nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

mohawk

Airyfairy12 wrote: »

Out of all the celebrities who stood against JK Rowling im mostly shocked at Daniel Radcliffe & especially Emma watson who built a brand on feminism and supporting at risk women and girls. Not to mention, JK Rowling made Daniel Radcliffe and Emma Watson, they owe her their careers, considering neither of them can actually act and both have personalities like two wooden spoons, they would be nothing without her. How dare they?!

At the same time just because there careers are based on being part of her work that doesn’t mean they have to agree with her views.

randd1

Airyfairy12 wrote: »

Out of all the celebrities who stood against JK Rowling im mostly shocked at Daniel Radcliffe & especially Emma watson who built a brand on feminism and supporting at risk women and girls. Not to mention, JK Rowling made Daniel Radcliffe and Emma Watson, they owe her their careers, considering neither of them can actually act and both have personalities like two wooden spoons, they would be nothing without her. How dare they?!

Yeah, because supporting her and having contrary views to the Hollywood/TV "liberal" set wouldn't affect their careers in the slightest.

And I suspect their careers have more to do with the casting agents and film-makers than Rowling.

Invidious

jaxxx wrote: »

I still wouldn't go about describing them as a coward though. The power of fear has a huge control over people.

Agreed... The activists know they can use fear of reprisal (and consequent loss of reputation, career, income, etc.) to keep people silent. That is how any tyrannical ideology works. But the only way to resist it is if people have the courage to stand up and speak their minds. They can't cancel everyone.

Gruffalux

Invidious wrote: »

Agreed... The activists know they can use fear of reprisal (and consequent loss of reputation, career, income, etc.) to keep people silent. That is how any tyrannical ideology works. But the only way to resist it is if people have the courage to stand up and speak their minds. They can't cancel everyone.

Depends who they are and what positions they hold.

History shows vast numbers of people have been successfully 'cancelled' in one way or another.

Invidious

Gruffalux wrote: »

Depends who they are and what positions they hold. History shows vast numbers of people have been successfully 'cancelled' in one way or another.

That is true... Still, we're not dealing with Stalinist repression here... We just need more people to find a backbone and have the courage to speak out against what they know is wrong.

Gruffalux

Invidious wrote: »

That is true... Still, we're not dealing with Stalinist repression here... We just need more people to find a backbone and have the courage to speak out against what they know is wrong.

No, we are a long way from Stalinist repression. But there are definitely opinions one is not permitted to express. Not just on this issue. I have opinions I do not express even online because they are so verboten by many. If I worked for a global corporation like Google or for an EU body I would keep my internet history fairly scrubbed. And other things are creeping in. Implicit bias training for example is reminiscent of re-education. Academia produces people who go into the higher levels of the civil service and HR in companies and good positions in NGOs etc, and they have reasonable amounts of influence when it comes to national policy making. Which is why we have seen some of the inconsistencies arising in other countries on this issue and gradually in our own.

[Deleted User]

Invidious wrote: »

That is true... Still, we're not dealing with Stalinist repression here... We just need more people to find a backbone and have the courage to speak out against what they know is wrong.

Takes more than simply having a backbone. The SJW/<insert cause fanatics> types have shown themselves very capable of taking matters into the real world, to affect your personal life.. I can certainly understand why people would hesitate to take a stand against these bullies and crackpots.

Nermal

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It certainly doesn’t qualify as discrimination if I terminate their employment before the end of the contract because they are creating a hostile work environment for other employees within the organisation.

Making me use your preferred pronoun if I don't want to is being hostile to me.

Now who's creating the 'hostile work environment'?

Invidious

Gruffalux wrote: »

No, we are a long way from Stalinist repression. But there are definitely opinions one is not permitted to express. Not just on this issue. I have opinions I do not express even online because they are so verboten by many. If I worked for a global corporation like Google or for an EU body I would keep my internet history fairly scrubbed. And other things are creeping in. Implicit bias training for example is reminiscent of re-education. Academia produces people who go into the higher levels of the civil service and HR in companies and good positions in NGOs etc, and they have reasonable amounts of influence when it comes to national policy making. Which is why we have seen some of the inconsistencies arising in other countries on this issue and gradually in our own.

I agree. Politically correct repression has been gaining steam for years, and already has a stranglehold over higher education, the media, and the arts. It has to be challenged and stopped before it goes any further. These activists want to control what views everyone else is allowed to hold and express ... and that threatens the very essence of a liberal society.

Invidious

Deleted User wrote: »

Takes more than simply having a backbone. The SJW/<insert cause fanatics> types have shown themselves very capable of taking matters into the real world, to affect your personal life.. I can certainly understand why people would hesitate to take a stand against these bullies and crackpots.

