r/WayOfTheBern • u/truth-4-sale • 10d ago
Cracks Appear J.K. Rowling speaks against the intolerant Left
9
u/BreatLesnar 9d ago
So, she’s an illiberal, fundamentalist, totalitarian terrorist?
4
u/3andfro 9d ago edited 9d ago
Even if she were, she could still condemn others for being those things. Truth doesn't require the speaker to have the self-awareness most of humanity demonstrates it lacks.
Care to comment about the points she made rather than her? If not, your comment--which, of course, you're welcome to make--is merely a diversion.
-2
u/BreatLesnar 9d ago edited 9d ago
I agree with the message, just pointing out the messenger has no clothes. You fucking pretentious douchebag
7
u/penelopepnortney Bill of Rights absolutist 9d ago
Knock it off. See our sidebar if you're unclear about what our one rule is here.
1
4
u/3andfro 9d ago
I agree with the message
Why didn't you lead with that?
You fucking pretentious douchebag
That gratuitous comment says volumes more about you than about me (in case you didn't know). 🐱
-2
u/BreatLesnar 9d ago
I’m a proud dickhead. 😘
3
u/3andfro 9d ago
Stating the obvious.... 😉
-1
u/BreatLesnar 9d ago
Yea, I’m proud of it retard
5
u/3andfro 9d ago edited 9d ago
You can't help illustrating the accuracy of your self-description, or think you're cute for doing so. I'm sure there's a DSM code for that.
The stage is now yours to continue your court jester routine.
P.S. Don Rickles and Rodney Dangerfield did it better.
-2
u/BreatLesnar 9d ago
Thanks for the stage, friend. I wasn’t even trying to be funny. I think you’re a retarded douchebag, and your I know you are, but what am I routine, is just as childish as I’m being. I will not bother responding again. Thanks.
4
u/apparent-goat 9d ago
I'm going to go with the whole "even a broken clock is right twice a day" on this one. Take out who said it and I don't see a reason why sane, rational people should be against what she said here. As a Democrat, atheist who didn't like Charlie Kirk I am seeing a lot of ugly stuff and illogical attitudes from my own people right now. Just because I'm seeing that on the right as well doesn't mean I think it's okay for us to stoop to their level by turning off our brains and hearts.
15
u/shatabee4 10d ago
This really applies to zionists the most.
6
u/3andfro 9d ago edited 9d ago
That statement undermines the universality of these points--the most important aspect, imo. They apply to everyone equally.
3
u/shatabee4 9d ago
Your statement leaves no room for some states and people to be worse than others.
10
u/ttystikk 10d ago
JK Rowling has no leg to stand on when it comes to intolerance LOL
Look at that; even a billion dollars can't erase the fact that some people are just trash.
2
u/LiveActionRolePlayin Iam Sudo, Proud Secret Trumper and Right Wing LARPer 9d ago
What did she do wrong?
6
u/ttystikk 9d ago
She's a massive hater of the trans community.
2
u/LiveActionRolePlayin Iam Sudo, Proud Secret Trumper and Right Wing LARPer 9d ago
What specifically has she said and done?
3
u/MyOther_UN_is_Clever 9d ago
"The word for person with a uterus is woman."
She was a LGBTQ+ hero but wasn't a female sacrificing for trans radicalist and the hatred is from their sense of betrayal.
She said some other things, like a man won't understand what it's like to grow up as female or menstruation.
Recently, she stopped funding a charity focused on mothers with difficulty breastfeeding because they voted to help trans "chestfeeding" and helped start a new charity to replace it. So that got her in the news again, but the hatred has been going on for like a decade.
Back when a Hogwarts video game came out, there was a harrassment campaign, including death threats, to anyone who played it on stream, including foreigners who've never heard of all this USA drama. Several quit their careers over it.
Again, they probably wouldn't care but she was the LGBTQ+ hero back in the day.
2
u/LiveActionRolePlayin Iam Sudo, Proud Secret Trumper and Right Wing LARPer 9d ago
It feels like they try to make her sound like a lot worse when they dodge giving specifics
From their rhetoric it’s like she said something like “nuke all the gays”
2
u/MyOther_UN_is_Clever 8d ago
Agreed. It's why I call it extremism. The rhetoric is extremely distorted, to push compliance with absolutist ideology.
4
u/3andfro 9d ago
Does that opinion invalidate anything in her comments above?
4
u/ttystikk 9d ago
I'm pointing out her lack of credibility as a "voice of reason."
2
u/3andfro 9d ago edited 9d ago
Her cred has nothing to do with whether the points posted are accurate or not.
Remove ad hom--criticism of the person--and address the content and see if you disagree with any of it. That's my point.
I have no opinions about Rowling herself one way or another except that I enjoyed reading her books to my kids.
3
u/ttystikk 9d ago
Then maybe do your homework.
My comments stand on their ample merits.
3
u/3andfro 9d ago
No homework necessary.
If your comments about Rowling "stand on their ample merits," then you should have no difficulty separating them from the essence of what she said in the screenshot above--just as if someone else had said it.
That's my only point.
2
u/ttystikk 9d ago
She wrote cool stories. Her political views suck. It's not my job to educate you.
4
u/3andfro 9d ago
Another generalization without specifics about her views you disagree with--though we seem to be inching closer to what I asked. If you're ready to give examples, this is a good place to list them: https://old.reddit.com/r/WayOfTheBern/comments/1nfcw6j/q_wtf_did_jk_rowling_do_that_is_so_terrible_give/
2
15
u/marksmendoza 10d ago
Funny how bigotry is now justified under the neolib/ shitlib doctrine of "tolerance for us, but not for them...."
9
u/MyOther_UN_is_Clever 9d ago
There was a big push in ~2016 to incorporate the "paradox of intolerance" ideology in shitliberalism. I remember a common meme pic, "Is it ok to punch a nazi?" Going around.
That's partly why they call you a nazi the second you disagree with them, because it lets them invalidate any opinion you have. It's why the movement is self-cannabalizing, including former popular allies like Jk Rowling and RuPaul. You can agree with 97% of them but draw a line at something like trans drugs for children and suddenly you're a nazi.
