Ms Rowling: insightful critic of gender policy or myopic [insult]
- Thread starter TheVat
- Start date
And consequently undermining an objective basis or overarching, immutable authority for social prescriptions. As if such could ever be the case in a natural world that allows an array of conflicting animal strategies to evolve. Just the particular preferences of a human era reigning as the result of a competing set of presuppositions having achieved successful indoctrination of a population, over the others (temporarily).
_
With respect to transphobia only, is there anyone here--other than yourself--who does not regard JKR's views as transphobic? From what I can see, the following persons have indicated that they consider JKR's views transphobic ( and I may be overlooking a few, as this is from a cursory review of just the past few pages): myself, Billvon, Tiassa, Sarkus, Pinball, Dave, TheVat. Which parties are "hysterical" here, and which are not?
(Also, apologies for making multiple posts--and feel free to combine such into one or two posts (if there's a sound logistical reason for doing such, of course). Frankly, you are one of the more dishonest persons I've ever encountered, and such is more easily digestible when broken up into bits. The problem is this: I know you're not stupid and I'm also fairly confident that you do not struggle with reading comprehension--so what's the deal?
Now, as to whether you can distinguish between someone saying that a person has said or done something antisemitic (or that there are antisemitic tropes present within their work), and someone saying that a person is an antisemite? That's something else entirely. Can you?)
Last edited:
parmalee:
I can only comment on what I've heard and seen from JKR. Maybe there's more that I'm not aware of. But, if so, it hasn't been brought to my attention in this thread.
Other people here can speak for themselves. Bear in mind, though, that the majority isn't always right, even if it turns out that the majority agrees with you. It's certainly not unusual for huge numbers of people to get things horribly wrong, sometimes persistently and repeatedly. (Just look at recent US politics, if you need an example.)
I think you're actually just upset that I'm not willing just yet to jump on your "burn the witch!" bandwagon. It annoys the hell out of you, for some reason, that I'm willing to consider the other side of the story. And so we get histrionics and tantrums from you, rather than a willingness to discuss the actual issues.
You're not the only one, but you are the one who has most clearly helped to ram home the point I originally made in my first post to this thread.
Are you saying that you don't think that JKR is antisemitic now, but that she did/does put antisemitic tropes in her work? Is it unconscious then? If so, do you think it's fair to condemn her?
Or perhaps you think that JKR just doesn't care if there's antisemitism in her work? That would mean that, despite not being a conscious antisemite, she's still a sort of unconscious antisemite? It that possible? Can people be unconscious antisemites?
Or are you going to stick with your originally-expressed opinion of JKR: that she's a "myopic c**t"?
Note: probably it would be best to respond to the questions (note the question marks, which indicate that they are questions) in the thread on JKR's alleged antisemitism, linked in the next post.
To which views are you referring, specifically? Please quote her.
I can only comment on what I've heard and seen from JKR. Maybe there's more that I'm not aware of. But, if so, it hasn't been brought to my attention in this thread.
Other people here can speak for themselves. Bear in mind, though, that the majority isn't always right, even if it turns out that the majority agrees with you. It's certainly not unusual for huge numbers of people to get things horribly wrong, sometimes persistently and repeatedly. (Just look at recent US politics, if you need an example.)
So far, based on the responses from several of the people on your list, it looks like you might be jumping to hasty conclusions about what other people think. Maybe some of their opinions are more nuanced and better thought out than yours. Worth considering?
What have I been dishonest about? Be specific.
I think you're actually just upset that I'm not willing just yet to jump on your "burn the witch!" bandwagon. It annoys the hell out of you, for some reason, that I'm willing to consider the other side of the story. And so we get histrionics and tantrums from you, rather than a willingness to discuss the actual issues.
You're not the only one, but you are the one who has most clearly helped to ram home the point I originally made in my first post to this thread.
You'd better ask Sarkus. He's the expert on me, apparently.
I'm not sure I can. But you think you can.
Are you saying that you don't think that JKR is antisemitic now, but that she did/does put antisemitic tropes in her work? Is it unconscious then? If so, do you think it's fair to condemn her?
