JKR asking similar questions to what I have been asking for years on here.

[DialSquare]

Copied from Nitter

J.K. Rowling@jk_rowling29m
As another man who once worked with me declares himself saddened by my beliefs on gender and sex, I thought it might be useful to compile a list for handy reference. Which of the following do you imagine makes actors and directors who aren’t involved with the HBO reboot of Harry Potter so miserable?

Is it my belief that women and girls should have their own public changing rooms and bathrooms?

That women should retain female-only rape crisis centres?

That men don’t belong in women’s sport?

That female prisoners shouldn’t be incarcerated with violent men and male sex offenders?

That women should remain a protected class in law, because they have sex-specific needs and issues?

That language should reflect reality rather than ideological jargon, especially in a medical context?

That women shouldn’t be harassed, persecuted or fired for refusing to pretend humans can change sex?

That women should not be threatened with violence and rape when they assert their rights?

That freedom of speech and belief are essential to a pluralistic democratic society?

That troubled minors, especially those who are gay, autistic and trauma-experienced, should be given mental health support instead of irreversible surgeries and drug treatments on non-existent evidence of benefit?

That gay people shouldn’t be pressured to include the opposite sex in their dating pools, nor should they be smeared as ‘genital fetishists’ when they don’t?

That cross-dressing heterosexual male fetishists aren’t actually oppressed, but having the time of their lives piggybacking off gender identity ideology?

That said ideology, and the privileged, blinkered fools pushing it because they suffer zero consequences themselves, have done more damage to the political left’s credibility than Trump and Farage could have achieved in a century?

Let me have your thoughts.

This sums up the views of the majority of posters on this board, however, we often have other posters tell us they don’t agree with us, but never what views they don’t actually agree with.

So, those of you that don’t agree with the majority view on here, what is it about the above that you don’t agree with?

This happens with her a lot more than her die-hard fans would care to acknowledge

I hadn't realised she'd written the Die Hard films

My word, the irony of a poster suggesting that women can (and perhaps even do!) argue for men in women's prisons and rape crisis centres, whilst calling feminists 'useful idiots' for arguing against such things!

JKR is not responsible for the behaviour of ANY of the people who follow her.

So I’m right. You don’t disagree but don’t like the way she goes about it. That’s your prerogative.
I disagree. After what she has had to put up with, I think she’s quite reserved.

I think it was a fairly brief bit where he just mentioned that he was "sad" about the whole thing and "disagreed" with her, without going into any detail.

It's possible he was saying the bare minimum necessary to avoid getting cancelled in Hollywood. I mean he's still not been forgiven for that scene in Home Alone 2 when Trump helps out Macaulay Culkin.

She should have thought about how sad her comments made the cross dressing fetishists feel.

Now, when they are wearing womens clothes in public for fetishistic reasons, everyone will be looking and judging. Before this tweet, everyone loved the cross dressing fetishists.

I mean he's still not been forgiven for that scene in Home Alone 2 when Trump helps out Macaulay Culkin.

He practically got Trump elected.

I do love you trying to preempt anyone disagreeing with you or having a reasonable debate, by labelling us as cult members, it’s rather a juvenile way to behave, if you don’t mind me saying, actually even if you do mind me saying.

’it's the nasty and, perhaps tellingly, spiteful, opinionated behaviour she often exhibits that creates such disapproval of - and opposition to - her.’ Opinions such as ‘people can’t change sex?’ I think you mean facts.

A woman having opinions that you don’t agree with automatically makes her nasty and spiteful, if I had a pound for every time a bloke has said that to me over the years 😂 if you want to take a look at who’s in a cult you might like to look in the mirror. It’s called the cult of misogyny.

Ooooo bit of scandal someone from the film wanted to be in the tv series. Then turned on JKR after he wasn't involved. Who is it do we think?

Chris Columbus? Someone else?

J.K. Rowling

One of them tried very hard to enlist my help in getting a major part in it. Only after he didn’t get it did he decide it was time to put the boot in.

ooh.. well. If we are blaming her for shit she has 'imagined to be done', those sequels should be definitely included.

That's an interesting perspective, and not one I wholly agree with.

Is a cult leader responsible for the behaviour of their cult members? Is an influencer responsible for the behaviour of their followers?

I'd suggest that most of us can agree that human beings, collectively, really aren't very bright and often simply and blindly mimic those who influence them.

If you are a die-hard fan of a person of influence then it's a fair bet whatever that person says or does is likely to influence your own opinions and, perhaps, lend legitimacy to your behaviour.
Now, I'd politely suggest that if a person who has influence over you - as JKR has over many - makes comments that are pejorative then the chances of you mirroring those in your own life are high.

For the avoidance of confusion by some of in this thread, I will say again - and for the last time - that JKR's support for women and women's right is extremely commendable. Her sneering, spiteful punching down comments against certain groups in society is not.

Edit: Emboldened the salient point as it seems some people are astoundingly adept at missing the point when it doesn't align with their opinion 🙄

"Her sneering, spiteful punching down comments against certain groups in society is not."

If I were someone who was keen to censure JK Rowling for her responses to male people who abuse her, I would consider how censuring her for her responses supported her abusers.

