Cancel culture - From the other side

Post Reply New Topic

What's the difference in J.K. Rowling and L. Ron Hubbard spouting medical psychiatric quackery? None. Just that L. Ron Hubbard started a massive cult that seems to be full of Hollywood celebrities and creative types. She liked a comment that said that people who are taking antidepressants as 'weak'.

So I'm guessing this is how she feels about the kids who have mental health issues that like her work.

She isn't a psychiatrist and doesn't need to masquerade as one on twitter.

I see we're getting mired into transmisogyny, that's always nice.
These objections to letting trans women into 'regular' women's spaces always boil down to some very radfem-y assumptions.
We shouldn't let trans women into women's domestic violence groups? This operates under the assumption that all women who are victims of domestic violence at the hands of men. Women are fully capable of committing domestic violence, whether they're with men or women. You think only men can abuse women? You're living in a fantasy world. It also operates under the assumption that the presence of someone with a penis necessarily makes those women less safe. Having a penis does not make one predisposed to violence against people without penises (despite the patriarchy's best efforts to make it so). Where would you have these transwomen go if they are victims of domestic violence? Separate but equal support groups? Because a fraction of cis women think anyone with a penis is going to hurt them?

The bathroom argument is equally inane. There's a reason certain radfems and conservatives like to latch onto that argument so much. It's because they seem to believe that if you have a penis, you will not be able to keep yourself from violating the privacy of those who do not have penises. The conservative in this instance is essentially admitting they do not have faith in men (read: people with penises) to not be violent or perverse in women's spaces. Don't act like these are necessary risks that come from people who have penises. Your genitals do not predetermine your character. Maybe you don't trust the men in your life to behave in such circumstances. Don't assume the rest of us are like that just so you have an excuse to treat transwomen like sh*t.

The number of actual instances of transwomen assaulting other women in the restroom is staggeringly low. It is not a real problem. It is microscopic compared to the problem of transphobia. Transphobia is the real problem. Transphobia causes far, far deadlier violence than letting transwomen use the restroom they want.


Getting back to the original topic: creating social consequences for spouting bigotry cannot be likened to intolerance of different beliefs.
Trans people (and people who, you know, actually respect their feelings) are not cancelling people like Rowling because they cannot handle differences of opinion or belief. They are doing it because she is suggesting that they are less deserving of dignity and equal rights despite not actually hurting anyone by being trans.

Trans people and their allies are creating social consequences for people who express transphobia, because transphobia gets people killed.
Black people and their allies are creating social consequences for people who act like white supremacy is not a problem, because white supremacy gets people killed.
Latinx Americans and their allies are creating social consequences for people who act like immigrants are the problem, because anti-immigrant sentiment gets people killed.

This is not comparable to dictatorial ideological purity tests.
People in Maoist China created horrific consequences for innocent people for not falling in line with state propaganda.
People creating social and economic consequences for people being unapologetically intolerant are doing so out of concern for the people who are being treated with intolerance. Not because they have been brainwashed by a state. But because they actually recognize the damage that is always caused by espousing bigoted beliefs. They actually listen to the stories of people whose lives have been destroyed or ended by the spread of those beliefs.
"But what about what socialism has done--" The tyranny and atrocities of the USSR and the PRC are not essential to socialism or communism. Unless they're tankies, socialists are not advocating Holodomors or Great Leaps Forward or one party states.
Endangering minorities, however, is always a feature of intolerance against those groups.
I'm queer. If you have a problem with queer people, I am not going to respect that. It has nothing to do with me hating anyone who disagrees with me. I am not going to respectfully disagree with someone who believes that I deserve less dignity than they do bc of things out of my control.

Yeah, definitely comparing it to Soviet rule of 1917-1991 make them look ephemeridal.

Authoritarian governments basically stay in power using the barrel of a gun