The all purpose J.K. Rowling thread

I spent many years treating gravy seals like they were God's apex predator special forces, and it alweays amused me when the UA's would get up and run straight into a tree because someone shot a paintball at them. All the crying and bitching about I got hurt, and my gun doesn't work right.

I have a theory that sort of holds up. When you see a woman playing paintball, or in the military that bitch went through so many filters to get there that you have to respect them. Lots of guys like UA did not get that. Lots of guys like UA got their asses kicked by strong women and that is why he resents them and looks for a coddling cunt like @Jenee to fluff him.

Oh fuck off. That happens ALL THE TIME.

Hell the make up of a dress code is 100% opinion. But the student sits under authority and the code isn't negotible even when it's fucking stupid.

It's the nature of the organization.

Here's the thing you dense twits don't get:

to not act is still to act.

If you say "respect the trans students pronouns, yes, that's bringing a sociological issue that is a matter of debate into the classroom and picking a side.

Of course it is.

but to declare "we are under no obligation to respect any students pronouns in the school THAT ALSO is ringing a sociological issue that is a matter of debate into the classroom and picking a side.

There's not a neutral option.

When you argue for "not being forced to comply" you are arguing for forcing the trans person to comply with YOUR preferred outcome.

Which, ya know, you have zero problem with because it's someone else being compelled and not you.

Interesting how invested the local libertarian is in forced compliance as long as it's the people he looks down on on the receiving end of that force.

So, let's say the parents WANT their trans kid respected, and the Moralist bigots who also have kids in that class want that child to NOT be respected - then what?

The authorities have to pick a side.

Right back where we started. You force the trans kid to comply or you force the school to comply. There's no "force no one to do anything" option available, much like every fucking other thing in public schools.

But let's go further.

Teachers, nurses, doctors, and others are "mandatory reporters" when it comes to child abuse or neglect. If it comes to your attention on Monday morning that a child hasn't had a meal since they left school on Friday - do you ask the parents if they want their ked to not eat or do you consider the best interest of the child?

Similarly, if you know that parents expect their daughter to wear a dress to school, and she sneaks and changes into jeans when she gets to school - which you know will get her a beating if her dad finds out... do you call the parents out of respect for their wishes about her wardrobe?

Most people would say no to both questions.

So if a trans kid says "call me Kate" and ask for girls pronouns and you know that child will get a beating if her parents knew...or hell, not even that, just emotional abuse about what a failure of a son you are and they are ashamed that you're such a pervert that god hates... we're supposed to just throw them under the bus because "Thou Shalt Not Question the Holy Almighty Parents"?

As a matter of fact, literally every goddamn one of the GOP anti-trans bigot bills, where a provision describes a thing that both cis people and trans people do, carves out exemption so that cis people can continue to do THE EXACT SAME FUCKING THING as long as the act has no relationship to gender transition.

Also, related to the original topic of the thread, JKR on the podcast that's supposedly designed to present the case that "she's really not awful" released an episode this week in which she compared the "death eaters" in her books to trans people.

I haven't read the book but basically every reaction I've seen is essentially "EVERY significant trait of the DE are a direct analogy to TERFS and Moralists"

And she apparently said "Nothing can change my mind on this"

Maybe some fan of the books can elaborate on the parallels and I won't have to go scour Twitter for the descriptions I read.

None of which becomes my fault or my problem just because I set the terms of my own hypothetical involvement.

So I'm imposing my will on you by not allowing you to impose your will on me. Got it.

You could have used a lot fewer words to convey that delightful bit of horse shit.

That's all the involvement ANYone has. This is truly a non-issue made up for political purposes.

This is called living in a society. Sorry it's taking you so long to catch on.

The only time UA is quick is when he catches a wiff of @Jenee cooter.

In fairness she has a point. After all the death eaters were wizards who wanted to keep wizards spaces for those who were born wizards and not those who became wizards later in life. Wait hold on…….

I do not know the whole death eater argument, or even what they were about. However, the term muggle was a huge turn off for me. First, it was an actual slur from what I understand, then JK applied it to the entire audience. I do not know how much admonishment for the term there was in the book, but it was a lur towards everyone and it seemed to come off as cute.

I will give her that it would make sense kids of a magical school would use it towards unmagical people. It just seems like a moment where you could be woke and say to the kids we do not piss on people who are lesser than us. Maybe they do make a big issue out of it because I cannot say for sure they do not, but since the term itself seems to be prevelant through the series it is sort of evidence that she sees it as fine or that a prejudiced slur is a way to bring the audience in through an in joke of superiority. That is made even worse by the real world use of the word.

