Ms Rowling: insightful critic of gender policy or myopic [insult]

[C C]

Rowling gloats yet again, but not necessarily smoking a cigar on a yacht this time around. Woops. She did get the length of Ireland's sentencing wrong -- it was 24 years rather than 30. No doubt she'll be taken to the woodshed by the media over that terribly egregious misinformation. Oh, well, it's not like she'll ever be anything but their red-headed stepchild, anyway...

(2 days ago) Pride group founder jailed for rape of boy, 12
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2kkrxdpndo

INTRO: A man has been jailed for 24 years for raping an "extremely vulnerable" 12-year-old boy after the pair met on a dating app. Stephen Ireland, 41, who co-founded Pride in Surrey in 2018, raped the child at the flat he shared with his then-partner and co-defendant David Sutton, 27, in Addlestone on 19 April 2024 after messaging on Grindr...
- - - - - - - - - - - - -

(July 1) JK Rowling gloats at virtue-signalling paedophile who slated her for her transgender views
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...loats-paedophile-troll-jailed-raping-boy.html

EXCERPT: Rowling added Ireland was not the only sex offender to now find themselves behind bars after berating her online for her trans-critical views. '[Sutton] follows in the footsteps of trans-identified man Lexi Secker, who also sent me reams of abuse on here, especially for my belief that women should have single-sex spaces and rape crisis centres. Mr Secker has since been sentenced to six and a half years in jail for rape,' she wrote on social media last night...
- - - - - - - - - - - - -

On a secondary note: Since Ireland co-founded PiS, should society worry about the return (from decades ago) of pederast advocacy groups that had affiliation with gay/lesbian organizations -- before they were finally rejected by the latter in the early 1980s and 1990s?

No more than society needs to worry about pedophile ex-priests forming clubs or fraternities, which afterward establish robust ties with the Catholic Church. But still, a trip down memory lane in that historical context, of the unusual way things once were...

Opposition (excerpt): The first documented opposition to NAMBLA from LGBTQ organizations occurred at the conference that organized the first gay march on Washington in 1979. In 1980, a group called the Lesbian Caucus distributed a flyer urging women to split from the annual New York City Gay Pride March, because according to the group, the organizing committee had been dominated by NAMBLA and its supporters...

Allen Ginsberg: NAMBLA membership (excerpt): Ginsberg was a supporter and member of the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), a pedophilia and pederasty advocacy organization in the United States that works to abolish age of consent laws and legalize sexual relations between adults and children...

ILGA Controversy (excerpt): In 1993, the International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA) achieved United Nations consultative status. NAMBLA's membership in ILGA drew heavy criticism and caused the suspension of ILGA. Many gay organizations called for the ILGA to dissolve ties with NAMBLA...
_

 

[Tiassa]

That said, saying such, or attempting to say as much, with a smile or all polite-like is arguably more insidious than saying such with readily apparent hatred and vitriol. At least with the latter, you know exactly what to expect and there is, hopefully, little room for confusion or misconstrual. It's that fucking polite shit--and, with respect to the patently non-equivalent actual bigotry, feigned ignorance or innocence and "politeness" and all that--that is apt to sow confusion.

We must also in this consideration account for the idea of what depends on confusion and misconstrual. The course of this very thread, for instance, emerged as a spinoff from a point about the role of supremacism in Trump's election↗, and from the outset↑ seemed steeped in confusion. Over the course of months, efforts to reconcile the discussion with history have been ignored, refused, and even parsed out in a way that shields Rowling from substantial assessment. At some point, the origin story has nothing to do with the thread that has occurred, but consider, in that context, a couple things DaveC426913 said along the way:

• "Why would I think that?' The answer is 'because J.K Rowling herself said so' … That does not mean I agree with her." (#404↑)

• "But are these transphobic? … Or does she just have an unpopular stance …?" (#439↑)​

So, sure, we get that Dave means what he means by this, but take a moment to think about what those words can mean without a reference point like #412↑ for clarification.

Because it kind of reads like that's what this thread turns out to be for. In the end, the history and science don't matter to the Rowling riders: But is it transphobic? Is it prejudiced? Is it supremacist? You know: Is it really? Or, as such, maybe other people are being mean just because Rowling's stance is unpopular.

