Rowling Derangement Syndrome - "TERF/Woke Author Bad!!1"

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Silence of the Troons said:
Thread tax: Carolyn Harris, Labour MP, says that Rowling is biologically correct when she says men in dresses are men but when you introduce this level of HATE (objective and irrefutable facts), rationality goes out the window.
LTcTPYKPJQJHnbcI.mp4
Click to expand...
"There is no right or wrong in this, and I don't think she's contributed in anyway to us having a responsible conversation about this"

Yes, because the trans mafia movement/activists were so ready to have a responsible conversation about this, were they? Do tell, how is the following show any readiness to have responsible conversation about this issue:
- Saying "no discussion" when it comes to anything trans-related.
- Framing everything as if their physical existence is threatened and any objection as "transphobia".
- Banning people from social media for saying anything that might be considered even remotely critical of the trans movement or their doctrine, including things like "males are not females", "trans women are males" (which is what this fat woman does now!) and "you can't change sex".
- Refusing to engage in any conversation when it comes to suggesting that the raise in trans identifies people is not organic/authentic but the result of something else, for example social contagion. See for instance how the ROGD theory was treated.
- Refusing to even consider any treatment other than immediate affirmation and "gender affirming care".
- Demonizing the other side, calling them "fascists", "Nazis", etc.
- Labeling women who object to any of their claims/ideas/policies/laws as "terfs" and publicly call for violence acts against them.
- Sending death, torture, violence and rape threats to women who dare to object them, for example JK Rowling.
- Going after people's jobs and families if they object in any way to anything the trans mob force on them or criticize something about it.
- Completely disregarding and gaslighting women and girls when they say they are not comfortable with males in their bathrooms and other sex-segregated spaces like public women's showers and changing rooms.
- Completely disregarding, gaslighting and using manipulation tactics against anything that other people in general object to, say they are not comfortable with, express concern about, or claim it is violation of their rights.
- Refusing any "compromising" solution that will solve what they claim is the issue without compromising other people's rights and safety, i.e. letting "trans girls" use the teachers' bathrooms instead of the girls bathrooms, having the athlete trans woman shower in a single private shower instead of with the women in his team (ignoring that trans women participating in women sport is a violation of women's rights in first place, by the way).
- Trans women making selfies of themselves in women bathrooms.
- Putting signs on women's bathrooms in college/university telling women who feel threaten to just shut up and actually protect said potential threat to their safety and dignity.

(There is more, you are welcome to add tot he list if you like.)


Trans activists have eliminated any possibility for discussion, and now you (fat woman) say "I don't think she's [Rowling] contributed in anyway to us having a responsible conversation about this"? Are you kidding me?

And this:
Carbiter said:
Also, ensuring that biological men don't end up in women's rape shelters was not a responsible conversation? Cause that's what started this whole shit with Rowling in the first place.
Click to expand...
Rowling has risen very important points that could contribute to responsible conversation, if such a conversation was allowed to be had. But you (fat woman and others like her) refused to have any, and now when the tide is starting to turn and you are not in the same power position you were before, suddenly we need to have a "responsible conversation" about this. Fuck off, the time for this has passed a long time ago, when you silenced and abused anyone who objected to even the smallest thing in your deranged doctrine, policies and laws. You brought this on yourselves. Such despicable people.

Oh, and the nerve of this woman to say about Rowling "the level of hate". Excuse me? Who sent death, torture and rape threats to whom? Who threatened the family of whom? Who called for the other demise? Are you joking?

I am also annoyed and tired of them pretending that Rowling of now is Rowling of 5+ years ago. This started by Rowling publishing a very tame and compassionate essay in 2020, which was not hateful in any way, shape or form.
Largely, she said in that essay the following things:
- sex matters.
- males are not women, and including them in women's spaces is a violation of women's rights and a danger to their safety, especially when it is decided by law that trans woman is simply anyone who identifies as woman, no surgery or cross-sex hormones are required.
- women pointing this thing out should not be punished.
- the astronomical rise in young females identifying as boys/men should be investigated, and in particular why the percentage of females on the autistic spectrum among them is so high.
- she also criticized a little bit the cruel behavior of the trans mob, who rejoice over the death of the lesbian "terf" Magdalen Berns of cancer.

That's it. What hateful about it? Especially considering that you (fat woman) say that she is correct in saying that trans woman are in fact not biological females. Where is "the level of hate" you are talking about?
Then after a while of being sent death, torture, violence and rape threats and having her safety and her family's safety threatened, and being ridiculed and demonized on media and social media, she became more militant about it, which is very understandable. There are really only two ways to react to something like that, retreat and retract what you said or fade into obscurity/lie low for a while, or sticking to your guns and counter-attack. She chose the later, but even then she hasn't attacked trans people, their actual human rights, their right to express their views and themselves or their "existence", just specific trans activists and their supporters, trans activists in general and the "gender identity" ideology and doctrine.

