Jk trans character and Robert Galbraith

[TheTamingOfTheresa]

I’ve been speaking out in support of JK on social media but there’s an avalanche of criticism of her latest Trans murderer character plus her using the name Robert Galbraith which apparently was the name of some historical anti gay figure. What do people think is the best way to counter this?

@KayakingOnDown

I see an independent book seller in Australia is no longer stocking JKR's books now because of her transphobia.

Story in the Independent.

That's a good business decision when her books are always in the bestseller lists

But now, she has an albeit short passage where a murderer dresses up as a woman. I think it's this last part that feels like a bit of a dig.

The offending line. Doesn't say what kind of wig it was. A woman's coat, that's it. It was a disguise.

[quote Purpledaisychain]@JaneAustenWouldHateThis

Do you think that being transgender is a walk in the park?

As I explained in a later post, JK Rowling has called out the transgender community in quite a few twitter posts. And I don't disagree with her in terms of keeping women's spaces private etc. But now, she has an albeit short passage where a murderer dresses up as a woman. I think it's this last part that feels like a bit of a dig. The way that it is being reported in the press isn't helping.[/quote]
She wrote this book a long time before she became twitter terfwitch number one.

It is really just ad hominem.

If literally any other author included this anecdote involving a cross dressing criminal it would be not an issue.

Because JK is a “transphobe” the action is viewed differently.

This is what the whole “dog whistle” thing really is about. Claiming there is a hidden agenda and therefore innocuous statements or actions mean Something else.

I actually think to an extent this critique has some validity. If someone I know has been abusive towards women starts talking about scientific research showing women are more emotional or whatever, I will be suspicious that person has ulterior motives.

The main problem with this Way of thinking is it has a chilling And discriminatory effect on free expression. JK is uncancellable, but after this example, any woman who has talked about sex based rights in the past will feel unable to include any aspect of Gender nonconformity in artistic work they produce for fear of losing their livelihoods.

It would be better in my view to let the work stand. I also think it’s self defeating because almost anyone who learns the facts in this case would Agree with JK.

If literally any other author included this anecdote involving a cross dressing criminal it would be not an issue.

Exactly.

I m sorry if my comments caused any offence. When I heard about the row I didn't know anything about the book as I hadn't read it. I know she's had hate tweets about her essay on transgender issues and I just thought she might have thought twice about writing anything which would ruffle more feathers as she's been through enough really!
I'm a huge fan and I agree with her point of view about it all : I don't mean to cause any offense to anyone!
I love the new book. I don't have an axe to grind at all !

@The80sweregreat

I m sorry if my comments caused any offence. When I heard about the row I didn't know anything about the book as I hadn't read it. I know she's had hate tweets about her essay on transgender issues and I just thought she might have thought twice about writing anything which would ruffle more feathers as she's been through enough really! I'm a huge fan and I agree with her point of view about it all : I don't mean to cause any offense to anyone! I love the new book. I don't have an axe to grind at all !

@CodenameVillanelle

So? It still comes across as a dig, more because of the way the media is portraying the book though.

It is a bit provocative of her to have such a character when she has already received so much hate on twitter etc about her views and her lengthy essay on the subject

Her essay was about the reality of male violence and the needs of female victims of male violence to receive help in recovering from their trauma in a female-only therapeutic environment.

It was not about crossdressing. It was not about the trans community and it certainly wasn't about JK Rowling denying trans people exist or expressing the least negative feelings about them.

It was about female erasure as a result of an extreme ideology pushed by a small number of activists and how certain policies they advocate for are harmful to women.

Her essay was about the needs, the rights and the feelings of female people in the UK right now. That's it.

And it isn't provocative to include a sentence about a suspect dressing up in a wig and a women's coat in order to disguise himself. We keep being told that being trans is about much more than wearing feminine-coded clothing and that doing so is never a disguise for nefarious purposes. Then there's no problem here.

P.S. I am somewhat bemused by all the handwaving about how crossdressers aren't really trans on this thread, how they can be but don't have to be etc.

Here is the Stonewall definition:

TRANS

An umbrella term to describe people whose gender is not the same as, or does not sit comfortably with, the sex they were assigned at birth.

Trans people may describe themselves using one or more of a wide variety of terms, including (but not limited to) transgender, transsexual, gender-queer (GQ), gender-fluid, non-binary, gender-variant, crossdresser, genderless, agender, nongender, third gender, bi-gender, trans man, trans woman,trans masculine, trans feminine and neutrois.

There is no qualification here. Stonewall counts crossdressers as trans precisely because they do not conform to the sex stereotypes and sex role stereotypes associated with one's sex. That defines all crossdressers as trans, regardless of whether the individual in question claims a trans identity or not.

And that crossdressers are most definitely considered to be trans by trans rights organisations is evident from the countless policies we have discussed here and elsewhere that always include the rights of crossdressers to access opposite sex facilities. Including a great many that explicitly grant this right even to those who crossdress for erotic pleasure.

Charlie, I've explained my thread a few times on here.

[quote Purpledaisychain]@CodenameVillanelle

So? It still comes across as a dig, more because of the way the media is portraying the book though.[/quote]
So what? She's not responsible for how the media has chosen to misrepresent her. Sheesh.

The only thing this proves is that if people are determined to be offended they'll find a way to ensure they are.

It doesn't matter if they have read the book or not.

The opportunity to jump on the bandwagon of righteous indignation and virtue signal to the TwitterVerse is irresistible.

No matter that the irony is lost on them that while they scream out "you're literally killing us" whilst furiously typing RIP hashtags and jabbing the like and retweet button of equally morally dubious tweets faster than a budgie pecking at its own reflection.

So what if she actually had done what they said? I remember Salman Rushdie, he had put in sections in a book which were highly offensive to Muslims. So what? There's no rule which says fiction mustn't offend anyone.

Do we only want literature which doesn't offend anyone to be produced? The bookshelves would be almost empty if so.

[quote Purpledaisychain]@JaneAustenWouldHateThis

Do you think that being transgender is a walk in the park?

As I explained in a later post, JK Rowling has called out the transgender community in quite a few twitter posts. And I don't disagree with her in terms of keeping women's spaces private etc. But now, she has an albeit short passage where a murderer dresses up as a woman. I think it's this last part that feels like a bit of a dig. The way that it is being reported in the press isn't helping.[/quote]

Could you remind everyone what she said in those Twitter posts.

JK Rowling has called out the transgender community in quite a few twitter posts.

Tbh, Rowling's said very little about the trans community as a whole. Her twitter posts very rightly call out 'tran rights activists' who seem determined to get rid of the word Woman and ground down the lines of safeguarding/protection of single sex spaces.

I don't find this to be a dig at the trans community, neither do the majority of trans people I know.

The ones who are raging at the moment over one sentence in a 900 page book are exactly the types that she raised concerns about in the statement on her website and exactly the type that need to be challenged.

JK Rowling has called out the transgender community in quite a few twitter posts. To be fair anyne using the term called out has a combative mind set, so may be easily set off by those who twisted what JKR did post... and wouldn't bother going back to the original, in all of its context!

No reply then. Funny that.

I was very interested to see the Twitter posts that "called out the transgender community".

They don't exist do they?

Back to reality then..

I find it really odd, the amunt of people who have seemingly accepted that 'male crossdresser' means transwoman. This seems barmy to me? Along with how many seem horrified at the suggestion that a male crossdresser would ever be a murderer?! I thought it was quite well known that crossdressing was overrepresented when it comes to prison stats?

But moreso, this conflation of crossdresser, and transwoman is my point. One would think that transwomen would want to be distanced as much as possible from those who simply wear 'womens clothes' as it makes them feel sexy?! As thats surely NOT the same as someone who is trans? But no, I have seen screeches of transphobia many times over the past few days, for speaking about (hate the word, but 'cis') male crossdressers...weird.

I also reckon this was how she stepped into the debate. Was researching for her book. Discovered the whole TRA stuff. Crossdressing and 'trans' seemed similar, questions raised, logical conclusions and all. Bam, gender critical. As soon as anyone who is being genuine about it thinks about the topic properly, they come to the same place, lets be honest. Once you go from just repeating mantras, to questioning, its over.

[quote Purpledaisychain]@CodenameVillanelle

So? It still comes across as a dig, more because of the way the media is portraying the book though.[/quote]
Great book recommendation for you - Dr Jessica Taylor, 'Why Women Are Blamed For Everything'. Most illuminating.

@Aposterhasnoname

The murderer in her books is not trans. They are a man who disguised himself as a woman. Anyone who compares the character to a trans woman is tacitly admitting that they see trans women as men disguised as women. Sounds pretty transphobic to me.

This is the best way I think. Though it has just turned into radio silence, then comments elsewhere saying the same things, from what I have seen. They cannot argue back. They know you have a point. So they just pointedly ignore the point, then pretend they have not seen your post and continue bolloxing somewhere else

If the book is transphobic, then the reader/complainer thinks a crossdressing man is the same as a transwoman. Which is transphobic in itself. Simple.

I know stonewall like to lump them all together. I doubt actual transwomen would be too thrilled though to be told they are crossdressing men tbh

@MillyMollyFarmer

If literally any other author included this anecdote involving a cross dressing criminal it would be not an issue.

Exactly.

Off the top of my head, PD James did; Dorothy L. Sayers did in a short story; Josephine Tey and Georgette Heyer made it the entire plotline of at least one book each. It’s a well known device in detective fiction.

.. One would think that transwomen would want to be distanced as much as possible from those who simply wear 'womens clothes' as it makes them feel sexy..

I bet there's a name for that.

(mischievous smiley)

Where are those twitters that "called out the trans community"?

This is pathetic!

Well my copy of the novel arrived today. The Cormiean Strike novels got me through lockdown

In my view, far better written than Harry Potter. I’ll report back when I get through the 900 pages.