Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Dawn French under fire on Instagram

105 replies

DungareesAndTrombones · 17/04/2024 19:17

She posted a link to a podcast with Fearne Cotton where she briefly mentioned JK Rowling and then something else about cancel culture and the comments section is rife with people telling her JK is a holocaust denier and that she sides with people who want to eradicate trans people from the face of the earth.

I mean 🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔

OP posts:
Thread gallery
14
Ereshkigalangcleg · 18/04/2024 09:53

Retrospectively claiming that trans people would have been a primary target for Hitler if "trans people" as a group had existed back then in the way they do now is a form of historical revisionism which I do actually think is very offensive to Jewish people.

I agree.

Emotionalsupportviper · 18/04/2024 10:00

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 18/04/2024 09:27

Interestingly - back on Wikipedia - this article explaining the Holocaust and this article explaining Holocaust denial both very much focus on Jews as being a primary target.

However, this article about Holocaust victims says that 17,000,000 people were killed in the Holocaust, of which 6,000,000 were Jews and 11,000,000 were Gentiles. Apparently the biggest group of people killed by the Nazis were Slavs, mainly Soviets and Poles. Other groups such as disabled people and Romani people were killed in the hundreds of thousands. There were somewhere between 5,000 and 15,000 gay victims. I would expect this number to be small given that gay people make up a small percentage of the general population and many gay people would not have been out in the 1930s.

So it seems to me that there is some confusion over what the word Holocaust actually covers. Does it mean primarily the Nazi genocide of Jews? Or is its definition expanded to cover everyone killed by the Nazis?

I think I struggle with the expanded definition, particularly when it includes large numbers of Soviet civilians and POWs. Not because their deaths weren't tragic, but because we killed plenty of people in the war too. My own grandfather dropped bombs on German civilians. It kind of goes with the territory of being at war.

So when we are talking about the Holocaust specifically, or genocide in general, I think it's probably best to adopt a narrower definition to ensure that it is meaningful. I would include gay people in the definition, because it is clear that they were specifically targeted by the Nazis because of their sexuality in the same way that Jewish people were targeted because of their religion and ethnicity. But if you want to make a case that trans people were also specifically targeted because of their gender identity - a concept which did not exist in the 1930s - I think the evidence is quite poor.

Edited

"Holocaust" as normally used refers to the deliberate targeting and attempted annihilation of the Jewish people. These were the Nazis primary target.

Other "untermensch" eg gypsies were effectively "add-ons" (I know this sounds disrespectful, but they weren't the main targets).

The word itself is from a Greek term for a sacrifice in which the entire animals burned on the altar.

The disabled were killed because they gave nothing to society. Homosexuals were despised because they were unlikely to breed citizens for the Reich (another Nazi aim was for every family to have at least 4 children).

The 17,000,000 non-Jews who died were largely Slavs - Poles, Russians etc who died when the Germans invaded their countries. The German invasion of Russia ("Barbarossa") was probably the most brutal and hideous conflict of the war. The Russians were regarded as "untermensch" and the Germans felt that they had the right to slaughter them like animals, and they did. The killed for plunder, they killed to terrorise the population into submission, they killed as part of a scorched earth policy to prevent any Russian troops to be able to live off the land - millions of people who weren't directly murdered died of starvation because the German army stole everything, and what they couldn't carry away they destroyed.

However the total annihilation of other races wasn't intended - it was a means to an end (the end being the annihilation of the Jews and the domination of Europe by Aryans). In fact, Hitler had intended to make slaves of the Poles and Russians in the service of Germany.

"Holocaust" has now become a term pretty much synonymous with genocide, and there have been other holocausts since. There have probably been similar slaughters before in early history, but this one was different.

Hitler's Holocaust is unique in that it was the first time that an entire nation was turned into a factory killing machine dedicated to destroying, in its entirety, another race. It was the first time that camps and killing methods were developed with the sole purpose of mass murder of a people purely because of their race.

Even when stopping the killing, and diverting the manpower who staffed the camps to the frontline would have been in Germany's interests, the murder - the transportations, the gassings - continued to the bitter end.

