It was no April Fool’s joke.

Harry Potter author-turned culture warrior J.K. Rowling kicked off the month with an 11-tweet social media thread in which she argued 10 transgender women were men — and dared Scottish police to arrest her.

Rowling’s intervention came as a controversial new Scottish government law, aimed at protecting minority groups from hate crimes, took effect. And it landed amid a fierce debate over both the legal status of transgender people in Scotland and over what actually constitutes a hate crime.

Already the law has generated far more international buzz than is normal for legislation passed by a small nation’s devolved parliament.

  • Schadrach
    link
    English
    93 months ago

    Its that she hates women, or thinks women are inferior to men. You see this with all terfs.

    No, she doesn’t. You just operate from a (shockingly common) perspective in which any case where anything gender-related that doesn’t conform to your particular flavor of progressive feminism must collapse into misogyny.

    She literally just believes that men are evil monsters who will do whatever they have to to prey on innocent-by-default women. Including pretend to be women if needed to get to their prey. It’s like the white supremacists who believe black folks are inherently criminal, violent monsters except with men instead of blacks.

    So she invented some magical bullshit about why she was a full person.

    She’s never believed she wasn’t, or needed to invent magical bullshit to believe she is, at least related to gender. She just needs to believe that men are evil monsters who will pretend to be women to attack “real” women, which is shockingly common.

    But the magical bullshit is magic; doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. Which trans people inherently bring/are.

    Her problem isn’t that she sees trans people as fuzzing up her hierarchy in which men are superior to her.

    There’s a reason why transphobic dialog is rarely about trans men (despite them also violating the same “magical bullshit”), and very often framed in terms of “men in dresses”, and that’s because it is most often about how men are monsters and women need to be protected from them, and trans women are forever tainted by the original sin of having been born male sexed.

    • @melpomenesclevage@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      0
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      believes that men are evil monsters who

      Ive read her books. Some of them at least. That’s a bit much. She does not believe this. Or didn’t when she wrote them. Also, I think that some days, and I’m not a transphobe.

      invented some magical bullshit

      She didn’t actually have to invent it, it was already floating around since at least the middle ages.

      transphobic dialogue isn’t ever about trans men

      No the rhetoric is just different, more transparently objectifying; ‘protect the titties’ discourse. TERFs talk about them as ‘mutilated sisters’ or some shit, because its still about tge myystical divine feminine bullshit to them. You hear it more direct from patriarchy than from its proxies.

      You’re reading a little transphobic and under informed on the topic here

      male sexed

      Oh yeah fuck you stop talking to me.

      • Schadrach
        link
        English
        02 months ago

        No the rhetoric is just different, more transparently objectifying; ‘protect the titties’ discourse. TERFs talk about them as ‘mutilated sisters’ or some shit, because its still about tge myystical divine feminine bullshit to them. You hear it more direct from patriarchy than from its proxies.

        1. Rarely about trans men, not never. The dialogue is mostly framed in terms of men being a predatory danger to women so taht women need spaces where men are kept away from them and men being such predatory monsters that they will pretend to be women in order to get access to their prey. This is more or less the standard TERF (and amusingly also the right-wing tradcon) perspective. They don’t even really hide it.

        2. It feels like you’re just jumbling things up here - if the core premise is that men are better than women and trans people disrupt the patriarchal hierarchy, why wouldn’t the focus be mostly on trans men, framed in terms of them trying to steal patriarchal power for themselves rather than mostly focusing on trans women being framed as predatory “men in dresses” using gender identity claims to have easier access to their prey?

        You’re reading a little transphobic and under informed on the topic here

        Transphobic how? By not accepting your interpretation of transphobic arguments that requires ignoring the actual arguments made in favor of all transphobia just being that trans people represent a disruption of a patriarchal gender hierarchy? Because that doesn’t really align to basically any transphobic arguments that transphobes actually make. It requires ignoring what transphobes actually say almost entirely.

        When people tell you what they believe, it’s usually better to believe them. They generally have the better view of both what they believe and why they justify those beliefs.

        Oh yeah fuck you stop talking to me.

        For what, drawing an explicit difference between sex and gender? Or am I supposed to pretend now that there is no difference - there is only gender?