There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

JK Rowling, Joe Rogan and Elon Musk are fuming over Scotland’s hate crime law

It was no April Fool’s joke.

Harry Potter author-turned culture warrior J.K. Rowling kicked off the month with an 11-tweet social media thread in which she argued 10 transgender women were men — and dared Scottish police to arrest her.

Rowling’s intervention came as a controversial new Scottish government law, aimed at protecting minority groups from hate crimes, took effect. And it landed amid a fierce debate over both the legal status of transgender people in Scotland and over what actually constitutes a hate crime.

Already the law has generated far more international buzz than is normal for legislation passed by a small nation’s devolved parliament.

Wynnstan ,
@Wynnstan@lemmy.world avatar

This is such a complicated issue. Free speech is a human right but hate speech can incite fear in targeted groups effectively silencing their voices. The Scottish hate crime law is consistent with international human rights laws which protect freedom of expression but do not protect hate speech. But they may been better served keeping hate speech within civil law. It’s a balance between the freedom of expression of individuals and the freedom from harassment, discrimination and abuse of some of the most vulnerable individuals.

Regrettable_incident ,
@Regrettable_incident@lemmy.world avatar

Hate speech can also incite violence against targeted groups. I’m fine with freedom of speech but there’s got to be a line somewhere. I’m not sure whether this legislation is over the line or not, we’ll see how it’s enforced.

Gsus4 ,
@Gsus4@mander.xyz avatar

JKR actually lives there, the other two are just hate-signalling in their culture war and should mind their fucking business.

afraid_of_zombies ,

Got to admit, despite knowing next to nothing about the law, if those three are against it I am most likely going to support it.

damnedfurry ,

Generally speaking, that’s a poor way to decide what to support.

0ops ,

They didn’t say they’re decided, they’re just talking statistics

afraid_of_zombies ,

Yes exactly.

damnedfurry ,

I also said “generally speaking”, you know.

afraid_of_zombies ,

Right I was talking about what most likely will happen while you were offering advice which is where you describe what you want to happen.

If people I don’t agree with on much agree with X when I get around to learning about X I will very likely not agree.

I agree it is a good advice

Ookami38 ,

We all have to make judgements based on the information our tools feed us. These 3 are some a-grade tools, so just make sure you know how to interpret the information they put out, and you’re fine.

BallsandBayonets ,

So stop being a bigot?

Jim Carrey - Stop breaking the law, asshole

moitoi ,
@moitoi@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

White supremacy in action.

Churbleyimyam ,

For a bunch of miserable whingeing bastards, the Scots are pretty progressive.

TheOgreChef ,

You just made an enemy for life!

Churbleyimyam ,

Lol

cupcakezealot ,
@cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

deleted_by_author

    •
    aidan ,

    Yeah don’t use the word Nazi when describing opposition to censorship, however well intentioned the censorship is

    4am ,

    Rowling literally did holocaust denial not too long ago

    aidan ,

    Idk if she did or didn’t, but censorship isn’t a liberal solution

    Sanctus ,
    @Sanctus@lemmy.world avatar

    It’s telling that you stopped replying to the thoughtful explanations on why this isn’t censorship and decided to keep calling it censorship.

    aidan ,

    Also just checked the thread, I did not get notifications for some of these replies

    aidan ,

    “Its telling you stopped replying once I pointed this out”

    I’m sorry but that was just a ridiculous thing to say- it had been a couple hours, and I was doing other things in my life- plus was half asleep as it was 2am. I think its important to try to understand the situations others could be in aren’t identical to your own- that is empathy.

    vaultdweller013 ,

    Me shoving my rapist father into a woodchiper wouldnt be a pacifist solution. Thank fuck I aint a pacifist.

    aidan ,

    Rip

    cupcakezealot ,
    @cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

    deleted_by_author

    •
    aidan ,

    Well what is the law?

    rmuk ,

    Attacking someone at random is wrong and illegal.