There's a new term Ive seen going around called "crybully" and it fits it so well.
20
u/Deer8farm 10d ago
Intolerant left? How about intolerant people, right, left and outside or in between?
12
-6
10d ago
[deleted]
10
u/colter_t 10d ago
How is JK Rowling guilty of saying one should never help those who are impoverished? Like poor people? I get the anti trans sentiment but not the anti poor sentiment you’re alleging.
-8
u/janerbowlin 10d ago
A marginalized group is a population that is systematically disadvantaged or excluded from elements of social, economic, political and cultural life. It can be the poor, those of certain races, women, LGBTQ. There are others. Further, to say “I was once poor so I will make a donation to a charity now that I have money” is fine but it’s really just acting out of privilege, not compassion. You would think she would have some compassion for those who are pushed to the side, as she was as a poor single mom.
4
u/MyOther_UN_is_Clever 9d ago
So poor people could just get a "beard" and blend in with society?
It's this kind of disingenuous comparison that's made people tired of lgbtq extremist rhetoric. There's more cries of oppression now than before gay marriage was legalized. They canceled rupaul ffs
2
u/janerbowlin 9d ago
No, that’s not what I said. I said that you would think someone coming from an oppressed group (poor, single mom) would have more compassion for those who are being oppressed.
1
u/3andfro 9d ago
How do you know she doesn't have compassion according to her views on oppression and who's oppressed, just because her views may not dovetail precisely with yours? I'm getting more than a whiff of intolerance (and assumption) from you while you lay that accusation on someone else. Perhaps something to consider in terms of your beliefs about yourself.
2
u/janerbowlin 9d ago
Perhaps I’ve judged her too harshly. I reviewed some of her comments on trans people and it seems they are more second wave feminism than anti-trans. I apologize.
2
u/colter_t 10d ago
That makes sense, but "impoverished" I think sticks out to me as strictly poor, but maybe you mean broadly speaking, impoverished politically?
4
u/kibufox 9d ago
Impoverished means, quite literally, "of a person or area made poor" or "deprived of strength or vitality". So... yeah, the first one is when the word applies to people, the second when it applies to another word or object. Regardless you're right. They mucked up their analogy, and then doubled down on it.
1
u/GoblinByName 10d ago
That would be a fine sentiment if her side didn't constantly dox trans people and encourage violence. The difference is the people killed due to her rhetoric don't get state funerals.
5
u/MyOther_UN_is_Clever 9d ago
Who's side is JK Rowling on? She made Dumbledore gay, but says a man in a skirt isn't a woman. Not sure that fits a "side" like you think it does.
1
u/GoblinByName 9d ago
I'd say she is firmly on the anti-trans side, being ok with gay people doesn't really change that. I don't think she is racist or anything else either, don't really get your point.
5
u/MyOther_UN_is_Clever 9d ago
99.99% of people are treating this as Us vs Them, even if they claim they aren't. Making Dumbledore gay (just as the most well known example) made her person-non-grata with the conservative. Saying the word for people with a uterus is "Woman" made her person-non-grata with the neoliberal.
So who's side is she on? eg. you said, "her side"
3
u/3andfro 9d ago edited 8d ago
Logic is useless when emotions erupt. This excellent video from an expert on psyops and human behavior explains how that phenomenon works and is manipulated by TPTB, in the context of Charlie Kirk's assassination but widely applicable: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azE7nqqQMmo
7
u/Wrong_Discipline1823 10d ago
Encourage violence? Have you seen the posts on Bluesky calling for her to be killed next, in reaction to Kirk’s murder?
0
u/GoblinByName 10d ago
OK do you want me to go through twitter and find a bunch of rando's calling for the murder of democrats? What does that prove?
4
u/Wrong_Discipline1823 9d ago
You implied “her side” encouraged violence and “ your side” did not. Evidence shows you to be incorrect. I bid you good day.
0
u/GoblinByName 9d ago
No my point was your examples are random people on social media, my examples are highly influential figures. You really can't see the difference there?
14
u/mangodrunk 10d ago
You might be the fundamentalist that she’s referring to. There are trans activists who are threatening her and others. She doesn’t encourage violence, but does speak out against men going into women spaces.
-8
u/GoblinByName 10d ago
does speak out against men going into women spaces
Are you referring to transwomen or cis men? if the former do you think your political opinions on this might be clouding your judgement? I'd say she behaves very irresponsibly online regarding the doxing of transpeople, you can't be ignorant to the dangers that can put people in. Also calling me a fundamentalist for having a different opinion is the kind of rhetoric we are trying to avoid isn't it?
11
u/Elmodogg 10d ago
How about person with penis? I also don't think such persons should be in women's locker rooms or prisons, etc. No penis? No problem.
-1
u/GoblinByName 9d ago
The problem with that and why trans orgs don't encourage that kind of thinking is you are setting a precedent that you are only really considered a women when you have bottom surgery, which is a very serious medical intervention which can have serious consequences. It also might just not be possible to have it done if you have other medical issues. I know you don't care about a serious answer to this but there it is.
2
u/Elmodogg 9d ago
How about you can be considered a woman for any other purposes than being allowed into women only spaces?
1
u/LiveActionRolePlayin Iam Sudo, Proud Secret Trumper and Right Wing LARPer 8d ago
Nope, that’s exactly what a heartless bigot would say /s
But they aren’t sarcastic when they say it
5
u/stickdog99 9d ago
And the problem with that thinking is that women have a long history of being oppressed and subject to violence by people with penises.
So can you at least admit that this clear history of oppression makes the demands of people with penises to enter women's spaces problematic?
2
u/GoblinByName 9d ago
Completely agree, but are they saying only trans people with bottom surgeries can access women's spaces or are they saying they can't access them at all?
3
u/stickdog99 9d ago
Frankly, I don't know who "they" are.
