Tainted Love

January 2, 2022 Longrider Fiction, General News, General Rants, misanthropy, Political, sophistry 16

So, woman writes hugely successful series of children’s books that are subsequently made into equally successful films. But she taints this by stating biological facts.

Then, in 2020, things changed. Full disclosure: I’m not trans but I am a member of the LGBTQ+ community. As a consequence of that, I’ve grown up with trans friends and non-binary friends and gender fluidity. The only time I waded into the trans debate on Twitter was the most stressful and disheartening couple of days I’ve spent online.

Here we go…

I’m afraid that, for me, Harry Potter is and will always be tainted by the comments that JK Rowling has made since 2020 concerning trans people. I am disappointed with a public figure with 14 million followers, many of them young people, using a platform where 280 characters (plus a few more tweets) is the limit to contribute to a debate that so quickly and forcefully turns toxic. While there are valid discussions to be had and concerns to be raised, I can’t help think that this wasn’t the way to wade in. These debates contain vast swathes of shade – they’re not black and white – and they deserve the considered attention they should be given. The trans debate is more appropriate for a PhD thesis than a tweet.

Rowling rightly pointed out that people with cervixes are women. This is not – or it shouldn’t be – a contentious issue. It is a matter of biology, but stating biological facts is now subversive in the days of an orthodoxy that relies on universal deceit.

Rowling went on, in that same grenade of a thread in July 2020, to share an article called “Anonymous Letter From a Terrified Lesbian”. An article that begins, “The ‘LGBTQ’ has become an abusive parent with a wicked backhand” and goes on to describe the experience of at least two lesbians. Like anything that lumps together and generalises millions of people all over the world, the piece lacked nuance. It wasn’t an experience that I identified with personally and I can’t really see how Rowling, a white cis woman, would be able to relate either.

What Rowling is referring to is the idea that women can have penises and that lesbians who object are in some way wrong for doing so. That biology doesn’t matter. Men get the same nonsense in a lesser way – that we should be prepared to date transwomen and if we don’t wish to, we are bigots.

Oh, and Rowling is not a ‘cis’ woman because there is no such thing. I refuse to allow these ridiculous labels created by an insane minority activist group to be used to describe what the rest of us would refer to as, well, ‘normal’ I suppose. Nor does it matter what Rowling relates to or what the colour of her skin is. She is merely making perfectly reasonable points – that lesbians (and men) are not interested in ‘women’ with penises, because the lesbians are not heterosexual and the men are not homosexual. It really is that simple. The pressure being brought to bear on this is disgraceful and needs calling out for what it is.

I find it difficult now to separate my response to these views from the work that Rowling created. I find watching the films tinged with a little bit of disappointment. I find myself questioning the lack of diversity on screen, whether that’s through gender, sexuality, race.

Oh fuck off.

16 Comments

  1. Time these freaks were put away. There are only men and women depending whether you are born male or female.

  2. It occurred to me that, since people can apparently change their gender entirely should they wish to, with no concessions towards biological reality whatsoever, isn’t the word ‘trans’ completely superfluous? If these people are correct then a ‘trans man’ is a man, a ‘trans woman’ is a woman, why is the word trans needed? Otherwise JK Rowling was right all along.

  3. He(?) has an easy way to put things right. All he has to do is put his own money into producing movies that project an undisappointing degree of diversity onto the screen. The proles will love the product and he will mince his way to the bank with lots of moolah, all for being superlatively right on. What’s stopping him?

    • He is Beth Ashton. Make of that what you will. But putting one’s own money in is not the plan. Moaning about others not doing it is far easier.

  6. The first Jurassic Park film has a great line from the sceptical scientist played by Jeff Goldblum ,when confronted with the technology to recreate dinosaurs: “Just because science can do it, it doesn’t mean that science should do it”. I feel the same about the operations to change peoples sex.

    • I feel the same about the operations to change peoples sex.

      They don’t change peoples sex. They create a facsimile at best. Transwomen will still have male hips, still have XY chromosomes and so on. They will never have a uterus or ovaries. In short, what they have is a mutilated male body – and vice versa for transmen.

      • I followed a link once to a “sex change” clinic which had graphic pictures of what that entailed.

        The people deciding to go through those kind of procedures, for a result that not only is nothing like reality, but will certainly cause massive issues when they get older, are mentally ill.

      • Bury one, and dig them up a hundred years later and invite a forensic archaeologist to tell you if it’s a man or a woman.

        That’s how real the facsimile is. It’s cosmetic surgery. It’s what it should be called.

  8. That final sentence says it all. Unfortunately they just won’t. A bloke wearing a dress and a bad wig is still a bloke and even with hormones and the Eunuch surgery he is still genetically XY and always will be. Biology, genetics et al trump ideology.

Comments are closed.