Diseased Rowling Derangement Syndrome - "TERF/Woke Author Bad!!1"

[stupid frog]

She's always been a catty Twitter bitch.

 

[FrancineCansMcGee]

Seems all these trans organisations have been citing each other in a massive circlejerk.

Sounds like Wikipedia. Cite "reliable sources" rather than evidence.

Instead of conducting independent evaluations, they have relied on endorsements of sex-trait modification for minors from other medical bodies, artificially creating a consensus on the issue.

Part 1 of the systematic review includes Figure 3, pictured above, which illustrates the various ways in which guidelines reference or influence each other. It shows how guidelines draw on the initial Endocrine Society (2009) and WPATH (2012) guidelines, which have influenced nearly all the national and regional guidelines identified. Additionally, it demonstrates how these subsequent guidelines cite and rely on each other, and how the latest Endocrine Society (2017) and WPATH (2022) guidelines have cited and drawn on the national and regional guidelines.

The systematic review highlights an example of this circular referencing: WPATH Version 8, published in 2022, identifies numerous national and regional guidelines published as early as 2012 as potentially valuable resources. It cites guidelines from the APA (2015), Australia (201, New Zealand (201, and University California, San Francisco (2016) multiple times to support their recommendations. Importantly, all of these guidelines were themselves significantly influenced by WPATH Version 7 (2012).

 

[Vyse Inglebard]

>"IF IT WEREN'T FOR DANIEL AND EMMA, J.K. R*WLING WOULDN'T BE A RICH AS SHE IS, SHE OWES THEM AN APOLOGY MORE THAN ANYTHING"

In August 1999, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone topped the New York Times list of best-selling fiction and stayed near the top of the list for much of 1999 and 2000, until the New York Times split its list into children's and adult sections under pressure from other publishers who were eager to see their books given higher placings. Publishers Weekly's report in December 2001 on cumulative sales of children's fiction placed Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone 19th among hardbacks (over 5 million copies) and 7th among paperbacks (over 6.6 million copies).

LOL. LMAO even.

 

[AirdropShitposts]

'No love in her soul, just wants vengeful people to make the cities and countryside run red with the blood of the innocent'? U wot m8?

I will never cease to be amazed by the disconnect between what J.K. actually says and what these lunatics hear.

It's projection. These types are the ones who are always posting about the need to set up guillotines and murder all property owners. (Literally, a few posts down from that one is one person saying the Cass Report proves not just capitalism but social democracy can't work and needs to be violently overthrown. Below that is another poster responding to the Cass Report by saying "at least in America, trans people can arm up and resist.") They think everyone else both reacts violently and desires violence against those they disagree with or dislike. That's why they think Rowling wants trans people dead, they can't comprehend that she might just want them healthy because they would never think that about something they criticize.

Remember that whenever you see the way they attack people, they likely really do want them dead for the crime of being different from them. (They just want someone else to do it because they're all cowards.)

I can steelman this argument further, because IF what they say about Rowling, TERFs, etc. IS true, then violence against them would be easily morally justified. They know it's not true, but they make the case anyway. They're hoping someone else will be convinced. (Now you see why they accuse everyone of stochastic terrorism, it's what they're trying to accomplish.)

 

[AnOminous]

Remember that whenever you see the way they attack people, they likely really do want them dead for the crime of being different from them. (They just want someone else to do it because they're all cowards.)

This is why we should never have coddled this severe mental illness. It should have been treated with intensive psychiatric methods instead. They should have done stuff to these freaks that would make One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest look lenient.

 

[Gondolindrim]

Bad.

View attachment 5898954


Badder.

View attachment 5898955

Best.
Seems all these trans organisations have been citing each other in a massive circlejerk.

View attachment 5898959

https://twitter.com/buttonslives/status/1778491281305378884

Christina Buttons website article:

https://www.buttonslives.news/p/new-systematic-review-exposes-deceptive

Bestest.

View attachment 5898972

Lol @ the implication that Harry Potter wasn't already a resounding success before the first film came out.

 

[Ivan Daniloff]

Lol @ the implication that Harry Potter wasn't already a resounding success before the first film came out.

