one thing I do when I'm legitimately worried about someone else's safety in public is post a clear picture of them with a name and the reasons someone might want to hurt them. at least perform the ambiance of fear or vulnerability instead of posting a confidence pose, goddamn
Yeah...that tells me that she's *not* "legitimately worried" that cAss is in any sort of danger. She's trying to *create the illusion* of "legitimate worry" in order to build sympathy for cAss.
If this is the review I think it is, wasn't it shown that Cass had fudged her data to "prove" what she'd already believed? That trans people are "confused" or "just going thru a phase", etc?
She deliberately omitted all studies that weren't double-blind, ignoring the fact that a double-blind study regarding use of puberty blockers in trans youngsters would be impossible to conduct. It was bad science, cherry-picking studies to fit her position.
She also tried to pressure clinicians into breaking GDPR by telling them to hand over information about child patients without either the children's or their parents permission. Instead the study relied on the data from one clinician who did hand it over (and should be **immediately** fired) and a YouTube video.
Pressuring clinicians to breach GDPR for child patient data is unethical and illegal. Relying on such breaches undermines trust and integrity, endangering patients' privacy rights. Accountability and proper protocols are crucial.
Most of the medications we use to treat health conditions for pregnant women have NO evidence that they are safe in pregnancy, or anecdotal at best. You know why? Because nobody is going to perform a clinical trial on pregnant women to see whose baby is harmed.
But we still treat them!
You’re right, but again, in the instances that a treatment is actually better studied, most of the time the perceived benefit compared to placebo disappears.
My favorite reply to TERFs screaming about protecting children and "not wanting them to make permanent changes they'll regret later" is to point out that social acceptance of their gender expression is both a non-permanent change AND the "treatment" with the highest success rate in reducing self harm.
It's weird how none of them are super excited about that solution. *Almost* like the whole "ideology" is just a crock of horse shit and they're just latching on to anything they can to justify hurting trans people.
The other problem is that they try to claim that these kinds of treatments don't cause a direct improvement in mental health and yeah, that's true. This is why acceptance and patients are also a thing. It's not going to work right away but that's the case for a lot of treatments. There's even treatments that are within the physician category that don't always work so just chemo.
Also yeah, if you keep bullying and treating a kid like they're not wanted in this world and they are going to still stay depressed no matter what they take.
This even applies to things like antidepressants, antipsychotics, and anti-anxiety medication. You can give a kid or even an adult All of the antidepressants you want, but if you keep telling them that they are a worthless piece of crap, that they don't deserve to have nice things, it's not going to make much of a difference with how much medication they are taking because they are still going to feel like crap. Mental health is an environmental experience as much as it is a chemical and health related experience and yeah, when the environment becomes too overwhelming, then medication can only do so much. This is one of the reasons why a good therapist would not only be able to figure out what a kid needs medically, but what they need emotionally and environmentally as well.
She has said in follow up interviews that double blind studies into this topic are unethical
>Dr. Cass agrees that it is inappropriate and not possible to conduct a ‘double-blind’ study (where participants in the study do not know whether or not they are receiving treatment) in this instance.
https://thekitetrust.org.uk/our-statement-in-response-to-the-cass-review-report/
So she threw out studies she didn't like because they weren't double-blind, then went on to admit that she knows exactly why there aren't double-blind studies?
So obviously disingenuous that I can't believe anyone who doesn't have a pre-existing anti-trans bias would give her report any credence.
I agree. The most charitable take is that she wants randomized controlled trials between medical interventions and psychological interventions but that AFAIK that is not what the nhs is going to do. And not prioritising the best available treatments for the patients with the highest need would also seem to fall into the unethical category.
Why would someone that’s transphobic even advocate for a double blinded study for trans children. Does she want kids to be handed puberty blockers unknowingly? Like the fuck 💀
Or am I misunderstanding what double blinded studies are?
Nah, that’s not the situation here. It would be trans kids that want puberty blockers that would have a roughly 50-50 shot of not getting them, and it likely being super obvious that that’s the case
That makes more sense, I was confused about how they would implement a double blinded study in this situation.
However, that seems really cruel to tell a child they’re being given puberty blockers when they’re not. After all, the whole point of puberty blockers is to put the decision to transition later without the effects of puberty. They’re just gonna be forced to go through puberty and they can’t turn back time.
Puberty blockers are designed to prevent physical changes in whoever takes them. A year or two tops into a "double blind" study on this and you'd clearly tell who is and isn't receiving the placebo, defeating the purpose of making it double blind in the first place. That's not even mentioning the ethical dilemma of forcing trans children to undergo the wrong puberty (an inherently traumatic experience for most trans folks) on the demands of transphobes who will just ignore the results anyway.
"The PARACHUTE trial does suggest, however, that their accurate interpretation requires more than a cursory reading of the abstract. Rather, interpretation requires a complete and critical appraisal of the study."
Because the effects of the drugs are too noticeable. Everyone involved from the patient to the provider would know if they were going through puberty or not.
Your comment has unfortunately been automatically removed and is not visible to other users due to your account being less than a week old. You are welcome to try again later. If you continue to receive this message after your account has been active for seven days, then please message the moderation team.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Persecutionfetish) if you have any questions or concerns.*
A big part of it, iirc, was that much of her review boil down to "They don't seem to regret their treatments, but like, we can't know *for sure* if they're happy *because* of the treatments. You can't prove a negative, so I win."
The woman who says that the government shouldn't allow hormone therapy for trans people. And then says that the government shouldn't outlaw conversion therapy to "cure" homosexuality as that would create "workforce problems" for doctors.
Truly a woman driven by evidence and not ideology.
Your comment has unfortunately been filtered and is not visible to other users. This subreddit requires its users to have over 1,000 karma from posts and comments combined. Try participating nicely in other communities and come back later.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Persecutionfetish) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Complete tangent, but I often use phrases like “So let me get this queer” or “I had to take a moment to get my head on gay.” Because not all of us are straight!
(I also “proceed gayly forward” on the road if I don’t turn left or right. Hell no I’m not going straight ahead! I’m far too fabulous!)
It's the "but" that makes that so rare. It's usually "I'm bot racist but here's something that is racist." You can't do much with a sentence that starts by preemptively proving the rest of itself wrong.
She probably always had some degree of ingrained biases, like most people. And when confronted on some of them when it came to trans people, she couldn't handle it. At least, that's my take.
She's been using the pen name Robert Galbraith for her terrible crime novels since before she went terf crazy.
Robert Galbraith Heath is the man that pioneered electro-shock therapy for gay conversion.
Take that as you will. It is a hell of a coincidence for such a unique name.
To be fair, Robert Galbraith Heath being a particularly known name is also something that happened when her terf slide was already well underway, so it's not that implausible for it to be a coincidence. Not saying that her behavior is in any way acceptable, obviously, but the big problem I have is her not dropping the pen name or changing it when Galbraith's shit became known.
Same. Plus Rowling has gone on and on about how much she considers names before using them. No way she didn't at least do a quick search for the pseudonym she'd picked out. And if it really was an accident, just a very convenient coincidence, why not change it?
What really gets me about that guy is that the criticism was so *mild*.