It has gone past the point where you could keep your head down and get by. Now you're commanded to use preferred pronouns (i.e., compelled speech), accept natal men in women's bathrooms and changing rooms without comment or criticism, and applaud the bravery of the 6'4" trans rugby player who is colliding with women 6 stone lighter and putting them at risk of lifelong injury. You can now be labeled a transphobe just for being insufficiently enthusiastic about these things.

Gruffalux

Invidious wrote: »

It has gone past the point where you could keep your head down and get by. Now you're commanded to use preferred pronouns (i.e., compelled speech), accept natal men in women's bathrooms and changing rooms without comment or criticism, and applaud the bravery of the 6'4" trans rugby player who is colliding with women 6 stone lighter and putting them at risk of lifelong injury. You can now be labeled a transphobe just for being insufficiently enthusiastic about these things.

Seemingly if there is no specific clause in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights saying women should not have to face down large brawny transwomen in their women's rugby games then we are at a loss...

jaxxx

Airyfairy12 wrote: »

Out of all the celebrities who stood against JK Rowling im mostly shocked at Daniel Radcliffe & especially Emma watson who built a brand on feminism and supporting at risk women and girls. Not to mention, JK Rowling made Daniel Radcliffe and Emma Watson, they owe her their careers, considering neither of them can actually act and both have personalities like two wooden spoons, they would be nothing without her. How dare they?!

Couldn't care less about Radcliffe, always thought he was a knob, and forgetting the fact that they are where they are because of Harry Potter, I'm terribly disappointed at Emma Watson because I had thought she was a true feminist, not the rogue division of feminism that only cares about man hating and actually controlling women, what they think they should say and should do according to their inane doctrine; an actual real feminist, caring about true equality. I lost all respect for Watson cos of this. I suppose she's fine then with transwomen DESTROYING women's sports? Some feminist.

jaxxx

Invidious wrote: »

Agreed... The activists know they can use fear of reprisal (and consequent loss of reputation, career, income, etc.) to keep people silent. That is how any tyrannical ideology works. But the only way to resist it is if people have the courage to stand up and speak their minds. They can't cancel everyone.

Truer words were never spoken. And more people need to find their own integrity to make it happen.

Grow a pair of gonads! That's my motto. There's a not so subtle irony in that

Errashareesh

I actually always suspected Emma Watson's feminism of being the vapid, crowd pleasing type.

I agree being in Harry Potter/Amazing Beasts doesn't mean that lot have to agree with Rowling on everything, but this was different - they were pandering to the crowd which was attacking her, they were telling a huge lie (that biology is subjective) and they were droning the same agreed line like a bunch of Stepford Wives. They were spineless for not at least appealing for less viciousness towards their friend and mentor.

andekwarhola

Delaney Nice Salesclerk wrote: »

I find all the men here obsessing over trans women really creepy.

It’s the same side of the coin as the anti-maskers, anti-vaxxers, the gemmaroids complete obsession.

It’s not healthy.

More gaslight lhere than Charles Dickens.

excludedbin

Thanks for demonstrating you don't know what the term 'gaslighting' means. Because it doesn't mean pointing out the similarities and heavy crossover with alt-right twerps. If anything, the constant insistence that women don't support trans people (when many clearly, demonstrably do) is the gaslighting.

Said it before and I'll say it again, a lot of terfs are just homophobes who moved onto the next socially acceptable target. They've recycled all the same old arguments. But then no one ever said they were the sharpest tools around.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

That ‘terf’ is allowed here on boards is still notable.

Misgendering? NO!

A misogynistic slur? Knock yourselves out, apparently.

I’d actually prefer if neither was banned. It’s the inconsistency I can’t stand.

jaxxx

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

That ‘terf’ is allowed here on boards is still notable.

Misgendering? NO!

A misogynistic slur? Knock yourselves out, apparently.

I’d actually prefer if neither was banned. It’s the inconsistency hypocrisy I can’t stand.

Fixed that for you :pac:

Justin Credible Darts

excludedbin wrote: »

Thanks for demonstrating you don't know what the term 'gaslighting' means. Because it doesn't mean pointing out the similarities and heavy crossover with alt-right twerps. If anything, the constant insistence that women don't support trans people (when many clearly, demonstrably do) is the gaslighting.

Said it before and I'll say it again, a lot of terfs are just homophobes who moved onto the next socially acceptable target. They've recycled all the same old arguments. But then no one ever said they were the sharpest tools around.

I notice you love to label people racists, and now homophobes, across multiple threads and never get pulled up on it.

What evidence do you have that most terfs ( something I had never heard of before this thread) are homphobes ?

Seems to me this is yet another accusation based on zero evidence and spouted as if it were some sort of fact.

jaxxx

Justin Credible Darts wrote: »

I notice you love to label people racists, and now homophobes, across multiple threads and never get pulled up on it.

What evidence do you have that most terfs ( something I had never heard of before this thread) are homphobes ?

