The "Cancellation" of J.K. Rowling

[Specter Von Baren]

Do you think the current non-conservative's is fine with the way things are? Honestly?

Yes. It seems clear that one of the tactics of several non-conservative groups is to feign weakness even after having already gained a lot of power. I would argue the feminist movement is a prime example of huge gains being made yet there are many now using it's banner that act as if things are no better than they were 20 years ago.

 

[Terminal Blue]

So like, the offence is less important than the person who reports it?

Context is important.

Someone getting fired for bad taste jokes they made a decade previously, which they had already publicly apologised for and which were widely misrepresented by someone who specifically went looking for them to try and hurt someone's career is very different from someone getting fired because they made those jokes yesterday.

James Gunn started out making exploitation films. He was a very different person in the past. You can say that his jokes were bad taste and not funny, but it wasn't worse than things people were doing in stand up comedy at the time, or jokes made on South Park. If you don't think people should joke about things like child abuse, I get it, but the fact is back in 2008 people did make jokes about child abuse. Most of those people never apologised.

 

[Eacaraxe]

Sorry, I'm having difficulty understanding your post. I'll rephrase it into a 'yes or no' question:

A progressive who says to a conservative "stay out of politics and keep making Country music" is a 'political move', yes or no?

For me, being a famous, celebrated, or wealthy creative doesn't mean eschewing their right to speak about politics. Just don't be a dipshit about it, exploit political issues for personal gain, champion issues relevant to one's self-interest, or stand for questions that fly directly in the face of good taste regardless of partisanship. Like, y'know, the half of Hollywood that still too-predictably defends Roman Polanski even after the Weinstein debacle.

But food for thought: who do you guys think should be given more credence when speaking out on political issues, an Ivy League-educated political scientist who got famous writing songs about the military-industrial complex, or a bemulleted draft dodger who got famous writing songs about statutory and date rape?

 

[Specter Von Baren]

But food for thought: who do you guys think should be given more credence when speaking out on political issues, an Ivy League-educated political scientist who got famous writing songs about the military-industrial complex, or a bemulleted draft dodger who got famous writing songs about statutory and date rape?

Depends on what else these two people have done and the context behind the few facts you have given me. A college education doesn't mean nearly as much now as it used to and a song about date rape could be something in poor taste or it could be a deliberately sad song about something awful.

 

[Breakdown]

Context is important.

Someone getting fired for bad taste jokes they made a decade previously, which they had already publicly apologised for and which were widely misrepresented by someone who specifically went looking for them to try and hurt someone's career is very different from someone getting fired because they made those jokes yesterday.

James Gunn started out making exploitation films. He was a very different person in the past. You can say that his jokes were bad taste and not funny, but it wasn't worse than things people were doing in stand up comedy at the time, or jokes made on South Park. If you don't think people should joke about things like child abuse, I get it, but the fact is back in 2008 people did make jokes about child abuse. Most of those people never apologised.

That's fair enough. I don't really have a problem with people making bad taste jokes in the past, and I don't personally think that James Gunn should have been fired.

My concern is that when people raise the Mike Cernovitch connection, it feels like it's not really about James Gunn at all, it's more about denying Cernovitch a win. Like it's another battle in an ongoing culture war. And I wonder if somebody like Anita Sarkeesian had brought James Gunn's old tweets to light rather than Cernovitch, would the same people still have defended Gunn?

 

[Agema]

And I wonder if somebody like Anita Sarkeesian had brought James Gunn's old tweets to light rather than Cernovitch, would the same people still have defended Gunn?

Maybe not Sarkeesian, but I get your point. When stepping out of line, I wonder what the tipping point is between getting a slap on the wrist and a godalmighty progressive crusade to crush the heretic.

 

[Zeke davis]

That's fair enough. I don't really have a problem with people making bad taste jokes in the past, and I don't personally think that James Gunn should have been fired.

My concern is that when people raise the Mike Cernovitch connection, it feels like it's not really about James Gunn at all, it's more about denying Cernovitch a win. Like it's another battle in an ongoing culture war. And I wonder if somebody like Anita Sarkeesian had brought James Gunn's old tweets to light rather than Cernovitch, would the same people still have defended Gunn?

Isn't that basically what happened to make him apologize for it?

 

[Silvanus]

Sure, you can not believe all you like, and you can hope that female-only spaces have some extra system in place to prevent abusive access.

But why does it make someone a transphobe because they don't have the same faith that it'll all work out fine that you do?

I didn't call anybody a transphobe. Don't ask me that censorious, leading question.

There's a huge amount of detail in the post that you snipped out. Relevant information about how the Scottish Gender Recognition Reform Bill doesn't represent uncovered ground at all; how similar legal ground is already covered in various other countries, and how those countries provide quite a lot of evidence for these approaches working well.

 

[Kwak]

I'll always contend that is the most political statement there is: "Stay out of/Keep Silent About/Don't Force Your Politics."

It's a political move to keep politics the way they are. Anyone who is reading this, Don't let anyone else try to make you think otherwise.

It always fascinates me how people who want to keep politics out of conversation are usually most aligned with how things traditionally are. It's almost like... they would benefit if no one spoke about politics enough that changes occurred...

They're also the first to invoke 'the silent majority' and claim their hypothetical support adds legitimacy to whatever their cause is - which is pretty much always "maintain the status quo nothing needs to change things are fine".

Yes. It seems clear that one of the tactics of several non-conservative groups is to feign weakness even after having already gained a lot of power. I would argue the feminist movement is a prime example of huge gains being made yet there are many now using it's banner that act as if things are no better than they were 20 years ago.

What significant feminist causes do you see as having been advanced since 2000ad?

 

[Terminal Blue]

I'm more interested in what J.K. Rowling thinks about trans people as an individual than what you imply she does on the basis of assuming she's in full ideological lockstep with a TERF hive mind.

Why are you interested in what JK Rowling thinks about trans people at all?

You seem to believe that she represents some kind of original perspective. I see the same regurgitated talking points which a few moments of research could easily disprove.

I’m also aware through extensive research that studies have consistently shown that between 60-90% of gender dysphoric teens will grow out of their dysphoria

There have never been studies into the long term outcomes for teens diagnosed with gender dysphoria. This statistic comes mostly from research in the 1970s into gender non-conforming boys, who were at the time referred to as having "sissy boy syndrome." I hope I don't have to point out the irony of someone who claims to be concerned gender non-conforming children will be pressured into becoming trans using studies of gender-non conforming children to evidence outcomes for "gender dysphoric" children. More recently, there was also a single study in the Netherlands which examined attendance at a gender identity clinic dealing with children. Again however, just because a child ceases attending the same clinic doesn't evidence that they have "grown out of their dysphoria".

No person who had done even cursory research on this topic would ever claim that 60-90% of gender dysphoric teens will grow out of their dysphoria, let alone that this is comprehensive or has been backed up by "extensive research". There is literally no comprehensive research on this topic. The 60-90% claim (precise numbers vary) is just a standard "gender critical" talking point which has been repeated over and over again without attribution, because any attempt to provide attribution would immediately expose how wrong it is.

A man who intends to have no surgery and take no hormones may now secure himself a Gender Recognition Certificate and be a woman in the sight of the law.

While it's technically true that a person can obtain a gender recognition certificate without taking hormones or having surgery, Rowling conveniently leaves out is that such a person currently needs to be diagnosed with gender dysphoria and to have lived as a woman for at least two years.

It also not-so-subtly implies that "pre-op" transwomen (to quote the horrible detective story which drove Rowling to apparently research this topic, and in which, again, an evil transwoman is threatened with prison rape and its funny) are actually men, which is entirely out of line with even the most basic medical or scientific understanding of gender identity.

Littman mentioned Tumblr, Reddit, Instagram and YouTube as contributing factors to Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria, where she believes that in the realm of transgender identification ‘youth have created particularly insular echo chambers.’

The idea of rapid onset gender dysphoria is not recognised by any professional body. Lisa Littman's research, in which she alleges its existence, was not pulled from its journal for questioning orthodox assumptions about gender identity (there is no scientific or activist consensus, as Rowling claims, that gender identity is innate). Instead, the study was pulled for misrepresenting its own methodology. It is not a study of transgender children, it is a sample of parental reports gathered from self-selected participants recruited from gender critical parent networks. It has no clinical validity, and is at best a theoretical model of a proposed phenomenon which may be evidenced at some point in the future. Presenting it in the context Rowling does here is deeply irresponsible, but again, completely standard with the way it has always been used (and which was almost certainly the point).

I probably should not have to mention the more direct implications of claiming that gender identity can be changed with social pressure. I'm not sure if Rowling herself has considered them, but for the people over on transgendertrend who circulate this shit, that is very much a part of the appeal.

I also fund medical research into MS, a disease that behaves very differently in men and women. It’s been clear to me for a while that the new trans activism is having (or is likely to have, if all its demands are met) a significant impact on many of the causes I support, because it’s pushing to erode the legal definition of sex and replace it with gender.