    Attacking someone specifically because of their gender, sexuality, politics, religion, race, ethnicity, etc is worse and more illegal.

    The new law adds ‘transgender’ to that list.

    JK Rowling thinks that is a problem.

    aidan ,

    Attacking someone at random is wrong and illegal.

    Attacking meaning what? Verbally?

    Yes it is true I agree with both of those statements, I don’t know specifically about Scottish laws- but I remember hearing about this especially dumb case.

    The dumbness was on the part of the government. It was censorship then, and it is still censorship now. I am nowhere near a fan of celebrating someone’s death. Still censorship, expanding what is censored is expanding censorship.

    Limiting any speech is censorship. Speech is censored in some capacity everywhere, to use that as a basis for redefining it to not actually be censorship is very disingenuous.

    Silentiea ,

    Yes. “Fighting words,” credible threats, and other such aggressive language are generally illegal, even in the USA.

    If any language being illegal is automatically censorship, then I don’t think censorship isnecessarily bad in every case.

    aidan ,

    Yes it is censorship, and it’s fair think sometimes censorship is okay, I generally disagree but I’m sure you could think of a case where I would tolerate it. Censoring fighting words I definitely oppose though for example.

    Silentiea ,

    I guess you’re welcome to that opinion. Just as one would be welcome to the opinion that literally stalking someone should be legal.

    Many kinds of speech are very broadly considered okay to restrict, even in places like the USA where “unlimited free speech” is a big motto. It’s illegal to slander and libel people, for example. That it’s illegal in many cases to verbally harass and abuse as well should be fairly non-contentious.

    aidan ,

    Many kinds of speech are very broadly considered okay to restrict

    Yes. Another is copywrited material, which I oppose the considered censoring off. I also oppose the censoring of slander.

    But regardless, all of that, and especially this law is censorship

    Silentiea ,

    When you define a word loosely enough, it can cease to be meaningful. When most people hear “opposition to censorship,” they’re not going to expect the reference to be advocating for the legalization of public and deliberate slander or open threats of violence and attempts to incite violence.

    Using the phrase in that way may not be technically incorrect, but it is still misleading at best and disingenuous at worst. Again, you are welcome to your view of what constitutes censorship and the belief that it is always, ipso facto, abhorrent, but I don’t think that view leaves any room for meaningful discussion about this case, so I don’t think I’ll be engaging any further. Call it self-censorship if you like.

    GoodEye8 ,

    Someone already described the law but I think there should also be a good explanation why it’s not censorship. That explanation in short form is called the paradox of tolerance. If a society strives to be more tolerant they may also end up being tolerant of intolerance. That tolerance of intolerance then prevents society from becoming tolerant, that’s the paradox. So the only real course of action for a tolerant society is to be intolerant of intolerance.

    Attacking someone based on their sexuality is intolerance. Thus to be tolerant those attacks cannot be tolerated, hence the law. Why people are calling it “censorship” is because those people want to be intolerant. They cry “censorship” because they’re being prevented of acting out their own form of censorship, the kind where they try for instance to censure someones sexuality. Calling this thing “censorship” is the wording of the right-wing and unless you want to associate with the right I suggest you stop calling it that. It’s not censorship, it’s being intolerant of censorship.

    CosmicDetour ,

    I think you’re onto something, but this still fits the definition of censorship. I feel like you’d have a better rebuttal if you argued that some censorship is actually good for society. I’d agree with you there, in this case. But no need try to dress it up like it isn’t censorship when it is.

    GoodEye8 ,

    It is censorship if you get into the philosophical weeds, but I don’t see the benefit of being philosophically correct when all it does is empower the right-wing vocabulary. I also don’t see how the philosophical definition changes my point which is what censorship of censorship is not censorship.

    aidan ,

    see the benefit of being philosophically correct when all it does is empower the right-wing vocabulary

    To be honest

    changes my point which is what censorship of censorship is not censorship.

