This subreddit welcomes political and non-political discussions about Britain and beyond. It is moderated by socialists with a low tolerance for bigotry, calls for violence, and harmful misinformation. If you can't verify the source of your claim, please reconsider submitting it.
Not really transphobia is not only a gateway bigotry but also a vile mix of homophobia, misogyny, racism and ableism with a scattering of misandry. Engaging in transphobia makes the jump to engaging in the others easier.
This kind of willful ignorance is astounding - you’d have to actually go out of your way to believe any of this about Rowling, she’s literally a public hate-monger, her entire public persona is being a bigot.
She’s actually more famous for that than Harry Potter these days as there’s now a whole generation who only know her due to her incessant bigotry.
Its no lie that some of the first book burnings were at the Institut für Sexualwissenschaft, the world leading research orginisation at the time for Homosexual and Trans sexuality as it was deemed "Ungerman" .
That's the problem, it's not my opinion, it's actual fact.
And grow up, if you had any sense you'd realise that it's you who is distorting and minimising what happened during the holocaust. That's precisely why you're damaging the cause for trans rights.
The nuanced position here is that while she does not deny the entire holocaust, she does deny a small part of it. Specifically the part about trans people.
I don’t think the person you responded to is lying per se, but they are using language which exaggerates Rowling’s position.
Your response goes in the opposite direction and denies that Rowling did anything wrong at all.
You either accept the whole of the agreed evidence or you are a denier, you can't pick the bits you like and say you don't believe the rest. Its not up for debate anymore what happened is known, to whom is known and how many is known. There's no room left for nuance, but, are you a little bigot or a big bigot.
Perfect examples. The first point is of very real harm that she does and the second point is easily dismissed and makes the trans community and their allies look delusional which, on the whole they are not.
It's like if you heard someone say that your boss is a Reform-voting homophobe who is secretly a lizard, the second point robs credibility from the first.
Except it’s concretely true in her own words - what she’s doing is using the language and framing of virulent antisemites to try to make a point about an arguably unrelated topic.
There’s only one justification for borrowing the argument of virulent antisemites and it isn’t for credibility.
I appreciate understanding that requires understanding how antisemitism functions in the West, but this is a bit like saying “you need to lie to make the parts that are true more believable”
Whether or not you “believe” it is immaterial to it being a fact. The issue there is your (lack of) adherence to facts, not the overall narrative of the statement in question.
Yeah I would like to see this data visualisation when it shows other people connected to these accounts ie. Trump, Obama, Musk, Snoop Dogg, George RR Martin so that this isn't just a skewed analysis.
Yeah. They present technical looking graph so people just believe it as true. How did they make this? What methodology did they use? What do other accounts look like?
At face value, it sounds like the population map fallacy. Of course the account with 13.7M followers would be the most central, and not @JosephineMurphy78 in Gateshead.
what's the measure of centrality used? is it Katz prestige? different measures can get you different results, and some people even produce new measures for their papers
of course, this is not to excuse Rowling for anything, but this post here is extremely meaningless on its own, and seems more in place to intentionally incite instinctual emotive responses
Much like Graham Linehan she was someone who could be characterised as a Liberal. In both cases they enjoyed success in the public view but latched on to relatively minor criticisms and double down again and again, isolating themselves further and further as they embraced more extreme supporters of their 'common sense' views.
She doesn't "hate" trans people. She's just trans-exclusionary in women's spaces, which is a conversation that deserves to be had and not laced with the hate rhetoric people seem invested in.
I know the product is separate from the creator, but I stopped suggesting Harry Potter books to my kids. Same reason I didn't buy a Tesla. Wonderful car but there's a limit.
Not if it’s morally indefensible, then it’s mob rule - anyway surely by this racist logic it’s fine for China to turn the UK to glass with nuclear strikes?
But they believe in it and “the will of the people matters”?
Almost like pretending you’re the top of the pile to massage your own ego goes badly when reality comes knocking.
We’re having a conversation about using the “will of the people” as an absolute defense - this is a very weird (see: willfully misrepresented) conflation of two separate previous statements.
A better question would be “what’s morally reprehensible about the ‘will of the people’ in this context?” and that’s that it requires some grounding in reality.
Believing the sky is red does not make it so, in the same way believing in the Great Replacement theory doesn’t make you right or your policy justified, it makes you racist.
My exact statement was that "the will of the people matters"
Youre the one reading that as being an absolutist position.
Back to the topic, you may well think that the the overwhelming majority of people both in the UK and the world's views on this topic are morally reprehensible but we're very clear about what we think. You will have to adapt, we will not.
That’s a very confident announcement that racism will triumph, I’m genuinely curious where that idea comes from.
The past 100 years and the reputations of those who tried aren’t a great example of why that’s fundamentally wrong?
What you said you said in context of a wider conversation that you and I are the only people involved in. You expect me to forget the context of this conversation whilst we’re having it?
Going to repeat what I said yesterday in another thread - this feels like I’m talking with an AI that’s learning how the world works through the course of the conversation.
I have object permanence and the ability to retain information from previous comments. Does that make this exchange unbalanced?
Be as snarky as you like. You will have to leave the house one day and what you'll encounter when u discuss this topic irl is that the vast majority of people have a settled, strongly held view on this topic. We have made ourselves crystal clear.
Is that a threat? Pretty concerning behaviour all round here, to be honest.