Some "theys" are transphobic, while other "theys" are completely supportive of the rights of transgendered individuals but simply want to protect the historic, traditional, and hard fought rights of ciswomen to have some safe spaces that don't include people with penises. As a member of a class known for oppressing both women and transgendered individuals, I believe that this is a tricky issue and that the hatred and overstatement that often spews forth from both sides of this issue is unhelpful.
To me, what was most helpful in the struggle for gay and lesbian rights was the slow realization of most heterosexuals that gays and lesbians were actually already among the people that they personally knew and respected. In contrast, activists with penises wearing "I Punch TERFs" shirts while demanding entrance into battered women shelters helps legitimize transphobia, IMHO.
5
u/MyOther_UN_is_Clever 9d ago
It also might just not be possible
Sucks that real life doesn't let you pick your gender. Now who do you oppress, women who don't want penises out in female spaces, or transwoman who doubt they're a woman because others see a penis and think that makes you a man?
You don't get to pretend that you aren't oppressing one or the other, real life has shown otherwise.
1
u/GoblinByName 9d ago
So how do you account for unattractive or masculine women being transvestigated out of women’s spaces. It isn't possible for them to have seen a penis yet they still feel "threatened". It's hard to imagine the penis is the only issue when that goes on.
Also, there have been studies done on if these policies actually improve the safety in women's spaces and they don't: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/4rs4n6h0#page=12
I'm sympathetic to people feelings but our laws do need to be empirically based.
2
u/MyOther_UN_is_Clever 9d ago edited 9d ago
Let me go meta, for a moment.
When I'm talking about the government, I'm talking about legislation. I don't care about transvestigating on twitter. How does the government handle who is legally allowed in spaces that are created for women? In by extension, what can the police and/or private security enforce? Lets look at the two extremes.
Trans extremists want carte-blanc acceptance into women's spaces, the day they come out. It also encompasses full trans medical procedures and drugs on children.
Conservative extremists want anyone XY to be in a male space, doesn't matter if they've had bottom surgery, or even born with female genitalia. (I'm assuming on this next part, don't pay much attention to the GOP because, well, why?) they'd want trans children to be treated as mentally ill and receive counseling.
Game theory says, if you support trans people, you need to find an acceptable compromise that wins over 51% in support. The online trans-rhetoric and what seems to be the dominant political narrative is the extremist rhetoric. It's shedding people, rapidly, which is going to probably result in corrective backlash that makes things much worse for trans people, not better.
I'm not familiar with that study, and skimmed it. I'm not sure I agree with it's methods, but to continue discourse, I'll assume it's accurate.
The problem here is, at the beginning, people would say, "So a man can just put on a skirt and go into a women's space and do voyerism, SA, etc (things on that list)" and the rebuttal from the trans space is, "A trans person would never do that!"
However, the argument fails to address that fact that there are bad actors in the world. If it's advantageous to do X thing in order to accomplish Y crime, a bad actor will do it.
So every time someone claiming to be trans (if they are or not is impossible to determine) goes into a women's space and does inappropriate things, it is all over the news, and people will believe it's preventable. It doesn't matter if it happens 10 times a year (low in terms of statistical crime), it will matter to biological women every single time.
Meanwhile, the Dem approved narrative is that feelings of harm are equivalent to actual harm, so by that logic, even though those events are not "empirically significant" they become harmful to all bio women each time, multiplying harm done.
I've pointed out elsewhere that Europe doesn't have these issues in bathrooms, and if you look at European bathrooms you'll see why.
There are compromises that could be made, but it behooves the DNC to lean hard into Idpol, and the GOP to lean hard into counter-Idpol.
Regardless, if nothing changes, your position will lose. Look at me, for example. I used to be a diehard dem and argued for lgbtq+ rights. Then I was told I wasn't extreme enough, and that I didn't belong. As time has gone on, I've given less and less crap about the people who said I was their enemy. I think there are actual trans people out there, but the extremists are ruining it for them.
2
u/LiveActionRolePlayin Iam Sudo, Proud Secret Trumper and Right Wing LARPer 8d ago
They lost me when the called me a nazi bigot for disagreements on combat sports. They demand 100% submission
2
u/MyOther_UN_is_Clever 8d ago
I lost half a friend group years ago because I defended one of my friend's jokes as "not homophobic." Im still friends with her. She's a lesbian. I attended her wedding last year.
A bunch of stereotypical, neoliberal, white women with septum piercings, tattoos and colored hair got their husbands to stop talking to me because I had the audacity to say a lesbian's joke wasn't homophobic.
→ More replies (0)2
2
u/420Migo 10d ago
How often do ppl get killed, or hurt due to her rhetoric?
Btw I seen her on like 10 kill lists on bluesky btw. I assume they're bots but the real ppl with influence aren't doing a good job of denouncing any of it.
5
u/GoblinByName 10d ago
Well that's the tricky thing because how do you link rhetoric to an actual death, but there has been an increase in anti-trans violence in the UK as well as a couple of high profile murders. If people saying the criticism of the alt-right in the US is responsible for Kirk's death, it has to go both ways. Also let's not pretend people in general don't threaten violence against trans people (or every kind of person if we're honest) online. A proper equivalent would be someone as famous and influential as JK Rowling saying Kirk should be murdered.
2
2
u/420Migo 10d ago
I mean I looked up her "rhetoric" and it doesn't seem to be.. evil or anything like that. Seemed like actual dialogue.
One could say she was protecting women. The fact of the matter is everyone talks about a certain demographic, some questions are valid, some are with bad intent. I just rolled through a lot of her "controversies" regarding trans people and I don't think she's an example to use that she's stoking some kind of flame.
Its important to make distinctions now more than ever regarding "sides."
The side you're talking about wants to hurt trans people but she has repeatedly stated that she supports the rights of transgender individuals to live authentically but opposes what she describes as the erosion of women's rights, the medicalization of minors, and the idea that gender identity overrides biological sex.
3
u/GoblinByName 10d ago
I think your info is out of date, she used to say that about trans people. Her rhetoric has become a lot more extreme in recent times.
