What did JK Rowling do wrong?

Post Reply New Topic

Yes, there is, there's a ton of "Rowling like a tweet by person X, who has terribly view Y, so she's tainted by association" in many of your posts about this.

Also, I really think you're out in front of your skis on the actual evidence here, I hate to sound like I keep ducking you but I've recently started a new work schedule (going from 6am-230pm M-F to 215pm-1245am M-Th) and have my car in the shop forcing me to resort to a bicycle (which is admittedly funny considering I work in a literal gun factory), but it's leaving me a bit wiped out for an in depth debate where I'm going to have to bring in a ton of supporting links. I do think it's telling that you're refusing to acknowledge that there is an ideology at play here, the way that you're just handwaving away the massive jump in youth transitions and the demographic changes in the patients, as well as dismissing any possibility of social contagion when we know that it's a factor in literally every other thing young people do, it reads as special pleading to me, that you want to use different rules than usual for this subject for some reason. As I've said previously, I really don't have issues with trans people, what I have issues with is the way the debate around them is subject to so much bad behavior, it's all guilt tripping and moralizing and guilt by association backed up by the threat of social ostracization and cancellation attempts on your job, which is never the sign of a strong position to me if those tactics are deemed necessary to keep people in ideological line.

Usually, when people re-tweet something (especially when they re-tweet it without comment), it means they endorse it. So, saying that she re-tweeted something is more than just "association" with the original tweeter. To a lesser extent this also applies to "Likes," especially an ongoing pattern of "Likes."

Pure "guilt by association" would be something more like, "JKR once sponsored a fiction writers' workshop led by person X; therefore, JKR must endorse X's opinion on (unrelated) issue Y."

"Well, you see guilt by association is totally different when we do it".

How can you possibly NOT see that retweeting something (and, all the more so, retweeting multiple statements with a common theme) (and, especially, retweeting without comment) is more than just "association" with the original tweeter(s)??????

It says right in your source that:


So Rowling is correct in the sense that someone who "intends to have no surgery and take no hormones" can get a Gender Recognition Certificate.

As for Rowling using he instead of she... In that sentence she is talking about a man applying for a GRC in the future and becoming a woman. The sentence won't even make sense if she had used she.

"A woman who intends to have no surgery and take no hormones may now secure herself a Gender Recognition Certificate and be a woman in the sight of the law." <-- This sentence makes no sense.

"A trans-woman who intends to have no surgery and take no hormones may now secure herself a Gender Recognition Certificate and be a woman in the sight of the law." <-- This sentence only makes sense if a trans-woman is not a woman.

Actually, now that I've gone and read Rowling's original essay, it is clear to me she is talking about the hypothetical man who would go through the trouble of getting a GRC for malicious purposes. She is not talking about trans-women in general.

I have no idea why you would think that she is talking about all trans-women.

... no, there isn't.

Are you getting confused by where I said that Rowling's claim that no "gender critical" people she's spoken to are transphobic is not credible? Because that's not criticising Rowling for speaking to "gender critical" people, that's simply pointing out that something she said almost certainly isn't true.


I want to use the same rules we would use for left-handedness, for sexuality, for autism, to give a few examples.


It wasn't a trans person who emailed my manager to complain that I had "(he/him)" in my email signature and that I was putting women and children at risk.

You want to talk moralising? Let's talk about the people screeching about "irreversible damage", "the genocide of lesbians", "social contagion", "denying sex exists", "burning witches", "sexual predators", etc. etc. etc. This is a "debate" where a couple of years ago a bunch of people suddenly decided that another group of people's existence was a threat to them and started a moral panic. They used increasingly apocalyptic language. They consistently misrepresented what was actually going on in the real world. Despite many of them claiming to be feminists, they started advocating for things like genital inspections of teenagers in order to "protect women".

Maybe we can't agree on things like the proportion of trans teenagers who remain trans (this article does a pretty good breakdown of the evidence if you're interested: https://www.gendergp.com/detransition-facts/), but can we agree that the accusations of genocide and mass sexual predation are at least as bad as the "give me healthcare or I'll kill myself" stuff?

Because she's talking about policies that affect real trans women, not just the hypothetical malicious fake ones.

It comes across as mainly privileged, now mainly middle class , women going way beyond what are reasonable concerns to spitefully attack and bully those who are trans. All reasonable concerns could be eliminated, and they'd still be full of hate.

I can't tell if you're genuinely confused about what I meant or are deliberately misconstruing what I said, which is that I think you're trying to use special pleading when it comes to how we debate trans issues, as I don't normally think of you as one to moralize and berate people into ideological compliance except on this topic; if I hadn't seen your username next to the posts, I wouldn't have had any idea it was you making them.

I just now came across the following video: JK Rowling's New Friends by Shaun:



I'll post some notes about this video later.

Dox will likely dismiss this as just "guilt by association," but the point is that she doesn't just "associate" with these people but also lies about them.

Funny enough, someone on reddit asked me if I can give a quote she said that was transphobic. I dig up the 3 Tweets she did that was transphobic and it turns out they just want to debate than wanting an answer to my question about what she wrote was transphobic.

Of course they're not going to see what she wrote on there being transphobic because they agree with her too and think kids are being transformed into be trans and being confused about their gender and think they are trying to take away their woman identity.

Any way, I don't waste my time with them. Most of the time they are just arguing in bad faith.

what jk rowling did wrong was not being able to write a single good book after harry potter 4, and it significantly affected her psyche

After her delve into alternate genre proved to be a failure, she devolved to milking the harry potter cash cow and making controversial statements of the political nature to gather negative attention(in face of her inability to get some positive attention)

I've started a separate thread Various news stories on trans issues.

This is delusional, Order of the Phoenix was the zenith of the HP series and her detective novels are actually quite good and sell well; I literally started reading them to win an argument and ended up genuinely enjoying them.

Someone on the internet was argumentative about a contentious topic? Weird.