But, again↑, it was almost six years ago↗ when I wasn't quite joking, but this time later the anti-trans argument has only managed to reinforce the point, over and over, both in general and particular: There is a reason why such feminism should be popular among the British, as it strives to help women achieve their proper place and potential under a man; of course British radicalism aims to serve traditional power. Observing Dave's suggestion of Rowling's unpopular stance, "to-wit: supporting the alleged rights of a less trendy group (i.e. cis-gendered women)", it's one thing to note the summary is apt, but that's the thing, it's six years later and the mitigating or differential diagnosis would also happen to be the punch line from once upon a time.

Except, for instance, to what degree did the Rowling riders happened to miss, say, last year? That's the thing about the question they do not wish to address: Is there a polite way to tell someone they have no civil, human, or constitutional rights? Is there a polite way to falsely accuse someone of being a groomer? Is there a polite way to disqualify their humanity? As long as you say it with a smile, then it's okay?

Because that's how it's gone since before, say, TheVat wrote his topic post↑ appealing to a "calm chat" in which opposing views should not "all be reduced to hateful strawmen", a posture that normalizes the anger and hateful strawmen of the anti-trans history as its own new threshold.

And that's how it's gone since before Tiassa razzed Exchemist, and even before Exchemist affirmed his terfism↗. Since before Rowling was the celebrity face of an online anti-trans lynch mob targeting a cisgender woman↑, last year. Since before she decided to pick↑ a fight↗ with transgender people in general, the year before that, apparently just for the hell of it. And it's been going on since before Rowling found "an interest in gender identity and transgender matters" in 2018.

It's why things like what Gruber said↗ matter, and the connection to thirty years ago isn't some ossified remain to be delicately sussed out of ancient dirt; last month, Rep. Mary Miller (R-IL15) sought to designate June as "Family Month", in order to "reject the lie of 'Pride'", and along the way she explained to religious leader Tony Perkins, "the Left" has "hijacked June" in order to "cause gender confusion" (Right Wing Watch↱).

This fact of history affects the assessment of Ms. Rowling as an insightful critic or myopic insult. Or, rather, it would if the proposition was sincere in the first place. But with no science or history to support them—i.e., when science↑ and enlightenment↑ inform↑ differently↑ than prevailing↗ superstitions↗—what Rowling riders have left is the uncertainty of anchorless doubt: But is it transphobic? Is it really?

And, certes, there is a generational irony to be found in there, but that, too, has been going on since before Rowling insisted on infamy¹, and, being more generally true of traditionalist supremacism, it's probably not so easily appreciated by those who flee history. And, sure, maybe the thread origin seems distant and even irrelevant, at this point, but it remains true that anti-trans supporters should probably remember, when they complain about Donald Trump and American fascism, their American neighbors, complete with fantasies about how schoolchildren go to the bathroom, are a key reason why the second Trump presidency is happening. And so the answer that arises is actually pretty straightforward: When are people going to learn, this is what it gets them?

Or, maybe it doesn't matter because this hatred is what they want. So, complaining about the trade policy people voted for, as it happened, rings kind of hollow. After all, it's a package↑ deal↗: This thread, when we follow it back, starts with a statement in support of Rowling, and the prospect that the current American hazard is what it takes to legitimize such discussion bring its policies to bear. This is what it gets them; people need to learn, this is a package deal, and you can't just dabble in it here and there.

On some level, though, they already know this. That's why so much of the anti-trans discussion in this thread and its carveouts depends on misconstrual and pretenses of confusion; they already know they don't have an argument. It's like, the only reason we pretend they really are that stupid is because the Rowling riders themselves say so.

That's why the living reality of the issue "has sweet fuck all to do with the topic"↑ of Rowling's wisdom or danger. It's why the history of the issue and its discussion are a "tangential topic" compared to "trying to keep some focus" on the fairness of doping cisgender women and girls in order to disrupt their capabilities. It is, after all, a lot easier to sow confusion if reality itself is disqualified.

And that's why it is important to parse out the science of gender, history of the issue, and behavior of supremacism. Rowling's insightful criticism must be shielded from such scrutiny in order to not be some manner of myopic insult.
____________________

Notes:

¹ The moral relativism decried once upon a time as the destroyer of traditional values is now an essential loadbearing component in the hasty patchwork propping up those same traditional values today.​

Right Wing Watch. "Rep. Mary Miller Says Pride Month Is 'Evil'". 25 June 2025. PeopleFor.org. 2 July 2025. https://www.peoplefor.org/rightwingwatch/rep-mary-miller-says-pride-month-evil

 

[foghorn]

Oh look, Tiassa is getting it all off his chest AGAIN!