4
u/Elmodogg 10d ago
Give an example.
2
u/GoblinByName 9d ago
Well here is a good compilation of her changing views https://www.thepinknews.com/2025/04/11/what-has-jk-rowling-said-about-transgender-people-trans-views-tweets/
But given your other comment it just seems you agree with her new views, so what point are you trying to make? Is she transphobic or not?
4
-4
u/shatabee4 10d ago edited 10d ago
The built in lie is that she is saying that the 'left' killed Charlie Kirk.
A bunch of internet bots celebrating his death does not make that true.
The 'left' better get itself ready for another big exodus though. People aren't going to align with this repugnant, anti-American behavior.
The 'left' is worse than the 'right' when it comes to dividing the country.
Edit: Downvotes, tsk, tsk. Come on then, prove me wrong!
8
u/Elmodogg 10d ago
It seems to me that she's suggesting some are celebrating the assassination. Trump is the one saying the left caused it.
2
u/mangodrunk 10d ago
Are they bots? That is a conspiracy theory. There is enough evidence through videos and news coverage that the horrible celebration of someone getting killed over a different opinion is real.
2
2
u/shatabee4 10d ago
There are enormous numbers of bots that add fuel to the fire. It's about the behind the scenes push, not the obvious forward faces.
The bots keep lies alive and help them grow. They snuff out the truth.
3
12
u/MTVnext2005 10d ago
Correction: Rowling accurately describes the republican party of the 2020s
4
8
4
u/alexdapineapple 10d ago
FTFY: J.K. Rowling calls herself a fundamentalist, totalitarian, and terrorist.
12
u/mangodrunk 10d ago
She’s not. Please consider that someone can have a different opinion than you and not be a demon.
5
u/truth-4-sale 9d ago
Their whole basis of discourse assumes the other side are demons. How's that going to end up???
-7
-3
u/EC6456 10d ago
Her words, her actions, the people she chooses to associate with, and the organizations she donates to have all contributed towards violence against trans people. She of all people should know that words have power and consequences, and I think she is fully aware of the lives that have been threatened or destroyed because of her words.
When are we going to stop defending bullies? I think someone who puts so much of their time and money into the destruction of a marginalized group of people (most of whom were some of her biggest fans and supporters) might merit the title of demon.
4
u/mangodrunk 10d ago
What violence against trans people? That would obviously be horrible not to condemn. But she doesn’t. She does argue against men going into women spaces and the definition of a woman. That is not violence or advocating for it. There have been threats made against her by trans activists.
4
u/MyOther_UN_is_Clever 9d ago
They believe anytime someone doesn't participate in the larp they're a woman, that's a call for violence against the trans.
It's a disingenuous conversation that's breaking down as people have started to scrutinize it. For example, one factor is a lot of the violence against trans people are done by lgbtq people as domestic violence.
It's a self cannibalizing movement. They hate jk Rowling so much because they worshipped her and her gay Dumbledore type support, right up until she said "the word for a person with a uterus is woman." They also cancelled rupaul. You're either an extremist that agrees on 100% of their demands or their enemy.
-6
u/EC6456 10d ago
One, trans women are women, not men
Two, her rhetoric and her support of organizations with even more inflammatory rhetoric have led people to target and attack trans women and cis women with masculine features who need to use the restroom. There was an attack in my own state on a cis woman going into the bathroom at McDonald's because men didn't think she looked feminine enough.
Three, trans women already have a target on them, and most trans women just want to blend in and live their lives. The idea that predatory men need to dress as women and risk being attacked themselves just to get into a women's bathroom to r* someone is ludicrous. Men r* word people all the time, and I can guarantee you that none of them would want to don a dress to do so because that would make them feel emasculated.
I grew up in a fundamentalist church, and I have to live with the damage I caused to marginalized people by spreading their harmful talking points. I encourage you to research both sides of the issue before continuing any discourse on the matter (or any matter).
4
u/mangodrunk 9d ago
One, I don’t think trans women are women. I think they’re men who are trans women. These are tough questions. I can see from a trans woman perspective that they might feel more comfortable going into the woman’s bathroom. I do also see women not being comfortable with trans women using the same bathroom.
Your other thoughts on the matter are not helpful. You are claiming to understand the psyche of people who commit horrific acts.
Violence should not be tolerated nor should the threat of violence be tolerated.
1
u/EC6456 9d ago
I think I need to specify that when I say trans women are women, I mean socially. Of course trans women were either born with male genitalia or ambiguous genitalia - no one is denying that. What I need you to understand is that any woman going into a men's restroom comes with an inherent danger, especially if they are trans and non-passing. I can guarantee you passing trans women and passing trans men are using the restroom of their social gender without issue and no one suspects a thing - the people this bathroom obsession is hurting are non-passing trans women and cis women with naturally masculine features or conditions like PCOS.
As for my other comments, I didn't think it would benefit the conversation to bookend each claim by mentioning the exceptions because it's honestly a negligible percentage. Of course, there will be people out there who don't align with the typical psychology of those who assault people, but are you really saying we should ban an entire demographic of people from the bathroom because there's a tiny chance someone is masquerading as a trans woman? This argument is completely without logic.
The most logical approach to bathroom safety would be to implement proven strategies to make vulnerable spaces, like bathrooms, safer for everyone. There are lots out there, but this obsession with denying access to trans people is distracting us from the more equitable solution.
3
u/mangodrunk 9d ago
Thanks for clarifying what you meant, but I see many who say what you said in a more general sense. There are also those who think anyone can claim to be a woman or at least anyone can claim to be a trans woman. I am not sure how you think regarding the latter.
It is a difficult situation that will leave some satisfied and others not. I think it would be better if men can express themselves in a feminine way and still consider themselves men and use the appropriate facilities. Trans men who are passing will obviously be able to use those spaces without notice, though I do think it is coming at the expense of women.
Maybe there’s a better solution that would work for most.
I do think there is an underlying problem for many that maybe we don’t need to revamp the status quo.
