Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

Hello and thank you for being a DL contributor. We are changing the login scheme for contributors for simpler login and to better support using multiple devices. Please click here to update your account with a username and password.

Hello. Some features on this site require registration. Please click here to register for free.

Hello and thank you for registering. Please complete the process by verifying your email address. If you can't find the email you can resend it here.

Hello. Some features on this site require a subscription. Please click here to get full access and no ads for $1.99 or less per month.

J.K. Rowling's New Book Is About A Trans Murderer

Twitter is foaming at the mouth.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 294Last Thursday at 6:18 AM

Trans is beautiful!

by Anonymousreply 109/14/2020

You don't say

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 209/14/2020

" 'J.K. Rowling is single-mindedly obsessed with trans people and actively frames them as predators in her novels,' tweeted culture critic Elle Dawson, also referencing the second Galbraith book, The Silkworm, that was previously denounced for portraying a transgender character as aggressive."

I find the fact that they're upset over the portrayal of trans people as "aggressive" hilarious.

by Anonymousreply 309/14/2020

wait, a murderer of trans, or a trans murderer?

by Anonymousreply 409/14/2020

It's not about a trans murderer at all, OP. It's about a cis man who dresses up as a trans woman as a disguise when he murders people. It purposely exploits irrational fear of trans people (oh no, they are going to bust open my toilet stall and touch me while I'm pooping) and then turns it up a notch by suggesting that trans identity can be used to kill people.

by Anonymousreply 509/14/2020

I don't get why Twitter is so shocked that she's now using her platform for this. She originally made one sugar coated tweet about how it's wrong to equate homosexuality in children with transgenderism and put them on puberty blockers and as a result the internet CRUCIFIED her. I mean, a worse cancellation than I've ever seen anybody endure. The aggression was borderline terrifying.

They basically skinned her alive when she was nice about it, so why are they shocked that she's being honest and ballsy now that she's got nothing to lose? What the hell did they expect after crucifying her?

by Anonymousreply 609/14/2020

damm, she's on a crusade

by Anonymousreply 709/14/2020

What an ORIGINAL concept.

by Anonymousreply 809/14/2020

She got overly crucified WAY out of proportion.

by Anonymousreply 909/14/2020

Now I think she’s purposely trying to get attention with all the trans stuff.

by Anonymousreply 1009/14/2020

Twitter is shocked that she would DARE defy their wishes by not only continuing to write after they cancelled her, but drawing upon her personal experiences for inspiration in her writing! GASP!

I don't get it. They went to extreme lengths to piss her off and make her their enemy and then get upset about her doing exactly what they said she does. It's insane.

by Anonymousreply 1109/14/2020

R7 William Goldman too. No Way to Treat a Lady.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 1209/14/2020

Sales will skyrocket. First time ever trannies have created financial value.

by Anonymousreply 1309/14/2020

[quote] I've read the latest Strike novel, and the claim it's anti-trans is total shite. I can't tell you why it is total shite without giving away the ending. So until you read it yourself, which you should, you will just have to trust me: this is total shite

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 1409/14/2020

Well old JK certainly isn't against getting massive amounts of plastic surgery to drastically alter one's appearance in an attempt to look more feminine.

by Anonymousreply 1509/14/2020

R11: "drawing upon her personal experiences for inspiration in her writing!"

I didn't know JK Rowling was actually a dude, but now that you mention it, she totally looks like a man wearing a wig.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 1609/14/2020

Twitter has tried to kill JK Rowling so many times and she just keeps popping back up more defiant than ever. Even if you don’t agree with her stance (which I find so utterly reasonable) you have to admire her tenacity.

by Anonymousreply 1709/14/2020

Most trannies steal so is it really that much of a stretch to believe they'd be willing to murder?

by Anonymousreply 1809/14/2020

It's just so weird that this is now consuming her.

by Anonymousreply 1909/14/2020

She, and her fans/defenders, are crazy. With all the shit going on in the world they’re worried about trans people? Seriously? This is just so fucking crazy. They need to get a life and do something productive.

by Anonymousreply 2009/14/2020

Penis News said the murderer in the book isn't trans but a Cis Man who wears women's clothing.

Such a shame that everything is transphobic these days though.

These days you can't even shout IT PUTS THE LOTION ON THE SKIN OR IT GETS THE HOSE AGAIN at people when you're out walking your dog without being accused of inciting violence against trans women of colour.

by Anonymousreply 2109/14/2020

I will make up my mind after I actually read the book. While I don't agree with J.K. Rowling's comments about Trans, I think nobody should be prematurely judged.

by Anonymousreply 2209/14/2020

Sorry, judged prematurely.

by Anonymousreply 2309/14/2020

R21, the key difference is that Thomas Harris didn't have a history of inciting transphobia

by Anonymousreply 2409/14/2020

R24 “inciting transphobia” lol what a strange world you live in

by Anonymousreply 2509/14/2020

As an active transvestite I have to say I AM DISGUSTED WITH THIS WIZARD LOVING BITCH AND WILL SEE HER ROT IN HELL BEFORE I BUY ONE MORE BOOK FROM HER - what?

Oh.

Okay.

So the trans community is getting this one too?

Okay. Cool. Can I borrow that dress?

by Anonymousreply 2609/14/2020

[quote][R21], the key difference is that Thomas Harris didn't have a history of inciting transphobia

Thomas Harris wrote a book where a biologically male person kidnapped, starved and murdered women, cutting their skin off to make himself a "female" suit, because he wanted to be a woman.

Clarice Starling is such a fucking TERF for hunting Jame Gumb down.

by Anonymousreply 2709/14/2020

Is JK Rowling hunting down serial killers?

How very exciting for her.

by Anonymousreply 2809/14/2020

R27, you are the sort of moron who couldn't see any meaningful difference between Jewish jokes on South Park and a Goebbels radio show.

by Anonymousreply 2909/14/2020

R29 They were being sarcastic, moron.

by Anonymousreply 3009/14/2020

I agree r20!

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 3109/14/2020

R3, it seems like anti-trans people are the aggressive ones. Why is this twit so obsessed with trans people? I love how she pretends to be pro-gay while re-tweeting comments by homophobes who support ex-gay therapy

by Anonymousreply 3209/14/2020

Poor, victimized billionairess, trapped in her castle in Scotland or wherever else her billions take her. Portugal? Spain? Greece?

Yes, a famous billionaire attacking trans people isn't punching down or anything, it's JK who is the victim! It's Jo who isn't being allowed the freedom to speak and tweet and write and... um, okay she can actually do all that and does it all the time.

So what is "not okay" about this? That the majority of the public finds her views reactionary and backward? That she is aligning herself with the extremist, racist right-wing? That people are telling her she is wrong wrong wrong and continue to stand up to her? Is she unable to deal with any dissent or opposition anymore?

Now she's re-worked an old storyline of the trans-killer and will use it to justify her bigotry and faux-victimhood. Look, look! Now she wrote a book and put a trans person in it. The trans character was set up to look like the murderer but she's NOT so everyone is picking on JK for no good reason! *sob*

She has made her point quite clear. Her feelings on this matter are not in question, they no longer require clarification. Some agree with her, most don't.

Let it go, drama queens. You're all menopausal old hags anyway, you aren't having any trans OR gay kids.

by Anonymousreply 3309/14/2020

The D-Listed post paints a pretty dark picture.

[quote] “Troubled Blood” follows a private detective, Cormoran Strike, as he investigates a cisgender male serial killer who dons women’s clothing to kill female victims. Using the pseudonym Robert Galbraith, it’s the fifth book in Rowling’s Cormoran Strike series using the pen name. In “The Silkworm,” the second novel in the series, Rowling portrays a trans character as being “unstable and aggressive.”

[quote] The meat of the book is the investigation into a cold case: the disappearance of GP Margot Bamborough in 1974, thought to have been a victim of Dennis Creed, a transvestite serial killer,” wrote The Telegraph in a review of the novel. “One wonders what critics of Rowling’s stance on trans issues will make of a book whose moral seems to be: never trust a man in a dress.”

[quote] FYI, Robert Galbraith Heath is the real name of a psychiatrist who fried the brains of gay people in the name of conversion therapy. Subtle.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 3409/14/2020

I fucking hate this bitch and everyone who defends her.

by Anonymousreply 3509/14/2020

[quote] " 'J.K. Rowling is single-mindedly obsessed with

A professional writer should know that "single-mindedly obsessed" is redundant.

by Anonymousreply 3609/14/2020

The bigots on Lipstick Alley are worshipping her.

Before you defend those women, know that many of them are homophobic as well. There were many disgusting homophobic posts after Pulse Orlando.

by Anonymousreply 3709/14/2020

WTF is R33 rambling on about? Good God.

R35 is loony.

by Anonymousreply 3809/14/2020

Actually R33 a recent poll showed that when people were asked if trans women who still retained their penis should be allowed into women’s bathrooms the overwhelming response was no. Same goes with tans women competing in athletics with biological women.

Twitter isn’t real life cupcake.

by Anonymousreply 3909/14/2020

r39, my over-sized pork dumpling, I have never had twitter. It doesn't mean anything to me nor does any other "social media" platform. Who gives a fuck about something that is so stupid that it fascinates Donald Trump and his mindless fucking hags?

Polls are ever-changing and easily influenced. Meh. I don't care about your bathroom paranoia or your sports competitions. Meh. Pee, don't pee, compete, don't compete, normal people don't give a fuck.

Stop supporting right-wing, Trump loving scumbag politics. People give a fuck about that.

by Anonymousreply 4009/14/2020

What’s wrong r40 have you not dilated yet? Did another mean lesbian turn you and your frankenvag again?

by Anonymousreply 4109/14/2020

Sounds great! Sign me up.

by Anonymousreply 4209/14/2020

This is an excellent rebuttal to the arguments from Twitter children.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 4309/14/2020

Here's the response from the Twitterati for her original comments. Lots of enraged men.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 4409/14/2020

The trolls won’t admit it, but transphobia and homophobia are linked. Most transphobes are also homophobes.

by Anonymousreply 4509/14/2020

She must lust for rimming trans. Only way to explain the pychosexual obsession. She had a heavy crush on someone that turned trans and had ignored her. Her real femininity crushed into the gutter.

by Anonymousreply 4609/14/2020

Team Rowling but this project is ill timed.

by Anonymousreply 4709/14/2020

R46=Jame Gumb/Buffalo Bill

by Anonymousreply 4809/14/2020

Mud will be flung tonight!

by Anonymousreply 4909/14/2020

[quote]Penis News said the murderer in the book isn't trans but a Cis Man who wears women's clothing.

There is NO SUCH THING as a "Cis" man!

There are men and women, and the migendering offensive fake word "cis" does not delineate anything!

by Anonymousreply 5009/14/2020

The new book is not about a trans murderer or a cross-dressing murderer. Apparently there is a sub-plot with a cross-dresser but none of the crazies foaming at the mouth about it (like the idiots on this thread) have read the book and so don't know what's in it. It's not even available to buy yet (at the moment I'm typing, even though it's just about the 15th of September), hopefully tomorrow! It's apparently about a cold case from the 70s and sounds great.

by Anonymousreply 5109/14/2020

R45, the trans cult is completely homophobic - they believe that same-sex attraction is transphobic and deny the right to be attracted to one's own sex.

