Gender again. Sorry!

[bobzmyunkle]

On a slightly different issue, it looks like the Pope's a few steps behind the Scottish enlightenment
https://www.reuters.com/world/europ...hanges-gender-theory-new-document-2024-04-08/

 

[Rusty Nails]

Yes, it's a question, not a statement, and Matticus can give as good as he gets, both here and IRL.

I worked that out because it ended in a question mark. There is a statement within that question.

The snail is also able to give as good as he gets.

 

[Rusty Nails]

On a slightly different issue, it looks like the Pope's a few steps behind the Scottish enlightenment
https://www.reuters.com/world/europ...hanges-gender-theory-new-document-2024-04-08/

Surprise, surprise.

Does the Pope sh*t in the woods?

 

[bobzmyunkle]

Does the Pope sh*t in the woods?

He's also been listening to his African focus groups.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Perhaps her opinions as expressed are not quite black and white enough for you. Nuance can be difficult.

That tweet says precisely nothing though. What is it being nuanced about? Men in women's sports? In their prisons? Gender overriding sex in law?

It's really just another iteration of the Why can't everybody be kind? sloganeering that does zero except virtue signal that the poster isn't like those nasty feminists who think women deserve their own spaces.

 

[Ian H]

I worked that out because it ended in a question mark. There is a statement within that question.

The snail is also able to give as good as he gets.

Rather like a good poem, my question seems to be capable of reinterpretations unrelated to the intent of the writer.

 

[monkers]

Neither my post not JK Rowlings post says that.

You didn't intend to say it, now read it again.

 

[Rusty Nails]

Rather like a good poem, my question seems to be capable of reinterpretations unrelated to the intent of the writer.

I think therefore I am

I'm pink therefore I'm spam.

 

[monkers]

Why? I’m sure she knows the difference between her Potter fantasy and real life.

I said it's 'an odd look'. Real life is that trans people have a legally protected right to be who they are. According to Rowling they live a fantasy life of pretending to be something they are not.

 

[monkers]

‘Diatribes’ is a subjective opinion of her posts and interviews and I see nothing to show she is offended when replied to except if those replies are personal insults or threats…real or imagined. People on this forum occasionally feel the same.

'Diatribes' are a forceful and bitter attack - I'd say that describes her writing.

 

[monkers]

I am sure she knows there is no right to absolute free speech, even given her spat with the Scottish lawmakers, and also when a reply is genuine difference of opinion or hate speech. Many people do hate her.

We are all free to believe what we like, and free to speak, but are not protected from consequence. There are people who probably 'hate' what she has to say, and probably hate her for what she has to say. If / when people say that they do, that is a consequence - that is not say that I approve of people expressing hatred towards her or anybody else, as I don't.

 

[monkers]

I am not sure of where she has said/implied that human rights are one way. I am not aware of how much she has, or has not, supported human rights issues through her charitable trust.

There is no mention of Rowling in my sentence, but a reference to 'those people'. Clearly I've widened my thoughts to others.

 

[monkers]

Any famous person making political or social statements using the platform available to them could be accused of the same thing.

Is the argument that she is wrong, as presumably are a significant element of the population (no, I don’t have the stats), or that, as a famous person she should keep out of the debate? It cannot be that no-one, especially someone with a huge platform, is allowed to have dissenting opinions on a difficult for some and controversial issue

She clearly feels strongly about it and does seem to revel in the controversy but that is not a crime or some on this forum would be criminals.

It's not that I disagree with this, Rowling has a right to believe whatever she likes; however the position is asymmetrical, people like Rowling, Glinner, Musk and others are using there platforms to propagate hate. The victims do not have this platform and no real means of defence. The consequence is that there is growing bigotry towards LGBT people. As a member of that community I experience it too. I had an unpleasant experience while in a queue in a bank this week, being assaulted and insulted by the man behind me in the queue which needed an intervention from security.

My position Rusty is that I am sick and tired of this propagation of on-line hate and the consequences that some of us face.

I recommend a read of the HopeNotHate 2024 140 page report on the state of hate in the UK, and what some of us have to put up with. It is getting worse, and we real people in the real world are growing increasing alarmed by it. It isn't that on-line hate is not in the real world - it is.

 

[Deleted member 159]

people like Rowling, Glinner, Musk and others are using there platforms to propagate hate

In your opinion,

even the Scottish hate bill doesn't agree with you

 

[Deleted member 159]

The consequence is that there is growing bigotry backlash towards LGB T people

These are the group who are causing all the reactions.

Stay out of women's changing rooms, toilets, sports and everything will be fine