    Because censorship is a description of an action, not a judgement of it- think “killing” vs “murder”

    aidan ,

    I understand you oppose allowing speech that could lead to the rights of others being trampled. And that is a fair belief to have- it is however still censorship. Even to censor people calling for total thought control would still be censorship.

    GoodEye8 ,

    Not being allowed to kill other people also infringes on your personal freedom, is that censorship as well?

    aidan ,

    Censoring is about speech, but that is a limitation on actions.

    GoodEye8 ,

    So suppressing a rally is not censorship? Burning art is not censorship? Censorship has historically applied mostly to speech and literature and as such is generally associated with those two things, but censorship can be far more abstract and in it’s most abstract form applies to any form of expression of an idea. In that sense the limitation isn’t speech, it’s the act of expression.

    And in essence what really is the difference between beating someone to a pulp vs wanting to verbally (or by typing) assault someones existence? The only real difference is that if done one causes physical damage while the other causes mental/emotional damage. The intent and outcome of that action is the same, to harm someone. So how come you consider one censorship and not the other? Simply because the method of expression is different?

    To put your defense of censorship very bluntly. You think it’s not okay to repeatedly stab someone with an small knife over and over until they bleed to death, but you do think it’s okay to repeatedly tell someone to kill themselves until they kill themselves? Because the latter is essentially what you are defending by calling limiting language of that nature as censorship.

    aidan ,

    Art and a rally are both forms of speech. Speech doesn’t mean just the literal act of saying a word.

    And in essence what really is the difference between beating someone to a pulp vs wanting to verbally (or by typing) assault someones existence?

    You can walk away from one and not the other.

    You think it’s not okay to repeatedly stab someone with an small knife over and over until they bleed to death, but you do think it’s okay to repeatedly tell someone to kill themselves until they kill themselves?

    Legality doesn’t determine morality. Me thinking it should be legal doesn’t mean I think it’s okay.

    GoodEye8 ,

    Art and a rally are both forms of speech.

    Speech is when words are coming out of your mouth. Art, rallying and speech are all forms of expression. Art can contain speech but doesn’t have to, rallying can contain speech but doesn’t have to.

    You can walk away from one and not the other.

    Because walking is a physical activity and when you take physical damage your physical capabilities can be hindered. Just because you can walk away from something doesn’t mean it didn’t do any damage.

    Legality doesn’t determine morality. Me thinking it should be legal doesn’t mean I think it’s okay.

    But morality generally determines legality. The vast majority of our laws originate from what we as a society deem morally acceptable. It’s not morally acceptable to kill someone hence it’s illegal to kill someone. If you think it’s not morally acceptable to tell someone to kill themselves until they do why should it be legally acceptable?

    computerscientistI ,

    Why should Rogan and Musk be concerned about a law in Scotland? I can’t be botheres to look up if Rowling lives in Scotland, but she’s at least on the same island.At the minimum Rogan and Musk should mind their own business. As a German I also don’t judge US gub laws, for example. None of my business.

    ExfilBravo ,

    They are paid to stir up shit. So they did.

    myusernameis ,

    Rogan is paid to stir up shit, Musk is somehow losing gobs of money doing the same thing…

    Madison420 ,

    Hilariously Harry Potters world does have hate crime laws, its like a fifth of the book series.

    EtherWhack ,
    @EtherWhack@lemmy.world avatar

    Damn muggles and mud-bloods

    cosmicrookie ,
    @cosmicrookie@lemmy.world avatar

    The law is silly to start with and only intended to illustrate a direction but having no powers at all. Its a huge waste of time and resources.

    RememberTheApollo_ ,

    It’s good for putting the spotlight on assholes.

    anon987 ,

    Lol, the bigots are mad. Good.

    Scrof ,

    Three dumbasses think alike.

    Fedizen ,

    professional haters don’t like a hate crime law? Color me surprised.

    Clent ,

    Calling those people professional haters is giving them far too much credit. Their hatred is amateur at best.

    melpomenesclevage ,

    Disagree; I’ve met some pretty terrible professional chefs abd some pretty amazing home chefs.

