JK Rowling TERFing her legacy into the bin

[Rich Uncle Skeleton]

J.K. ROWLING: I did, yeah. Research assistant. Human rights abuses in Francophone Africa. It made me very fascinating at dinner parties. I knew everything about the political situation in Togo and Burkina Faso.

Two pointless answers there.

edit. oh good a new page , thank god for that ....

[Mango Chimes]

Have the offending posts been taken down? I like Rowling a lot so I've just looked at twitter (vom), and while her recent posts are all fairly radical feminist, there are non up which are trans exclusionary.

That's interesting. Maybe I've been radicalised by Graham Linehan.

It's the non sequitur, jumping off from an article that is all about women but at some points modifies languages to include trans men (implicitly categorising them as people who menstruate that aren't women), to start talking about the erasure of the concept of sex. The article says nothing about sex not being real, so it's an actively antagonistic statement.

It follows that she's stating "trans men are women" and similar things that follow, and whilst I'm fairly ambivalent on the substance of these arguments, she's echoing the language of people who are massive arseholes. But it is interesting to see a perspective that, stripped of that arcane background context, she isn't being explicitly an arsehole herself.

FAKE EDIT: Hold on, have you read that second article she tweeted? That's pretty full on and unambiguous.

[alan nagsworth]

Again I would press that the general idea is that this world will be exciting to children

Aye it is a fuckin book for babies and dickheads after all

Great points above btw

[touchingcloth]

That's interesting. Maybe I've been radicalised by Graham Linehan.

It's the non sequitur, jumping off from an article that is all about women but at some points modifies languages to include trans men (implicitly categorising them as people who menstruate that aren't women), to start talking about the erasure of the concept of sex. The article says nothing about sex not being real, so it's an actively antagonistic statement.

It follows that she's stating "trans men are women" and similar things that follow, and whilst I'm fairly ambivalent on the substance of these arguments, she's echoing the language of people who are massive arseholes. But it is interesting to see a perspective that, stripped of that arcane background context, she isn't being explicitly an arsehole herself.

FAKE EDIT: Hold on, have you read that second article she tweeted? That's pretty full on and unambiguous.

The anonymous letter? No, not yet. It might be just that I don't use twitter so aren't up on the debate (around trans issues specifically, I read a lot of feminist stuff), and like you say that sex isn't real comment is quite the non sequitur if it wasn't prompted by someone else's comments as it's not in the source material.

Her tweets really don't come out as exclusionary though, and some of them are overtly pro trans rights. Though like I say I'm a Rowling fan, and I've never got the impression from her fiction or other writings that she's at all bigoted, and usually strikes me as a considered thinker on political issues.

[chveik]

The anonymous letter? No, not yet. It might be just that I don't use twitter so aren't up on the debate (around trans issues specifically, I read a lot of feminist stuff), and like you say that sex isn't real comment is quite the non sequitur if it wasn't prompted by someone else's comments as it's not in the source material.

Her tweets really don't come out as exclusionary though, and some of them are overtly pro trans rights. Though like I say I'm a Rowling fan, and I've never got the impression from her fiction or other writings that she's at all bigoted, and usually strikes me as a considered thinker on political issues.

I'd say that her particular brand of bigotry is a bit esoteric when you're not familiar with the twitter discourse around the issue.

[chveik]

The book does end with a big time skip though, which then just bored everyone to tears by listingthe stupid names they have given their kids. There was plenty of room for "Hermione had been running a campaign to abolish slavery" or "Harry was trying to persuade wizards not to be so racist towards other magical species" but none of that counts compares with checking off that everyone married their teenage sweethearts,

I may be misremembering but I think that was alluded in the ending.

[mjwilson]

I may be misremembering but I think that was alluded in the ending.

Sadly you are misremembering. There may be something about in the play I suppose, but I don't know.

[mjwilson]

Unless I have been tricked by a parody account, Jonathan Ross has said that JKR "is both right and magnificent".

[chveik]

Sadly you are misremembering. There may be something about in the play I suppose, but I don't know.

you're right, it's in the play.

[Ambient Sheep]

Unless I have been tricked by a parody account, Jonathan Ross has said that JKR "is both right and magnificent".

Given that he's supported Glinner in the past, it's quite plausible.

[Zetetic]

That the book didn't end with a bizarre catalogue of tyrannical structural reforms to the wizarding world just reflects that the books were centred on the main characters and the fantasy world, ie what the readers care about. A bit like how books about Santa don't end with Santa quitting then laying down a series of Marxist diktat to the IMF, the World Bank and the G7.

Except that, as even you touch on very briefly, the books do engage with government in the Wizarding world as variously incompetent and open to abuse. The Ministry of Magic isn't background. The condition of house-elves is integral to the plot at points. It's not ridiculous to discuss how little these are engaged with beyond "these things are fine if you've got good people" (even as the books do open up a little how context can beat personality).

It's interesting because it does seem to gesture towards structures and so on, and Rowling clearly understands some of that, but ultimately it does shy away from it. Possibly for the reason I think you're suggesting - it doesn't sit neatly with the tropes of the genre.

[Bernice]

I'm not sure genre precludes a more satisfying engagement with those topics though, especially when, as has been mentioned, you have that exposition dump of an epilogue in which you could easily have suggested lasting institutional changes in a post-Voldemort world, even if you don't want to engage with these strands in the resolution of the story proper.

[Piggyoioi]

I havent read that much about trans issues, and I have no problem calling a transwomen she/her and understand they feel they have a feminine psyche, but why dont we just call transwomen, transwomen instead of women?

[Urinal Cake]

I think HP is very much of it's time- the 90s and more specifically New Labour. It's anti-racist but it's about the benevolence of the 'betters' rather than the courage of the mudbloods. It's inclusiveness of minorities is superficial and tokenistic. It wants to applaud merit but it's in awe of traditions, institutions and class. Even the house elf stuff smacks of Clinton/Blair third wayism when it came to the justification for foreign sweatshops.

[Bernice]

I think HP is very much of it's time- the 90s and more specifically New Labour. It's anti-racist but it's about the benevolence of the 'betters' rather than the courage of the m******s. It's inclusiveness of minorities is superficial and tokenistic. It wants to applaud merit but it's in awe of traditions, institutions and class. Even the house elf stuff smacks of Clinton/Blair third wayism when it came to the justification for foreign sweatshops.

[idunnosomename]

is there any picture of her where she isnt smirking. horrible person

[Blue Jam]

I don't know about that, but the excessive airbrushing on her Twitter profile pic is making me feel a bit ill.

[Sin Agog]

I havent read that much about trans issues, and I have no problem calling a transwomen she/her and understand they feel they have a feminine psyche, but why dont we just call transwomen, transwomen instead of women?

Because that would imply that they're in a permanent state of transition with no chance of reaching their goal of simply being a woman.  In a way even just using the word trans undercuts thousands of rending journeys by robbing them of their endgame and imposing an external trans tag on them instead.

[Jumblegraws]

I havent read that much about trans issues, and I have no problem calling a transwomen she/her and understand they feel they have a feminine psyche, but why dont we just call transwomen, transwomen instead of women?

Because "we" accept trans people, whereas what you're describing is (at best) humouring. "Transwomen are transwomen" is a sugarcoated way of saying "fake women are fake women".

[Mister Six]

Just spotted this on Twitter, never read or seen anything Harry Potter related. Is it a fair assessment?



All I know is, I love the image of a drug addled Daniel Radcliffe, trying to feed his habit.

I'd say that's pretty fair.

Radcliffe seems like a good egg in real life, but he does look permanently strung out.

[Mister Six]

Because "we" accept trans people, whereas what you're describing is (at best) humouring. "Transwomen are transwomen" is a sugarcoated way of saying "fake women are fake women".

And because transwomen are women and cis women are also women.

[Poirots BigGarlickyCorpse]

I havent read that much about trans issues, and I have no problem calling a transwomen she/her and understand they feel they have a feminine psyche, but why dont we just call transwomen, transwomen instead of women?

In addition to the other replies, it's like saying "gay people" and "people". "Black people" and "people".

[Janie Jones]

I don't know about that, but the excessive airbrushing on her Twitter profile pic is making me feel a bit ill.

She's had a fair bit of work done, the usual sort of cosmetic surgery and enhancements that ageing rich famous people have, teeth whitening, facial fillers, bit of liposuction to overcome the middle-aged spread, Botox, eye lift. I therefore fail to see how she can be a Radical Feminist. Until recently, radical feminists had natural bodies rather than submitting themselves to such painful and/or tedious and expensive procedures. [Millie Tant stomps stoutly out of thread, hairy moles bristling disdainfully]

[Jumblegraws]

And because transwomen are women and cis women are also women.

Yes, absolutely, apologies if my post seemed like it was equivocating on that, I was trying to get across why "transwomen are transwomen" is such an insulting mantra.

[Jittlebags]

Has anyone come up with a matrix of gender (born, fancying, identifying, transitioned to etc.) ? Not sure how many axes you'd need (ah, maybe four from the previous sentence). A sort of hyperdimesional gender/sexuality space I guess?

[earl_sleek]

The Genderbread Person seems to be a stab at that, or at least was a few years ago.

[Piggyoioi]

Because that would imply that they're in a permanent state of transition with no chance of reaching their goal of simply being a woman.  In a way even just using the word trans undercuts thousands of rending journeys by robbing them of their endgame and imposing an external trans tag on them instead.

Lets be real, a transwomen will most likely never reach the goal of developing into born from birth developed 'woman', depending on when they start their trans hormone treatment this will always be on a spectrum. It seems to me that we shouldn't push these people to 'be a woman' rather than essentially try their best to move toward the feminine as much as possible to make their feeling become reality. If we start saying they're the same as women, when essentially they might not be to certain degrees depending of when they started their treatment or the feminine bent of their psyche, you start creating a dichotomy rather than spectrum. I think they should start owning the idea of transwomen or transmale, because thats what they are ffs. its up to the culture to accept them as so rather than pretend they are the same as genetically born and raised with the sought-after sexual organs they feel they should have. life isn't fair, and we shouldn't pretend to, at the same time, sexuality is malleable by the culture its in. personally the idea of dating a transwomen is revolting, a turn off, but maybe we can push the culture where this isn't an issue, it's more accepted and we dont havent to pretend their something they're not, rather they are trans, and thats fucking ok.

[Poirots BigGarlickyCorpse]

Lets be real, I'm trying my best to sound open-minded and almost edge into white-knighting for trans folk but SURPRISE I really want revolting transwomen to look masculine so I don't accidentally wank about them

[pigamus]

As my grandma used to say, "Get a porcine moniker, become a cunt"

[Piggyoioi]

its hilarious how off the mark you are. i feel for all people, beyond ideology or the moralistic thrill i feel from the forum at the moment. i even have trans friend i respect deeply which i assume alot of you dont. that being said, im gunna be honest and say sexually, its a fucking turn off, which might be a cultural/enviromental thing.

maybe answer the question i proposed rather than crudely twist it to boost your own ego?