JK Rowling is anything but homophobic - back in the 2000s she was arguing in favour of same-sex attraction and was being attacked by the right-wing and conservative religious bigots; today she argues in favour of same-sex attraction and is attacked by the left and the lunatic woke LGBTQIA2S++ queer bullshit, who believe it's evil to say you're attracted to your own sex.

by Anonymousreply 5209/14/2020

It's amazing that r33 knows what's in the new book without having read it.

by Anonymousreply 5309/14/2020

I would never have had an interest in this book before the uproar but now I’ll read it just to see what’s making the trans cult so mad

by Anonymousreply 5409/14/2020

[quote]Stop supporting right-wing, Trump loving scumbag politics.

Sorry but this won't do. I've voted lefty all my life but the trans activists are over their skis. They're the ones making irrational assertions and blanket judgments, which sounds pretty Trump-like to me.

by Anonymousreply 5509/14/2020

JK looks fantastic in OP's pic

by Anonymousreply 5609/14/2020

Damn. I don't tweet, but the screen shots at R44 are fucking horrifying. Truly insane people.

by Anonymousreply 5709/14/2020

Read it and weep, r55, or at least take a good hard look at the company you keep.

[quote] Conservatives find unlikely ally in fighting transgender rights: Radical feminists.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 5809/14/2020

No, I don't like them hanging out with Tucker Carlson, but guilt by association is not how I operate. At least the radical feminists have an intellectually coherent worldview. You can't say that for the trans activists. They're as anti-intellectual and anti-science as the most bigoted evangelical Christians.

Gender identity my ass. Most trans people know better than to make such laughable claims.

by Anonymousreply 5909/14/2020

R59, I don't care. Most people don't care. Even those who take a mild interest are nowhere near the obsessive levels of the TERFs.

Trans people can do whatever they want, it's never been an issue on the datalounge. We were all fine with that until the TERFs showed up and started shitting and pissing all over the place.

Start one thread to vent your spleens. Fill it with anti-trans hatred and bile until Muriel shuts it down or it's full. Start another one, continue hating trans people, lather, rinse, repeat. It's not fucking rocket science.

by Anonymousreply 6009/14/2020

R58, so what. You've never heard politics makes strange bedfellows? Lots of disparate groups hook up for a common goal. It may be the only thing in the world they agree on but there it is. And that's how it should be. People should rally around principles rather than identity politics. This descent into tribal warfare is backward and primitive.

by Anonymousreply 6109/14/2020

It would be great if there were a special corner of the internet reserved for TERFs and Trans activists.

And if they could then be banned from all the other parts of the internet.

by Anonymousreply 6209/14/2020

Now I’m definitely getting a copy. Sold!

by Anonymousreply 6309/14/2020

I've been following this saga for years, and finally decided she's a loon. It's certainly well beyond an unhealthy fixation at this point.

by Anonymousreply 6409/14/2020

There exist British women on Twitter who seem to spend their every waking moment hating trans.

It’s weird.

by Anonymousreply 6509/14/2020

It's very weird, r65, and we have them here too - which is even weirder.

by Anonymousreply 6609/14/2020

Even after all these months I'm still baffled. Really? After Harry Potter THAT'S the hill she wants to die on? Fighting against Trans rights?

Did someone leave her for a Tranny?

by Anonymousreply 6709/14/2020

Wannabe Jack Koff (JK) attracks Boris with Vlad's agenda, not in generating an erection.

by Anonymousreply 68Last Tuesday at 1:36 AM

JK is my new hero.

by Anonymousreply 69Last Tuesday at 1:49 AM

For what?

Just being transphobic?

by Anonymousreply 70Last Tuesday at 1:51 AM

She's using an old, OLD plot, something you saw in Freebie & the Bean or Silence of the Lambs, it's not new on any level, which is what makes it to obvious that she's doing it because of a personal agenda.

Plus you have her history of writing that anti-Labour screed into one novel, the anti-Muslim screed into another, and using the name Robert Galbraith. There's just no way you can shrug this off as coincidence at this point.

I don't know why her crazed defenders keep trying to say "she's as liberal as they come, she's given forty billion dollars to gay charities" and stuff when there's no way it's even remotely believable now.

by Anonymousreply 71Last Tuesday at 2:11 AM

She's a grasping thirsty bitch of a troll. Cancel, cancel.

by Anonymousreply 72Last Tuesday at 2:15 AM

[quote]Lots of disparate groups hook up for a common goal. It may be the only thing in the world they agree on but there it is. And that's how it should be.

Lesbians and gays getting suckered into partnering with alt-right and rightwing homophobic bigots is not "how it should be" and you're a real fucking piece of shit for suggesting otherwise.

by Anonymousreply 73Last Tuesday at 2:21 AM

[quote]The trolls won’t admit it, but transphobia and homophobia are linked. Most transphobes are also homophobes.

They'll figure it out. The anti-trans movement has already been moving quickly into anti-bi and anti-gay territory, plus they're pushing the idea that "there was never an LGBT community," and that's a pretty good sign that they'll toss out the lesbians soon enough. They just need to collect a few more self-hating trans and lesbians to achieve their respectability goals, i.e. "but we can't be homophobic, we have four LGB members."

Soon there will be a shit ton of lesbians crying all over the internet about how they were betrayed. Longform articles about how straights and conservatives "took over" leadership of these groups will get published. People will act shocked, SHOCKED I tell you, about something that they all should have seen coming from a mile away.

All I can say to these people is that you saw what the Repugs did to Howard Cain, so it's not like you should be surprised when the inevitable happens.

by Anonymousreply 74Last Tuesday at 2:26 AM

Dressed to Kill 2: electric boogaloo

by Anonymousreply 75Last Tuesday at 2:27 AM

The Trans brigade is pissed they can’t cancel the woman. It’s pure misogyny plain and simple.

by Anonymousreply 76Last Tuesday at 2:30 AM

Crossdressing a very common fetish of serial killers. But you know. 'Reality is transphobic' 😂😂😂

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 77Last Tuesday at 2:31 AM

We could talk about murder rates among lesbians.

by Anonymousreply 78Last Tuesday at 2:32 AM

Ok? R78 tell us about the murder rates among lesbians

by Anonymousreply 79Last Tuesday at 2:35 AM

[quote]Crossdressing a very common fetish of serial killers.

It's not. Even the US Marshalls website says there have only been a few rare cases of "transvestic fetishism" linked to serial murders.

You guys are just making shit up left and right, it's embarrassing.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 80Last Tuesday at 2:38 AM

They’re higher than those among straight women and gay men.

There have been many DL threads on Lesbian Murders over the years.

Domestic violence is way higher among them too.

by Anonymousreply 81Last Tuesday at 2:39 AM

TRA are homophobic incels who think being gay or lesbian is abnormal and bigoted, that men who like to wear dresses are abnormal and need to have their dicks cut off to make them conform (TRA are obsessed with the idea everyone needs to conform to gender stereotypes), and hate women and think women exist for the pleasure and comfort of penised people.

The whole TRA movement is straight guys throwing tantrums because they hare women.

by Anonymousreply 82Last Tuesday at 2:41 AM

There is no wave of lesbian murderers, for fuck's sake. Only 10% of murders are committed by women and only a fraction of those by lesbians.

by Anonymousreply 83Last Tuesday at 2:42 AM

[quote] that men who like to wear dresses are abnormal and need to have their dicks cut off to make them conform

Sounds more like rad fems.

by Anonymousreply 84Last Tuesday at 2:42 AM

R80 Could you say that again? I can't hear you over these mismatched bra and panties😂😂

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 85Last Tuesday at 3:06 AM

Twitter and Facebook are the toxic waste dumps of the human mind.

by Anonymousreply 86Last Tuesday at 3:07 AM

This neeever happens. And Ed Gein certainly didn't make body suits. And Ted Bundy didn't possess women's lingerie that no woman wore. And Ted Kacinski didn't believe he was trans. No all terf lies 😂 here's a lacey pink combo dont he look so girlish r80

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 87Last Tuesday at 3:11 AM

What’s wrong with a man wearing lace thongs?

Not necessarily trans.

by Anonymousreply 88Last Tuesday at 3:15 AM

How dare thou!

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 89Last Tuesday at 3:16 AM

Not a single thing r88. But the bloke in the picture was a serial killer who broke into womens bedrooms to steal their clothes. The type r80 would like to pretend doesn't exist. There's a well documented correllation between paraphilias and serial killers. It's almost a stereotype. Harris and Rowling aren't 'making shit up left and right'.

by Anonymousreply 90Last Tuesday at 3:43 AM

R87, if you think the US Marshall's office is printing out official propaganda that lies about this supposed wave of "tranny serial killers" then I don't know what to tell you.

Claiming that Ted Bundy owning lingerie makes him a "tranny serial killer" is QAnon levels of stupid.

by Anonymousreply 91Last Tuesday at 3:57 AM

[quote]There's a well documented correllation between paraphilias and serial killers. It's almost a stereotype. Harris and Rowling aren't 'making shit up left and right'.

There is not a well-documented correlation between being trans and being a serial killer.

If there were such proof you'd have posted it by now. The best you'll do is post something about paraphilias and serial killers, then say "trans is a paraphilia; therefore, all trans are serial killers" which will only convince your idiot friends and the terminally stupid.

by Anonymousreply 92Last Tuesday at 3:59 AM

If the Forbes article is accurate - its sources seem to be an Amazon review and tweets, which are obviously unimpeachable - her latest gambit is cynical in the extreme. Her essay [i]seemed[/i] genuinely felt, so there was sympathy for her among some who felt that discourse should be more open. Some gratitude she's shown for their support.

Rowling was always a troll, even when she professed 'acceptable' opinions, so the outrage seems a bit hypocritical from some quarters. Just accept that the person who wrote those books you like isn't a nice person and stop giving her the platform she should never have had.

by Anonymousreply 93Last Tuesday at 4:14 AM

Dammit, formatting.

by Anonymousreply 94Last Tuesday at 4:16 AM

Do we really need 30 fucking threads on this topic? Jesus.

As I've said before and will say again, R14 has it on the money. Rowling is a shitty writer. Why you are falling all over yourselves to defend her is absurd.

by Anonymousreply 95Last Tuesday at 4:20 AM

R58, the truth is that the overwhelming majority of society agrees with JK Rowling that only women menstruate, biological sex is real, care needs to be taken with transing young people and gender self-identification is probably not a good idea.

It's trans cult bullshit that Rowling is some kind of crazed fringe transphobic extremist or that it's some weird radical feminist idea that transwomen are not actually women.

The company Rowling keeps is with 99.9% of humanity.

by Anonymousreply 96Last Tuesday at 4:20 AM

Weird how many people in this thread equate transgenderism with homosexuality and keep trying to imply that trans and gays are in the same boat.

We aren't. Trans people hate us. They are not our allies. They have been actively working to take over the gay rights movement and make it about them for years.

Do I need to remind you of what they did to the story of Stonewall? How far they set back gay rights by taking the story of the fight for gay independence AWAY from the gays?

I feel like you've all lost your minds. Trans people are not and have never been our allies. Our struggles are not the same, we are not two interchangeable groups.