    RememberTheApollo_ ,

    They’re only “professional” because they get to bypass all the filters in society and skip to the front unlike us amateurs who drown in the background noise.

    zipzoopaboop ,

    Oh no

    Anyway

    EdibleFriend , (edited )
    @EdibleFriend@lemmy.world avatar

    I still can’t believe Rowling ended up in the same sentence as these fucks. What the shit happened yo. Remember how happy people were when she made Dumbledore gay?

    BITCH THE ONLY PEOPLE THAT HATED YOU WERE RELIGIOUS NUTJOBS

    FenrirIII ,
    @FenrirIII@lemmy.world avatar

    My kid loves Harry Potter. I’ve never once brought up Rowling because I don’t want the books ruined due to her horribleness.

    JustZ ,
    @JustZ@lemmy.world avatar

    Fuck a Tesla driver though. I tell them straight up.

    EtherWhack ,
    @EtherWhack@lemmy.world avatar

    A lot of them though, are either ambivalent or just deny his instability

    JustZ ,
    @JustZ@lemmy.world avatar

    That’s true, some Tesla drivers must be like “Elon who?” After all Twitter isn’t a real place.

    minkymunkey_7_7 ,

    My guess is $$$billionaire$$$ money is involved somewhere in this woven tale of bigotry. Nobody is doing this level of terf shit for free.

    EdibleFriend ,
    @EdibleFriend@lemmy.world avatar

    You honestly think she tanked her public opinion for money? That she doesn’t actually believe this? One of the richest women on the planet?

    minkymunkey_7_7 ,

    She believes it, I mean that she is making big money off this.

    EdibleFriend ,
    @EdibleFriend@lemmy.world avatar

    She was making big money as is. You think there is better money in tweeting transphobic shit then being then being the author of Harry Potter?

    Do you have an idea of who you think is paying her to tweet?

    FarmTaco ,

    Fuck you money just means she can be honest with her true opinion. Making dumbledore gay is easy, because it doesnt infringe on “her rights” as she sees it.

    ripcord ,
    @ripcord@lemmy.world avatar

    it’s amazing how few people care about evidence and facts, it’s all conspiracy theories and feels.

    I mean, this is how Trump is a politician, but it’s so damn pervasive in general.

    minkymunkey_7_7 ,

    Billionaires don’t do anything for free. Her hate speech is an investment in the platform to make more money. Her public opinions make her more money. Nobody is paying her to say it. But consider her stance an investment into more money.

    I don’t know where people are getting the idea that I said anything about someone paying her to say this stuff.

    EdibleFriend ,
    @EdibleFriend@lemmy.world avatar

    So…she’s trying to drive traffic to twitter? Thats her real motivation? And that funds her…how again?

    minkymunkey_7_7 ,

    Yeak ok. K thanks.

    EdibleFriend ,
    @EdibleFriend@lemmy.world avatar

    I see

    Cagi ,

    She is a billionaire in her own right, she doesn’t need to be paid off, she’s rich enough to do what she wants without consequences. Like blatantly break hate crime laws solely to flaunt her legal immunity.

    The only billions that corrupted her were her own, but all they did was expose who she is deep down.

    Cagi , (edited )

    She can also do what she wants without social consequences. Trans allies don’t mind gifting her another few million here and there in royalties for spin off products like Hogwarts Legacy. She has outright said she feels justified on being a bigot because people keep making her richer, “allies” included. Allies are only allies when they don’t have to contend with even the most minor temptation.

    samus12345 ,
    @samus12345@lemmy.world avatar

    https://i.redd.it/5wqlraz9bqt91.jpg

    EdibleFriend ,
    @EdibleFriend@lemmy.world avatar

    She’s not a billionaire anymore. She gave away nearly 200 million to lose that status. It was kind of a big deal back when we all still liked her. She is, a million times over, not a person who would be out there tweeting for cash.

