5 ms·

> Who knows what will come of any future project that she is working on. Are you serious? There are three (three!) studio films in production based on her wor

> Who knows what will come of any future project that she is working on. Are you serious? There are three (three!) studio films in production based on her works. She has two novels in the publication channel right now for release this year. I don't even want to count the number of auxiliary projects like theme parks and derivative products she's currently involved with. And none of this, NONE OF THIS, has changed in the last few weeks since she got in trouble for being a TERF. In my wildest dreams I couldn't imagine being cancelled so hard. This "cancel culture" paranoia is just out of control. There are excesses, sure. People are mean on the internet everywhere. What you think happening, though, is simply NOT HAPPENING. You're being misled, yet again, by your media who are telling you about "problems" that don't exist that Just So Happen to be "solved" by voting for the right candidates or hating the right people.

rglullis 6y ago
Please read the answer I gave to sibling comment. The point is not whether she actually gets to be "canceled" effectively. The problem with "cancel culture" is more about the culture than the cancelling part. It is the matter of coercing every prominent public figure into some uniform view point that is supposed to be spread around unquestioned. > hating the right people. I didn't see any animosity from JK Rowling or Navratilova towards trans-people, yet you are ready to label them TERFs. Who is the one trigger-happy on the hate again? > There are excesses, sure. People are mean on the internet everywhere. It's funny how when we see "our side" making something clearly wrong and immoral, we are okay with just calling it "excesses". But if you are so forgiving for mistakes on one side, why not the other?
- newacct583 6y ago
  > I didn't see any animosity from JK Rowling or Navratilova towards trans-people Just to educate you on the subject, since you don't seem very plugged in: What Rowling did was effectively deny that trans women are "women"[1]. To a demographic that is defined in terms of personal identity, that's offensive on its face. It's "hate", in the simplest form of the word. Compare "Negro facilities are separate but equal", etc... Now, obviously you don't see it that way, nor does Rowling. But if you want to make pontifications on internet culture you need to understand where the offense comes from. [1] It's also notable that she was asymmetric about this and did not apply the same logic to trans men. She's part of an identifiable group of women who view the trans issue as a dilution of traditional feminism, which is why the "TERF" label got invented. It's not a label of hate, like "Antifa".
  - rglullis 6y ago
    Compare "Negro facilities are separate but equal" Comparing a demographic that has its identity based on self-affirmation and are claiming for some positive freedoms (I want to play with the women's team) based on their claims with another demographic who had their identity maligned and their natural rights removed by decades of violence and corrupt/biased institutions run by third parties? I am not sure that's the route you want to go. But honestly, forgive me if I don't respond further. Unlike you, I am writing under my own name and I am weary that anything I say might be misconstrued and lead to some kind of struggle session in the future. Also, I really dislike the drive-by downvoting that is going on now.
    - newacct583 6y ago
      > are claiming for some positive freedoms (I want to play with the women's team) Rowling wasn't arguing about sports teams. That argument is a canard and you know it. Trans folks want to be treated as the people they are, and that's as far as it goes. And please forgive me for uncontrollable laughter that in a discussion of cancel culture where you clearly are being engaged constructively, you're choosing to disengage anyway... because downvotes. I can't imagine a better illustration of the kind of fake outrage that powers the current conservative freakout. You guys aren't worried about being "canceled", you just don't like being Wrong on the Internet[1]. [1] Yes, that's an xkcd reference.