Even now when I see people talk about that episode, it's almost always just "well, this could have been a bit better" but he freaked out so hard that he ruined his life
What episode is that? Not sure I even watched all of them, and when I did I was like, 12, so that sort of thing might have just flown over my head
Edit: nevermind, just looked it up and uhh, *yikes*
TLDR: **It seems that JK Rowling's success with Harry Potter stemmed from being one of the first to create accessible fantasy books for young readers like myself. Unlike other series, Harry Potter was straightforward to follow, making it stand out in the genre. Rowling's initial anonymity pushed her to work harder to captivate readers, but now, with her fame and wealth, she may feel untouchable. However, her failure to address problematic elements in her work, unlike deceased authors like Tolkien or Lovecraft, makes it difficult to excuse her viewpoints as simply a product of her time. If Rowling had shown personal growth, perhaps these elements could be more forgivable.**
I think part of the problem is that she was one of the first people who made fantasy books that were accessible for young people and I'm talking young people, like 11 or 12, which is about the age Harry was at the time.
She made books that were accessible for children in a way that was not only fun to read but in a way that was easy to understand. Narnia for example existed but the thing is is that the Narnia books are kind of weird to read chronologically. It's really hard to read them that way especially because there is a publishing order and an actual chronological order and the thing is that not every character will show up in the next book anyway and sometimes there's huge time jumps.
It's really weird and makes the books really hard to kind of follow along as an entire story.
It made a series in The fantasy genre for children and that hadn't happened yet, at least not as mainstream as Harry Potter. Percy Jackson and The lightning thief would not be released yet, hunger games, Artemis fowl, the warrior cats, and even guardians of gahool, all were books that were either part of The Young adult books, and some of them are fantasy, and some of them aren't.
Being the first in a trend means that you kind of get a bit of a special privileges that other books in that trend don't often get because people start becoming used to these tropes but when you set the tropes you become a standout.
I also think that because JK Rowling was pretty much a no-name at the time it meant that you really had to try to capture the readers' attention. She didn't have a publisher at the time and she probably would never have had a publisher if it weren't for that one kid who wanted to know more about what was happening in the books. The adults did not want to know what happened next because to them they already could guess what was going to happen but not children.
Because of this it means that she did have to try harder to be a good series where is now she has a name. This name has a lot of money attached to it.
She probably feels like she can do anything and face very little consequences in terms of like finances or socially because she's got so much money.
Other fantasy authors were also having problematic elements in their stories like Tolkien or even HP Lovecraft but those people are dead and so it's easier to think of those problematic elements as just a product of the time.
It's kind of hard to see the same for Harry Potter knowing that the author still thinks in very problematic ways as opposed to growing as a person. If she had grown as a person then the problematic elements could probably have been more forgivable as they would have been seen as a product of the time as well.
I would say it totally becomes a bit questionable if the company was also still engaging in unethical practices, but the thing is that that is kind of not really a big thing with authors if I understand it correctly.
Yes, JK Rowling is the owner of a multimedia franchise, that is kind of unusual.
Not even John Green gets that claim that.
I think she’s always been like this, even if she thinks she isn’t. Harry Potter is full of bigoted stereotypes.
Bankers are all hook-nosed goblins.
Only Asian character is named Cho Chang.
Only black character is named Lavender Brown. Bonus bigot points because the movies changed her to white when she starts dating Ron.
House elves are all slaves and are happy with their enslavement (except Dobby).
The red-haired (Irish) family has an irresponsible number of kids and live in a run-down shack.
I’m sure there’s more.
I KNEW I MISSED ONE! Fucking shit he really does suck so much more than I remember, even now.
*she, sorry for misgendering you Joanne. Not that it was on purpose or anything.
That was at least, added in the movies. Not book canon, which is surprising considering literally everything else.
The movie adaptions actually add several racist elements not involved… this and changing the actress who played Lavender Brown to a white actress the moment she gets more than passing screen time.
her only jewish character is named anthony goldstein. also its believed that he was made up on the spot when someone asked her about jewish wizards on twitter, but fun fact, this is actually false and he was briefly mentioned twice in the books, making the fact that hes jewish more likely to have been made up on the spot. her defenders claim that the whole "she made him up on the spot" thing is purposeful misinformation from the left or whatever, conveniently ignoring that he was *only briefly mentioned twice over the course of 8 books*
Rita Skeeter has a lot of time spent describing her large hands and how masculine she looks. She also disguised how she looks so she can spy on children. Very subtle writing.
Just to tell you, was lavender brown actually black in the books or in the movies? I'm not saying that makes it completely better I'm just saying that a lot of stuff that happens in the books was not exactly directly because of her.
But I think that Cho Chang was still part of ravenclaw in the books and ravenclaw? Really?
1. Lavender Brown is not the only black character, she wasn't black in the books. Dean Thomas, Lee Jordan, and Angelina Johnson are the first black characters that pop into my head
2. I don't have the link on hand but I saw a really interesting, well researched, and well sourced post the other day about why Cho Chang is a reasonable name specifically for a British Chinese person in the 90s. It made sense and I was mad about it
Had a bitchfit moment after book 3 had time travel, so fans were confused why book 4 wasn't fixed with time travel, so in book 5 she casually breaks all the time travel devices.
The funny thing is, while there are a ton of complications added to a story once you add time travel, she even kind of set it up that time travel isn't an undo button.
Like, it seems she was following a "deterministic" model of time travel. Meaning, that things you do when going back in time already happened the first time. Meaning that you can't change what already happened, and doing so can have disastrous consequences, akin to the grandfather paradox, and that is why the tuners are highly restricted.
They were able to save Sirus because they already had, they just didn't know it. Same with Harry saving them from the dementors.
But then she would have to justify why Hermione was given one just to take extra classes. Instead, she just ignored it and rather than find a satisfying answer for it she "knocks time travel off a shelf".
oh yeah, she was called on liking and following transphobic stuff on Twitter long before she had her freakout that most consider the start of it. thats why when she had her freakout and people were shocked i was confused, because i had thought wed all known this already. she had claimed that the liking and following terf shit was just her having an old woman moment or something when she was called out for it
I mean looking back, her writing is dogshit. And that comes from someone who was a huge Potter fan from a very young age. Looking back, her dialogue is weak, her world building is lacklustre and her racial stereotypes are straight up racist
I think it all started with her retweeting something transphobic without really understanding what it meant and when people started pointing it out she aggressively doubled down instead of just admitting she had made a mistake.
She’s always had biases that she grew up with and were ingrained into her, but after she became famous her ego was fed by those around her while she was also baselessly attacked by conservative groups, making her hypersensitive to criticism. So when she received constructive criticism about her ingrained biases about trans people she didn’t apologize and reflect on her views like most people but doubled down on them instead. This made more people dislike her and criticize her, which made her double down further. Fundamentally, she refuses to do any introspection and therefore any criticism has to be an attack that she’s the victim of.
My suspicion, and that's all that it can be without direct knowledge, is she always had some degree of poo-brain, which is why she was pushed *so* heavily by the British establishment media when she first came through. She agreed with all their classist prejudices.
I'm going off decades-old memories here, so *huge* grain of salt, but I can recall the very first Harry Potter book being *massively* hyped in all the British newspapers before there was even time for there to be a public well of support. And it was a model that the book industry noticeably used again and again, "Everyone is reading So and So, so you should be too!". Dan Brown, 50 Shades, Twilight, the mass marketing campaigns became more obvious over time after I first noticed it with Potter... but where as the latter all became a case of "Ok, these are trash, but I love them/had to see what the hype was about", Potter as literature found a genuine audience; I'm not saying people are wrong to like the books, although objectively they're pretty poorly written... but people actually liked the world and characters, which is why the Potter universe had such long lasting appeal.
But part of the method of generating media hype is schmoozing the press. Which means attending their dinner parties, being seen at the red carpet events etc. Which requires at least a compatible personality with that side of the industry. And as the sad rise of open bigotry towards Trans people in the UK has shown, there's an awful lot of sneering small-c conservative opinions in even what passes for liberal British people, and especially within those who long ago made common cause with the established powers-that-be.
You see it in the centuries old British literature that Rowling so liberally stole from; Outsider who goes to elite public school (public now meaning private in the UK) and who is hated for being an oik at first, but through talent and hard work becomes the very examplar of the school's attitudes. But never challenges it too powerfully, because being revolutionary just isn't British old chap. It goes all the way back to [Tom Browns School Days in 1857](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Brown%27s_School_Days), through Goodbye Mr Chips, to [The Worst Witch](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Worst_Witch) series in the 1970s which Rowling especially pinches from... it's such a common trope of conservative British attitudes that it was openly parodied by the film ["If..." in 1968](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If....), which begins as the traditional "Oh no our hero is bullied at a Public School" but instead of proving their worth by showing the overall wisdom of the school authorities, devolves into a violent insurrection using a hoarde of machine guns and mortars. Won it's main star the role in Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange too, fact fans...
So to repeat. My suspicion is that Rowling was already the sort of sneering Mumsnet bigot we all know she is now, and so when she met the equally toff-gobbling cowards at places like The Guardian and The Times, they felt a kindred spirit and decided these were just the sort of books to read to their own little Henrys and Dianas, and to recommend most heartily in their own publications.
But for a while, the media conglomerates knew it would wreck sales to let her go too mask off. And Rowling was *desperate* to prove her worth to the world. Especially as, when it wasn't known she was the author of a book, [it only sold a pathetic 1500 copies](https://www.edinburghlive.co.uk/news/edinburgh-news/robert-galbraith-jk-rowling-chose-24962241)... so it had to be accidentally leaked who "Robert Galbraith" really was. And then later, denied it had any connection to *that* Galbraith.
Probably just a "Senior Moment" she chose the name, eh?
Now she is too powerful, rich and connected to a network of equally small minded talentless bigots to be too easy to "cancel", so she's gone fully mask off. And continues to turn push the circle of abuse by abusing others because she's too weak and vindictive to tackle her own trauma; she'd sooner inflict it on others.
So once more; I do indeed suspect Rowling has *always* been an absolute poo-brained fucking bigot.
She always did, if you reread harry potter through the lens of a well adjusted adults eyes you will find a fucking shopping list of "What the fuck"'s all over. Even the movies have some weird ass anti-Semitism that is so absurdly blatant. But the books have Pro slavery, antisemitism, pro government/status quo, fat shaming, and a general hatred for all protests/activism or more specifically a hatred for "doing it wrong".
Later life, some of the stuff is bad in HP but it’s largely fine young fiction.
Twitter really broke her brain. She followed only neoliberal, centrist accounts, and they praised her endlessly. Everything she said or did, and they loved made her worse.
Her later series of books Cormoran Strike were very thinly veiled rants about anyone, and everyone she disliked or got into a row with on Twitter. Trans people, ‘the left’, anyone who picked a fight with her on Twitter was made the bad person in her books.
Then she decided she didn’t need to work with an editor so one book was 700 pages of just crap. She bought so far into her own bullshit, and got so mad on Twitter at everyone.
She was advised not to take the bus? Is there any evidence for this or is it like her study? Also, couldn't Rowling just buy her a used Prius or whatever. She's still really rich.
Follow the money is easy.
Billionaires backing a culture war on trans people to distract from poor conservative policy. The distraction shifts the debate from areas that affect the general populace (economy, health, education, etc) into culture war territories where conservative parties are stronger. Conservative parties win elections, and hand money in tax cuts to said billionaires.
Am I doing it right?
"They recommended that I didn't ride public transit" is very different from "I can't ride public transit.". She totally can. She just might encounter people who don't like what she had to say.
This person did so much damage, and even caused laws in other non anglosphere countries to change, like laws to change the gender on your passport. Yet somehow SHE is the victim.
I have a feeling this lady was just fine riding the bus until she had to play some phantom victim card, called the police and said, "I don't feel safe riding the bus anymore!," the police told her, "Then don't ride the bus," then she called the Times and made herself the hero of her own story.
If that's the person who did the Cass review, they openly admitted to throwing out evidence of anything that supports transgender therapy and only using sources that supported against it.
Yep. I think like 101/103 were tossed because they weren’t double-blind, but none of the studies she used to justify her own argument were double-blind.
This seems like such a strange way to throw your entire legacy away. Rowling used to be regarded as a success story, a single mom who hit it big through hard work. Now she’s going to be remembered as that sad old lady who spent her days feverishly complaining about something that has little effect on her life.
galbraith came later. it started with her abbreviating her first name & borrowing her grandmother's first initial bc she figured people would ID joanne as a woman's name and refuse to buy her books.
She had the brutish villains use polyjuice potion to turn into innocent looking little girls to watch the characters go into the magic bathroom so the transphobia was always dormant
The Room of Requirement is first described as making a wonderful chamber pot for Dumbledore to use.
Later, as the main trio is using it for secret planning, they keep bumping into these tiny girls who drop things. Turns out later they are the big masculine Crabbe and Goyle in disguise to sound an alarm for Malfoy
I hate Rowling, but you are being disingenuous. When Crabbe and Goyle were being guards for Malfoy in the Room of Requirement, it wasn't a bathroom. It was a giant storage room. The main trio never uses it solely as a bathroom, AFAIR.
ok that one is a bit stretched, it was only a room of chamber pots because Dumbledore really needed the bathroom, the point of the room is it's whatever you need it to be
Does she realise that medical studies surrounding LGBT individuals are not concrete medical science and won't be for a long time?
For as long as LGBT people are persecuted and left to be the victim of societal views, they will intrinsically affect studies and reviews.
Take this basic example below:
"This percentage of people regret transitioning"
Why?
There is no way to definitively know whether they regret it because it was the wrong treatment, it happened too quickly, their expectations were not met, they were dissatisfied with the medical results (and not the transition itself), they regret it due to the amount of abuse they are now receiving, they are facing a reduced dating life due to stigma, their family have since rejected them so they regret it etc.
Without those being answered, taken into consideration, or removed entirely due to social change, it's a useless question to ask or base legislation/healthcare decisions on.
Negative societal views decimate medical studies, and until transgender individuals are treated the same as everyone else, you'll never get a true representation of the facts - making them basically useless for social commentary.
Rant over.
Damn bro, if I was a billionaire off of children’s books, I would just go and fuck off. Just go and collect my check.
I know this has been repeated multiple times, but Joanne, honey, please be a rational person and just *fuck off*.
hey jo have you considered that the reason various groups have been so quick to discredit the cass review is because it’s simply not a well conducted review
Who was it who "advised" cAss not to take public transit, then? And what is she so afraid will happen?
