The Witch Trials of JK Rowling

[CrossPurposes]

An in-depth intervietw with JK Rowling by Megan Phelps-Roper coming next week: twitter.com/meganphelps/status/1625465141046247425?s=20

I did kind of agree with Marriot when I listened to the first couple (wanted more interview), but on balance I’ve decided I like the social history stuff and it does add a lot.

And is of course part of the point of the podcast!

It's fascinating. I've never heard J. K. Rowling speak. She comes across as warm, unstarry, and very thoughtful.

And yes, drawing on the advent of tumblr and 4chan does give a different perspective.

Up until now, it's mostly been about maybe a bit of trans humanism, big Pharma, fetishism, paedophilia, etc (although there was apparently a ton of fetishism and paedophilia on tumblr. It's never far away, like a rat.) So seeing the clear creation of a cancel culture alongside that, does give a another frame of reference.

It's also interesting to hear her reaction to how her stories created their own knock on worlds. She said something like she was fascinated, but also concerned. Especially as so many people attracted to her books were vulnerable.

The responsibility must have felt immense.

Does anyone know how many more episodes there are?

There are reports that there'll be 7 episodes.

Thanks nauticant. It's going to be very thorough, in that case.

Brilliant stuff.

but have already seen Contrapoints on social media claiming they were misled into taking part/ misrepresented/ Megan's a meanie

Crazy, isn't it? I thought Contrapoints made comments much like he does in his YouTube videos, but of course he is under threat of cancellation presumably for speaking to the wrong person. Daft.

I was lucky enough to hear her speak in person about 10 years ago at a literary festival. I wasn't a HP fan, I was too old to have been part of the frenzy. I just went along because I thought it would be cool to hear someone so successful speak.

I was blown away by what a lovely person she was. The audience were on their feet cheering when she walked in and her comment was that she was the luckiest person, because how many people get to write a book and have people respond to their characters in that way. I thought she was someone you'd really value having as a friend, she was so down to earth and kind. The kind of person who hasn't got a bad bone in her body. Which is why she's such a good person to speak up really because if you sit and pay attention to her properly, it's hard to think badly of her. I mean, people do, but they generally aren't engaging with her actual words.

Contrapoints is the perfect example of what a waiste of time it is to talk to these people. So many think contrapoints videos are great but it's just skits and bits and "arguments" that fall apart the moment you start asking questions.

The second you talk to them "they were misled" or "misrepresented" because none of their arguments hold up.

Contrapoints is a strange one - I quite liked ‘him’ but ‘she’s’ a lot less likeable.
Shame all the older videos were scrubbed.

Has anyone else noticed that Contrapoints video about AGP is basically over an hour that can be summed up as ‘AGP is probably real but who cares, certainly not me!’ and then the video called ‘Shame’ is ostensibly about comphet for Lesbians but seems to really about AGP (and CPs shameful thing is not being the HSTS ‘trutrans’ ‘straight transwoman’ type that CP would desperately like to be, eg Blair White or Theryn Meyer)

Obvs as an outsider it seems a bit pointless - a man who changed his appearance to look like a woman isn’t actually a woman and I wouldn’t want either CP or Blair to work in a women’s only service so it makes no odds to me how males come to believe they are trans, at least not from a feminist perspective (although I do care about the boys caught up in it all from a parent perspective).
It’s just interesting to see the internal hierarchies in action inside CPs head.

The only thing I have real sympathy for CP about is Philosophy Tube basically stealing CPs identity and YouTube audience. Reminds of when the kid I sat next to in primary school copied all my drawings but on a much bigger scale.

I can’t actually watch any of CP or PTs output directly (too cringe) and have to watch King Critical or Sitch & Adam response streams instead.

Chapter 4: TERF Wars The Witch Trials of J.K. Rowling

Society & Culture

The movement for trans rights hits its stride in the early 2010s, but encounters fierce resistance from an unexpected source. J.K. Rowling watches the battle unfold with mounting unease.

podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-witch-trials-of-j-k-rowling/id1671691064

Haven't had a chance to listen yet but looking forward to it.

I've just been listening to Helen Lewis in episode 4 with growing disappointment.

