Just when there is support for JRK...another actor...sigh...

[Pudmyboy]

From my Yahoo feed; honestly what is it with these people?
The Independent
Fantastic Beasts star Katherine Waterston says trans rights message felt ‘important to communicate’ after JK Rowling controversy
Louis Chilton
Sat, 24 July 2021, 9:27 am
Katherine Waterston, one of the leads of the Fantastic Beasts franchise, has addressed her decision to speak out in support of trans rights.
The actor, who plays the witch Tina Goldstein in the Harry Potter spin-off series, shared a post on Instagram the day after JK Rowling returned a prestigious human rights award.
Rowling gave back the Robert F Kennedy Human Rights Ripple of Hope Award last August, after the foundation’s president denounced the author’s anti-trans comments. Rowling had published a blog listing “five reasons for being worried about the new trans activism”.
Waterston then shared a Guardian article to her Instagram story with the headline: “Trans women pose no threat to cis women, but we pose a threat to them if we make them outcasts.”
Various parts were circled and underlined in red, including the sentence: “Sorry, you can’t be a feminist if you’re not for everyone’s human rights, notably other women’s human rights.”
Speaking to The Independent in a new interview, Waterston reflected on the post, saying: “Because I was associated with Fantastic Beasts, it felt important to communicate my position.
“One wondered if they might be grouped in with other people’s views by association.”
Waterston’s latest film, The World to Come, is in UK cinemas now.

Watson was the one who kindly let women know it was OK for us women to wear heels or flats. 🙄 Gosh, I'd waited so long for someone to give me permission!

I can understand this actor's fear of being tainted by association and wanting to avoid being threatened and vilified by the vicious and ignorant online. Not everyone is as brave or principled or as unassailable as JKR. It's sad to see, but the only silencing being attempted goes the other way, doesn't it?

She oversteps when trying to impose her definition of feminism on the world, though. That's not on. She is entitled to her own views and her own version, but not to impose them on others. This attitude is where the problems began, surely?

"I feel like a woman trapped in a man's body." That must be difficult and painful for you - I sympathise.
"I present as a woman in public." Cool, wear what you like; I'm often in trousers.
"Everyone has to agree that I am really a woman and give me access to all the particular rights and protections only granted to women." Those special protections are there for good reasons and were hard won. They will not be given up without a struggle.

The frustrating thing is that she clearly has no clue what she is talking about.

Meanwhile she lives in a country where access to birth control is tenuous and women are presented with a bill after they give birth, but where people think they have a right to carry a gun in a supermarket.

It’s not surprising that Americans get a bit confused when they talk about rights.

@Cheshirewife

I find many of the responses on this thread genuinely abhorrent.

You are perfectly entitled to disagree with KW’s opinion. However, she has every right to hold and voice that opinion. The constant threads trying to silence people are ignorant at best and actively malevolent at worst.

Hey, what? You’re deliberately lying here. Discussing what someone has said is not “trying to silence” them. You must know that perfectly well.

@Cheshirewife

I find many of the responses on this thread genuinely abhorrent.

You are perfectly entitled to disagree with KW’s opinion. However, she has every right to hold and voice that opinion. The constant threads trying to silence people are ignorant at best and actively malevolent at worst.

I very much doubt that this thread will have any impact on KW. It’s really not clear how it would silence her. No threats to her personally or her livelihood.

However her views are ignorant. Women are concerned about MEN. I could explain at length why, but really it should be obvious.

Proposed legislation changes and actual policies in the U.K. make it impossible to recognise the protected characteristic of sex. Women need sex based rights regardless of how they or anyone else identifies.

America is a different country with a different culture and much more limited equalities legislation, mainly because they are fundamentally driven by individualism. Hence also their attitude to healthcare, guns and employment rights. The politics of the U.K. and US are not interchangeable.

I loved all these actors. Really did. I live in hope they will grow a spine. But they will mostly all betray her before the end.

But some won't.

Hold on.

Trying to silence her??!!

By quoting what she wrote on an open chat board surely we're doing the opposite.

I wouldn't have known about this otherwise!

So for silencing, read. In fact. Sharing her views with s wider audience.

The association thing is so weak.

Anyone who works with anyone ever naturally shares all their views?

Bollocks.

Oh, but Nice Gerbil, you only have to look at the vilification of politicians like Corbyn to see how having ever shared a debating platform with anyone means you espouse all your fellow panellists' extreme views!

It's a wonder anyone ever dare turn up for a current affairs programme.

To see who's attempting to silence whom, we could just ask ourselves which is epithet that most commonly follows the demand "Shut up, ", I guess. 🤷🏼‍♀️

If some of these responses are 'abhorrent' what's the word for wishing someone a pipe bomb in the post?

merrymouse
I do wonder how aware of the differences between UK and US law many of these commenters are. If they assume it's the same here as in America I can begin to understand why they think we're such meanies for any pushback.

“Sorry, you can’t be a feminist if you’re not for everyone’s human rights, notably other women’s human rights.”

This is the kind of thing you say when human rights are a meme that you will never need, not specific legislation that (at personal cost) can enable equal participation in society.

