JK Rowling's tweets on transgender people spark outrage

“In 2020, there is no excuse for targeting trans people.”

Yes there is. People who say nasty things about other groups that are not factual deserve to be treated similarly. It only reflects on the people making the initial comments in a derogatory way.

For example, if LGBTQ people (or anyone else) uses disdain when they describe "breeders" is nasty, just like when anyone uses derogatory terms for "the community."

Can't see it myself. I don't see how the ability of women to meaningfully discuss their lives is impacted by the concept of LGBTQ rights.

She just happens to have a different opinion about sex and gender issues, but apparently can’t express them without being accused of being cruel and “targeting” trans people. 

She's perfectly entitled to express her opinion, as are her detractors. You speak on a public forum, you open yourself up to a public response. People saying "You're wrong!" on social media does not amount to an attack on your right to express your opinion. If she has the right to express her opinion, then other people have the right to express their opinions concerning her statements. For better or for worse, that's how social media works. If you're not happy with that process (and there are many reasons why you might not be), it's best to stay away from social media or limit yourself to speaking on entirely neutral topics.

Why can't the LGBTQ etc., guys accept a different opinion than their own? Is there standpoint so weak?

Why can't the LGBTQ etc., guys accept a different opinion than their own? Is there standpoint so weak?

They disagree. Who accepts an opinion they don't agree with on a public forum?

If this transaction were simply limited to an exchange of views on social media, then I'd say that's fair enough, you have a point. But it isn't. To go against what's become the prevailing orthodoxy on transgender issues - at least in some circles - you have to be prepared to risk your reputation, your job, and to be subjected to a tirade of abuse not only online but also out there in real life.

Just trawl through some of the comments online about JK Rowling's tweets. Vituperative isn't strong enough a word to describe some of them. Rowling is interested in presenting an alternative opinion (I say "alternative" but I suspect it's pretty much a majority opinion) of the trans debate, and she does it in a polite, considered, civilized way. Other people - not necessarily limited to trans groups - use violent and/or repressive language in response, and are really only interested in shutting the debate down.

And by the way - LGBTQI groups? There are lots of 'Ls' who don't at all agree with the 'I's on this one.

As I said, for better or for worse, this is how social media works. J.K. Rowling is aware of this, as is pretty much everybody. If she's not happy with that process, she has the option of not contributing to it. Yet she does, entirely aware of the consequences, giving her implicit approval to the whole shebang, good or bad.

Certainly many people are not polite and may use violent language. But the internet is not a forum for civilized debate, as we are all again aware. It's a forum for people to say whatever they want (again, for better or for worse). People who want no part of that have options. J.K. Rowling chose to ignore those options.

I am far from saying this is a good system. It's horrible. But I will say this: Anyone who voices opinions on social media and expects reasoned debate to follow is a fool. And given that this is not the first time J.K. Rowling has attracted controversy on this topic, she knows exactly what she's getting into.

OK then, sport, obviously we don’t see eye to eye on this issue, but least we’ve had a civilised exchange of views, unlike most that take place on social media. Or for that matter on unmoderated media sites, where reading Comments pages like this one can be a bit like watching a toilet overflow into your living room.

Whatever their opinions on any contentious topic, a civilized exchange of views (not to mention basic English and moderate typing skills) is clearly beyond many of the people who inhabit the internet. I'd prefer to do it this way, but things gravitated to the lowest common denominator a long time ago. Like I said, it's a horrible system and I'm far too much of a cynic to expect it to improve any time soon. People like Rowling (and many others, from everywhere on the spectrum) seem to have decided that it's a fair price to pay for a continued high-profile media presence. Thank God for celebrities who do nothing but post pictures of flowers...

The vile misogyny that Rowling is receiving for merely stating a biological truth is appalling, but unsurprising.

Live and let live. Straight, gay, bi, trans etc.

We're all human, we all are capable of love.

I’m not outraged by JK in the slightest...

A majority of people today in Western countries respect the rights of trans people. There is still a socially conservative group who think this is terrible and will do their upmost to make these people outcasts, but they are generally a dying breed.

However, there is just as worrying a move to silence people who disagree with the orthodoxy of an activist group. The celebrated feminist was declared a persona non grata by Bristol University in England's students' union and dis-invited from a speaking engagement there because she questioned whether trans women were the same as biological women. It will not allow speakers who believe that identifying as a woman is not the same as being a woman (quite how the university Islamic Society is still functioning, I don't understand).

I believe that we must protect free speech and not pander to a small minority who seek to ban it because it disagrees with their belief. After all, by definition a trans woman cannot know what it is like to have been born female and are therefore in no position to argue otherwise.

Missing from above post:

The celebrated feminist, Germane Greer, was declared a persona non grata by Bristol University...

How many 'trans' are there on this planet of 8 billion people? I don't 'get it' myself either but I have better things to do than ponder over something I'll never understand anyway.

At the same thing, these stupid hateful politicians need to QUIT bringing up these anti-trans 'restroom laws'. When I'm urinating I don't look at somebody's else's junk and neither should anyone else. Do your number, wash up and leave.

We can't begin to have a meaningful discussion about race or gender issues until we accept that some folks might express thoughts that differ from the mainstream or from current political correctness. This historically recent tactic of publicly destroying someone that makes a politically incorrect comment just drives the discourse down and empowers the "silent majority" that people don't want to admit exists.

If you are taking issue with J.K. Rowling you probably need to think some more.

JK "Just Kidding" Rowling is bad.

I don't get it. What did she say that was 'inaccurate and cruel'?

Invalid CSRF

I don't get it. What did she say that was 'inaccurate and cruel'?

She was using strawmen arguments in order to demonize trans people as a threat to women.

She was using strawmen arguments in order to demonize trans people as a threat to women.

I still don't get it. There's nothing in her comments quoted in the article that demonises anyone.

“I’m sure there used to be a word for those people," the famous British author tweeted. "Someone help me out. Wumben? Wimpund? Woomud?”

This is not entirely accurate, of course; many of us wumben/wimpund/woomud (those who have not yet reached puberty and those who have gone past the menopause, plus a few others with medical conditions) do not actually menstruate. It doesn't make them 'not women', nor does it make them trans. What's wrong with calling women, women? It doesn't demonise or threaten anyone.

“If sex isn’t real, there’s no same-sex attraction,” she tweeted. “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.”

Seems to me she's stating the bloomin' obvious.

Rowling said she respects “every trans person’s rights to live any way that feels authentic and comfortable to them.”

I don't see any demonisation or threat there.

She went on to say she would march “if you were discriminated against on the basis of being trans. At the same time, my life has been shaped by being female. I do not believe it’s hateful to say so.”

Again, the bloomin' obvious. Piling on JK for identifying herself as female not only attempts to demonise her, it undercuts the attempts of the non-binary to identify themselves in the way they choose. If it isn't fair do's for everyone, it isn't fair do's.

There's nowt wrong with being female, enjoying being female, celebrating being female.

What's wrong with calling women, women? It doesn't demonise or threaten anyone.

No-one has said you can't call women, women. This is an argument that no-one is making, and that JK is railing against. You might think "people who menstruate" is clunky and verbose, and I might agree, but it is the best way to include cis women and trans men who are not pregnant and are of an age where they menstruate. When you hear at the airport, "makes us aware of any passengers who may need physical assistance", you might think "make us aware of any disabled passengers" is quicker, and less verbose, but it's actually less accurate. Pregnant people, those who are suffering an injury, and the elderly are included in the former but not in the latter, despite having the same need, i.e. for physical assistance.

Seems to me she's stating the bloomin' obvious.

No-one said sex isn't real. It's an argument that isn't being made.

I don't see any demonisation or threat there.

You left out the "but,". The same "but" used in "I'm not racist, but".

Again, the bloomin' obvious. Piling on JK for identifying herself as female not only attempts to demonise her, it undercuts the attempts of the non-binary to identify themselves in the way they choose. If it isn't fair do's for everyone, it isn't fair do's.

First of all, her saying she would help "IF" trans people were discriminated against, as if they aren't one of the most persecuted groups around today, is proof that she doesn't care about trans issues: she's never bothered to learn about them.

Secondly, no-one is piling on JK "for identifying as a female". Her arguments are in bad faith, and are in the context of her support for transphobic elements supported and funded by the American religious right. Her unscientific, unsourced manifesto of blather posted this morning is further evidence of this.

By insisting on the primacy of sex as the one identifier of being a man or a woman, JK is among those who undermine the right of the non-binary to identify how they wish.

There's nowt wrong with being female, enjoying being female, celebrating being female.

Again, no-one is arguing otherwise. You're tilting at windmills.

Trans women are women. Trans men are men. Those are the facts.

Trans women are women. Trans men are men. Those are the facts.

People with female bits are female. People with male bits are male. Those are the facts.

People who think they have the wrong bits can't just pretend they have different bits. It's a problem, yes, but it's not JK Rowling's problem.

Invalid CSRF