Sci-Fi & Fantasy Girlz discussion

I won't be reading any more of the Harry Potter books.

Now, to be clear, this isn't a very difficult choice for me to make. I don't have a lot of skin in the game. I've never been wild about them to begin with, so this works very little hardship on me. There are literally hundreds of thousands of books written and published every year, and in my case I have time to read about 75-100, so it's a "sacrifice" of about 0.001%. In that sense, it's comparable to the situation that first drew me to GR, and eventually this group: the whole Orson Scott Card/Ender's Game nonsense. I thought that book was a real mediocrity when I read it many years ago, even though it has handed to me by a friend with all the reverence my father gave me a copy of The Catcher in the Rye when I was "old enough." I handed back that copy of Ender's Game with a resounding, "Meh... It's a juvenile wish-fulfillment masturbation exercise justified with some crypto-Nitschean rhetoric" when I was done with it.

Similarly, I've never got the fanaticism with which the Harry Potter books were embraced. I don't think they're bad, mind you, but they're not great by any stretch. Rowlings isn't a bad writer; she's just nothing special. Certainly not anything like worthy of the fame and success she's had. Granted, no actual human being probably is worthy of that kind of fame and success, but my point is that she's the product of some savvy marketing, and a more or less random happenstance of zeitgeist. A lot of people dedicate a lot of time post-rationalizing that kind of thing. It can only be purposeful, the reasoning goes, otherwise... well, we live in a chaotic and meaningless world.

Hello, Darkness, my old friend.

So, anyway, since completing her opus, Rowling has been dismantling her legacy with all the zeal of a kid setting off firecrackers to destroy the model he painstakingly built all summer long. And that's actually fine by me. It's hers to destroy. But IMO it's well past time to get off the train. It's hurtling towards a cliff. Aside from latter day, counter-factual presentation and changes to her own work, she's lately been something of a vocal anti-trans advocate. Oh, she'd not characterize herself that way, of course. Her language is all couched in pseudo-science jargon and affected concern for the people whose lives and experience she's attacking. I suspect she "believes" it in some superficial way, and she doesn't realize the views she's expressing are all about her ego. She may very well not have the self-knowledge to recognize her behavior for what it is. Most people don't, and she is, after all, not that great an intellect.

In any case, I don't think we're at a point at which so-called "cancel culture" is evoked. It's not like she got drunk and muttered racial slurs at a party. It's not a problematic incident. She's been working hard at it. It's a thing that's been building for over a decade, so much so that even I—someone who, frankly, couldn't really give much of a shit about what she has to say—keep hearing about it. Like it or not, she's one of those people who farts and millions of people have to smell it, so I'm not going to be getting into a car and going on a road trip with the windows rolled up, thank you very much.

My point in bringing it up here is that if anyone wants to read the next Harry Potter book, I'm going to decline. I hope you enjoy it, though. Try not to hand too much of your hard earned money off to arguably the luckiest writer in the 20th century by getting the book from a local library.

First of all, I respect your opinion and your decision of not wanting to support her as an author. But what did "she do" now? :D

I have been following this JK Rowling thing from the beginning (I think?) when she supported Maya Forstater last year.

I think we're at a point where people are just interpreting things the way they best see fit to support a particular narrative. It doesn't matter what she says, or how many essays she writes to explain it. Personally, I don't see anything wrong with what she's saying, and I sometimes wonder if there's something I'm not seeing. All I've read is that she's talking about biological sex, not gender.

A few years ago the discussion was that "sex and gender are not the same thing", but it seems to me that now the new discussion is to go after erasing biological sex?

But whatever the conflict is, I think the most dangerous thing in all of this is that we're reaching a point where we can't agree to disagree. If I don't share your point of view on a particular topic, you need to be cancelled because you don't think like me. I think that's very dangerous.