      - rglullis 6y ago
        I will have no qualms to admit being wrong about it. I actually wish to be wrong. It would make things so much simpler. You are right in one point, you are at least trying to keep a civil conversation. I still don't like the fact that you are hiding under a fake name and I surely don't like that this comment will end up at -2 no matter what I write, but you are engaging constructively so let me give a vote of confidence. > Rowling wasn't arguing about sports teams Navratilova was. Her argument was basically "if you grow up as a man and then do a sex change, you will have an unfair advantage over cis women. If more men decide to do that, you will be hurting cis women in sports". It was still construed as "hateful" and "transphobic". Martina Navratilova, gay activist, lost sponsorships and was plainly attacked for simply stating the obvious regarding the physiology of a trans woman [0]. Rowling saying about "there is a word for 'people who menstruate'" is also a call out for that. It is also a way to show that these attempts to declare that "trans women are women" may seem progressive at first but in the end lead to negate the most natural aspects of womanhood. It seems that progressives don't realize that wishing biology away does not make it reality. Saying "trans women are women" and labeling any one that disagrees or tries to bring any nuance to the argument does not help any cause and quite possibly damages other groups in the process. > Trans folks want to be treated as the people they are, and that's as far as it goes. “I respect every trans person’s right to live any way that feels authentic and comfortable to them. I’d march with you if you were discriminated against on the basis of being trans. At the same time, my life has been shaped by being female. I do not believe it’s hateful to say so.” How can anyone interpret this as mistreating or harming trans people is beyond me. Reading this and all the reactions regarding it, to call this transphobic seems way more than just "wanting to be treated as the people they are". Now, if you tell me that all of this is just a part of cultural wars, that all that is just activists trying to move the Overton window one way or another, I'd agree. If you want to be overly cynical and tell me that this is just corporate America exploiting the facts for clicks and that we are caught in the middle of the shouting, I'd agree even more. But don't tell me that this is just about "trans people wanting to be treated as the people they are", because I don't buy it. --- [0] I don't know if you know the story of Tiffany Abreu, trans volleyball player who was a professional male player on minor leagues and after a sex surgery went to be the top-record player in the women's league. Another player - Tandara, one of the gold-medalists with Brazil female volleyball team - gave a post-match interview where she says something along the lines of: "As much as we respect the human being, there is no denying that she is favored by growing up as a man. We can see that she holds back in the beginning of the game, but this just means that she can get to the decisive moments with more energy, when she doesn't hold back anymore. She gets to the end of the game with more stamina than anyone, she has higher Vo2 than any other woman, she can jump higher than any other on the league. She has more muscle fibers than we do. She had 30 years as a man to develop a man's body. She will always hit stronger than we do, no matter how much hormone control she is under. Personally we get along just fine, but we know that it's different with her". Was she "cancelled"? No. Were there other players saying that "she wasn't that different" and supportive of Tiffany? Sure. But in that interview Tandara spoke what was in the mind of most female volleyball players: trans-women athletes are leveraging their status as a way to dominate sports. Did the FIVB reviewed their position regarding trans players? No, definitely not.