    Her hate is her own.

    root_beer ,

    Nah, she’s entirely capable of being cold wet garbage on her own, and for free! She was just smart enough to come out with her shit takes after making tons of bank on her average storytelling. The again, Harry Potter is still stupid popular even after she piped up, so maybe it wouldn’t have matter if she’d shown her whole ass right after the fifth book, people don’t care.

    Duamerthrax ,

    Remember how happy people were when she made Dumbledore gay?

    No? Most people I know thought it was cheap to just say he was gay long after the books were released and not having any part of the story. Right there with implying that Hermione could be black in the books.

    Moneo ,

    Honestly I respect the Hermione comment. Obviously Hermione was written as white, like duh. She was expressing her support for a black-casted hermione because her race is unimportant. It was just a cheeky way of supporting the casting choice amid the backlash from racist fans.

    The Dumbledore being gay thing is… idk. I think it makes sense that he can be gay but JK should have been explicit and not canonized his queerness after the fact for clout.

    Obligatory fuck JK for being a TERF.

    PotatoKat ,

    I remember watching a video where she talked about how in the first movie Dumbledore was supposed to passingly mention a former love, but rowling told them to cut the line because Dumbledore was gay. He might not have been explicitly gay (which imo he should have been) but at the very least I believe he was gay in her mind while writing the books.

    a9cx34udP4ZZ0 ,

    Because the internet can’t handle shades of gray? Perhaps there’s more to her than “she’s a liberal” or “she’s a conservative”? Hive mind will be the end of society - if someone doesn’t agree with the party line on EVERY point, they’re suddenly an extremist.

    Perhaps, PERHAPS there are people who are otherwise liberal that have some pretty strong feelings about the trans movement? Outside of the trans thing, Rowling is pretty liberal by the classic definition of the term based on everything I’ve seen. But because she’s taken a stance here she’s put in the same sentence as Musk and Rogan. I have a tough time taking anyone seriously that tries to make that comparison. Musk is literally defending fascists and Rogan regularly has Alex Jones on his show. She’s not even on the same continent as those two.

    Because yes, she literally made Dumbledore gay, which both Joe Rogan and Elon Musk would tell you makes her a woke libtard… but they’re the same!!!1111

    PotatoKat ,

    She literally pals around with nazis and denies portions of the holocaust, if you’re gonna try and argue you can hang out with nazis, deny the holocaust, and still be a liberal, I implore you to reevaluate your own values.

    twig ,

    Also… even barring hanging out with literal nazis, if your whole fucking thing is trying to deny human rights to vulnerable segments of the population, you’re a piece of shit, even if you are actually “pretty liberal” otherwise.

    I’m so sick of hearing about this irrelevant piece of shit and everyone who makes excuses for her.

    Lianodel ,

    Seriously. If someone’s support is transactional, it isn’t worth shit. It’s not like having an okay position on some issues means you “get” to call for a little extermination, as a treat.

    You don’t have to be perfect on every issue, but for fuck’s sake, there are hard lines when it comes to people’s right to exist, and live free. And even any decent takes she had are long past, since nearly ALL she does nowadays is rage tweet about trans people from her fucking castle.

    gnygnygny ,

    Godwin point jackpot

    aidan ,

    I’d argue you also can’t support censorship and be a liberal.

    PotatoKat ,

    deleted_by_moderator

    •
    aidan ,

    I never said you did? But this law does

    jordanlund ,
    @jordanlund@lemmy.world avatar

    Civility…

    sheogorath ,

    It’s like she became a lich without any of the advantages.

    Klear ,

    She’s just two letters off.

    BallsandBayonets ,

    She’s a lichen?

