Noel Clarke

[Jim_Campbell]

To the best of my knowledge Rowling has never made any disparaging comment about trans people either individually or collectively, and the characterisation of her as a transphobe is a fraudulent distortion of her sex-based rights advocacy.

Whilst I don't disagree with your broader point, I want to note that this is a very charitable characterisation of Rowling's position. She has explicitly said, for example, that women are "people who menstruate" — and that's not even true of all people born biologically female, never mind being a clear swipe at trans women. She tweeted a link to an online store full of merchandise displaying openly transphobic slogans. That's two examples I can recall immediately — I don't want to get down into the weeds of this, but I think "fraudulent" is far too strong a descriptor for accusations of transphobia. She's said plenty of things that might give a person that impression, and doubled down on them when called out on it.

[Funt Solo]

Part of my confusion re. the Rowling / Transphobia debate was in not understanding what the core argument is. The hinge question is whether or not you're willing to accept that trans women are women, or that trans men are men. If you're not, then you're in agreement with Rowling. That position is considered (by people on the other side of the debate) as transphobic.

So, barring trans women from a women's prison, or from a women's toilet, or from a women's sports team, or from a women's shelter, means that you need to somehow identify people's birth gender, and then legislate to separate them from their gender identification. Effectively, from some kind of legal standpoint, it means that you are creating at least four gender classifications, and separate rules for each of the four. (Or, you're sticking with two and forcing trans folk to stick to their birth gender in lots of situations in which that puts them in danger.) Never mind legislatively, when it comes to any sort of potential enforcement, things start to get super-creepy. Gender police? (Aside: when I emigrated to the US, my physical sex was checked, by a doctor, as part of the process. Also, that my limbs were real.)

This is Rowling's effective stance. She says she likes "them", she feels for "them", she worries for "them" - but "them" ain't women in her eyes. And that, right there, is the crux of the debate.

There's an online commentator that did a whole piece about this that explained it in a much better way than I can.  Prof. Bear posted it up a while ago ... let me see if I can find it ... ah, here: J.K. Rowling | ContraPoints.

[Definitely Not Mister Pops]

(Aside: when I emigrated to the US, my physical sex was checked, by a doctor, as part of the process. Also, that my limbs were real.)

That seems bizarre. I wonder how extensive the medical literature is on verifying limbs. I assume they do this because American health care will literally cost you an arm and a leg.

[milstar]

I am sure some read this JKR post. Take it as you want.

Edited for rights/forum usability—IP

[Woolly]

I managed about a third of that, and already I'd read enough.
I get that she has no hate for anyone, but she really needs to stop equating trans people with perverts and potential sex crimes.

The idea that people (born with vaginas) would be scared of people (born with penises) being able to use the same changing room area as them only shows that current changing rooms aren't private enough!

So yeah, I get her concern. She just points it at the wrong people.

[TordelBack]

The Corinthian was asking that we not conflate by association someone's views, however completely we might disagree with them, with the disgusting actions of the specific subject of this thread. Not to minimise the significance of the former,  I think we should respect that request and, if people want to continue, take this (important) discussion of trans issues and/or JKR elsewhere.

Although note I AM NOT A MOD, so you've no reason to pay me any heed, but I do feel responsible for leading us down this path.

[Funt Solo]

FFS.

If you wanted handy advance warning of dogshit, you could do worse than take careful note of the people I vocally admire(d). Orson Card, Whedon, Rolf Harris, Spacey,  Rowling, Dawkins, Ellis... Heartfelt paeons to their glory litter my indelible internet record. 

Rest assured this level of judgement extends into my personal life, and of course, I love you all.

Trying to be helpful - it looks like this is where the thread splits off into a wider discussion about famous folk who have disappointed in some way. Maybe a mod might agree to split the thread here?

[Funt Solo]

(Aside: when I emigrated to the US, my physical sex was checked, by a doctor, as part of the process. Also, that my limbs were real.)

That seems bizarre. I wonder how extensive the medical literature is on verifying limbs. I assume they do this because American health care will literally cost you an arm and a leg.

The check (for which I assume the doctor is very well paid) consisted of observing and then poking my legs and arms, then - I kid ye not - counting my junk parts. No poking there. Ah well. Imagine - all that training and education so you can go poke-poke-poke-poke-1-2-3.

[IndigoPrime]

All threads drift. Unless someone is up in arms about this one talking about wider issues, I'm not sure we really need to carve it in half.

[milstar]

I think we already have the thread - Separate art from the artist where JKR views had been the starting point for the debate. I kinda feel The Corinthian was right about threads going astray.

Bottom line: you have your own views, you can't please anyone, nor you should. Just be a good person, create some inspiring piece of work and pray people will love it. Your personal crimes are your own personal shame.

[sheridan]

So back to Noel Clarke - the police have dropped any investigation into those claims.