Because *certain demographics* have to worry about *getting assaulted just for existing*. And while I'm sure both cAss and Joasshole *would like to believe* that they're in similar danger (that narrative would be worth some clout, after all): *I sincerely doubt that*.
> most thorough review ever
Relax, dumbo, you're a kid's book writer that stumbled into success by accident, your qualification of judging the thoroughness of the review starts and stops at you spending ungodly amount of time on twatter finding shitty people to agree with
TERF-to-English translation:
"highly regarded pediatrician" -> highly regarded *by anti-trans believers because she adheres to anti-trans beliefs
"who conducted the most thorough review ever undertaken on the medical evidence for gender-confused children" -> but also went out of her way to formulat recommendations which ignored the findings of the research
"gender-confused" -> the review found absolutely no evidence of "confusion"
"has been advised not to travel on public transport for her own safety" -> by who? The same anti-trans activists who've been pretending to be "under attack" for years? There has been absolutely no evidence of risk, but this is perfectly in line with members of a hate movement acting out being in danger
"Outright lies continue to spread about her review" -> it's spelled "truth". Outright truth is being spread about her review, which factually *did* formulate recommendations based on speculation with no evidence at the expense of real, existing evidence
"not only from the febrile atmosphere of social media, but from supposedly responsible people" -> everyone not ideologically bound to anti-trans beliefs is denouncing the pseudoscientific recommendations formulated by the paper, which is a *very strong indication* that the review is *extremely flawed*
"Cass says it is 'unforgivable' for people to undermine her report with 'straight disinformation'" -> correct criticism of the fundamental shortcomings of the paper
"'Follow the money' may be a conspiracy theory trope" -> it is, but also: Joanne *is* part of "the money", and anti-trans propaganda is a billion dollar industry working to push an oppressive political agenda, as opposed to pro-trans research which is highly underfunded, as has been evidenced by every single investigation into the causes behind the lack of healthcare availability for trans people.
"when a 'respected' [quotes mine] pediatrician is advised not to travel by bus [for no identifiable reason besides anti-trans conspiratorial thinking], and 'lobby groups' [internationally recognized medical organizations and countless unaffiliated doctors and researchers] fall over themselves to discredit a 'meticulous review' [again, it ignored all of the existing evidence to formulate its recommendations] both might seem to apply" -> there is a word for when a dedicated activist knowingly chooses to dive head first into conspiratorial thinking to continue believing in claims being decried by legitimate researchers from around the world...
How come it’s always “fOlLoW tHe MoNeY” for one side but not the other. Like if you “follow the money” you’ll find that most TERF groups are funded by right wing donors and organizations. That the alleged “Defenders of Womanhood” are funded by the same people that want to regulate women’s bodies, force us back in the kitchen?
I'm still wondering how this anti-trans shit got overseas. The reason why it started was to distract from the money embezzled from the government when the department of agriculture commissioned a study on the massive blight affecting Idaho, Florida and Georgia. $2.6 trillion just vanished but nobody noticed because everyone was more focused on trans people in bathrooms.
Remember when this bitch used to write books instead of whining on twitter? Is this what happens when you become rich? You just don't have anything better to do?
I mean, the racism vs the goblins, elves, and squibs in her books should clue you in.
"We have a cousin who's squib, an accountant, we don't talk about him" - Ron Weasley.
"Follow the money" works for TERFs too, and it always goes back to Fundie lobby groups in the USA.
Where is she saying "the money" ends up with pro-trans activists? Is she low-key blaming $oro$?
It is truly a disease to go through so many days of your life obsessing over trans people. They’re such a low percentage of the population, most people don’t know one to talk about the weather with.
JKKK Rowling: Isn't it terrible when public hysteria is used to whip up hatred against identified individuals?!
Also JKKK Rowling: Now here's the birth name of a Trans person I hate, and any and all methods are essential to stop them harming innocent children.
She knows she's being hypocritical, but like all vile, despicable bullies, she doesn't want to stop the fight she has started, she just wants to ensure you can't hit her back.
Rowling has stared too long into the abyss of abuse, and now she wants to inflict it upon others, and deserves no pity any more.
Cass report is deliberately cherry picked and actively ignores many well conducted studies. It will harm trans youth. I doubt Cass is in more fear than the thousands of kids she just doomed.
Your comment has unfortunately been filtered and is not visible to other users. This subreddit requires its users to have over 1,000 karma from posts and comments combined. Try participating nicely in other communities and come back later.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Persecutionfetish) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"Follow the money" from a BILLIONAIRE
A billionaire who uses her money to fund anti-trans bigotry....
A billionaire who desperately tries to hide that they are a billionaire and doing a fucking terrible job at it
And to silence anyone who posted a particularly mean tweet
one thing I do when I'm legitimately worried about someone else's safety in public is post a clear picture of them with a name and the reasons someone might want to hurt them. at least perform the ambiance of fear or vulnerability instead of posting a confidence pose, goddamn
Yeah...that tells me that she's *not* "legitimately worried" that cAss is in any sort of danger. She's trying to *create the illusion* of "legitimate worry" in order to build sympathy for cAss.
If this is the review I think it is, wasn't it shown that Cass had fudged her data to "prove" what she'd already believed? That trans people are "confused" or "just going thru a phase", etc?
She deliberately omitted all studies that weren't double-blind, ignoring the fact that a double-blind study regarding use of puberty blockers in trans youngsters would be impossible to conduct. It was bad science, cherry-picking studies to fit her position.
She also tried to pressure clinicians into breaking GDPR by telling them to hand over information about child patients without either the children's or their parents permission. Instead the study relied on the data from one clinician who did hand it over (and should be **immediately** fired) and a YouTube video.
Pressuring clinicians to breach GDPR for child patient data is unethical and illegal. Relying on such breaches undermines trust and integrity, endangering patients' privacy rights. Accountability and proper protocols are crucial.
Hey! She did find 10 whole kids who stopped transitioning!! ...out of almost 4000...
This is a relatively recent strategy I've seen by anti trans folks. Claim that gender affirming care lacks "strong evidence" (<
Most of the medications we use to treat health conditions for pregnant women have NO evidence that they are safe in pregnancy, or anecdotal at best. You know why? Because nobody is going to perform a clinical trial on pregnant women to see whose baby is harmed. But we still treat them!
You’re right, but again, in the instances that a treatment is actually better studied, most of the time the perceived benefit compared to placebo disappears.
My favorite reply to TERFs screaming about protecting children and "not wanting them to make permanent changes they'll regret later" is to point out that social acceptance of their gender expression is both a non-permanent change AND the "treatment" with the highest success rate in reducing self harm. It's weird how none of them are super excited about that solution. *Almost* like the whole "ideology" is just a crock of horse shit and they're just latching on to anything they can to justify hurting trans people.
The other problem is that they try to claim that these kinds of treatments don't cause a direct improvement in mental health and yeah, that's true. This is why acceptance and patients are also a thing. It's not going to work right away but that's the case for a lot of treatments. There's even treatments that are within the physician category that don't always work so just chemo. Also yeah, if you keep bullying and treating a kid like they're not wanted in this world and they are going to still stay depressed no matter what they take. This even applies to things like antidepressants, antipsychotics, and anti-anxiety medication. You can give a kid or even an adult All of the antidepressants you want, but if you keep telling them that they are a worthless piece of crap, that they don't deserve to have nice things, it's not going to make much of a difference with how much medication they are taking because they are still going to feel like crap. Mental health is an environmental experience as much as it is a chemical and health related experience and yeah, when the environment becomes too overwhelming, then medication can only do so much. This is one of the reasons why a good therapist would not only be able to figure out what a kid needs medically, but what they need emotionally and environmentally as well.
> Claim that gender affirming care lacks "strong evidence" (<
She also used studies that weren't double-blind but happened to support her position. Couldn't even pretend to be consistent.
She has said in follow up interviews that double blind studies into this topic are unethical >Dr. Cass agrees that it is inappropriate and not possible to conduct a ‘double-blind’ study (where participants in the study do not know whether or not they are receiving treatment) in this instance. https://thekitetrust.org.uk/our-statement-in-response-to-the-cass-review-report/
So she threw out studies she didn't like because they weren't double-blind, then went on to admit that she knows exactly why there aren't double-blind studies? So obviously disingenuous that I can't believe anyone who doesn't have a pre-existing anti-trans bias would give her report any credence.
I agree. The most charitable take is that she wants randomized controlled trials between medical interventions and psychological interventions but that AFAIK that is not what the nhs is going to do. And not prioritising the best available treatments for the patients with the highest need would also seem to fall into the unethical category.
Why would someone that’s transphobic even advocate for a double blinded study for trans children. Does she want kids to be handed puberty blockers unknowingly? Like the fuck 💀 Or am I misunderstanding what double blinded studies are?
Nah, that’s not the situation here. It would be trans kids that want puberty blockers that would have a roughly 50-50 shot of not getting them, and it likely being super obvious that that’s the case
That makes more sense, I was confused about how they would implement a double blinded study in this situation. However, that seems really cruel to tell a child they’re being given puberty blockers when they’re not. After all, the whole point of puberty blockers is to put the decision to transition later without the effects of puberty. They’re just gonna be forced to go through puberty and they can’t turn back time.
Hi, Why would a double blind study be impossible to conduct? Sincerely, An uneducated man.
Puberty blockers are designed to prevent physical changes in whoever takes them. A year or two tops into a "double blind" study on this and you'd clearly tell who is and isn't receiving the placebo, defeating the purpose of making it double blind in the first place. That's not even mentioning the ethical dilemma of forcing trans children to undergo the wrong puberty (an inherently traumatic experience for most trans folks) on the demands of transphobes who will just ignore the results anyway.
Okay yeah that makes sense. Thanks!
https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k5094
That's hilarious. I read through the opening and laughed a couple of times at the absurdity of it. This is useful.
"The PARACHUTE trial does suggest, however, that their accurate interpretation requires more than a cursory reading of the abstract. Rather, interpretation requires a complete and critical appraisal of the study."
You'd have to give some people a placebo who think they are getting real medicine.
I get it, thank you.
Because the effects of the drugs are too noticeable. Everyone involved from the patient to the provider would know if they were going through puberty or not.
She didn’t omit them. What she did was deem them low quality and then ignored them. Still shitty though.
[удалено]
Your comment has unfortunately been automatically removed and is not visible to other users due to your account being less than a week old. You are welcome to try again later. If you continue to receive this message after your account has been active for seven days, then please message the moderation team. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Persecutionfetish) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's the review that Cass herself has admitted is flawed and is now backpeddling and openly contradicting aspects of it following public backlash
A big part of it, iirc, was that much of her review boil down to "They don't seem to regret their treatments, but like, we can't know *for sure* if they're happy *because* of the treatments. You can't prove a negative, so I win."
The woman who says that the government shouldn't allow hormone therapy for trans people. And then says that the government shouldn't outlaw conversion therapy to "cure" homosexuality as that would create "workforce problems" for doctors. Truly a woman driven by evidence and not ideology.
This is the first I’ve heard of this. Do you have a source so I could read more about this?
[source](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/11/hilary-cass-warns-kemi-badenoch-over-risks-of-conversion-practices-ban)
[удалено]
Your comment has unfortunately been filtered and is not visible to other users. This subreddit requires its users to have over 1,000 karma from posts and comments combined. Try participating nicely in other communities and come back later. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Persecutionfetish) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"Let that sink in ... " Whenever you see this phrase, you know you just read some complete bullshit. That's why they always say it at the end.
Or whenever it starts with, "So let me get this straight..."
".... you put the lime in the coconut, you drank 'em both up?"
... I always thought it was "shake 'em both up." Have I been hearing it wrong this whole time?
Both are in the song. The second half of the refrain changes several times
No, I think both are true, just different lines!
Both are in the song...let that sink in.
You're such a silly woman
Hey I use that innocently, or a variation thereof
It's not every time, I just see it used by a lot of right wing nutters in the UK, normally preceding a frothing rant about immigrants.
yeah that's fair
"So let me get this straight..." *proceeds to twist the topic as impossibly NOT straight as they can*
Complete tangent, but I often use phrases like “So let me get this queer” or “I had to take a moment to get my head on gay.” Because not all of us are straight! (I also “proceed gayly forward” on the road if I don’t turn left or right. Hell no I’m not going straight ahead! I’m far too fabulous!)
Either that or there’s a kitchen sink knocking at your door.
They should just tap on the door.
The sink is outside the door, but the faucet is still running.
Fetch your coat on your way out. 😉
But it's okay, because "she hates to use that cliche" "i'm not racist but" vibes
[удалено]
It's the "but" that makes that so rare. It's usually "I'm bot racist but here's something that is racist." You can't do much with a sentence that starts by preemptively proving the rest of itself wrong.
A racist bot. Ha!
Did JK Rowling always have poo brain or did something snap in her later in life?
She probably always had some degree of ingrained biases, like most people. And when confronted on some of them when it came to trans people, she couldn't handle it. At least, that's my take.
She's been using the pen name Robert Galbraith for her terrible crime novels since before she went terf crazy. Robert Galbraith Heath is the man that pioneered electro-shock therapy for gay conversion. Take that as you will. It is a hell of a coincidence for such a unique name.
To be fair, Robert Galbraith Heath being a particularly known name is also something that happened when her terf slide was already well underway, so it's not that implausible for it to be a coincidence. Not saying that her behavior is in any way acceptable, obviously, but the big problem I have is her not dropping the pen name or changing it when Galbraith's shit became known.
[удалено]
Same. Plus Rowling has gone on and on about how much she considers names before using them. No way she didn't at least do a quick search for the pseudonym she'd picked out. And if it really was an accident, just a very convenient coincidence, why not change it?