    Plopp ,

    What happened was she was severely mistreated by men growing up and she’s now so scared of men that it completely clouds her judgment. To her, women are vulnerable and all men are predators that can never ever be trusted. It’s been there all along, it just wasn’t visible until she made some comments on trans women (that she’s terrified of, because “men”). And then people went nuts, and she tried to explain herself, and people didn’t care about her explanation and instead of going “hey that sucks, let us help you overcome that trauma and become a better person” they went to war which made her defensive and double down instead of changing her mind, as always happens, and it’s only been getting worse ever since.

    melpomenesclevage ,

    Its that she hates women, or thinks women are inferior to men. You see this with all terfs.

    So she invented some magical bullshit about why she was a full person.

    But the magical bullshit is magic; doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. Which trans people inherently bring/are.

    So trans people must be stopped (from existing), the territory must be flattened to match the map!

    Plopp ,

    I sincerely doubt she hates women. She’s been supportive of women’s causes for a very long time afaik. Based on what I’ve read she seems to feel extremely weak and vulnerable among men due to her experiences, especially when she’s alone with a man or men, and it’s very likely she ascribes that “weakness” to all cis women. But that doesn’t mean she thinks men are better, it’s that she thinks men are dangerous to cis women. Seriously, she’s written things that made it seem like a legit phobia, like breaking down and crying and hyperventilating because she happened to end up in a room with some random man in the middle of the day, and he didn’t even interact with her iirc. I’m guessing her broken brain sees trans women as if someone put a hat on a tiger and called it Bob and let it near her. She’s a bit messed up and the small window of slight opportunity to maybe help her see straight was obliterated by counterproductive behavior based on understandable emotions. Something that happens all too often these days.

    But with all that said, it’s been a long time since I heard or read anything from her, so she could have gone off the deep end and I don’t know it.

    melpomenesclevage ,

    But that feeling of vulnerability is part of what informs the misogyny, which they compensate for with an essentialist fairy dust woowoo articulation of ‘the divine feminine’ or some shit, never clearly defined, which requires hating trans people, because trans people are walking talking de/re constructions.

    And since you’re (hypothetical terf you. Also has terrible hemorrhoids and a crippling tobacco addiction, wanna go beat the shit out of them later? Would feel weird without you on side.) already misogynist and essentialist and a bigot, and tge only things you care about are completely made up; nazis are your natural allies.

    Plopp ,

    Just out of curiosity, since I haven’t seen or read anything from her in a very long time, can you give examples of what misogynistic things she’s said? And I have to say it feels rather convoluted, the notion that she, a woman who’s been supporting women’s causes for a long time, hates women, so she boosts herself with undefined ‘divine femininity’, which in turn means she has to hate trans people because they present something different. It’s too high level and fluffy. I mean, hey, I don’t know what’s going on in her head (neither do you btw), but I find it a much simpler, more logical, foundational and believable explanation that she’s just scarred from her trauma related to men and therefore is also scared of trans women because with her phobia she doesn’t trust them to not behave like men at some point. And she probably has built a whole structure of beliefs, opinions and arguments on top of that, that gets bigger (and thereby expands further away from the core) and more reinforced with every argument she has online. And somewhere in that structure might sit ‘divine femininity’, as a coping argument.

    melpomenesclevage ,

    I haven’t read her shit in years, but I remember reading something like a decade ago, and there’s a straight line from the ‘goddess feminism’ of the 80s, which seemed like her thing, to terf shit. Please don’t make me look it up; only one of us has to see this to convince you.

    I’m sure she doesn’t think she hates (cis)women. None of them do; not even dudebro Nazis.

    Plopp ,

    I’m not putting it on you to prove it or convince me, but just as a general statement, I need solid and concrete proof before I ascribe a feeling to someone else contrary to their own claims. Something that’s generally a bit of an asshattery thing to do imo since they’re the one feeling their feelings and I can’t actually know.

    melpomenesclevage ,

    Generally valid, but fascists are kind if an exception, because they’re never honest, and taking them at their word is rude to everyone else.

    Schadrach ,

    Its that she hates women, or thinks women are inferior to men. You see this with all terfs.

    No, she doesn’t. You just operate from a (shockingly common) perspective in which any case where anything gender-related that doesn’t conform to your particular flavor of progressive feminism must collapse into misogyny.