Also I’m pretty sure they considered recasting the kids because, except maybe for Grint, the consensus was that they were hopeless. They decided to make do because they didn’t want to alienate the audience. Anyhow, point is that Potter has always been bigger than the films and especially the actors.

 

[Aero the Alcoholic Bat]

Twitter turning people into lolcows doesn't know any class or gender and she seems to be increasingly mudslinging and responding to randos just for the sake of drama. If suddenly social perception turned against tranny shit she'd probably be bored as hell not getting to be queen TERF anymore.

I know that JK Rowling spouted plenty of dumb political takes previously, but did she stir up drama on the internet prior to all of this?

The optimist in me thinks that she'd settle down once transgenderism stops being a thing in society, other than a silly political take now and then.

 

[Mola Ram]

Also I’m pretty sure they considered recasting the kids because, except maybe for Grint, the consensus was that they were hopeless. They decided to make do because they didn’t want to alienate the audience. Anyhow, point is that Potter has always been bigger than the films and especially the actors.

Fucking Albus Dumbledore dropped dead and they ruthlessly recast him with nary a backwards glance.

 

[LateNightMuffin]

Spoiler: Away Days

undefined

That's the worst fuckin' shit I've seen on this site, and I've read most of the SRS thread.

 

[Glossy Paper]

Look I support JK Rowling's being catty to weirdos on Twitter, but she seems like maybe she's a little too into it.

I think it's got something to do with the recent hate crime law in scotland. No doubt she's super angry about it.

 

[Battery Low]

I think she's having fun after initially keeping a lid on things. I remember when she was claiming that she'd slipped and "accidentally" liked a terfy tweet way before the essay etc. I'm sure after the 200000th death threat of the week it's quite refreshing to use the gifts God gave her and creatively write several versions of "go fuck yourself" to apoplectic trannies.

I'm here for it. So many prominent people sucked the girldick for years while normie women lost jobs, rape shelters, sport placements etc. It's refreshing, she's in the right, and has the correct set of talents to make a clear argument, and be funny whilst she does it. Now that the tide is turning, those who spoke out when it was unpopular have earned their fun imo.

Maybe she'll return to being more cow-ish once this dies down a bit, but I can't see the troons leaving her alone any time soon and watching a professional writer take down perverted morons is currently entertaining the shit out of me, personally.

 

[Feathers McGraw]

Look I support JK Rowling's being catty to weirdos on Twitter, but she seems like maybe she's a little too into it.

She spent the last 5 years receiving constant negative press (and troon rape/death threats) because she stuck to her principles when it came to trannies abusing vulnerable people. Finally she's witnessing a sea change in public and professional opinion, and receiving the vindication of everyone admitting she was right all along, and for precisely the reasons she always said.

Frankly I'm amazed at her restraint. No wonder she has zero sympathy for the actors she made famous throwing her under the bus to further their own careers, especially at the expense of the vulnerable people she was trying to protect all along.

 

[Otis Mallebrok]

Look I support JK Rowling's being catty to weirdos on Twitter, but she seems like maybe she's a little too into it.

Twitter turning people into lolcows doesn't know any class or gender and she seems to be increasingly mudslinging and responding to randos just for the sake of drama.

She has become a bit of an edgelord shitposter, and why shouldn't she? Why should she care about what dumb people on the internet thinks of her? Internet popularity is the fakest and gayest redditor currency that ever existed. She should instead join the farms and sneed with the rest of us. Imagine the flashflood of pure troon seething.

 

[Sinner's Sandwich]

Look I support JK Rowling's being catty to weirdos on Twitter, but she seems like maybe she's a little too into it.

Good. These "people" are monsters and child abusers. No fucking mercy. They need to be kicked in their tranny asses 24/7.

 

[pursuitsnail]

Seems all these trans organisations have been citing each other in a massive circlejerk.

https://twitter.com/buttonslives/status/1778491281305378884

When I saw that yesterday, it struck me how that's so similar to the citation laundering that I've heard is happening with academic work in the *studies fields... and the journalist-social media-wiki circle jerk that happened to this place.

