". This is the equivalent of saying to an anorexic person, "you are fine the way you are, it has nothing to do with mental dysphoria".

There are many trans- men/women who are equally as appalled by what is going on, especially regarding the gender identity question.

I, as a member of the LGBT community, get completely sidelined. When people speak to me privately about this issue, they agree with me. But they dare not say it in public.

An extremist identity politics minority have taken over. They are vocal and dangerous and are destroying societal norms as we know them to be.

Conall Cernach

What's this "cancelled" craic?

GRACKEA

Sheeps wrote: »

It's possible, I don't know. It's hard to keep up with outrage culture.

Well she should've been anyway considering a few of her dodge political opinions :^)

Tom Mann Centuria

Conall Cernach wrote: »

What's this "cancelled" craic?

Load of old online American sh*te.

Mrcaramelchoc

Glad she's cancelled her books are ****e.

ceadaoin.

GRACKEA wrote: »

Well she should've been anyway considering a few of her dodge political opinions :^)

What are some of these opinions? I hadn't heard of any controversy in the past? Just rumblings of her being a big evil terf because of her daring to like some tweets standing up for women.

I'd say the extremists are delighted now they actually have a legitimate (to them) reason to bully and threaten her. I wonder if she'll get the standard "get raped/burn in a fire terf" treatment that is reserved for women given that she is so high profile? I'd say she's well able for it and hope she doesn't back down.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

I don’t understand people bringing up intersex folks as a point against Rowling. Intersex people can’t change their karyotype either and will generally phenotypically present as male or female.

I hope she doesn’t back down. She has clout.

buried

T.U.R.F.

T.U.R.F. make good fire and feet warm

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I don’t understand people bringing up intersex folks as a point against Rowling. Intersex people can’t change their karyotype either and will generally phenotypically present as male or female.

Precisely.

It demonstrates that, like sheep responding to a message, they are merely responding in the belief that what they say is true, when in fact they have no idea what they're talking about.

Intersex is NOT the same as transgender.

Intersex is a recognition of biological and sexual differences that does not accord with the "norm". "Transgender" is the concept that you are born into the wrong biological body; a completely different set of circumstances.

GRACKEA

ceadaoin. wrote: »

What are some of these opinions? I hadn't heard of any controversy in the past? Just rumblings of her being a big evil terf because of her daring to like some tweets standing up for women.

I'd say the extremists are delighted now they actually have a legitimate (to them) reason to bully and threaten her

Well the assertion throughout her books that there's something wrong with muggles and witches/wizards being romantically involved. Pure bigotry!!!

Also pro Israel, anti Scottish independence among others I can't think of off the top of my head. Was joking about "cancelling" her though I do strongly disagree with her on many things including this latest one.

bad2dabone

She should just tell these lunatics to go and ****e

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Deleted User wrote: »

Precisely.

It demonstrates that, like sheep responding to a message, they are merely responding in the belief that what they say is true, when in fact they have no idea what they're talking about.

Intersex is NOT the same as transgender.

Intersex is a recognition of biological and sexual differences that does not accord with the "norm". "Transgender" is the concept that you are born into the wrong biological body; a completely different set of circumstances.

Yes, I’m confused at the two being treated synonymously.

bad2dabone

bad2dabone wrote: »

She should just tell these lunatics to go and ****e

I raised this kind of question in the LGBT forum, but even as a member of that community, that thread was closed because it was deemed in breach.

She's not "cancelled". :rolleyes: She said a thing, some people disagree with the thing and others agree with the thing.
She still has her billions and her books aren't being burned en masse or removed from shelves.
She can say whatever she wants but equally others can voice their disagreement and displeasure with the stance that she has taken.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

She's not "cancelled". :rolleyes: She said a thing, some people disagree with the thing and others agree with the thing.
She still has her billions and her books aren't being burned en masse or removed from shelves.
She can say whatever she wants but equally others can voice their disagreement and displeasure with the stance that she has taken.

That's where you're wrong.

Her expression of a personal opinion is now considered "transphobic"; the sexual equivalent of racist.

And with that tag, those opposed to her will make sure she suffers.

If it were equality of speech and expressions of mutual disagreement, I would agree with you. But because this issue is put on par with racism and genocide etc. - clear moral principles - it means that she is burying her own reputation.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Deleted User wrote: »

She's not "cancelled". :rolleyes: She said a thing, some people disagree with the thing and others agree with the thing.
She still has her billions and her books aren't being burned en masse or removed from shelves.
She can say whatever she wants but equally others can voice their disagreement and displeasure with the stance that she has taken.

