|
Post by thisguy4000 on Sept 15, 2020 17:21:20 GMT
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Sept 15, 2020 17:27:01 GMT
she seems uninformed, and i've lost respect for her more political she is.
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Sept 15, 2020 17:38:40 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Jep Gambardella on Sept 15, 2020 18:10:04 GMT
In her fight against trans activists, I am fully on her side. I am not aware of anything she said about trans people that I find objectionable, and from the description of this book in the two articles (The Guardian's and The Spectator's) it really sounds like this is much ado about nothing, and that the Telegraph reviewer probably just wanted to stir trouble.
|
|
|
Post by Carl LaFong on Sept 15, 2020 20:17:40 GMT
A lot of th trans lobby are absolutely nuts.
That’s what I’ve taken away from the whole spat up to now.
Looks like she may be deliberately provoking them with this new book though.
I enjoy the adaptations of the Strike novels on the BBC but I wonder if they will miss out this novel!
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Sept 15, 2020 21:09:13 GMT
A lot of th trans lobby are absolutely nuts. That’s what I’ve taken away from the whole spat up to now. Looks like she may be deliberately provoking them with this new book though. I enjoy the adaptations of the Strike novels on the BBC but I wonder if they will miss out this novel! Judging by the descriptions from those two articles I linked to, it doesn’t really sound like she’s trying to provoke people. The serial killer in question apparently isn’t the antagonist of the book, is never referred to as transgender or a transvestite and is only mentioned once in the entire thing. It looks like the author of that Telegraph review deliberately misconstrued things in order to drum up some shit.
|
|
|
Post by Zos on Sept 16, 2020 11:53:20 GMT
She is fully entitled to her own view and as Carl says, the Trans lobby has been taken over by complete extremists who try and destroy anyone who disagrees with them. Acknowledging that genetically you are your birth sex of which there are two natural variants, does in no way belittle how people may later want to "self identify" Rather reminds me of the South Park episode...
|
|
|
Post by Zos on Sept 17, 2020 12:58:41 GMT
Will be interesting to read. The last one was overlong for a crime thriller at around 550 pages, this one weighs in at 950!
|
|
|
Post by Jep Gambardella on Sept 17, 2020 16:05:22 GMT
Amazon had to disable and remove reviews for this book from their site, because of all the trolling and the hate spewed at her by trans activists.
*** EDIT ***
Looks like I had the wrong information. There are some reviews after all, all of them positive. They must have deleted the negative ones, written by people who obviously never read the book.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Sept 17, 2020 21:37:40 GMT
It’s odd: one of the elements I admire most about the Harry Potter series is Rowling’s mystery-plotting (I love fantasy, but I love fantasy that breaks into reality, not separate fantasy-worlds), yet I still haven’t read any of her actual mystery novels. I’d really like to see if she can pull it off in a non-fantasy setting, too; one of the reasons her mystery-plotting worked so well in Potter was that the fantasy setting disguised it. Maybe I’ll pick up this new one; not sure.
|
|
|
Post by Marv on Sept 18, 2020 12:50:31 GMT
It’s odd: one of the elements I admire most about the Harry Potter series is Rowling’s mystery-plotting (I love fantasy, but I love fantasy that breaks into reality, not separate fantasy-worlds), yet I still haven’t read any of her actual mystery novels. I’d really like to see if she can pull it off in a non-fantasy setting, too; one of the reasons her mystery-plotting worked so well in Potter was that the fantasy setting disguised it. Maybe I’ll pick up this new one; not sure. I think this new one is like the 5th book in a series. Just fyi. In case there are references to the previous ones. I havent read them or seen the show based on the series tho so i have no idea.
|
|
|
Post by mikef6 on Oct 1, 2020 17:25:51 GMT
We need to start listening to the people who are actually impacted by discrimination to determine what is harmful or what is not.
If Native Americans say that the name of the Washington D.C. NFL team is racist, then it is. Not all the fans dressed in silly movie Indian costumes with ridiculous headdresses on saying that this is just "respect" can change that.