 

[Morethanabitfoolish]

One of the Independent's assistant editors decided rather than his Twitter rant his opinion was so profound it merited an entire article about JK.

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jk-rowling-trans-rights-emma-watson-daniel-radcliffe-b2527790.html

What are we to make of JK Rowling’s latest intervention on trans rights? I think an overwhelming sense of sadness, above all else. because of her trans views

I admit that I’m not a member of the Harry Potter fandom, though many grown-ups are, but I’d hitherto always admired JKR’s personal achievements. Who wouldn’t? She’s been hugely successful and was once greatly loved. I also think – this is surely an uncontroversial view – that the young actors who helped make such a success of the film adaptations of her popular novels have proved themselves deeply talented people.


So, what happened to cause such a dramatic rift between Emma Watson, Daniel Radcliffe and the woman whose books turned them into stars? Rowling’s recent acerbic comments state that the actors can “save their apologies” and she has also suggested she won’t “forgive” them for questioning her trans views – ouch.

She’s never sounded more like King Lear. And she appears to have experienced a similar fall from grace: “How sharper than a serpent’s tooth it is to have a thankless child!”


The relationship between author-progenitor and actor-offspring, if I can put it that way, is always complex – but in this case, it used to be rather sweet. Once upon a time, it was nice to see them all proudly palling out at the Oscars. Rowling’s own story, too, used to an inspirational one – and not just for aspiring writers. Her mentees loved her.

Now, though, there is a tragic, Shakespearean quality to the rift that has emerged between them and around the whole Potter industry, such that JK Rowling’s name was almost completely erased from the credits of the Fantastic Beasts production. Rather than gushing tributes and talk of days gone by, some of those concerned pass thinly-veiled (or glaringly overt) sulphurous remarks about one another.


It doesn’t take much for the trouble to start. Go watch a gong get accepted at an illustrious awards ceremony or read an interview or essay and you’re likely to hear a disapproving or conflicted remark about Rowling from Harry, Hermione or Ron.

And, on what seems to be the slightest encouragement from an internet commenter, you are also likely to witness an acrid reply from the most famous living writer in the world. A recent exchange went like this:


FarRightHooligan: “Just waiting for Dan and Emma to give you a very public apology … safe in the knowledge that you will forgive them.”

JKR: “Not safe, I’m afraid. Celebs who cosied up to a movement intent on eroding women’s hard-won rights and who used their platforms to cheer on the transitioning of minors can save their apologies for traumatised detransitioners and vulnerable women reliant on single sex spaces.”


I think it’s fair to say there’s been no reconciliation. Even though the young rebel actors haven’t actually offered any apologies, their as yet hypothetical apologies have been pre-emptorily scorned. It’s that bad.

The abuse Rowling receives often reaches the point of being grotesque; even dangerous. But while Rowling declares that “gender dysphoria is a real and very painful condition and I feel nothing but sympathy for anyone who suffers from it” – and denies she is a transphobe – her critics maintain she is turn acting dangerously towards trans people and stoking hatred and danger towards those simply trying to live their lives in peace.


Her comments in the wake of Scotland’s new hate crime bill, for instance, certainly have an impact on the lives of ordinary families.

Even the outside observer with no skin in the game will be able to see, with bemused disappointment, the Harry Potter-esque transformation of Rowling from kindly, almost maternal figure bringing harmless joy to a troubled world, into the supposed wicked witch of Womanworld. Lady Voldemort, you might say, for her many haters.

It is bewildering to note the level of ire directed at such a small segment of the British population – and a vulnerable one, at that. One only needs to look at the terribly tragic murder of Brianna Ghey to see how toxic conversation around trans rights – and the treatment of trans people, particularly trans youth – has become. The recent publication of the Cass review only highlights this further.

Some years ago, partly from professional necessity, I was schooled by some younger colleagues, concerned by my well-meaning but profound ignorance when it came to “gender ideology”. I was more than happy to learn what was, to me, new terminology about pronouns and forms of address – and it was a necessary lesson in the hurt that misgendering engenders. We must all move with the times and try our hardest to be humane and respectful.


