Judy Blume stands with JK Rowling.

[EmpressaurusOfCats]

Thank fuck…

’“And I love her,” Blume immediately interjects. “I am behind her 100 per cent as I watch from afar.” Blume is referring to the abuse Rowling has received for speaking up in defence of women’s sex-based rights, and given that Blume has faced repeated attacks since the 1980s, for her books’ descriptions of adolescent sexuality and puberty, she knows what it’s like to be pilloried as an author.’

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/f5fa77f8-d890-11ed-b1e2-4c4ae98cfe2f?shareToken=d43e7c21e363347fe185b86bbf9c3a6f

Her comments weren't taken out of context. If you read the interview in full (heaven forbid), Hadley provides the context. Hadley says something about how nice it is for once to see a film about ordinary children, who don't have magical powers. She gives Harry Potter as an example, but then adds that she does in fact like Harry Potter and JK Rowling. Judy Blume then responds: "I love her. I am behind her 100% as I watch from afar."

So Judy Blume volunteered her support for JKR. Hadley Freeman didn't even say, "So what do you think of the way JK Rowling has been treated?" Blume voluntarily came out with a clear and entirely unequivocal statement of support.

If Blume had meant "I disagree with JKR's views, but I think she's been treated badly," she could have said so. She didn't. She said "I am behind her 100%."

How can anyone seriously claim that statement means anything other than what it says?

Extreme trans activists have shown themselves to be bullies.
I suspect bullying, or fear of bullying.

Reasonable conclusion.

Ascribing words to people that they haven’t said seems to be your speciality!

Do you get paid for it or is it just a hobby?

And I love her,” Blume immediately interjects. “I am behind her 100 per cent as I watch from afar.” Blume is referring to the abuse Rowling has received for speaking up in defence of women’s sex-based rights, and given that Blume has faced repeated attacks since the 1980s, for her books’ descriptions of adolescent sexuality and puberty, she knows what it’s like to be pilloried as an author.
If you read the article, it doesn't say that she agrees with JKs views, which was what was implied by some, it clearly says that she's referring to abuse sent.
Which is what she was clarifying in order to clear it up for anyone confused.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/f5fa77f8-d890-11ed-b1e2-4c4ae98cfe2f?shareToken=d51b351d2917463f9456b578f6674f68

Have you actually read the thread?

"I just read a book that was wonderfully enlightening to me. It’s called 'Gender Queer.' It’s probably the No. 1 banned book in America right now.... And I learned a lot, and became even more empathetic. That’s what books are all about"—Judy Blume

Maybe having a read of this book could help some people on this thread, there's so much respect for JB here. Once you've got over your dismay.

If you read the article, it doesn't say that she agrees with JKs views, which was what was implied by some, it clearly says that she's referring to abuse sent.

Nonsense. She says "I am behind her 100%." If she'd meant only that she was referring to the abuse, she could have said, "I think it's wrong that she's received so much abuse, but I don't agree with her views on trans people."

She didn't say that. She said "I am behind her 100%." Do you have difficulty in understanding what 100% means? Are you perhaps in need of Rishi Sunak's promised maths lessons?

Why the insults? Instead of worrying about my maths, maybe you are in need of a few reading comprehension lessons?
Or carry on cherry picking what you want to see in the article, selective read all you like if it makes you feel better... doesn't change what was actually said though.

Deenie

Why the insults? Because I am sick to the back teeth of the bad faith shown by trans activists. They simply lie, distort and misrepresent what their opponents say. All the fucking time.

Blume said she supported JKR 100%. That is a perfectly clear and unambiguous statement. It's possible you don't understand that, but I think it's more likely that you do understand it but are pretending that it means something else. There is such a thing as wilful stupidity.

Far be it from the media to misquote, either deliberately or by poor journalistic standards to fit a defined narrative.

Good on JB for clarifying her stance. She similarly has enough money and reputation not to be bullied by anyone. She is simply stating her principles which The Times as she advises misrepresented.

I love her even more. Her books are awesome.