People lobbing “Okay TERF” at her sound like utter morons though. You do not have to be a radical feminist to agree with her stance.

Sheeps

Deleted User wrote: »

That's where you're wrong.

Her expression of a personal opinion is now considered "transphobic"; the sexual equivalent of racist.

And with that tag, those opposed to her will make sure she suffers.

Exactly this, and if we take the example of the woman she was voicing her support for, this labelling had very real concequences in that she lost her job.

Someone was so intollerant of the fact that another person on the internet had a differing opinion, that they sought out their employer to complain.

GRACKEA

She's been hashtag cancelled a couple of times now and remains wildly rich and successful so I'm sure she'll be grand this time too like

GRACKEA

GRACKEA wrote: »

She's been hashtag cancelled a couple of times now and remains wildly rich and successful so I'm sure she'll be grand this time too like

That's almost irrelevant.

What about everyone else in society -- who can't fall back on many millions of dollars?

She may weather the storm, many more will not.

And that's grossly unfair.

GRACKEA

[Deleted User] wrote: »

That's almost irrelevant.

What about everyone else in society -- who can't fall back on many millions of dollars?

She may weather the storm, many more will not.

And that's grossly unfair.

Pardon me, I thought the thread was about JK Rowling not everyone else in society, based on the title and first post.

The_Brood

The media that is there to divide and breed hate gives the most obnoxious voices an absurd amount of false weight. Case and point: even just on Twitter, her comment has close to 100,000 likes - in agreement, we can take it. Again, on Twitter alone. But because media articles are elevating to the sky and above the angry comments attacking her and making her out to be a Nazi - the made-up feeling is that she is being "cancelled" and attacked from all sides.

Regardless of who said it, there is no way getting around the fact - the media is truly the enemy of the people. It thrives only on hatred and division, or else it doesn't get clicks, and it doesn't eat, and it doesn't live. The media is as close to a literal demon as you can possibly get.

The_Brood

The_Brood wrote: »

The media that is there to divide and breed hate gives the most obnoxious voices an absurd amount of false weight. Case and point: even just on Twitter, her comment has close to 100,000 likes - in agreement, we can take it. Again, on Twitter alone. But because media articles are elevating to the sky and above the angry comments attacking her and making her out to be a Nazi - the made-up feeling is that she is being "cancelled" and attacked from all sides.

Regardless of who said it, there is no way getting around the fact - the media is truly the enemy of the people. It thrives only on hatred and division, or else it doesn't get clicks, and it doesn't eat, and it doesn't live. The media is as close to a literal demon as you can possibly get.

The fundamental question is -- is she right!?

If so, does she deserve to be punished regardless.

And yes, the thread is about her, a multimillionaire, but there are many millions of more ordinary people out there who may suffer the same kind of wrath who don't have wealth to fall back on.

GRACKEA wrote: »

Pardon me, I thought the thread was about JK Rowling not everyone else in society, based on the title and first post.

See above. Yes, it's about her, but her opinion is a reflection of one widely held in society.

Odyssey 2005

Harrry will wave his wand and the bad guys will disappear,then all will be right with the world again.

TomSweeney

Hilarious to see the left cannibalise each other

BBDBB

Oh she’s so cancelled now......which means she won’t be able to........somebody help me out here... cos as far as I recall she’s made a multi million fortune from a seven book franchise about a boy wizard and subsequently turned into highly successful movies which spawned a second franchise of fantastic beasts which has made at least two films and with probably more on the way I don’t think we’ll see her at a food bank any time soon

kowloon

Expecto erecto?

One eyed Jack

If one is going to claim people are misrepresenting facts, it’s incumbent upon the person making the accusation to ensure they aren’t also misrepresenting facts.


But force women out of their jobs for stating that sex is real?


Didn’t happen.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If one is going to claim people are misrepresenting facts, it’s incumbent upon the person making the accusation to ensure they aren’t also misrepresenting facts.

But force women out of their jobs for stating that sex is real?

Didn’t happen.

Out of curiosity, if an individual claims that a biological man cannot ever become a biological woman, do you personally believe they should be removed from their position?

I wish Irish people would f*ck off using hysterical Yankee lingo.

beejee

"cancelled"

Except in cases of serious crime that would have been prosecuted anyway, this cancellation stuff is nothing.

It has all the impact of an odourless fart.

The crying screams of social media amount to zero.

It's bemusing to witness, slowly and surely, people realise that it's all the emperors new clothes. These whingers have no power over anyone unless you allow them the space. The slightest resistance and they evaporate as if they never existed.

