Culture J.K Rowling Megathread

All Articles and Discussion Regarding The English Author J.K. Rowling belong here. If you're looking to discuss the Harry Potter series itself, this thread is for you. If you know about any potential cow material in the Harry Potter Fandom, go here. If you're here to bitch about transsexuals' in general, we already have threads for that here, here, and here.

Backstory of the Author



J.K. Rowling is one of the most well known authors in the world today. She was living as a single mother on welfare in England before her first published novel, Harry Potter and the Sorcerers Stone skyrocketed her to international fame and acclaim. The following six novels, movie and various video game franchises, spin off books, and merchandise, made her the wealthiest author in history. As her books gained international attention many criticized and even protested her works. With feminists claiming her novels conform heavily with gender stereotypes about men and women, and are racist, religious organizations stating that the books contain actual dangerous spells children use to hurt each other, and even a literal book burning back on February 4th of this year because the books are 'demonic'.

These examples and many others over the past two decades exemplify just how divisive even the most innocuous things can be, and how people with irrational thinking, extreme political views and a platform to spread them can cause a worldwide discussion. This is just her first seven novels however. Many people have criticized J.K. Rowling herself for her political views, which are essentially left wing, though of a decidedly less extreme stripe than those coming up. Keep that in mind.

J.K. Rowling's political views have been consistent throughout her life. She believes in social healthcare, welfare, women's rights, gay rights, ect. Her views are garden variety left-wing from the early 2000's. While she has garnered criticisms for these views a number of times, like when she donated a million British Pounds to the Labour Party, which gained some criticism from British Conservatives who felt her books were decidedly Conservative in nature. She has also spoken out against American President Donald J Trump on a number of occasions, earning her the ire of many American Conservatives, and a variety of YouTube grifters such as Paul Joseph Watson. In addition to her political views, Rowling made a number of statements to Harry Potter fans on social media, angering hardcore fans by saying that she imagined characters being different races, and one character being gay when no allusion in the books ever existed. Her pandering to the hyper left-wing, intersectional inhabitants of Twitter would lead to one of the largest and most insane public freak outs ever seen on the platform. Before this meltdown, she was a darling in left-wing circles, and quoted constanly, much like her books themselves.

In response to a woman saying that biological sex is real, and being subsequently fired for it, J.K. Rowling tweeted the following

Tweet | Article about it

This one Tweet was enough to ignite a firestorm. Transsexuals' and their 'allies' all across social media dog-piled Rowling spectacularly, and unlike every other celebrity that's been faced with this witch trial style burning at the stake for 'Transphobia' she refused to bend the knee, and argued further. This, predictably, only fanned the flames.

Excerpt from the article showing various Twitter reactions

One said: “I believe this case is a vitally important landmark. We must treat this in the same way we have treated sexism, racism, homophobia.

“Nobody is suggesting she isn’t allowed her opinion but it’s dangerous language that harms people. She should be held accountable for it.”

Freddy McConnell, who became a voice for the trans community after making his film “Seahorse”, about being a dad who gave birth, said: “It’s a dog whistle, Joanne.”
A parent said: “My daughter, who is trans, is a big fan of yours. It breaks my heart to see you post something indicating that discrimination against her is perfectly fine behaviour for an employee.

“The world’s most credible medical orgs affirm trans people. Please catch up.”

Another person said: I grew up as a trans child reading your books as an escape. I would often pick out names from characters to give to myself, before I ever felt comfortable in who I was.

After the various Twitter exchanges J.K. Rowling went quiet for a while, taking a break from the mental illness inducing website Twitter (Something she says she does occasionally, as social media in general is bad for your mental health). All the while various Harry Potter fan sites figuratively exploded, many users arguing over her statements. During her break she wrote a 3,600 word essay on her website (Children's Portal | Adults Portal) that further explains her position. Again, she refused to apologize, or change her view, which would further incense the lunatics she angered online, even cast members of the Harry Potter Films denounced her, and because of this she didn't attend or involve herself in the filming of the HBOMax documentary about the film series(This article is very salty).

Here's the full essay, spoilered for length.

Spoiler: Full Essay

This isn’t an easy piece to write, for reasons that will shortly become clear, but I know it’s time to explain myself on an issue surrounded by toxicity. I write this without any desire to add to that toxicity.

For people who don’t know: last December I tweeted my support for Maya Forstater, a tax specialist who’d lost her job for what were deemed ‘transphobic’ tweets. She took her case to an employment tribunal, asking the judge to rule on whether a philosophical belief that sex is determined by biology is protected in law. Judge Tayler ruled that it wasn’t.

My interest in trans issues pre-dated Maya’s case by almost two years, during which I followed the debate around the concept of gender identity closely. I’ve met trans people, and read sundry books, blogs and articles by trans people, gender specialists, intersex people, psychologists, safeguarding experts, social workers and doctors, and followed the discourse online and in traditional media. On one level, my interest in this issue has been professional, because I’m writing a crime series, set in the present day, and my fictional female detective is of an age to be interested in, and affected by, these issues herself, but on another, it’s intensely personal, as I’m about to explain.

All the time I’ve been researching and learning, accusations and threats from trans activists have been bubbling in my Twitter timeline. This was initially triggered by a ‘like’. When I started taking an interest in gender identity and transgender matters, I began screenshotting comments that interested me, as a way of reminding myself what I might want to research later. On one occasion, I absent-mindedly ‘liked’ instead of screenshotting. That single ‘like’ was deemed evidence of wrongthink, and a persistent low level of harassment began.