I'm with Yoly here. I read Rowling's tweets and the essay and I think she makes a lot of valid points. She's not against trans people. She's just disagreeing with some extreme parts of trans ideology that claim that biological sex is something assigned at birth. I mean, how is that supposed to work? Mean doctor sew genitals to newborn babies? Rowling also defends women's rights and LGB rights, as some extremists shout out some misogynistic and homophobic statements, while hurling threats of sexual violence and death threats at women who even slightly disagree with them. I actually saw a lot of trans people agreeing with her.

I also hate the whole idea of cancel culture. I feel like we're regressing instead going forward through discussing and working together.

Banshee wrote: "I'm with Yoly here. I read Rowling's tweets and the essay and I think she makes a lot of valid points. She's not against trans people. She's just disagreeing with some extreme parts of trans ideolo..."

When have trans people said biological sex is assigned? The argument I've heard repeatedly is that sex IS biological while gender is assigned. There's a world of difference. And the entire purpose of their being a trans movement is to advocate for people who were born one way but always felt uncomfortable in their own skin. For this, they've been ridiculed, abused, tortured, and even murdered because of other people's preconceived notions about sex/gender and the fact that they fear people that challenge that.

I agree that denunciation over disagreements is wrong and that "cancel culture" is overbearing. But lets at least make sure we're being honest about who's saying what and who are the ones being threatened and abused. Everyone is quick to claim victimhood, but someone who loses a TV show because they said something terribly ignorant and hurtful isn't the same as someone being beaten to death because they don't fit someone's idea of what is "natural."

Matthew wrote: "When have trans people said biological sex is assigned? The argument I've heard repeatedly is that sex IS biological while gender is assigned."

The problem is that argument is apparently old news and what's current now is saying things like "biological sex is more complicated than the simple X and Y chromosome", and that, in my opinion, hurts a movement that advocates for people that, as you very well put it, were born one way but always felt uncomfortable in their own skin.

Matthew wrote: "Banshee wrote: "When have trans people said biological sex is assigned? The argument I've heard repeatedly is that sex IS biological while gender is assigned. "

Well, that's what I have believed my entire life as a feminist. And I have always supported that trans people should get all the help they need to feel comfortable in their skin again.

The problem is that recent trans activists (the movement that even many trans people don't want to be associated with) claim something completely different now: sex is assigned at birth and we are born with gender. I tried to wrap my head around it, but the more I read and tried to understand, the more confused I got. And also terrified, when I read all the threats aimed at women. And offended, when I was called a menstuator and cervix-owner.

Personally, I find her verbiage to be, at best, borrowed from people who are professional gaslighters. Cherry-picking the extremist views of people who have clearly issues that are unconnected to trans- or even gender and platforming them, then hedging with the standard "oh, but not all..." terminology is to cast aspersions and then claim a moral high ground. It's a standard rhetorical tactic these days, of course. We see it all the time. "Both sides" and "not all but..." and or the racist backstepping of Trump: "They're sending people that have a lot of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."

Painting the entirety of a population with a single brush then hedging with language to give yourself an out is a time honored, sleezy tactic of bigots these days. But it's possible she doesn't realize, in a conscious and outright Machiavellian way, that she's employing those tactics. She could be someone who's written a few million words and sold incredibly successful books yet is somehow also unaware of how language works, and is simply expressing 5 cent ideas with 10 cent words... but even if we give her that benefit of a doubt—and I don't think there's much reason to do so—that still makes her a hack. She's either well aware of what she's doing, or not and, therefore, shouldn't be a writer. Or, at least, shouldn't be a writer that anyone bothers to read.

I think a couple folks have missed that I brought up "cancel culture" not to cite this as an example of it, but to show specifically how it is NOT. Rowling has been revealing her intellectual and writing ability for a LONG time. Supposedly she spent decades prepping to write her opus and had boxes filled with notes—and maybe she really did, and that wasn't mostly marketing—but if so she's also spent the last 20 years trying to rewrite the actual text she put together, retroactively making characters more inclusive or not, as she deems fit moment to moment. And every time she steps out from behind her PR wall she reveals her actual mindset and talents.