Trans and gay are not on the same side. Never forget that.

by Anonymousreply 97Last Tuesday at 4:21 AM

Alternatively r62, if you don't like to witness so-called "TERFs" and trans activists arguing with each other, don't click on a thread that contains the words "Rowling" and "trans" in the subject heading. It's quite possible for you to keep away from this corner of the internet.

by Anonymousreply 98Last Tuesday at 4:22 AM

So r64, on the basis of absolutely nothing you decide that "JK Rowling's new book is about a trans murderer" when it absolutely is not - that's just yet more trans cult lies and bullshit.

by Anonymousreply 99Last Tuesday at 4:23 AM

R93, given that Rowling's new book is NOT about a trans murderer, will you revise your opinion on her and apologise for your inaccurate and damaging statement?

by Anonymousreply 100Last Tuesday at 4:25 AM

I don't think I've ever seen a gay man imply that trans and gay are one and the same, so a lot of people in this thread must be either trans people or women, because no gay man would ever try to imply that trans and gay are two sides of the same coin. We've spent too many years being equated with transvestites and drag queens to do that.

by Anonymousreply 101Last Tuesday at 4:25 AM

Really, anyone who sues a government website for fostering a discussion (like we are doing here on the DL) is a shitty person who deserves no respect.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 102Last Tuesday at 4:26 AM

"Transvestic disorder" is the name of the paraphilia. Most cross-dressers do not have transvestic disorder.

There is no evidence that people with transvestic disorder commit crimes at higher rates than others. In fact, there are a host of other mental conditions (bipolar, schizophrenia, OCD) which may present on the surface as transvestic disorder but which are not.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 103Last Tuesday at 4:26 AM

Sure r95, Rowling is such a shitty writer she's probably, if not the most successful author ever than one of the most successful.

by Anonymousreply 104Last Tuesday at 4:26 AM

If I'm reading the implication at R14 correctly, she apparently uses the "crossdressing murderous tranny" plot line as bait to sucker people into buying her book, then chickens out on it at the end.

What a cynical, grubby little ploy to make money off of this controversy she's been courting. She's already unimaginably wealthy, this is just unseemly.

by Anonymousreply 105Last Tuesday at 4:27 AM

R73, if lesbians and gay men hadn't been suckered into "aligning" with the trans cult, we wouldn't be in this shitty situation in the first place. You seriously believe that Stonewall was started by "trans women of colour"?

Drop the T!

by Anonymousreply 106Last Tuesday at 4:28 AM

Instead of writing books she should just donate money to anti-trans organizations and spend the rest of her life in a mansion on the countryside of some beautiful foreign country pursuing anti-trans activism. That seems like a more lucrative gameplan.

by Anonymousreply 107Last Tuesday at 4:29 AM

I have no problem with trans women.

Women need to stop trying to force this issue onto gay men.

by Anonymousreply 108Last Tuesday at 4:30 AM

Gays and trans are not allies and never have been. Until recently the two groups tried to differentiate themselves from one another as much as possible. Some time around the 2000's trans people took advantage of the growing mainstream-ness of drag culture to glob themselves on to the gay community and use us as a means to their end while simultaneously whitewashing our history and pretending like it was trans people that achieved us all of our civil rights.

There's a history with trans and gays, but it is not a history of brotherhood.

by Anonymousreply 109Last Tuesday at 4:32 AM

R108 I also have no problem with trans women, but I do have a problem with trans men, who are glorified dykes who want to force gay men to become bisexual.

by Anonymousreply 110Last Tuesday at 4:33 AM

Read it and weep r58, or at least take a good hard look at the company you keep.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 111Last Tuesday at 4:35 AM

[Quote] Sure R95, Rowling is such a shitty writer she's probably, if not the most successful author ever than one of the most successful.

Being a good writer and selling a lot of books is not synonymous. Just as some of the best selling albums or the top grossing movies of all time are total shit, some of the best selling books are shit. What the public consumes isn't necessarily what is considered good representations of the art form. JK Rowling is a shitty writer. Whatever your views on trans issue, she's a total garbage writer and a shitty person on top of it.

by Anonymousreply 112Last Tuesday at 4:36 AM

But r101, didn't you know that gay men and trans are all one amorphous "LGBTQIA+++ community" now? Didn't you hear that gay men and trans are both now simply "queer"? Didn't you know that it's not trans rights groups but "LGBT rights groups" that are pushing for trans demands? When was the last time you heard the "gay community" been spoken in public and not the "LGBT community"?

by Anonymousreply 113Last Tuesday at 4:38 AM

R113 That's because any semblance of "community" the gays had left has been long since destroyed. Gayborhoods aren't really a thing anymore, gay clubs and bars are now full of majority straight people, even apps like Grindr and Scruff are being full of trans and even cis women.

There is no gay community anymore. It's gone. A gay man is an independent thing now.

by Anonymousreply 114Last Tuesday at 4:42 AM

Oh fuck off shithead at r112. Being a global literary phenomenon for several decades, with book after book, and who is read by all demographic cohorts and all educational and social backgrounds is only something that an author who has something special can achieve. Just because you don't like her writing, that doesn't mean she isn't a good writer. Or are you so arrogant to tell her 100s of millions of readers that they're idiots?

You give the reasons for your hatred of her and your bullshit comments about her as an author away with your "she's a shitty person". You hate her because she's a woman who questions the tenets of the trans cult.

by Anonymousreply 115Last Tuesday at 4:42 AM

I agree that gay and trans rights are different things.

I also believe gay rights and women are different things.

I will not be co-opted by either, but it's only the latter I see trying to do that.

by Anonymousreply 116Last Tuesday at 4:44 AM

While I do think that Rowling is a shitty writer (having actually read the Harry Potter books), I admire her as a person. She's brave and she has guts, which is a rarity nowadays. Can you think of any other celebrity that isn't a deplorable that's willing to stand up to cancel culture like this and stick by her beliefs no matter what?

I think she should dedicate her life to activism now, though. Use her platform and her money to help aid gay and lesbian causes and take a hammer to the trans cause. Her writing days should be behind her.

by Anonymousreply 117Last Tuesday at 4:44 AM

[quote]Use her platform and her money to help aid gay and lesbian causes and take a hammer to the trans cause.

Though she's anti-trans, I don't think she's necessarily pro-gay men...

by Anonymousreply 118Last Tuesday at 4:46 AM

R118 She's been pro-gay for years and has a long history of gay activism. Despite what you and many other people keep trying to say, there IS a difference between trans people and gay people, and you can be against one without being against the other.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 119Last Tuesday at 4:51 AM

All those things seem old.

I've just seen women -- who were nominally liberal to gay men before -- embrace radical feminist and become much more conservative.

Perhaps she isn't. But there's a lot of hatred of gay men in the rad fem movement.

Even if you're an anti-trans gay man, I suggest you avoid those 'womyn'.

by Anonymousreply 120Last Tuesday at 4:54 AM

R120 Your attempts to convince us that gay men and trans people are on the same side and should band together against the evils of feminism won't work, trans troll.

by Anonymousreply 121Last Tuesday at 4:56 AM

[quote][R120] Your attempts to convince us that gay men and trans people are on the same side and should band together against the evils of feminism won't work, trans troll.

I never said that. I said this:

[quote]Even if you're an anti-trans gay man, I suggest you avoid those 'womyn'.

by Anonymousreply 122Last Tuesday at 5:01 AM

Caitlyn looks glamorous.

Jack Koff not so much.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 123Last Tuesday at 5:04 AM

Yet more strawmen by misogynistic trans activists who just HATE it that a WOMAN, of all people, calls them out on their bullshit. They can't argue the facts, so they have to resort to ad hominem attacks, hyperbole and outright lying.

There's a reason "#ripjkrowling" was trending all day, because they would love nothing more than to silence a woman who dares speak her mind.

by Anonymousreply 124Last Tuesday at 5:04 AM

It's okay to criticize trans movement.

But gay men shouldn't care about 'misogyny'.

by Anonymousreply 125Last Tuesday at 5:06 AM

Gay men are affected by misogyny too. Where do you think homophobia comes from? Toxic masculinity, Brenda.

by Anonymousreply 126Last Tuesday at 5:11 AM

[quote] Gay men are affected by misogyny too.

Rad fems would say that's a misogynistic statement.

[quote]Where do you think homophobia comes from? Toxic masculinity, Brenda.

There are enough homophobic women for me to think it goes deeper.

by Anonymousreply 127Last Tuesday at 5:13 AM

A MAGA TERFer wants to profit off transphobia?

Trying to further victimize a sliver of the population for her greed is deplorable.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 128Last Tuesday at 5:14 AM

I wonder if she was pro-trans or just didn't care back in 2014.

This movement among wealthy, middle-aged British straight women is quite recent.

by Anonymousreply 129Last Tuesday at 5:14 AM

By the way - honest question here - why are so many people on Twitter saying "I can't believe she did this to Trans AND GAYS." What does this have to do with gay? What's the connection? Asking for myself, not a friend - and I'm really trying to understand.

by Anonymousreply 130Last Tuesday at 5:15 AM

[quote]What does this have to do with gay?

Scratch a transphobe, a homophobe bleeds.

Every case.

In my experience anyway.

by Anonymousreply 131Last Tuesday at 5:17 AM

Is she still a terrible writer?

by Anonymousreply 132Last Tuesday at 5:17 AM

Yes.

by Anonymousreply 133Last Tuesday at 5:18 AM

[quote]By the way - honest question here - why are so many people on Twitter saying "I can't believe she did this to Trans AND GAYS." What does this have to do with gay? What's the connection? Asking for myself, not a friend - and I'm really trying to understand.

It comes down to selectivity and convenience.

We're one big happy family when it suits the Ts. Otherwise, gay people having been riding their hard work and benefiting from their sacrifices and should be cancelled -oh, and we're worse than H most of the time.

by Anonymousreply 134Last Tuesday at 5:20 AM

Thanks, R131

by Anonymousreply 135Last Tuesday at 5:20 AM

Yes, we're different, gay men and trans women.

Gay men and women are different too.

I'm not interested in attacking trans women because it makes women feel better.

by Anonymousreply 136Last Tuesday at 5:23 AM

R130 Trans and gay are now one and the same to loons like R131. Strap in, because this homophobic new trend of making trans and gay a synonymous thing is only going to grow, as everyone who is not a gay man themselves will likely support it.

It's a scary time for gay men right now. We have enemies everywhere we look and not an ally in sight.

by Anonymousreply 137Last Tuesday at 5:24 AM

[quote]Trans and gay are now one and the same to loons like [R131].

I said the exact opposite.

I also said gay men's and women's interest are not the same.

by Anonymousreply 138Last Tuesday at 5:25 AM

The TERF-Trump alliance, with this JK, are trying to destroy transgender rights.

Their ilk were together in Pennslvanis months ago trying to stir up femo-fascism.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 139Last Tuesday at 5:27 AM

I'm preordering.

by Anonymousreply 140Last Tuesday at 5:28 AM

R138 You're trying to make it seem like trans people and gay men have a common enemy. You're trying to make it seem like everyone against trans people is also against gay people in an attempt to subconsciously group the two together. You're being awfully transparent about it too.

Your gaslighting won't work. Trans people and gay people are not on the same side and working towards a common goal, and those who hate trans are not homophobic by default. Stop trying to equate trans people with gay people, we are two vastly different things.

by Anonymousreply 141Last Tuesday at 5:28 AM

Gay men and rad fems are not the same thing.

by Anonymousreply 142Last Tuesday at 5:30 AM

R142 Exactly, and gay men and trans people aren't the same thing either.

by Anonymousreply 143Last Tuesday at 5:31 AM

Yes.

Then discuss why we should be anti-trans for reasons other than 'women's sports and spaces'.

I don't care about them.

by Anonymousreply 144Last Tuesday at 5:32 AM

By the way, I'm not ANTI trans at all - zero - I'm just saying gay and trans are not the same thing, but keep getting lumped together for some reason.

by Anonymousreply 145Last Tuesday at 5:36 AM

[quote] I'm just saying gay and trans are not the same thing, but keep getting lumped together for some reason.

Rad fems often do that.

They use the term Lesbian and put left-wing gay men in with trans for disagreeing with them.

by Anonymousreply 146Last Tuesday at 5:37 AM

Rather hear about Mama June's comeback that that JK's selfish greed.

JK is another John Bolton $$$$$$.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 147Last Tuesday at 5:39 AM

The vast majority of the country supports gay marriage. They may not “like” it but it’s kind of a dead issue, people have moved in and realized it doesn’t effect them so why should they care. The tranny issue is entirely different. Men competing with women poses a serious physical threat to the real men, not to mention how unfair it is. Parents don’t want 50 year old men in dresses using the same locker rooms and bathrooms as their teenage daughters. The trans issue has NOTHING to do with gay people. I’ve stopped supporting “gay” organizations that have become all about trannies and I urge you all to do the same. Enough is enough.

by Anonymousreply 148Last Tuesday at 5:40 AM

**physical threat to the real WOMEN, I meant

by Anonymousreply 149Last Tuesday at 5:41 AM

[quote]Men competing with women poses a serious physical threat to the real women, not to mention how unfair it is.

So?

by Anonymousreply 150Last Tuesday at 5:42 AM

What's is called?

A homicidal psycho dressed to kill while the lambs are silent.

by Anonymousreply 151Last Tuesday at 5:47 AM

Rad fems only care about gay men to the extent we can be used to as cannon fodder for their anti-trans aims.

That's why posts like R141 have more likes than R142.

by Anonymousreply 152Last Tuesday at 5:57 AM

A faction of bio-women who hate dicks but dress like they have dicks to appeal to other women who like dick; want to exterminate men/trans F who have gotten rid of their dicks?

That's rather odd.

by Anonymousreply 153Last Tuesday at 6:09 AM

[quote]Being a good writer and selling a lot of books is not synonymous.

That's like one of the top Datalounge rules right there, pretty much every thread about music/books/movies we've ever had is full of "just because it's popular doesn't mean it's good" comments. Very weird to see people over here say the exact opposite in defense of JKR.

by Anonymousreply 154Last Tuesday at 6:09 AM

Maybe they're not Datalouners, r154.

by Anonymousreply 155Last Tuesday at 6:16 AM

To the person who criticised her appearance, I was just coming in to say she looks fabulous in OP. Glowing, even. If she has had surgery, it looks natural. Her boytoys and hustlers must appreciate it.

Can’t hate her for getting her money and spicing up her own life with it, especially considering she did it all without a man and without social-climbing. The fact that she did that and still maintains a hot defense of fellow women is enough to redeem her.

That said, I still think her books are subpar pseudo-Christian dreck for limited middle-class bores. Her literary legacy is overstated.

by Anonymousreply 156Last Tuesday at 6:17 AM

It’s hypocritical to get work done and criticise trans women.

by Anonymousreply 157Last Tuesday at 6:19 AM

She's obviously had surgery and she's most definitely a social climber. Let's dial back the fanfic, R156.

by Anonymousreply 158Last Tuesday at 6:22 AM

I love the people who think they're being clever by coming to threads like this just to comment on how much they dislike her books or say that she's a bad writer, "but she looks great"!

You aren't fooling anyone.

by Anonymousreply 159Last Tuesday at 6:24 AM

Her books were snobby. She hates those Tory bigots. Now she is one, and BoJo has cancelled that gender bill she didn’t like.

by Anonymousreply 160Last Tuesday at 6:25 AM

R139 ‘femo-facism’, you say?

Well, Mr. Sim, I had no idea you posted here. How’s the MRA crusade going? Thrown any babies down some cathedral steps, lately?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 161Last Tuesday at 6:26 AM

"I'm just saying gay and trans are not the same thing, but keep getting lumped together for some reason."

Because the trans cult has made sure that we're been lumped together with them r145, so the trans could piggyback on the painstakingly-created gay movement. Anyone who questioned them in anyway was immediately denounced as a transphobe. Because they knew that if they tried to advance their claims independently they would get nowhere. They've had to convince mainstream society that the trans are just some slightly different version of the gays to get any credence for their bullshit "gender identity" dogma. So straight society doesn't criticise trans theories because they're worried they're being homophobic if they speak out against the trans bs.

by Anonymousreply 162Last Tuesday at 6:28 AM

Just as Lesbians tried to piggyback on gay rights.

by Anonymousreply 163Last Tuesday at 6:30 AM

I appreciate that she brought attention to the disturbing child mutilation happening in the UK, but now she’s just poking the bear to be a dick. That’s her right, but she needs to drop the “i’m just trying to have a nuanced conversation!!” act.

by Anonymousreply 164Last Tuesday at 6:44 AM

Good. Poke the bear/Woman with a Dick all you can JK. I kind of stan you.

by Anonymousreply 165Last Tuesday at 6:52 AM

Is there any limit to the extent about which she obsesses over trans women before you’ll see she’s a little crazy?

by Anonymousreply 166Last Tuesday at 7:09 AM

In what way is she "poking the bear", r164? Are you aware that the subject heading of this thread is bullshit? Stop believing the trans lies.

by Anonymousreply 167Last Tuesday at 7:17 AM

R115 is a total clown. Let's break it down.

[Quote] Oh fuck off shithead

Classy

[Quote] Being a global literary phenomenon for several decades, with book after book,

Let's not go that far. Her other books have not been nearly as successful as Harry Potter.

[Quote] and who is read by all demographic cohorts and all educational and social backgrounds is only something that an author who has something special can achieve.

Yeah, good marketing and good timing. That's the only reason JK Rowling is as successful as she is.

[Quote] Just because you don't like her writing, that doesn't mean she isn't a good writer.

As I've asked trolls in other threads, have you read anything else she's written besides Harry Potter? The answer is almost unanimously no. I read parts of The Casual Vacancy (couldn't finish it) and it was complete garbage. Her other books haven't gotten good reviews either.

[Quote] Or are you so arrogant to tell her 100s of millions of readers that they're idiots?

Of course. I'm more than happy to tell the millions of idiots out there who bought her books and think she's a good writer that they are complete idiots. Millions of people voted for Donald Trump and Boris Johnson. There are a ton of morons out there: many of whom are fans of JK Rowling.

[Quote] You give the reasons for your hatred of her and your bullshit comments about her as an author away with your "she's a shitty person". She is a shitty person. Who the fuck sues to shut down Harry Potter fan fiction pages because they aren't making any money off of it? She's worth hundreds of millions of dollars. How fucking greedy do you have to be to shit all over your fans like that? She's trash, irrespective of her views on trans people, which I don't agree with.

[Quote] You hate her because she's a woman who questions the tenets of the trans cult.

No. I hate her because she's a greedy rich cunt who cares about making as much money for herself as possible while pretending to be all piety by feigning concern care about the poor and less fortunate. Fake and phony woman. She's an incredibly shitty person. No matter how much the anti-trans trolls on the DL try to defend her, the day of her ultimate "cancellation" is coming. Just as everyone knew that Ellen Degeneres was horrid and she got her comeuppance for being a nasty bitch, so too will JK Rowling. Your tears will be delicious to taste on that inevitable day.

by Anonymousreply 168Last Tuesday at 7:20 AM

R167 she entered this conversation claiming to want a nuanced dialogue about gender. Since then, she has published an essay and a series of other messages on Twitter in which she blocked all replies, rejected offers from several trans groups to sit down and have a conversation, and hide behind the guise of “THOUSANDS of people have emailed me to say i’m right but I can’t tell you who, sorry!”

I admire her for sticking to her guns, I suppose, but what a silly hill to die on. But then again, she shits hundred dollar bills and i’m an anonymous loser on a chat board, so what do I know?

by Anonymousreply 169Last Tuesday at 7:27 AM

It's not about trans.

But even if it was, trans people can't be serial killers.

by Anonymousreply 170Last Tuesday at 7:31 AM

She’s also threatened to sue two gay men with long histories of gay activism to force them to apologize to her.

She’s nasty.

by Anonymousreply 171Last Tuesday at 7:43 AM

The real reason to be anti-trans as a gay man is FTM's. That directly affects us, as ex-faghags are now transitioning into men and trying to force us to be attracted to men with tits and vaginas. That's a pressing issue.

by Anonymousreply 172Last Tuesday at 7:45 AM

Yes, but rad fems refuse to criticize FtMs because se they view them as lost sisters.

by Anonymousreply 173Last Tuesday at 7:48 AM

Like a poster upthread said, gay issues and trans issues shouldn't be lumped in together because the majority of Americans are over caring about what gays do with their own lives and their own time. The difference between gay issues and trans issues is one is sexuality and the other is gender. Gay issues don't affect straight people directly, which is why gays are relatively less of a hot button issue. What another person does with their genitals tends to not affect other people and thus straight people who aren't religious nut jobs or self hating closet cases are usually not paying any attention to it.

Trans is different though. What they do directly affects cis people. Sexuality is kept in the bedroom, at the date table, and in the marriage space. Gender is something we rarely notice that actually plays a huge part in how we live our lives. Gay people and straight people can coexist without having their preferences affect one another. Trans is the opposite.

The issue with us being clumped in with trans and their issues is that a gay person and a trans person are beginning to become synonymous to straight cis people. That's an issue because trans people are loud, abrasive, and aggressive about their identities where as gay people just want to exist in peace. Straight people equating gays and trans are going to make them think gays are loud, abrasive, and aggressive about their identities because trans people are, which is going to set us back EONS in gay rights.

by Anonymousreply 174Last Tuesday at 7:54 AM

[quote]Trans is different though. What they do directly affects cis people.

No, it doesn't.

Homophobes said for decades that we affected them.

by Anonymousreply 175Last Tuesday at 7:59 AM

Shithead at r168, I've read all the Harry Potter books, The Casual Vacancy, Beadle the Bard and all the Cormoran Strike books except the one released today (which I can't wait to read).

You haven't "broken down" anything, you just spewed some nonsense. Transwomen are transwomen, only women menstruate, self-ID should not be passed, lesbians do not have penises, pre-pubescent kids should not start physically transitioning, especially without their parents' consent.

by Anonymousreply 176Last Tuesday at 8:43 AM

R169/r164 - you seem to be under the very mistaken impression that the murderer in the new book is a transwoman. The central story is a cold case that dates back to 1974 - and Rowling knows very well that transgender theory did not even exist in 1974 - it's nothing to do with the trans issue. You are believing the bullshit of the crazy trans, who love to lie and spew garbage about Rowling.

by Anonymousreply 177Last Tuesday at 8:46 AM

[quote] Rowling knows very well that transgender theory did not even exist in 1974

Eh... trans women existed then.

by Anonymousreply 178Last Tuesday at 8:47 AM

[quote]That's an issue because trans people are loud, abrasive, and aggressive about their identities where as gay people just want to exist in peace.

Actually, a lot of trans people just want to live in peace too, we just don't hear from them. We only hear from the activists, who definitely are vocal and abrasive (and don't necessarily have the support of all trans people).

by Anonymousreply 179Last Tuesday at 8:49 AM

By the way shithead at r168, you may hate Rowling because she does not share your trans cult views, but it's a bit hard to call her phoney and greedy when she's standing up for what she knows are controversial (in the eyes of some) beliefs and is coming under constant attack for them. Instead, she's standing up for her beliefs.

If she was phoney and greedy and just wanted to sell more books and be popular (with the Twitterati and the celebrity scene and the woke army, that is because the rest of the world doesn't give a shit about this issue), she'd be tweeting some such bullshit as "transwomen are women".

by Anonymousreply 180Last Tuesday at 8:51 AM

[quote] she'd be tweeting some such bullshit as "transwomen are women".

I imagine the circles she moves in are so anti-trans she doesn’t believe people say that.

by Anonymousreply 181Last Tuesday at 8:53 AM

Yes r179, there are plenty of trans people who acknowledge they have a dysphoria, don't claim that they are really the opposite sex/gender, but simply that to behave in that way makes them feel better, and who are appalled by the queer/LGBTQIA2S+++ woke army version of being trans that they're trying to force onto the rest of society.

by Anonymousreply 182Last Tuesday at 8:54 AM

Whatever you think of her, she’s clearly got a principled stance on this issue and is fighting for what she believes. I’ve read her essay, and she is explicit about treading transgendered people with kindness. She just has reasonable concerns that no one on the other side will even allow to be discussed.

There was an article from the New Yorker here years ago about a YMCA in NYC where a little girls (8-9 year olds) swim team practiced. A big hairy dude started using the girls locker room, schlong swinging in the wind. The little girls were forced to use the gender neutral bathroom to change and shower, even though it took half hour for all of them to use it. All to placate the man who is either a pedo or just likes causing trouble. I don’t have kids and never will so this issue doesn’t effect me personally but sometimes you can stand up for things that are wrong even if they don’t impact you.

by Anonymousreply 183Last Tuesday at 8:58 AM

R169, just so you know, Rowling is not "dying on this hill" - the vast majority of society agrees with her 100%.

by Anonymousreply 184Last Tuesday at 9:00 AM

[quote] the vast majority of society agrees with her 100%.

Yeah. But you’ll all pretend you’re so, so, so victimized... cause that’s part of your ideology.

Women are always victims.

by Anonymousreply 185Last Tuesday at 9:03 AM

I’m not going to read this whole thread, but I find the OP wording troublesome. Is it a book about someone who murders Trans people, or a person who is Trans and murders others? And which is more problematic coming from a Trans denier?

by Anonymousreply 186Last Tuesday at 9:04 AM

R186, it's not a book about any of those things, the subject of the thread is completely inaccurate. Rowling is not a trans denier, whatever that means - she's just not a biological sex denier.

by Anonymousreply 187Last Tuesday at 9:09 AM

All these people making a fuss about a book they haven't read

by Anonymousreply 188Last Tuesday at 9:11 AM

R188 Of course they are, these people can't read. Well, at least not anything that exceeds 140 characters.

by Anonymousreply 189Last Tuesday at 9:13 AM

They're idiots and misogynistic bullies who enjoy any excuse to tell a woman to shut up.

by Anonymousreply 190Last Tuesday at 9:14 AM

Is anyone else just feeling exhausted by the fighting right now, when there are much bigger issues?

I've posted this before, but the way the trans debate has been reduced to TRANS WOMEN ARE WOMEN without any attempt to deal with the complexities that cases like Jessiva Yaniv, Karen White, Freddie McConnell and Laurel Hubbard bring has done the trans movement a huge disservice.

In the way aspects of critical feminists have found the religious right allying with them, the trans side have some of the nastiest most misogynistic women haters jumping on the back of it.

I'm sure most people believe there is such a thing as gender dysphoria, that people can be "born in the wrong body", that people should be allowed to change their legal status if certain criteria are met, that biological sex is important and needs to protected in law alongside race and disability, and that trans people deserve legal protection from discrimination too.

How people bring both sides back together, with social media spreading disinformation and more extreme views, is anyone's guess.

by Anonymousreply 191Last Tuesday at 9:15 AM

People who use Twitter don't read, so is it any really shock that they're freaking out about a book they've never read? The only books the woke read are books that feed them the reaffirmation of their own thoughts that they crave so badly. Beyond that I'm guessing the last book any of these people have read was To Kill A Mockingbird in 8th Grade English.

by Anonymousreply 192Last Tuesday at 9:16 AM

[quote] They're idiots and misogynistic bullies who enjoy any excuse to tell a woman to shut up.

Maybe women should shut up🤷‍♂️

by Anonymousreply 193Last Tuesday at 9:20 AM

[Quote] Shithead at R168, I've read all the Harry Potter books, The Casual Vacancy, Beadle the Bard and all the Cormoran Strike books except the one released today (which I can't wait to read).

Congratulations. You have shitty taste in books and you're an idiot for giving this shitty person so much of your cash. FFed and blocked now.

by Anonymousreply 194Last Tuesday at 9:27 AM

I hate women, but I hate trans people more than I hate women. Women can sometimes be useful to gays (keyword: sometimes) but trans people bring nothing to the table for us.

by Anonymousreply 195Last Tuesday at 9:27 AM

Lol at r194 for FFing and blocking me just because I've read all of JK Rowling's books! Instead of apologising for making such a dumb accusation that I'd never read anything by her aside from some of Harry Potter, the trans cultist runs away! When faced with facts, trans cultists always reply with some evasive bullshit covered up in overblown accusations.

Unfortunately, if someone puts you on ignore you can still see their posts. Guess I'll have to put the shithead on ignore too.

by Anonymousreply 196Last Tuesday at 10:16 AM

[quote] I hate women, but I hate trans people more than I hate women. Women can sometimes be useful to gays (keyword: sometimes) but trans people bring nothing to the table for us.

I think rad fems are worse than trans women. In part, because their ideology has broader potential for growth.

by Anonymousreply 197Last Tuesday at 10:17 AM

[quote] Sales will skyrocket. First time ever trannies have created financial value.

Pharmaceutical companies are capitalizing in widespread use of hormones and drugs too.

by Anonymousreply 198Last Tuesday at 10:30 AM

Trans women: simultaneously not bothering to medically transition yet single-handedly funding Big Pharma

by Anonymousreply 199Last Tuesday at 10:31 AM

[quote]Of course they are, these people can't read. Well, at least not anything that exceeds 140 characters.

Christ, you people are stupid.

by Anonymousreply 200Last Tuesday at 10:34 AM

]quoteWhatever you think of her, she’s clearly got a principled stance on this issue and is fighting for what she believes

"I mean, say what you want about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos."

by Anonymousreply 201Last Tuesday at 10:35 AM

[quote]Whatever you think of her, she’s clearly got a principled stance on this issue and is fighting for what she believes.

"I mean, say what you want about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos."

by Anonymousreply 202Last Tuesday at 10:36 AM

R202 it remains a shitty and irrelevant comment

by Anonymousreply 203Last Tuesday at 10:44 AM

I normally can't stand ethnic jewelry on older white women but I love what she's wearing in op's pic. She has really good taste.

by Anonymousreply 204Last Tuesday at 11:01 AM

Nick Cohen, a left of centre journalist who has actually read the book has written about the actual book and the furore provoked by the disgusting Pink News.

The object of a slanderer is to blacken the name of his target so thoroughly everything she says and does reinforces his slander. She can have no independent life or complexity. No one is free to say, although I disapprove of her views on X, I admire her for speaking out on Y. No quarter can be given or complexity acknowledged. The slander is all.

In the case of J.K. Rowling, everything she says and does must be twisted to reinforce the slander that she is a 'transphobe'.

Last night, I turned on Twitter and wondered, 'What the hell are they screaming about now?' – a recurrent thought, I grant you. The hideous hashtag #RIPJKRowling was trending as trolls and their easily manipulated followers poured out their hatred. Rowling was a rat and a racist. She should 'Sit Down and Shut the Fuck Up For The Rest of Time You Transphobic Bitch'. She wants trans people 'to die'.

The 'evidence' that provoked the malice was so flimsy, even Twitter should have been embarrassed to publish it. Pink News, which dominates the LGBTQ+ outrage market, gave the case for the prosecution. According to the first review, 'JK Rowling’s latest book is about a murderous cis man who dresses as a woman to kill his victims', it announced.

It is about nothing of the sort, I thought. And I could say that with authority because I had just finished a review copy of Troubled Blood, the fifth novel in Rowling’s Cormoran Strike series, as research for a long piece on her politics and art I'm working on for the Critic. No honest person who takes the trouble to read it can see the novel as transphobic. But then honest people are hard to find in a culture war.

The men and women pouring out their loathing of Rowling online could not have read the unreleased book: not that their ignorance bothered them in slightest, as no mob on the rampage in history has ever stopped to read a novel.

One person had read it, however, a reviewer for the Daily Telegraph. And it was his assertion that set off the hate fest. The meat of the book, he declared is 'the investigation into a cold case: the disappearance of GP Margot Bamborough in 1974, thought to have been a victim of Dennis Creed, a transvestite serial killer. One wonders what critics of Rowling’s stance on trans issues will make of a book whose moral seems to be: never trust a man in a dress'.

That slippery 'seems' should have put readers on their guard. The moral of the book is not 'never trust a man in a dress'. Transvestism barely features. When it does, nothing is made of the fact that the killer wears a wig and a woman’s coat (not a dress) as a disguise when approaching one of his victims. Maybe this tiny detail is enough for the wilfully ignorant to damn Rowling as a 'witch' – I’m not making it up, for this is how Everton goalkeeper turned Twitter celebrity Neville Southall described her. But no one else should be satisfied.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 205Last Tuesday at 12:03 PM

Nick Cohen, a left of centre journalist who has actually read the book has written about the actual book and the furore provoked by the disgusting Pink News.

The object of a slanderer is to blacken the name of his target so thoroughly everything she says and does reinforces his slander. She can have no independent life or complexity. No one is free to say, although I disapprove of her views on X, I admire her for speaking out on Y. No quarter can be given or complexity acknowledged. The slander is all.

In the case of J.K. Rowling, everything she says and does must be twisted to reinforce the slander that she is a 'transphobe'.

Last night, I turned on Twitter and wondered, 'What the hell are they screaming about now?' – a recurrent thought, I grant you. The hideous hashtag #RIPJKRowling was trending as trolls and their easily manipulated followers poured out their hatred. Rowling was a rat and a racist. She should 'Sit Down and Shut the Fuck Up For The Rest of Time You Transphobic Bitch'. She wants trans people 'to die'.

The 'evidence' that provoked the malice was so flimsy, even Twitter should have been embarrassed to publish it. Pink News, which dominates the LGBTQ+ outrage market, gave the case for the prosecution. According to the first review, 'JK Rowling’s latest book is about a murderous cis man who dresses as a woman to kill his victims', it announced.