There is no legal definition of sex distinct from gender. The government does not keep legal records of your sex as opposed to your gender.

It's also irrelevant to any kind of medical research, which would rely on self-disclosed medical information rather than legal information. This is just standard fearmongering.

I have standard responses memorised for most of this stuff, at this point. It is literally the most basic Gender Critical 101 shit you would pick up after a day of asking around on mumsnet.

You are aware you're writing that in response to a specific correction to the incorrect assumption that women's spaces need protection from trans people, aren't you?

I don't think you and I have the same definition of what a trans person is.

I know that JK Rowling and I don't have the same definition of what a trans person is.

 

[Agema]

I didn't call anybody a transphobe. Don't ask me that censorious, leading question.

You can hardly miss that a huge number of people have. Do you agree with them doing so? And for the record, this is not meant as a trick question, and I'm not demanding a simple yes or no.

There's a huge amount of detail in the post that you snipped out. Relevant information about how the Scottish Gender Recognition Reform Bill doesn't represent uncovered ground at all; how similar legal ground is already covered in various other countries, and how those countries provide quite a lot of evidence for these approaches working well.

I'm not arguing against expanding trans rights. I'm arguing, I suppose, at what point someone's doubts, concerns, caveats, level of opposition, etc. justify a torrent of outrage and demands for action to punish them.

 

[Agema]

Why are you interested in what JK Rowling thinks about trans people at all?

Why are you?

You seem to believe that she represents some kind of original perspective.

That's actually quite a random assumption. I think she has a personal, subjective perspective - it's not very exciting to say, though, because it's just a truism for anyone. It does however mean that sometimes sticking someone in a neat little ideological box is a way of creating errors for oneself.

I don't think you and I have the same definition of what a trans person is.

I have not offered a personal opinion on what a trans person is, so you have no grounds to judge one way or the other.

I do however note yet more assuming about what people think, because it feels to me you're itching to put me in an ideological box for your own convenience, too.

 

[Hades]

The Percy Jackson series seems to be the de facto replacement.

Don't worry, I'm sure the masses can find something Riordan has said or done as well.

Does it though? Its without a doubt successfully but I was under the impression that PJ never quite left the sphere of teenage novels. It hardly has the power of Harry Potter and its subject matter being Greek myths ensures it never will. Besides I always thought the similarities with Harry Potter was more of a weakness than a strength.

 

[Trunkage]

Can we stop saying "literally" when there's no literal interpretation to the statement?

I am being totally literal here. How about this: it’s actually getting ridiculous. Any criticism is now just called cancelling. Which is an actual bad thing, while criticism isn’t. It’s actually ridiculous

I hardly ever use the word detest in my life. I’ve used it more in this thread than all other threads combined. It’s all about shutting down criticism. Please for the love of god, attack people who are actually cancelling. Stop attacking people who are Just criticising. It’s actually getting ridiculous

Have I made my point enough yet?

 

[McElroy]

I have not offered a personal opinion on what a trans person is, so you have no grounds to judge one way or the other.

I do however note yet more assuming about what people think, because it feels to me you're itching to put me in an ideological box for your own convenience, too.

I don't speak for Terminal Blue, but I've watched some lefty YouTube and it's rather easy (based on this thread) to make the assumption that you, like most people outside those circles, don't swing as progressive as they do on the matter.

Myself I'm of course a wretched fence-sitter who believes whatever I find convenient.

Anyway, while Rowling's case is maybe a bit disappointing to some, progressives on social media are also glad to have a chance to bring up their opinions on the matter for the large audience that's attracted by this.

 

[Hawki]

Does it though? Its without a doubt successfully but I was under the impression that PJ never quite left the sphere of teenage novels. It hardly has the power of Harry Potter and its subject matter being Greek myths ensures it never will. Besides I always thought the similarities with Harry Potter was more of a weakness than a strength.

When I say "Percy Jackson" I'm referring to the wider "Riordanverse" as well, so that includes stuff like Carter Kane (Egyptian gods), Magnus Chase (Norse gods), and everything else (the Rick Riordan Presents series has other authors delve into various pantheons; Hindu, Mayan, Amerindian, etc.) But that wasn't the point of your question.

From where I'm standing, the short answer is no. I don't think Percy Jackson will ever be as popular as Harry Potter. That said however, while I do only have anecdotes, they do paint a picture. So here's some tidbits:

-On ff.net, the Harry Potter entry is the largest books entry and the largest ones on the site, at 821,000 entries. Percy Jackson by itself has 77,500 entries. Compared to Harry Potter, that's small fries. Compared to all books though? That's the third largest. And I'm not counting the other Riordanverse entries there. It's debtable how representative fanfiction is of how popular a work is, but it's something.

-In the realm of personal anecdotes, library work does give me insight into what "kids these days" are reading. And the Percy Jackson books are definitely among them. In the realm of junior fiction to YA, I'd say Percy Jackson is the most popular, at least by number. I don't know if it's more popular than Harry Potter per se, but it's up there. Again, not the best test, because there's more Jackson books than Potter books, so I'm of course going to see them more, but the Percy Jackson series clearly has an appeal that spans the JF/YA ladder, in the same way that HP does.

-In recent times, I've seen a push for Percy Jackson to be an "alternative" to Harry Potter. Again, this is all anecdotal, but it keeps coming up. Type in something like "Percy Jackson vs. Harry Potter," and once you avoid the Death Battle links, you'll find essays arguing that the Percy Jackson books are better, and having read/watched some of them, the points aren't without merit (like this isn't some kid yelling, it's a reasonable argument, at least on the surface). And it seems that Rowling's "transphobia" has had people holding up the Jackson books as a "progressive alternative" or something. Like, saw an article citing how a parent will now refuse to buy Harry Potter books for their child, and will instead buy them Percy Jackson books. Or another how Riordan understands representation better because he has a Muslim Valkyrie or something. I can't help but roll my eyes at a lot of this, but the push is there.

And it's notable in another sense. I was 8 when the first Harry Potter book came out. I was there when the series came out, and when it really exploded in popularity (round about Prisoner of Azkaban). Again, this is simply first-hand accounts, but Harry Potter wasn't the only children's series that got big around the time. Artemis Fowl and A Series of Unfortunate Events also tapped into the zeitgeist, at least at the school I went to. But Harry Potter remained in the zeitgeist, while those two didn't, or at least, not to any comparable extent. Percy Jackson, right now, might not be as popular as Harry Potter, but it does appear more popular among its age groups than those other series ever were. Like, I dunno, maybe Harry Potter is Nintendo, and Percy Jackson is Sega, and decades from now we'll have Book Wars: Harry Potter, Percy Jackson, and the Battle That Defined a Generation.

TL, DR, Percy Jackson's more popular than a lot of people realize.

 

[Terminal Blue]

Why are you?

Because I'm trans.

It affects me in ways I really don't want to talk about, but can't really escape.

It does however mean that sometimes sticking someone in a neat little ideological box is a way of creating errors for oneself.

Then do better.

I don't actually want to argue with JK Rowling. There's nothing interesting or insightful about her perspective. It's a series of carbon-copied transphobic talking points. If you want a more nuanced position, create one yourself, because I'd rather engage with that.

 

[Hades]

Or another how Riordan understands representation better because he has a Muslim Valkyrie or something.

Personally I'd have pointed at mister Di Angelo if I'd have made that point.

-In the realm of personal anecdotes, library work does give me insight into what "kids these days" are reading. And the Percy Jackson books are definitely among them. In the realm of junior fiction to YA, I'd say Percy Jackson is the most popular, at least by number. I don't know if it's more popular than Harry Potter per se, but it's up there. Again, not the best test, because there's more Jackson books than Potter books, so I'm of course going to see them more, but the Percy Jackson series clearly has an appeal that spans the JF/YA ladder, in the same way that HP does.

Heh. A kindred spirit I see. But that's kinda also why I think Percy Jackson can't be the successor to Harry Potter. It pretty popular with kids, teenagers and young adults but it has little pull outside that group. At least as far as I can tell. With Harry Potter that was different. Just about everyone seemed to be reading Harry Potter in its glory days.

 

[Agema]

Because I'm trans.

It affects me in ways I really don't want to talk about, but can't really escape.

Yes. I wonder if something not entirely dissimilar applied to J.K. Rowling, as a domestic abuse survivor pondering the potential for abuse of women. But probably not: she's just a load of carbon-copied transphobic talking points, not a real person.

I don't actually want to argue with JK Rowling. There's nothing interesting or insightful about her perspective. It's a series of carbon-copied transphobic talking points. If you want a more nuanced position, create one yourself, because I'd rather engage with that.

No, I'm happy enough that you feel so superior, but thanks.

 

[Agema]

Anyway, while Rowling's case is maybe a bit disappointing to some, progressives on social media are also glad to have a chance to bring up their opinions on the matter for the large audience that's attracted by this.

Yes, I know quite a few trans people and activists. I find them to be very enthusiastic at finding people who disagree and forcefully pointing out their errrors.