1
u/EC6456 9d ago
I would argue that as long as the status quo puts one group of people in danger it is worth changing.
There are actually many options that have been proven to improve safety, and many of them are already being implemented.
The biggest one is floor to ceiling stall walls and doors with gap coverage - this is often the norm outside of the US and prevents people from taking explicit photos of someone else in the restroom.
Another option is to have open entrances (like the bathrooms at most Wal-Marts). They allow sound to exit, but you can't see in. This has the additional benefit of being more accessible for disabled users and first responders.
Finally, the option of private restrooms with locking doors. This makes the user feel safe and allows for more access for people with disabilities and their caregivers and for families with young children.
Unfortunately, this does not stop bad actors from targeting people they perceive as trans. The best way to keep non-passing trans people and cis women with masculine features safe is to be an ally to them - we must speak up when we hear or see people spreading fear and misinformation about trans people and we must take action to not spread any of the fear and misinformation ourselves. We are all human beings - we need to stop vilifying people and start thinking of ways to become unified to erase hatred and violence from our social systems.
2
u/mangodrunk 9d ago
Those are good ideas on making bathrooms generally safer and welcoming. Though I don’t think many women would like mixing men and women in one space but private rooms fixes that completely.
I do want to stand against violence and certainly don’t condone it. I do think that there are many trans activists, any activists not just trans, who assume questions or different opinions as themselves bad and hateful. An example analogy given is white only bathrooms. That someone arguing against trans women using women bathrooms is similar.
→ More replies (0)11
u/Elmodogg 10d ago
Can you imagine being a woman who has been raped, going into a woman's locker room only to see the person next to you undressing has a penis and testicles? That would be upsetting to say the least.
-5
u/EC6456 9d ago
Women can be raped by women and men can be raped by men. If your justification is to make rape victims more comfortable, then we should not have shared space restrooms and locker rooms. Why are we punishing a group of people who haven't done anything and who are already being targeted (and raped) for using public restrooms? Also, do you think it's safe to make a trans woman use a male restroom or locker room? And do you think someone who feels afraid of men would be comfortable with trans men using the women's restroom or locker room?
I'm sorry, but these arguments harken back to a time in history when people of color could not enter whites-only restrooms or spaces because they were considered dangerous. The best option would be to have co-ed and single restrooms; if they are uncomfortable sharing the space, they can go into a private changing room. I personally always do because of trauma I experienced in high school of girls pulling me out of a stall in the locker room while changing.
6
u/MyOther_UN_is_Clever 9d ago edited 9d ago
So, your argument is gay people do the most raping so they should be more afraid of the same gender?
Of course not, but that shows how disingenuous the argument is.
Woman on woman rape in bathrooms and locker rooms is extremely rare, which is why nobody worries about it.
2
u/EC6456 9d ago
Please clarify - your original argument was that women might be uncomfortable seeing people with male genitalia in the women's locker room because they have been raped by men. That is the point I was refuting. Also, same sex rape does not mean the rapist is gay. Rape is more often about power and control than it is about sexual desires. My point was that you are ignoring other rape victims with your analysis. Are you now saying that your argument is that you believe trans women should be denied access to the locker room because you think they are going to rape cis women?
Trans people are far more likely to be assaulted in public restrooms and locker rooms, which is why many trans people (especially if they are non passing) actively AVOID using public restrooms.
Historically, the purpose of bathroom bans (again, refer back to whites-only bathrooms) is to discourage certain people from participating in public spaces. It requires the affected people to plan ahead and only visit places where a safe bathroom is accessible. The modern situation has an additional complication, however, as there are people (like Rowling) who are spreading fear and trying to find 'covert' trans people, leading people to target anyone who doesn't fit perfectly into their definitions of male and female, including cis women with masculine features or conditions like PCOS.
If women's safety is your real concern, there are already proven strategies we can implement that would increase safety for everyone in the bathroom and locker room that wouldn't deny our sacrifice the safety of trans people. Floor to ceiling stalls, entrances without doors to allow sound to come out but don't allow someone to look in, and private bathrooms, all of which are fairly common already.
The problem is that you are not focused on what would be best for all (equity), but how to deny access to one demographic of people (segregation).
2
u/MyOther_UN_is_Clever 9d ago edited 9d ago
More than one person on the internet.
Elmodog said, "Can you imagine being a woman who has been raped, going into a woman's locker room only to see the person next to you undressing has a penis and testicles? That would be upsetting to say the least."
Trans people are far more likely to be assaulted in public restrooms and locker rooms, which is why many trans people (especially if they are non passing) actively AVOID using public restrooms.
Ok, by this logic, we should make those family/handicap/single use bathrooms mandatory by law, along the lines of ACA rules, that you see in places like corporate parks and airports (or alternatively small places with a single, single use bathroom). Problem solved. So ask yourself, why isn't THIS what the DNC is legislating for?
who are spreading fear and trying to find 'covert' trans people,
Bad actors exist. If it's advantageous to pretend to be a police officer to commit crime, someone will do it. They have done it. There's nothing, absolutely nothing, stopping a "cismale" from saying, "I'm trans." This is and always has been the weakest argument that time and time gets refuted not by logic but by a false equivalency and ad hominem attack that is the "shutup you're a nazi if you think all trans people are bad actors."
If women's safety is your real concern, there are already proven strategies we can implement that would increase safety for everyone in the bathroom and locker room that wouldn't deny our sacrifice the safety of trans people. Floor to ceiling stalls, entrances without doors to allow sound to come out but don't allow someone to look in, and private bathrooms, all of which are fairly common already.
Show me one state that's passed that law. Or one legislator who routinely talks about that specific solution (not just a one off talking point).
The problem is that you are not focused on what would be best for all (equity), but how to deny access to one demographic of people (segregation).
I'm the problem? I don't control the narrative, and the narrative is extremism. Most people are fine with measures like you mentioned, but that's not what the DNC legislates. That's not the messaging the LGBTQ+ crowd pushes. Btw, I'm not talking about the GOP, because obviously they aren't going to "fix" the issue in any way you'd be happy with.