Its all a cod

Always Tired

Deleted User wrote: »

I wish Irish people would f*ck off using hysterical Yankee lingo.

It really grinds your gears huh buddy?

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Out of curiosity, if an individual claims that a biological man cannot ever become a biological woman, do you personally believe they should be removed from their position?

I personally couldn’t give a ****e. However if I was their employer and they were an employee, and they were making statements in public that do not reflect the values of their employer, then I would support their employers right to discipline them up to and including dismissal. Nearly all employment contracts nowadays include what are commonly referred to as a code of conduct, and breaches of that code of conduct often include consequences such as dismissal. It happened in the recent case of four high profile rugby players who were employed by the IRFU, the IRFU simply turned around and said FU, not a reflection of our values, contracts terminated.

You’re acting like this is somehow unusual or new, it’s really not.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You’re acting like this is somehow unusual or new, it’s really not.

It's not new, it really isn't.

But in this case - this particular case - is the claim true?

Can we legitimately make the argument that a biological man cannot become a biological woman, free from threat and abuse, free from the risk of losing one's position in society? Is that possible!?

If not, I think society is heading down a very dark and dangerous and perilous path.

Sparkey84

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I personally couldn’t give a ****e. However if I was their employer and they were an employee, and they were making statements in public that do not reflect the values of their employer, then I would support their employers right to discipline them up to and including dismissal. Nearly all employment contracts nowadays include what are commonly referred to as a code of conduct, and breaches of that code of conduct often include consequences such as dismissal. It happened in the recent case of four high profile rugby players who were employed by the IRFU, the IRFU simply turned around and said FU, not a reflection of our values, contracts terminated.

You’re acting like this is somehow unusual or new, it’s really not.

good point linking it to the irfu example. reflecting values is the crux of the case. i would be very unclear where to draw the line between values and fact though. do you think her expressed opinion about what she considers a fact can show her true values?

paulbok

buried wrote: »

T.U.R.F.

T.U.R.F. make good fire and feet warm

You can't use that word now either.
Going to be banned soon

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It's not new, it really isn't.

But in this case - this particular case - is the claim true?

Can we legitimately make the argument that a biological man cannot become a biological woman, free from threat and abuse, free from the risk of losing one's position in society? Is that possible!?

If not, I think society is heading down a very dark and dangerous and perilous path.

The claim is true, but the facts are that her employer was within their rights to terminate her contract because -


The specific belief that the Claimant holds as determined in the reasons, is not a philosophical belief protected by the Equality Act 2010


You can read the judgement in the case here -

https://drive.google.com/file/d/12P9zf82TicPs2cCxlTnm0TrNFDD8Gaz5/view


As a Professor of Philosophy herself, I’m not sure she appreciates the irony of determining the validity of truth

gw80

Out of curiosity, has anyone ever been just postponed before.

Greyfox

Mrcaramelchoc wrote: »

Glad she's cancelled her books are ****e.

She's a billionaire because she wrote the best book series ever.

ceadaoin.

Greyfox wrote: »

She's a billionaire because she wrote the best book series ever.

Yeah dont know how anyone can say her books are ****e. Even if you're not into them personally, the fact that she's a billionaire because of them clearly says otherwise.

Ireland won the Quidditch World Cup so I'll give her books a pass, but she's at best a Blairite/glorified Tory.

And Harry Potter is certainly not the best series of books ever.

John 11:35.

ceadaoin.

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Yeah dont know how anyone can say her books are ****e. Even if you're not into them personally, the fact that she's a billionaire because of them clearly says otherwise.

Quality and popularity are not related.

Calhoun

Its funny how the social troglodytes of the online world still seem to think they have the power to "cancel" and influence anything when they keep ****ing it up and driving more people to whatever side they oppose.

One eyed Jack

Sparkey84 wrote: »

good point linking it to the irfu example. reflecting values is the crux of the case. i would be very unclear where to draw the line between values and fact though. do you think her expressed opinion about what she considers a fact can show her true values?

I think so, yes, but she wasn’t fired because she expressed her true values, her contract with her employer was not renewed because the values she expressed were inconsistent with the values of her employer.

If she is on the one hand claiming that she was fired for stating a fact, then the least that could be expected of her is to state the actual facts that led to her contract not being renewed by her employer, and not just her version of what she wants people to believe, while at the same time criticising other people for what they want people to believe.

Just as there are consequences for other people as a result of what she would want people to believe about them, there are consequences for her actions too, up to and including her employers right not to renew her contract.