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

[Olga]

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.

Наверное, это я, Джеймс. Я не попала в список Тиассы. Это хорошо, или плохо?

 

[TheVat]

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.”

Mostly agree with Sir John there. I recall the Loretta scene with Palin as not at all transphobic but rather just another way to poke fun at political movements. If you remake something, either you acknowledge it as a product of its time (late seventies) and let it be such, or you totally renovate and face the potential backlash from people who loved the original. (a category into which I fall)

To me, it's not a question of should comedy be transgressive (it must), but where the line is drawn.

"He's not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy!"

 

[TheVat]

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.

My impression as well. Put him on Ignore, you will be happier.

 

[DaveC426913]

At the risk of piling on:

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.

I think it is folly to assume that Tiassa's goals are to convince anyone of anything.

Tiassa writes for an audience of one: himself. I am convinced his entire motive for writing is that he is in love with the sound of his own voice.

But carry on.

 

[parmalee]

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.

Actually plenty of evidence has been provided, on multiple occasions--and mostly Rowling's own words. We can only speculate as to why you personally do not find such content transphobic--I've got my opinions on that, but other readers can decide for themselves. (I will say that one has to wonder why a person would find mocking a high school kid acceptable, or mocking and accusing a cisgender athlete of being transgender, then deleting such posts (not so proud of that one, I guess?), for that matter. But you do you. Though it's a pity that you've failed to come up with much of a convincing rationale for such.)

 

[parmalee]

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.

The other day I was outside a Home Depot and I saw a bunch of ICE guys rounding up "illegals"--well, it took me a minute to identify them as ICE as they were masked and not wearing any proper uniforms to identify them as such. Did I think, "there's a bunch of bigoted thugs terrorizing, deporting and disappearing a bunch of working people who've committed no crimes"? No, rather I just saw a bunch of well-intentioned gubermint employees making America safe for the rest of us, by ridding us of a bunch of plainly violent criminals, who contribute nothing to society, nor to the economy.

But seriously though, Klansmen and Proud Boys have always concerned me far less than fair-weather liberals who are prone to saying the "right" things in the right company, whilst occasionally slipping in some complaints about the "far left radicals" and activists for the "trans ideology" and that sort of thing. Always reluctant to call a bigot a bigot and, to paraphrase Shane Gillis, always wanting to see the rest of the bodycam footage before making any hasty pronouncements--even well after we've all already seen the rest of the bodycam footage, and seen that what went down was plain as day, and they damn well know that. Obviously nothing wrong with due diligence and being thorough, but there's a point at which it becomes borderline parodic. IOW those who've made words like "nuance" almost entirely meaningless.

 

[TheVat]

I take your point on the Gillis meme. For sure, there is a segment that will go to the wall insisting that our senses might be deceiving us, as if they were David Hume 2.0, when they are really just too craven to acknowledge poop coating their shoes. Sometimes a cigar is a cigar. Or a knee resting nine minutes on a windpipe.

 

[parmalee]

I take your point on the Gillis meme. For sure, there is a segment that will go to the wall insisting that our senses might be deceiving us, as if they were David Hume 2.0, when they are really just too craven to acknowledge poop coating their shoes. Sometimes a cigar is a cigar. Or a knee resting nine minutes on a windpipe.

And with respect to JKR, there are undoubtedly some who are just jumping on some imagined "bandwagon". But with most--or, rather, I should say, with consideration of the more intelligent voices out there, they're going with the evidence which is out there: the mocking of various athletes, including a non trans athlete and a trans high school girl; the vocal and financial support for a bill which effectively strips trans people of various rights and protections--and the corresponding smugness and glee with which she responded to the approval of said bill; the continuous perpetuation of fallacious and preposterous arguments, i.e., the bathroom shit and the bizarre suggestion that she might have considered transitioning back in the day, had it been a viable option, because this world is so much easier for men (that suggests a rather comically idiotic understanding of what gender dysphoria is all about); the repeated claims that she "loves" trans people, while personally refusing to acknowledge their preferred identity; and so forth.

There's always gonna be the idiots who just adopt a stance because it seems the "in" thing to do, just as there will always be the idiots who harass, intimidate and threaten--either JKR or trans people (though we should note here that only trans people have yet to be killed and/or denied of essential medical services). While there are many of the former, the latter are undoubtedly very few--I think, my suspicion is that it's often the same culprits in many such instances, and with roughly one percent of the populace being sociopaths it's unsurprising.