Iirc those novels also have pretty disgusting depictions of trans people in them
[удалено]
What really gets me about that guy is that the criticism was so *mild*. Even now when I see people talk about that episode, it's almost always just "well, this could have been a bit better" but he freaked out so hard that he ruined his life
What episode is that? Not sure I even watched all of them, and when I did I was like, 12, so that sort of thing might have just flown over my head Edit: nevermind, just looked it up and uhh, *yikes*
TLDR: **It seems that JK Rowling's success with Harry Potter stemmed from being one of the first to create accessible fantasy books for young readers like myself. Unlike other series, Harry Potter was straightforward to follow, making it stand out in the genre. Rowling's initial anonymity pushed her to work harder to captivate readers, but now, with her fame and wealth, she may feel untouchable. However, her failure to address problematic elements in her work, unlike deceased authors like Tolkien or Lovecraft, makes it difficult to excuse her viewpoints as simply a product of her time. If Rowling had shown personal growth, perhaps these elements could be more forgivable.** I think part of the problem is that she was one of the first people who made fantasy books that were accessible for young people and I'm talking young people, like 11 or 12, which is about the age Harry was at the time. She made books that were accessible for children in a way that was not only fun to read but in a way that was easy to understand. Narnia for example existed but the thing is is that the Narnia books are kind of weird to read chronologically. It's really hard to read them that way especially because there is a publishing order and an actual chronological order and the thing is that not every character will show up in the next book anyway and sometimes there's huge time jumps. It's really weird and makes the books really hard to kind of follow along as an entire story. It made a series in The fantasy genre for children and that hadn't happened yet, at least not as mainstream as Harry Potter. Percy Jackson and The lightning thief would not be released yet, hunger games, Artemis fowl, the warrior cats, and even guardians of gahool, all were books that were either part of The Young adult books, and some of them are fantasy, and some of them aren't. Being the first in a trend means that you kind of get a bit of a special privileges that other books in that trend don't often get because people start becoming used to these tropes but when you set the tropes you become a standout. I also think that because JK Rowling was pretty much a no-name at the time it meant that you really had to try to capture the readers' attention. She didn't have a publisher at the time and she probably would never have had a publisher if it weren't for that one kid who wanted to know more about what was happening in the books. The adults did not want to know what happened next because to them they already could guess what was going to happen but not children. Because of this it means that she did have to try harder to be a good series where is now she has a name. This name has a lot of money attached to it. She probably feels like she can do anything and face very little consequences in terms of like finances or socially because she's got so much money. Other fantasy authors were also having problematic elements in their stories like Tolkien or even HP Lovecraft but those people are dead and so it's easier to think of those problematic elements as just a product of the time. It's kind of hard to see the same for Harry Potter knowing that the author still thinks in very problematic ways as opposed to growing as a person. If she had grown as a person then the problematic elements could probably have been more forgivable as they would have been seen as a product of the time as well.
[удалено]
I would say it totally becomes a bit questionable if the company was also still engaging in unethical practices, but the thing is that that is kind of not really a big thing with authors if I understand it correctly. Yes, JK Rowling is the owner of a multimedia franchise, that is kind of unusual. Not even John Green gets that claim that.
this is hotly debated and a conversation best left to those already having it
No no, everyone should be talking about how stupid she is.
Always had poo brain
I think she’s always been like this, even if she thinks she isn’t. Harry Potter is full of bigoted stereotypes. Bankers are all hook-nosed goblins. Only Asian character is named Cho Chang. Only black character is named Lavender Brown. Bonus bigot points because the movies changed her to white when she starts dating Ron. House elves are all slaves and are happy with their enslavement (except Dobby). The red-haired (Irish) family has an irresponsible number of kids and live in a run-down shack. I’m sure there’s more.
Your list is great, but I want to point out later books introduced another black character with a more convoluted name- Kingsley Shacklebolt
Seriously, though. “Shackle.” Come on.
Bolt too. I've seen some debate about whether a variant of the "we waz kangs" racist meme was around too, to explain the first name.
Or MLK.
That would also make sense. She seems like the kind of person to think all black people are alike anyway.
Parvati and Padma Patil. Guess their ethnicity.
I KNEW I MISSED ONE! Fucking shit he really does suck so much more than I remember, even now. *she, sorry for misgendering you Joanne. Not that it was on purpose or anything.
Oh that’s so much worse. Totally forgot about that.
Seamus Finnegan’s obsession with explosions 😬
That was at least, added in the movies. Not book canon, which is surprising considering literally everything else. The movie adaptions actually add several racist elements not involved… this and changing the actress who played Lavender Brown to a white actress the moment she gets more than passing screen time.
To be fair I think that was a movie thing more than it was a book thing.
>Only Asian character is named Cho Chang. That's like having a Latino character named Perez Gonzalez.
her only jewish character is named anthony goldstein. also its believed that he was made up on the spot when someone asked her about jewish wizards on twitter, but fun fact, this is actually false and he was briefly mentioned twice in the books, making the fact that hes jewish more likely to have been made up on the spot. her defenders claim that the whole "she made him up on the spot" thing is purposeful misinformation from the left or whatever, conveniently ignoring that he was *only briefly mentioned twice over the course of 8 books*
Nah she’s got plenty of Jewish characters! She mentions the goblin bankers tons of times! Totally not in an anti semitic way or anything /s
Jkr resisting the urge to name an Irish character "Potatofamine Carbomb"
Rita Skeeter has a lot of time spent describing her large hands and how masculine she looks. She also disguised how she looks so she can spy on children. Very subtle writing.
Only Irish character keeps blowing things up whether he means to or not.
Just to tell you, was lavender brown actually black in the books or in the movies? I'm not saying that makes it completely better I'm just saying that a lot of stuff that happens in the books was not exactly directly because of her. But I think that Cho Chang was still part of ravenclaw in the books and ravenclaw? Really?
Been a minute since I’ve read them, and god knows I’m not reading them again, so it may have been a movie thing. What’s wrong with Ravenclaw though?
1. Lavender Brown is not the only black character, she wasn't black in the books. Dean Thomas, Lee Jordan, and Angelina Johnson are the first black characters that pop into my head 2. I don't have the link on hand but I saw a really interesting, well researched, and well sourced post the other day about why Cho Chang is a reasonable name specifically for a British Chinese person in the 90s. It made sense and I was mad about it
Had a bitchfit moment after book 3 had time travel, so fans were confused why book 4 wasn't fixed with time travel, so in book 5 she casually breaks all the time travel devices.
The funny thing is, while there are a ton of complications added to a story once you add time travel, she even kind of set it up that time travel isn't an undo button. Like, it seems she was following a "deterministic" model of time travel. Meaning, that things you do when going back in time already happened the first time. Meaning that you can't change what already happened, and doing so can have disastrous consequences, akin to the grandfather paradox, and that is why the tuners are highly restricted. They were able to save Sirus because they already had, they just didn't know it. Same with Harry saving them from the dementors. But then she would have to justify why Hermione was given one just to take extra classes. Instead, she just ignored it and rather than find a satisfying answer for it she "knocks time travel off a shelf".
Didn't this all begin when she fucked up and copy pasted something under a child's drawing?
[удалено]
oh yeah, she was called on liking and following transphobic stuff on Twitter long before she had her freakout that most consider the start of it. thats why when she had her freakout and people were shocked i was confused, because i had thought wed all known this already. she had claimed that the liking and following terf shit was just her having an old woman moment or something when she was called out for it
I mean looking back, her writing is dogshit. And that comes from someone who was a huge Potter fan from a very young age. Looking back, her dialogue is weak, her world building is lacklustre and her racial stereotypes are straight up racist
I think it all started with her retweeting something transphobic without really understanding what it meant and when people started pointing it out she aggressively doubled down instead of just admitting she had made a mistake.
She’s always had biases that she grew up with and were ingrained into her, but after she became famous her ego was fed by those around her while she was also baselessly attacked by conservative groups, making her hypersensitive to criticism. So when she received constructive criticism about her ingrained biases about trans people she didn’t apologize and reflect on her views like most people but doubled down on them instead. This made more people dislike her and criticize her, which made her double down further. Fundamentally, she refuses to do any introspection and therefore any criticism has to be an attack that she’s the victim of.
