LA Times calls JKR transphobic

[custardcreme]

Lots of pushback in the comments

twitter.com/latimes/status/1476661193997631492?s=20

At some time JKR will surely sue to protect her reputation.

Predictably, there's one Tweeter quoting her comment about permitting access to women's spaces to any man who says he feels like a woman will allow all men entry. She's correct, of course, but this is cited as evidence of her 'transphobia'. The other 'evidence' seems to be a US senator who is not convinced by discrimination laws being based on people's perceptions that discrimination has taken place, no evidence needed. This is similar to the UK's non-crime hate incidents. He quotes JKR asking for consideration of other views. And then there's someone saying Jo is racist because of how some people interpret her characters in her books. Because she's clearly 100% in control of the imaginations of people she's never met.

The LA Times are confident that she wouldn't be able to succeed in a defamation case in a US court. They then assume that this applies to the rest of the world, that somehow other countries' laws must follow those of the US.

There are laws/rules about where you can take out litigation, I'm sure but I don't know what they are. Our defamation laws in the UK are particularly harsh I'm told.

It is appalling how they distort information to try and paint her as transphobic.
This is not journalism but men's rights activism

She has an awful lot of money to fight her case at just the right time and in the right way.

What she is going through is awful, but she is exactly who women need. She's not bigoted, unkind or extreme. She's factual, honest and hasn't bought into the lies.

She can afford to wait to defend herself until the whole 'biology doesn't matter brigade' have been given enough rope to gang themselves.

The question is, what do the LA Times get out of it, posting things like that such as anti-transgender views and transphobic without quotation marks? The comments below those two tweets highlight that most people see through it.

So what’s in it for them? It certainly doesn’t make them look like journalists, because they - the publication as a whole - have taken a position on something as fact instead of opinion. “Rowling IS transphobic”. The only reason to do this is to continue that lie, which is to continue to deliberately damage her reputation. They could have just posted a neutral statement about Rowling in relation to the reunion. But instead they have made a decision that Rowling is transphobic and they’re happy to say it because they presumably believe they are taking a righteous position and openly expressing it benefits them. Who are they trying to please?

It's only a matter of time for these fuckers now.

I really hope she sues one day. It's a joke. Although I did see this which goes through the allegedly transphobic comments and what she actually said, which is in no way transphobic. Instead she's a firm protector of women's rights and trans rights are not women's rights.

That ratio is amazing. Post after post asking the LA Times to state, specifically, what JKR said which is so transphobic. Will they? Doubt it.

One particular exchange in the comments shows the batshittery and the warping of evidence and facts which seems to be a common theme by those who say she's transphobic -

'Trans women are male at birth"
No, they're not. See this is what bigots have always done. You lie about the facts and then say the facts support your bigotry. Transgender women are AMAB: ASSIGNED Male at Birth. They were incorrectly identified as male.'

'Uhh no! I'm quite certain the "assignment" was done at conception, but seems like you want to have an argument or fight with an ovum and spermatozoon.'

'I mean we don't know how integrated gender dysphoria is with DNA, but yes, potentially they were transgender at conception.'

That poster is marvellous and very clear. Sadly it is doubtful that he detractors will bother to read it it, or will accuse her of lying because they know her 'real thoughts'

Time and again I am struck by how much the TRA movement behave like an abusive partner in a relationship .

Her

Was going to mention that exchange too, Wait. Absolutely batshit! Every time you think you've seen the stupidest take on that site, someone tops it.

At some time JKR will surely sue to protect her reputation.

My thoughts too.

My guess is she's never wanted it to get to that point and to be seen as vexatious. Optics are important here as much as legal out comes. Even if she wins a legal case she could lose the war if a case were to trigger a public backlash against her and encourage MPs to change the law in response. Or for her to become used as a political football by various political parties to worsen the already existing culture war.

For that reason it makes more sense for her to bid time pending outcome of other legal cases in the uk, which will then strengthen her hand if she does decide to go down this root. It also gives an opportunity to judge changing public opinion and the level of support she has.

She's aware of legal ramifications stemming from any case she brings as well as the pressures on her personally from doing it and the Barbara Streisand effect it will create from such a high profile case those.

Hence why she possibly has not done so yet.

But i do think it will reach a point where she's left with no choice. And she will make a move at a point where public frustration with the culture war hits a high with moderates.

The interesting reflection on this was Nancy Kelly's really very obvious avoidance of accusing JKR of being transphobic. The way she answered was noteworthy. I found that very telling and it did make me wonder if discreet words behind the scenes have been voiced indirectly.

So I do think it will come. But only after she feels that it will make a positive change rather than risk making the whole situation worse.

She's smart. And she can afford to pick a moment to her best advantage. If she brings a case its important but the timing and choice of defendant is perhaps even more so.

Atm i do think she is still better letting the public work it out for themselves and to do the social media challenging though.

There's also an aspect that if JRK sues, she will be demonised as a millionaire using her vast resources to stifle ordinary people and is why the TRA's have picked her to be made an example of. If it had been someone else, they would have been accused of bullying but any comment from JKR is dismissed as 'the tears from a millionaire'. Her (and her children's) address being publicised by activists who stood in front of her house to intimidate her should have been universally condemned. It wasn't.

Of course she should sue. The libel and harassment are off the scale. I suspect she hasn't because it'll just be yet another stick to beat her with.

I feel so sorry for JKR. Such a formidable woman. Firstly the victim of domestic abuse. Now the victim of very public abuse.

I guess the difference here is it’s not ordinary people, it’s the LA Times.

Just by her courage in holding the line and letting them come for her she is moving mountains. All she needs to do is let the general public see what happens to a woman who says no and they are seeing. They're seeing the total lack of logic and fact. They're seeing the intolerance and hatred of anyone thwarting. They're seeing the behaviour and issues with boundaries. Opinion is shifting on this alone.

My respect for her is enormous.

You do occasionally see a Twitter no-mark wearing it as a badge of honour that JKR has if not threatened libel then somehow otherwise caused them to delete a tweet or something.

These people are so stupid though that rather than consider how their behaviour caused the situation and reflecting how it landed them in actual legal trouble, it makes them more convinced they are in the right and being unjustly persecuted.

I'm certain that if she (rightly) sued the many publications who have stated as fact that she is transphobic or referred to her 'transphobic' views (without the inverted commas), it would be spun as the 'liberal media being silenced by a right wing millionaire' or some such nonsense. She'll be pillaried whatever she does. The fact that the general public are now asking very publically 'hang on, what is this you're saying?' to the media is amazing - the tide truly is turning .

I cannot say enough how much I respect her - she's speaking up for the women who cannot speak up, at great personal cost.

It is raising public awareness of the battshittery.

I think she knew well what would happen but it hasn't yet reached critical mass.

The TRAs will bring themselves down.

Some creep saying she is transphobic because she interviewed a detransitioner. Gasp! What a giveaway though. The ratio is like 50 : 1. Brilliant.

Whats really depressing is how newspapers undermine public trust in newspapers by spouting vexatious defamation without backing it up with evidence of why they call someone those things.

It really underlines the poor standards.

@RedToothBrush

Whats really depressing is how newspapers undermine public trust in newspapers by spouting vexatious defamation without backing it up with evidence of why they call someone those things.

It really underlines the poor standards.

I agree. In an era of fake news and Conspiracy Theories 'R' Us, the importance of news sources that are factual, who distinguish between journalists and columnists, who label opinion as Opinion - well that importance just cannot be overstated.

Sadly, people will not pay for news now, so there is an element of chasing clicks online. I am really saddened by ex-newspapers who could no longer finance printruns, go online, and by becoming dependent on the advertising revenue brought by clicks started publishing this vexatious defamation in desperation.

Depressing and angering.

There's also an aspect that if JRK sues, she will be demonised as a millionaire using her vast resources to stifle ordinary people and is why the TRA's have picked her to be made an example of. If it had been someone else, they would have been accused of bullying but any comment from JKR is dismissed as 'the tears from a millionaire'.

That's true. It puts her in a difficult position. Then again, everything she does is deliberately misrepresented. If she doesn't sue, it will be "Why didn't she sue? She knew she was going to lose."

Remember when all those people posted pornography under her Ickabog thread on Twitter. She later tweeted "I ignored porn aimed at children" - meaning, "I didn't respond to the provocation". Trans activists deliberately misrepresented that to mean "I did nothing about porn aimed at children". She did threaten legal action on that occasion, I think, and forced an apology.

But I feel increasingly confident that the vast majority of people are sympathetic to Rowling. She is so obviously a good person: donates millions to charity, donates proceedings of children's book to NHS, get a whole generation of kids reading, does amazing acts of kindness (like engaging in correspondence with Evanna Lynch who later played Luna Lovegood, helping her overcome anorexia). There is almost nothing bad you can say about Rowling.

And you can see it in the responses to the LA Times tweet. Overwhelmingly supportive of Rowling. The same when it comes to that stupid Independent article by the woman who says she feels let down by Rowling: the Twitter responses are almost all pro-Rowling.

People have had enough.