JKR vs Police Scotland?

[IcakethereforeIam]

Tras are trying to get JKR arrested.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/03/10/trans-activists-scottish-police-arrest-jk-rowling-crime/

https://archive.ph/5TEU4 highland fling yourself over the paywall, cos Scottish!

Thought to give IW a break.

The Hate Crime...crime(?) comes into force on 1st April, according to the article. The SNP has not engaged with any of the organisations who have expressed concerns and no-one knows what, if any, training the Police have been given.

As far as I understand it, one aspect of transphobia is insisting that being a woman is linked to female bodies and body parts, like cervixes.

Not an irrational fear of men in frocks then.

I suspected as much.

No.
JKR was commenting on the behaviour IW exhibits in IW's protrayal of what IW thinks it is to be a woman.
Being trans does not in itself mean you behave a certain way. That some trans people behave differently to other trans people is just how people are. You can be part of a group and behave differently to others in that group. How one individual behaves is down to that individual, not any group they are a member of. To suggest otherwise would be to suggest that all trans people are the same. I would class that as transphobic.
JKR was commenting on IW's behaviour. If you are implying that all trans people behave the same and like IW than I would class that as transphobic and deeply offensive.
You can try and put any words you like in someone else's mouth, but we call that a strawman fallacy. It is illogical. You can interpret JKR's words however you like, but we can disagree with you.

What seals the deal for me it that when prompted to provide proof of JKR's transphobia you felt the way to do it was to misquote her in a way that fundamentally changed the meaning of what she said. If you genuinely thought what she said was transphobic you would have posted it unedited. Tahhhdahhh!!! It would have been a better argument from you. But you knew you needed to change it because you knew it wasn't transphobic, otherwise why bother changing it? That you think no one would simply google it also tells me something about you and how your thought processes work. Your need to "what JKR said was xxxxx but what she really meant is yyyyy" confirms this. Reality is less important to you than feelings so you create your own reality, and in your private reality everything confirms that you are right.

JKR said out loud what she thinks about IW. That's why JKR used IW's name twice. Extending that to all trans people is what you are doing not JKR.

Her tweet, every bit of it, was directed at IW being transgender

Nope. At IW being male. You're forgetting the context of the tweet, it was in response to one suggesting this 'lady' should be allowed into female spaces.

There is plenty to criticise about IW without being transphobic.

Which is why she called out the misogyny and cosplaying, etc.

Or, equally likely, directed at IW being an ocean going, narcissistic, misogynistic knobhead.

I do like the phrase 'ocean going'.

Oh dear. Another one defending the abuser of Joanne Rowling and dismissing that abuse from Willoughby. I would consider much of what Willoughby has said about female people and what they look like has been very obvious misogyny. Perhaps one misogynist cannot recognise it in another.

But fuck, supporting the abuser that is Willoughby says so much about a person.

Haven't read the whole thread, so forgive me if not -

But am I the only one to have noticed the irony of this bill becoming law on the 1st of April?

lechiffre55 · Yesterday 15:41

The thing is JKR in her tweet you butchered was taking about the behaviour of one individual. JKR was being critical of a person's behaviour irrespective of their other traits. Once you changed the context to all trans people it was then about the trait of being trans not behaviour. You changed the context from an individual's behaviour to a group of people sharing a trait ( not behaviour ). You changed the very meaning in doing so.

How very well put.

lechiffre55 · Yesterday 15:41

The thing is JKR in her tweet you butchered was taking about the behaviour of one individual. JKR was being critical of a person's behaviour irrespective of their other traits. Once you changed the context to all trans people it was then about the trait of being trans not behaviour. You changed the context from an individual's behaviour to a group of people sharing a trait ( not behaviour ). You changed the very meaning in doing so.

How very well put.

I think we can all agree that this is the most transphobic thing JKR has ever twitter. Quel horreur

I hadn't noticed! 😂

Honestly - you couldn't make it up, could you?

Don't try to bring logic in. It circumvents all attempts.

Eh? I managed to double post ... the site was a bit wobbly when I first tried...

Useful strategy borrowed from psychology: if someone is saying two totally conflicting things and doesn't seem to notice or have a problem that they are conflicting/cancelling each other out....

look for the purpose both statements are serving. Dysfunctional thinking can include belief that feelings create reality, therefore it doesn't matter that the facts conflict because both things said were true to their emotions at the time. And both served their purpose.

Such a common demonstration of misogyny, it's actually in the top ten of the rules.

1. Men always know the “real reasons” for everything women do and say.

1. Men always know the “real reasons” for everything women do and say.

Is that in the same way that they "know" they are "really women"?

Thanks that's very interesting.
I do believe that some people really do genuinely believe in their own heads that these incomplete or distorted views of the facts are real. That the mental process they are going through generates what they genuinely believe without any deliberate malice is the truth.
Like if you hear someone say something enough, e.g. JKR is tranphobic, that any time you see something about JKR, your brain automatically frames it in the most transphobic light. And seeing that constructed transphobia confirms that what was said about JKR was right. This is then all the more fuel to make sure you look out for transphobia next time you see something about JKR. A self feeding feedback loop that has no governing or regulation mechanism.
I'm using JKR as an example because of the context here, but I mean this observation/theory in the much broader sense about any contentious topic.
When DJ saw that JKR tweet and said it was tranphobic I don't believe DJ deliberatly lied, as in a thought popped into DJ's head along the lines of "I need to sex this up to make it look bettter" a la Tony Blair 15 minute weapons of mass destruction. I think DJ's brain made a subconcious connection that if JKR thinks this about IW then JKR thinks this about all trans people. And to DJ that was a real truth. There's a couple of similar phrases I see/associate when I think this sort of mental process is happening. "Everyone can plainly see that xxxxx", "It's obvious that xxxx", "Do you honestly think xxxxxx" would be the negative version of the same thing. It's a assertion of something being absolutely true and should be universally accepted as truth but with an inability to back it up in any way.

I think it is linked to emotion a lot. If you see something that causes a strong emotional reaction, you will come to associate that emotion with the stimulus. I think the simulus and the emotion become intertwined/inseperable. I believe this can go so far as, if you see the stimulus without feeling them emotion this might feel wrong. This is the correct emotion for this stimulus, let's feel that emotion now.
It would explain why we argue so strongly and emotionally about things. Why topics are so divisive. Why group identity is so strong. Why concepts like no debate got such traction. Why the medical profession ended up so deep in a emotionally driven and faith based position on surgically dealing with a mental problem.

So many decisions and mental processes are sub-conscious, then the conscious mind convinces itself it is making a decision that was already made, or even saw something it didn't see. Some fascinating experiments have proven this.

It's unpinned now.

Interesting.

When DJ saw that JKR tweet and said it was tranphobic I don't believe DJ deliberatly lied, as in a thought popped into DJ's head along the lines of "I need to sex this up to make it look bettter"

whilst that's a perfectly reasonable deduction, I think in this case, that's exactly what DJ did.

Just a hunch, based on past posting.

Yep, the North FWR remembers

Indeed . . . .🤔

Hmm, something is different.

In the last 24hrs IW has reposted about 18 tweets about JKR from others but has not specifically named/tagged her, or called her names, which is most unusual for IW.

Has legal advice been taken I wonder.

Curiouser and curiouser