It just starts at the beginning where I am realizing I am a muggle and all these people think they are better than me in their private magic school. There is a anime that did the HP thing much better than HP. Little Witch Academia which is what I thought was so much better than HP because it actually addressed the issues of magic users vs human society. There were the prejudices, and the characters in LWA had to overcome an established cultural rift.

I do find it surprising that a fanbase that is so accepting has come from a work which has a supremacist power structure. It is as amazing to me that anime has produced so many black fans despite really not ever having any decent black characters. I have never seen any hate towards black interpretations of obviously white characters, or cross gender representation either. Even Man Faye was pretty well cheered on. Back in my day there was a guy named cardcaptor will who best cardcaptor sakura dresses and was a cishet black guy who do stand up as his cosplay skits.

Sometimes the problem of the medium does not matter when the fanbase is awesome. To this day I still do not care for Harry Potter, but I would go to a harry potter convention for the fans. It isn't about JK at all, it is about who they are for the most part.

No, it's called being a fascist while trying to pretend it's not.

There's always the Colorado forests, Unabomber.

Pivot and insult. T.R. clearly landed a point you can't address any better than Nova did mine. Nobody has a special right to impose their will on others, no matter how much screechy, long-winded rhetoric they deploy.

Except soldier-cops on BLM protesters.
Fucking fraud.

Who is imposing their will on others in this situation. Is it the woman who is telling you her name and wearing a dress, or is it UA following behind screaming she is a man and calling her by some other name he demands she be called? It is obviously her for not complying with UA's demands.

Now we should all settle down and get back to business as UA tells us to or else we are imposing our free will upon the lord pissbaby of WF.

Rioters who wreck shit and hurt people are violating the rights of others SHOULD be arrested.

Yep, that's all who got hurt was "rioters".
Everyone was evil Antifa, including the grannies, and the people trying to get to work, and the people standing in their own doorways watching, and the peaceful vet who got his leg broken on camera with a big bucket of nothing for the lead up.
It was aaaalll Antifa.
You and Dinner need to go bowling.

That's the only people I want arrested. You'll have to find someone else to defend the rest.

More dishonest bullshit. I never supported any of that.

So, here's a nice little Twitter chain for anyone thinking she deserves the benefit of the doubt still:

https://twitter.com/BadWritingTakes/status/1636424407710089217?t=WiHV34QNWZHJXz7Fz7eqyA&s=19

Sure, my married friend that expects people to call her by her married name is a fascist. And my divorced friend that switched back to her maiden name is a fascist. And my Muslim friend that asks his coworkers to call him by a nickname because there's already three other guys named Muhammed is a fascist. And the customer that insists you call him Dr. Smith instead of Mr. Smith is a fascist. And every poster here using a made up name (so everyone other than Dan Leach) is a fascist. Even you, "T.R."

What do you think government is FAR?

What is a goddamn speed limit?

I already told him to fly through red lights, and see how that goes, and he just called me names, and gave no logical rationale for his cherry-picking.

Sigh. Lots of things wrong with this one.

One, I'm not a Constitutional originalist or literalist. So I could care less about this argument. There's all sorts of things that the US government does that are not expressly conveyed in the Constitution.

Two, you aren't a Constitutional originalist or literalist. So this is an argument in bad faith. You are a reasonably smart guy on a lot of topics, so I'm not going to assume that you want to get rid of the Department of Education or Energy or Health and Human Services or Labor or... well, you get the idea.

Three, if you were arguing from the Founder's original intent, we both know that their 18th century world view would be shocked by the topic of discussion at hand. I'm not one of those 'the Founders were pure evil because X or Y', they were people of their time, but that time was pretty backward compared to our time period, so their intent often simply doesn't matter.

Once again, I support people's rights to transition. But it's a medical process, and lots of people are at different places along that process, and indeed quite a few don't intend to include gender reassignment surgery.

And their rights for that life, liberty and pursuit of happiness are sacrosanct - right up until it butts up against someone else's rights for the same.

Not sure why this is such a difficult concept for you guys.

Well that's just bullshit. Murders actually decreased from a high in 1988 to a low point in the 2010s. Gun safety advocates didn't disappear. No reason not to make it safer - and of course I'm not comparing the two types of incidents, just explaining that the status quo isn't an argument against trying to do better. Honestly, that's just silly.

That's discrimination in housing.

The first law about trans use of restroom in public schools in Minnesota occurred in 2020, three years ago.