No female person should be expected to just absorb and ignore the abuse of male people. To expect this is continuing the abuse of the victim.

Edit: to add a relevant quote.

This is the problem with TRA, they force everyone to say a script, and anyone can be criticised for not sticking to it.

The script has moved on from TWAW, its now ensuring that prominent women are seen as having inappropriate views. If JKR was mentioned and he didn't take the opportunity to say he didnt agree with her, he'd get grief on twitter.

I suppose thats a lot of words for purity spirals.

I'm quite happy to blame her for Police Academy 6: City Under Siege, which I only recommend to those who think Police Academy 5: Assignment Miami Beach was robbed at the Oscars.

But I agree with pretty much everything she says above.

Blimey.... I haven't seen Police Academy past number 2!

What do you actually mean though by sneering or spiteful comments to vulnerable people? You mentioned one about asexual awareness day. Do you think asexuals are a vulnerable group? I don’t, and I think asexual awareness day is both silly and malign. How should I express that opinion without being accused of “punching down”?

Otherwise, I’ve seen JKR been rude on twitter to individuals who are rude and abusive to her and other women, and who seem to fall into the category that she’s describe as cross dressing heterosexuals with a fetish. Are they also a vulnerable group in your mind?

Both genuine questions, not attacks

Can you give some actual examples of punching down? Please don't include snippy but funny replies to someone who was slagging her off first.

I think if you could manage a ratio of, oooo let's say 1 to 10 of JKR punching down to the selection of choice comments on https://terfisaslur.com/j-k-rowling/, or maybe 1 to 1000 vs money she's given away over the years, that would be a fair target to see juat how unreasonable she really is.

Then try the same ratio of snark to saint for some prominent and feted TRAs.

After all, you wouldn't hold her to a higher moral standard than other people would you?

I don’t think it’s implied, and you seem to have missed this:

“That troubled minors, especially those who are gay, autistic and trauma-experienced, should be given mental health support instead of irreversible surgeries and drug treatments on non-existent evidence of benefit?”

I would say you can make your own mind up sbout specific blokes. I think there’s a particular class of Tim that gets off on having women kowtow to him and having them publicly reprimanded if they fail to do so.

Ta

Tbf its not a direct quote

Her
That cross-dressing heterosexual male fetishists aren’t actually oppressed, but having the time of their lives piggybacking off gender identity ideology?

Hers is clearly (to me anyway🙃) saying " That description desctiption male fetishists ..."

Me :

That men, who cross-dress and are heterosexual and have fetishists aren’t actually oppressed, but having the time of their lives piggybacking off gender identity ideology?

That trans identifying men, who cross-dress and are heterosexual and have fetishists aren’t actually oppressed, but having the time of their lives piggybacking off gender identity ideology?

Are the above (my two) saying all mem cross dress...?

( there is a reaon i normally dont try punctuate. 🤷‍♀️).

So you agree with everything she says, but don’t think she is polite enough?

Is there a polite way for women to assert boundaries? To make objective statements about sex?

I'm SO bored of this.

So, so bored of people banging on about semantics of one frigging sentence in a massive monologue of pertinent points to distract themselves & everyone else from addressing why middle aged men belong in the showers with teenage girls. Or why a fully developed man should play rugby with women.

Address the rest of the fucking content & we'll circle back to where the comma should be.

Then you need to read it again.

Just... wow.
I don't think conversation is possible when you have responses like this.

There's a desire for intelligent discourse and then there's weapons-grade stupidity. As the former has evidently left the building...

A few points. "Implying" sort of relies quite heavily on the reader's interpretation of what they are reading, often influenced by their own views. People often see what they want to see. Implying and inferring are two different sides of the same coin. What the author intended, and what the reader inferred during their reading.
This reminds me of Gryf Rhys Jones in the movie adaptation of Tom Sharpe's Wilt. Gryf is a murder suspect being interviewed by the hapless police inspector Mel Smith. Mel asks Griff what he was inferring when he said something. Griff replies I wasn't inferring anything, I was implying xxxxx. Griff then goes on to explain the difference between inferring and implying. Mel's police inspector ends up totally confused.

Anyway onto the meat and potatoes. Great job on the Motte and Bailey logical fallacy reference, although it would have been nice if you could have provided examples. Perhaps you could provide some of the nastier examples you have inferred from JKR's writings? Examples would help prove your point.
However one thing confuses me. You are clearly well versed on your logical fallacies, but you then go on to use one yourself.
"but the distraction from significantly more serious feminist issues such as endemic domestic violence, sexual violence, women's mental health issues & online misogyny to name a few."
This logical fallacy is called Relative Privation, or also known as the fallacy of appeal to worse problems if you want to use less fancy words.
Whenever someone has an issue with something and another person dismisses it because there are more worthy things that should in person two's opinion be considered instead. It's an attempt to distract from and dismiss the original issue. Don't look at that, look at this instead. It's an incredibly popular fallacy, second only to Strawmanning. I'm sure it must have slipped innocently past your finely honed logical fallacy filters because I doubt anyone who enjoys the words Motte and Bailey so much could be totally ignorant of Relative Privation.