The Witch Trials of JK Rowling podcast

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This feels like the same person posting over and over, trying to convince us that it's ok to dislike trans people.

This is exactly how the public gaslit JKR, who actually doesn't hate trans people.

As long as they don't expect any rights, JKR will allow trans people to exist. What else could anyone want (besides rights)?

What rights is Rowling trying to take away from trans people?

She thinks there should be some parameters around accessing public bathrooms and being kept in prison with someone of the opposite biological gender. She is generally fine with trans women accessing bathrooms but would like some parameters to prevent men who aren't trans from entering.

So convicted rapists who self-ID as women now have inalienable rights to be housed in women’s prisons?

Yes, in Scotland. And she is concerned because in some cases, male rapists have identified as female after the arrest and demanded to be housed in a women's prison, where they raped female prisoners. She feels that this is not an acceptable approach.

It should be 100% obvious to anyone with two brain cells to rub together that it’s unacceptable, yet here we are.

I thought so, but the podcast was illuminating about why the trans community is upset about this. They feel that their gender identities are often complicated and don't conform to expectations, and they don't want to leave it to other people to interpret which bathroom or prison is correct for them. They believe people can only reliably determine their sex for themselves, so observable traits like penises are not reliable determinants for things like bathrooms and prisons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This feels like the same person posting over and over, trying to convince us that it's ok to dislike trans people.

+1

"delusional"
"something men didn’t like"
women's prison!
and other faux hysterics

Standard RWNJ/TURF talking points.

If the trans “debate” isn’t misogynistic, why do people use TERF but without any equivalent term for men? Why do we say “trans women are women” 10x more frequently than we say trans men are men? Why do non-medically transitioned trans women demand to be in women only spaces (ie women’s prisons) while the trans men don’t? Why do trans women threaten to rape women but trans men don’t?

[Anonymous]

Thanks for the recommendation OP. Listening to the podcast now. I encourage everyone to listen to the podcast before commenting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This feels like the same person posting over and over, trying to convince us that it's ok to dislike trans people.

This is exactly how the public gaslit JKR, who actually doesn't hate trans people.

As long as they don't expect any rights, JKR will allow trans people to exist. What else could anyone want (besides rights)?

What rights is Rowling trying to take away from trans people?

She thinks there should be some parameters around accessing public bathrooms and being kept in prison with someone of the opposite biological gender. She is generally fine with trans women accessing bathrooms but would like some parameters to prevent men who aren't trans from entering.

So convicted rapists who self-ID as women now have inalienable rights to be housed in women’s prisons?

Yes, in Scotland. And she is concerned because in some cases, male rapists have identified as female after the arrest and demanded to be housed in a women's prison, where they raped female prisoners. She feels that this is not an acceptable approach.

It should be 100% obvious to anyone with two brain cells to rub together that it’s unacceptable, yet here we are.

I thought so, but the podcast was illuminating about why the trans community is upset about this. They feel that their gender identities are often complicated and don't conform to expectations, and they don't want to leave it to other people to interpret which bathroom or prison is correct for them. They believe people can only reliably determine their sex for themselves, so observable traits like penises are not reliable determinants for things like bathrooms and prisons.

I think everyone knows that. It doesn’t explain why their right to identify however they like is more important than women’s rights to seek women’s only spaces when they need them? You can claim to by whatever gender you want, but biology still exists. And anyone who says they feel more male or feel more female is just stereotyping what it means to be male or female.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This feels like the same person posting over and over, trying to convince us that it's ok to dislike trans people.

+1

"delusional"
"something men didn’t like"
women's prison!
and other faux hysterics

Standard RWNJ/TURF talking points.

If the trans “debate” isn’t misogynistic, why do people use TERF but without any equivalent term for men? Why do we say “trans women are women” 10x more frequently than we say trans men are men? Why do non-medically transitioned trans women demand to be in women only spaces (ie women’s prisons) while the trans men don’t? Why do trans women threaten to rape women but trans men don’t?

Exactly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This feels like the same person posting over and over, trying to convince us that it's ok to dislike trans people.

This is exactly how the public gaslit JKR, who actually doesn't hate trans people.