    She literally just believes that men are evil monsters who will do whatever they have to to prey on innocent-by-default women. Including pretend to be women if needed to get to their prey. It’s like the white supremacists who believe black folks are inherently criminal, violent monsters except with men instead of blacks.

    So she invented some magical bullshit about why she was a full person.

    She’s never believed she wasn’t, or needed to invent magical bullshit to believe she is, at least related to gender. She just needs to believe that men are evil monsters who will pretend to be women to attack “real” women, which is shockingly common.

    But the magical bullshit is magic; doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. Which trans people inherently bring/are.

    Her problem isn’t that she sees trans people as fuzzing up her hierarchy in which men are superior to her.

    There’s a reason why transphobic dialog is rarely about trans men (despite them also violating the same “magical bullshit”), and very often framed in terms of “men in dresses”, and that’s because it is most often about how men are monsters and women need to be protected from them, and trans women are forever tainted by the original sin of having been born male sexed.

    melpomenesclevage ,

    believes that men are evil monsters who

    Ive read her books. Some of them at least. That’s a bit much. She does not believe this. Or didn’t when she wrote them. Also, I think that some days, and I’m not a transphobe.

    invented some magical bullshit

    She didn’t actually have to invent it, it was already floating around since at least the middle ages.

    transphobic dialogue isn’t ever about trans men

    No the rhetoric is just different, more transparently objectifying; ‘protect the titties’ discourse. TERFs talk about them as ‘mutilated sisters’ or some shit, because its still about tge myystical divine feminine bullshit to them. You hear it more direct from patriarchy than from its proxies.

    You’re reading a little transphobic and under informed on the topic here

    male sexed

    Oh yeah fuck you stop talking to me.

    Schadrach ,

    No the rhetoric is just different, more transparently objectifying; ‘protect the titties’ discourse. TERFs talk about them as ‘mutilated sisters’ or some shit, because its still about tge myystical divine feminine bullshit to them. You hear it more direct from patriarchy than from its proxies.

    1. Rarely about trans men, not never. The dialogue is mostly framed in terms of men being a predatory danger to women so taht women need spaces where men are kept away from them and men being such predatory monsters that they will pretend to be women in order to get access to their prey. This is more or less the standard TERF (and amusingly also the right-wing tradcon) perspective. They don’t even really hide it.
    2. It feels like you’re just jumbling things up here - if the core premise is that men are better than women and trans people disrupt the patriarchal hierarchy, why wouldn’t the focus be mostly on trans men, framed in terms of them trying to steal patriarchal power for themselves rather than mostly focusing on trans women being framed as predatory “men in dresses” using gender identity claims to have easier access to their prey?

    You’re reading a little transphobic and under informed on the topic here

    Transphobic how? By not accepting your interpretation of transphobic arguments that requires ignoring the actual arguments made in favor of all transphobia just being that trans people represent a disruption of a patriarchal gender hierarchy? Because that doesn’t really align to basically any transphobic arguments that transphobes actually make. It requires ignoring what transphobes actually say almost entirely.

    When people tell you what they believe, it’s usually better to believe them. They generally have the better view of both what they believe and why they justify those beliefs.

    Oh yeah fuck you stop talking to me.

    For what, drawing an explicit difference between sex and gender? Or am I supposed to pretend now that there is no difference - there is only gender?

    afraid_of_zombies ,

    What happened is she is from TERF Island and plenty of people there hold the same exact bullshit viewpoint. Many of which are males.

    gnygnygny ,

    Oh man…Woke with hate juice drooling.

    afraid_of_zombies ,

    A guy I used to follow on social media would post about once a month a picture of a wasp larva emerging from inside of the bug it had consumed from inside with the caption “your brain on Terf”.

    It summarized it well for me. Doesn’t matter what you were once you get infected with the anti-trans virus it will either not take or eat you within, then discard you when it is done.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •