The "Cancellation" of J.K. Rowling

[happyninja42]

Dude, I just named some of them. Ellen, The Book of Daniel, Volkswagen ads.

Moronic or no, outcry is how things get done in this world. Pizzagate incensed morons who believed our political leaders were having sex with minors for fun and/or profit, I guess. But it took one idiot to listen, and we narrowly avoided danger.

But then people rush to defend Alex Jones 'way of life' when they call to boycott him, even though what he was doing and still is doing is obviously dangerous because there are unhinged people in this nation and almost anyone can get a gun.

Nothing is balanced is what I'm saying.

I mainly think the cancel label is simply due to how ubiquitous things like Twitter are, and how people will hashtag everything, so it gets in your face a lot. So it seems like cancel culture is a new thing, when yeah, it really is just that it has a new label. I remember how no matter where I turned it seemed, living in Alabama, the Dixie Chicks were all you could see for a brief period. But that happened pre-rise of social media like it is today. So it was just things like t-shirts with Fuck the Dixie Chicks, and people bitching about them in direct conversation.

Yes, it most definitely is the same thing. I just think it's more tiresome for a lot of people, because given how connected we all are, you can't blink without a new boycott being in your feed.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Can we stop calling criticism ‘cancelling’? It’s literally getting ridiculous

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

 

[ObsidianJones]

I mainly think the cancel label is simply due to how ubiquitous things like Twitter are, and how people will hashtag everything, so it gets in your face a lot. So it seems like cancel culture is a new thing, when yeah, it really is just that it has a new label. I remember how no matter where I turned it seemed, living in Alabama, the Dixie Chicks were all you could see for a brief period. But that happened pre-rise of social media like it is today. So it was just things like t-shirts with Fuck the Dixie Chicks, and people bitching about them in direct conversation.

Yes, it most definitely is the same thing. I just think it's more tiresome for a lot of people, because given how connected we all are, you can't blink without a new boycott being in your feed.

This might be a disconnect because I don't do social media. But in that sense... are people surprised? If you're willingly putting yourself in social consciousness, you're going to be reminded time and time again that people are unhappy with how the world is and they want it to change. No matter how privileged you are, no matter how well off you are compared to someone else.

If people hate being reminded about this stuff, why do people flock to social media?

And in and of itself, is complaining and wishing for it to stop... basically another form of cancel culture? We're tired of dealing with this and seeing this. Keep it to yourselves because we don't want to see it.

Also known as being cancelled.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

The essay is, in a lot of places, highly sympathetic towards others, and seems to make it clear that none of this is coming from a place of ill intent.

However it also, unfortunately, relies on the old discredited idea that allowing trans women into women-only spaces will lead to abuse by men, and that this concern outweighs the benefits of inclusivity. To repost what I wrote in the other thread;

Transwomen are subject to an enormous amount of prejudice and stigma, and are one of the most frequent groups to be targeted by violence. They require access to support networks, resources, and safe-spaces. Further restricting their access to the few resources that exist for victims of abuse would allow that problem to explode.

On the other hand, they do not represent any significant threat to other women in these spaces. There's no solid evidence supporting that notion.

I recognise the need for women-only spaces and the value they have, particularly as a resource for survivors of domestic abuse. I recognise that people are going to be worried about who they might come into contact with. But with no evidence-based reason for concern, this particular worry is prejudicial; just as it would be if the providers were to start excluding gay women on the basis of someone's discomfort.

And as I said in the other thread, we in fact DO have evidence in the Yaniv case. It is foolish to think that if transexual individuals do gain the ability to smoothly enter these spaces that there will not be people who will abuse this for their own ends, it will happen, that's how we humans work. The question you need to ask is do you want yourself and other supporters of the trans rights movement to be the ones that make the laws to prevent this or the people you are fighting against to do so. And those laws will most certainly be more favorable if it is you that makes them.

 

[Silvanus]

And as I said in the other thread, we in fact DO have evidence in the Yaniv case. It is foolish to think that if transexual individuals do gain the ability to smoothly enter these spaces that there will not be people who will abuse this for their own ends, it will happen, that's how we humans work. The question you need to ask is do you want yourself and other supporters of the trans rights movement to be the ones that make the laws to prevent this or the people you are fighting against to do so. And those laws will most certainly be more favorable if it is you that makes them.

Once again: The court threw out her complaint. Yaniv was already unsuccessful under existing laws. If anything, her case is demonstration that the existing laws are sufficient for dealing with situations like hers.

 

[happyninja42]

This might be a disconnect because I don't do social media. But in that sense... are people surprised? If you're willingly putting yourself in social consciousness, you're going to be reminded time and time again that people are unhappy with how the world is and they want it to change. No matter how privileged you are, no matter how well off you are compared to someone else.

If people hate being reminded about this stuff, why do people flock to social media?

While I don't do social media either, it's still prevalent enough where I pick up on it from the edges of the spheres it orbits in. No I don't think people that invest a large portion of their time on social media should be surprised about it, but to your second question of why use social media, that's a really easy answer. Because it's not just being annoyed by stuff you don't like. I'm sure some people spend most of their time just browsing for shitposts to be upset about, but plenty of people just use it for the intended purpose, social connection to people too far away to do in person. It's just a sad side-effect of the technology, that people have varying degrees of tolerance for.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Legit didn't know about the fantastic beast movies, I kinda tuned out of those.

Very wise. They're her version of the Star Wars prequels, but with more cringe.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

Very wise. They're her version of the Star Wars prequels, but with more cringe.

I think that's a real insult to the acting. There's nothing in them that reaches "I hate sand" levels of bad. They certainly have their problems though.

 

[Agema]

However it also, unfortunately, relies on the old discredited idea that allowing trans women into women-only spaces will lead to abuse by men,

How discredited is this idea, precisely? What data do we actually have, particularly with relation to a theoretical law and situation that doesn't yet exist (as per Rowling's post)? But see below.

and that this concern outweighs the benefits of inclusivity.

Now, we can certainly draw up a cost/benefit analysis and conclude that the benefit to trans women is a greater public good. But if there is a cost to be borne, it's going to by women (trans or otherwise) getting abused. At bare minimum, we can acknowledge this as a possibility, and accept why to many women, particularly ones who have already been abused, it isn't quite so easy to dismiss.

On the other hand, they do not represent any significant threat to other women in these spaces. There's no solid evidence supporting that notion.

I think you might not quite be understanding what the argument is here. It is not that trans women will abuse women, it is that men pretending to be trans women will be more able to access female-only spaces and abuse women. And I totally believe there are some abusive men who'll do that. I'm pretty sure some already have.

 

[Silvanus]

How discredited is this idea, precisely? What data do we actually have, particularly with relation to a theoretical law and situation that doesn't yet exist (as per Rowling's post)?

The Gender Recognition Reform Bill to which Rowling refers may be new to Scotland, but it doesn't represent a purely theoretical situation. It brings Scotland broadly in line with Norway, Denmark, Belgium, the Republic of Ireland and others.

Contrary to how Rowling describes it, it doesn't mean somebody can just "say they're a woman"; there's still a legal process involved in recognition, usually including meeting a professional to talk about it. The change to Scottish law only removes various obstacles (such as the requirement for surgery or other physical treatment).

As far as available data goes on how efficacious it is as an approach, it's pretty positive. There's been zero reversals and zero recorded fraud in Ireland, for instance, from operating a similar line.

Now, we can certainly draw up a cost/benefit analysis and conclude that the benefit to trans women is a greater public good. But if there is a cost to be borne, it's going to by women (trans or otherwise) getting abused. At bare minimum, we can acknowledge this as a possibility, and accept why to many women, particularly ones who have already been abused, it isn't quite so easy to dismiss.

Yes, there is a (statistically slight) possibility for increased abuse. I would encourage places to implement safe-guards to prevent internal abuse as opposed to excluding from their services a sizeable chunk of the people they're supposed to protect.

This is, to my mind, along the same lines as those who say they're uncomfortable sharing bathrooms or changing rooms with gay people: the possibility of abuse or harassment is usually the line of argument there, too. Just the same, the data just isn't there to support it.

I think you might not quite be understanding what the argument is here. It is not that trans women will abuse women, it is that men pretending to be trans women will be more able to access female-only spaces and abuse women. And I totally believe there are some abusive men who'll do that. I'm pretty sure some already have.

How many men will go through the rigmarole of applying for new gender recognition to gain access to a bathroom or changing facility? Bathrooms and changing facilities don't tend to be locked; if somebody is that bent on abuse, are they really not going to just walk in until they have the certificate?

I don't believe the scenario. It's not credible, and it hasn't happened to any significant degree where these rules are already in place.

 

[CaitSeith]

It wasn't cancel culture when the Dixie Chicks condemned Bush and their once meteoric rise came crashing down because people didn't want to support anyone who dare spoke ill of the president.

Coincidentally, recently I heard someone comment how "It's sad that the most thoroughly cancelled artist ever may have been the Dixie Chicks for saying 'war is bad'". It may be debatable, but when even the freaking Red Cross didn't want anything to do with them, they are very strong candidates for that title. The public's reaction also explains why when an artist makes criticism towards Trump, there is always people telling them to "stay out of politics, and just keep making games/music/videos/etc" (even if the artist in question is Rage Against the Machine).

 

[Agema]

I don't believe the scenario. It's not credible, and it hasn't happened to any significant degree where these rules are already in place.

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?

 

[Dreiko]

Concerning the casting of a black Hermione, didn't Rowling defend it after people were already criticizing the casting?

TBH, I think the whole thing was silly. On one hand, Hermione is white in the books, or at least, she was depicted as being white on the front cover of Prisoner of Azkaban. Whether Emma Watson 'canonized' as Hermione being white is another matter (certainly it seems that Dean Thomas was 'canonized' as being black in the films, even if the books never specified his skin colour IIRC). On the other, plays will always have a cycling cast, and there's many different productions of a play. So I think it's perfectly fair to give various people a shot at roles in the context of those plays because there'll never be a definitive stage production. There'll be exceptions, true (e.g. Othello), but again, exceptions. So in this particular case, I have far more criticism for those criticizing the casting.

You're right about the timing. First you had some people complaining but Rowling didn't come out and say what you did she was all like "what are you saying my guy, Hermione's beeing black is normal" which is what really set fire on that debate and caused more reaction.

If she had just come out to say "we just cast the best actress, she coulda been Japanese or Indian or from Mars but she's still playing a white character because it's ACTING" that wouldn't have been met with much reaction and would probably have quenched the fires down a bunch too. Only thing it wouldn't do is get her virtue points by the cancellers.

 

[Breakdown]

That's not really how this works.

Again, the whole thing with James Gunn was fabricated by literal rapist and pizzagate guy Mike Cernovich. The masses didn't find something Gunn said, Cernovich went through his online history, edited stuff to make it look more incriminating than it was and circulated it in right wing circles with the claim that Gunn was literally supporting paedophilia. A large part of "the masses" calling for James Gunn to be fired from Disney were right-wing actors who believed that James Gunn had actually supported or engaged in paedophilia, or right-wing centrists crying about "hypocrisy". Did some liberals and well meaning people get caught up in it, sure. But you can't really hold them entirely responsible for being manipulated by bad actors.

So like, the offence is less important than the person who reports it? Either the tweets were bad enough to justify James Gunn getting fired, or they weren't. The identity or the political views of the person who brought them to light should be irrelevant.

This reminds of another forum where people were insisting that Hartley Sawyer should be fired from the Flash TV show while also insisting that Gunn should not have been fired by Disney. That argument was also based on the political views of the people making the complaints. It just seems like blatant political partisanship.

 

[ObsidianJones]

Coincidentally, recently I heard someone comment how "It's sad that the most thoroughly cancelled artist ever may have been the Dixie Chicks for saying 'war is bad'". It may be debatable, but when even the freaking Red Cross didn't want anything to do with them, they are very strong candidates for that title. The public's reaction also explains why when an artist makes criticism towards Trump, there is always people telling them to "stay out of politics, and just keep making games/music/videos/etc" (even if the artist in question is Rage Against the Machine).

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...

 

[Houseman]

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...

Do conservatives ever get told "Stay out of/Keep Silent About/Don't Force Your Politics"?

Because, if so, then doesn't this criticism also apply equally to the ones who are saying this to conservatives?
Or maybe instead of saying "stay out of politics", they just get cancelled?

 

[Terminal Blue]

How discredited is this idea, precisely? What data do we actually have, particularly with relation to a theoretical law and situation that doesn't yet exist (as per Rowling's post)? But see below.

So, I don't know how familiar you are with the whole situation in the UK, but some necessary context.

Back in 2016, there was a review of the laws related to trans people in the UK. One of the findings was:

While we recognise the importance of the Gender Recognition Act as pioneering legislation when it was passed, it is clear that the Act is now dated. The medicalised approach regarding mental-health diagnosis pathologises trans identities; as such, it runs contrary to the dignity and personal autonomy of applicants.

Based on this report, the government announced a consultation on the gender recognition act in 2017.

The result has been an enormous cultural and media backlash against trans people, which has essentially continued to this day and which has gone far, far beyond any specific changes to the gender recognition act and become a debate about trans inclusion more generally. Much of the language used, even in print media, has been fucking horrendous, evoking the moral panic around the AIDs crisis of the 80s and 90s. Children are being brainwashed by the "trans cult", or "sacrificed" to appease "militant" trans activists. The medical and scientific establishment has been "coopted" by "demented trans ideology" which denies basic biological truths about human beings. Women are under threat. Gay people are under threat. Childen are under threat. Society is under threat.

If you read Rowling's essay as an isolated document, it probably sounds quite reasonable. Read in this context, it's simply a repetition of the same talking points we have heard over and over again. It's also very clear that she is borrowing language from trans-exclusionary feminism. She describes people as "trans identified", for example, which is a term TERFs use to describe all trans people because they don't believe that trans people actually exist. Above all, there is the same recurring sense of threat that must be managed.

Because that is what trans people are to 'gender critical' liberal feminists like Rowling. They can like and even care about us as individuals, but we are not and will never be normal people to them. They reserve the right to decide whether to think of us as the sex we claim to be. They expect their feelings of being threatened to outweigh our needs regardless of whether those feelings are reasonable or justified. They expect that our lives must be organised around managing their concerns. We are still a dangerous anomaly that must be managed, medicalized and (where possible) corrected. It's slightly nicer than talking about children being sacrificed by the trans cult, but not by much.

The self-identiifcation model of gender recognition does exist, it has existed for half a decade in Ireland. It also exists in the Netherlands, in Argentina, in Denmark, Malta and Columbia. There is no evidence that, in any of these places, a self-identification model has posed a risk to cis women. There is no evidence of the kind of mass abuse predicted by TERFs and the "gender criticals". Why would there be?

I think you might not quite be understanding what the argument is here. It is not that trans women will abuse women, it is that men pretending to be trans women will be more able to access female-only spaces and abuse women. And I totally believe there are some abusive men who'll do that. I'm pretty sure some already have.

I had a person I used to call a friend who got into this whole "gender critical" "protect women's spaces" thing. They are a lesbian ciswoman who is butch. Short hair, muscles, always wears men's clothing, but still recognisably AFAB.

Some time after I cut ties with this person, I noticed a facebook post they'd made about being asked to leave a women's bathroom and how awful and humiliating it was, and much as I've had similar experiences and it is really awful I found myself thinking "what exactly do you expect?"

How exactly do you protect women's spaces from trans people? Do you have to carry a special ID card which shows your sex at birth and your current sex? How much detail should it include about your medical history? Should it describe specific surgeries you've had or medication you may be on? Should an attendant be allowed to check your genitals? What if you are allowed to be there, but someone else misidentifies your gender or feels threatened by you anyway? Can they call someone and have you escorted out just because they feel like you shouldn't be there? What if the person they call doesn't believe you are the sex you say you are? Again, do you have to show them your genitals, or your birth certificate, or specific medical information? Can you subsequently sue them for not letting you use facilities you were legally entitled to use? Are you entitled to privacy regarding the information you share to prove you are entitled to be in these spaces? Can this information be shared with third parties without your consent?

I'm pretty sure if you asked the woman who asked my former friend to leave the bathroom, she would say "well, I thought they were a man and I was concerned. I didn't feel safe with them around". Is that a valid concern? Is it less valid because it was directed at a cis woman, even though she can easily say that she didn't know that this person was a cis woman?

Any logistical challenges which people imagine might arise from a self-identification model already exist. We still have to figure out when it is reasonable for a person to feel threatened, or when it is reasonable to ask someone to leave a particular space for the safety of others, and there are still going to be people who feel unsafe sharing facilities with other people even though they are legally entitled to be there.

 

[ObsidianJones]

Do conservatives ever get told "Stay out of/Keep Silent About/Don't Force Your Politics"?

Because, if so, then doesn't this criticism also apply equally to the ones who are saying this to conservatives?
Or maybe instead of saying "stay out of politics", they just get cancelled?

Whenever I see you post, I think about if I have a message in the thread and... well... if I was a betting man....

But that's neither here nor there.

It would only matter if the person who said that to a conservative stated as such and said they were striving for an apolitical space.

So, let's run the gambit, ok?

A democrat says that to a Republican. Can always be done. Then the question comes if they are saying it because they are against the conservative's politics and they wish to counter act them... it's political. If they doubled back and said the line is because they weren't honest. That's bad for the democrat in that hypothetical.

Same thing for an independent. Same thing for a conservative.

We can always do match for match and come up with examples of Conservatives trying to silence people because they don't want things to change and finding examples of non-Conservatives trying to silence people because they don't want things to change. Hell, we can even use ourselves as an example and comb through the old forums. Because remember, the point I'm making are people who are saying 'don't speak about things' because they don't want to rock the boat because they are fine the way things are. Do you think the current non-conservative's is fine with the way things are? Honestly?

 

[Agema]

Because that is what trans people are to 'gender critical' liberal feminists like Rowling. They can like and even care about us as individuals, but we are not and will never be normal people to them.

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.

I had a person I used to call a friend...

Right, sure. And I've got a friend who told me a story too, which represents a different perspective. I'm not going to bother, because it can be boiled down to the simple point that people have concerns and fears which need to be allayed, and barking at them in an orgy of vitriol or going into a long explanation of feminist ideological perspectives so therefore they're magically wrong doesn't actually address or answer those concerns and fears.

The claim that there is no evidence of increased victimisation of women from expanded trans rights IS useful. Although I suspect it's more in the realm of no evidence than evidence exists and shows there is no increased risk, and the latter is what really counts.

How exactly do you protect women's spaces from trans people?

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?

 

[Houseman]

It would only matter if the person who said that to a conservative stated as such and said they were striving for an apolitical space.

So, let's run the gambit, ok?

A democrat says that to a Republican. Can always be done. Then the question comes if they are saying it because they are against the conservative's politics and they wish to counter act them... it's political. If they doubled back and said the line is because they weren't honest. That's bad for the democrat in that hypothetical.

Same thing for an independent. Same thing for a conservative.

We can always do match for match. Even in the old forums. Because remember, the point I'm making are people who are saying 'don't speak about things' because they don't want to rock the boat because they are fine the way things are. Do you think the current non-conservative's is fine with the way things are? Honestly?

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?