As long as they don't expect any rights, JKR will allow trans people to exist. What else could anyone want (besides rights)?

What rights is Rowling trying to take away from trans people?

She thinks there should be some parameters around accessing public bathrooms and being kept in prison with someone of the opposite biological gender. She is generally fine with trans women accessing bathrooms but would like some parameters to prevent men who aren't trans from entering.

So convicted rapists who self-ID as women now have inalienable rights to be housed in women’s prisons?

Yes, in Scotland. And she is concerned because in some cases, male rapists have identified as female after the arrest and demanded to be housed in a women's prison, where they raped female prisoners. She feels that this is not an acceptable approach.

It should be 100% obvious to anyone with two brain cells to rub together that it’s unacceptable, yet here we are.

I thought so, but the podcast was illuminating about why the trans community is upset about this. They feel that their gender identities are often complicated and don't conform to expectations, and they don't want to leave it to other people to interpret which bathroom or prison is correct for them. They believe people can only reliably determine their sex for themselves, so observable traits like penises are not reliable determinants for things like bathrooms and prisons.

I don’t understand why any of that trumps women’s rights to safety and bodily autonomy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This feels like the same person posting over and over, trying to convince us that it's ok to dislike trans people.

This is exactly how the public gaslit JKR, who actually doesn't hate trans people.

As long as they don't expect any rights, JKR will allow trans people to exist. What else could anyone want (besides rights)?

What rights is Rowling trying to take away from trans people?

She thinks there should be some parameters around accessing public bathrooms and being kept in prison with someone of the opposite biological gender. She is generally fine with trans women accessing bathrooms but would like some parameters to prevent men who aren't trans from entering.

So convicted rapists who self-ID as women now have inalienable rights to be housed in women’s prisons?

Yes, in Scotland. And she is concerned because in some cases, male rapists have identified as female after the arrest and demanded to be housed in a women's prison, where they raped female prisoners. She feels that this is not an acceptable approach.

It should be 100% obvious to anyone with two brain cells to rub together that it’s unacceptable, yet here we are.

I thought so, but the podcast was illuminating about why the trans community is upset about this. They feel that their gender identities are often complicated and don't conform to expectations, and they don't want to leave it to other people to interpret which bathroom or prison is correct for them. They believe people can only reliably determine their sex for themselves, so observable traits like penises are not reliable determinants for things like bathrooms and prisons.

I don’t understand why any of that trumps women’s rights to safety and bodily autonomy.

Women’s rights are under attack in the US.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This feels like the same person posting over and over, trying to convince us that it's ok to dislike trans people.

This is exactly how the public gaslit JKR, who actually doesn't hate trans people.

As long as they don't expect any rights, JKR will allow trans people to exist. What else could anyone want (besides rights)?

What rights is Rowling trying to take away from trans people?

She thinks there should be some parameters around accessing public bathrooms and being kept in prison with someone of the opposite biological gender. She is generally fine with trans women accessing bathrooms but would like some parameters to prevent men who aren't trans from entering.

So convicted rapists who self-ID as women now have inalienable rights to be housed in women’s prisons?

Yes, in Scotland. And she is concerned because in some cases, male rapists have identified as female after the arrest and demanded to be housed in a women's prison, where they raped female prisoners. She feels that this is not an acceptable approach.

It should be 100% obvious to anyone with two brain cells to rub together that it’s unacceptable, yet here we are.

I thought so, but the podcast was illuminating about why the trans community is upset about this. They feel that their gender identities are often complicated and don't conform to expectations, and they don't want to leave it to other people to interpret which bathroom or prison is correct for them. They believe people can only reliably determine their sex for themselves, so observable traits like penises are not reliable determinants for things like bathrooms and prisons.

I don’t understand why any of that trumps women’s rights to safety and bodily autonomy.

I wasn't persuaded by it. I think that women are a vulnerable population and that they deserve some protection based on the weaknesses inherent to their biology. But, I previously didn't understand why trans people were upset about any of this, and now it makes sense to me. They think that the risk to women is acceptable when weighed against the risk of not having their gender identity validated by society.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I really enjoyed the beginning of the second episode that focuses on what was happening in the 1990s.