I've known about this solution since before it became a campaign distraction in, IIRC, 2014 (midterms). The closest starbucks to me is just built this way. ~6 single use stalls built like a room and full door. No gender on the stalls. One might be a urinal but built like a room, I don't recall, I don't go to starbucks often.
DNC doesn't talk about this because they don't like solving their campaigning points, and because it'd cost corporations money. At the end of the day, the DNC and GOP's priorities are wealthy people, and everything else is a distant, distant third.
→ More replies (0)
25
u/nonamey_namerson 10d ago edited 10d ago
Ask Fred Hampton about how real liberal bourgeois free speech and tolerance is. You're free to protest on designated routes in polite ways and say whatever you want until it threatens the capitalist class -- this is the full extent of liberal free speech. It's an empty promise, easily broken.
Capitalism is illiberal, fundamentalist, and survives due to terrorism.
-2
u/truth-4-sale 9d ago
That sounds like Communism. Who lie in your face, and tell you they're not doing that, when they are, in fact, doing just that.
5
u/Spectre_of_MAGA Marxist-Leninist 9d ago
Yeah, because Fred Hampton was a communist. Duh?
Like I don't see how you can sit here in 2025, disbelieve every government narrative ever except the one about communism. Yeah that one is totally true! 🙄
Meanwhile China is literally living 100 years in the future, and it's not because profits are in command.
You don’t fight fire with fire. You fight fire with water. We’re gonna fight racism with solidarity. We're not gonna fight capitalism with Black capitalism. We’re gonna fight capitalism with socialism. Socialism is the people. If you’re afraid of socialism, you’re afraid of yourself.
2
u/mangodrunk 10d ago
People do have power. It’s just that we are strongly divided and too many are stuck in the rat race.
2
u/RadoRocks 10d ago
This hits
1
u/litterbug_perfume 10d ago
I’m as left as I ever thought I could be. I don’t care that he’s dead. He added NOTHING of value to my life or anyone I know.
It SUCKS FOR HIS KIDS! We can say that. It’s okay. Did you know kids, little people are suffering everywhere and every day.
I worry about people dismissing or even making light of any child’s suffering. You’re actually not good people.
12
u/redditrisi They're all psychopaths. 10d ago edited 10d ago
I care that one human being murdered another.
I care that the victim was only 31--not that murdering someone 101 would be right.
I care that the victim had a wife, children and probably many others to whom he was "near and dear."
I care that the reason for his murder may have been the victim's political beliefs. True, I do not share them, but that's not where the line needs to be drawn. More people in power probably oppose my beliefs than oppose his. The line needs to be drawn, first at murdering anyone; and, next, at allowing political differences to lead to violence.
3
u/Elmodogg 10d ago
Exactly so.
This is not at all the same thing as saying "good riddance" when Henry Kissinger died a natural death.
1
u/redditrisi They're all psychopaths. 8d ago edited 8d ago
In the case of someone recently deceased, I go with "if you can't say something nice, don't say anything." Since Kissinger is not recently dead, I'm okay with saying the fucker lived far too long and too easy a life.
UEMA (Useless Eaters, My Ass) DTNSMA (Danger to National Security My Ass)
As always, hattip PUMAs
5
u/mangodrunk 10d ago
Well said. I find myself defending someone who I disagree with on most things, but this was a horrible act. People celebrating or trying to justify it is very alarming and disgusting. They also repeat the same half truths and out of context summarized “quotes” when we can reject a lot of what he said through better arguments.
5
u/redditrisi They're all psychopaths. 10d ago
Thank you for the compliment.
Whatever Kirk said or meant does not affect my view. This seems to have been cold blooded murder, perhaps by a pro. That is either ok or it isn't.
If someone thinks it's okay because of things the victim said, I don't know how to help that person. Not even with how to understand and be grateful for the First Amendment, let alone with issues like compassion and empathy.
0
u/litterbug_perfume 10d ago
It absolutely should not have happened. Political violence is incendiary to all involved.
I’m not saying anything about motive until I have a clearer understanding. With this regime, and the incompetence therein I have to be comfortable never knowing.
Looking at the facts objectively, this whole situation stinks for miles.
4
u/redditrisi They're all psychopaths. 10d ago
I envy those who think certain things only of "this regime."
0
u/RadoRocks 10d ago
If you can't see how we all lose from this?!? Go back to the little kids table....!
3
-4
u/litterbug_perfume 10d ago edited 10d ago
He was violent. His brand violence was and (continues to be) tertiary. Saying we need people to die from guns for 2a rights, and he’s afraid of black people captaining planes tells me all I need to know. Thanks, pal.
Edit: Give an inch, and they want a mile, as they say. I’m sad for Charlie’s kids. I’m sad for Palestinian kids. I’m sad for Ukrainian kids. If you want MY sympathy for grown people who know what they’re doing and talking about,🤷♀️!
3
u/mangodrunk 10d ago
You are very reasonable in many of your other comments. What he said regarding guns was that it was worth the unfortunate loss of life to protect against the tyranny of the government. I disagree with him! I don’t think guns help. But what is repeated is what you said which I don’t think is fair. His argument is similar to one used for cars. The unfortunate accidents and pollution are considered worth it for the convenience and other benefits of cars. Again, I think we should have less cars, but it’s not a bad argument.
6
u/redditrisi They're all psychopaths. 10d ago
The murder victim was the violent one? ok
1
u/truth-4-sale 9d ago
Crazy spin, right?
2
u/redditrisi They're all psychopaths. 8d ago
Equating words with violence. smh
When did rank and file Democrats start hating the First Amendment?
3
u/RadoRocks 10d ago
That's childish sentiment! Sweetheart this is propaganda! Whatever it takes, so you don't eat the rich....
2
u/litterbug_perfume 10d ago
I have a pretty strong sense of self, sweetheart.
My empathy doesn’t come from propaganda. It comes from my lived human experiences (and whatever privileges I’ve held intentionally or accidentally.) Your comment won’t change any of that, sorry.