With some things there's ambiguity. I'll cut JKR some slack for the goblin bankers right out of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion (though keep in mind, Rowling exercised enormous control over what went into the films, as well--far more so than do many authors whose works are adapted). Still rather ignorant, yet also ubiquitous within this Christianic culture--this shit's been handed down to us from Luther and beyond, and it ain't gonna disappear overnight. But with respect to other things and the mounting evidence, ambiguous it is no longer.

 

[James R]

Actually plenty of evidence has been provided, on multiple occasions--and mostly Rowling's own words.

Mostly, what we have seen in this thread is links to second-hand accounts and interpretations of things that Rowling is reported to have posted or said, as opposed to quotes from what she actually said or wrote. As far as I can tell, a lot of the shrill outrage has come from people extrapolating what they want her to have said (to justify their rage), rather than from analysing what she actually said.

We can only speculate as to why you personally do not find such content transphobic...

All I have ever asked you to do is to show me the clear transphobia in something that Rowling has said or written. Instead of showing me, you have repeatedly expressed your dislike of her and your assumptions about her and her motives. You have also spent a fair amount of time speculating on my motives and beliefs, instead of asking me, and you've also done that with certain other members here.

I've got my opinions on that, but other readers can decide for themselves.

You had your mind made your up before you started, here.

(I will say that one has to wonder why a person would find mocking a high school kid acceptable, or mocking and accusing a cisgender athlete of being transgender, then deleting such posts (not so proud of that one, I guess?), for that matter. But you do you.

What makes you think I find any of that acceptable? You're just trying to cast aspersions at me, aren't you? Why?

Has Rowling done any of that? If so, why can't you post evidence of these egregious incidents?

Interesting that you mention Rowling deleting something she posted, too. You claim this is because she was "not so proud of" the thing she posted. Perhaps you're right. Maybe she took some time to reconsider and then decided to withdraw certain comments. Is that a bad thing, according to you, parmalee? Would you prefer that people nail their colours to a mast, no matter what, and refuse to ever change their mind about anything? No regrets, no apologies? Is that how you like to operate? Is that what you want from other people?

Though it's a pity that you've failed to come up with much of a convincing rationale for such.

Waiting for some evidence of the claims to be presented is not appropriate, according to you? Just jump straight to burning the witch, shall we?

And with respect to JKR, there are undoubtedly some who are just jumping on some imagined "bandwagon".

Undoubtedly.

But with most--or, rather, I should say, with consideration of the more intelligent voices out there, they're going with the evidence which is out there: the mocking of various athletes, including a non trans athlete and a trans high school girl; the vocal and financial support for a bill which effectively strips trans people of various rights and protections--and the corresponding smugness and glee with which she responded to the approval of said bill; the continuous perpetuation of fallacious and preposterous arguments, i.e., the bathroom shit and the bizarre suggestion that she might have considered transitioning back in the day, had it been a viable option, because this world is so much easier for men (that suggests a rather comically idiotic understanding of what gender dysphoria is all about); the repeated claims that she "loves" trans people, while personally refusing to acknowledge their preferred identity; and so forth.

Phew! There was a lot packed into that little rant.

So, as one of the intelligent voices out there, parmalee... can you provide the evidence of Rowling mocking various athletes, of her supporting a bill that strips rights and protections? (Which rights and protections? Which bill?)

You're upset about a women expressing glee or "smugness" when a cause she supports succeeds? Why is that, parmalee?

What is the "bathroom shit", exactly?

When did JKR say that she had considered transitioning? Or is that not what she said? You wrote "might have considered". Did she write that? What was the rest of the context around that, which you left out? Why did you leave it out?

Are you disputing JKR's claim that this world is so much easier for men as "comically idiotic"? Perhaps you could expand on why you think that's comical and idiotic.

When has JKR refused to acknowledge a trans person's "preferred identity"? Examples?

There's always gonna be the idiots who just adopt a stance because it seems the "in" thing to do, just as there will always be the idiots who harass, intimidate and threaten...

Indeed.

With some things there's ambiguity. I'll cut JKR some slack for the goblin bankers right out of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion (though keep in mind, Rowling exercised enormous control over what went into the films, as well--far more so than do many authors whose works are adapted).

Not cutting her much slack there really, are you parmalee? You suspect that she's probably antisemitic, although you think that it might be an unconscious antisemitism, perhaps?

After all, a transphobe must also be a racist and a misogynist, according to you. That's what you think, isn't it?