If African-Americans tell us that “Song of the South” perpetrates hurtful stereotypes, then it does. Even if all the white people who watch the movie say they don’t see anything racist in it.
If forcing trans people to conform to their birth certificate gender designation and denying them the right to decide for themselves reply that it is discrimination and hate speech, then the subject is closed. “Straight” people have nothing legitimate to say about it.
As for Rowling being “fully entitled to her own view” – she certainly is. And if she gets a ton of blowback (including calls for boycotts and personal insults) from activists as well as friends and family of trans people, well, that is well within THEIR right to their own view. It is not just conservatives who get to talk while everybody else keeps their mouths shut.
Ignoring the experiences of actual transsexual people and telling them they are wrong about their own bodies and identities IS discrimination and hate speech – and their must be consequences for that speech. This is part of the democratic process.
|
|
|
Post by Feologild Oakes on Oct 1, 2020 18:16:13 GMT
I am as indifferent to this book as i am to all the other books she has written.
|
|
|
Post by Jep Gambardella on Oct 1, 2020 18:26:19 GMT
We need to start listening to the people who are actually impacted by discrimination to determine what is harmful or what is not. (...) If forcing trans people to conform to their birth certificate gender designation and denying them the right to decide for themselves reply that it is discrimination and hate speech, then the subject is closed. “Straight” people have nothing legitimate to say about it. As for Rowling being “fully entitled to her own view” – she certainly is. And if she gets a ton of blowback (including calls for boycotts and personal insults) from activists as well as friends and family of trans people, well, that is well within THEIR right to their own view. It is not just conservatives who get to talk while everybody else keeps their mouths shut.
That's all very well and good, but JK Rowling NEVER said that trans people shouldn't have the right to decide things for themselves. Quite the contrary in fact; she explicitly stated over and over again that she is FOR trans rights. What she DID oppose was proposed legislation that would allow males to enter female-only spaces based on nothing more than their say-so. A male criminal could say "I am a woman" and be sent to a woman's prison, even if they have not undergone sex-change surgery or hormone therapy. A man could say "I am a woman" and demand the right to use female changing rooms in gyms or swimming pools.
She was also heavily criticised for mocking an article somewhere that referred to "people who menstruate". She wrote, correctly, that there is a word for "people who menstruate", and that word is "women". Anyone who thinks this is "transphobic" is a moron.
I don't entirely disagree that saying that transsexual people are mentally ill (for example) might be considered hate speech, but saying that male-to-female transsexuals shouldn't be allowed to take part in competitive sports against real women is not hate speech.
|
|
|
Post by mikef6 on Oct 1, 2020 18:32:58 GMT
We need to start listening to the people who are actually impacted by discrimination to determine what is harmful or what is not. (...) If forcing trans people to conform to their birth certificate gender designation and denying them the right to decide for themselves reply that it is discrimination and hate speech, then the subject is closed. “Straight” people have nothing legitimate to say about it. As for Rowling being “fully entitled to her own view” – she certainly is. And if she gets a ton of blowback (including calls for boycotts and personal insults) from activists as well as friends and family of trans people, well, that is well within THEIR right to their own view. It is not just conservatives who get to talk while everybody else keeps their mouths shut. Ignoring the experiences of actual transsexual people and telling them they are wrong about their own bodies and identities IS discrimination and hate speech – and their must be consequences for that speech. This is part of the democratic process.
That's all very well and good, but JK Rowling NEVER said that trans people shouldn't have the right to decide things for themselves. Quite the contrary in fact; she explicitly stated over and over again that she is FOR trans rights. What she DID oppose was proposed legislation that would allow males to enter female-only spaces based on nothing more than their say-so. A male criminal could say "I am a woman" and be sent to a woman's prison, even if they have not undergone sex-change surgery or hormone therapy. A man could say "I am a woman" and demand the right to use female changing rooms in gyms or swimming pools.
She was also heavily criticised for mocking an article somewhere that referred to "people who menstruate". She wrote, correctly, that there is a word for "people who menstruate", and that word is "women". Anyone who thinks this is "transphobic" is a moron.
