Gosh. We are seeing that article again.
Here is the archive link
http://archive.today/GYWYG
Last time the accusations was that she was implicitly Calling trans people 'mentally ill' & are all predatory sex fetishists.
Now the accusation is :
“Whilst it's true that those are JKR's views & those views are mainstream, the issue is how those views are framed which for many constitute dehumanising demonising dog whistles that by their very nature provide convenient plausible deniability”
Well, that is convenient isn’t it…. A poster demonising JK Rowling for what they themselves and a random who wrote a malign article read into women’s words. You really cannot beat that for hypocrisy.
—-
This time we have two added quotes. The first one is this quote:
"when she was slammed for "liking" a tweet that referred to trans women as "men in dresses.”
And this interpretation “Supporting a dog whistle for ‘deluded’/mentally ill”
It was a tweet that referred to men in dresses. It is really something to believe that anytime a woman talks about a man in a dress she is saying those men are deluded or mentally ill. David Bowie? Harry Styles?
Or maybe, some people choose to make interpretations to do their own demonising and vilifying.
Either way, the article then admits this:
“Rowling later said she "absent-mindedly" liked the tweet when she meant to screenshot it because she had taken "an interest in gender identity and transgender matters."”
Blimey. So now she admits to making a mistake but apparently she still has to demonised for that mistake. You cannot make this up. It looks like some people, such as the writer of this article, will use any excuse to abuse a woman.
Then we have
“Months later, Rowling came under fire again for coming to the defense of Maya Forstater. At the time, the researcher had been waging an employment discrimination battle, as her contract with a think tank wasn't renewed after she made a series of anti-trans statements. These statements included that people should not be "compelled to play along with literal delusions like 'transwomen are women,'" and she referred to a gender-fluid person as a "man who likes to dress in women's clothes.”
Interpreted as ”Supporting those who explicitly call trans people ‘deluded’/mentally ill”.
Again, there is that immediate assumption that men in dresses are deluded or mentally ill. Is this projection maybe of what the poster believes?
Maya Forstater won her tribunal case. If you notice though, the poster has dishonestly changed the context here.
Maya called the belief that “transwomen are women” for access to single sex provisions delusionary. No explicit mention of mental illness. She didn’t accuse any individual of being deluded or mentally ill. No person can change sex and single sex provisions are for people of the same sex. There is no other way to categorise human sex other than using body formation and the reproduction function of that body formation.
The concept that some male people demand access to female single sex spaces when they are objectively not female does not reflect material reality. If Maya wants to describe that as a delusionary concept, surely it is up to those disagreeing to provide evidence that she is wrong.
The article is clear that the support JK Rowling offered Maya was this tweet :
In a tweet, Rowling stood with Forstater: "Dress however you please," she said on X. "Live your best life in peace and security. But force women out of their jobs for stating that sex is real?"
Would you look at that, though. “Dress however you please”. It does throw significant doubt on the previous accusation and support JK Rowling’s explanation that she was trying to screenshot so she would be able to refer back in future. I am not sure she has ever deviated from the statement “Dress however you please” has she?
It is clear here that JK Rowling tweeted support for a woman’s tribunal case freedom of speech and freedom of thought. She supported the ideal that no woman should lose her job because she didn’t believe a male person should access female single sex provisions and she shouldn’t have to act as if she shares the belief that some male people can change sex.
Just as the tribunal found too.
_
Then there were these previous ones too :
Imagine reading JK Rowling’s essay and then writing this
"Rowling revealed she is a survivor of domestic abuse and sexual assault and said this led her to sympathize with women who had "concerns around single-sex spaces." She argued against throwing "open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he's a woman.”
And making this interpretation:
'Dog whistle for trans people as deluded pedatory sex abusers'
Notice how dishonest this interpretation is. This is someone who is implying a blanket statement accusing her of saying 'ALL' trans people. This quote the writer and the poster have chosen refers only to men. What she is explicitly saying is that some male people with transgender identities may cause female people harm, this includes distress, by being in that space.
She may believe that any male person who would enter a female single sex space is there to cause the female people in the space harm intentionally, but she could also believe something else.
The interpretation of 'Dog whistle for trans people as deluded pedatory sex abusers' is taking an absolutist, catastrophised view and assuming the worst in words that don't explicitly say what has been claimed.
In any case, this doesn't support the implied accusation of 'all'. And I think only a fool would declare there are no male people with transgender identities that are ‘deluded pedatory sex abusers'.
For anyone in doubt, please visit transcrimeuk dot com to see evidence that would show that some male people of this group do fit this poster’s description.
Here is another quote:
“Rowling published a new novel titled "Troubled Blood" under the pseudonym Robert Galbraith. The book, which revolved around a male serial killer who dresses like a woman, was accused of being anti-trans.”
“It was disappointing that Rowling was propagating a "long-standing and hurtful presentation of trans women as a threat," a spokesperson for Mermaids, a charity that supports trans children, said to CNN. Rowling, meanwhile, saidthe book "was loosely based" on real killers.”
The interpretation was:
'Dog whistle for trans people as mentally ill abusers of women'
Did the poster even read this book? I did . And many others did.
Perhaps the poster would like to know that there have been male people in the past, who did not have a transgender identity, who used dressing to look like a female person to gain access to victims or to get close to victims. It does happen. The Cambridge Murderer (there was a thread on this active on FWR a couple of weeks ago about that person) did this.
So, which is more likely in this supposedly 'implicit' statement that ' trans people are mentally ill abusers of women'? That she referenced real life examples for her book (the perpetrator was didn't have a transgender identity by the way!) or that she thinks 'all trans people are predatory sex fetishists'?
Oh... and... the character was male.
So again, this does not support the blanket statement implying all.
In fact, the implication from her character would be that 'some male people will present in a way that will gain the trust of their intended victim' which is true. And if someone wanted to make a negative implicit meaning, it would be that 'all men are predators' which is also not true.
Then there is this example:
"When Scotland's new Hate Crime and Public Order Act went into effect in April, Rowling tried to bait them into arresting her with posts online. The law criminalizes "stirring up hatred" against people based on their race, religion, disability, sexuality or gender identity. By passing the law, Scotland "placed higher value on the feelings of men performing their idea of femaleness, however misogynistically or opportunistically, than on the rights and freedoms of actual women and girls," Rowling said in the thread on X. If anything she wrote qualified as an offense under the new law, "I look forward to being arrested when I return to the birthplace of the Scottish Enlightenment," Rowling said."_
The interpretation of this quote was:
'Dog whistle for trans people as deluded/mentally ill predatory abusers of women'
Nope. The tweet that I bolded in that quote refers to 'male' people with transgender identities. Any discussion on what any 'implicit' interpretation of that tweet could cover, would accept that it is reasonable to say that she limited the scope of that tweet to male people who demanded to access female single sex provisions. By provisions, I refer to anything designated as being just for female people.
After all, it is not about female people with transgender identities at all. Because those female people are included in the rights and freedoms of actual women and girls. She has generally made that clear so it would be a deliberate bad faith interpretation to assume she included female people in that quoted tweet.
She is specific that the Scottish law prioritises male people who would have (and did) try to use that law to have female people charged and convicted with hate crimes. That was her point and the full context of that tweet.
Surprise! What she suggested would happen, happened. She was immediately reported by some male people in the group. Forcing the public statement referred to in this article.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-68712471?app-referrer=deep-link
Thus immediately clarifying the new law so other women would not be treated the same way she was.
Really, you cannot make it up. By pointing out these supposed dog whistles, look at what this poster is actually drawing attention to.
Then finally the quote:
"Rowling posted t, accusing Khelif of being a man who was "enjoying the distress of a woman he's just punched in the head."_
The interpretation
'Dog whistle for mentally ill trans person who enjoys abusing of women'
Again, as others have already said, Khelif is not transgender at all. Nothing to do with trans people.
Khelif is a male boxer with a DSD that led to him being erroneously listed at 'female' in his passport.
Plus there is nothing in that tweet that says that Khelif is mentally ill either. So that is another falsity there too. No one has to be mentally ill to enjoy a woman's distress. They may be. But they also have a just as much likelihood of not being mentally ill.
TL/DR: The article and the quotes selected only show how very biased and unreasonable some people's interpretations of JK Rowling's tweets can be. The post did however bring attention to some of the malign actions of a group of male people though.
And hey…don’t forget! It is not what women say..it is how we say it.
More of the abuser’s code being used against women. Again.