In one place he tweets - In another he writes - So I am confused about him. But whatever. I do understand that there are unambiguous examples that refute Rowling's construction.
Would I be a big douche if I said I just don't care about this one? Who would have thought that an author who writes one of the most elaborate fantasy series ever might not have a firm grasp on reality?
I left all your comments even though the accompanying quotes aren't provided because it helps illuminate JK Rowling's problem. You refer to this individual as "him" and "he", and that he was born with female genitalia. You include a quote from him saying he menstruates. Ok, so HE menstruates. This man menstruates. I didn't say this biological male menstruates, I said this gendered man menstruates. That highlights the issues Rowling has. She cannot or will not separate biological sex with gender identity and instead conflates the two as if they are the same. But they are not the same thing. Gender identity and biological sex are different components of our being. If this man walked into a woman's restroom, as the law in several states would require him to do because he was born female, he would no doubt upset a lot of people because HE is using a woman's restroom. But because HE was born female, some state laws would require HIM to use the woman's bathroom or face whatever penalty they have. But when you look at his picture, you don't see a woman, you see a man. You say there are unambiguous examples that refute Rowling's construction. Yes, there are. This example also shows the flaws in Rowling's construction. This MAN, born a FEMALE, menstruates. Rowling did not associate menstruation with FEMALES, she associated it with WOMEN. Yet here is a MAN who menstruates.
Very little to do with sex and gender, but an interesting discussion featuring a range of authors on free speech. This might be a good place for it. Or not. Others can decide. https://slate.com/technology/2020/07/college-campus-protest-free-speech-moral-panic.html One passage: Robbie The next phase of this conversation will move to the workplace. I recently wrote about a San Francisco museum curator who was forced to resign because he said, after noting the museum’s diversity efforts, that well, of course, there would still be paintings from white artists too. Was it clumsy phrasing? Sure. But it created a petition that branded him a white supremacist and demanded his immediate ouster. This is the kind of thing that worries me and probably worries a lot of other people. Was it properly a free speech issue? I guess not. Still seems bad and wrong. Pardis: But this is why we need freedom to be wrong, and freedom to be clumsy, and freedom to talk about things, about pain points, about racism in safe ways. Andrés: Slate alum Michelle Goldberg wrote in her New York Times column that she does worry about the left having a speech problem in a climate of “punitive heretic-hunting” (speaking of Trotsky), and she alluded to NYU professor Jonathan Haidt’s criticism of “safetyism“ in these debates, when disagreements are quick to lead to calls for HR to get involved. She wrote that “even sympathetic people will come to resent a left that refuses to make a distinction between deliberate slurs, awkward mistakes and legitimate disagreements.” Robbie is Robbie Soave, who writes for Reason and is for my money one of the best reporters on the Higher Ed beat. Pardis is Pardis Mahdavi, who as an Iranian scholar was almost cancelled for good and who s currently a social science dean at Arizona State, and Andres is Andres Martinez, editorial director at Future Tense, who sponsers the talk. There are others, too. There's more I find interesting, but my iPad is being an asshole.
Didn’t understand it either. Doing a Google search it seems this is Buck Angel. According to Buck’s Wikipedia entry, Buck was born and lived for many years as female. At age 28 Buck started hormone treatment to assist with medical transition and found a surgeon for breast removal. Apparently Buck experienced a lot of bullying as a young person. And I understand the frustration people have with not being excepted for who they are in modern society. But I’m still not understanding the reason someone making a scientific comment is termed “transphobic”.
My first semester teaching postsecondary involved a class with a student who openly identified as a woman, and requested to be called "Jane". Smartest student in the class by a good bit. BIG mofo, about 6'4", easily 300. Jane wore women's clothing (including some really old lady/Queen Elizabeth hats that I would imagine came from the 50s or thereabout) had painted nails, carried a purse, the whole enchilada. Since it was college, I did the usual college thing of adding a title and using the surname. I used "Jane" as I had been asked, but I had no training about the topic at all, and I called him Mr. Jane", which I'm now sure didn't sit well. It bugs me to this day, because I thought I was doing the right thing, doing what was asked of me with the first name. I'd never disrespect a student on purpose. It simply did not occur to me what I had done until the following semester. I dropped the titles altogether and started using surnames only. I was tactful, and I did nothing to call attention to that kid. But I wish there had been some sort of program for teachers about how to address a student who identifies with the opposite gender. I mistakenly saw it simply as a change of name, rather than a total change in everything about the kid.
I recognized him from this interview with Meghan Murphy, a Canadian journalist and feminist who's often called transphobic It's pretty good, as most of her podcast/debates are. Murphy's wikipedia entry is relatively unhacked right now... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meghan_Murphy
May I join the shit posting now? https://twitter.com/jk_rowling https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/likes Every few weeks, Rowling makes incredibly offensive posts on topics that nobody is asking about for some sort of attention. She's a bigot and takes satisfaction from reminding people even if just liking posts.
My "favorite" thing to happen during this was a month or so ago when Rowling praised (and tagged) Stephen King for retweeting one of her Tweets, which included a quote about how men often treat women's opinions as if they are acts of violence. She tweeted again, effusive in praise for King and how her respect for him had gone up. King was quickly pressed for his position on the trans "debate" and tweeted "Trans women are women." Rowling then deleted her Tweet praising King.
By that logic, we should stop writing about Republicans and/or Christians. (Well, there's superdave for the latter, but I think only him.)
Of course, neither of those are small, persecuted minorities where the government attempts to limit their rights and freedoms. In fact, you can arguably say they have considerable political and social power. The same cannot be said for Transgender people.
To be honest, I wish I could take credit for purposefully doing it, but I can't. I read the comments offline and your post I was responding to was at the bottom of page 2. When I logged in to respond, it took me to page 1, I scrolled down and thought I was quoting the page 2 post. It was completely by chance that I quoted that page 1 post. Sometimes accidents (or careless acts, in this case) are fortuitous.
Rather low bar, but probably yeah. As far as literature that targeted my teenage daughter's demographic, Hunger Games was in my view one of the better efforts. I could never get into Harry Potter, even though I do enjoy that genre.
I once dated a woman who had issues with Harry Potter. She had called me that day when it happened to be on TV and I just mentioned offhand that I hadn't seen any of it before. She paused and said, "We're gonna have to talk about that..." I ended up gently lowering her to the curb within six months.