Months later, I compounded my accidental ‘like’ crime by following Magdalen Berns on Twitter. Magdalen was an immensely brave young feminist and lesbian who was dying of an aggressive brain tumour. I followed her because I wanted to contact her directly, which I succeeded in doing. However, as Magdalen was a great believer in the importance of biological sex, and didn’t believe lesbians should be called bigots for not dating trans women with penises, dots were joined in the heads of twitter trans activists, and the level of social media abuse increased.

I mention all this only to explain that I knew perfectly well what was going to happen when I supported Maya. I must have been on my fourth or fifth cancellation by then. I expected the threats of violence, to be told I was literally killing trans people with my hate, to be called cunt and bitch and, of course, for my books to be burned, although one particularly abusive man told me he’d composted them.

What I didn’t expect in the aftermath of my cancellation was the avalanche of emails and letters that came showering down upon me, the overwhelming majority of which were positive, grateful and supportive. They came from a cross-section of kind, empathetic and intelligent people, some of them working in fields dealing with gender dysphoria and trans people, who’re all deeply concerned about the way a socio-political concept is influencing politics, medical practice and safeguarding. They’re worried about the dangers to young people, gay people and about the erosion of women’s and girl’s rights. Above all, they’re worried about a climate of fear that serves nobody – least of all trans youth – well.

I’d stepped back from Twitter for many months both before and after tweeting support for Maya, because I knew it was doing nothing good for my mental health. I only returned because I wanted to share a free children’s book during the pandemic. Immediately, activists who clearly believe themselves to be good, kind and progressive people swarmed back into my timeline, assuming a right to police my speech, accuse me of hatred, call me misogynistic slurs and, above all – as every woman involved in this debate will know – TERF.

If you didn’t already know – and why should you? – ‘TERF’ is an acronym coined by trans activists, which stands for Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist. In practice, a huge and diverse cross-section of women are currently being called TERFs and the vast majority have never been radical feminists. Examples of so-called TERFs range from the mother of a gay child who was afraid their child wanted to transition to escape homophobic bullying, to a hitherto totally unfeminist older lady who’s vowed never to visit Marks & Spencer again because they’re allowing any man who says they identify as a woman into the women’s changing rooms. Ironically, radical feminists aren’t even trans-exclusionary – they include trans men in their feminism, because they were born women.

But accusations of TERFery have been sufficient to intimidate many people, institutions and organisations I once admired, who’re cowering before the tactics of the playground. ‘They’ll call us transphobic!’ ‘They’ll say I hate trans people!’ What next, they’ll say you’ve got fleas? Speaking as a biological woman, a lot of people in positions of power really need to grow a pair (which is doubtless literally possible, according to the kind of people who argue that clownfish prove humans aren’t a dimorphic species).

So why am I doing this? Why speak up? Why not quietly do my research and keep my head down?

Well, I’ve got five reasons for being worried about the new trans activism, and deciding I need to speak up.

Firstly, I have a charitable trust that focuses on alleviating social deprivation in Scotland, with a particular emphasis on women and children. Among other things, my trust supports projects for female prisoners and for survivors of domestic and sexual abuse. I also fund medical research into MS, a disease that behaves very differently in men and women. It’s been clear to me for a while that the new trans activism is having (or is likely to have, if all its demands are met) a significant impact on many of the causes I support, because it’s pushing to erode the legal definition of sex and replace it with gender.

The second reason is that I’m an ex-teacher and the founder of a children’s charity, which gives me an interest in both education and safeguarding. Like many others, I have deep concerns about the effect the trans rights movement is having on both.

The third is that, as a much-banned author, I’m interested in freedom of speech and have publicly defended it, even unto Donald Trump.

The fourth is where things start to get truly personal. I’m concerned about the huge explosion in young women wishing to transition and also about the increasing numbers who seem to be detransitioning (returning to their original sex), because they regret taking steps that have, in some cases, altered their bodies irrevocably, and taken away their fertility. Some say they decided to transition after realising they were same-sex attracted, and that transitioning was partly driven by homophobia, either in society or in their families.

Most people probably aren’t aware – I certainly wasn’t, until I started researching this issue properly – that ten years ago, the majority of people wanting to transition to the opposite sex were male. That ratio has now reversed. The UK has experienced a 4400% increase in girls being referred for transitioning treatment. Autistic girls are hugely overrepresented in their numbers.

The same phenomenon has been seen in the US. In 2018, American physician and researcher Lisa Littman set out to explore it. In an interview, she said:

‘Parents online were describing a very unusual pattern of transgender-identification where multiple friends and even entire friend groups became transgender-identified at the same time. I would have been remiss had I not considered social contagion and peer influences as potential factors.’

Littman mentioned Tumblr, Reddit, Instagram and YouTube as contributing factors to Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria, where she believes that in the realm of transgender identification ‘youth have created particularly insular echo chambers.’

Her paper caused a furore. She was accused of bias and of spreading misinformation about transgender people, subjected to a tsunami of abuse and a concerted campaign to discredit both her and her work. The journal took the paper offline and re-reviewed it before republishing it. However, her career took a similar hit to that suffered by Maya Forstater. Lisa Littman had dared challenge one of the central tenets of trans activism, which is that a person’s gender identity is innate, like sexual orientation. Nobody, the activists insisted, could ever be persuaded into being trans.

The argument of many current trans activists is that if you don’t let a gender dysphoric teenager transition, they will kill themselves. In an article explaining why he resigned from the Tavistock (an NHS gender clinic in England) psychiatrist Marcus Evans stated that claims that children will kill themselves if not permitted to transition do not ‘align substantially with any robust data or studies in this area. Nor do they align with the cases I have encountered over decades as a psychotherapist.’