The horrible anti-trans causes she donated her money to were made a few years after the continuous abuse she has been getting from trans activists and the media started, and are actually just the for two causes, Women Scotland group in 2024 (3-4 years later) and a fund she lunched called J.K. Rowling Women’s Fund in 2025 (about 5 years later) - which support women’s sex-based rights, not any eradication of trans human rights... unless, of course, "trans human rights" directly oppose sex-based women rights. And you (fat woman) claim sex is real and trans women are indeed not biologically women, so what hate are you talking about?

Trans activists and their supporters refuse to acknowledge they have any hand in the radicalization of Rowling (and she is still not hateful lol), but hey, refusing to take accountability is one of their MO, what else is new?


(By the way, I call this woman "fat woman" because I don't know who she is and I don't care to know. Usually I don't resort to calling people this but this is the first ands most prominent characteristic I notice about this woman, and I needed some distinguishing characteristic. I also double not care if she identifies as anything non-woman, of course.)
 
"Factually correct, but you were a meaniepants about it!" is going to be the main play by proponents of troonacy going forward, FYI. Once they can no longer deny the batshittery, they'll blame everyone else for forcing them to dig their heels in because of just how nasty and rude the transphobes are.
 
Carbiter said:
Also, ensuring that biological men don't end up in women's rape shelters was not a responsible conversation? Cause that's what started this whole shit with Rowling in the first place. At least I can see the logic of the people covering up child sex crimes amongst muslims in the UK
Click to expand...
I've yet to see an actual counterargument for this. The last place a person with a penis should be is in a woman's shelter, but they get violently angry when you say that.
 
Gondolindrim said:
I've yet to see an actual counterargument for this. The last place a person with a penis should be is in a woman's shelter, but they get violently angry when you say that.
Click to expand...
Incorrect, the last place should be running woman's shelters, especially one of the primary ones for a country. Which is where Scotland was at.
 
I wonder if some journalist is going to ask the golden trio actors what their opinion on JK Rowlings on trans issues are. I hope not any time soon. They are too young to have opinions on this kind of crap. I always hate it when adults try to pull children into politics. The outcome isn't usually good. Most people I know or have heard of that got into politics as a kid are usually miserable. Just look at Greata Thunberg.
 
Mr. ShadowCreek said:
I wonder if some journalist is going to ask the golden trio actors what their opinion on JK Rowlings on trans issues are. I hope not any time soon.
Click to expand...
Their handlers/PR people will probably limit or simply disallow any questions about Queen TERF. If their parents are smart, they will restrict their social media too, so no repeats of the things that happened to the Scream or Stranger Things casts, though they were young adults.
 
Sinner's Sandwich said:
7.JPG
Click to expand...
Aight so I have been quietly ruminating on this for a while, but aside from a link between old timey degenerate Harry Potter fanfic writers of ages past and the troons of the past decade of currentyear that I spoke about before on this thread, I am around 80-90% sure there is a similar link between the self declared "Irish" internet sphere and general troonery too.

While the "Plastic Paddy" phenomena of usually burgerland dwelling retards latching on to some absurdly contrived/mythologised/stereotypical "Irishness" as their sacred heritage and using this as an excuse to act obnoxiously at home or abroad is old as all hell, for the past 7 or 8 years I have noticed a different kind of this phenomena spread like monkeypox in US/UK online leftist spheres and among specimens who are either troons already, on the verge of trooning out, or make being pro troon a central part of their branding.

Invariably they will use this alleged Irish heritage to gibdat themselves a victim card as the most persecuted of all non-niggo ethnicities and victims of ten trillion holocausts by the evil TERF island and crowbar references to this into literally every online screech session they partake in while also claiming this automatically gives them expertise on the 1000% for real genocides being inflicted on troons and palestinians and palestinian troons, but as with the Plastic Paddies of old they will do so in a way that makes it hilariously clear how they know jack shit about any aspect of Ireland or its history on even a surface level basis due to either having never stepped foot in Ireland or encountered an Irish person, or more embarrassingly actually being Irish but being such an autistic shut in they have effectively learned their "Irishness" from the internet.

With the specific xeet screencap I am responding to with this reply, this kind of behaviour demonstrated in the frankly brobdinagian levels of retardation needed to think that it is would be considered some unforgivable act of treachery to the Irish for just one of their actors/actresses to sign up to a British production or an adaptation based on a British works which is roughly on the same level as saying any Canadian actor/actress who stars in an American movie or TV show will cause mass protests and rioting by the patriotic Canadian masses because of the War of 1812 or some shit, or that actors from fucking Florida would never dream of working in a northern state lest they betray the memory of those who died in the fuckin Reconstructionocaust of the 1870s
 
Ewan McGregor said:
Tom Felton reeks of actual posh upbringing.

