JK Rowling and the Woke Cancellation

[Destino]

No rights group looks kindly on any sort of pushback, from their perspective they are fighting for basic rights.  The problem is that people are always going to creep cautiously forward when young children are involved.  In the US children as young as three years old have been socially transitioned.  The science still says most young people will outgrow their gender dysphoria.  The science of diagnosing which kids will not, still remains unproven.  There are experts in the field with doubt about the studies and plenty of confidence, but anecdotal and the individual beliefs of experts have proven wrong before.  
 

Is anyone even still doing the studies on this?  It wouldn’t be good for the career to announce any findings that didn’t point in the right direction.  

[Mr. Sinister]

4 minutes ago, Destino said:

No rights group looks kindly on any sort of pushback, from their perspective they are fighting for basic rights.  The problem is that people are always going to creep cautiously forward when young children are involved.  In the US children as young as three years old have been socially transitioned.  The science still says most young people will outgrow their gender dysphoria.  The science of diagnosing which kids will not, still remains unproven.  There are experts in the field with doubt about the studies and plenty of confidence, but anecdotal and the individual beliefs of experts have proven wrong before.  
 

Is anyone even still doing the studies on this?  It wouldn’t be good for the career to announce any findings that didn’t point in the right direction.  

 

I have no idea how one approaches this from a scientific standpoint. Best of luck to all of them

[Renegade7]

10 minutes ago, Mr. Sinister said:

 

I have no idea how one approaches this from a scientific standpoint. Best of luck to all of them

Highly recommended start:

 

https://www.sciencechannel.com/tv-shows/through-the-wormhole/full-episodes/are-there-more-than-two-sexes

[Momma There Goes That Man]

39 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

Today I keep seeing people trying to "cancel" John Krasinski, the ****ing guy from The Office.  GTFO.

 

What? What did he do?

[PleaseBlitz]

18 minutes ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

 

What? What did he do?

 

As with so much on Twitter, it is unclear.  The trending hashtag is #JohnKrasinskiItsOverParty.  99% of the tweets are memes from The Office supporting Mr. Krasinski. 

[Momma There Goes That Man]

Just now, PleaseBlitz said:

As with so much on Twitter, it is unclear.  The trending hashtag is #JohnKrasinskiItsOverParty.  99% of the tweets are memes from The Office supporting Mr. Krasinski. 

 

I looked it up. It seems to be, and i kid you not, because he plays a cop/CIA in the fictional Amazon show jack Ryan. 

[Corcaigh]

26 minutes ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

 

What? What did he do?

 

He did a regular positive news segment called 'Some Good News' with a lot of contributed content from viewers during the quarantine and now normality is returning he sold the idea/name to CBS.

 

I don't know if that's the reason.

 

EDIT: it appears some idiot started it for the reason above my post. FFS.

[The Evil Genius]

To me, the argument boils down to what makes someone a man or woman (or anything else they choose for themselves).

 

Rowling's position appears to be that if you weren't born female, you aren't female. It's not more nuanced than that really, despite what Rowling claims.

 

Edit...this all came from her support of someone who was fired (allegedly) for making highly charged comments regarding trans athletes. In reality, the person wasn't fired for that despite what Rowling continues to think.

 

 

[Going Commando]

1 hour ago, youngestson said:

That move is pretty standard in the internet debating world. I'm guilty of it myself sometimes. But that immediate reaction too often means there is no reflection. No time to digest or reflect on information and ideas or data. And once that original position is taken and put down in words somewhere in the interwebs people are extremely  unlikely to let that idea evolve, or take on shades of meaning, or to recognize its limitations. To become even more entrenched and angry and hostile. Just spraying invectives and accusations hose-like off into the electronic platforms. 

 

Good post, but I think you are being generous to the trans activists that tried to cancel Rowling by assuming these were off the cuff takes they wouldn't normally stand by.  They give statements and quotes to news sources that echo their tweets.  These are their tactics and they are comfortable with histrionics and bullying to create super insular echo chambers.  It's ugly and unprincipled and it doesn't deserve the reflexive left-wing tolerance/support that it gets.

[AlvinWaltonIsMyBoy]

57 minutes ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

 

What? What did he do?

He married Emily Blunt and I did not. Off with his head.

[Corcaigh]

7 minutes ago, AlvinWaltonIsMyBoy said:

He married Emily Blunt and I did not. Off with his head.

 

He tells that story here:

 

 

[PF Chang]

For everyone alluding to the idea of accepting the consequences of free speech, at-will employment etc: yes, you are technically right. There's nothing "protected class" about this. 