Not according to this article. Los Angeles Unified School district started that in 2012. https://www.dailynews.com/2016/05/1...-in-agreement-on-transgender-restroom-policy/

And currently there is a state law in their legislature to force each school to provide at least one gender neutral bathroom.

You have a cite for that claim? For example, New York didn't allow this state wide until 2019. https://www.syracuse.com/news/2019/...o-use-bathrooms-based-on-gender-identity.html

And the majority of the US populace lives in the South now. Clearly that is not the case in the overwhelming majority of places there.

But regardless, this hasn't been a major issue for my POV. I've already stated based on the data we have now I believe gender identity use of bathrooms is fine. Go back and check if you missed it.

Nah, I don't care about their bullshit, never have. This is not based on right wing talking points, it's based on being around left wingers, and seeing some big gaping holes in their logic. Especially that espoused by feminists that are destroying their own talking points from 10 years ago because their own silo is so limited. I have a great deal of empathy for rape victims, for example. I've unfortunately known several, and I've seen how the trauma impacts them, sometimes years after the event. I had a friend who became listless and depressed and when I want to check on her my mere presence caused her to scream and flee from me. Trauma is trauma, it isn't rational, and there's a lot of trauma on this issue out there.

Already on record that I am for puberty blockers. Indeed, I think it's easily forseeable that is the ultimate answer to this issue and will likely make it moot within a generation.

But you are being a bit disingenuous. There have been people outspoken against these things from the beginning. The difference now is that these policies and laws are spreading outside of the most progressive areas of the country. Of course there was going to be blowback. This is one of those 'more than one thing can be true' moments again. Yes, there are people grappling with these concepts for the first time, with people on either side of these issues. And yes there are far right individuals and theocrats trying to use this for political advantage.

The other aspect is that the numbers of LGBTQ people has been doubling every generation, so far, far more 'normies' as you call us are aware of these issues.

For example, the transgender population in Los Angeles County in 2012 was estimated at 0.2%. Quite frankly, that's not that impacting to the Los Angeles School district.

I understand why there are more people who self-identify as LGBTQ, there has been a huge amount of repression culturally. But that doesn't change the fact that as the numbers grow the more they interact with 'normies'.

This is a good thing.

Only in the most progressive areas in the country, and that we are now seeing an expansion to the rest of the country. And a hard, theofascist reaction to it in the South and Midwest.

Because of this, it's relevant to look at data from other nations that have had these policies in place nationwide for longer.

The problem IMO is any discussion of the relative merits of these policies is now been radicalized on both sides, making discourse about good public policy incredibly difficult.

And you ignore any data that suggests otherwise. Once again, why is it that 58% of transgender people in the UK in prison during the survey period were in for rape? If you've answered that one yet, I have yet to see it.

You have stated you simply don't believe it. OK. Shit argument, summarily ignored.

So you keep repeating. And I've already stated that it has to be measured against potential danger for transgender people forced to use bathrooms against their gender identity.

But this premise that no trans people will ever do anything bad is simply wishful thinking. They aren't BETTER people, they are people, and there are good, bad, sane and crazy transgender people, just like any other group.

I have. And particularly bad argument as you haven't cited anything, anywhere in this thread.

Am I a second class person because I can't walk into any rape crisis center in the country without a specific exemption?

Am I a second class person because the law actually protects you MORE than it does me? I'm not in a 'protected class.'

Considering my generation was taught about equality that seems a pretty big concession for us white males in this country.

And here you go just like 14thDoc, sounded very much like a right wing zealot. Yes, rape victims can be triggered. Just like other forms of PTSD. I could give a rat's ass if you find that inconvenient.

Trauma is real, and 1 out of every 5 women is going to be the subject of sexual assault in their lifetime in the US. The overwhelming majority of that number before the age of 25. Yes, I have considerable sympathy for those victims.

I've cut the rest, it is just more of the same.

You will always care more about this than I do, for obvious reasons. The problem is you think that makes you somehow more objective, when the exact opposite is true.

Again, I tend to think this issue will disappear over time. We should fight for puberty blockers so people can better live their gender identity when their biological sex does not match. It also will help intersex people.

But until that point in time I don't support treating transwomen identical to ciswomen in every single category - the majority, to be sure, but not in those which biological sex is still an issue.

Because there will always be trans people in the process of medical transitioning, and yeah, I think a women expected to be naked in a shower area is going to feel vulnerable to some of those people. Even if there are *gasp* stalls.