I feel some sympathy with Blume. It wasn't great to make that sentence the headline - it put a huge target on her forehead and with a film coming out (which is presumably the main reason she's giving interviews), the PR team must have been blowing up when they saw it.

I actually think her response is fairly neutral but of course it's being twisted every which way. Ultimately though, it won't save her. There are already odd bods going through her previous tweets looking for other crimes and suggesting she hasn't spoken up enough for the holy T.

The process is the punishment though, and I'm sure other people will watch and be more careful with their words. There's only One Right Way to Think.

And FWIW, I don't see anything in her statement which contradicts her position that she stands with JKR 100%, just that she's against hate and discrimination of vulnerable groups, which is of course exactly the same stance as JKR.

The interview was meant to be about Judy. JKR came up in conversation, Judy spoke up in total support of her, and that became the headline. Judy probably hadn’t banked on that. At 85, I can’t fault her for wanting a quiet life. Those of us who admire JK know that she is NOT anti-trans, she’s pro-women. Judy is also not anti-trans, so she’s clarified her position. She has done this because JK is unfortunately - and very unjustly - viewed as the high priestess of hate by trans rights activists.

Does she?
https://twitter.com/judyblume/status/1647713323830644736

So Judy isn't anti-trans and she doesn't stand with the views of JK Rowling. She just thinks JK Rowling has been criticised a bit much for her anti-trans views.

She will find that there is no 'middle stance'. She has dipped her toe in the water and has found that it is full of sharks. Too late. The rabid mob will never accept anything short of total capitulation, now.
You can't sit on the fence, for this one. Either we women need & deserve our single sex spaces, or we don't. You can't have a 'slightly' single-sex space. It's just simple maths, as Helen Joyce says.

What anti trans views?

So Judy actually supports the sterilisation of and lifelong medicalisation of young people, rapists in female prisons, self exclusion by many females from their own single sex spaces (to name but a few issues with gender ideology) instead of being behind JKR "100%".
She should be ashamed of herself.

What are you actually going on.about?
Talk.about putting words in people's mouths, she didn't say anything of the sort.
She literally said in the article that she stands with JK on that it's not OK to be abused/harassed on line.
That's it.
Then had to clarify because of bullshit like people making up stuff like you or reading/twisting her words.
She didn't mention her views on trans rights until now, and no wonder she put out a statement, I probably would have too!

If she supports gender ideology, she supports all of the things I mentioned. I have also asked you the same question many times which you have always ignored. So how can you support TWAW and also not support the things mentioned?

Care to answer my question regarding JKRs anti Trans views too? Anyone?

This is the quote the OP included from the article:

’“And I love her,” Blume immediately interjects. “I am behind her 100 per cent as I watch from afar.” Blume is referring to the abuse Rowling has received for speaking up in defence of women’s sex-based rights, and given that Blume has faced repeated attacks since the 1980s, for her books’ descriptions of adolescent sexuality and puberty, she knows what it’s like to be pilloried as an author.’

Note that first bit: "And I love her." It seems massively unlikely that Blume meant "I disapprove of the abuse Rowling has received, but I disagree wholeheartedly with Rowling's stance on women's rights." After all, if that's what she meant, why on earth would she say "And I love her"? Those words clearly signify approval of Rowling's stance. I think it is extremely disingenuous of certain posters to suggest otherwise.

I agree with this and actually think she does support JKR in her views.

The point I'm making is that saying you support the LGBT+ community now means that you actually support Gender Ideology as we all know it's all about the T. Many LGB have distanced themselves from the T because they do not agree with the ideology.
People need to start realising exactly what they are supporting by going along with this ideology.

If you think she disagrees with JKR on trans issues you must think that she supports all the things JKR disagrees with.

Like sterilising children and young people who think they are 'trans', like putting rapists in women's prisons, like excluding women who need single sex spaces from getting the support they need.

I didn't realise the Times article was written by Hadley Freeman. She has responded here with quotes from Judy Blume:

twitter.com/hadleyfreeman/status/1647918703650930690?s=46&t=NGJBRqkXgp1UazF5I8yjXA