The writings of young trans men reveal a group of notably sensitive and clever people. The more of their accounts of gender dysphoria I’ve read, with their insightful descriptions of anxiety, dissociation, eating disorders, self-harm and self-hatred, the more I’ve wondered whether, if I’d been born 30 years later, I too might have tried to transition. The allure of escaping womanhood would have been huge. I struggled with severe OCD as a teenager. If I’d found community and sympathy online that I couldn’t find in my immediate environment, I believe I could have been persuaded to turn myself into the son my father had openly said he’d have preferred.

When I read about the theory of gender identity, I remember how mentally sexless I felt in youth. I remember Colette’s description of herself as a ‘mental hermaphrodite’ and Simone de Beauvoir’s words: ‘It is perfectly natural for the future woman to feel indignant at the limitations posed upon her by her sex. The real question is not why she should reject them: the problem is rather to understand why she accepts them.’

As I didn’t have a realistic possibility of becoming a man back in the 1980s, it had to be books and music that got me through both my mental health issues and the sexualised scrutiny and judgement that sets so many girls to war against their bodies in their teens. Fortunately for me, I found my own sense of otherness, and my ambivalence about being a woman, reflected in the work of female writers and musicians who reassured me that, in spite of everything a sexist world tries to throw at the female-bodied, it’s fine not to feel pink, frilly and compliant inside your own head; it’s OK to feel confused, dark, both sexual and non-sexual, unsure of what or who you are.

I want to be very clear here: I know transition will be a solution for some gender dysphoric people, although I’m also aware through extensive research that studies have consistently shown that between 60-90% of gender dysphoric teens will grow out of their dysphoria. Again and again I’ve been told to ‘just meet some trans people.’ I have: in addition to a few younger people, who were all adorable, I happen to know a self-described transsexual woman who’s older than I am and wonderful. Although she’s open about her past as a gay man, I’ve always found it hard to think of her as anything other than a woman, and I believe (and certainly hope) she’s completely happy to have transitioned. Being older, though, she went through a long and rigorous process of evaluation, psychotherapy and staged transformation. The current explosion of trans activism is urging a removal of almost all the robust systems through which candidates for sex reassignment were once required to pass. A man who intends to have no surgery and take no hormones may now secure himself a Gender Recognition Certificate and be a woman in the sight of the law. Many people aren’t aware of this.

We’re living through the most misogynistic period I’ve experienced. Back in the 80s, I imagined that my future daughters, should I have any, would have it far better than I ever did, but between the backlash against feminism and a porn-saturated online culture, I believe things have got significantly worse for girls. Never have I seen women denigrated and dehumanised to the extent they are now. From the leader of the free world’s long history of sexual assault accusations and his proud boast of ‘grabbing them by the pussy’, to the incel (‘involuntarily celibate’) movement that rages against women who won’t give them sex, to the trans activists who declare that TERFs need punching and re-educating, men across the political spectrum seem to agree: women are asking for trouble. Everywhere, women are being told to shut up and sit down, or else.

I’ve read all the arguments about femaleness not residing in the sexed body, and the assertions that biological women don’t have common experiences, and I find them, too, deeply misogynistic and regressive. It’s also clear that one of the objectives of denying the importance of sex is to erode what some seem to see as the cruelly segregationist idea of women having their own biological realities or – just as threatening – unifying realities that make them a cohesive political class. The hundreds of emails I’ve received in the last few days prove this erosion concerns many others just as much. 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.

But, as many women have said before me, ‘woman’ is not a costume. ‘Woman’ is not an idea in a man’s head. ‘Woman’ is not a pink brain, a liking for Jimmy Choos or any of the other sexist ideas now somehow touted as progressive. Moreover, the ‘inclusive’ language that calls female people ‘menstruators’ and ‘people with vulvas’ strikes many women as dehumanising and demeaning. I understand why trans activists consider this language to be appropriate and kind, but for those of us who’ve had degrading slurs spat at us by violent men, it’s not neutral, it’s hostile and alienating.

Which brings me to the fifth reason I’m deeply concerned about the consequences of the current trans activism.

I’ve been in the public eye now for over twenty years and have never talked publicly about being a domestic abuse and sexual assault survivor. This isn’t because I’m ashamed those things happened to me, but because they’re traumatic to revisit and remember. I also feel protective of my daughter from my first marriage. I didn’t want to claim sole ownership of a story that belongs to her, too. However, a short while ago, I asked her how she’d feel if I were publicly honest about that part of my life, and she encouraged me to go ahead.

I’m mentioning these things now not in an attempt to garner sympathy, but out of solidarity with the huge numbers of women who have histories like mine, who’ve been slurred as bigots for having concerns around single-sex spaces.

I managed to escape my first violent marriage with some difficulty, but I’m now married to a truly good and principled man, safe and secure in ways I never in a million years expected to be. However, the scars left by violence and sexual assault don’t disappear, no matter how loved you are, and no matter how much money you’ve made. My perennial jumpiness is a family joke – and even I know it’s funny – but I pray my daughters never have the same reasons I do for hating sudden loud noises, or finding people behind me when I haven’t heard them approaching.

If you could come inside my head and understand what I feel when I read about a trans woman dying at the hands of a violent man, you’d find solidarity and kinship. I have a visceral sense of the terror in which those trans women will have spent their last seconds on earth, because I too have known moments of blind fear when I realised that the only thing keeping me alive was the shaky self-restraint of my attacker.