 

I don't think the clocks are striking thirteen here and I don't want to exaggerate this. But those kind of answers just seem like a way to avoid thinking about the problems of this culture. It's one thing when someone on ES is crying free speech over getting the ban hammer. It's another thing when institutions like the NYT are becoming controlled by Twitter mobs. Every publication or adjacent (Facebook, Twitter) is dealing with this right now. 

 

It's fine if someone gets fired for racist statements. How about using the wrong pronouns for someone? How about eating meat? Factory farming is clearly immoral. 

 

Edit: A big part of my concern about this is fearing that reactionary politicians will keep winning elections over this stuff. I don't buy "economic anxiety" as an explanation for Trump whatsoever, it's entirely cultural.  

[TD_washingtonredskins]

5 minutes ago, PF Chang said:

For everyone alluding to the idea of accepting the consequences of free speech, at-will employment etc: yes, you are technically right. There's nothing "protected class" about this. 

 

I don't think the clocks are striking thirteen here and I don't want to exaggerate this. But those kind of answers just seem like a way to avoid thinking about the problems of this culture. It's one thing when someone on ES is crying free speech over getting the ban hammer. It's another thing when institutions like the NYT are becoming controlled by Twitter mobs. Every publication or adjacent (Facebook, Twitter) is dealing with this right now. 

 

It's fine if someone gets fired for racist statements. How about using the wrong pronouns for someone? How about eating meat? Factory farming is clearly immoral. 

 

Edit: A big part of my concern about this is fearing that reactionary politicians will keep winning elections over this stuff. I don't buy "economic anxiety" as an explanation for Trump whatsoever, it's entirely cultural.  

Good post and I agree it's an issue. I personally think the whole culture is asinine, but I wanted to point out that I understand they aren't doing anything wrong. 

 

I agree with you it's a very slippery and dangerous slope. 

[Destino]

3 hours ago, The Evil Genius said:

To me, the argument boils down to what makes someone a man or woman (or anything else they choose for themselves).

Rowling's position appears to be that if you weren't born female, you aren't female. It's not more nuanced than that really, despite what Rowling claims.

 

There is plenty of nuance within that.  Being born with a female (or male) body has consequences.  Parenting and expectations are different.  How the world treats you is different.  A choice made down the road doesn’t change the past.  
 

 

[Die Hard]

27 minutes ago, Destino said:

 

There is plenty of nuance within that.  Being born with a female (or male) body has consequences.  Parenting and expectations are different.  How the world treats you is different.  A chose made done the road doesn’t change the past. 

 

There is plenty of nuance. Life is one big giant paradox.

 

I wouldn't invest much in any of it.

 

 

 

 

[bearrock]

53 minutes ago, PF Chang said:

For everyone alluding to the idea of accepting the consequences of free speech, at-will employment etc: yes, you are technically right. There's nothing "protected class" about this. 

 

I don't think the clocks are striking thirteen here and I don't want to exaggerate this. But those kind of answers just seem like a way to avoid thinking about the problems of this culture. It's one thing when someone on ES is crying free speech over getting the ban hammer. It's another thing when institutions like the NYT are becoming controlled by Twitter mobs. Every publication or adjacent (Facebook, Twitter) is dealing with this right now. 

 

It's fine if someone gets fired for racist statements. How about using the wrong pronouns for someone? How about eating meat? Factory farming is clearly immoral. 

 

Edit: A big part of my concern about this is fearing that reactionary politicians will keep winning elections over this stuff. I don't buy "economic anxiety" as an explanation for Trump whatsoever, it's entirely cultural.  

 

But the ultimate decision on how to respond falls on NYT, Twitter, Facebook, etc.  A company might fire for a racist statement, but I doubt they fire for wrong pronouns or eating meat.  And they will deal with the consequences of their actions accordingly.  If one side translates their viewpoints and opinions into public outcry and actions while the other side doesn't, acting side probably influences behaviors more than the other.  But that's the same as voting.  Policies are made by those who show up.

 

As for the reactionary politicians, they will always find some issue to be a reactionary to.  Ultimately it's up to the voters to decide how they will vote based on what criteria.  If one side is happy to retweet a thousand times and march and boycott, but can't be bothered to show up and vote, they get the election result they deserve.

 

 

[The Evil Genius]

1 hour ago, Destino said:

 

There is plenty of nuance within that.  Being born with a female (or male) body has consequences.  Parenting and expectations are different.  How the world treats you is different.  A chose made done the road doesn’t change the past.  

 

And I would disagree. To use well known names...I think Chaz Bono can identify as a male and shouldn't be questioned for it. I think Kaitlyn Jenner can identity as a female and should be afforded the same treatment. 