'I've said I believe trans women are women'.

'There might be times when [trans] comes into conflict with other identities' – (so on Helen's fence the word 'woman' doesn't refer to my actual, factual, biological sex but my 'identity', apparently, and must be balanced against others).

'I do think there's a completely reasonable point to say if you are a trans woman who has been convicted of a non-violent crime is it going to be a huge risk to your safety to be put in a men's prison? Yes it is. And the conclusion that Britain has come to is that people with a GRC... should be in the female estate'.

No, sorry Helen, Britain has not concluded. Not by a long way.

I thought it was a good episode although I totally don't agree with Helen that TWAW. It was said in a strange way which makes me wonder if she still thinks the same. I also thought they did not highlight the discomfort of one group trumping the discomfort of another. Many trans men don't use bathrooms because they can't use the urinals. I just thought third space third space third space

Helen Lewis? (I haven’t listened to the episode yet)

Shes a funny one. Incredibly smart, wrote the book “Difficult Women”, gives every impression of being GC but panders to TWAW.

I felt like today was slightly frustrating as it ended just as it got to the interesting part! Much surface rehashing of TRA vs TERF views with not much actual depth to it.

I felt todays episode was a good set up for what’s to come. Shows how much thought and research she put into formulating a stance - not just spouting hate on the basis of a tweet (“JKR hates trans people” I’m looking at you).

I liked the balance

All the splinters in her arse must be really sore.

First and foremost, each to their own and a person's preference is their business ect.

I've not studied what jk has said, so for those who are more knowledgeable than me, is jk correct in what she has said about Tran's issues?

I thought it was good! It gave a balanced overview for people who haven’t been eyeball deep in this fight for years to understand the core arguments, and it also showed that contrary to what we see from Twitter and the screaming activists who turn up to protest feminist events, there’s actually a nuance of views from trans people. For example, Caitlin Jenner doesn’t approve of TW competing in women’s sport, and Dr Erica was not happy about the way gender clinicians are treating children.

A lot of time was given to JKR to explain how she came to her point of view and decision to speak out. I am wondering if we’re going to hear more from the transactivists next time as I’d like Megan to ask them what exactly it is that JKR has said that constitutes transphobia.

Have you read her essay? It’s on her website. Whether you agree with her core arguments (that trans people are vulnerable and need to be protected under the law from violence and discrimination, and that sex differences are real and are the reason women are discriminated against, so sex segregation does matter in some key circumstances) is up to you.

Why not listen to the podcasts and make up your own mind?

I’m loving it. I feel like a lot of the criticisms e.g. that piece from Marriott in The Times are a fundamental misunderstanding of this type of podcast form. It’s not ‘an interview with JKR’ - it’s a journalistic long-form investigation into a contentious issue- it’s social history. It’s fascinating.

I’m also not disappointed in people like Helen Lewis saying TWAW, or whatever Contrapoints has said. I think this is actually the strength of this format. It’s giving and allowing nuance. I thought Helen Lewis summarised the position generally of the women’s rights campaigners very well. (Although I was surprised by the ‘conclusion’ about trans in the female prison estate.)

It’s all incredibly thought provoking.

I’m wondering if JKR will touch on the ‘middle-aged moment/fat fingers’ where it looked like she was making a statement with likes on Twitter, before retracting via the PR person. She touched on it briefly in this episode (‘some people were begging me not to’) but I am fascinated by what actually went on then. I’m quite prepared to be disappointed tho.

What a smart woman JKR is, to choose this project. I’m wondering how many other approaches she’s had and turned down- too many to count, I’d assume.

If it means so little to you that you cannot be bothered to read an essay, why do you care?

You could just go read it, listen to the podcasts and make your own mind up?

Like we used to in the olden days.

Same way people rely on experts perspectives, e.g. Egyptology from an Egypt historian ect, to understand all the details and specifics that I may not understand myself.

Especially for example some academics can have a statement or set of information and are able to write a whole 10k essay, yet for me id just get puzzled etc

and as I like Harry potter, it helps me understand the authors perspectives better, especially when their are debates about how can people like the e.g. Art that a person makes but not the artist etc

Here you go, it's not too long:

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