 

[parmalee]

Mostly bullshit...

Try again. Not addressing your speculations.

Address what is written. Do not tell me what I think or believe. Do you think you can do that, or are you hell-bent on finally demonstrating for all to see what a pathologically dishonest troll you are?

 

[James R]

parmalee:

The words "mostly bullshit" do not appear in what I posted. Do not misquote me, or anybody else on this forum. That's dishonest, rude and intellectually lazy.

I have nowhere told you what you think or believe. The post that you couldn't respond to honestly was full of questions for you. You either failed to identify them as such - because of your apparently pathological problem with assuming that questions are "speculations" or "assumptions" - or else you did identify them as such but dishonestly decided to skip out on answering them because you found them too inconvenient to try to make an honest fist of it.

 

[parmalee]

parmalee:

The words "mostly bullshit" do not appear in what I posted. Do not misquote me, or anybody else on this forum. That's dishonest, rude and intellectually lazy.

I have nowhere told you what you think or believe. The post that you couldn't respond to honestly was full of questions for you. You either failed to identify them as such - because of your apparently pathological problem with assuming that questions are "speculations" or "assumptions" - or else you did identify them as such but dishonestly decided to skip out on answering them because you found them too inconvenient to try to make an honest fist of it.

Yeah, you got me, James. I have dishonestly decided to skip out on answering your oh-so-cogent, relevant and coherent queries.

Alternately... I've got this bottle of ferric chloride next to me at the moment. I use it for etching pcbs and sometimes for making lithographs of a sort. And, yeah, I know, I know--there are far less toxic methods. I use those too, but at the moment this is what I've got and I do tend to use it very sparingly and I dispose of it responsibly.

But at the moment I'm thinking, Might it be more "fun" to simply empty the contents of this bottle into my eye sockets? rather than to attempt to make sense out of how a person might construe this:

"She might have considered transitioning back in the day, had it been a viable option, because this world is so much easier for men (that suggests a rather comically idiotic understanding of what gender dysphoria is all about)"

as somehow implying this:

"Are you disputing JKR's claim that this world is so much easier for men as "comically idiotic"? Perhaps you could expand on why you think that's comical and idiotic."

And, honestly, it's kind of a toss-up. Sure, I'd be out of etching solution, but I wouldn't be able to see what I was etching anyway, so... win-win?

Of course, there's another alternative--that you knew damn well that that is not what I was suggesting, but rather I was suggesting that people tend not to transition because they think life would be easier as a man: that does not accord with any clinical understanding of what is entailed by "gender dysphoria". But surely you would know this, no? So perhaps you are simply trolling here? Along with much of the rest of that post.

And finally, I hate to break it to you, James, but I honestly don't really care what your opinion of me is--being as how I consider you a pathologically dishonest troll and all. But... I fear that in saying such this may bring about yet another little tantrum, not unlike the one Billvon inadvertently instigated when he said this:

Nope. I really don't care what you think about me or my views.

and you responded with this:

billvon:

Okay, billvon. If that's how it's going to be with you, so be it. You don't care what I think about you or your views. It follows that any generosity of spirit I might show towards considering you or your views will be one sided, unreciprocated and probably unappreciated. And, apparently, our past interactions on this forum count for nothing, on your end.

You want to burn bridges? Okay. Consider them burnt.

Do you feel good about yourself, now? Righteous? I hope it turns out to be worth it for you.

As for your mealy-mouthed accusation that I "automatically assume that anybody who disagrees with [me] is a bigot", you ought to know that's false. If you don't, you haven't been paying attention like you should have, and you ought to be doubly ashamed for that.

But then again, that might be... interesting? So, I'll just leave it at that and see how it goes.

 

[James R]

parmalee:

Yeah, you got me, James. I have dishonestly decided to skip out on answering your oh-so-cogent, relevant and coherent queries.

Correct. Like I said.

"She might have considered transitioning back in the day, had it been a viable option, because this world is so much easier for men (that suggests a rather comically idiotic understanding of what gender dysphoria is all about)"

as somehow implying this:

"Are you disputing JKR's claim that this world is so much easier for men as "comically idiotic"? Perhaps you could expand on why you think that's comical and idiotic."

You didn't still haven't answered the question I asked you.

Also, why did you skip out on the more important, on-topic questions, which were these:

"When did JKR say that she had considered transitioning? Or is that not what she said? You wrote "might have considered". Did she write that? What was the rest of the context around that, which you left out? Why did you leave it out?"