I am not too sure that's all there is to it. She is a good writer and is able to verbally tap-dance all around specificity, indicating to me and to a lot of others that she is hesitant to come straight out as a transphobic who insists that a birth certificate designation has to define a person for the rest of their lives.
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Oct 1, 2020 18:58:17 GMT
That's all very well and good, but JK Rowling NEVER said that trans people shouldn't have the right to decide things for themselves. Quite the contrary in fact; she explicitly stated over and over again that she is FOR trans rights. What she DID oppose was proposed legislation that would allow males to enter female-only spaces based on nothing more than their say-so. A male criminal could say "I am a woman" and be sent to a woman's prison, even if they have not undergone sex-change surgery or hormone therapy. A man could say "I am a woman" and demand the right to use female changing rooms in gyms or swimming pools.
She was also heavily criticised for mocking an article somewhere that referred to "people who menstruate". She wrote, correctly, that there is a word for "people who menstruate", and that word is "women". Anyone who thinks this is "transphobic" is a moron.
I am not too sure that's all there is to it. She is a good writer and is able to verbally tap-dance all around specificity, indicating to me and to a lot of others that she is hesitant to come straight out as a transphobic who insists that a birth certificate designation has to define a person for the rest of their lives. To be perfectly blunt, I myself have some concerns about the way people are approaching trans rights. I’m a pretty firmly anti-Trump person who is utterly disgusted by the support he has among Republicans, but I do worry that the progressive stance on trans issues is only serving to validate what cons are accusing the left of being. Sending death threats to J.K. Rowling and burning her books does not solve anything. I get that people are disappointed in her for her views, but inciting a mob mentality against her is only going to fuel her victim complex, and ultimately benefits the anti-trans bigots, since it makes trans activists look bad. Also, I personally don’t know what to make of the idea of allowing transgender women into women’s prisons, but I do think that if that’s going to be the norm moving forward, prisons might want to be careful in how they determine that, otherwise any muscle bound man can claim to be a woman, and would thereby have access to female prisons. Granted sexual assault in prison happens regardless of that, but the average woman would probably have a more difficult time defending herself against someone who is biologically male. news.wttw.com/2020/02/19/lawsuit-female-prisoner-says-she-was-raped-transgender-inmate
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Oct 15, 2020 16:35:12 GMT
she seems uninformed, and i've lost respect for her more political she is. Yeah, the woke mob doesn't like her anymore so I need to bleat with the flock too and morally condemn others to show my virtue. FUCK J.K. ROWLING!!! SHE'S A BIGOTED PIECE OF SHIT!!!
There, I'm a good person now.
|
|
|
Post by Zos on Oct 15, 2020 17:06:02 GMT
It’s odd: one of the elements I admire most about the Harry Potter series is Rowling’s mystery-plotting (I love fantasy, but I love fantasy that breaks into reality, not separate fantasy-worlds), yet I still haven’t read any of her actual mystery novels. I’d really like to see if she can pull it off in a non-fantasy setting, too; one of the reasons her mystery-plotting worked so well in Potter was that the fantasy setting disguised it. Maybe I’ll pick up this new one; not sure. They are okay. But nothing special, very typical plot devices from a thousand others of that type. If it wasn't for her being revealed as the author she would have struggled to get more than a couple out there. You do need to read in order though. Not stand alones.
|
|
|
Post by wickedkittiesmom on Oct 15, 2020 18:17:02 GMT
I loved the Harry Potter books but I never could get into her books written as Galbraith. I wish she would write more children's books. She's entitled to her own opinions but when you are famous, sometimes its best to keep some opinions to yourself because people are always out to misconstrue another person's opinion, especially if they are famous. I will always admire her for making reading popular with children again.
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Oct 19, 2020 16:34:50 GMT
Amazon had to disable and remove reviews for this book from their site, because of all the trolling and the hate spewed at her by trans activists.
*** EDIT ***
Looks like I had the wrong information. There are some reviews after all, all of them positive. They must have deleted the negative ones, written by people who obviously never read the book.
Yes, of course. Clearly if the reviews were negative, they were only written by people who've never read the book.
|
|