It is about nothing of the sort, I thought. And I could say that with authority because I had just finished a review copy of Troubled Blood, the fifth novel in Rowling’s Cormoran Strike series, as research for a long piece on her politics and art I'm working on for the Critic. No honest person who takes the trouble to read it can see the novel as transphobic. But then honest people are hard to find in a culture war.

The men and women pouring out their loathing of Rowling online could not have read the unreleased book: not that their ignorance bothered them in slightest, as no mob on the rampage in history has ever stopped to read a novel.

One person had read it, however, a reviewer for the Daily Telegraph. And it was his assertion that set off the hate fest. The meat of the book, he declared is 'the investigation into a cold case: the disappearance of GP Margot Bamborough in 1974, thought to have been a victim of Dennis Creed, a transvestite serial killer. One wonders what critics of Rowling’s stance on trans issues will make of a book whose moral seems to be: never trust a man in a dress'.

That slippery 'seems' should have put readers on their guard. The moral of the book is not 'never trust a man in a dress'. Transvestism barely features. When it does, nothing is made of the fact that the killer wears a wig and a woman’s coat (not a dress) as a disguise when approaching one of his victims. Maybe this tiny detail is enough for the wilfully ignorant to damn Rowling as a 'witch' – I’m not making it up, for this is how Everton goalkeeper turned Twitter celebrity Neville Southall described her. But no one else should be satisfied.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 206Last Tuesday at 12:03 PM

Nick Cohen, a left of centre journalist who has actually read the book has written about the actual book and the furore provoked by the disgusting Pink News.

The object of a slanderer is to blacken the name of his target so thoroughly everything she says and does reinforces his slander. She can have no independent life or complexity. No one is free to say, although I disapprove of her views on X, I admire her for speaking out on Y. No quarter can be given or complexity acknowledged. The slander is all.

In the case of J.K. Rowling, everything she says and does must be twisted to reinforce the slander that she is a 'transphobe'.

Last night, I turned on Twitter and wondered, 'What the hell are they screaming about now?' – a recurrent thought, I grant you. The hideous hashtag #RIPJKRowling was trending as trolls and their easily manipulated followers poured out their hatred. Rowling was a rat and a racist. She should 'Sit Down and Shut the Fuck Up For The Rest of Time You Transphobic Bitch'. She wants trans people 'to die'.

The 'evidence' that provoked the malice was so flimsy, even Twitter should have been embarrassed to publish it. Pink News, which dominates the LGBTQ+ outrage market, gave the case for the prosecution. According to the first review, 'JK Rowling’s latest book is about a murderous cis man who dresses as a woman to kill his victims', it announced.

It is about nothing of the sort, I thought. And I could say that with authority because I had just finished a review copy of Troubled Blood, the fifth novel in Rowling’s Cormoran Strike series, as research for a long piece on her politics and art I'm working on for the Critic. No honest person who takes the trouble to read it can see the novel as transphobic. But then honest people are hard to find in a culture war.

The men and women pouring out their loathing of Rowling online could not have read the unreleased book: not that their ignorance bothered them in slightest, as no mob on the rampage in history has ever stopped to read a novel.

One person had read it, however, a reviewer for the Daily Telegraph. And it was his assertion that set off the hate fest. The meat of the book, he declared is 'the investigation into a cold case: the disappearance of GP Margot Bamborough in 1974, thought to have been a victim of Dennis Creed, a transvestite serial killer. One wonders what critics of Rowling’s stance on trans issues will make of a book whose moral seems to be: never trust a man in a dress'.

That slippery 'seems' should have put readers on their guard. The moral of the book is not 'never trust a man in a dress'. Transvestism barely features. When it does, nothing is made of the fact that the killer wears a wig and a woman’s coat (not a dress) as a disguise when approaching one of his victims. Maybe this tiny detail is enough for the wilfully ignorant to damn Rowling as a 'witch' – I’m not making it up, for this is how Everton goalkeeper turned Twitter celebrity Neville Southall described her. But no one else should be satisfied.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 207Last Tuesday at 12:03 PM

Part 2

Troubled Blood is a 900-page novel that is Dickensian in its scope and gallery of characters. Strike and his business partner Robin Ellacott are hired by a middle-aged woman to investigate the disappearance of her mother in the 1970s. Detectives at the time thought Creed had killed her, but no one knew the truth and the woman’s body had never been found. Strike and Ellacott investigate Creed, but then they investigate a good dozen others. You have to search hard to find a justification for the belief that the book’s moral 'seems' to be 'never trust a man in a dress'. But then relentless searches for the tiniest evidence of guilt are the marks of heresy hunters

It amounts to this. On page 75, Strike is listening to the son of an investigating officer tell him what he knows about Creed.

'He had his failures you know. Penny Hiskett, she got away from him and gave the police a description in ’71, but that didn’t help them much. She said he was dark and stocky, because he was wearing a wig at the time and all padded out in a woman’s coat. They caught him in the end because of Melody Bower. Nightclub singer, looked like Diana Ross. Creed got chatting to her at the bus stop, offered her a lift, then tried to drag her into the van when she said no. She escaped, gave the police a proper description and told them he’d said his house was of Paradise Park.'

Creed mentions the advantage of lipstick and a wig in making women think he’s 'a harmless old queer' when Strike interviews him, and that’s about that. A novelist uses a passing detail to explain how a murderer got close to one of his victims – for presumably the victim who gave the police a 'proper description' did not see him in a woman’s coat and wig. A critic, unintentionally or not, whips up a rage, and thousands allow themselves to be whipped. Pavlov’s dogs showed more critical independence.

I can’t say more without spoiling the book for readers. But let me put it like this: when you reach the last pages the full absurdity of the statement that Rowling’s 'moral seems to be: never trust a man in a dress' will be revealed.

In contrast to her opposition to Scottish nationalism, which to my mind makes a clumsy appearance in the novel, Rowling makes no attempt to nudge the reader towards today’s arguments about women-only spaces and the safeguards or lack of them governing the clinics that offer hormone suppressing drugs or surgery. Nothing flows from Creed’s disguise. It leads to no wider conclusions.

In one respect, however, her critics are right to scream 'witch'. Rowling’s writing is becoming ever-more feminist; ever-more conscious of women’s physical and emotional abuse. The novel’s descriptions of how men condescend to Robin Ellacott, how they send her lewd pictures, grab her, talk over her, and refuse to accept her opinions because they are from a woman form one of the novels most convincing themes.

In this sense, if nothing else, Rowling’s latest work honestly mirrors her online life. She knows, as her characters know, that women who speak out of turn find themselves alone in a free-fire zone.

by Anonymousreply 208Last Tuesday at 12:03 PM

[quote]the disgusting Pink News.

What's disgusting about them? Aside for the fact they don't immediately do everything womyn demand?

You just sound homophobic.

by Anonymousreply 209Last Tuesday at 12:16 PM

Bitter old bitch because some man wouldn't wipe his foot on her, then he turned trans.

by Anonymousreply 210Last Tuesday at 12:39 PM

She's trying to look like Carly Fiorina.

by Anonymousreply 211Last Tuesday at 12:43 PM

It's cute how you all think she gives a shit about the US. She lives in the UK and in Scotland.

by Anonymousreply 212Last Tuesday at 5:03 PM

(and before anyone points it out, I mean to say she lives in the UK, and specifically in Scotland).

by Anonymousreply 213Last Tuesday at 5:07 PM

[quote] I hate women, but I hate trans people more than I hate women. Women can sometimes be useful to gays (keyword: sometimes) but trans people bring nothing to the table for us.

Anti-transers on DL suddenly lose all interest in critique of the trans movement if it’s not specifically favourable to women.

They got a good thread shut down on FtMs because — even though it was criticizing trans — it was criticizing women.

by Anonymousreply 214Last Tuesday at 10:18 PM

This is the single sentence upon which the claim of transphobia lies.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 215Last Tuesday at 10:44 PM

Eh... no it’s her other tweets, retweets, likes, statements, essay...

by Anonymousreply 216Last Tuesday at 11:01 PM

Sounds as if JK is disdainful of fat, black crossdressers.

I knew one in the bars back in the 70s. Destiny was a kindhearted person.

by Anonymousreply 217Last Tuesday at 11:01 PM

ITV are currently showing a drama based on notorious gay serial killer and necrophiliac Dennis Nilsen, played by David Tennant, who killed and dismembered up to 12 men and teenage boys in the late 70s and early 80s.

Coming soon to ITV is a drama based on gay serial killer Stephen Port, starting Stephen Merchant, who drugged and murdered 4 gay men and raped numerous men he’d drugged after arranging meetings on Grindr.

ITV is obviously homophobic as gay men don’t kill people.

by Anonymousreply 218Last Tuesday at 11:09 PM

[quote] gay men don’t kill people.

Not at anywhere near the rate of straight men and lesbians, correct.

Gay killers are over-represented in crime drama because of homophobia, yes.

by Anonymousreply 219Last Tuesday at 11:17 PM

[quote]The hideous hashtag #RIPJKRowling was trending as trolls and their easily manipulated followers poured out their hatred.

Several bookstore accounts I follow have been harassed by you anti-trans shitheads and at least one had to lock down their account, so fuck off with this constant claim of victimhood. You and your creepy op-ed defenders claim JKR is the real victim for getting shitty Twitter comments, but you never say anything about the real people who say such controversial things as "trans are people, we should be nice to each other" and don't have "journalists" and one billion dollars to use to defend themselves from the death threats you assholes spew.

Not that it surprises me one bit that alt-right trolls like you praise the rich and powerful and corporations over the individual, that's pretty much your core philosophical belief, but it's pretty grotesque.

The shit you guys say on here alone should get you investigated by the authorities, the constant stream of "trannies should all be institutionalized, they would be better off dead, the murdered ones brought it on themselves, they're all serial killers so we should just jail them all now" threats. You're worse on Twitter. Then you ladies come over here crying about being victims when the truth is you're on your fifth Twitter account because you kept threatening people and getting suspended.

by Anonymousreply 220Last Tuesday at 11:44 PM

Transparent lies by R220.

by Anonymousreply 221Last Wednesday at 12:15 AM

I’m such a victim!

Now you gay men better shut up or I’ll sue you!

by Anonymousreply 222Last Wednesday at 12:38 AM

R220, these bookstores you talk of, they're all stocking Rowling's new book, right?

by Anonymousreply 223Last Wednesday at 12:45 AM

Victimhood is a key part of rad fem ideology.

Even if you’re a billionaire whom nowhere would dare boycott, you are still a victim if you’re a woman.

The gay men she’s made shut up through threats of finacial ruin are the real oppressors to women like JK.

by Anonymousreply 224Last Wednesday at 12:48 AM

R221 isn't even trying.

The Daily Mail has a nasty article right now about Rabble Books and Games removing Harry Potter books from their store. All you have to do is type "to:@rabblebg" in the Twitter search and click "Latest" to see people right now, at this very moment, harassing them, even though they aren't even really on Twitter at all.

@ThirdHouseBooks said several days ago they wouldn't stock Rowling's books, and they got harassed so badly they locked their account down. Other bookstores who have tweeted in support are also getting hassled by anti-trans trolls.