And why double down on your dishonesty now? Why not just let it lie? Or better yet, why not just answer the questions with integrity? Don't you think you already look bad enough?

Of course, there's another alternative--that you knew damn well that that is not what I was suggesting, but rather I was suggesting that people tend not to transition because they think life would be easier as a man: that does not accord with any clinical understanding of what is entailed by "gender dysphoria". But surely you would know this, no?

You didn't write any such thing, previously. I agree with you that people tend not to transition because they think life would be easier as a man.

Now the important question: did JK Rowling ever say that they do, anywhere? And, if she did, can you dig up the quote?

Are you going to continue to skip out on this stuff?

So perhaps you are simply trolling here?

Perhaps you are simply trolling here. All this personal bullshit, just because you don't want to answer some direct questions.

And finally, I hate to break it to you, James, but I honestly don't really care what your opinion of me is...

The trolls always pull out that line, as soon as the water gets a bit hot for their liking. I think it's the sort of thing that helps steel them, in case they end up with official warnings or bans due to their trolling.

Please note that I haven't commented at all about what my opinion of you is, parmalee, in general, and you haven't asked me, despite all that sound advice about not making assumptions. which you like to put out there.

Here's what I think about you right now, parmalee. I think you're a hypocrite and I think you're trying to avoid answering the hard questions. This might be consistent with how you conduct your life more generally, or it might not. I have no way of knowing. All I see of you is what you post on this forum, so I only have that as the basis of any opinions I have about you.

Anyway, since you don't care about what I think about you, I'll stick to observing your behaviour on this forum and commenting on that where appropriate. I'll keep my more general opinions, conclusions and speculations about you to myself. Which is pretty much how it's always been, with you, anyway.

--being as how I consider you a pathologically dishonest troll and all.

For the benefit of other readers - if any of them can be bothered with all this personal baggage you have - you might want to consider documenting evidence of my alleged "pathological dishonesty". So far, you can't point to any actual examples, as far as I can tell.

As for trolling, I'm not the one of the two of us who is refusing to answer straightforward questions about his claims, despite repeating them at regular intervals.

But... I fear that in saying such this may bring about yet another little tantrum, not unlike the one Billvon inadvertently instigated...

The difference between billvon and you, parmalee, is that his behaviour back then was out of character for him. I expected better of him. In contrast, I have come to have rather lower expectations of you, based on recent performance. It's nice to hear that you're concerned about my relationship with billvon, though.

It appears you have failed to learn anything from the episode that you've referred to. You took away precisely the opposite message than the one you should have taken away, which was this: one shouldn't make mealy-mouthed accusations against other people that one cannot support with appropriate evidence. You've failed at that when you tried it with JK Rowling, and you've failed at it again when you've tried it with me. You've also failed when you've tried it with foghorn.

 

[TheVat]

If we could do a small reset, and perhaps James and Parm are done flirting for a while, then I would offer this analysis from Helen Lewis (re the arguments and evidence for puberty blockers) for its detailed look at what is known and what is commonly believed about the procedure. Someone sent me this over a year ago, and I kept intending to get back to it and offer a gift link here.

The Worst Argument for Youth Transition

Andrea Long Chu says the unpopular part out loud.

www.theatlantic.com

PW free link:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/a...opy-link&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share

I offer this mainly as the thread seems to expand to the many ancillary issues that swirl around the opinions about a celebrity author which got it going ITFP.
It's funny that the member whose forceful opinion of Rowling was the quote that formed the "myopic [insult]" nucleus of the title has chosen to never set foot in this thread.

 

[Tiassa]

… i.e., the bathroom shit and the bizarre suggestion that she might have considered transitioning back in the day, had it been a viable option …

Well, just remember that in this room, the bathroom shit is irrelevant even if it's part of the anti-trans argument, and the evidence of Rowling's own words is insufficient for her devotees. Given that the whole Rowling rider argument collapses if they lose that shield, you might find your words don't translate well in such quarters. Remember, TheVat already made his demands about bathrooms, and evidence isn't really going to persuade him.

Why this reform can't somehow include some private stalls for the "un-opped" trans folk is a question for the Left to receive graciously, and I see that as why Rowling keeps pecking away at the notion that just donning a dress and claiming a pinkish brain gets you into the locker room or powder room. The more attacked she feels, the more she will entrench in a more critical view of transgenderism.