The Jews were the only people that this hatred was extended to. Yes - others were killed in large numbers, and often brutally - but no nation was so singled out for destruction.

To employ the term "Holocaust" because some men regard being correctly identified as male, and claim that this is "literal violence", is sickening, and demeaning to all who suffered.

Edit for grammar

ArabellaScott · 18/04/2024 10:11

Thank you, Viper. It is deeply offensive to try to twist history to further a cause.

Noting that Novara Media editor Rivkah Brown has issued this apology:

'On 13 March I tweeted that JK Rowling “is a Holocaust denier”. That allegation was false and offensive. I have deleted it and apologise to JK Rowling.'

https://twitter.com/rivkahbrown/status/1779878392805945428

https://twitter.com/rivkahbrown/status/1779878392805945428

IcakethereforeIam · 18/04/2024 10:22

There's an article in Spiked about Dawn, it doesn't really add anything new

https://www.spiked-online.com/2024/04/16/dawn-french-is-right-cancel-culture-turns-us-into-cowards/

except what she said about JKR was pretty lukewarm, definitelyfalling short of wholehearted support. In fact, following that interview if she had subsequently come out as a trans ally it wouldn't have been inconsistent. Her main point was regarding the utter intolerance to different viewpoints. Something that the over reaction from tras amply demonstrates.

I see JKR herself is a trans ally. She doesn't want transpeople harmed or banned. She wants them to get good, evidenced based health care. She wants a fair solution to competing rights. She an ally, not a doormat.

Dawn French is right. Cancel culture turns us into cowards

The Vicar of Dibley star has made a welcome plea for tolerance.

https://www.spiked-online.com/2024/04/16/dawn-french-is-right-cancel-culture-turns-us-into-cowards

CutthroatDruTheViolent · 18/04/2024 10:47

SnapdragonToadflax · 17/04/2024 21:40

I suspected she was quietly making a point, too. Her post today with the 'Nope' t-shirt supports that.

I looked into the whole Holocaust denial thing last night. It seems an important library of gender/sex studies was burned, a prominent researcher killed, and the Nazis certainly targeted gays and lesbians as well as other minorities, the disabled, and Jews. So the idea seems to be that if trans people had existed in their present day iteration back then, the Nazis would have targeted them...

ETA - oh and German law states that denying any part of the horrors of the Holocaust should be seen as Holocaust denial - which is where this whole idea comes from. I can see what they're getting at, but I feel it's a bit of a reach.

Edited

Come on, that's a reach to say that the people who are against this are quoting German law! They don't even read their own sources let alone foreign policy information!

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 18/04/2024 10:49

ArabellaScott · 18/04/2024 10:11

Thank you, Viper. It is deeply offensive to try to twist history to further a cause.

Noting that Novara Media editor Rivkah Brown has issued this apology:

'On 13 March I tweeted that JK Rowling “is a Holocaust denier”. That allegation was false and offensive. I have deleted it and apologise to JK Rowling.'

https://twitter.com/rivkahbrown/status/1779878392805945428

Pretty astonishing take from someone who is herself Jewish.

Davidchecksall · 18/04/2024 10:51

Two comments:

  1. The article I read about Dawn French was muddled and suggested that she criticised JKR for being so forthright and a hint about sympathising with Radcliffe and Watson. She posted a fairly long article not a short sharp Tweet. Has anyone seen it?
  2. Wikipedia: It looks as if the Trans lobby has bombarding Wiki to update and modify it's entry for the Holocaust to give more emphasis to their views. Do we know when these additions occurred?
tellmewhenthespaceshiplandscoz · 18/04/2024 10:57

WTF is happening on the active page? Mass spamming Confused

tellmewhenthespaceshiplandscoz · 18/04/2024 10:59

Sorry wrong thread

SnapdragonToadflax · 18/04/2024 11:01

CutthroatDruTheViolent · 18/04/2024 10:47

Come on, that's a reach to say that the people who are against this are quoting German law! They don't even read their own sources let alone foreign policy information!