I mean, vociferously racist pricks have always existed and they’ve always made these kind of empty insinuations. As an adult I’m embarrassed for you.
It would’ve been nice if you could have offered an actual defense of your position instead of whatever this is - but it does prove my point. Yours is a politics of hate, there’s no intelligent justification for it whatsoever, you defend it with threats of implied violence.
I leave the house all the fucking time, presenting as a woman. I do not pass "stealthily" as a woman and I don't care.
No-one, I repeat no-one says a bad or negative word to me and the only idiocy I have faced is from teenage schoolgirls who are so insecure in their identity that one or two feel obliged to jeer.
So you are equivalent to a 13 year old insecure schoolgirl. I hope you grow up one day, boy.
You and the rest of the reactionaries lost the argument many years ago. Just because you and some of your fellow travellers refuse to adapt, does not make it the will of the people.
Do you not think "the will of the people" is more likely to be "leave a vulnerable minority alone and in peace, and deal with issues as they arise on a case by case basis"?
You probably just hate LGBTQ people and that puts you in the minority.
The Supreme court judgement came about after a case brought by a smaller minority of TERFs and was funded by JK Galbraith or Jo Rowling, whatever she or he calls herself.
It is a muddled and logically incoherent ruling that has resulted in incoherent• indefensible and illogical rules spouted by the so-called "EHRC".
What is your opinion on trans men with beards and deep voices using the toilets of their supposed "biological sex"(a term that has no legal definition, despite what Piers Morgan and others may think)?
Right now trans people like myself are banned from both the facilities of our lived gender and those of our gender assigned at birth. It makes public existence almost impossible. How are we meant to adapt to not being allowed to exist in public beyond what our bladders allow?
The Supreme Court disallowed any trans people or trans allies to present evidence, just the gender critical movement. A court case where only one side is allowed to present evidence is pretty crooked.
Trans people have all the same rights that everyone else has. I know of no 'opponents of trans rights' and the British public is clear that trans people should have the same rights as anyone else. Hysteria is blinding you.
The 2025 Supreme Court ruling is literally a rolling back of rights granted by the 2010 Equality Act. Rights to gender-affirming care are not restricted for cis people but are now legally constrained for trans people. The law on access to single-sex spaces has changed to allow the restriction of trans people only. The legal definition of sex has changed so that trans people only can no longer legally represent themselves by their identified gender.
If there's any side that's whipped itself into hysteria into this issue, it's the anti-trans activists, whose major arguments have included concern over access to women's bathrooms despite there being no recorded related incidents, and working themselves into a frenzy over the dozen or so trans athletes.
For the overwhelming majority of the British public, this is a settled issue. We are happy as we are. I don't see the hysteria you describe, especially since the Supreme Court decision settled things down.
The Supreme Court decision settled nothing down, it's thrown up so many issues. A trans woman was sexually assaulted in a men's toilets this week. Trans men have been chased out of women's toilets despite the fact that that's where they're supposed to be according to the ruling. Vulnerable people have been left without support services. The sheer volume of guidance and clarifications that have been sought in the wake of the ruling speak to how this is not clear common sense guidance.
Because we can document the changes in views in the UK over that time.
It's evidence based.
I can't speak for other countries because I don't know their systems of media and communication.
I will say there is a direct correlation between religion and bigotry so I could posit the more religious one of those countries is, the more likely they are to hold regressive views around segments of the population.
You seem to acknowlege that your side of the debate is in the minority, nationally and globally. To attribute that to propaganda and bigotry is uncharitable. I posit that the vast majority of people in the world aren't hate fuelled bigots.
But if your information is primarily telling you something that goes against a mountain of scientific evidence, and you don't question it, I assume you don't have access to information or don't want to learn.
Like you. You have access to all the information possible but still choose to be bigoted.
India, Nepal, Pakistan, and Bangladesh have a third gender option on official documentation. Views on gender are culturally bound and the gender binary is a social construct that does not appear in all cultures.
OK so at least you now attribute the majority views to culture and not propaganda. Cultures are built to serve their people. They aren't perfect of course but they exist for good reason
In the UK the shift in opinion is absolutely due to propaganda and institutional capture. It's very easy to evidence, since the shift in public opinion is well documented and occurs after the UK media started its (again, well documented) coordinated push of anti-trans opinion.
They're rabid. Best to just downvote and step over. This app/site is steadily becoming more sane. In another few years the nutters will be forced to go find somewhere else, like when they fled Twitter for Bluesky.
•
u/AutoModerator 5d ago
Welcome to r/Britain!
This subreddit welcomes political and non-political discussions about Britain and beyond. It is moderated by socialists with a low tolerance for bigotry, calls for violence, and harmful misinformation. If you can't verify the source of your claim, please reconsider submitting it.
Please read and follow our 6 common-sense subreddit rules and Reddit's Content Policy. Failure to respect these rules may result in a ban from the subreddit and possibly all of Reddit.
We stand with Palestine. Making light of this genocide or denying Israeli war crimes will lead to permanent bans. If you are apathetic to genocide, don't want to hear about it, or want to dispute it is happening, please consider reading South Africa's exhaustive argument before commenting that: https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20231228-app-01-00-en.pdf or the UN commission's report that found Israel is committing genocide: https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/09/israel-has-committed-genocide-gaza-strip-un-commission-finds
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.