If he said something recklessly in error, some hint of correction would have appeared in his later posts, but look at how everything in that big ask is told from a rightist, anti-trans, narrative: "the Left", "why Rowling keeps pecking away [at a straw man]", "just donning a dress and claiming a pinkish brain", "transgenderism". And it's one thing if "the more attacked" people feel the more they will "entrench", but these people apparently feel attacked by not getting their way, or even simply by someone disagreeing with them. There are reasons why the anti-trans argument and behavior feels so familiar.

†​

It's kind of like how the principles of the Trump movement aren't surprising; anyone paying attention knew the possibility existed. Rather, it was that, after so many lamentations about how liberals are too mean because of course nobody is really like that, well, here we are, and it turns out we kind of knew the whole time. But if, from time to time, some bitter conservative growled that liberals ignore pseudoscience and make-believe at their own peril, yeah, actually, it turns out they weren't just talking shit.

But that's the thing; it's not just that Rowling riders roll with whackjob supremacists like Seth Gruber↗, or Mary Miller↑, but, this entire pretense of backlash against liberal excess is the same thing we've heard for a long time, and, look, as an American, at least, it's true that living memory and experience includes among those disaffected antiliberals actual blood-miscegenation one-droppers who seethed about the transfusion supply.

When those are your allies, things can get ... interesting. And that's part of what the Rowling riders need to be shielded from, because, otherwise, that question they do not wish to address↑ starts to resolve toward a kind of obvious answer, with a kind of obvious implication. Coin toss: Heads, they can see it and hope to evade; tails, they really can't figure it out. The latter ought to be impossible.

†​

The fact is that while this discussion looks at Rowling's public presentation of the issue since 2018, the discussion↑ was going on well before that↑. We can reach back to 2009, but apparently the accusation of cisgender women is a "tangential topic"↑.

But even in this thread we see that the Potty Police precede Rowling's involvement, i.e., recalling 2016↑ and observing, if we need to pretend this history never happened, then we're doing it wrong. And in cutting Rowling some slack for this or that, accidentally fell down a hole↑, or rabbit holes and the banality of evil↑, we must remember, the one thing that did not happen was that Rowling found a mysterious unanswered question just lying there untouched:

And the thing is, consider those other sources I offered↗: Please understand, ca. 2018, in re a liked tweet she meant to screenshot, it was research because she had developed "an interest in gender identity and transgender matters". And those are her words, "an interest in gender identity and transgender matters". And for everyone paying attention at the time, those words meant something, because they take a side. It stands out when people assert neutrality by adopting partisan phrasing; sometimes, it's noise, but there are also occasions when it's unclear whether something was coincidence or evidence of the phenomenon it coincides with. In the moment, it's easy to pass over; in hindsight, it's hard to ignore ....

.... What we have in Rowling's own words, ca. 2023, is refusal and provocation: Actually looking to the source tweet↱ shows us something more than the Entertainment Weekly report told us: Rowling chose to pick that fight; she chose to post a photograph of some words and respond.

(#3759369↗)​

And, honestly, it seems somehow significant that the Rowling riders need to be shielded from that part of the discussion, but, y'know, here we are, and somehow it just doesn't feel surprising.

†​

Thus:

There's always gonna be the idiots who just adopt a stance because it seems the "in" thing to do, just as there will always be the idiots who harass, intimidate and threaten--either JKR or trans people …

So, first, there are a few ways in which the perpetual newness of the Rowling riders feels unbelievable. One is their blank slate on Rowling's behavior in particular, but also the issue in general. Another is their apparent blank slate on, say, the history of the entertainment↗ industry↗. But here we have a third, the question of threats, harassment, and intimidation.

It's one thing to disclaim that it doesn't make that kind of behavior right, but what comes next is to consider the manner in which we are to overstate the circumstance and show especial sensitivity on Rowling's behalf compared to, say, threats against doctors. So let's start with something American women and minorities already know: Girls and women know it as learning to take a joke; boys and men are similarly told to try harder to fit in. And when the question is telling queer kids to kill themselves, there is a lot of room for interpretation and what the victims of harassment and bullying owe their tormentors. The comparative isn't a tit-for-tat justification, but an observation of history. No, it's not right, but neither should we pretend it's new, that would be wrong, too.

