[ SECRET POST #4750 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4750 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 25 secrets from Secret Submission Post #680.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[fscom]

04. https://i.imgur.com/6yBAKoU.png

[(Anonymous)]

We know you think that and we still think you're wrong (and probably a bigot)

[(Anonymous)]

Who is this “we” you are talking about? Because the vast majority of people think she did nothing wrong.

[(Anonymous)]

+1

[(Anonymous)]

+2

[(Anonymous)]

The more secrets we get about this, the more I wonder whether or not Theme Days would be a good idea here. For instance, grouping all the JK Rowling secrets one week into a particular day, so we can get all of the trans rights "debate" stuff done on That One Post so every day doesn't have to be exhausting for those negatively impacted by this stuff.

Probably not very feasible, but food for thought nonetheless, maybe?

[(Anonymous)]

Meh. I prefer variety, that way there's a better chance there's a secret or discussion that interests me.

[(Anonymous)]

It'll die down soon, I hope and think

[(Anonymous)]

God, yeah, that would be nice.

[(Anonymous)]

So, the comments are going to be a shitshow again...

[tabaqui]

Oh dear gods am i sick unto death of this particular 'stance'. Jayzus.

[(Anonymous)]

I think it's less about what she specifically said, and more about who she sided with.

[(Anonymous)]

For me, it's both.

[nightscale]

Oh good, another thread for people to be transphobic in, truly we need more of those.

[(Anonymous)]

Personally, I find the sheer extent of the outrage I've seen being expressed pretty excessive. But wow, I don't agree with you at all.

[(Anonymous)]

A twitter storm that died off about a week ago is "excessive?"

[(Anonymous)]

Yes, we know. Can't you start your own transphobe secrets comm and give the rest of us a break?

[(Anonymous)]

The troll has found a food source.

[(Anonymous)]

Serious question. If JKR had said:

Dress however you please.
Call yourself whatever you like.
Sleep with any consenting adult who’ll have you.
Live your best life in peace and security.
But biological sex is real.

(And nothing about the woman losing her job.) Would that still be transphobic? I see a lot of arguments about the nuances of the Maya lady or whatever her name is, and frankly I think that's people trying to distract from the core of the issue, which is biological sex being real/defined.

[(Anonymous)]

Yes? Because no one is saying that it /isn't/ real, just that it's largely irrelevant to the public sphere. In context, it's basically saying "it doesn't matter if you call yourself a woman, you're still 100% a man" which is transphobic.

[(Anonymous)]

If you strip the statement entirely of its context, I wouldn't describe it as wrong as such. I think it's kind of a weird thing to say in a vacuum, and I would wonder why the person had chosen to phrase it that way, and what kind of significance they attributed to biological sex being real, since there's a lot of debatable things you could say about that. But yes, absolutely, how sex exists for human beings is something that we can make factual, empirical statements about. That's a true thing to say.

But you can't strip the statement from its context. I believe that you're incorrect in identifying the core of the issue. Because the fact is that Rowling did say it as a defense of Forstater. That was the context. And that's incredibly important context. First, because Rowling was defending Forstater - I think that's an important fact worth talking about on its own, because Forstater is a transphobe, and the whole affair was bound up with transphobia. But second, the fact that Rowling understands her statement as a defense of Forstater is incredibly relevant to what she meant by it, how she understands the statement, and how she understands the Forstater affair. And I don't think that you can say that you've properly understood what Rowling said without understanding that context.

To be honest, I would say that - far from it being the case that people are trying to distract from the core issue - you are focusing on the specific sentence that biological sex is real because that's the part that you care most about and want to talk about. And I don't think that's correct.

[(Anonymous)]

That statement, out of context, isn't transphobic imo. In the context of the situation...maybe a little?

Also, adding the line "Sex and gender are not synonymous" into that list of statements would also go a long ways, IMO. I mean, it's "duh" for a lot of people these days, but if you're going to make the statement "but biological sex is real" it really feels like it should come with the caveat that sex and gender are not synonymous. *shrugs*

[(Anonymous)]

I'm just sitting with my popcorn while she continues to put her foot in her mouth. I find it so ironic that she writes a character like Rita Skeeter, and waxes philosophical about how journalism and history are a mixture of lies and truth; then proceeds to destroy her own character by hastily made twitter posts. lmao

[dantesspirit]

And you would be just as wrong as she is.

[(Anonymous)]

Did she say something wrong? Yes. Should she be called out a little? Probably. Was what she said so absolutely horrible that it Ruins Harry Potter forever and she should Be Shunned and anyone who speaks to her or likes her posts should be screamed at until they apologise?

...imo No. And yes, I'm aware of previous TERFY comments from her.