And the ones in rape crisis centers are going to include a high percentage of women still undergoing trauma.

And sports should only include those transgender athletes who are within the boundaries the sports physicians deem is appropriate.

Asking you to understand that there are other people who have rights too hardly makes me the monster here. The fact you clearly have convinced yourself that those rights are invalid, simply don't exist, is something I believe you should realize is concerning to many others.

And no, that's not a theofascist take.

That's discrimination in housing.
The first law about trans use of restroom in public schools in Minnesota occurred in 2020, three years ago.

My comment wasn't specific to only schools.

How Minneapolis became the first city in the country to pass trans protections (msnbc.com)

(from 2016)
As North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and many other opponents of LGBT civil rights protections see it, policies barring discrimination on the basis of gender identity pose a serious threat when it comes to the bathroom. But if that were the case, no city would be more unsafe than Minneapolis, where transgender people have been protected from discrimination in bathrooms and other public accommodations for more than four decades.

The reality is, of course, quite different. In Minneapolis, as in more than 200 cities and 18 states that have since adopted similar protections, no increase in bathroom-related violence has followed; no person has ever been sexually assaulted or harassed in a bathroom by someone who is transgender; and no policy protecting LGBT people has ever provided legal cover to someone pretending to be transgender in order to attack another person in the bathroom. No policy ever would.

Though parts of it remain a mystery, suffice it to say that the story of how Minneapolis became the first city in the country to include transgender people in its civil rights ordinance is not a dramatic one. Few newspaper articles from that time mention anything about it, and many of the activists involved in its passage have either since passed away or become hazy on the details.

Still, the sheer length of time that Minneapolis’ ordinance has been on the books serves as perhaps the strongest piece of evidence to date refuting the widely circulated charge that similar LGBT protections somehow jeopardize the safety of others. From what those credited with the ordinance’s existence can remember, bathrooms -- as a potential breeding ground for sexual assault or harassment -- belong to a younger generation’s anti-LGBT playbook.



In December 1975, Minneapolis quietly adopted an ordinance barring discrimination on the basis of “having or projecting a self-image not associated with one’s biological maleness or one’s biological femaleness.”

The policy was the first in the nation to specifically protect LGBT people in employment, labor union membership, property ownership, property rental, enrollment in schools and use of public services and accommodations (like bathrooms). Yet the measure drew little notice, passing in what The Policy Insitute of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force labeled “a general flurry of progressive legislation enacted just before a newly elected, more conservative mayor started his term.”

Minneapolis was, at the time, a burgeoning hotbed of LGBT activism and one of only two cities in the country then offering sex reassignment surgery, according Andrea Jenkins, head of the University of Minnesota’s Transgender Oral History Project. But that didn’t mean the city was drawing massive numbers of transgender people to the area who were then, in turn, pressuring the city council for legal protections.

Rather, as former alderman DeMars remembers it, the effort to pass transgender protections was tacked onto, and largely overshadowed by, a far more controversial fight at the time for gay rights and same-sex marriage.


Former alderman Tom Johnson agreed that passing gay and lesbian protections in 1974 was then considered the tougher fight; amending the ordinance a year later to include transgender protections was merely a clarification.

“We probably thought at the time that we had dealt with the issue fully,” said Johnson. “But then we heard from people for whom that ordinance really didn’t provide the protection that they needed. So we came back and further amended what we had done in ‘74 … I don’t know the individuals who wanted those protections.”

One thing seems certain from that time, however: The idea, as Texas Attorney General Paxton put it last week on MSNBC’s “MTP Daily,”of “any male [being able to] walk into a female bathroom or locker room as long as they decide that day that they’re female,” was on nobody’s radar. That line appears to have evolved as the gay rights movement began to make strides toward equality, and the target shifted to the backs of an even smaller and more marginalized community.

“I don’t recall anybody making those kinds of arguments about transgender people when we did it,” said Rockenstein, who is no longer a Republican. “I’m a little flabbergasted by the arguments made today … Lincoln is rolling over in his grave, I can tell you that right now.”

Bathroom concerns did come up years later when Minnesota attempted to pass statewide LGBT protections. Some activists and pro-gay lawmakers even pushed to leave transgender people behind, believing it would be too difficult to overcome the attacks that community attracted. But eventually, in 1993, Minnesota became the first state in the nation to enact a law banning discrimination against transgender people, defined similarly to the Minneapolis ordinance, as those “having a self-image or identity not traditionally associated with one’s biological maleness or femaleness.”

you forgot that he had a penchant for undrage girls as well...