Or perhaps you think that JKR just doesn't care if there's antisemitism in her work? That would mean that, despite not being a conscious antisemite, she's still a sort of unconscious antisemite? It that possible? Can people be unconscious antisemites?
Or are you going to stick with your originally-expressed opinion of JKR: that she's a "myopic c**t"?
Note: probably it would be best to respond to the questions (note the question marks, which indicate that they are questions) in the thread on JKR's alleged antisemitism, linked in the next post.
Last edited:
Moderator note: Some off-topic posts have been moved to two new threads, here:
www.sciforums.com
and here:
www.sciforums.com
Ms Rowling and her Harry Potter books: antisemitic?
Moderator note: This thread was split from the following thread, because it is on an adjacent, but different, topic. https://www.sciforums.com/threads/ms-rowling-insightful-critic-of-gender-policy-or-myopic-insult.166757/ --- Horse’s mouth. Some have said Rowling's Potter books show Rowling...
www.sciforums.com
and here:
parmalee gives James R some feedback
Moderator note: This thread was split from the following thread: https://www.sciforums.com/threads/ms-rowling-insightful-critic-of-gender-policy-or-myopic-insult.166757/ (Oh, and parmalee: your wish has been granted. Enjoy.) --- Prediction: JamesR will move the preceding several posts to the...
www.sciforums.com
Well, remember what this thread is. In another discussion, someone reminded the connection between anti-trans and Trump's election, including the assertion that "Rowling was spot on"; this thread was then started in hopes of resetting the anti-trans discussion and giving anti-trans advocates an initial stature boost by trying to omit or overlook history.
Think of it this way, Dave—
• What if someone told you that you have no civil, human, or constitutional rights because you're Canadian, and being Canadian makes you a criminal? Maybe you might object, but who cares about the objections of a child predator, right? And maybe we should be able to have a calm chat about these matters, and no one should have their free speech rights constrained as we find our way on such complex matters of human identity, and nor should opposing views all be reduced to hateful strawmen. All they have to do is keep smiling as they remind you that Canadians are predators targeting children. Right? As long as they say it with a smile, they're okay, and any of those dirty Canadians who might object need to stay calm, and not get hysterical, and certainly not suggest their accuser is supremacist or hateful or anti-Can. And if you don't like being called a groomer and a predator, don't get wound up and drag down the thread in your personal issues for reasons that seem wrong to someone else.
—because it's not just trans. Gay people have been through it. Black people have been through it. There's a version for women, Jews, hispanics, Muslims, &c., even atheists. And here's the common link, Dave: There's always someone to fiddle with the scales, to pretend that the exclusion of other human beings from society for the sake of vice is somehow polite. If you think my anti-Canadian metaphor is rough or even ridiculous, well, yeah, it is, but that's the kind of ridiculous roughness this thread intended to overlook from the outset; that kind rough play is everyday advocacy for anti-trans. For years, Dave. And Rowling isn't just part of it, she's a celebrity face for it.
And what happened in this thread is that people found out. And, like you, some just can't bring themselves to make a certain connection, or take a certain step, as if they're holding out for one last hope. How many times can someone say or do something transphobic, how many times can they draw from a well of phobic superstition, before you're going to accept that maybe there's a reason they are reduced to red herring arguments and ploys almost universally used by bigots↑.
So, here, I'll even set up the prompt for you:
• J.K. Rowling is not transphobic, but has spent years saying transphobic things and behaving in transphobic ways because [_____].
Are you able to fill in that blank? I get that it feels like a different kind of setup, because nobody ever can; generally, what it comes down to is that an example isn't supremacist because an advocate doesn't want it to be. But that's the thing, like I said earlier↑: If the difference between murder and manslaughter is whoopsie, how many bodies do you need before you're willing to accept it's not a whoopsie?
This is what's known as begging the question.
As posed, this question pretends that it has been established that JK Rowling has spent years saying transphobic things and behaving in transphobic ways, but that question is exactly what is at issue in this thread.
Instead of trying to make a case, Tiassa just pretends that it's all already a done-and-dusted deal.
Skip the trial. Jump straight to the witch burning.
(P.S. What does it mean for somebody to "behave in transphobic ways"???)
Well, Imagine That
As it happens, I just went book shopping, and then I saw Lixing Sun's review↱ of Sex Is a Spectrum: The Biological Limits of the Binary, by Agustín Fuentes (Princeton Univ. Press, 2025). Helpfully, Psychology Today offers a brief summary:
Well, imagine that.
This is part of what I mean about what happens when science↗ and enlightenment↗ inform↗ differently↗ than preferred superstitions.
For instance, the only revelation about the "3G rule" is that there is a name for it, and the name is "3G rule", which in turn might simply be someone's shorthand. But the idea that it "falls apart under scrutiny", or that "biology refusess to fit a checkbox", isn't news. Neither is the point that "sex isn't either or". And, toward Rowling, if "every biological and cultural trait blurs the line", then the pseudoscience of trying to disqualify cisgender female athletes, such as last year's digital lynch mob↗ against Imane Khelif, actually undermines itself.
And, look, sure, it's not quite believing in an angry God, but there is only so much to be gained by leaning on superstition for the comfort of saying no to science.
____________________
Notes:
Sun, Lixing. "The Case for a Fluid View of Sex". Psychology Today. 17 May 2025. PsychologyToday.com. 26 May 2025. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/lies-and-deception/202505/the-case-for-a-fluid-view-of-sex
As it happens, I just went book shopping, and then I saw Lixing Sun's review↱ of Sex Is a Spectrum: The Biological Limits of the Binary, by Agustín Fuentes (Princeton Univ. Press, 2025). Helpfully, Psychology Today offers a brief summary:
Key points
• Fuentes synthesizes male–female similarities and differences based on advances in natural and social sciences.
• The "3G rule" (genes, gonads, genitals) falls apart under scrutiny—biology refuses to fit in a checkbox.
• Sex isn't either/or. And Fuentes shows how every biological and cultural trait blurs the line.
• Fuentes synthesizes male–female similarities and differences based on advances in natural and social sciences.
• The "3G rule" (genes, gonads, genitals) falls apart under scrutiny—biology refuses to fit in a checkbox.
• Sex isn't either/or. And Fuentes shows how every biological and cultural trait blurs the line.
Well, imagine that.
From the very first chapter, Sex Is a Spectrum gently dismantles the familiar assumption that "male" and "female" are hardwired opposites. Drawing on dazzling examples from across the animal kingdom—sex-changing fish, hermaphroditic slugs, socially fluid reptiles—Fuentes reminds us that biology, at its core, is an experiment in variation. Why should humans be any different? It makes a far more enriched, contexualized, and compelling case against the sex binary than the key scientific findings I highlighted in my Psychology Today essay earlier this year.
When he turns his gaze to our own species, the case only deepens. With evidence from fossils, genetics, and global cultural histories, Fuentes builds a biocultural portrait of sex that is more mosaic than monolith. He explains how traits like chromosomes, hormones, and anatomy—so often held up as immutable markers—don't always line up neatly, and never tell the full story. What we call "male" or "female," he argues, are broad averages wrapped around an astonishing range of lived experience.
To illuminate this variability, Fuentes rethinks the language we use. Instead of the age-old categories of "men" and "women," or even the scientific shorthand of "large" and "small gamete producers," he proposes a more fluid vocabulary—one that reflects the complexity that science has uncovered in recent decades. It's not always smooth reading, but the awkwardness is part of the point: nature, like humanity, resists simplification.
One of the book's most obvious and effective analogies compares sex differences to height. Yes, on average, men are taller than women—but there's plenty of overlap. The same holds true for sex-related traits. By shifting our perspective from absolutes to distributions, Fuentes invites us to view ourselves and others with a little more curiosity—and a lot more compassion.
When he turns his gaze to our own species, the case only deepens. With evidence from fossils, genetics, and global cultural histories, Fuentes builds a biocultural portrait of sex that is more mosaic than monolith. He explains how traits like chromosomes, hormones, and anatomy—so often held up as immutable markers—don't always line up neatly, and never tell the full story. What we call "male" or "female," he argues, are broad averages wrapped around an astonishing range of lived experience.
To illuminate this variability, Fuentes rethinks the language we use. Instead of the age-old categories of "men" and "women," or even the scientific shorthand of "large" and "small gamete producers," he proposes a more fluid vocabulary—one that reflects the complexity that science has uncovered in recent decades. It's not always smooth reading, but the awkwardness is part of the point: nature, like humanity, resists simplification.
One of the book's most obvious and effective analogies compares sex differences to height. Yes, on average, men are taller than women—but there's plenty of overlap. The same holds true for sex-related traits. By shifting our perspective from absolutes to distributions, Fuentes invites us to view ourselves and others with a little more curiosity—and a lot more compassion.
This is part of what I mean about what happens when science↗ and enlightenment↗ inform↗ differently↗ than preferred superstitions.
For instance, the only revelation about the "3G rule" is that there is a name for it, and the name is "3G rule", which in turn might simply be someone's shorthand. But the idea that it "falls apart under scrutiny", or that "biology refusess to fit a checkbox", isn't news. Neither is the point that "sex isn't either or". And, toward Rowling, if "every biological and cultural trait blurs the line", then the pseudoscience of trying to disqualify cisgender female athletes, such as last year's digital lynch mob↗ against Imane Khelif, actually undermines itself.
And, look, sure, it's not quite believing in an angry God, but there is only so much to be gained by leaning on superstition for the comfort of saying no to science.
____________________
Notes:
Sun, Lixing. "The Case for a Fluid View of Sex". Psychology Today. 17 May 2025. PsychologyToday.com. 26 May 2025. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/lies-and-deception/202505/the-case-for-a-fluid-view-of-sex
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Can you quote the passage where he implies that?
Giving birth and supplying sperm are two different things, as you know.
No.
That's fairly well established, yes. Several examples have been given in this thread. Quick summary -
Her mocking the idea that trans women are women: "‘People who menstruate.’ I’m sure there used to be a word for those people. Someone help me out. Wumben? Wimpund? Woomud?"
Her claiming that sex is unalterable: "If sex isn’t real, there’s no same-sex attraction. If sex isn’t real, the lived reality of women globally is erased. I know and love trans people, but erasing the concept of sex removes the ability of many to meaningfully discuss their lives. It isn’t hate to speak the truth.”
Her list of reasons that she is worried about trans people being accepted: "Five reasons for being worried about the new trans activism”.
Her claim that accepting trans people means accepting that there is zero difference between people born women and trans women: “It isn’t enough for women to be trans allies. Women must accept and admit that there is no material difference between trans women and themselves."
And her list of retweets of anti-trans material.
These go back to 2020, so "spent years" is accurate.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
But are these transphobic?
We come to think that anything at all that limits transgendered people must be a phobia, but that roads leads to knee-jerking and witch-hunting.
Are you prepared to say she has a "phobia". - an irrational fear?
Or does she just have an unpopular stance - to-wit: supporting the alleged rights of a less trendy group (i.e. cis-gendered women)?
Бедный Запад! Это ж до какой степени нужно довести мужиков, чтобы они добровольно решили лишить себя яиц?
Phobia is an "irrational fear" in a psychological context.
In wider parlance it is used more metaphorically to refer to prejudice, bias, dislike, hostility, negative views thereof.
As to when such views attract the -phobia label, that's a question unto itself.
Anyone who proposes limits to the civil rights of trans people but not everyone else - yes, that's a pretty good definition of transphobic.
Transphobic (or homophobic) does not just mean "irrational fear of." From Merriam-Webster, homophobia is "discrimination against, aversion to, or fear of homosexuality or gay people." Transphobia is similar. Thus, someone who calls for discrimination against trans people (for example, by refusing to call them women) would be engaging in discrimination against them, and be transphobic by definition.
I'd say both. For example, white supremacists would say they are supporting the rights of white people - and many of them attempt to do just that. They are still racists.
Same reason some people voluntarily deprive themselves of a foreskin, or an extra finger, or their abdominal fat, or a piece of their nose. Because they want to, and they feel better about themselves afterwards.
Ну да, я помню, был у вас такой Майкл Джексон, который нос себе всё "урезал". Я же и говорю - до чего нужно дойти, чтобы люди начали добровольно себя уродовать?
TheVat
Valued Senior Member