It's all right there. You can lie all you want, it's easy to find.

by Anonymousreply 225Last Wednesday at 1:23 AM

Send links to 'harassment' r225 TIA!

by Anonymousreply 226Last Wednesday at 1:33 AM

There's usually ample harassment under anything Peter Tatchell tweets.

All from rad fems.

by Anonymousreply 227Last Wednesday at 1:34 AM

By "harassment" he means "people responding negatively to a bookstore's tweets that they are going to add anyone who requests Rowling books to their 'wall of shame'". They eventually deleted the tweet because it was a stupid business move and they got backlash.

No one made death threats. Believe me if anyone had they would be crying it from the rooftops WITH PROOF. You trans activists always say everyone is making death threats etc. yet never produce receipts, whereas you can EASILY find reams of death threats from TRA sock accounts (and real accounts) with a simple search.

by Anonymousreply 228Last Wednesday at 1:40 AM

And that Owen Jones guy, R227, Lots of homophobic slurs. They even start threads about him over here sometimes.

by Anonymousreply 229Last Wednesday at 1:46 AM

....

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 230Last Wednesday at 1:51 AM

Rad fem ideology basically holds that it's impossible for womyn to be capable of harassment.

And that womyn are eternal victims.

That's why they believe calling JK mean names is 'harassment' but JK calling someone mean names is stunning and brave.

by Anonymousreply 231Last Wednesday at 1:53 AM

Insane misogynistic trans activist spammer troll doin what it does, spamming with nonsense.

by Anonymousreply 232Last Wednesday at 2:04 AM

More interesting the same old 'womyn are being erased!' stuff.

Which... is increasingly transparent.

by Anonymousreply 233Last Wednesday at 2:07 AM

[quote]gay men don’t kill people. Not at anywhere near the rate of straight men and lesbians, correct.

You have to admit that when we DO kill, it’s spectacularly insane, like for instance dressing like a party clown and luring boys into a DIY torture chamber, or doing taxidermy on roadkill and humans, drilling holes in the skulls of the hottest victims to turn them into sex zombies. We are so cray cray when we murder.

by Anonymousreply 234Last Wednesday at 2:31 AM

The smearing of JK Rowling - how fake news provoked a shitstorm

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 235Last Wednesday at 2:32 AM

It’s not transphobic.

But if it is that’s a good thing, right?

Cos trans evil cos women bathroom women sport women prison women something

by Anonymousreply 236Last Wednesday at 2:36 AM

R225, any bookstore that removes an author's books from its shelves because of her anodyne opinions shared by 99% of the population deserves to be protested and shut down. Considering they are trying to stifle and censor one of the best-selling authors of all time, they are causing their own economic damage.

by Anonymousreply 237Last Wednesday at 2:43 AM

R227/r229, the people who share Rowling's view that biological sex is real are not simply this spectre of "rad fems" that you have constructed in your addled minds, but 99% of humanity.

The homophobes are your trans activist pals, who become apoplectic if you tell them you're attracted to your own sex.

by Anonymousreply 238Last Wednesday at 2:45 AM

Oh my! The threat isn't right-wing militias, Antifa, violent gangs, arsonists, looters, and vandals. Now on my North Carolina dairy farm, my partner and I have to worry about rabid transgenders emerging from the adjacent cornfield terrorizing my community. They gonna steal babies and make them transgenders too, and rape feminists and shit it their bathrooms? I already have barbed wired and electric fences and locked gates, firearms, and protection dogs. And silly me, I thought it was just coyotes I thought were intrusive. TERFs, please tell us how do we protect ourselves from those homicidal transgenders that are everywhere? You say they want to eliminate women and gay men, right? Oh wait, you say those Transgenders are straight men in dresses. Would straight men not in dresses also be eliminated? You imply Trump is going to stop the invasion of transgenders. Sorry, but I won't vote Trump. But your anti-trans control center in that warehouse in St. Petersburg, Russia must have a plan. Right? They have an army of UK Karens addicted to tabloids and their heroine JK. And their American obese counterparts terrified to pee in a Target must be so scared. Oh, the horror!

by Anonymousreply 239Last Wednesday at 2:48 AM

[quote] The homophobes are your trans activist pals, who become apoplectic if you tell them you're attracted to your own sex.

Nope. Most trans women are fine with gay men saying we’re only interested in men.

But on a recent thread dykes went crazy bemoaning how misogynistic it was for gay men not to like vagina.

My experiences anyway.

by Anonymousreply 240Last Wednesday at 3:07 AM

Here:

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 241Last Wednesday at 3:09 AM

[quote] But on a recent thread dykes went crazy bemoaning how misogynistic it was for gay men not to like vagina.

Never have I ever heard a single real, live, actual lesbian — as opposed to anonymous people on this forum — express anything approaching such a sentiment.

by Anonymousreply 242Last Wednesday at 3:34 AM

[quote] Never have I ever heard a single real, live, actual lesbian — as opposed to anonymous people on this forum — express anything approaching such a sentiment.

I've never heard any IRL gay men say they view trans women as a major threat.

But that's who we're supposed to believe is saying it on this forum.

by Anonymousreply 243Last Wednesday at 3:38 AM

I realize a lot of people here hate transgender people and the idea of transgenderism, but *even so* don’t you think Rowling has become a little bit obsessive about this whole thing? Can’t you be a bigot without dedicating your whole life, your thoughts, your career, and sacrificing your legacy to advancing the hatred you feel? It’s really remarkable to me.

I don’t have a horse in this race, so to speak. My general inclination is to support anyone in living as they choose to live as long as it doesn’t harm other people. It’s not something I think a whole lot about, though.

J.K. Rowling seems obsessed to the point of mental illness at this point. You would think she has a so who was gang raped by men in dresses. (Is she Catholic?)

by Anonymousreply 244Last Wednesday at 4:11 AM

Can Muriel hurry up and ban the tranny who keeps bitching about "rad fems" everywhere?

by Anonymousreply 245Last Wednesday at 4:16 AM

[quote] Can Muriel hurry up and ban the tranny who keeps bitching about "rad fems" everywhere?

Sounds like censorship.

I thought only evil trans women did that?

by Anonymousreply 246Last Wednesday at 4:19 AM

Oh the nerve of uppity women who refuse to be gaslit by chicks with dicks expecting to control everything. The nerve!

by Anonymousreply 247Last Wednesday at 4:20 AM

Those same women usually believe they’re entitled to control gay men, so... good.

by Anonymousreply 248Last Wednesday at 4:23 AM

I don't think I've ever met a homophobic feminist. I've met multiple homophobic trannies, as well as sexist ones that have threatened to rape my female friends.

by Anonymousreply 249Last Wednesday at 4:25 AM

[quote] I don't think I've ever met a homophobic feminist.

Ha! Then you’re reeeally sheltered.

[quote] as well as sexist ones that have threatened to rape my female friends.

So?

by Anonymousreply 250Last Wednesday at 4:26 AM

It’s true. There are women like Mother Pence and Michelle Bachmann who would rather force a gay man to fuck them while getting dick privately and pretending their sexuality does not exist than simply let them live their lives and find some schlumpy straight dude who actually wants to stick it in their holes.

by Anonymousreply 251Last Wednesday at 4:27 AM

The idea of gay men having a sexuality that women can not police terrifies conservative women.

by Anonymousreply 252Last Wednesday at 4:28 AM

Some transgender people do kill. I'm looking at you, Caitlin.

by Anonymousreply 253Last Wednesday at 4:33 AM

Even when I was growing up during the 80s, there was a prevalent and ongoing public debate about whether gay men are all pedophiles who prey on children. Sane people said no; bigoted people did all they could to push that message and terrify the public into continuing to hate gay men based on false notions. Because I grew up in that social context, I can’t and won’t participate in hating transgender people, and especially not based on a COMPLETELY unfounded and invented idea that they put on dresses so that they can hide in public bathrooms and then terrorize women. This is not only wrong but one of the lamest cultural conversations that has happened in my lifetime. The way Rowling and conservative American politicians describe it, you’d think every time a woman walks into a restaurant bathroom, she’s swarmed by hairy horny men in sundresses clawing at her and tearing her panties off. Why is everyone fucking INSANE today? And in such a stupid way?

by Anonymousreply 254Last Wednesday at 4:34 AM

R244 you’ve posted the same thing multiple times. You obviously do have a horse in this race or in this case a pleasant peanut clit.

by Anonymousreply 255Last Wednesday at 4:35 AM

She has Aquarius rising. She easily becomes fixed in her views and refuses to budge.

by Anonymousreply 256Last Wednesday at 4:39 AM

Jk Rowling said nothing wrong.but I am not sure what she’s trying to accomplish with this book. Btw the character of James Gunn was based on real life Serial killer Ed Gein. Who made an actual woman’s body suit with vagina and all. Trans can do what they want don’t care I do think they are insane though and what’s going on with children being transed is very disturbing.

by Anonymousreply 257Last Wednesday at 4:48 AM

[quote] what’s going on with children being transed is very disturbing.

That’s done by left-wing women. Nothing to do with the rare crazy, serial-killer who happens to be trans.

But we hear way more of the latter than the former.

by Anonymousreply 258Last Wednesday at 4:51 AM

My extreme-SJW friend posted the following on Facebook:

"J.K. Rowling has reached a new level of TERF. At this point, her actions have completely ruined the Harry Potter franchise. She deserves to have every contract she has canceled and to receive no more profits or royalties. She is intentionally making this her legacy. Transphobia is not acceptable in any shape or form. Transphobes should be cast out of civil society along with all the other bigots. Lowkey want to burn Harry Potter books and wave a trans flag while I do it. Christian book burning style."

followed by a hallelujah chorus of comments all in 100% agreement.

Sigh.

by Anonymousreply 259Last Wednesday at 4:58 AM

Women are not fucking INSANE for wanting their own restrooms, and they will have their own spaces and ways to protect each other and their children the best they can. They will continue to own and discuss things that are particular to women, like menstrual cycles, uterus/body parts and the like, unworried about ugly fat fuckers who 'feel' threatened. They will always push back at attempts to control them, including by men in dresses, who seem surprised.

by Anonymousreply 260Last Wednesday at 5:00 AM

Are gay men entitled to our own spaces? Like this website?

by Anonymousreply 261Last Wednesday at 5:04 AM

The tranny in this thread seems to find the notion that not all gay men want women to be raped and murdered by trannies insane. Their view of homosexuality seems to mean that in order for gay men to actually be gay, they have to actively want for women to endure fucked up shit. It's very weird and deranged.

by Anonymousreply 262Last Wednesday at 5:16 AM

The fish in this thread seems to find the notion that not all gay men want trans women to be murder by rad fems insane. Their view of homosexuality seems to mean that gay men must advocate for women, and if not, that we hate women. It's very weird and deranged.

by Anonymousreply 263Last Wednesday at 5:20 AM

Not one of the straight women who post on these threads and complain about women’s spaces ever conceive that they don’t have a right to post here.