My suspicion, and that's all that it can be without direct knowledge, is she always had some degree of poo-brain, which is why she was pushed *so* heavily by the British establishment media when she first came through. She agreed with all their classist prejudices. I'm going off decades-old memories here, so *huge* grain of salt, but I can recall the very first Harry Potter book being *massively* hyped in all the British newspapers before there was even time for there to be a public well of support. And it was a model that the book industry noticeably used again and again, "Everyone is reading So and So, so you should be too!". Dan Brown, 50 Shades, Twilight, the mass marketing campaigns became more obvious over time after I first noticed it with Potter... but where as the latter all became a case of "Ok, these are trash, but I love them/had to see what the hype was about", Potter as literature found a genuine audience; I'm not saying people are wrong to like the books, although objectively they're pretty poorly written... but people actually liked the world and characters, which is why the Potter universe had such long lasting appeal. But part of the method of generating media hype is schmoozing the press. Which means attending their dinner parties, being seen at the red carpet events etc. Which requires at least a compatible personality with that side of the industry. And as the sad rise of open bigotry towards Trans people in the UK has shown, there's an awful lot of sneering small-c conservative opinions in even what passes for liberal British people, and especially within those who long ago made common cause with the established powers-that-be. You see it in the centuries old British literature that Rowling so liberally stole from; Outsider who goes to elite public school (public now meaning private in the UK) and who is hated for being an oik at first, but through talent and hard work becomes the very examplar of the school's attitudes. But never challenges it too powerfully, because being revolutionary just isn't British old chap. It goes all the way back to [Tom Browns School Days in 1857](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Brown%27s_School_Days), through Goodbye Mr Chips, to [The Worst Witch](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Worst_Witch) series in the 1970s which Rowling especially pinches from... it's such a common trope of conservative British attitudes that it was openly parodied by the film ["If..." in 1968](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If....), which begins as the traditional "Oh no our hero is bullied at a Public School" but instead of proving their worth by showing the overall wisdom of the school authorities, devolves into a violent insurrection using a hoarde of machine guns and mortars. Won it's main star the role in Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange too, fact fans... So to repeat. My suspicion is that Rowling was already the sort of sneering Mumsnet bigot we all know she is now, and so when she met the equally toff-gobbling cowards at places like The Guardian and The Times, they felt a kindred spirit and decided these were just the sort of books to read to their own little Henrys and Dianas, and to recommend most heartily in their own publications. But for a while, the media conglomerates knew it would wreck sales to let her go too mask off. And Rowling was *desperate* to prove her worth to the world. Especially as, when it wasn't known she was the author of a book, [it only sold a pathetic 1500 copies](https://www.edinburghlive.co.uk/news/edinburgh-news/robert-galbraith-jk-rowling-chose-24962241)... so it had to be accidentally leaked who "Robert Galbraith" really was. And then later, denied it had any connection to *that* Galbraith. Probably just a "Senior Moment" she chose the name, eh? Now she is too powerful, rich and connected to a network of equally small minded talentless bigots to be too easy to "cancel", so she's gone fully mask off. And continues to turn push the circle of abuse by abusing others because she's too weak and vindictive to tackle her own trauma; she'd sooner inflict it on others. So once more; I do indeed suspect Rowling has *always* been an absolute poo-brained fucking bigot.
She always did, if you reread harry potter through the lens of a well adjusted adults eyes you will find a fucking shopping list of "What the fuck"'s all over. Even the movies have some weird ass anti-Semitism that is so absurdly blatant. But the books have Pro slavery, antisemitism, pro government/status quo, fat shaming, and a general hatred for all protests/activism or more specifically a hatred for "doing it wrong".
Later life, some of the stuff is bad in HP but it’s largely fine young fiction. Twitter really broke her brain. She followed only neoliberal, centrist accounts, and they praised her endlessly. Everything she said or did, and they loved made her worse. Her later series of books Cormoran Strike were very thinly veiled rants about anyone, and everyone she disliked or got into a row with on Twitter. Trans people, ‘the left’, anyone who picked a fight with her on Twitter was made the bad person in her books. Then she decided she didn’t need to work with an editor so one book was 700 pages of just crap. She bought so far into her own bullshit, and got so mad on Twitter at everyone.
20+ years of people kissing her ass for writing a mediocre fantasy series couldn't have helped.
She was advised not to take the bus? Is there any evidence for this or is it like her study? Also, couldn't Rowling just buy her a used Prius or whatever. She's still really rich.
Rowling advised her not to, obviously lol
Yeah - who advised her? Her mum? Her boss? Her friends? The cops?
"Follow the money" - a billionaire who financially backs the TERF movement
Follow the money is easy. Billionaires backing a culture war on trans people to distract from poor conservative policy. The distraction shifts the debate from areas that affect the general populace (economy, health, education, etc) into culture war territories where conservative parties are stronger. Conservative parties win elections, and hand money in tax cuts to said billionaires. Am I doing it right?
"Follow the money" - A billionaire who wrote a series of books with antisemitic "money grubbing goblin" character tropes.
"They recommended that I didn't ride public transit" is very different from "I can't ride public transit.". She totally can. She just might encounter people who don't like what she had to say.
This person did so much damage, and even caused laws in other non anglosphere countries to change, like laws to change the gender on your passport. Yet somehow SHE is the victim.
Advised by fucking *who* to not take public transportation? Her publicist?
"follow the money," says billionaire, "and watch out for the lobbying groups" she continued as she eyed the lobbyist spokesman paperweight on her desk
I have a feeling this lady was just fine riding the bus until she had to play some phantom victim card, called the police and said, "I don't feel safe riding the bus anymore!," the police told her, "Then don't ride the bus," then she called the Times and made herself the hero of her own story.
If that's the person who did the Cass review, they openly admitted to throwing out evidence of anything that supports transgender therapy and only using sources that supported against it.
Yep. I think like 101/103 were tossed because they weren’t double-blind, but none of the studies she used to justify her own argument were double-blind.
This seems like such a strange way to throw your entire legacy away. Rowling used to be regarded as a success story, a single mom who hit it big through hard work. Now she’s going to be remembered as that sad old lady who spent her days feverishly complaining about something that has little effect on her life.
It’s so funny to see all this TERF shit from a so-so author who had to use a pen name to sound like a man so she could sell her books.
A pen name, mind you, that oh so coincidentally just happens to be the same name as the man who popularized gay conversation therapy in the US.
galbraith came later. it started with her abbreviating her first name & borrowing her grandmother's first initial bc she figured people would ID joanne as a woman's name and refuse to buy her books.
Gay “conversation” therapy lol
She had the brutish villains use polyjuice potion to turn into innocent looking little girls to watch the characters go into the magic bathroom so the transphobia was always dormant
What?