The German law on Holocaust denial was exactly what I saw the TRAs quoting as 'evidence' of JK's Holocaust denial in the original comments on Dawn French's Instagram.

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 18/04/2024 11:13

SnapdragonToadflax · 18/04/2024 11:01

The German law on Holocaust denial was exactly what I saw the TRAs quoting as 'evidence' of JK's Holocaust denial in the original comments on Dawn French's Instagram.

I have also seen trans activists claiming that JKR's tweet is not visible in the EU because it has been blocked there due to the EU's laws about Holocaust denial.

Which is weird, because I viewed it and screen shotted it from the EU.

IcakethereforeIam · 18/04/2024 11:14

The pattern seems to be one tra comes up with a novel idea that, if you squint and spin, then transpeople are...whatever batshit theory you want to fly with. The rest of the tras think that'll do, don't bother engaging their own brains, often muddle the idea further (chinese whispers) and the notions propagate, getting dopier all the while. Much as they pile onto the latest person, organisation, dog deemed guilty of wrong think or of being insufficiently pure in whatever line is currently dominant.

It'd probably be incredibly easy to get them to earnestly believe and promulgate any old shite, once you've got a critical mass or one or two key players to go along with it.

Dervishe · 18/04/2024 12:00

ArabellaScott · 18/04/2024 10:11

Thank you, Viper. It is deeply offensive to try to twist history to further a cause.

Noting that Novara Media editor Rivkah Brown has issued this apology:

'On 13 March I tweeted that JK Rowling “is a Holocaust denier”. That allegation was false and offensive. I have deleted it and apologise to JK Rowling.'

https://twitter.com/rivkahbrown/status/1779878392805945428

SLAAP

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation

Strategic lawsuit against public participation - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation

Hedgedbackwards · 18/04/2024 12:16

Got to wonder if any of the people lashing out on twitter have actually listened to the podcast!

teawamutu · 18/04/2024 12:22

More of a slapdown.

As a parent observed in the Alex Jones case: speech is free. The lies, you pay for.

VitoCorleoneOfMNMafia · 18/04/2024 12:47

Davidchecksall · 18/04/2024 10:51

Two comments:

  1. The article I read about Dawn French was muddled and suggested that she criticised JKR for being so forthright and a hint about sympathising with Radcliffe and Watson. She posted a fairly long article not a short sharp Tweet. Has anyone seen it?
  2. Wikipedia: It looks as if the Trans lobby has bombarding Wiki to update and modify it's entry for the Holocaust to give more emphasis to their views. Do we know when these additions occurred?

You can look at the history of any Wikipedia article, it's one of the tabs between the title and the lede.

ETA: that article has been semi-protected for over three years. The talk page is interesting: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Holocaust

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 18/04/2024 13:32

VitoCorleoneOfMNMafia · 18/04/2024 12:47

You can look at the history of any Wikipedia article, it's one of the tabs between the title and the lede.

ETA: that article has been semi-protected for over three years. The talk page is interesting: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Holocaust

Edited

Well that's very interesting, isn't it?

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 18/04/2024 13:41

Rivkah Brown has almost 50,000 Twitter followers.

If you look at the people who have quote tweeted her forced retraction, doubling down on the claim that JK Rowling is a Holocaust denier, some of those quote tweets have had tens of thousands of retweets, presumably from people who agree that she is a Holocaust denier and many of whom are openly whingeing that Rivkah can't afford to defend a defamation lawsuit even if she is telling the truth.

Now, I'm fairly certain that if Rivkah wanted to defend herself in court, all she would need to do is set up a Go Fund Me and tweet the link to all her followers asking them to chip in a fiver each, and by the end of the day she'd have raised a significant amount of cash with which to mount a legal defence.

Which begs the question, why doesn't she? If she's so sure that what she said wasn't a libellous crock of shit?

Dervishe · 18/04/2024 14:11

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 18/04/2024 13:41

Rivkah Brown has almost 50,000 Twitter followers.

If you look at the people who have quote tweeted her forced retraction, doubling down on the claim that JK Rowling is a Holocaust denier, some of those quote tweets have had tens of thousands of retweets, presumably from people who agree that she is a Holocaust denier and many of whom are openly whingeing that Rivkah can't afford to defend a defamation lawsuit even if she is telling the truth.

Now, I'm fairly certain that if Rivkah wanted to defend herself in court, all she would need to do is set up a Go Fund Me and tweet the link to all her followers asking them to chip in a fiver each, and by the end of the day she'd have raised a significant amount of cash with which to mount a legal defence.

Which begs the question, why doesn't she? If she's so sure that what she said wasn't a libellous crock of shit?

A more interesting question is why JKR choose to get legal on this smaller English account rather than Alejandra Caraballo (based in USA where they anti-SLAPP legislation, 160K followers) whom she had actually been interacting with on this matter and generated millions of impressions.

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 18/04/2024 14:21

Dervishe · 18/04/2024 14:11

A more interesting question is why JKR choose to get legal on this smaller English account rather than Alejandra Caraballo (based in USA where they anti-SLAPP legislation, 160K followers) whom she had actually been interacting with on this matter and generated millions of impressions.

Who knows?

Maybe her lawyers have been in touch with both?

Maybe there are jurisdictional issues.

Maybe these trans activists should grow the fuck up and debate like adults instead of defaming famous authors.

AnnieRegent · 18/04/2024 17:22

I'm a big fan of hers, but I think JKR's tweet here is a bit sloppy in its phrasing. She's using a popular style ("did you really mean to type this, was this a fever dream" etc), I think meaning to say "did you seriously mean to accuse me of something so stupid" (i.e. supporting nazi gender views) but it can be read as "nazi treatment of trans people is a fever dream you had". Regardless of the technical points of Nazi treatment of various groups, I don't think she was getting at the second interpretation at all. I think she meant to say it was a dumb tweet. (Which it was.)

nauticant · 18/04/2024 17:45

Dervishe · 18/04/2024 14:11

A more interesting question is why JKR choose to get legal on this smaller English account rather than Alejandra Caraballo (based in USA where they anti-SLAPP legislation, 160K followers) whom she had actually been interacting with on this matter and generated millions of impressions.

JKR has clearly held back from an unparalleled amount of defamation directed against her. In that context she intervenes incredibly rarely. She went after Rivkah Brown because Brown is a commissioning editor and reporter on the notoriously toxic Novara Media which, despite the fact that they shouldn't be touched with a bargepole, have a wide reach, and sufficiently wide that people in the organisation do get platformed by the BBC.

nauticant · 18/04/2024 17:46

And I agree with @AnnieRegentthat it was an ill-advised tweet by JKR.

sashh · 19/04/2024 10:00

I was finding that quite interesting until I read this. " In the wake of a U.K. court decision in 2020 limiting trans rights, an editorial in the Economist argued that other countries should follow suit, and an editorial in the Observer praised the court for resisting a “disturbing trend” of children receiving gender-affirming health care as part of a transition."

The Observer view on the high court's ruling on puberty blocking drugs for children | Observer editorial

The court was correct to halt a disturbing trend among clinicians to assume those as young as 10 were fit to make life-altering decisions about gender identity

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/dec/06/the-observer-view-on-the-high-courts-ruling-on-puberty-blocking-drugs-for-children

EsmaCannonball · 19/04/2024 11:09

So much of what is called trans history is actually the history of individuals who were trying to escape the strictures of rigid sex roles or that of cultures imposing a 'not a true man but not a woman, either' status on gay men. TRAs always seem weirdly glad that all this pain and persecution was meted out to misfits as it provides some kind of bogus evidence of trans monolithic status.

I have no doubt that some people who would now be considered trans were sent to the camps but that would be because those people were also gay or politically unsound or bohemian or some other aberration to the Nazis. If you were trans (it feels very ahistorical using that term in this context) and a good Nazi then you would be fine up to the point where you fell foul in another way and then it might be used against you.

Swipe left for the next trending thread