To see if Tiassa is having a dig at you, just click the blue links in Tiassa’s post #522 above.

Nearly every blue link is mentioning someone on this site.

Take deep breaths Tiassa and let it ALL gooooooooooo
My let it all go music…

Carole King... Up on the Roof

 

[DaveC426913]

To see if Tiassa is having a dig at you, just click the blue links in Tiassa’s post #522 above.

Nearly every blue link is mentioning someone on this site.

Yay! I made the Tiassa list!

I even got my name mentioned! I'm going to make badges and pass them out to everyone in this not-so-exclusive club.

 

[Pinball1970]

And that's how it's gone since before Tiassa razzed Exchemist, and even before Exchemist affirmed his terfism↗. Since before Rowling was the celebrity face of an online anti-trans lynch mob targeting a cisgender woman↑, last year. Since before she decided to pick↑ a fight↗ with transgender people in general, the year before that, apparently just for the hell of it. And it's been going on since before Rowling found "an interest in gender identity and transgender matters" in 2018.

Of FFS STFU you stupid, paranoid, self-righteous, pretentious cunt.

 

[Pinball1970]

Meanwhile back on planet earth, the actors are picking a horse.

19 "Harry Potter" Stars Have Publicly Taken Sides On J.K. Rowling, And The Cast Is Basically Divided

Actors are choosing sides amid the ongoing debate around the author's anti-trans views.

www.yahoo.com

 

[Wizard of Whatever]

Meanwhile back on planet earth, the actors are picking a horse.

19 "Harry Potter" Stars Have Publicly Taken Sides On J.K. Rowling, And The Cast Is Basically Divided

Actors are choosing sides amid the ongoing debate around the author's anti-trans views.

www.yahoo.com

Why do people give a hoot about what some actors say?

 

[TheVat]

Nearly every blue link is mentioning someone on this site.

And then misstating that person's point, in such a thorough and prejudicial way that the poster will simply give up on trying for a real discussion. As of today, for me: mission accomplished!

 

[Tiassa]

Rowling Riders to the Rescue!

Of FFS STFU you stupid, paranoid, self-righteous, pretentious cunt.

Such a thoughtful and reasonable reply is pretty much on brand for the Rowling riders.

Oh look, Tiassa is getting it all off his chest AGAIN!

To see if Tiassa is having a dig at you, just click the blue links in Tiassa’s post #522 above.

Nearly every blue link is mentioning someone on this site.

Take deep breaths Tiassa and let it ALL gooooooooooo

Again↗, this manner of histrionics↗ is unreliable. His own advice↗ that he shouldn't be taken seriously remains the most credible thing he's said. And its nearly craven frivolity pretty much fulfills Sartre's description↑ of how supremacists play with discourse in order to discredit the seriousness of the discussion and other participants: "They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert."

It was true of the anti-Semites eighty years ago, has been true of supremacism since, and remains true of anti-trans advocacy and Rowling riders in this thread and at large.

Yay! I made the Tiassa list!

I even got my name mentioned! I'm going to make badges and pass them out to everyone in this not-so-exclusive club.

This one didn't even bother reading the post he's criticizing.

Again, see Sartre.

 

[Pinball1970]

Why do people give a hoot about what some actors say?

People appear to be interested for some reason.

 

[C C]

Why do people give a hoot about what some actors say?

Whether the case or not, there's the belief that celebrities can influence what policies people favor, as well as the candidates they vote for. (Like Taylor Swift, etc, endorsing Kamala Harris. That worked out great for the latter.)
_

 

[Pinball1970]

Why do people give a hoot about what some actors say?

Why do I care what you think W0W? I do. I care what everyone thinks, otherwise the site would not exist.

 

[Pinball1970]

On the actors, the trend seems to be the older guys are more sympathetic they are to JKR.

I did some digging (I really don't like the word research recently)

Lots of actors have died, 50 and over. Some were older when they got parts so no surprise.
Conservative values are with the older folks like me!

 

[Sarkus]

From what I can see (and I may be wrong, my eyesight ain't what it used to be), only 1 actor in that article actually expressed actual support of JKR's views, and that was John Cleese. The rest of the "support" was with regard supporting her in the face of the abuse she has received. Most of the support is along the lines of "I may not agree with her, but she doesn't deserve the treatment she has received".