As a Gen Xer, it really resonated and helped connect dots to where we were and where we are now—particularly when using the new 24 hour news cycle’s coverage of Columbine, noting how “facts” weren’t actually true yet all of us consumed what the networks were saying.

Yes. Did you also notice how the podcast quietly made the connection between extreme right Christians burning Harry Potter books in the 90s, and extreme leftists burning Harry Potter books now?

Honestly, I was meh about Rowling as a writer for years and still am, but I respect the hell out of the woman for putting up with so much.

[Anonymous]

Love the podcast. Just listened to the episode with the trans teen. He came across as incredibly smart and thoughtful. We need to listen and respectfully discuss this issue.

[Anonymous]

I have a trans loved one and while I don’t understand her repeatedly weighing in on this I don’t think she’s some virulent transphobe at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This feels like the same person posting over and over, trying to convince us that it's ok to dislike trans people.

+1

"delusional"
"something men didn’t like"
women's prison!
and other faux hysterics

Standard RWNJ/TURF talking points.

I'm one of the PPs who used the term "delusion". I wasn't surprised that different people in this thread also used the word "delusion". You actually are delusional, and apparently losing your minds now that your personal hatred of JK Rowling isn't getting support. Like the extremely threatened PP who resorts to saying "buzzy words" every time someone pokes holes in her arguments.

Perhaps add "paranoia" to that list.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have a trans loved one and while I don’t understand her repeatedly weighing in on this I don’t think she’s some virulent transphobe at all.

She explained that it's because she's a rape victim and a women's advocate.

I mean, it's true that there is tension between the decision to allow biological males convicted of rape to share a cell with a woman, and the interest to keep women free from violence. Most trans people are just caught in the crossfire of this issue. But, shouting down women who raise the issue doesn't seem right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This feels like the same person posting over and over, trying to convince us that it's ok to dislike trans people.

This is exactly how the public gaslit JKR, who actually doesn't hate trans people.

As long as they don't expect any rights, JKR will allow trans people to exist. What else could anyone want (besides rights)?

What rights is Rowling trying to take away from trans people?

She thinks there should be some parameters around accessing public bathrooms and being kept in prison with someone of the opposite biological gender. She is generally fine with trans women accessing bathrooms but would like some parameters to prevent men who aren't trans from entering.

So convicted rapists who self-ID as women now have inalienable rights to be housed in women’s prisons?

Yes, in Scotland. And she is concerned because in some cases, male rapists have identified as female after the arrest and demanded to be housed in a women's prison, where they raped female prisoners. She feels that this is not an acceptable approach.

It should be 100% obvious to anyone with two brain cells to rub together that it’s unacceptable, yet here we are.

I thought so, but the podcast was illuminating about why the trans community is upset about this. They feel that their gender identities are often complicated and don't conform to expectations, and they don't want to leave it to other people to interpret which bathroom or prison is correct for them. They believe people can only reliably determine their sex for themselves, so observable traits like penises are not reliable determinants for things like bathrooms and prisons.

I don’t understand why any of that trumps women’s rights to safety and bodily autonomy.

I wasn't persuaded by it. I think that women are a vulnerable population and that they deserve some protection based on the weaknesses inherent to their biology. But, I previously didn't understand why trans people were upset about any of this, and now it makes sense to me. They think that the risk to women is acceptable when weighed against the risk of not having their gender identity validated by society.

Yes. Their rights to being validated are more important than actual women not being draped, especially now that large percentages of American women no longer have reproductive rights. /s

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I liked the podcast.

I am the mother of a trans teen and I was curious as to what the whole deal was with JKR since I am not on twitter and (gasp) have never read Harry Potter.

I didn't find that she was transphobic exactly, but that she was provocative in her tweets. Probably due to her trauma.

I do find it interesting that some trans activists have gone death con 3 on JKR, while they do nothing about the right-wing politicians who are actually threatening the existence of the trans community.

I mean they threaten to rape and kill her -- what about Marjorie Taylor Green? Or DeSantis? It's odd.

What else is interesting, I've never heard a bio woman, aka AFAB, threatening to rape another woman, although I heard plenty of guys saying that. This tells me all I need to know about the gender identity.