I believe the majority of trans-identified people not only pose zero threat to others, but are vulnerable for all the reasons I’ve outlined. Trans people need and deserve protection. Like women, they’re most likely to be killed by sexual partners. Trans women who work in the sex industry, particularly trans women of colour, are at particular risk. Like every other domestic abuse and sexual assault survivor I know, I feel nothing but empathy and solidarity with trans women who’ve been abused by men.

So I want trans women to be safe. At the same time, I do not want to make natal girls and women less safe. When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman – and, as I’ve said, gender confirmation certificates may now be granted without any need for surgery or hormones – then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside. That is the simple truth.

On Saturday morning, I read that the Scottish government is proceeding with its controversial gender recognition plans, which will in effect mean that all a man needs to ‘become a woman’ is to say he’s one. To use a very contemporary word, I was ‘triggered’. Ground down by the relentless attacks from trans activists on social media, when I was only there to give children feedback about pictures they’d drawn for my book under lockdown, I spent much of Saturday in a very dark place inside my head, as memories of a serious sexual assault I suffered in my twenties recurred on a loop. That assault happened at a time and in a space where I was vulnerable, and a man capitalised on an opportunity. I couldn’t shut out those memories and I was finding it hard to contain my anger and disappointment about the way I believe my government is playing fast and loose with womens and girls’ safety.

Late on Saturday evening, scrolling through children’s pictures before I went to bed, I forgot the first rule of Twitter – never, ever expect a nuanced conversation – and reacted to what I felt was degrading language about women. I spoke up about the importance of sex and have been paying the price ever since. I was transphobic, I was a cunt, a bitch, a TERF, I deserved cancelling, punching and death. You are Voldemort said one person, clearly feeling this was the only language I’d understand.

It would be so much easier to tweet the approved hashtags – because of course trans rights are human rights and of course trans lives matter – scoop up the woke cookies and bask in a virtue-signalling afterglow. There’s joy, relief and safety in conformity. As Simone de Beauvoir also wrote, “… without a doubt it is more comfortable to endure blind bondage than to work for one’s liberation; the dead, too, are better suited to the earth than the living.”

Huge numbers of women are justifiably terrified by the trans activists; I know this because so many have got in touch with me to tell their stories. They’re afraid of doxxing, of losing their jobs or their livelihoods, and of violence.

But endlessly unpleasant as its constant targeting of me has been, I refuse to bow down to a movement that I believe is doing demonstrable harm in seeking to erode ‘woman’ as a political and biological class and offering cover to predators like few before it. I stand alongside the brave women and men, gay, straight and trans, who’re standing up for freedom of speech and thought, and for the rights and safety of some of the most vulnerable in our society: young gay kids, fragile teenagers, and women who’re reliant on and wish to retain their single sex spaces. Polls show those women are in the vast majority, and exclude only those privileged or lucky enough never to have come up against male violence or sexual assault, and who’ve never troubled to educate themselves on how prevalent it is.

The one thing that gives me hope is that the women who can protest and organise, are doing so, and they have some truly decent men and trans people alongside them. Political parties seeking to appease the loudest voices in this debate are ignoring women’s concerns at their peril. In the UK, women are reaching out to each other across party lines, concerned about the erosion of their hard-won rights and widespread intimidation. None of the gender critical women I’ve talked to hates trans people; on the contrary. Many of them became interested in this issue in the first place out of concern for trans youth, and they’re hugely sympathetic towards trans adults who simply want to live their lives, but who’re facing a backlash for a brand of activism they don’t endorse. The supreme irony is that the attempt to silence women with the word ‘TERF’ may have pushed more young women towards radical feminism than the movement’s seen in decades.

The last thing I want to say is this. I haven’t written this essay in the hope that anybody will get out a violin for me, not even a teeny-weeny one. I’m extraordinarily fortunate; I’m a survivor, certainly not a victim. I’ve only mentioned my past because, like every other human being on this planet, I have a complex backstory, which shapes my fears, my interests and my opinions. I never forget that inner complexity when I’m creating a fictional character and I certainly never forget it when it comes to trans people.

All I’m asking – all I want – is for similar empathy, similar understanding, to be extended to the many millions of women whose sole crime is wanting their concerns to be heard without receiving threats and abuse.

The following Tweet sums up J.K. Rowling's opinions of trans people.


Tweet

Anyone who isn't insane can see that her views are milquetoast at worst. Her criticism on transsexuality legislation and gender in general are very tame compared to even some of the most accepting people who browse the Farms, 4Chan, 8Chan, etc. Her blog garnered a mass of more criticism, including hundreds of articles from online publications that claim she's a hateful bigoted TERF (Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist), attacking her further for 'doubling down' on her bigotry, and a variety of similar screeching diatribes. These articles are written constantly, with some published within days of this thread being written.

Even with all this negative publicity however, J.K. Rowling has received a plethora of support from women across the Western world. One even got fired from her job due to her saying that 'J.K. Rowling is my woman of the year'. Not just women support her either. The actor of fan favorite character from the Harry Potter series Hagrid, Robbie Coltrane, wrote in defense of Rowling. The following quote is from an article by Insider.

"I don't think what she said was offensive really," Coltrane said during an interview with the Radio Times that was seen by Pink News. "I don't know why, but there's a whole Twitter generation of people who hang around waiting to be offended. They wouldn't have won the war, would they?"

He added: "That's me talking like a grumpy old man, but you just think: 'Oh, get over yourself. Wise up, stand up straight, and carry on.'"

Coltrane then continued to say he did not want to speak on the issue any further "because of all the hate mail and all that s--- which I don't need at my time of life."

