I've just finished Troubled Blood and there is NO transphobia

I already thought they had blown it out of proportion but holy fuck, they’ve certainly made themselves look dumb.

They is a general they as in whoever was calling it transphobic when it clearly isn’t. I don’t mean trans individuals themselves.

[quote Kit19]They’ve switched to her being islamophibic now 🤦🏻‍♀️

twitter.com/dailymailuk/status/1306932902022782980?s=21[/quote]
FFS, it's just another description of somebody (possibly) dressing in disguise.

It should ultimately prevent the dude from getting any more book review work, anyway. Except it won’t, Will it. Because the hard if thinking will go ‘oh yeah he’s the one that exposed the dark underbelly of JKR he’s great, get him to do more’. He’s a shit reviewer heralded as a genius. It would be funny if Donald J Trump wasn’t still in power for the same misplaced veneration.

She's definitely guilty of being a successful and lovely woman.

They’ve switched to her being islamophibic now 🤦🏻‍♀️

twitter.com/dailymailuk/status/1306932902022782980?s=21

Yup. Men kill women because some women are naive. Not because some men are killers.

It also features some horrendous crimes committed by health care professionals (it is set in a doctors surgery) but he did not claim that the moral of the story is don’t trust the NHS.

Yep! He basically doubled down and saidi. The book jkr was telling women
Not to trust men in dresses. Idiot!!

Just finished it too and it's staggeringly good. 927 pages and I never wanted it to end.

People will read it (in their millions) and be stunned that some men tried to claim the back is about transwomen.

It's all about women. And how different men perceive women, and how that affects us. It covers various ways women have found to attempt to survive in a male-dominated world.

Of course if it was written by a man it would be taken far more seriously, but it's epic in the way it covers so many contemporary issues. Although he doesn't actual use the phrase 'Nordic Model' Strike's comments on prostitution and trafficking are incredibly insightful.

So glad that JKR has started writing the next one. I might apply for a job as reviewer at the Telegraph so I can get hold of an early copy. I'm thinking that a vacancy might become available there soon.

He has also implied on Twitter that murder victims are responsible for their own deaths. Now that is even more offensive than even the made up version of what people think JKR said.

mobile.twitter.com/JakeKerridge/status/1306147986741882880

Still a little turd then.

I can’t read the article but he knows what he was doing. If you have read the whole book to the end and know who the murderer is then you would see how ridiculous what he has said is.

The book does not feature a man in a dress.

"I dared to reveal a JK Rowling plot detail – then all hell broke loose"

www.google.com/amp/s/www.telegraph.co.uk/books/news/dared-reveal-jk-rowling-plot-detail-broke-loose/amp/

He is saying that it is part of that character's make up (as it were), and therefore a legitimate comment to make.

For someone who prides himself on what he calls making the implicit, explicit, you would've thought he would be able to predict the backlash.

He certainly knew, according to the article, all about the furore surrounding J. K. Rowling.

I don’t know if he has apologised but he certainly wrote a long article yesterday about how he couldn’t possibly have foreseen the shitstorm and it really wasn’t his fault if you think about it.

... the Telegraph reviewer might have been made to feel rather uncomfortable. And then wilfully mischaracterised a book..

Does anyone know if that little turd from the Telegraph has apologised?

I hadn't realised that she had also talked about a man masturbating into women's underwear. I wonder why that hasn't been more widely targeted.

It's ironic, isn't it? Another epic own goal.

My copy has just arrived, let’s hope it stays at the top of the best sellers for a long time.

And of course, yet again, the whole thing is backfiring.

People are talking everywhere about real life cross dressing serial killers. They are being informed, using evidence, that cross dressing is one the most prevalent paraphilias amongst sex offenders, etc.

And everyone is letting the public know that Stonewall include cross dressers, very publicly, under the term transgender.

It was a male reviewer at The Telegraph who decided, on the basis of one line, that the entire moral of the story was about not trusting men in frocks. The whole thing represented by one throwaway comment about a man who was essentially, in disguise.

If the focus of the book is on women, and if, as Nick Cohen says, it's a feminist book, the Telegraph reviewer might have been made to feel rather uncomfortable. And then wilfully mischaracterised a book, which would inevitably bring abuse upon the author.

Nice.

Likewise, according to the state media video upthread, where they say that pink news have created negative articles about, or written about J. K. Rowling over 350 times.

Three. Hundred. And. Fifty.

The misogyny is so overwhelming, sometimes it's difficult to breathe.

Are authors no longer allowed to take fictional inspiration from actual cases? Should authors submit their plot and character outlines to the Witchfinder General department for approval?

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8744443/JK-Rowling-reveals-cross-dressing-villain-new-book-based-real-life-serial-killers.html

I've lost a lot of respect for some people i previously considered intelligent ranting and raging over a book - or even a short paragraph - they hadn't read, but taking a troll article (telegraph) and pink news as fact. Not only that but reaching to try and find other disproved reasons she might be sneaking transphobia into her books.

She's made a statement about what she thinks about the gender debate. Agree or disagree but at least quote her actual words. To suggest the inclusion of the word "woman's" in a fiction book is some coded message of her beliefs is bizarre.

I assume the tantrums are about 'woman's coat' PLUS a a brief mention of a killer using a woman's knickers as part of a fetish. That is seriously it. Less than a para in a 900pg book!

The killer isn't trans, nor pretending to be. Nobody in the novel even thinks it. Trans issues or identities just don't come into it - not a plot or a subplot point.

The real anger is that JKR wrote a book that was unapologetic about female experience.

It's doing my head in that people get away with malicious lies about this book and JKR.

I have read it. There is zero transphobia or even trans characters. The daily Telegraph reviewer who said the moral of the story is don’t trust a man in a dress was being dishonest as men in dresses do not feature.

It is a very feminist book though and it looks at the ways men harm women and the life long impact being a victim of abuse has in your life. If you have ever been in that situation it is very relatable.

I do think that JKR came to her views on gender issues through researching the book as paraphilia is a theme. I did guess one of the plot points because this board has alerted me to those issues.