This equality for everyone line about feminism gets trotted out all the time.
It might be what you think feminism is, but it's not a universal description and feminists don't get to gatekeep other feminists opinions either.
You can think that and I can think otherwise.

This equality for everyone line about feminism gets trotted out all the time.

“So for example Katherine we need to be able to talk about the impact of pregnancy on women’s employment rights… oh you have no right to paid maternity leave… So for example Katherine access to contraception is vital to women’s ability to participate equally in society…sorry forgot in the US that can be controlled by an employer… So Katherine, a clear comparator would be essential in an unfair dismissal claim… sorry forgot that isn’t really a concept in your country… So Katherine human rights and equalities legislation, let’s get back to basics…”

To be fair though I suspect views in the US are heavily influenced by the fact that the worst elements of the Republican Party are using this as a wedge issue.

@merrymouse

“Sorry, you can’t be a feminist if you’re not for everyone’s human rights, notably other women’s human rights.”

This is the kind of thing you say when human rights are a meme that you will never need, not specific legislation that (at personal cost) can enable equal participation in society.

The utter idiocy is that:

If you support this position you are excluding other women and overturning their human rights to give male people additional special rights.

Even if you truly believe you are talking about those people as women, it is still ridiculous to claim that you are better than other feminists because you care about other women's human rights -

while endorsing policy that excludes and harms women in prison, women in rape crisis centres, women in refuges, women of minority cultures and faiths, women with some disabilities, women with a history of trauma and violence, in fact women who lack the privilege and naivety a woman has to stand and make truly stupid statements like this.

It’s also not clear how trans people are helped if they are denied a legal framework that recognises a clear definition of ‘trans’ and the ability to talk about conflicting rights.

The people JKR criticises really, really couldn’t care less about human rights.

She is dick pandering so people go see her film. I don’t like how all these people are throwing JKR under the bus.

@merrymouse

It’s also not clear how trans people are helped if they are denied a legal framework that recognises a clear definition of ‘trans’ and the ability to talk about conflicting rights.

The people JKR criticises really, really couldn’t care less about human rights.

It honestly leaves me wondering if they have the capacity to understand the words they're using.

“Sorry, you can’t be a feminist if you’re not for everyone’s human rights, notably other women’s human rights.”
This old chestnut. Human rights are for humans, and nobody is trying to overturn them (similar to nobody on this thread was trying to silence anybody. Just because somebody claims something it doesn't mean that it's true).
Women's rights are for women.
Simples.

There is a tendency from some interviewers at the moment to put 'are you now or have you ever been' style 'do you believe TWAW/what is your opinion on JKR' questions to actresses. I've seen it done to established actresses where the question has come out of the blue, has no relevance to the show being promoted, the actress has never (to my knowledge) waded into those waters and is suddenly ambushed with the question. Her answer is then used in the headline and picked up on social media: 'X says trans rights, just when i thought i couldn't love her more, squeeee'.

Interviewers know that any mention of the magic word 'trans' will create a cascade of retweets and likes for their otherwise run-of-the-mill interview.

Interviewers know that any mention of the magic word 'trans' will create a cascade of retweets and likes for their otherwise run-of-the-mill interview.

I agree.

It's interesting that JKR has been expressing clear political views for a long time - notably on Scottish Independence, the Labour leadership and Brexit. However, even though those issues were very contentious, (and deeply personal for many), and I am sure she received plenty of abuse, I can't remember any of the actors in her films being asked about them, or expressing an opinion in the light of her comments.

It's only when she expresses a view on women's rights that people make a serious attempt at cancelling her.

God I hope JKR is ok. This feels so crap and PR-y (sorry too sad to write properly). JKR is definitely a better woman than me

There is a tendency from some interviewers at the moment to ...
If you know that then surely actors/actresses and their agents know it too. They get awkward questions all the time about all sorts of things.
Have they not managed to find a form of words to bat away the trans question?

I am with JKR 100%.
To protect fairness in a competitive world, we need categorisation, otherwise very few would be able to achieve and succeed.
What would be the point, for example, of a children's story-writing competition if there were not age categories? A 14-year-old would always win when pitted against a 7-year-old.
The same applies in sport: a swimmer with one arm will always be beaten by swimmers with two arms, so they're entered in different categories, to make the competition fair.

Do people who state that it's fair for a trans woman to compete against a biological woman also think that the paralympics should be abolished and all athletes, including paralympians, should have to compete in the same games? Clearly, that would be ludicrously unfair, just as men competing in the same weightlifting competition as women would be unfair.

@senua

There is a tendency from some interviewers at the moment to ... If you know that then surely actors/actresses and their agents know it too. They get awkward questions all the time about all sorts of things. Have they not managed to find a form of words to bat away the trans question?

I think the middle aged, established actresses who don't have social media accounts or teenage children or any connection to JKR - as was the case with these - clearly weren't expecting it, and if the interviewer has an axe to grind I suppose he'll keep pressing till he gets something he can use.

I've seen actresses hounded off social media and even out of jobs for expressing support for JKR or not wholeheartedly embracing trans ideology when prompted to do so, so I'd imagine PR policy now is to either keep schtum or, if they're still on social media, to actively go down the route of courting the teenage trans fandom with the associated surge in love hearts and followers.