Rowling's blog post even won the Russel Prize for Best Writing from the BBC. This, shockingly, caused immense online backlash and further articles were written about it. Rowling's next book, about a serial killer pretending to be a woman to get close to victims, incited more backlash. Over the last two years J.K. Rowling has had trans activists show up to her house and dox her (Much like Dear Feeder, actually), received a plethora of death threats, and even had people telling her they hoped her house would be bombed.



Tweet

As shown above, Rowling's refusal to bow to the mob has made her a much hated figure in transsexual and adjacent circles, even though she is widely supported by women across the world who find trans activists and their aggressive, misogynistic actions terrifying. With her stance on the issue unchanging, it brought her into contact with one of the best known pedophile, and horse fucker, with a Kiwi Farms thread.


Vaush Thread (Plz don't shit it up with anymore Rowling talk, that's what this thread is for)

Being the enlightened son of Silicon Valley tech employees, Vaush has been championing the rise of Socialism for years, in addition to lowering the age of consent and wanting to fuck horses. Various screenshots, and audio and video clips show Vaush holding these views, and the thread has archives of them for those curious. The Tweet that got him involved with Rowling is below.



This Tweet did not go well for Vaush, as soon after Rowling responded, and clips of his support for child pornography and fucking horses have been widely circulating across Twitter and other social media sites.


Tweet

The sudden mass attention has been bad for Vaush, whose disturbing takes on children have led to notable publications exposing it to a much wider, normal audience rather than the sycophant's who constantly defend him. One article from the Post Millennial even states in it's title that he's a 'Suspected Pedophile'. Predictably, grifters from the right wing sphere of Twitter hopped in and sent more clips to these publications. Ian Miles Cheong sent clips of Vaush to the publication and it was featured in the article itself.

Despite him being a freak, Vaush is correct about Rowling in his first Tweet. All she had to do to avoid this was bend the knee to the trans mob. She could have just gone on as is with no issues for her personally. She's immensely wealthy, is re-married and her children are doing very well in their respective fields. She could have just said nothing and avoided this shitshow from the start, but she didn't, and the meltdowns and tantrums have been a near constant for going on three years now. Rowling is, however, heavily invested both financially and personally with children's charities in the UK, and it seem that she genuinely sees the problems arising from the cascade of gender affirming nonsense that has absolutely plagued public life in the last half decade. She stated her views, and unlike so many other people she refused to back down. Perhaps it's only because she's in a position of immense financial privilege, and unlike many others whose lives have been utterly destroyed by this same mob she is immune from their attempts at de-platforming and public stigmatization. Regardless of what her wealth affords her to do, many are glad she's taken the stance she has.

If you have any material that concerns J.K. Rowling herself post it for discussion. This includes news articles, YouTube videos and vids from YT alternative sites like Odysee, livestreams, social media posts, etc. If the last couple years are anything to go by there won't be a drought in content anytime soon.

J.K. Rowling Socials and General Information
Her Official Website
Twitter
Facebook
Wikipedia

Thank you so very much @Pyre for the new OP

 

[Burning Paintings]

Rowling has run out of fucks to give.
View attachment 3737253
The tweet is real (archive). This is something she should have said from Day One.

The fucking turn around
>Creates a millionaire multimedia empire off of a single children book franchise
>Sits on piles of gold for a couple of years
>Comes back with batshit insane takes about rewriting her own canon for no discernable reason
>The tranny menace arrives and demands her to bend the knee
>Decides "I've made my millions, fuck 'em" and goes scorched earth
>Takes the flag for the counter-culture movement against trannies
>Is winning
Based Rowling is something i did NOT expect at all

 

[Markass the Worst]

Rowling has run out of fucks to give.
View attachment 3737253
The tweet is real (archive). This is something she should have said from Day One.

Trannies are angry because they refuse to admit they're doing it for the money just like Rowling is.

 

[Sinner's Sandwich]

We should be very thankful that JK is fighting against the troon menace. Imagine the harm someone from the gender cult in her position could do. But this woman has balls of steel and tons of cash and she uses it for helping women and children.

Meanwhile Watson, Radclife and the ginger are licking the boots of child sterilizers and child molesters.

 

[Oats12345]

I do agree with the statement that if Rowling had been a conservative before coming out aginst the trannies it weren't have been a big deal.

But because she was saying leftie things prior that's what not only made it news but also made people specifically talk about it. Because the fact that this liberal person came and said something the trannies didn't like and also didn't back down.

Along with a lot of Harry Potter cast turning their backs on her. Made it clear that you step out of line for wokies they won't accept it. Showing you just how insane they have gotten.

 

[Sinner's Sandwich]

Robbie Coltrane aka Hagrid died. He was one of the few actors who defended JKR.

RIP

Now troons will shit on his legacy and call him transphobic.

 

[Oats12345]

Robbie Coltrane aka Hagrid died. He was one of the few actors who defended JKR.

RIP

Now troons will shit on his legacy and call him transphobic.

Yeah I was just thinking that too.

 

[Morethanabitfoolish]

I do agree with the statement that if Rowling had been a conservative before coming out aginst the trannies it weren't have been a big deal.

But because she was saying leftie things prior that's what not only made it news but also made people specifically talk about it. Because the fact that this liberal person came and said something the trannies didn't like and also didn't back down.

Along with a lot of Harry Potter cast turning their backs on her. Made it clear that you step out of line for wokies they won't accept it. Showing you just how insane they have gotten.

Because in their eyes she is a traitor. They expect it from the dirty fascists but she was one of them.

The royalties remark should provoke introspection in them but it will never happen. So many of these people claim to have principles and to be striving for a better world. But when told "so stop giving money to people you despise and companies making the world a worse place" they literally cannot. Because they are addicts. They even keep giving money to big businesses that pay lip service to various ideals while exploiting the shit out of people in directly contradictory acts.