rglullis 6y ago

Please read the answer I gave to sibling comment. The point is not whether she actually gets to be "canceled" effectively. The problem with "cancel culture" is more about the culture than the cancelling part. It is the matter of coercing every prominent public figure into some uniform view point that is supposed to be spread around unquestioned. > hating the right people. I didn't see any animosity from JK Rowling or Navratilova towards trans-people, yet you are ready to label them TERFs. Who is the one trigger-happy on the hate again? > There are excesses, sure. People are mean on the internet everywhere. It's funny how when we see "our side" making something clearly wrong and immoral, we are okay with just calling it "excesses". But if you are so forgiving for mistakes on one side, why not the other?

newacct583 6y ago
> I didn't see any animosity from JK Rowling or Navratilova towards trans-people Just to educate you on the subject, since you don't seem very plugged in: What Rowling did was effectively deny that trans women are "women"[1]. To a demographic that is defined in terms of personal identity, that's offensive on its face. It's "hate", in the simplest form of the word. Compare "Negro facilities are separate but equal", etc... Now, obviously you don't see it that way, nor does Rowling. But if you want to make pontifications on internet culture you need to understand where the offense comes from. [1] It's also notable that she was asymmetric about this and did not apply the same logic to trans men. She's part of an identifiable group of women who view the trans issue as a dilution of traditional feminism, which is why the "TERF" label got invented. It's not a label of hate, like "Antifa".
- rglullis 6y ago
  Compare "Negro facilities are separate but equal" Comparing a demographic that has its identity based on self-affirmation and are claiming for some positive freedoms (I want to play with the women's team) based on their claims with another demographic who had their identity maligned and their natural rights removed by decades of violence and corrupt/biased institutions run by third parties? I am not sure that's the route you want to go. But honestly, forgive me if I don't respond further. Unlike you, I am writing under my own name and I am weary that anything I say might be misconstrued and lead to some kind of struggle session in the future. Also, I really dislike the drive-by downvoting that is going on now.
  - newacct583 6y ago
    > are claiming for some positive freedoms (I want to play with the women's team) Rowling wasn't arguing about sports teams. That argument is a canard and you know it. Trans folks want to be treated as the people they are, and that's as far as it goes. And please forgive me for uncontrollable laughter that in a discussion of cancel culture where you clearly are being engaged constructively, you're choosing to disengage anyway... because downvotes. I can't imagine a better illustration of the kind of fake outrage that powers the current conservative freakout. You guys aren't worried about being "canceled", you just don't like being Wrong on the Internet[1]. [1] Yes, that's an xkcd reference.
    - rglullis 6y ago
      I will have no qualms to admit being wrong about it. I actually wish to be wrong. It would make things so much simpler. You are right in one point, you are at least trying to keep a civil conversation. I still don't like the fact that you are hiding under a fake name and I surely don't like that this comment will end up at -2 no matter what I write, but you are engaging constructively so let me give a vote of confidence. > Rowling wasn't arguing about sports teams Navratilova was. Her argument was basically "if you grow up as a man and then do a sex change, you will have an unfair advantage over cis women. If more men decide to do that, you will be hurting cis women in sports". It was still construed as "hateful" and "transphobic". Martina Navratilova, gay activist, lost sponsorships and was plainly attacked for simply stating the obvious regarding the physiology of a trans woman [0]. Rowling saying about "there is a word for 'people who menstruate'" is also a call out for that. It is also a way to show that these attempts to declare that "trans women are women" may seem progressive at first but in the end lead to negate the most natural aspects of womanhood. It seems that progressives don't realize that wishing biology away does not make it reality. Saying "trans women are women" and labeling any one that disagrees or tries to bring any nuance to the argument does not help any cause and quite possibly damages other groups in the process. > Trans folks want to be treated as the people they are, and that's as far as it goes. “I respect every trans person’s right to live any way that feels authentic and comfortable to them. I’d march with you if you were discriminated against on the basis of being trans. At the same time, my life has been shaped by being female. I do not believe it’s hateful to say so.” How can anyone interpret this as mistreating or harming trans people is beyond me. Reading this and all the reactions regarding it, to call this transphobic seems way more than just "wanting to be treated as the people they are". Now, if you tell me that all of this is just a part of cultural wars, that all that is just activists trying to move the Overton window one way or another, I'd agree. If you want to be overly cynical and tell me that this is just corporate America exploiting the facts for clicks and that we are caught in the middle of the shouting, I'd agree even more. But don't tell me that this is just about "trans people wanting to be treated as the people they are", because I don't buy it. --- [0] I don't know if you know the story of Tiffany Abreu, trans volleyball player who was a professional male player on minor leagues and after a sex surgery went to be the top-record player in the women's league. Another player - Tandara, one of the gold-medalists with Brazil female volleyball team - gave a post-match interview where she says something along the lines of: "As much as we respect the human being, there is no denying that she is favored by growing up as a man. We can see that she holds back in the beginning of the game, but this just means that she can get to the decisive moments with more energy, when she doesn't hold back anymore. She gets to the end of the game with more stamina than anyone, she has higher Vo2 than any other woman, she can jump higher than any other on the league. She has more muscle fibers than we do. She had 30 years as a man to develop a man's body. She will always hit stronger than we do, no matter how much hormone control she is under. Personally we get along just fine, but we know that it's different with her". Was she "cancelled"? No. Were there other players saying that "she wasn't that different" and supportive of Tiffany? Sure. But in that interview Tandara spoke what was in the mind of most female volleyball players: trans-women athletes are leveraging their status as a way to dominate sports. Did the FIVB reviewed their position regarding trans players? No, definitely not.