So for the article to say that they were "divided", while technically correct (1 being supportive is a division) is really just a bit of clickbait.

 

[C C]

From what I can see (and I may be wrong, my eyesight ain't what it used to be), only 1 actor in that article actually expressed actual support of JKR's views, and that was John Cleese. [...]

• EXCERPT: #14. Not only has John Cleese (Nearly Headless Nick) defended J.K. — he's also made several anti-trans tweets of his own, prompting widespread backlash, including from Jonathan Van Ness and former Nine Inch Nails creative director Rob Sheridan.

In Cleese's defense... Always good business or career sense to opportunistically go with the establishment view, to ensure not losing some degree of work. But at 85, Cleese has one foot in the grave, so that the usual capitalist virtue posturing probably just doesn't matter to him anymore. And via years of working with and being a friend of Graham Chapman (up to his death in '89), Cleese surely socialized with many a non-post-op transwoman directly before it was fully kosher sainthood to do so.[1]

- - - footnote - - -

[1] A documentary years back featured some brief film or video footage of John Cleese visiting Graham Chapman's home back in either the late '70s or early '80s. When one of the latter's many lovers (transgender in this particular instance) brought them refreshments, Cleese idly commented: "Where did you find that one?"
_

 

[TheVat]

No one but Kevin Kline is going to hang Cleese out a window and demand an apology. And he has that whole Bill Murray thing, where it takes some kind of large scale rearrangement of one's perceptions to take him seriously.

 

[C C]

No one but Kevin Kline is going to hang Cleese out a window and demand an apology. And he has that whole Bill Murray thing, where it takes some kind of large scale rearrangement of one's perceptions to take him seriously.

No doubt with respect to Baby Boomers, Gen-X, and maybe the very earliest Gen-Y qualifiers. But the rest, to Gen-Z and Gen-Alpha -- who occasionally cosplay at being on the spectrum -- might at best merely know his name (and that older context of irreverent humor just an overhead whoosh).

I have no idea how the below worked out later, but the "beforehand" sounds as obstinate or defiant as Jerry Seinfeld's dismissal of campus sensitivities over the years. In effect: "We rolled over that special shrine in the past, and we're jolly well going to do it again. Be damned to the worries of symbolic capitalists and their bean-counters! We're giving them promotional fodder on a plate, full speed ahead!"

John Cleese has ‘no intention’ of cutting controversial ‘Life of Brian’ scene for revival (excerpt): “A few days ago I spoke to an audience outside London. I told them I was adapting the ‘Life of Brian’ so that we could do it as a stage show (NOT a musical),” Cleese wrote. “I said that we’d had a table-reading of the latest draft in NYC a year ago. All the actors — several of them Tony winners — had advised me strongly to cut the Loretta scene. I have, of course, no intention of doing so.”

Cleese added that the request to cut the Loretta scene is “ridiculous” and a reaction to potentially alienating ticket buyers.

“These were absolutely top-class Broadway performers and they were adamant that we would not get away with doing the scene in NYC!” Cleese tweeted. “Producers tend to be scaredy-cats, and they don’t remember that the protests in NYC when ‘Brian’ was released meant we never needed to do publicity!!”

Cleese, who was accused of being transphobic in 2020 after defending J.K. Rowling, has been adamant that “cancel culture” has curbed creativity in the comedic landscape, saying in 2022, “If you’re worried about offending people and constantly thinking of that, you are not going to be very creative. So I think it has a disastrous effect.”

Everything we know about the Fawlty Towers reboot (excerpt): He also revealed that the show's humour won't be afraid to push the limits, telling the Radio Times: “We’d never try to update Fawlty Towers. People probably won't understand it at the beginning if they’re young, but they'll pick it up.”

These comments were echoed by his daughter Camilla, who said: “There will be jokes that will be a little bit edgy but we’re not out to get anyone, we don't dislike any people. That’s not the basis of it. People are a little sensitive nowadays, to put it lightly.”
_

 

[Wizard of Whatever]

People, today, are very thin-skinned. Everyone has a pet peeve about what they don't want others to say or do. And too many give in to that. I remember when one answer was " call me anything, but don't call me late for dinner."

 

[James R]

I don't think there's anybody left on sciforum who isn't on Tiassa's hate list of "supremacists".