If she had spent 20 years writing Portrait of the Artist as a Young Woman and then the next 20 years rewriting it to suit her legacy then that'd be one thing, but she wrote a mash up series of children's novels. My point is that she's a fry cook, not a sous chef, and there's plenty of places to get fast food these days.

Banshee wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Banshee wrote: "When have trans people said biological sex is assigned? The argument I've heard repeatedly is that sex IS biological while gender is assigned. "

Well, that's what I..."

This is for both you and Yoly, btw, but I can't reply to two comments. Who exactly is saying this? And how are they speaking for trans people? Also, is this what Rowling was responding to? Because as I understand it, she's had plenty to say on the subject and it all came down to conflated sex and gender.

But mostly, who are these people saying that sex is assigned at birth? If this is the "new trans" movement, then yes, somebody needs to restore sanity!

Lindsay Ellis is, among other things, a youtuber who has a hot take. I usually think she makes sense. Her opinion on Titanic is a little painful, and she really likes a lot of musicals, but that stuff aside here she is on the JKR situation:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NViZY...

Matthew wrote: "But mostly, who are these people saying that sex is assigned at birth? If this is the "new trans" movement, then yes, somebody needs to restore sanity!"

Matthew, I've been following the topic of trans rights on Twitter for a couple of years now, and periodically have to mute the whole topic because the level of vitriol gets so distressing. There are very loud extremists who do say they believe that sex is assigned at birth, among other things, and have demonstrated a willingness to brigade people who suggest that this might not be the best way to secure trans rights. I used to follow a 20-year-postoperative transwoman on Twitter before she was hounded off the platform for questioning the extremists. Who were theoretically on *her* side!

This is why I never, ever so much as mention the topic on Twitter, why this reply isn't going into my update feed, and why I'm not going to say any more about it than this: I believe that trans people's rights are actually being endangered by these extremists. Unfortunately, there's no sign that they're going to stop their illogical overreach any time soon.

Text wrote: "Matthew wrote: "But mostly, who are these people saying that sex is assigned at birth? If this is the "new trans" movement, then yes, somebody needs to restore sanity!"

Matthew, I've been followin..."

I would say that is a wise approach, mainly because Twitter is only exceeded by Youtube and Reddit when it comes to people who are worthy of a Darwin award. However, as I've come to understand this issue, she is not taking issue with people who think that "sex" is assigned at birth, but rather with transgender people in general because she feels it muddies the waters in terms of gender issues.

Whatever tirades you have heard on Twitter cannot compare to that statement, which she made clear in her "5 reasons for speaking out on gender and sex issues." It's like someone saying they take issue with feminism because some radical feminists on social media say intercourse is oppression. Sorry, but that doesn't excuse you saying something sexist, or in this case, transphobic.

Text wrote: "This is why I never, ever so much as mention the topic on Twitter, why this reply isn't going into my update feed, and why I'm not going to say any more about it than this: I believe that trans people's rights are actually being endangered by these extremists. Unfortunately, there's no sign that they're going to stop their illogical overreach any time soon."

Hear, hear. It's suspicious for me that these people don't even mention in their attacks people who actually deny trans people their existence and rights. Who their attack and call transphobic are among others:
- feminists who disagree with the attempt to make gender something real (as a feminist I see gender as an artificial construct created to oppress people, developed by patriarchy and named by feminism)
- lesbians who are not attracted to trans women
- detransitioned people who explain that it's possible to be misdiagnosed, so all the options need to be weighed before making radical decisions
- other trans people who disagree with the methods of the extremists.

Gary wrote: "Lindsay Ellis is, among other things, a youtuber who has a hot take. I usually think she makes sense. Her opinion on Titanic is a little painful, and she really likes a lot of musicals, but that st..."

That's the video where I got this phrase
biological sex is more complicated than the simple X and Y chromosome
It seems the "agenda" this year is to erase biological sex as well.

This piece by Ayaan Hirsi Ali makes a lot more sense to me.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/op...