The JK Rowling Podcast

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:8:09 here again.

I also want to note that I used to stand up for Rowling and try to explain to people that she has never (really, never) said a single thing against trans people, only the idea that there should be no distinction between trans women and those of who were born as women. She argues for a distinction. Some people consider that bigotry. I don't. A trans woman is different than a biological women. Not better or worse, just different -- different lived experience, faced a different kind of discrimination, needs a different kind of support and protection.

Anyway, I now avoid talking about Rowling at all because her name has become synonymous with bigotry and it is actually dangerous to even express a small amount of skepticism about the loathing of Rowling. I am grateful to her that she continues to advocate for what she believes despite the criticism. She doesn't have to. She could stop talking about this stuff, just write books, and let it go. She speaks up because she thinks it's important to do so. You might consider that misguided, but it's also brave.

Being “brave” doesn’t make it less bigoted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think a significant number of people who have decided they hate Rowling and that she is a bigot have never taken the time to actually parse her views on this.

One factor at play here is that there has always been a current of resentment and condescension towards her, well before she got labeled a TERF. There have always been a large group of people who think her success is unearned, that her books are poorly written rip-offs of other great Children's literature. I also think you'd have to be naive not to assume a certain level of misogyny in these attitudes. People will claim otherwise, but Rowling became enormously successful, famous, and wealthy, and no woman is allowed to do that without also becoming polarizing and, often, loathed by large groups of people. You see similar attitudes about Oprah, Martha Stewart, Hillary Clinton, Sheryl Sandberg. I'm not saying I like all these women or think they are without flaws. But there is a specific flavor to criticism and dislike of them, and there's no question some of it is based in an unwillingness to accept a woman in singular position of wealth or power.

I do think some of Rowling's views are misguided. I also think she has made some really boneheaded missteps in trying to make her points, likely in part owing to being out of touch due to her wealth and isolation. But I have actually read what she has written on these subjects and given it a fair listen, and I do actually agree with some of what she has to say. And I don't think she's a bigot. She clearly doesn't hate trans people, or any LGBTQ+ people, for instance. Some of her fears about trans advocacy hurting women are overblown. But some are not.

It's just a much more nuanced conversation than people are willing to have, and I get tired of hearing people use Rowling as the butt of a joke about bigotry. If people had been willing to actually have the conversation and sit with some uncomfortable ideas, instead of retreating to black-and-white beliefs, I think this could have been a useful exercise. As it stands, Rowling has been much more balanced in her approach to the debate than most of her critics, many of whom don't really even know exactly what it is that she's said or done that upsets certain activists.

“I agree with her so I don’t think she’s a bigot.”

It’s not like people admit that they, and the people who share their views, are bigots.

+1

Many people have taken the time to understand her points. We’ve even discussed extensively on here. The more she talks about the worse it gets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well, this thread has gone exactly the way I thought it would

One thing is certain: whether you agree with Rowling or not, she has received an outsized amount of abuse and threats for what many (most?) believe are common sense views.

And I have to thank her for it. She was brave enough to say what most of us are thinking but no one had the clout or standing to do it. She is taking a beating but has exposed the hate, bigotry, and violence of the far left trans activist and the erasure of women before our eyes. So kudos to her. If we'd all been too afraid to speak up, it'd be a train wreck. Good for her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think a significant number of people who have decided they hate Rowling and that she is a bigot have never taken the time to actually parse her views on this.

One factor at play here is that there has always been a current of resentment and condescension towards her, well before she got labeled a TERF. There have always been a large group of people who think her success is unearned, that her books are poorly written rip-offs of other great Children's literature. I also think you'd have to be naive not to assume a certain level of misogyny in these attitudes. People will claim otherwise, but Rowling became enormously successful, famous, and wealthy, and no woman is allowed to do that without also becoming polarizing and, often, loathed by large groups of people. You see similar attitudes about Oprah, Martha Stewart, Hillary Clinton, Sheryl Sandberg. I'm not saying I like all these women or think they are without flaws. But there is a specific flavor to criticism and dislike of them, and there's no question some of it is based in an unwillingness to accept a woman in singular position of wealth or power.

I do think some of Rowling's views are misguided. I also think she has made some really boneheaded missteps in trying to make her points, likely in part owing to being out of touch due to her wealth and isolation. But I have actually read what she has written on these subjects and given it a fair listen, and I do actually agree with some of what she has to say. And I don't think she's a bigot. She clearly doesn't hate trans people, or any LGBTQ+ people, for instance. Some of her fears about trans advocacy hurting women are overblown. But some are not.

It's just a much more nuanced conversation than people are willing to have, and I get tired of hearing people use Rowling as the butt of a joke about bigotry. If people had been willing to actually have the conversation and sit with some uncomfortable ideas, instead of retreating to black-and-white beliefs, I think this could have been a useful exercise. As it stands, Rowling has been much more balanced in her approach to the debate than most of her critics, many of whom don't really even know exactly what it is that she's said or done that upsets certain activists.

I would suggest you read what she has actually said/written on the subject. She doesn’t just want recognition that there are differences between cis women and trans women, it goes far beyond that yo wanting to make sure that trans women continue to be treated as men.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, this thread has gone exactly the way I thought it would

One thing is certain: whether you agree with Rowling or not, she has received an outsized amount of abuse and threats for what many (most?) believe are common sense views.

And I have to thank her for it. She was brave enough to say what most of us are thinking but no one had the clout or standing to do it. She is taking a beating but has exposed the hate, bigotry, and violence of the far left trans activist and the erasure of women before our eyes. So kudos to her. If we'd all been too afraid to speak up, it'd be a train wreck. Good for her.

The majority of Americans support discrimination protections for trans people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think a significant number of people who have decided they hate Rowling and that she is a bigot have never taken the time to actually parse her views on this.

One factor at play here is that there has always been a current of resentment and condescension towards her, well before she got labeled a TERF. There have always been a large group of people who think her success is unearned, that her books are poorly written rip-offs of other great Children's literature. I also think you'd have to be naive not to assume a certain level of misogyny in these attitudes. People will claim otherwise, but Rowling became enormously successful, famous, and wealthy, and no woman is allowed to do that without also becoming polarizing and, often, loathed by large groups of people. You see similar attitudes about Oprah, Martha Stewart, Hillary Clinton, Sheryl Sandberg. I'm not saying I like all these women or think they are without flaws. But there is a specific flavor to criticism and dislike of them, and there's no question some of it is based in an unwillingness to accept a woman in singular position of wealth or power.

I do think some of Rowling's views are misguided. I also think she has made some really boneheaded missteps in trying to make her points, likely in part owing to being out of touch due to her wealth and isolation. But I have actually read what she has written on these subjects and given it a fair listen, and I do actually agree with some of what she has to say. And I don't think she's a bigot. She clearly doesn't hate trans people, or any LGBTQ+ people, for instance. Some of her fears about trans advocacy hurting women are overblown. But some are not.

It's just a much more nuanced conversation than people are willing to have, and I get tired of hearing people use Rowling as the butt of a joke about bigotry. If people had been willing to actually have the conversation and sit with some uncomfortable ideas, instead of retreating to black-and-white beliefs, I think this could have been a useful exercise. As it stands, Rowling has been much more balanced in her approach to the debate than most of her critics, many of whom don't really even know exactly what it is that she's said or done that upsets certain activists.

I would suggest you read what she has actually said/written on the subject. She doesn’t just want recognition that there are differences between cis women and trans women, it goes far beyond that yo wanting to make sure that trans women continue to be treated as men.

What do you mean by "treated as"? In what sense? How far do we need to go in denying the obvious differences between trans men/women and cis men/women?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was actively supporting LGBTQI rights until they decided to walk all over women's rights, at a time when hard-won gains are being reversed all over the world. Women are being marginalized, quite literally, pushed to the side, told to be quiet and make space. The words to describe us are disappearing from our lexicon, from article, and studies. We have become merely "people". While the violence against us and the hate of women continue to claim our lives and destroy our spirits.

Spot on.

Can't believe how much I was manipulated by this extreme gender ideology for years. Kinda angry with myself for letting them walk all over my boundaries, while also marginalizing my own abuse experiences.

YES. If I read about "pregnant people " anymore I will lose it.

Why? What’s the harm is there being inclusive? It doesn’t affect you. You can still say woman.

It doesn't affect me ? Yes it does affect me. The way people refer to me affects me. I am a woman and would like to be called a woman. People are coming up with all sorts of pronouns they want others to use but women have to suck it up and be called people because it makes others more comfortable?

We are all people. Nothing wrong with that.

This is gaslighting and you know it.

Yes, this is akin to "all lives matter". This inclusiveness nonsense is only used as a tool to deprive women or minorities of their sense of identity.

I like this analogy.

I really think an analogy could be made. Women, like black people and other groups have a sense of identity and belonging that is perceived as a threat by the "oppressor" (for lack of better word).

Transgender women certainly know what it’s like to be oppressed. Just look at this thread.

No one is disputing that. Instead PPs are disputing if transwomen are oppressed in exactly the same way as biological women and whether it therefore make sense to see the same groups as identical in all respects.

Nobody sees them as “identical in all respects” so…

They don't? I think you're the one who is confused.

Who sees them as “identical in all respects”? Even cis-women aren’t all “identical in all aspects”.

Transwomen are women. PERIOD. What does that mean to you? Kind of like women, but not really?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was actively supporting LGBTQI rights until they decided to walk all over women's rights, at a time when hard-won gains are being reversed all over the world. Women are being marginalized, quite literally, pushed to the side, told to be quiet and make space. The words to describe us are disappearing from our lexicon, from article, and studies. We have become merely "people". While the violence against us and the hate of women continue to claim our lives and destroy our spirits.

Spot on.

Can't believe how much I was manipulated by this extreme gender ideology for years. Kinda angry with myself for letting them walk all over my boundaries, while also marginalizing my own abuse experiences.

YES. If I read about "pregnant people " anymore I will lose it.

Why? What’s the harm is there being inclusive? It doesn’t affect you. You can still say woman.

It doesn't affect me ? Yes it does affect me. The way people refer to me affects me. I am a woman and would like to be called a woman. People are coming up with all sorts of pronouns they want others to use but women have to suck it up and be called people because it makes others more comfortable?

We are all people. Nothing wrong with that.

This is gaslighting and you know it.

Yes, this is akin to "all lives matter". This inclusiveness nonsense is only used as a tool to deprive women or minorities of their sense of identity.

I like this analogy.

I really think an analogy could be made. Women, like black people and other groups have a sense of identity and belonging that is perceived as a threat by the "oppressor" (for lack of better word).

Transgender women certainly know what it’s like to be oppressed. Just look at this thread.

No one is disputing that. Instead PPs are disputing if transwomen are oppressed in exactly the same way as biological women and whether it therefore make sense to see the same groups as identical in all respects.

Nobody sees them as “identical in all respects” so…

They don't? I think you're the one who is confused.

Who sees them as “identical in all respects”? Even cis-women aren’t all “identical in all aspects”.

Transwomen are women. PERIOD. What does that mean to you? Kind of like women, but not really?

Trans women cannot get pregnant and do not menstruate. So they do not have a period. So no, they are not identical to biological women.

[Anonymous]

Gen Z will not push back on this topic.

The only ones who are speaking out, like the women's swim team 2nd place winner who lost 1st place to a transwoman, are saying that they were afraid to speak out for fear of losing their place on the swim team.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She like Kanye, Brittany spears, Charlie sheen

Probably a genius. Severely mentally ill. Lives by the motto “there’s no such thing as bad press”. She’s an attention whore.

It makes me sad these people are so ill.

The media loves to exploit them.

She's nothing like those people. Nothing at all.

She's exactly like them. She's completely off her rocker, that doesn't mean she can't live a full life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was actively supporting LGBTQI rights until they decided to walk all over women's rights, at a time when hard-won gains are being reversed all over the world. Women are being marginalized, quite literally, pushed to the side, told to be quiet and make space. The words to describe us are disappearing from our lexicon, from article, and studies. We have become merely "people". While the violence against us and the hate of women continue to claim our lives and destroy our spirits.

Spot on.

Can't believe how much I was manipulated by this extreme gender ideology for years. Kinda angry with myself for letting them walk all over my boundaries, while also marginalizing my own abuse experiences.

YES. If I read about "pregnant people " anymore I will lose it.

Why? What’s the harm is there being inclusive? It doesn’t affect you. You can still say woman.

It doesn't affect me ? Yes it does affect me. The way people refer to me affects me. I am a woman and would like to be called a woman. People are coming up with all sorts of pronouns they want others to use but women have to suck it up and be called people because it makes others more comfortable?

We are all people. Nothing wrong with that.

This is gaslighting and you know it.

Yes, this is akin to "all lives matter". This inclusiveness nonsense is only used as a tool to deprive women or minorities of their sense of identity.

I like this analogy.

I really think an analogy could be made. Women, like black people and other groups have a sense of identity and belonging that is perceived as a threat by the "oppressor" (for lack of better word).

Transgender women certainly know what it’s like to be oppressed. Just look at this thread.

No one is disputing that. Instead PPs are disputing if transwomen are oppressed in exactly the same way as biological women and whether it therefore make sense to see the same groups as identical in all respects.

Nobody sees them as “identical in all respects” so…

They don't? I think you're the one who is confused.

Who sees them as “identical in all respects”? Even cis-women aren’t all “identical in all aspects”.

Transwomen are women. PERIOD. What does that mean to you? Kind of like women, but not really?

Trans women cannot get pregnant and do not menstruate. So they do not have a period. So no, they are not identical to biological women.

So, they are kind of like women, wink wink nod nod? Plenty of women don't menstruate and can't have kids either but they are still full fledged biological women. That's not the only difference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Gen Z will not push back on this topic.

The only ones who are speaking out, like the women's swim team 2nd place winner who lost 1st place to a transwoman, are saying that they were afraid to speak out for fear of losing their place on the swim team.

These women are too young to know what's at stake. They will figure it out soon enough.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was actively supporting LGBTQI rights until they decided to walk all over women's rights, at a time when hard-won gains are being reversed all over the world. Women are being marginalized, quite literally, pushed to the side, told to be quiet and make space. The words to describe us are disappearing from our lexicon, from article, and studies. We have become merely "people". While the violence against us and the hate of women continue to claim our lives and destroy our spirits.

Spot on.

Can't believe how much I was manipulated by this extreme gender ideology for years. Kinda angry with myself for letting them walk all over my boundaries, while also marginalizing my own abuse experiences.

YES. If I read about "pregnant people " anymore I will lose it.

Why? What’s the harm is there being inclusive? It doesn’t affect you. You can still say woman.

It doesn't affect me ? Yes it does affect me. The way people refer to me affects me. I am a woman and would like to be called a woman. People are coming up with all sorts of pronouns they want others to use but women have to suck it up and be called people because it makes others more comfortable?

We are all people. Nothing wrong with that.

This is gaslighting and you know it.

Yes, this is akin to "all lives matter". This inclusiveness nonsense is only used as a tool to deprive women or minorities of their sense of identity.

I like this analogy.

I really think an analogy could be made. Women, like black people and other groups have a sense of identity and belonging that is perceived as a threat by the "oppressor" (for lack of better word).

Transgender women certainly know what it’s like to be oppressed. Just look at this thread.

No one is disputing that. Instead PPs are disputing if transwomen are oppressed in exactly the same way as biological women and whether it therefore make sense to see the same groups as identical in all respects.

Nobody sees them as “identical in all respects” so…

They don't? I think you're the one who is confused.

Who sees them as “identical in all respects”? Even cis-women aren’t all “identical in all aspects”.

Transwomen are women. PERIOD. What does that mean to you? Kind of like women, but not really?

Transwomen are not women. They are trans-women. There's a hyphen there. They are not the same as me. They can identify differently than men but they are not the same as a biological woman. I have a completely different set of biological and medical concerns than a trans women, and a trans women has different medical concerns than I do. We also have different social and cultural issues which plague us.

Why are we so black and white? Is the English language and our cultural construct limited to two categories? No, we can have a third, or fourth, if needed. They are not women, who were born women and have never previously been men. They are trans-women, who were once men. Different groups entirely. This is really not rocket science.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She's a mediocre writer and a hateful person. I'm glad the 10 year olds of today have no interest in HP.

Oh please. Hateful how?

She’s a vocal Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist. She is vocal against the notion that trans-women are women.

Are people pretending that this isn't what is being said?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gen Z will not push back on this topic.

The only ones who are speaking out, like the women's swim team 2nd place winner who lost 1st place to a transwoman, are saying that they were afraid to speak out for fear of losing their place on the swim team.

These women are too young to know what's at stake. They will figure it out soon enough.

No, I doubt it.

They're accustomed to co-ed dressing rooms, co-ed dorms, co-ed gyms. They won't know any better.