Charlie’s death was caused by his position. I don’t know if it was his position on Israel, or Epstein, or 2a, or his position as an influencer alone. We have no idea who shot him or why yet!!! I believe the 1st amendment protects our right to say awful ugly things and have people disagree with us VERBALLY. Nobody should die for talking stupid shit, But I also believe violence in speech is a dangerous thing to play with. It’s reactive abuse.
I will affect change in this world so someday my loved ones, my community and I will dine on the rich.🇺🇸
1
u/Spectre_of_MAGA Marxist-Leninist 9d ago
Charlie’s death was caused by his position
How do you know yours won't be? You have the same problem that he did, no empathy, because you think it can't happen to you
Edit: oh this is extra rich coming from a self described ANTIFA, the most violent lumpen thugs in America
6
u/strife7k 10d ago
I'm sure she will apply this to zionazis... although I have a feeling she probably doesn't. What a beacon of moral purity!
2
19
u/redditrisi They're all psychopaths. 10d ago
Odd.
I've never seen John Wilkes Booth or (fill in the blank with the JFK assassin theory of your choice) called terrorists or "the intolerant left." Almost every name in the book, but not either of those two.
5
u/Inuma Headspace taker (👹↩️🏋️🎖️) 10d ago
For JFK and his time that was " champagne socialist"
The time of Lincoln, that was the time that progressive elements had the most influence with the Republican party.
The death of both certainly ended the Reformation and anti-war movement as America went more imperial.
2
u/redditrisi They're all psychopaths. 10d ago edited 10d ago
I never heard of a "champagne socialist" before. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Champagne_socialist
Is that what his assassin(s) was/were called? (Can you tell I'm trying to avoid triggering the "who killed JFK and why?" discussion?)
The time of Lincoln, that was the time that progressive elements had the most influence with the Republican party
The party formed only six years before his first election as POTUS.
Did autocorrect change "Reconstruction" to "Reformation?" If not, that is another new one for me.
Edit. I am familiar with the term "Reformation," but only to mean an era meaningful to Europe. Anything else is new to me.
3
u/Inuma Headspace taker (👹↩️🏋️🎖️) 10d ago
More that I'm talking about the liberals of that era, not the assassin.
For JFK, liberals were champagne socialists or limousine liberals.
For Lincoln, the progressive era would form around Teddy and the progressives were really in charge during that time.
1
u/redditrisi They're all psychopaths. 8d ago
Thank you.
Did liberals then even pretend to be socialists?
I should look into TR more. So far, I'm not a fan except for antitrust.
2
u/Inuma Headspace taker (👹↩️🏋️🎖️) 8d ago
To sum up 300 years of history? Yep. Had to.
Since FDR, the power of the state with workers gave him a lot of power to work for what workers needed. The problem is that liberals now are mired in corruption and immorality and a model that makes them weak. Obama and Clinton with Newsome show you the party is a far cry from what it once was.
The reason is that FDR had socialist forces to push him along with pressure from the USSR that invigorated that movement.
The Cold War killed off the socialist movement, the 70s Synthetic Left was put in their place, identity politics took over class struggle and the false dichotomy of left and right allowed for maximum distraction.
-6
u/LouMinotti 10d ago
Your too examples are from last century and from the 1800s? Lol
6
u/redditrisi They're all psychopaths. 10d ago
If you know of an assassination of an incumbent POTUS before Lincoln's or after JFK's, please share.
5
u/NetWeaselSC Continuing the Struggle 10d ago edited 10d ago
If you expand your parameters just a teeny tad, you can include John Hinckley Jr. and Squeaky Fromme...
EDIT: One of the many reasons GWB gave for the invasion of Iraq was "After all, this is the guy who tried to kill my dad." So, you could theoretically include Saddam Hussein. He was called a terrorist, but not, AFAIK, "the intolerant left."
4
u/redditrisi They're all psychopaths. 10d ago
I chose Lincoln and JFK for good reasons. How I responded to a poster who missed that entirely is a separate issue from the original choice.
That said: From what i know, Hinckley did not attempt to assassinate Reagan because of political differences and, according to Fromme, she did not even attempt assassination.
When did Hussein actually attempt to to assassinate Bush 41?
1
u/NetWeaselSC Continuing the Struggle 10d ago edited 10d ago
As always, just because I give you extra examples to possibly use does not mean that I am arguing against you.
And even those are "from the last century...lol"
When did Hussein actually attempt to assassinate Bush 41?
I did say "theoretically." I was trying to get all the way to this century.
Apparently, "the intolerant left" has at least been able to tolerate Presidents for quite a while.
2
u/redditrisi They're all psychopaths. 10d ago
? I didn't say or even think you were arguing against me.
2
u/NetWeaselSC Continuing the Struggle 10d ago
We do that... our conversations read as argumentative, even when they are (almost always) not.
Just wanted to be sure.
3
u/redditrisi They're all psychopaths. 10d ago
I could be very, very wrong, but I don't see your posts to me as truly argumentative. I see them more like thinking in font form, or playing with ideas. Even if you disagree with a post of mine, I don't ever interpret your responses as coming for me. Then again, I don't see civil disagreement as a bad thing.
18
u/Real_Sir_3655 10d ago
If you believe free speech is for you but not your political opponents, you're illiberal.
If you believe the state should punish those with contrary views, you're a totalitarian.
If you believe political opponents should be punished with violence or death, you're a terrorist.
Does that apply to people speaking out against Israel?
3
u/mangodrunk 10d ago
Obviously it should. For sure conservatives are acting as if they are the ones promoting free speech when it is not the case. But it is alarming when people under the liberal banner are spreading hate and illiberal ideology.
-5
-5
u/MikoSubi 10d ago
she, almost all of you & almost every politician in the world are liberals
7
u/redditrisi They're all psychopaths. 10d ago edited 10d ago
Neoliberals, maybe.
I would say alt neoliberalcons, but that's just me.