Seems to me this is yet another accusation based on zero evidence and spouted as if it were some sort of fact.

That's their way. All these so-called trans allies (which to be perfectly honest, i don't think they're trans allies at all), can never hold an actual debate or make a statement with any actual facts to back up their garbage.

Like calling those of who who refuse to acknowledge trans-men/women as actual woman/men, we're automatically labelled as transphobes. Same with JK. And yet, any reasonable minded person can clearly see that there's actually no hate towards trans people whatsoever, we're simply defending the natural order of what it means to be male and female.

Gervais08

excludedbin wrote: »

Thanks for demonstrating you don't know what the term 'gaslighting' means. Because it doesn't mean pointing out the similarities and heavy crossover with alt-right twerps. If anything, the constant insistence that women don't support trans people (when many clearly, demonstrably do) is the gaslighting.

Said it before and I'll say it again, a lot of terfs are just homophobes who moved onto the next socially acceptable target. They've recycled all the same old arguments. But then no one ever said they were the sharpest tools around.

People like me must baffle you - staunch gay ally who has been giving a good kicking a couple of times for defending gay friends - and who has enough cop on to know basic immutable science and biology.

You can throw around as many lies and accusations and childish names as you like - no one with a brain will start believing two plus two is yellow and a penis is anything other than a male appendage that a lesbian has every right to decline.

Errashareesh

excludedbin wrote: »

Thanks for demonstrating you don't know what the term 'gaslighting' means. Because it doesn't mean pointing out the similarities and heavy crossover with alt-right twerps. If anything, the constant insistence that women don't support trans people (when many clearly, demonstrably do) is the gaslighting.

Said it before and I'll say it again, a lot of terfs are just homophobes who moved onto the next socially acceptable target. They've recycled all the same old arguments. But then no one ever said they were the sharpest tools around.

Who insists women don't support trans people?

I support trans people - their right to be recognised, their right to identify as another gender to the one they were born with. Their right to live in peace and dignity. That abuse of them should be punished. I just don't agree with denial of biology/redefinition of "woman"/"female". Anyone who's not in kneejerk mode will see that just because there are aspects I don't agree with, doesn't cancel out the support that I do have.

As ever, you and the rest (apart from OEJ), in the absence of having an argument, just swoop in with a sneery post and some line about something not particularly relevant (literally zero evidence of homophobia). Plus ca change.

jam_mac_jam

excludedbin wrote: »

Thanks for demonstrating you don't know what the term 'gaslighting' means. Because it doesn't mean pointing out the similarities and heavy crossover with alt-right twerps. If anything, the constant insistence that women don't support trans people (when many clearly, demonstrably do) is the gaslighting.

Said it before and I'll say it again, a lot of terfs are just homophobes who moved onto the next socially acceptable target. They've recycled all the same old arguments. But then no one ever said they were the sharpest tools around.

It's the very definition of gaslighting. Oh you are all right wing maniacs. Don't argue. Don't actually address anything.

Bob Gray

Errashareesh wrote: »

As ever, you and the rest (apart from OEJ), in the absence of having an argument, just swoop in with a sneery post and some line about something not particularly relevant (literally zero evidence of homophobia). Plus ca change.

Methinks the laddie doth protest too much

andekwarhola

excludedbin wrote: »

Thanks for demonstrating you don't know what the term 'gaslighting' means. Because it doesn't mean pointing out the similarities and heavy crossover with alt-right twerps. If anything, the constant insistence that women don't support trans people (when many clearly, demonstrably do) is the gaslighting.

Said it before and I'll say it again, a lot of terfs are just homophobes who moved onto the next socially acceptable target. They've recycled all the same old arguments. But then no one ever said they were the sharpest tools around.

Isn't this where you usually flounce out and swear not to return?

Gervais08

Bob Gray wrote: »

Methinks the laddie doth protest too much

The very definition of a sneer there.

Can no one debate any more? Is it all just cheap jibes??

Errashareesh

Gervais08 wrote: »

The very definition of a sneer there.

Can no one debate any more? Is it all just cheap jibes??

I don't think Bob means that (having seen a previous post of his here) but it's pretty vague all right.

jam_mac_jam

I have found quite a lot of the people who are questioning this ideology from left or a liberal mindset, in that they are feminists.

It's the extreme actions of some of the trans activists is backfiring when you are lumping anyone who questions anything in with Gemma fans.

jam_mac_jam

Gervais08 wrote: »

The very definition of a sneer there.

Can no one debate any more? Is it all just cheap jibes??

In fairness there was some decent debate earlier in the thread. It has degenerated lately but probably as the same argument has been done to death.

Gervais08

Errashareesh wrote: »

I don't think Bob means that (having seen a previous post of his here) but it's pretty vague all right.

My apologies to Bob if I called it wrong but we are going a tad down a meandering path ...!!!