He's been sexualized since he was a child in a very disturbing manner, though.
Click to expand...
Apologies of highjacking this comment, but what happened to Tom Felton exactly? I mean, he didn't become a Macaulay Culkin, clearly, yet I did see he developed a drinking habit. But that was probably for other means due to stress and being part of something grand.
 
troon.jpg fuchi.jpg
 
Whoever on here made the suggestion that Stephen Fry turned on Rowling because she didn't help him get the role of Dumbledore might have been right:



He proved himself to be a Faithful as he was kicked off Celebrity Traitors last week – but now Sir Stephen Fry is facing suggestions that perhaps he's not so loyal after all.

As one of the first narrators of the Harry Potter audiobook series, Sir Stephen, 68, has long been close to its author J.K. Rowling.

He promised he would never 'abandon his friend' as she faced a barrage of criticism over her pro-women stance on trans issues. But Sir Stephen later described Ms Rowling as a 'lost cause'.

Now sources close to the children's author suggest they might know why the presenter, once dubbed 'the world's most intelligent man', changed his mind.

An associate of Ms Rowling told The Mail on Sunday that Sir Stephen had 'coveted' a role in the forthcoming television adaptation of the seven-book series for American media giant HBO.

The actor is said to have lobbied hard after some fans had called for him to be cast as Hogwarts headmaster Professor Albus Dumbledore, but Ms Rowling had declined to intervene in the casting process.

It was later announced that American actor John Lithgow, 80, had been cast as Dumbledore, played in the Harry Potter movies by Richard Harris and Michael Gambon.

The source said: 'It is no secret that Stephen wanted a part in the Harry Potter series, and when he failed to get one there was a noticeable change in him.

'After years of support for Jo, he suddenly seemed to turn against her. It didn't take a genius to work out why.'

Ms Rowling has hinted at the fallout. In a social media post in September, decrying 'another man who once worked with me declares himself saddened by my beliefs on gender and sex', she added: 'One of them tried very hard to enlist my help in getting a major part in it. Only after he didn't get it did he decide it was time to put the boot in.'

Sir Stephen made no secret of his ambition to star in the new series, expected to be one of the most expensive television programmes ever.

When asked if he had been approached for a role, he said in February: 'Well, I'd certainly consider it, like I consider anything.'

But in June he distanced himself from the Harry Potter writer, telling The Show People podcast: 'She has been radicalised I fear and it may be she has been radicalised by TERFs, but also by the vitriol that is thrown at her.

'It is unhelpful and only hardens her and will only continue to harden her I am afraid.

'I am not saying that she should not be called out when she says things that are really cruel, wrong and mocking. She seems to be a lost cause for us.

'She started to make these peculiar statements and had very strong difficult views. She seemed to wake up, or kick, a hornet's nest of transphobia which has been entirely destructive. I disagree profoundly with her on this subject.

'I am angry she does not disavow some of the more revolting and truly horrible, violently destructive things that people say. She says things that are inflammatory and contemptuous, mocking and add to a terribly distressing time for trans people.'

He had previously said in 2022: '[Ms Rowling's] a friend of mine, and I have trans friends and intersex friends who are deeply upset by her. That's a circle I have to square personally. I'm not going to abandon my friends.'

Ms Rowling responded to his about-turn, writing: 'It is a great mistake to assume that everyone who claims to have been a friend of mine was ever considered a friend by me.'

Sir Stephen and Ms Rowling were contacted for comment.
Click to expand...
 
What a dissapointment Fry has turned out to be. Not that he is the only one. 🙁

Also, my guess is that he has 0 so called "intersex" friends.
 
It's complete pettiness if true. Stephen Fry may be famous and in tons of work, but John Lithgow is a better actor than him. Stephen is only good at playing himself. I always knew that Stephen was very loyal to Rowling for decades, and he defended her for a while which got him backlash. It seemed to me that something big had to have happen because of this.

I can see this being the reason because this guy went from defending her for years to suddenly dropping her.
 
TeaBaggins said:
Whoever on here made the suggestion that Stephen Fry turned on Rowling because she didn't help him get the role of Dumbledore might have been right:
Click to expand...
Note how it implies that this deranged man would have abadoned his tranny friends had he gotten the role. Fry is kissing the ass of a child mutilating cult as revenge on JKR. 🙄 68 year old man-child.
 
Stephen Fry would have been a fucking terrible Dumbledore and J.K. Rowling was 100% right not to cast him.

I still remember how shit he was in The Hobbit movies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom