Cancel culture

[Dee Man]

6 hours ago, Dons_1988 said:

She could well be. I just don't presume to know. From my limited knowledge of what she's tweeted it's not a conclusion I'd jump to.

 

 

What is it that Rowling tweeted?

[NotThePars]

Bari Weiss has just cancelled herself from the New York Times over the slaggings she gets off Twitter. Big respect giving up half a million a year because you got too mad online.

 

[Guest JTS98]

1 hour ago, ali_91 said:

‘A new conversion therapy.’ If we look at what conversion therapy is in the first place, it was synonymous with parents attempting to change their child’s sexuality, to me that reads like this is a new method of that. 
 

I suppose it could read that children are so concerned with their own sexuality that they think changing their gender is the only way to not have to come out, which is equally absurd. 

I think it's reasonably obvious what she meant, and I, like some others, am struggling to see the irredeemable bigotry in it.

She is making the point that she thinks (and whether she's right or not, who knows) that some people  are being moved towards what is not an appropriate treatment for them when it comes to surgery etc and that she believes this is dangerous. She's comparing this, you might say clumsily, to the kind of long-term damage that something harmful like gay conversion therapy could do.

I don't think it passes the bigotry test for anyone who knows what the word 'bigotry' means. At most you could say that she doesn't believe that 100% of people who think they are trans or who are told they are trans are actually trans. That may or may not be true. I'd imagine it is true.

She is saying there is an over-readiness to move people towards long-lasting treatments a bit too quickly. That's a valid opinion. Perhaps the gay conversion comparison is clunky, but I don't see any bigotry in it. She's pointing out that both of these things are bad. You disagree with her, fair enough, but I think your throwing around of the B-word here is ill-founded.

Edited July 14, 2020 by JTS98

[Guest JTS98]

2 minutes ago, MixuFruit said:

I think that's a reasonable interpretation. What I don't think is acceptable would be the use of conversion therapy as the analogy. I think everyone can agree conversion therapy was a terrible thing to happen to someone who was gay and that the right thing to do was to accept someone for who they were. So to choose to compare supporting someone through a pathway to changing sex as a new form of conversion therapy implies that the wrong thing to do is help them through this and the right thing to do is get them to accept who they are. This seems a bit topsy turvy to me.

It's a bit off, I agree. But I think her point is that in some cases this treatment is misdirected and is not helping people become who they really are, but doing the opposite.

I think that's why she went for the comparison. Wouldn't have been my choice, but I don't see any bigotry in it.

[Guest JTS98]

4 minutes ago, ali_91 said:

“At most you could say that she doesn’t believe that 100% of people who think they are gay are actually gay.”

 

1) Bigoted statement or not? 
 

2) By pretending that people being forced to transition is a common theme, when it quite clearly isn’t as numerous studies show it’s under 1% that de-transition, this can lead to even more hardship to an already marginalised community. Imagine someone’s parents reading Rowling’s bigoted ramblings and believing that there is a sizeable chunk of people transitioning due to a faze.
 

Her tweets are dangerous and harmful, and she should realise how irresponsible it is using her substantial platform to effectively peddle conspiracy theories. 

1) Not bigoted in the slightest. I'm baffled as to how you could think it is. I'm not being rude, but what do you think 'bigoted' means?

2) That would make her wrong, not bigoted. I don't see anything in what she's said in the quoted text that implies she is intolerant towards people because they hold a different view to hers.

I've got no idea if she's right or wrong. But you're missing the target repeatedly on this 'bigot' thing and I'm not sure why you are so desperate to pin it on her.

Edited July 14, 2020 by JTS98

[Guest JTS98]

2 minutes ago, ali_91 said:

I think holding a belief (and using your massive platform to continually promote said belief) that is clearly negatively effecting a minority community is pretty much a bullseye in this ‘bigot,’ thing champ. 

It seems more like you think she's a bigot because she disagrees with you on a controversial topic. That's edging towards *drum roll* 'intolerance towards people who hold different views from oneself'.

There is nothing in what's been quoted here that remotely passes the bigotry test. You just disagree with her.

It's telling that you can't see that. Doctor, heal thyself.

[Gordon EF]

6 minutes ago, ali_91 said:

“At most you could say that she doesn’t believe that 100% of people who think they are gay are actually gay.”

Is it not pretty much as close to a cast iron certainty that less than 100% of kids will know exactly what their sexuality is going to be once they're adults? It's almost inconceivable that there aren't kids who think they're straight who turn out to be gay and kids who think might think they're gay but turn out to be straight. 

I do think the 'turning gay kids trans' stuff is almost certainly overblown hysteria but it's hardly a completely illegitimate concern to have.

[Guest JTS98]

3 minutes ago, Gordon EF said:

Is it not pretty much as close to a cast iron certainty that less than 100% of kids will know exactly what their sexuality is going to be once they're adults? It's almost inconceivable that there aren't kids who think they're straight who turn out to be gay and kids who think might think they're gay but turn out to be straight. 

I do think the 'turning gay kids trans' stuff is almost certainly overblown hysteria but it's hardly a completely illegitimate concern to have.

I think most people would agree with that. And it seems Rowling is trying to apply that logic to youngsters who are moving towards what she sees as extreme end trans treatments.

You can agree or disagree with her, of course, but I don't see any bigotry in it at all. It seems a strange thing to even try to pin on her.

[Shotgun]

If a kid thinks they're gay, it's reasonable to assume they 'might' be wrong. Therefore society should treat them as if they were straight.

If a kid thinks they're straight, it's reasonable to assume they 'might' be wrong. Therefore society should treat them as if they were gay.

 

I'm seeing a flaw here.

[Guest JTS98]

3 minutes ago, ali_91 said:

 

 

Well, you are the person here who seems to be intolerant of beliefs that aren't your own.

Don't know what else to tell you.

[Guest JTS98]

1 minute ago, Shotgun said:

If a kid thinks they're gay, it's reasonable to assume they 'might' be wrong. Therefore society should treat them as if they were straight.

If a kid thinks they're straight, it's reasonable to assume they 'might' be wrong. Therefore society should treat them as if they were gay.

 

I'm seeing a flaw here.

I don't think anybody is saying that at all. Not even anything close to it.

I think the JK Rowling point, which was held up as bigotry, was merely her view that life-altering decisions should not be taken lightly. I think most people would say on a base level that's fair enough.

The details of it she may be right or wrong, I don't know, but I don't think the analogy I've quoted here stands up to anything anybody is suggesting.

[Gordon EF]

1 minute ago, Shotgun said:

I'm seeing a flaw here.

That's a bit disingenuous. People who're advocating refusing to acknowledge any child as transgender, yeah, don't think many people would disagree with calling that a bigoted view point. This is more about hormone therapy though isn't it.

There's no actual difference between the way any adult should treat a gay or straight child.

[Guest JTS98]

5 minutes ago, ali_91 said:

My point is more that anyone who thinks it is worth saying that people might not ACTUALLY be gay (or trans) in this case almost certainly are saying so because they hope said person isn’t gay. My wording was a bit clumsy, the statement isn’t bigoted in itself, but the chances are the statement will be used in conjunction with an argument that is coming from a position of bigotry, as is the case with JK Rowling. 
 

It should be remembered in all of this that JK Rowling isn’t coming at this to protect the trans community, her initial argument was that allowing transwomen in ‘women only,’ spaces is a series danger to ‘women.’ Her now trying to position herself as a defender of trans people is ridiculous. 

'What she said that I said was bigoted wasn't really bigoted at all, but I still think she's a bigot because she might be, even though I have no evidence that she is'.

Righto.

[coprolite]

1 minute ago, Gordon EF said:

That's a bit disingenuous. People who're advocating refusing to acknowledge any child as transgender, yeah, don't think many people would disagree with calling that a bigoted view point. This is more about hormone therapy though isn't it.

There's no actual difference between the way any adult should treat a gay or straight child.

Correct. They should be given a clip round the ear and told to stop slouching. 

[Shotgun]

3 minutes ago, JTS98 said:

I think the JK Rowling point, which was held up as bigotry, was merely her view that life-altering decisions should not be taken lightly. 

Except that’s only ONE of the tweets she’s made on the topic. Rowling isn’t being criticised for ONLY saying that. If she felt her sentiment was misconstrued, she could’ve clarified her point. Instead she chose to double down. 

[Gordon EF]

5 minutes ago, ali_91 said:

My point is more that anyone who thinks it is worth saying that people might not ACTUALLY be gay (or trans) in this case almost certainly are saying so because they hope said person isn’t gay. My wording was a bit clumsy, the statement isn’t bigoted in itself, but the chances are the statement will be used in conjunction with an argument that is coming from a position of bigotry, as is the case with JK Rowling. 
 

It should be remembered in all of this that JK Rowling isn’t coming at this to protect the trans community, her initial argument was that allowing transwomen in ‘women only,’ spaces is a series danger to ‘women.’ Her now trying to position herself as a defender of trans people is ridiculous. 

I don't disagree there's a pattern with Rowling at all. For folk like her and Linehan, having extremely outspoken view on a range of trans issues without any apparent skin in the game, it's seems most likely they just don't like the idea of people being transgender very much.

[Guest JTS98]

1 minute ago, Shotgun said:

Except that’s only ONE of the tweets she’s made on the topic. Rowling isn’t being criticised for ONLY saying that. If she felt her sentiment was misconstrued, she could’ve clarified her point. Instead she chose to double down. 

I don't have any interest in her life. My knowledge of whether or not she's a bigot comes from the evidence provided on this thread. So far it is completely unconvincing.

[Guest JTS98]

2 minutes ago, ali_91 said:

You’ve lost it big style, that quote wasn’t something she said, it was something you paraphrased from her quote to try and make it appear to not be as bad as it was. 
 

Nice try though. 

You've been at this for ages and have still provided no evidence for her being a bigot. Quite the opposite, you've shown that it seems to be you who lacks tolerance for the views of others on controversial topics.

I'm still not convinced you know what a bigot is. It seems, in your view, to apply to anyone who holds what you consider an invalid opinion.

You seem very worked up about JK Rowling. This is baffling to me.

Goodnight.

[pandarilla]

My point is more that anyone who thinks it is worth saying that people might not ACTUALLY be gay (or trans) in this case almost certainly are saying so because they hope said person isn’t gay. My wording was a bit clumsy, the statement isn’t bigoted in itself, but the chances are the statement will be used in conjunction with an argument that is coming from a position of bigotry, as is the case with JK Rowling. 
 
It should be remembered in all of this that JK Rowling isn’t coming at this to protect the trans community, her initial argument was that allowing transwomen in ‘women only,’ spaces is a series danger to ‘women.’ Her now trying to position herself as a defender of trans people is ridiculous. 

So this was a bit of a backtrack.

In this post you're actually being much more reasonable than normal. Throwing the phrase 'bigot' about weakens the effect of the phrase itself.

[Shotgun]

50 minutes ago, JTS98 said:

I don't have any interest in her life. My knowledge of whether or not she's a bigot comes from the evidence provided on this thread. So far it is completely unconvincing.

Dude, you're defending her pretty vociferously considering you don't even know what she said to cause the controversy.

If you're interested; this author does a pretty good job of breaking down the issue. If you aren't interested, well then, OK.

What JK Rowling gets wrong about trans people