In fact, I wonder if Tiassa actually knows anybody whom he doesn't consider a "supermacist", these days.

Tiassa has fallen off the far left cliff of the political spectrum and is rapidly descending into the looney bin.

 

[James R]

A little reality injection.

Over the course of months, efforts to reconcile the discussion with history have been ignored, refused, and even parsed out in a way that shields Rowling from substantial assessment.

I note that Tiassa himself has posted a lot of his interpretations of Rowlings actions, without very often referring to any of her actual words. He also continues to make allegations against Rowling, which mostly he has failed to document appropriately. Instead, most of his links merely reference his own previous outbursts and allegations, as if repeating something many times makes it true or counts as proof.

In the end, the history and science don't matter to the Rowling riders...

Tiassa seeks to demonise anybody who might be inclined to take an objective look at the issues, with some name-calling added in for good measure.

Nobody here is uncritically cheering for Rowling. But that doesn't mean she is wrong, or evil, or ... transphobic.

But is it transphobic? Is it prejudiced? Is it supremacist? You know: Is it really?

Is what transphobic? Tiassa has been at this for months and has come up with next to no evidence of the transphobia that he accuses Rowling of. Referencing his own previous opinionated posts as authorities for the truth of the allegations doesn't count, I'm afraid.

Or, as such, maybe other people are being mean just because Rowling's stance is unpopular.

Maybe some other people have drunk some "trans activist" kool aid, possibly along with a lot of other "gender studies" propaganda.

Or maybe it's just a case that other people have become more politically radicalised in general. Some political enemies seem too difficult to fight these days, so they go looking for what they consider to be softer targets.

There is a reason why such feminism should be popular among the British, as it strives to help women achieve their proper place and potential under a man; of course British radicalism aims to serve traditional power.

Way to go, Tiassa! Criticise a whole nation's feminists! We all know that all feminists are crazy supremacists, which makes them the enemy, along with just about everybody else in the world. Right, Tiassa?

Except, for instance, to what degree did the Rowling riders happened to miss, say, last year? That's the thing about the question they do not wish to address: Is there a polite way to tell someone they have no civil, human, or constitutional rights? Is there a polite way to falsely accuse someone of being a groomer? Is there a polite way to disqualify their humanity? As long as you say it with a smile, then it's okay?

The relevant question here has always been: did JK Rowling actually do any of that? Or is this just a fever dream in Tiassa's angry mind?

And that's how it's gone since before Tiassa razzed Exchemist, and even before Exchemist affirmed his terfism↗.

Tiassa name-calling, following the lead of the radical trans activists he so clearly admires. The ones who make death threats against the children of a famous children's author.

Since before Rowling was the celebrity face of an online anti-trans lynch mob targeting a cisgender woman↑, last year.

Some detail would be useful here, but we never get any from Tiassa. Just these mouth-foaming accusations and hatred.

Since before she decided to pick↑ a fight↗ with transgender people in general, the year before that, apparently just for the hell of it.

What fight against transgender people? I see links, but they are all to old threads from sciforums and they don't seem to contain any evidence of the allegations against Rowling, as usual.

That's why so much of the anti-trans discussion in this thread and its carveouts depends on misconstrual and pretenses of confusion; they already know they don't have an argument.

Somebody doesn't have an argument. Just a lot of anger issues, it seems.

It's like, the only reason we pretend they really are that stupid is because the Rowling riders themselves say so.

Who are these "Rowling riders" who claim that they, themselves, are stupid? I don't think those people exist.

And that's why it is important to parse out the science of gender, history of the issue, and behavior of supremacism.

By "parse out" here, Tiassa presumably means "throw the whole lot into a big pot, along with some unsupported suspicions and prejudices and stir vigorously. Then serve with a hefty dose of bile."

---

By the way, for anybody who has read this far: I am making no effort to defend any particular actions of Rowling's at this point in the thread. Largely, that is unnecessary, because nothing much in the way of specifics has been posted for a long time now. It might be that Rowling has not always acted with perfect integrity at all times in her experience of debating the "gender policy" issues that are the topic of this thread. Hell, maybe there is some evidence out there, somewhere, showing that, secretly, she's a transphobic bigot. If so, it's a pity Tiassa has failed to find it, because without it his antics just look like more of his usual grouchy, antisocial, mean-spirited and long-winded tirades.