As for where we are in the argument, it seems to me that once the useful intellectual distinction between sex and gender is made, however contentious, the very real practical problems of accommodation can be approached. We must try to find some consensus and some means to make equal rights work and to do so in a way that causes the least harm and distress to those concerned.

Suitable experts, and others, can give evidence and a fair minded and respected judge can make recommendations that can be picked up voluntarily by public and private bodies, or turned into law. For example, in her latest posting on Twitter/X, Rowling argues that “no study has ever demonstrated that trans-identified men don’t have exactly the same pattern of criminality as other men, and because, however they identify, men retain their advantages of speed and strength”.

If she is incorrect in her assertion, let her be called out on it. If not, then that is exactly the kind of claim that can be researched and where some sort of data can be collated by an inquiry to inform policy making, under the chairmanship of someone as judicious as the respected paediatrician Dr Hilary Cass.

Whether it is called “woke” or not, interrogating these kinds of assertions thoroughly would represent a step forward in balancing human rights, and trying to end the alienation of trans people as a matter of practical policy making. The Cass Review, while not without its critics, gives one hope because it seems to have attracted quite wide support – and it has quelled some ugly aspects of this particular culture war by treating it as an objective clinical question, rather than a political one.


Like most people, the constant arguments on social media are debilitating and actually useless, because they have no effect and no impact on policy or the law. And all the while, trans people are those who are, in the majority, suffering.


While it looks far too late for any sort of magic reconciliation between Rowling and her previous protégés, it’s not too late for the rest of us to continue schooling ourselves – and demanding fair and just treatment for those in crisis.

Naturally he also tries to act like the Cass report fully supports the viewpoints The Independent has been championing.

 

[AfghanBlue]

Fucking Albus Dumbledore dropped dead and they ruthlessly recast him with nary a backwards glance.

Badly, too.
The whole thing honestly, bar a couple of roles, was awfully cast.
And I don't even mean the crap kids they had some amazing actors in, but they just didn't fit the roles.*
Wardrobe was shite too, so was a lot of the sets - I'm talking the "muggle" clothes, but also like, a lot of the wizard stuff too. The stylising was very often a few steps above hot topic.

As a kid who was about ages with the characters of the books, and so saw the films from the age of like 12 when the first one came out, I never liked them.
Didn't have the words for it at the time, maybe just assumed it's like all books where it can't match your own imagination - but now with reflection I don't think it was just my imagination, the tone was never right.

I always thought it would have been more true to the books even if it was a shitty low budget CBBC adaption. If it was a high budget Sunday night bbc adaption it could have even class. (My total guess that feels right is that) they were probably locked into doing Gormenghast at the time.
Considering they never went further with that than the first Titus book in terms of continuing that after it, it's a real shame that whole production couldn't have done Harry Potter.

*an example from many.
The Dursleys. Richard Griffiths? Uncle Monty? Fantastic actOrr.
As Mr dursley?! About 35 years too old for a first shout, and the house, Privet Drive?
It was supposed to be a brash, LoudsaMoney character , uninterested type of fucker. All new shite, big bloody telly, not some weird ancient conservatives home.
It's not THAT sort of tory.

I could go on, but I feel that one really neatly clinched it in terms of good actor>terribly cast. Terribly painted character and surrounds.

This is what happens when you don't let a British director direct something quintessentially British. Then things are locked in from the off. Even when they got rid of Chris columbus, and arguably the films were better ~films~ when it was the Italian guy, initially at least : what the fuck world was that supposed to be? It was some unrecognisable place, and then compounded with the ham acting of the kids it was a total tonal mishmash.

Luckily they had the facts of the source material being solid, and money, to not make something entirely shite.
But what they came up with, with those two basically endless streams of potential? Poooooor fuckin show.

 

[Special spoonie]

 

[holyhandgrenade]

I could go on but I feel that one really neatly clinched it in terms of how they used who they had, and with the size of the budget.

I'm not British but the third movie ruined it for me. They left out stuff for no reason and it looked like shit. I also didn't like the guy they cast for Lupin or Arthur Weasley at all. I think I stopped watching after the fifth one and the atrocious battle at the ministry. The books were always "better"