So fuck ‘em (or preferably have them choke on a big, beautiful, black girldick).

by Anonymousreply 264Last Wednesday at 5:23 AM

R5 great premise for a book.

by Anonymousreply 265Last Wednesday at 5:29 AM
Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 266Last Wednesday at 5:35 AM

The book isn't about a Trans murderer when the murderer is a CIS male who just puts on women's clothes (to disguise himself? / getting in women's spaces to murder?). Cross dresser is the more apropriate term.

by Anonymousreply 267Last Wednesday at 5:35 AM

R255 spare us your disengenuous bullshit.

You're claiming Rowling is obsessed because a minor subplot in a 900 page book mentions a man disguising himself as a woman. A book you haven't read and who the only source for this furor is right-wing media publication The Telegraph making some very bad and intentionally provocative leaps of logic.

You have revealed yourself as an idiot at best.

by Anonymousreply 268Last Wednesday at 6:54 AM

[quote] in a 900 page book

God.

We need to start taxing the rich at 100%.

by Anonymousreply 269Last Wednesday at 7:31 AM

900 pages... about a cross-dressing serial killer???

I think Stephen King must have floated into her window and bit her whilst she slept.

by Anonymousreply 270Last Wednesday at 7:42 AM

R244, no one hear hates transgender people, we do have an issue with certain aspects of transgender ideology.

Just so you know, Rowling's new book is not about a trans murderer. That's the lie her haters are spreading, it's nothing to do with her book, so perhaps you might want to reconsider your post, which is based on fallacies.

by Anonymousreply 271Last Wednesday at 8:06 AM

Early reviews on amazon.co.uk

[quote]Wonderful read! To invest in the characters of the Strike books is an easy thing to do. Robert Galbraith (the talented JKR) has penned yet another page turner carrying on with the relationship and growth of the two main characters with such understanding of the complexity and sometimes trepidation of what it is to trust and open up to others. Her descriptive passages are, in part, reminiscent of a Thomas Hardy book, painting the people, places and plots with intriguing spins and turns bringing to life in the readers mind eye what is before them on the printed page, thus easily visualising all in such an enjoyable and unable to put down book.

[quote]I'm absolutely hooked, can't put it down. As in was up half the night reading and today very, very tired... Husband tried to make me put it down ... was unsuccessful. Ipad just ran out of charge, total disaster, otherwise would probably be reading right now over my lunch break! Loving the same super smart storyline, good new idea of a cold case. I was immediately sucked in to wanting to know what happened to this lady and how come.

[quote]Ignore the sensationalist headlines, this isn't 'that' novel It's impossible to pick up this novel without thinking of the recent social media furore over what turns out to be a fairly small plot point. Alongside the views of the author being a source of constant ire on social media, Troubled Blood certainly arrives with a lot of attention. If you enjoyed the previous novels you will enjoy this. It's at least 100 pages too long but an enjoyable page turner nonetheless. If you can seperate the art from the artist, give it a go.

[quote]I have been excited about the release of this book. I have a keen interest in astrology and tarot which plays a part in the story. I won't say too much, I don't want to spoil it. I was lucky enough to have received an advanced copy before this one arrived, and finally completed the book today. Always read a book before you believe the headlines about it.

There is also a one-star review: [quote]Just received this book today!! I knew it would be a hardback but had no idea it would weigh so much!! It’s HUGE (see photo against an ordinary paperback!) and weighs 3lbs! Not exactly going to be easy to hold and read curled up in bed. I hope the content will be good but wish I’d waited for the paperback version!!

That last reviewer should get a Kindle.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 272Last Wednesday at 8:11 AM

People who already like JK and her writing will buy her books regardless of the controversy. If they can digest her crap writing (and it would still be crap even if she LOVED trans people) her dig at cross-dressers won’t dissuade them from buying her tripe. If anything, the controversy will boost book sales because of the Streisand Effect.

by Anonymousreply 273Last Wednesday at 8:33 AM

Enough of that JK bigotry. Geraldine was no killer. Her boyfriend was named Killer.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 274Last Wednesday at 8:33 AM

Actual excerpt from “Troubled Blood posted on Galbraith’s (aka Rowling’s) Twitter:

[quote]“Oh Wow,” said Robin quietly, looking over her shoulder and then walking backwards for a few paces, the better to see the object set high in the wall above the archway. “Look at that!” Strike did as he was bidden and saw an enormous, ornate, sixteenth-century astronomical clock of blue and gold...”

This was the shining example selected from 900 pages.

by Anonymousreply 275Last Wednesday at 8:59 AM

[quote] Her descriptive passages are, in part, reminiscent of a Thomas Hardy..

Bloviating, dessicated, and entirely dull?

by Anonymousreply 276Last Wednesday at 1:47 PM

I guess Thomas Hardy used a lot of adverbs. “Tell, not show” was his motto!

by Anonymousreply 277Last Wednesday at 1:57 PM

Who's your favourite author, r276?

by Anonymousreply 278Last Wednesday at 2:05 PM

Who's your favourite author, r276?

by Anonymousreply 279Last Wednesday at 2:05 PM

I don't understand the point with the "I don't really care but all her writing is godawful" trolls who feel so driven to post this in every thread on Rowling. Methinks you do protest too much.

by Anonymousreply 280Last Wednesday at 2:53 PM

R280 Because it pointless to complain about so-called transphobia in a silly novel that will have no effect on society. It’s like worrying about “50 Shades of Grey” destroying feminism; it’s too ridiculously written and the target audience is too stupid for it to make any damaging cultural impact.

by Anonymousreply 281Last Wednesday at 3:16 PM

Here's the problem. J.K. Rowling herself has made the sexuality of her fictional characters important. Think of all the characters she has revealed are "gay." She herself feels that fictional characters' sexual behavior is important to real people. I don't know if she's right, but if making Dumbledore gay served to advance gay acceptance, then, judged on her own terms, making a murderer trans (or a cross-dresser) would serve to stigmatize transpeople and cross-dressers.

by Anonymousreply 282Last Wednesday at 3:21 PM

From what I've seen, Rowling’s a vanilla frau who depicts ALL gender-nonconforming people negatively on the rare occasions they appear in her work. She’s not singling out the trans. Ever notice the dress code at Hogwarts? Dear lord, it looks exactly like my Catholic High School.

by Anonymousreply 283Last Wednesday at 3:28 PM

[quote]then, judged on her own terms, making a murderer trans (or a cross-dresser) would serve to stigmatize transpeople and cross-dressers.

NO, it just means that in this book the killer was a cross-dresser. Nothing else.

by Anonymousreply 284Last Wednesday at 3:34 PM

R284, then why does she make so many of her characters GAY? Why does she say they're GAY long after the book is published? She thinks THAT matters. She has made her books political.

by Anonymousreply 285Last Wednesday at 3:44 PM

R284, you don't understand the argument made in R282. The argument isn't that the sexuality of fictional characters matters. The argument is that J.K. Rowling herself BELIEVES that the sexuality of her characters matters. And given that belief, the fact that Rowling would make the villain of a book trans or a cross-dresser demonstrates that J.K. Rowling has an animus against those people!

by Anonymousreply 286Last Wednesday at 3:51 PM

I thought Dumbledore and his hastily added BF were the only gay characters in the Potter universe, and that Dumbledore was “outed” by Rowling years after he was written to placate the LGB community. There must be at least one lesbian. Who else am I missing?

by Anonymousreply 287Last Wednesday at 4:03 PM

The argument in r282 was stupid. Dumbledore is a major character who runs through all the books and the new series. This crossdresser is a minor subplot in a huge 900 page novel and he is not, in fact, the killer (sorry to spoil it). It's one of a LOT of characters and many subplots.

Of course the trans have to "center" themselves in everything. What's silly is that the conservative rag The Telegraph was totally trolling the left wing lynch mobs with that article it knew would get clicks. Far left Pink News, which is trans outrage news now, of course ran with it because outrage generates clicks. And they didn't add anything to the story other than additional fuel for the fire because it's just a blog that reposts other things from the web.

What's ridiculous is that none of you trans activists and useful idiots will admit that the above is what happened. So you are lying, hyperbolizing, and pretending not to understand because you want to bash Rowling and any reason - no matter how slim or unnecessary or unearned - will do.

You're trying to turn Rowling into some sort of conservative, religious, right wing bitter troll bent on tweaking people because she gets off on evil, and it's fabricated to its core. Picking up little tidbits and unconnected things from her large oeuvre and trying to string them together to fit that narrative. You're as insane and unfocused in reality as the QAnon lunatics.

by Anonymousreply 288Last Wednesday at 4:13 PM

"...making a murderer trans (or a cross-dresser) would serve to stigmatize transpeople and cross-dressers."

He isn't trans, FFS. And he's only a "cross-dresser" in the sense that he wears a wig and a woman's coat in one scene purely as a disguise. It's not like it's portrayed as a fetish/sexual thing.

Hell, if you comb through the entirety of ANY writer's work and take shit out of context, you could make the (bad) argument that this, that, or the other thing was "demonizing trans people." But you'd be wrong, because not every goddamn thing on earth is about TRANS.

by Anonymousreply 289Last Wednesday at 5:54 PM

[quote]The shit you guys say on here alone should get you investigated by the authorities

No. It shouldn't.

The fact that YOU think it should tells me you want to live in a very different society.

by Anonymousreply 290Last Wednesday at 9:05 PM

R282, sexuality and transgenderism aren't related so there's a fly in your logic ointment right there.

Forgetting that for now... what a ridiculous claim you made! So if Dumbledore being gay equates to Rowling's attempt at gay acceptance (or whatever), how do you explain Grindelwald - an evil murderous villain - also being gay? Is that an gay example of the "stigma" attached to her trans killer (who's not really trans)? But if Dumbledore's gay sexuality is positive (as you claim) how can you explain Grindelward's gay sexuality? Is Rowling pro gay or anti gay when she has the utter audacity of creating two gay characters who find themselves on different ends of the good v evil spectrum? The mind wonders!

Or, and stay with me here, wouldn't it be simpler to deduce that villains and heroes can be gay, tall, black, white, trans, straight, cis, crossdressers, dogs, ghosts, flying pigs, women, children, gods, and/or pieces of shit?

Of course it is. But anyone with a brain knows this.

by Anonymousreply 291Last Thursday at 12:57 AM

To rage against trans, then write about a "dark" character in female clothing and who is suggested as a murderer, doesn't give JK the benefit of the doubt. She created the scenario. She can explain it. But her intent is to generate the speculation for book sales. Or simply, it's her way to stereotype and express disdain for men who crossed her line for what she denotes as femininity. The writing itself is less sinister, perhaps, than the political and social construct she's promoting. Good her tactic is exposed.

by Anonymousreply 292Last Thursday at 1:38 AM

Using manufactured outrage and moral panic to sell mediocre books? Well, I never!

by Anonymousreply 293Last Thursday at 1:59 AM

Thanks for your post, r293! Now that you've contributed nothing but telling us you only read the headline, you may see yourself out.

by Anonymousreply 294Last Thursday at 6:18 AM
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.

Yes indeed, we too use "cookies." Don't you just LOVE clicking on these things on every single site you visit? I know we do! You can thank the EU parliament for making everyone in the world click on these pointless things while changing absolutely nothing. If you are interested you can take a look at our privacy/terms or if you just want to see the damn site without all this bureaucratic nonsense, click ACCEPT and we'll set a dreaded cookie to make it go away. Otherwise, you'll just have to find some other site for your pointless bitchery needs.

×

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!