1ºTia Jewell Hm... it's hard to understand the logic here, but I swear I'm trying.
So these beliefs are disparaging, actively harmful to others, but you think your supposed to just accept them. Every queer person has gone through the process of understanding that there are people who are unable to accept them (not just their choices, but their personhood), but the notion that the response to that is just to be okay with that prejudice is hard to understand from my perspective.
Of course it's her right to have those opinions. I don't think literally anyone is arguing that. But her opinions have consequences as a person who has a LOT of influence. And the fact that it's her opinion does not mean it's not above reproach or criticism...
"Nothing we say or do will change those kinds of minds" is an argument which seems to misunderstand the issue. This isn't about convincing Rowling or any other queerphobic individual to change their beliefs, this is about the long fight of normalizing diversity by speaking out against prejudice. We're not naive, lol. We know criticizing and calling out Rowling will not change her mind. I have a degree in psychology, so I know it's more likely to reinforce her beliefs individually. This is about putting down a marker in the culture that says "we won't reject the humanity if this group, and we will push back on that."
One of the biggest problems with cancel culture is that it's used anytime someone makes a mistake or has a set of beliefs that are harmful. Often it's more useful to build a relationship with that individual to slowly change things. BUT when you have someone with a platform as big as Rowling, who has actively chosen to use that platform in this way... at some point you can't just keep ignoring that. At some point that behavior has to be called out and criticized.
It remains difficult to understand how you expect a better world for any queer child by accepting that others won't accept them. I unfortunately have no more time for this conversation, but...
2ºTristis Ward Who is the judge to decide what is an "error" in an opinion or reasoning? You? She has expressed not just an opinion, she had repeat basic biological facts. And she was immediately insulted, denounced and defamed for it. It was striking from the very beginning that these contemporaries did not deal with her arguments, but simply demanded that she - and not only she - should no longer be allowed to express herself on the subject at all. And that no longer has anything to do with free expression of opinion, free, open-ended debate culture. And I will not let modern inquisitors tell me what I think and what I say. Or are we back to Monty Python again "He did say Jehovah again!!!"?
3ºTristis Ward Who do you think you are, anyway? Has anyone empowered you to make judgments about what is "wrong in other thinking"? Do you think sometimes a while before you write such insult? YOUR "opinion" is fundamentally wrong because it is presumptuous.
Once again, JKR has done nothing but state basic biological facts. And for that she is to be virtually tarred and feathered.
And not only she resists this, but she is also supported in this attitude, among others by me.
And I simply forbid that self-appointed judges, who presume to decide what is a "wrong" in "thinking" by others, only because their own opinion meets with opposition, behave as if their opinion - or thinking - is more valuable than others.
4ºGrace See And her writing itself is filled with so much charged language, and give she is an accomplished writer... those language choices are deliberate. They aren't accidents. She's scarying up the same paranoia as bathroom laws have in the states, despite a complete lack of evidence that it would create a safer environment to regulate batrooms or a more dangerous one to allow trans people to openly use them.
Again, this article is not her clearing up things we misunderstood... she's literally just rehashing things we're criticizing her for and trying to defend them. Also, this article deals with a narrow issue, a specific piece of legislation... There's a long record of her stance on this issue in her own words, they're just words she didn't sit down and spend several hours articulating...
5ºRyley was it an OK sign or was it the white supremacist symbol?
Again, cancel culture isn’t real.
You white folks literally ran with a group of Black people demanding accountability and saying “cancel” as a whole cultural movement when it was AAVE.
But let’s not act like your country doesn’t have a history of demonising BLACK language or calls for justice - you lot did it to MLK, Nina Simone, Frederick Douglass, Sojourner Truth, The Black Panthers, etc. —
And upon their death and to revision history, decided they were American heroes lol.
Now AAVE is a recognised dialect - after it being historically used to paint black people as dunces.
You lot have no credibility based on facts alone.
What exactly is your point here old man?
6ºAndreas Peter
I am definitely not from the school of thought that says every opinion is correct no matter what, because it's an opinion. If somebody's opinion is not based in fact, or contains errors of reasoning, then it's simply wrong. No, biology doesn't agree with the simplistic view of it held by anti-trans people. It's way more complicated than what was taught in grade school.
Like I said in my post, the response was very loud. I don't agree with all that's been said, but there's also been some excellent responses. It's too bad she's been inundated with so much vitriol, because I think she's smart enough to learn what's wrong in her thinking.
You can't use other people's behaviour to justify somebody's belief.
7ºJulyne Christian you probably don’t realize it, but this abnormal thought process has been driven into you by a false prophet.
Spreading this false fear that the LGBTQ are all trying to groom and molest children is no different than the false Nazi propaganda that Jews we’re dangerous.
I say this as a woman with a strong faith in God. Whomever has made you believe that is not using their voice for good. Please, pray to God on your own and ask him to show you the truth.
Pedophiles are more likely to be straight male members of the family. Or, at least very close friends of the family who have taught you to trust them with your kids.
8ºFrank Hoffman ok. Ill give you the politically correct was poorly spoken...how does anybody know when someone is not ill informed? And just disagrees? The whole movement of inclusiveness or lack of, assums the disagreeing parties are wrong and need punishment for their view. And everyone needs to quite putting so much importance on what public figures believe. I hope people stop taking advice from whats the majoritu and THINK for themselves. And it might be with the majority but for crying out loud...lets make our own thoughts and beliefs be an asset instead of fearing the life being absolutely ruined by a difference of opinion...
9ºWhen will we learn, we're all entitled to our own opinions!? I'm pansexual cis, raising a nonbinary teen, and our family has plenty of traditional and queer friends. We all respect each others opinions whether we agree with them or not. Why would someone upholding traditional family values be considered a bad person just because they don't support the gay community. Just as we wouldn't want someone bashing our queer kids for their feelings, we have no right to bash them for their beliefs. All I hope for is kindness and acceptance all around, regardless of personal beliefs. ️
10ºIrwin Miller he was found guilty by a judge who’s friends with the owner of the newspaper and whose son works for the paper being sued; if that isn’t grounds for self recusal due to conflict of interests I don’t know what is. He also didn’t allow a massive heap of evidence that WAS allowed in the US trial. Why do you think JD felt he had a case to make in the US even as he failed his suit on the UK? Travesty of justice if ever there was one. The British legal system is clearly a total joke. Also, JD was the one suing in the US trial so I have no idea what you’re talking about with your “civil liability”. HE sued amber heard, and the jury found in favor of him. There was no “fair preponderance” of anything.