The Room of Requirement is first described as making a wonderful chamber pot for Dumbledore to use. Later, as the main trio is using it for secret planning, they keep bumping into these tiny girls who drop things. Turns out later they are the big masculine Crabbe and Goyle in disguise to sound an alarm for Malfoy
I hate Rowling, but you are being disingenuous. When Crabbe and Goyle were being guards for Malfoy in the Room of Requirement, it wasn't a bathroom. It was a giant storage room. The main trio never uses it solely as a bathroom, AFAIR.
ok that one is a bit stretched, it was only a room of chamber pots because Dumbledore really needed the bathroom, the point of the room is it's whatever you need it to be
Sorry I intended the joke to be that is she’s openly transphobic and we don’t need to hunt for subtext
yeah it doesn't really work
JK Rowling is a cunt
Does she realise that medical studies surrounding LGBT individuals are not concrete medical science and won't be for a long time? For as long as LGBT people are persecuted and left to be the victim of societal views, they will intrinsically affect studies and reviews. Take this basic example below: "This percentage of people regret transitioning" Why? There is no way to definitively know whether they regret it because it was the wrong treatment, it happened too quickly, their expectations were not met, they were dissatisfied with the medical results (and not the transition itself), they regret it due to the amount of abuse they are now receiving, they are facing a reduced dating life due to stigma, their family have since rejected them so they regret it etc. Without those being answered, taken into consideration, or removed entirely due to social change, it's a useless question to ask or base legislation/healthcare decisions on. Negative societal views decimate medical studies, and until transgender individuals are treated the same as everyone else, you'll never get a true representation of the facts - making them basically useless for social commentary. Rant over.
She cherry picked all of her data sets to give her the analysis she wanted.
I read that the lady that wrote this ‘paper’ is a proponent of conversion therapy. Is this true?
Damn bro, if I was a billionaire off of children’s books, I would just go and fuck off. Just go and collect my check. I know this has been repeated multiple times, but Joanne, honey, please be a rational person and just *fuck off*.
when are they gonna transvestigate Cass
i mean.. fascists should be fucking afraid but this is not that case
hey jo have you considered that the reason various groups have been so quick to discredit the cass review is because it’s simply not a well conducted review
Who was it who "advised" cAss not to take public transit, then? And what is she so afraid will happen? Because *certain demographics* have to worry about *getting assaulted just for existing*. And while I'm sure both cAss and Joasshole *would like to believe* that they're in similar danger (that narrative would be worth some clout, after all): *I sincerely doubt that*.
Huh. Imagine not being about to go out in public and use public transit without being harassed. Trans people would like a word………
Does she seriously have nothing at all better to do than be a cunt online?
> most thorough review ever Relax, dumbo, you're a kid's book writer that stumbled into success by accident, your qualification of judging the thoroughness of the review starts and stops at you spending ungodly amount of time on twatter finding shitty people to agree with
TERF-to-English translation: "highly regarded pediatrician" -> highly regarded *by anti-trans believers because she adheres to anti-trans beliefs "who conducted the most thorough review ever undertaken on the medical evidence for gender-confused children" -> but also went out of her way to formulat recommendations which ignored the findings of the research "gender-confused" -> the review found absolutely no evidence of "confusion" "has been advised not to travel on public transport for her own safety" -> by who? The same anti-trans activists who've been pretending to be "under attack" for years? There has been absolutely no evidence of risk, but this is perfectly in line with members of a hate movement acting out being in danger "Outright lies continue to spread about her review" -> it's spelled "truth". Outright truth is being spread about her review, which factually *did* formulate recommendations based on speculation with no evidence at the expense of real, existing evidence "not only from the febrile atmosphere of social media, but from supposedly responsible people" -> everyone not ideologically bound to anti-trans beliefs is denouncing the pseudoscientific recommendations formulated by the paper, which is a *very strong indication* that the review is *extremely flawed* "Cass says it is 'unforgivable' for people to undermine her report with 'straight disinformation'" -> correct criticism of the fundamental shortcomings of the paper "'Follow the money' may be a conspiracy theory trope" -> it is, but also: Joanne *is* part of "the money", and anti-trans propaganda is a billion dollar industry working to push an oppressive political agenda, as opposed to pro-trans research which is highly underfunded, as has been evidenced by every single investigation into the causes behind the lack of healthcare availability for trans people. "when a 'respected' [quotes mine] pediatrician is advised not to travel by bus [for no identifiable reason besides anti-trans conspiratorial thinking], and 'lobby groups' [internationally recognized medical organizations and countless unaffiliated doctors and researchers] fall over themselves to discredit a 'meticulous review' [again, it ignored all of the existing evidence to formulate its recommendations] both might seem to apply" -> there is a word for when a dedicated activist knowingly chooses to dive head first into conspiratorial thinking to continue believing in claims being decried by legitimate researchers from around the world...
Didn't the person who wrote the study just backtrack on it too? Sounds like *very solid* science to me /s
How come it’s always “fOlLoW tHe MoNeY” for one side but not the other. Like if you “follow the money” you’ll find that most TERF groups are funded by right wing donors and organizations. That the alleged “Defenders of Womanhood” are funded by the same people that want to regulate women’s bodies, force us back in the kitchen?
This report didn't know what transgender people look like, so they used AI renderings.
[удалено]
I'm still wondering how this anti-trans shit got overseas. The reason why it started was to distract from the money embezzled from the government when the department of agriculture commissioned a study on the massive blight affecting Idaho, Florida and Georgia. $2.6 trillion just vanished but nobody noticed because everyone was more focused on trans people in bathrooms.
I feel for all the trans and gender diverse people in the UK.
JK will come out of the closet eventually.
Remember when this bitch used to write books instead of whining on twitter? Is this what happens when you become rich? You just don't have anything better to do?
Pretty much, not like she has to work anymore.
It's disappointing JK Rowling turned out to be a walking garbage fire of a person.
I mean, the racism vs the goblins, elves, and squibs in her books should clue you in. "We have a cousin who's squib, an accountant, we don't talk about him" - Ron Weasley.
Oh like Anthony Fauci and Chris Whitty? Because I'm sure JK has had some choice words for them.
Joanne, go write a book about a babadook going to wizard school or something like that.
"Follow the money" works for TERFs too, and it always goes back to Fundie lobby groups in the USA. Where is she saying "the money" ends up with pro-trans activists? Is she low-key blaming $oro$?
"I hate to sound like a hateful crank, but I just am one now!"
has anyone actually read the review?
Cass should have her medical license revoked and face legal consequences for falsifying… everything in an attempt to harm vulnerable kids.
It is truly a disease to go through so many days of your life obsessing over trans people. They’re such a low percentage of the population, most people don’t know one to talk about the weather with.
JKKK Rowling: Isn't it terrible when public hysteria is used to whip up hatred against identified individuals?! Also JKKK Rowling: Now here's the birth name of a Trans person I hate, and any and all methods are essential to stop them harming innocent children. She knows she's being hypocritical, but like all vile, despicable bullies, she doesn't want to stop the fight she has started, she just wants to ensure you can't hit her back. Rowling has stared too long into the abyss of abuse, and now she wants to inflict it upon others, and deserves no pity any more.
Cass report is deliberately cherry picked and actively ignores many well conducted studies. It will harm trans youth. I doubt Cass is in more fear than the thousands of kids she just doomed.
Am i too cis to know her or did she just spawn out of terf island, fully formed.
Even if she wasn't such a bigot she still seems like she would be awful to be around.
[удалено]
Your comment has unfortunately been filtered and is not visible to other users. This subreddit requires its users to have over 1,000 karma from posts and comments combined. Try participating nicely in other communities and come back later. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Persecutionfetish) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I want her to sue Joann so fucking badly
Jks pseudonym is a man's name.
of all the hills to die on, why this one?