Robbie Coltrane aka Hagrid died. He was one of the few actors who defended JKR.

RIP

Now troons will shit on his legacy and call him transphobic.

Damn, he wasn't that old either. Know he was a big unit but still. RIP.

 

[Commissar Fuklaw]

If you blokes want no fucks given



Edit: I forgot this one


Say it Joanne.

 

[Sneed's Feed And Seed]

> Sep 15, 2020

The actor of fan favorite character from the Harry Potter series Hagrid, Robbie Coltrane, wrote in defense of Rowling.

> Oct. 14, 2022
> Robbie Coltrane dies

Coincidence?! Yes lol

 

[Oats12345]

If you blokes want no fucks given

View attachment 3738025

Edit: I forgot this one

View attachment 3738198
Say it Joanne.

Holy shit J.K I didn't think you could get more based!!

 

[ChefKiss]

I do agree with the statement that if Rowling had been a conservative before coming out aginst the trannies it weren't have been a big deal.

But because she was saying leftie things prior that's what not only made it news but also made people specifically talk about it. Because the fact that this liberal person came and said something the trannies didn't like and also didn't back down.

Along with a lot of Harry Potter cast turning their backs on her. Made it clear that you step out of line for wokies they won't accept it. Showing you just how insane they have gotten.

she's an apostate and a suppressive person to the new religion

 

[6MillionCoofs]

The fucking turn around
>Creates a millionaire multimedia empire off of a single children book franchise
>Sits on piles of gold for a couple of years
>Comes back with batshit insane takes about rewriting her own canon for no discernable reason
>The tranny menace arrives and demands her to bend the knee
>Decides "I've made my millions, fuck 'em" and goes scorched earth
>Takes the flag for the counter-culture movement against trannies
>Is winning
Based Rowling is something i did NOT expect at all

I mean her deciding she was just going to rewrite her own shit just because was incredibly based. Because her response to the complaining was 'I’ve more money then god, I will do what I want!' and then those same people tried to make her bend to the girl dick and were surprised once again when she told them to fuck off.

You do not tell JK Rowling what to do!

 

[AnonymousKot]

I do love hoe in the movies Draco was portrayed as a coward compare to are three heroes who were brave.

Funny how opposite that is in real life. The actors who played the main heroes cowardly turn their backs on Rowling

Now all we need is her rewriting the series except with slytherin are the good guys and harry, ron and hermoine as a bunch of ungrateful backstabbing out of touch cunts

 

[6MillionCoofs]

Now all we need is her rewriting the series except with slytherin are the good guys and harry, ron and hermoine as a bunch of ungrateful backstabbing out of touch cunts

i mean why would we need to rewrite the series?

The entire first book is Harry and the gang thinking Snape is the badguy because the dude is Slytherin’s head and arsehole, only for Harry to learn it was the bumbling idiot everyone thought was nice.

The best moment of the series is the revalation that Dumbledore, the goodest of good people, could be a manipulative cunt and Snape had been playing badguy this whole time with the sole end goal of taking down Voldy. Dude willing took on the cursed position of DADA teacher because Dumblefore knew he was the only one that could tell the kids what they needed to know to not die after the trainwreck of a year that was 5th Year.

Heck, when Harry wants to protect his mind, the reason he fails to learn is because he doesn’t listen to Snape. Who, due to what we learn later, was probably the best person to teach him.

What I’m saying is…Lily clearly choose wrong. Snape was obviously the better man. /sarcasm

But throughout the book series it shows that it isn’t really thr house that defines you. As it was one of James best friends, from his own house, that did him and his wife in.

Heck Slytherin would have won the House Cup most years if Dumbledore clearly did not like messing with Snape.

As for the others, Hermione was a stuck up cunt. She went on a crusade to free crestures thst liked being servants because she thought Wizarding culture was backwards and she knew better. And she is rather mean to girls Ron is dating. She can be very caty indeed.

And Ron. Well Ron left his friends to die alone and, if not for someone else realising he’d later regret that, would have got his friends killed because he is a jealous bitch.

 

[Toolbox]

Yeah, got that shit recommended to me. Hit do not recommend channel immediately, what is Shawn doing this time? Is it a thinly veiled spergout trying to support a witch hunt?

 

[ロボ﹏§¤r﹏h¶rœ]

JK Rowling: Sturgeon is deaf to women’s concerns over gender ID​

Archive

As a new poll suggests the first minister is out of step with voters, Rowling argues that if any woman suffers under new gender ID rules, the blame will rest with Holyrood

Just over a week ago, I posted a picture of myself wearing a T-shirt printed with the words “Nicola Sturgeon: Destroyer of Women’s Rights” on Twitter. I did this to show my solidarity with women who were protesting outside the Scottish parliament against the proposed Gender Recognition Act reform bill.

Some of the women, like Maya Forstater and Helen Joyce, have public profiles, but most of the women protesting do not. They also knew they might be taking a risk in demonstrating. It takes guts for Scottish women to stand up for their rights these days — not, I should emphasise, anywhere near the same guts as Iranian women are currently displaying, but guts nonetheless. They risk being targeted by activists, police complaints being made against them and even the threat of a spell in jail for posting what are seen as “transphobic” comments or images by their complainants.

Scotland’s first minister, Nicola Sturgeon, believes the protesters outside parliament on October 6 have nothing to complain about. The woman who calls herself a “real feminist” said to the BBC that her proposed new Gender Recognition Act “doesn’t give any additional rights to trans people nor does it take any rights away from women”.

I disagree. So, to name just a few who were also protesting that day, do Rhona Hotchkiss, the retired prison governor with a Masters in Law and a qualification in Research Methodology; Isabelle Kerr, former manager of Glasgow and Clyde Rape Crisis Centre, who was awarded an MBE for her international work helping rape and sexual assault victims; all-female independent policy analysis collective Murray Blackburn Mackenzie; and For Women Scotland, a grassroots feminist group that has emerged as a leading voice for Scottish women over the last few years.

If Sturgeon’s new act passes into law, a person will be able to change their legal gender as long as they’ve lived in their acquired gender for three months, and made a statutory declaration that they intend to keep doing so. Remarkably, nobody seems able to explain what living in an acquired gender actually means, so how those granting certificates can judge whether the criteria has been met is anyone’s guess.

Under the current act, those who wish to change their gender need a diagnosis of gender dysphoria, ie, persistent distress and discomfort with their natal sex. However, all medical gatekeeping has been removed from Sturgeon’s revised bill. I presume this is in response to the strong push from the trans activist lobby to “depathologise” trans identities. The argument is that trans people aren’t mentally ill: being trans is as natural as being gay. As Rachel Cohen, campaigns director of Stonewall wrote in 2017: “Being trans is not about ‘sex changes’ or clothes, it’s about an innate sense of self.” You may ask how anyone can assess the authenticity of somebody else’s “innate sense of self”. I haven’t a clue.

Soon, then, in Scotland, it may be easier to change the sex on your birth certificate than it is to change it on your passport. In consequence, intact males who’re judged to have met the meagre requirements will be considered as “valid” and entitled to protections as those who’ve had full sex reassignment surgery, and more male-bodied individuals will assert more strongly a right to be in women’s spaces such as public bathrooms, changing rooms, rape support centres, domestic violence refuges, hospital wards and prison cells that were hitherto reserved for women.

In 2019, The Sunday Times made a freedom of information request to the Ministry of Justice that revealed almost 90 per cent of sexual offences committed in changing rooms happened in those that are unisex. Nevertheless, Sturgeon loftily dismisses anyone who fears her new legislation could be wide open to abuse. “It is men who attack women [feminists should worry about] and we need to focus on that, not on further stigmatising and discriminating against a tiny group in our society that is already one of the most stigmatised.”

In saying this, Sturgeon is employing no fewer than three arguments beloved of trans activists.

The first is that trans women are extremely vulnerable, far more so than biological women. This is in spite of the fact that no trans woman has been murdered in Scotland to date, whereas 112 women were murdered by men in Scotland between 2009 and 2019.

The second argument is that men who transition, uniquely among all other categories of those born male, never harm women. Yet there is no evidence to show that trans women don’t retain male patterns of criminality. According to Jo Phoenix, Professor of Criminology at the University of Reading: “Sex is the single strongest predictor of criminality and criminalisation. Since criminal statistics were first collected (in the mid 1850s) males make up around 80 per cent of those arrested, prosecuted and convicted of crime. Violent crime is mostly committed by males . . . This remains the case regardless of stated gender identity.” The Ministry of Justice’s own figures show that there are proportionately more trans-identified men in prison for sexual offences than among incarcerated males taken as a whole.

The third argument Sturgeon uses is that it’s transphobic to suggest any man would fraudulently claim a female identity. This claim is extraordinary. Nobody but the very naive can fail to be aware that predatory men are capable of going to great lengths to gain easy access to victims, and have often sought out professions or special status that offer camouflage for their activities. Sex offenders have historically been found among social workers, teachers, priests, doctors, babysitters, school caretakers, celebrities and charity fundraisers, yet no matter how often the scandals break, the lesson appears never to be learned: it is dangerous to assert that any category of people deserves a blanket presumption of innocence. Incidentally, it seems that prison is the perfect space in which to discover your innate sense of self: half of Scottish prisoners currently claiming a trans identity only did so after conviction.

This shouldn’t need saying, but in the current climate, it does: literally no feminist I’ve ever met claims all trans women are predators, any more than we believe that all men are predators. As I’ve already stated publicly, I believe that some trans people are truly vulnerable. That, though, is not the point.

I’ve spent much of the past 25 years campaigning for and funding initiatives to help women and children. These have included projects for female prisoners, campaigns for the rights of single mothers, the funding of safe spaces for victims of rape and male violence, and the fight to end child institutionalisation. I’ve also learned a huge amount about safeguarding from experts, both in relation to vulnerable children placed in institutions, who’re often abused or trafficked, and in the context of sexually abused women.

I say all this to make it clear that concern for women’s and children’s safety isn’t something I’m pretending to be interested in to mask a deep hostility to trans people. The question for me and all the feminists I know is, how do we make trans people safe without making women and girls less safe?

One of the most damning things I’ve heard about the consultation process for Sturgeon’s new bill is this: Murray Blackburn Mackenzie identified five female survivors of male violence who were prepared to meet with the committee and explain what had happened to them, the severe impact it had upon their lives, and why they fear the government is making it easier for violent or predatory men to get access to women and girls. The committee declined to meet the survivors, telling them to put their concerns in writing. Susan Smith, one of For Women Scotland’s founders, told me: “These women were prepared to parade their trauma and were rebuffed.” The committee did, however, find time to meet 17 trans-identified individuals.

In 1983 Andrea Dworkin wrote: “No matter how often these stories are told, with whatever clarity or eloquence, bitterness or sorrow, they might as well have been whispered in wind or written in sand: they disappear, as if they were nothing. The tellers and the stories are ignored or ridiculed, threatened back into silence or destroyed, and the experience of female suffering is buried in cultural invisibility and contempt . . . the very reality of abuse sustained by women, despite its overwhelming pervasiveness and constancy, is negated.”

Nearly 40 years later, Rhona Hotchkiss says that vulnerable women in Scotland are being told “their concerns, their fears, their despair, must take second place to the feelings of men who identify as women. Politicians who say there is no clash of rights have no idea about the lives of women in situations they will never face.”

Rarely in politics is it easy to draw a direct line from a single policy decision to the harm it’s done, but in this case, it will be simple. If any woman or girl suffers voyeurism, sexual harassment, assault or rape in consequence of the Scottish government’s lax new rules, the blame will rest squarely with those at Holyrood who ignored safeguarding experts and women’s campaigners.

And nobody should be held to higher account than the first minister, the “real feminist” who’s riding roughshod over the rights of women and girls.

• A new poll shows Nicola Sturgeon is out of step with Scottish voters over her proposed gender recognition law (Jason Allardyce writes).

A Panelbase survey of 1,018 voters for The Sunday Times suggests her plans command little public support – even among SNP supporters – and that opposition is growing as people have become more engaged with the debate.

The poll, conducted on October 7-11, found 62 per cent opposed to reducing the age at which people can change gender from 18 to 16, with just 19 per cent in favour while a further 19 per cent didn’t know. Among SNP voters, only 26 per cent backed Sturgeon on the age issue, while 52 per cent were opposed and 22 per cent didn’t know.

Just a quarter of the voters polled (25 per cent) back the plan to cut the time required to change gender from two years to three months plus a three month-reflection period, while it is opposed by 50 per cent and 24 per cent don’t know. More voters oppose than support the proposed removal of the need for a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria (39 per cent v 26 per cent).

The poll follows claims that some young people who change gender are pushed down a medical route and may benefit from better counselling to establish whether gender change is right for them.

A Scottish government spokesman said: “Our support for trans rights does not conflict with our continued strong commitment to uphold the rights and protections that women and girls currently have under the 2010 Equality Act, which includes a number of exceptions which allow for trans people to be excluded when this is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

“Those exceptions are important and the Scottish government supports them. The Gender Recognition Reform Bill does not make changes to Equality Act or to those exceptions.”

How does the existing Gender Recognition Act work?
Under the 2004 law, a trans person can apply for a gender recognition certificate (GRC), which recognises their acquired gender under the eyes of the law. They can then obtain a birth certificate with their recognised legal sex.

What does the Scottish government want to change?
It plans to end the requirement for a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria, reduce the minimum age of application from 18 to 16 and let people obtain a GRC after living in their acquired gender for three months and a further three-month “reflection” period. Applicants would make a statutory declaration that they intend to live the rest of their lives in their acquired gender, with false declarations a criminal offence punishable with up to two years’ imprisonment.

How many people are expected to change gender?
More than 6,000 GRCs have been granted across the UK to date, with an estimated 25-30 in Scotland each year. Based on Ireland’s experience, ministers expect 250-300 applicants a year.

What are the main arguments for reform?
Ministers say the current system is “intrusive”, “distressing” and “unnecessary”, denying trans people the right to live and die in their true gender.

And the main arguments against change?
Opponents believe vulnerable women will be placed at risk, with trans people with male anatomy gaining access to women-only spaces including changing rooms, public toilets, prisons and refuges. There is concern that some people with trauma, depression or other conditions could be pushed down the route of irreversible medical transitioning from an early age when counselling about their needs would be better.

Can the plans be stopped?
A majority of MSPs are expected to vote in favour of the new legislation, with backing from SNP, Labour, Green and Lib Dem ranks while Conservatives are expected to vote against. The strength of public opposition, including among SNP voters, could lead to elements being watered down.

 

[get_ur_gamon]

Mindy Kaling is getting in hot water as people noticed she liked the last JK tweet.

https://twitter.com/JennMHoppe/status/1580732394318929922

Will she:
A: Do nothing and ignore twitter retards?
B: Publicly double down?
C: Get on her knees and apologise to all people of gender?

 

[Oats12345]

Mindy Kaling is getting in hot water as people noticed she liked the last JK tweet.
View attachment 3740536

https://twitter.com/JennMHoppe/status/1580732394318929922

Will she:
A: Do nothing and ignore twitter retards?
B: Publicly double down?
C: Get on her knees and apologise to all people of gender?

The only reason Mindy Kaling panders to lefties in recent years is because she outed herself as a Republican back in the 2010s in her audiobiograthy book and has tried to put the genie back in the bottle since with her pandering.

So I am curious to see where this goes.

 

[AgendaPoster]

Seems most of you in this topic are exuberant JKR fans "she's so based wow", women and shitlibs. All good, but I have some bad news.
You cannot turn back time to the 90s. You cannot maintain an arbitrary line in the sand that you consider to be "good balance" between left/right or whatever. For some that's white majority, pre-civil rights society, for some it's before woman vote, for some it's the universalist, nihilistic, androgynous 90s, for some it's the 2010s and gay marriage.
There are many lines, and each one of them was crossed out of liberal emotion and empathy. It's the exact same crap with the troons, just a bit more dangerous, as denying sex is denial of reality, but we did that in the past with race, which is accepted medically in many fields as providing valuable data about populations and individuals. AI can even determine it from bones and xrays. With ease.
Now feel free to gift me as many MATIs and autismus supremus you have, but deep in your hearts and minds, you will know I am correct.

 

[6MillionCoofs]

you will know I am correct.

Doesn’t make you any less autistic.