The once-beloved children’s author is working herself up over Scotland’s new bias law.
U.K. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has jumped to defend J.K. Rowling, who is once again using her one wild and precious life to post obsessively about transgender women instead of doing literally anything else with her hundreds of millions of dollars.
The Harry Potter author took to X, formerly Twitter, on April 1 to share her thoughts on Scotland’s new Hate Crime Act, which went into effect the same day. The law criminalizes “stirring up hatred” related to age, disability, religion, sexual orientation, trans identity, or being intersex, as the BBC reported. “Stirring up hatred” is further defined as communicating or behaving in a way “that a reasonable person would consider to be threatening or abusive” against a protected group. The offense is punishable by imprisonment of up to seven years, a fine, or both.
In response to the legislation, Rowling posted a long thread naming several prominent trans women in the U.K., including Mridul Wadhwa, the CEO of the Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre, and activist Munroe Bergdorf. Since it was April Fool’s day, Rowling decided to commemorate it by sarcastically affirming the womanhood of all the people she named in her thread. In the same breath that she said that a convicted child predator was “rightly sent to a women’s prison,” she also called out a number of trans women making anodyne comments about inclusion, seemingly implying that trans identity is inherently predatory.
read more: https://www.them.us/story/jk-rowling-rishi-sunak-social-media-trans
https://lemmy.world/comment/6049113
There are several instances just in that sub-thread of that post.
If I had come accross that thread then I would have tried to answer in a friendlier tone. Sure your question was kind of based on a false premise, but did you know that at the time? Probably not. I would have assumed ignorance based on subconscious biases, rather than malice. But there are always going to be some reactionaries on all sides calling people shit. It’s the internet.
You sound like a reasonable person then, and an ally to progress and education. That’s just the most immediate example I could think of that I was readily able to access to share with you. This is a common reaction that I’ve seen becoming more common over the last few years, across a number of social issues that a lot of people require more information to fully understand. But they’re not asking questions to get the information because when they do, they get shouted down and accused of bigotry. I’ve seen the same thing when it comes to people trying to understand trans issues. Trying to understand gender pronouns. Trying to understand new attitudes towards racism or social equality. The people who think they’re helping through some sort of twisted interpretation of “silence is violence” are very much hurting these movements by being so loose and free with their accusations of bigotry. They’re pushing people away, and making enemies of potential allies.
I make my best effort to be, thank you. Maybe we need a community somewhere for those questions then. Maybe create it? I’d subscribe and do it my best to answer questions. I understand everyone comes from completely different worlds. So many factors in my life made understanding these issues easier. I can understand how someone else could struggle with some of it.
I think it would be plagued with the same problem that probably led to the hostility from the person in the comment I linked to, bad actors. I recognize that there are a lot of bad actors that enter these conversations and pose “questions” that are really just preludes to attacks, or often intentionally engineered to stoke hostility. I think the solution might be simple, give people the benefit of the doubt until they show they don’t deserve it. But our different perspectives are becoming so tribalistic that opposing views, or even just ignorance of a specific view is viewed as an outright enemy. That has led to people being dismissive of everyone that doesn’t immediately identify themselves as part of the in-group.
I don’t really see how we will ever build a world that is beneficial for everyone if we’re all committed to an “us vs them” perspective. Even without that perspective, IDK how to build that world because it seems now that different groups have drastically different ideas of how things should be. It used to feel like we all kind of wanted the same things, but just disagreed on how to get there. Now it feels like there are groups who want dramatically different outcomes. How does one resolve that type of scenario? Anyways, now I’m getting pretty far off topic. I’ll just stop there.
Maybe a community like you proposed would be a great bridge between groups. It would be so cool if that worked. I know I don’t have the time or patience to run such a group though. Everything online is such a challenge to moderate these days with State level psychological cyber warfare as prevalent as it is now.
Patience and education?
I’m not sure I’d be up for creating that community either which is too bad because the people who probably could effectively are the ones who probably wouldn’t. If any ever dies try though I’ll participate