 

To JK, Chaz will never be male nor Kaitlyn female. 

 

To me, I just dont see any nuance in JK's position. 

[Destino]

26 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

 

And I would disagree. To use well known names...I think Chaz Bono can identify as a male and shouldn't be questioned for it. I think Kaitlyn Jenner can identity as a female and should be afforded the same treatment. 
 

 

 

Disagree with what?  I never said anything about what people can identify as or how they should be treated.  I agree with you, for the most part.  Only place I think it might matter is physical competition.  I’m fine with their using their choice of bathrooms unlike JK.
 

What I said were that their experiences were different, and that can’t be changed retroactively.  Even small differences can have very large effects on experience.  Biological sex does matter, and this is demonstrably true.

[The Evil Genius]

Des,

 

I was disagreeing with JKs position that the only way to be female is to be born female (and male male).

 

I probably misread your post and thought you agreed with her on that. Mea culpa. 

[TD_washingtonredskins]

34 minutes ago, Destino said:

 

 

Disagree with what?  I never said anything about what people can identify as or how they should be treated.  I agree with you, for the most part.  Only place I think it might matter is physical competition.  I’m fine with their using their choice of bathrooms unlike JK.
 

What I said were that their experiences were different, and that can’t be changed retroactively.  Even small differences can have very large effects on experience.  Biological sex does matter, and this is demonstrably true.

 

I think bathrooms is where I would draw the line, myself...at least until they have a procedure done. To me, until you have the same parts, you shouldn't be sharing a bathroom with others. Maybe that's antiquated thinking, but what would keep some weirdo from "identifying" as a female just to go in the woman's locker room at the gym? There's a safety aspect to it as well. 

 

I'm completely with you for sports/physical competitions too. 

 

But, overall, I don't have any issue with someone identifying as whatever they want. It's not any of my business. 

[Burgold]

I hear you, but think the bathroom thing is a bit of a red herring. To my knowledge, there has been no reports of a trans person ever attacking a female in a woman's bathroom or locker room. On the other hand, there have been tons of stories of trans people being attacked and bullied in their biologically-gendered restroom. However, I do think this is a nuanced issue because I can see the biologically female feeling weirded out or threatened. The best solution, though it might be impractical, would be a trans bathroom, that keeps them separate from both groups. Not sure if this falls into the "separate, but equal" trap, but even if it does, this might be a rare case where segregation is a better answer.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

4 minutes ago, Burgold said:

I hear you, but think the bathroom thing is a bit of a red herring. To my knowledge, there has been no reports of a trans person ever attacking a female in a woman's bathroom or locker room. On the other hand, there have been tons of stories of trans people being attacked and bullied in their biologically-gendered restroom. However, I do think this is a nuanced issue because I can see the biologically female feeling weirded out or threatened. The best solution, though it might be impractical, would be a trans bathroom, that keeps them separate from both groups. Not sure if this falls into the "separate, but equal" trap, but even if it does, this might be a rare case where segregation is a better answer.

 

Yeah, I am not trying to say that they are more likely to attack someone than another woman would be. I guess I just mean that it would be a little weird to me if a biological woman came up next to me while I was pissing even if she identified as a man. I would have to imagine that's exponentially worse from a woman's perspective. Is it worth laws and regulations? Maybe not, but it's where I personally draw a line in my brain. 

[Destino]

51 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

Des,

 

I was disagreeing with JKs position that the only way to be female is to be born female (and male male).

 

I probably misread your post and thought you agreed with her on that. Mea culpa. 

No worries.  I don’t agree with her on bathrooms or how people should be treated, but I am sympathetic towards her concerns where women’s rights have long intersected with female sex.  
 

 

[PF Chang]

23 hours ago, bearrock said:

 

But the ultimate decision on how to respond falls on NYT, Twitter, Facebook, etc.  A company might fire for a racist statement, but I doubt they fire for wrong pronouns or eating meat.  And they will deal with the consequences of their actions accordingly.  If one side translates their viewpoints and opinions into public outcry and actions while the other side doesn't, acting side probably influences behaviors more than the other.  But that's the same as voting.  Policies are made by those who show up.

 

As for the reactionary politicians, they will always find some issue to be a reactionary to.  Ultimately it's up to the voters to decide how they will vote based on what criteria.  If one side is happy to retweet a thousand times and march and boycott, but can't be bothered to show up and vote, they get the election result they deserve.

 

 

 

All fair points. Overall the slippery slope aspect of this is concerning but will be decided collectively. As you said, policies are made by those who show up. 

[visionary]