And, honestly, if socmed-scale reactions to a celebrity lending their credibility to infamy and insult is the reason one can't ... what, really? Oh, they would support transgender people's civil rights, but someone else's reaction to a celebrity lending to bigotry just makes it impossible? Even Rowling riders would be offended by such a summary, but still, it's kind of hard for them to fill in the blank: They would support transg―oh, right, they wouldn't. Okay, uh, how about: In the whole range of politics and social media and mass communications, someone crossed the line, therefore [___].

But, yeah, it's hard to accept they really are so naïve; it reads more like they're looking for any excuse. And now that we've parsed out science, history, and behavior into separate discussions there's not much left to discuss but their uncertainty and hurt feelings.

Certain facts of history affect the assessment of Ms. Rowling as an insightful critic or myopic insult; or, at least, they would if the proposition was sincere in the first place: The thread was always intended as a defense for Rowling in particular and anti-trans crackpottery, in general; its pretense of neutrality is invested in centering superstition and bigotry within the overton range.

 

[parmalee]

It's funny that the member whose forceful opinion of Rowling was the quote that formed the "myopic [insult]" nucleus of the title has chosen to never set foot in this thread.

Why, according to James that was me?! Of course, he's prone to lying.

 

[parmalee]

So, first, there are a few ways in which the perpetual newness of the Rowling riders feels unbelievable. One is their blank slate on Rowling's behavior in particular, but also the issue in general. Another is their apparent blank slate on, say, the history of the entertainment↗ industry↗.

But apparently them Jews do like to portray antisemitic stereotypes:

It appears you have failed to learn anything from the episode that you've referred to. You took away precisely the opposite message than the one you should have taken away, which was this: one shouldn't make mealy-mouthed accusations against other people that one cannot support with appropriate evidence. You've failed at that when you tried it with JK Rowling, and you've failed at it again when you've tried it with me. You've also failed when you've tried it with foghorn.

and apparently I support making death threats against JKR, as well:

billvon:

billvon said: Nope. Death threats are unacceptable

I'm glad we agree on that much. On this point, you and our friend parmalee are not on the same page, which speaks well for you and poorly for him.

Don't know where I did that, but whatever, liars be liars.

Edit: Also, James really ought to dispense with that "our friend" shit. It should be pretty obvious at this point that I regard the guy as a pathologically dishonest piece of shit--he ain't my friend, that's for sure.

 

[parmalee]

It's one thing to disclaim that it doesn't make that kind of behavior right, but what comes next is to consider the manner in which we are to overstate the circumstance and show especial sensitivity on Rowling's behalf compared to, say, threats against doctors. So let's start with something American women and minorities already know: Girls and women know it as learning to take a joke; boys and men are similarly told to try harder to fit in. And when the question is telling queer kids to kill themselves, there is a lot of room for interpretation and what the victims of harassment and bullying owe their tormentors. The comparative isn't a tit-for-tat justification, but an observation of history. No, it's not right, but neither should we pretend it's new, that would be wrong, too.

Yeah, I've noticed that the lying troll seems a bit obsessed with threats against JKR, but has yet to even acknowledge threats, and actual violence, against doctors, trans people, etc. (I could also add here that we have actual proof for these things, and numbers; given JKR's history with trying to conceal posts and such, who knows about the legitimacy of these alleged threats? I generally don't question people when they make such claims, but when people have a track record for lying and dishonesty...) Of course, he listened to a whole podcast, so he's done his part.

 

[parmalee]

JKR said:
The writings of young trans men reveal a group of notably sensitive and clever people. The more of their accounts of gender dysphoria I’ve read, with their insightful descriptions of anxiety, dissociation, eating disorders, self-harm and self-hatred, the more I’ve wondered whether, if I’d been born 30 years later, I too might have tried to transition. The allure of escaping womanhood would have been huge. I struggled with severe OCD as a teenager. If I’d found community and sympathy online that I couldn’t find in my immediate environment, I believe I could have been persuaded to turn myself into the son my father had openly said he’d have preferred.

J.K. Rowling Writes about Her Reasons for Speaking out on Sex and Gender Issues - J.K. Rowling

Warning: The below content is not appropriate for children. Please check with an adult before you read this page. To go back to the children’s page, please click here. This isn’t an easy piece to write, for reasons that will shortly become clear, but I know it’s time to explain myself on an...

www.jkrowling.com

(Emphasis added.)

Already linked, and posted, multiple times within this thread--but, you know, he's read the thread.

 

[DaveC426913]

Of course, he's prone to lying.

... I regard the guy as a pathologically dishonest piece of shit ...

I consider you a pathologically dishonest troll

... the lying troll ...