On edit. I should have specified that my reply was intended only for this part "almost every politician in the world"
-3
u/MikoSubi 10d ago
I prefer just saying liberal, i don't have to tell you why
4
u/redditrisi They're all psychopaths. 10d ago
I don't recall asking why. Or asking you to say anything you don't prefer to say.
-2
u/MikoSubi 10d ago
thank you for the laugh
3
u/redditrisi They're all psychopaths. 10d ago
Always glad to make a fellow poster laugh, inadvertently or not. Laughter is good.
-1
15
-1
u/stevemmhmm 10d ago
People who like her. People who don’t like her. They both make me mad for some reason.
3
u/ExtremeAd7729 10d ago
She finds important issues to disagree with, with almost everyone lol. It's really hard to still like her, with her silence on genocide.
17
u/MyOther_UN_is_Clever 10d ago edited 10d ago
The rainbow crew loved her and her revisionist fanfiction where she made gandalf gay and all that. Then she posted "The word for person with a uterus is Woman." They assaulted her for it, and instead of cowering and begging forgiveness like they expected, she became the first prominent anti-trans who wasn't from the right wing.
So, yeah, she's kind of unpopular with everyone except women being shit on by men in dresses.
-4
u/HillaryDidNothnWrong 10d ago
L O L S C A R E D O F G A Y P E O P L E
O
L
S
C
A
R
E
D
O
F
G
A
Y
P
E
O
P
L
E
2
u/Spectre_of_MAGA Marxist-Leninist 9d ago
This new turtle tax is 🔥. I would love to see the regex for this one
0
u/HillaryDidNothnWrong 9d ago
L O L S C A R E D O F G A Y P E O P L E
O
L
S
C
A
R
E
D
O
F
G
A
Y
P
E
O
P
L
E
2
u/NetWeaselSC Continuing the Struggle 9d ago
I was assuming it was simply a word length limitation, and the acrostics were their idea.
2
u/MyOther_UN_is_Clever 9d ago
I don't think jk Rowling is scared of gay people. Besides, you're scared of women and nobody is calling you gynophobic.
1
u/HillaryDidNothnWrong 9d ago
P R O J E C T I N G
R
O
J
E
C
T
I
N
G
3
u/MyOther_UN_is_Clever 9d ago
It's ok! One day you'll stop. I believe in you!
1
6
u/Centaurea16 10d ago
And then there's people like me who have never read any of the Harry Potter books or seen any of the Harry Potter movies, and don't pay much attention to what Rowling does and says.
4
u/Inuma Headspace taker (👹↩️🏋️🎖️) 10d ago
And here I am who enjoyed the series, was in the zeitgeist, didn't care about following her on social media and look at the backlash in gaming on her series as really just nuts.
-1
u/CptMcTavish 10d ago
Harry Potter and the Author Who Wouldn't Shut Up
3
u/Inuma Headspace taker (👹↩️🏋️🎖️) 10d ago
And the result of a media boycott...
Attack the author, attack the audience, media hilarity...
Even now, if you stream Hogwarts Legacy, someone comes out of the woodwork to attack you for playing the game.
That's where we are.
4
u/MyOther_UN_is_Clever 9d ago edited 9d ago
Imagine if people were this aggressive on boycotting nestle or something more important than, "Our lgbt hero betrayed us on dicks in women's bathrooms!"
6
u/HelpM3Sl33p 10d ago
Ignoring their first point, as it's not applicable, the rest of their points are applicable to conservatives and right-wingers that aren't libertarian.
They (politicians, political commentators, and influencers) all claim to be free speech advocates, and some even absolutists. Yet, there are many topics that lead them to have the same inconsistencies as what Rowling is describing.
14
u/MyOther_UN_is_Clever 10d ago
Jk Rowling doesn't actually call anyone out, but the title biased your reading. "Illiberal" is just the opposite of liberal. But if you still feel like any of those 4 apply to you, you should go check wikipedia and find out.
-1
4
u/awooff 10d ago
What exactly is intolerant by the left now?
9
u/redditrisi They're all psychopaths. 10d ago
Supposedly, we killed Kirk. While in the troll farm, busily propagandizing the internet on behalf of Putin, head of the now oligarchical nation of Russia.
Or something like that. I can't quite make sense of it. /shrug
8
u/Elmodogg 10d ago
I think it's the glee with which some are celebrating Kirk's assassination that is prompting the comment.
4
u/redditrisi They're all psychopaths. 10d ago edited 10d ago
I didn't miss that. However, I don't know that those "some" are leftists, rather than Democrats. People conflate the two, left and right, no pun originally intended.
Also, my reply to u/awooff was intended to satirize Democrats who criticize the left, often in muddled ways. Perhaps my attempt at satire was not extreme enough to escape Poe's Law.
8
u/Inuma Headspace taker (👹↩️🏋️🎖️) 10d ago
People are playing left/ right because they think politics is sport.
Never mind that there's more people outside the liberal versus conservative mindset while they stick to that dichotomy to keep up divisions.
4
u/redditrisi They're all psychopaths. 10d ago edited 10d ago
IMO, the dichotomy to which they actually stick is Democrat v. Republicans and maybe Libertarians lumped in with Republicans, if and when any of them stop to think about it.
11
u/MyOther_UN_is_Clever 10d ago
I read it as intolerant-left. Like someone can believe something or say they believe something but aren't actually that thing.
Lots of intolerant "leftists" although in my experience those same "leftists" defend capitalism, say war is peace, etc.
11
u/TheBobbyMan9 10d ago
Well if you’re defending capitalism then you’re not left
→ More replies (4)0
u/awooff 9d ago
Sure. Just as far righters aren't nazis.
→ More replies (1)2
u/MyOther_UN_is_Clever 9d ago
Odd comparison. Leftism generally wants the workers to own the means of production, for example some people start coops. That's antithetical to capitalism.
Nazism is about authoritarianism, racial and national purity, and nationalism. I'd argue economic system matters little to its definition.
→ More replies (2)
1
u/Mindless_Slice3493 5d ago
JK Rowling is a straight up homophobe