To think JK Rowling is a fabulous human being

[TheAdventuresoftheWishingChair]

I just came across her book, 'Very Good Lives' which is all about overcoming adversity. I think it's so important that successful women talk about the times they've failed and how success is about pushing past that. I'm reading it just at a time I need to hear that message. I can definitely recommend buying a copy if you are in need of a boost or have some pennies to spend on something nourishing.

I was also looking into her charity, Lumos, and I had no idea just how much she was trying to help disadvantaged children. I love that she's putting her money and position to good use.

The term 'national treasure' generally makes me want to poke my own eyeballs out with a rusty kitchen utensil but AIBU to say she is an utter treasure and we are lucky to have her. She makes the world a better place.

That's all!

I read that there's quite a dark underbelly to the Harry Potter subculture - and there is a subculture based around the books totally unconnected to JKR herself

I read some of the fanfic a few years ago. It was full of thinly disguised paedophilia - i.e. Snape and Harry (big favourite) having sex in the dungeon and so on.

If anyone is interested, they are discussing this on loose women today. I hope they’ll discuss it with an open mind and not just tow the party line.

Oh God, I'm not watching them discuss this on Loose Women. There is zero critical thinking on there, I can't bear it!

@Fancyateapottea

If anyone is interested, they are discussing this on loose women today. I hope they’ll discuss it with an open mind and not just tow the party line.

Unfortunately they are a bunch of dick pandlers, who will do their pathetic oh the poor trans. Of course they have a trans person on to say how hurtful it all is. No GC women to say how calling women menstruaters is hurtful to women. After all, women are whatever men say they are. Fucking hypocrites are also going to be talking about abused women. Is it too early for gin?

They’ve already nailed their colours to the mask by introducing a trans person who says that JK should apologise, so that’s the discussion over now. They might as well not bother with the rest of the discussion, as it will just consist of the trans pandering women telling the guest how brave and stunning they are, the most oppressed people ever, false suicide and abuse comments, etc. 🙄

It was more balanced than I thought it would be. Janet Street Porter said JK Rowling is entitled to her own opinion and that people have to be careful to not erode free speech. Saira Khan discussed the matter of extremists comparing extreme trans activists to extreme Muslims and she talked about the aggressive language directed at Jo.

Of course it was very limited and women’s rights weren’t mentioned..

Jesus, of the Loose Women are starting to peak then the wheels are well and truly coming off!

Oh I’m sure the powers that be, will be panicking now and trying to put the women back in the loose women box. You can be sure that the trans person will be back on, once the foot stamping starts and the women will be told that they didn’t pander properly. Naughty women, knowing what sex has periods.

Ffs if I hear one more time that saying that only women have periods is the same as saying if you don’t have periods you aren’t a woman I’ll fucking explode 😡😡😡

Listen up morons:

ALL POLICE DOGS ARE DOGS.

DOES THAT MEAN ALL DOGS ARE POLICE DOGS?!

Learn to fucking read!!! 😡😡😡

Which transperson did LW have on?

@BoreOfWhabylon

Which transperson did LW have on?

Can’t remember the person’s name, but they acted in Eastenders as the long lost sibling, who is trans, to another female character. I think the other character is called Stacey?

Ah, thanks. Haven't watched EE in years, so I'm none the wiser.

Ffs if I hear one more time that saying that only women have periods is the same as saying if you don’t have periods you aren’t a woman I’ll fucking explode

Is this a logical fallacy in formal logic?

Saying "if p then q"
is not the same as saying "if q then p"

@YetAnotherSpartacus

Ffs if I hear one more time that saying that only women have periods is the same as saying if you don’t have periods you aren’t a woman I’ll fucking explode

Is this a logical fallacy in formal logic?

It's a kind of tangled up version of affirming the consequent, I think.

If you have two disjoint sets, men and women (i.e. no man is a woman and no woman is a man)* then
Only women have periods
implies
If you have period then you are a woman.

However
If you have a period you are a woman
does not imply
If you are a woman you have a period
(that's affirming the consequent).

*Footnote: of course denial of the premise about disjoint sets is pretty much the starting point of the TRA position, so they won't be impressed by any of this. Conversely, from my point of view, since their starting premise - TWAW - is wrong, their arguments suffer from good ole "ex falsio quodlibet" (anything you want follows from a falsehood).

Or, as Dr. Johnson put it (on seeing two women yelling at one another from opposite tenament blocks) "I fear they will never agree, for they are arguing from different premises."

Cara! Thank you! I don't quite grasp all that, but it was beautifully put.

It also affirms what I have been quietly thinking to myself lately which is that we need to reintroduce formal logic to the curriculum.

I learned a little. now obviously forgotten, but I am convinced that it has helped my critical thinking more generally.

Truth table for p -> q

p q | p -> q
------
T T | T
T F | F
F T | T
F F | T

Truth table for q -> p
p q | q -> p
------
T T | T
T F | T
F T | F
F F | T

Of course unpacking "women menstruate" involves predicate logic too. Which is beyond the scope of my keyboard skills, but roughly speaking

The universal
All women have XX chromosomes
implies
If Kate is a woman then Kate has XX chromosomes

whereas the only statement
Only women menstruate
is more complicatedly a conditional nested inside the quantifier, and implies
For all individuals (if this individual menstruates, then this individual is a woman)
(note that it's flipped the direction of the if-then arrow: hence my comment about affirming the consequent). Anyhow this in turn implies (instantiation)
If Kate menstruates, Kate is a woman.

The actual proof would take a bit of finessing and a few more lines.

But many of the TRAs supposed "counter-examples" are in fact instances of them "affirming the consequent". And equally importantly, they just don't get the difference between soundness (the rules don't generate internal inconsistencies) and truth of its premises.

Many of them can't get their heads round the fact that their elaborately constructed arguments fall at the first hurdle if one does not accept TWAW.

(Conversely, the Labour leadership candidate who said "well of course this convicted TW sex offender should go in a women's prison, because she is a woman" may look like an example of a reductio ad absurdum of her TWAW premise to us, but looks both sound and truth-generating to the politician. If you don't buy that the end state truly is self-evidently barking mad, then it can't be used as a reductio).

Ffs if I hear one more time that saying that only women have periods is the same as saying if you don’t have periods you aren’t a woman I’ll fucking explode

Me too, because apart from anything its the kind of thing you say if you believe that women who have had a hysterectomy or gone through menopause are somehow magically free of the impact of periods.

The only people who never have to worry about periods are men, because if you are a woman, the absence of a period also has significance.

But lets just pretend that menopause, breastfeeding, periods and pregnancy are discrete phenomena that can happen to anyone. Why acknowledge that the person who doesn't have access to sanitary protection probably also needs help accessing contraception. After don't want to hurt any feelings!

Many of them can't get their heads round the fact that their elaborately constructed arguments fall at the first hurdle if one does not accept TWAW.

Well yes, precisely.
"Our starting point is that TWAW"
"Well my starting point is reality, so we're not going to agree"

Another reason to count JK Rowling as a fabulous human being!

She wrote this 10/6/20 (yesterday for me)

J.K. Rowling Writes about Her Reasons for Speaking out on Sex and Gender Issues

www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-rowling-writes-about-her-reasons-for-speaking-out-on-sex-and-gender-issues/

Starts...

“This isn’t an easy piece to write, for reasons that will shortly become clear, but I know it’s time to explain myself on an issue surrounded by toxicity. I write this without any desire to add to that toxicity.”

Recommend a read for JKR.

I read that there's quite a dark underbelly to the Harry Potter subculture - and there is a subculture based around the books totally unconnected to JKR herself. Certain interest groups have used the fantasy alternative universe to groom vulnerable children as I understand it.

You clearly don't understand anything about the Harry Potter fandom at all. I'm not sure what conspiracy you're trying to alude to but it's a subculture of talented writers and artists.

I read some of the fanfic a few years ago. It was full of thinly disguised paedophilia - i.e. Snape and Harry (big favourite) having sex in the dungeon and so on.

There are literally thousands of HP fanfic that is not even romantic in nature. 'Thinly veiled pedophilia' must make a fraction of fanfic.

Also you must have had to search for Snape and Harry stories, that's not 'mainstream' fan fic or fan websites? On a fan site that specialised in explicit stories? All the common and well-known HP fanfic websites don't allow stories above a 15 rating. I.e no explicit sex/graphic violence and are very strict on this.

Sorry if off topic, had to stand up for Harry Potter fanfiction. JK herself has given her blessing for people to use her characters.

I am (obviously) a HP fan and also highly critical of her as an author - largely ignored her as a person because she is an individual that is separate to her art.

I read her letter and thought it was well articulated. I'm glad she is in a privileged enough position that she can manage the backlash.

I am interested to see what specifically there is to counter in the letter.

"Our starting point is that TWAW"

If only somebody could explain what a woman is without reference to sex or sexist stereotypes...

Well yeah. Ex falso quodlibet.