348
I hate it when European countries play "who can emulate the US the fastest"
Nah, that doesn't apply in this case. The UK is a world leader in transphobia, acting not because the US does things, but because they're entirely transphobic on their own.
I bet Rowling is ecstatic.
She donated £70,000 to the people that pushed to pass this bill.
In the words of Pedro Pascal, she is indeed a "heinous loser"
Her public celebration of the result was absolutely grotesque
Anyone speculate on why JKR is so anti-trans? Did something happen in her past that makes her so hateful on this issue?
Did something happen in her past that makes her so hateful on this issue
I can't guess as to the full extent of her transphobia, but I can point to a couple of elements of it.
She did suffer domestic abuse of some sort before and around the time the first Harry Potter book came out. This was a cis man who did it, but I think in her mind there's no difference between cis men and trans women.
There's also a well-studied psychological phenomenon where people tend to double-down on their prior beliefs when challenged, unless those challenges come in a very narrow form. Her earliest transphobic comments may have been her being tepid about expressing her true beliefs, but they may genuinely have been the sort of misinformed casual transphobia that a much, much wider segment of the population has which may have gone no further if she were a normal person. But because lots of well-intentioned people—largely some of her most dedicated fans—tried to educate her and help her to be better, she may have doubled down and got into the reactionary feedback loop that so many transphobes, racists, and members of the alt-right got into. They perceive constructive criticism, especially when it comes in large volumes, as a personal attack, and the people who aren't attacking them instead encourage them to double down on their beliefs, and reward them when they do.
Her books show a very strong liberal bias. Liberal in the sense that it's not regressive per se, but it's also strongly opposed to analysis of problems as stemming from systemic issues rather than One Bad Actor. SPEW is the easiest to point to, but the lack of systemic change in the governance of the Wizarding World post-Voldemort is more significant, in my view. The problem was one Minister of Magic who was just ignorant of the problem of Voldemort, followed by another who actively covered it up. These individuals are the bad guys who need to be defeated. It wasn't, as the books tell it, underlying racism and classism of wizarding culture. So it seems that Rowling is not good at spotting systemic injustice. Such as the higher suicide rates among trans people (especially if they're not accepted), higher rates of DV and other violence, and other problems faced are not factoring into her calculations. Which makes it so much easier to cast trans people as the bad guys.
But I find it hard for these to adequately explain either the initial spark of transphobia per se, or the rather extreme extent she's gone to. So yeah, like you I'm a little curious if there's more to it.
An excellent analysis. Thank you for a thought and highly plausible explanation of the JKR phenomenon.
radical feminist to trans exclusionary radical feminist pipeline, being completely isolated from other people due to being a billionaire, not respected by other authors due to not being very good at being an author, also potential black mold poisoning
I am also so curious. Maybe money and the idea of “I just subjugate anyone that isn’t like me” is the answer? Notch went though similar stuff shirt he got “fuck you” money.
Did she mean demonstrably?
They suck, but world leader? Some countries still stone you to death for such things.
Well, UK birthed the US after all. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.
From having lived in several countries in Europe, including the UK, I would say that Britain is the closest we have here to the US when it comes to being a deeply flawed Democracy, possibly worse than the US since unlike it, Britain doesn't even have a written constitution, so just about everything can be changed with a law passed by a simple parliamentary majority (of 50% + 1) and as the UK has a First Past The Post electoral system said majority can be had with a mere 34% of votes cast (the current government has such a parliamentary majority with only 33.7% of votes), which given the typical level of Parliamentary Elections abstention over there is less than the votes of 1/4 of voters.
Britain has wonderful propaganda helped by some really weird elements like the local elites sending their children to schools were they learn the fine arts of "managing apperances" (learned behaviours which in many other countries would be considered dishonest and deceitful) plus a media industry which is World class (probably the best Theatre industry in the World, IMHO) often used to project a very good image of the country (its almost a joke how every couple of years, almost like clockwork, out comes a new film about WWII portraying Britain as a great country), so from the outside most people have a good impression of of that country, but if you're living there and get involved in Politics and really learn about their system, the more you learn the less Democratic it seems.
Surprise, it's religious history.
The Guardian shedding crocodile's tears? Boohoo, we spend years vilifying trans people and now look what happened...
Would you prefer a more celebratory article? What's your arguement?
The argument is that the guardian is a fucking piece of shit terf rag that platforms the worst of the worst while pretending to be left of center.
And any occasion is a good occasion to remind them to do better.
Good on you for leaving the EU with at that fuss about “human rights” and “rule of law”.
You might be thinking of the Council of Europe, of which the UK is still a member (for now).
Yeah, I got the ECHR and ECJ mixed up.
For anyone else who didn't recognize those initialisms:
The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and its European Court of Human Rights are part of a completely different legal system to the EU. The ECHR and its court are part of the Council of Europe, which has 47 member states, including Russia and the UK. The EU, on the other hand, consists of 27 Member States.
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) is the body responsible for overseeing compliance with EU law within the EU. That said, the EU and Council of Europe systems are intertwined because the ECHR lies behind many of the general principles of EU law and its provisions have been used as a basis for the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights. All 27 EU member states are also members of the Council of Europe.
Well, that's not so bad then as this case can still be appealed to the European Court of Human Rights then.
I distinctly remember how one of the "benefits" Brexiters claimed for leaving the EU was not having to be a member of the Euopean Convention of Human Rights anymore (which is mandatory for all EU members), so I'm pleasantly surprised the UK hasn't left it yet (I was an EU immigrant in Britain and left the country just before Brexit and didn't really keep up with British politics since).
This case specifically can't be appealed to the ECHR since the scotland act doesn't allow the devolved government to do so (IIRC), so we'll probably have a few years of this until another case works its way up the ladder.
I had to avoid looking at this topic elsewhere because it made me so fucking angry. My best friend in the entire world is trans, and she's coming for Christmas this year. I'm not sure what I'd do if someone harassed her for using the toilet, but I get the feeling my mugshot would be in the paper afterwards.
The UK doesn't even have a written constitution, so everything, including "Rights" is really just one parliamentary majority (which with the country's First Past The Post system can be had for as little as 34% of votes cast, which taking in account the typical levels of abstention means the approval of less than 1/4 of the population) or one Supreme Court decision away from being nullified.
Back when the UK was still a member of the EU (to be an EU member one MUST be a member of the European Convention Of Human Rights), this kinda stuff ended up in the European Court Of Human Rights (which is not an EU court, but instead is the court of last resort for members of the European Convention Of Human Rights), but nowadays maybe that's not so (I'm not sure if the meanwhile after Brexit the UK has already left the European Convention Of Human Rights, but being able to leave it was one of the things the Brexiters claimed was a "benefit" of leaving the EU).
(Edit: it turns out the UK is still a member of the Council of Europe and hence the European Convention Of Human Rights, so maybe this can still be appealed to the European Court Of Human Rights)
I've lived in a couple of countries in Europe, including the UK, and found the UK the be the least Democratic of all (frankly I'm not even sure what they have is a real Democracy rather than a "managed" Theatre Of Democracy to keep the riff-raff thinking they have real power).
passing of the Gender Recognition Act in 2004, which allowed trans people to change gender on their birth certificate
this doesn’t make sense to me, if gender is a social construct then why is it on the birth certificate? shouldn’t it be the sex that’s on the certificate and can’t be changed?
A better question is, why is the government administering it in the first place?
There should be no laws that depend on either gender or sex, so knowing it does not help the government fulfill its obligations. Therefore it is not covered by the public interest and official authority grounds of the GDPR.
There should be no laws that depend on either gender or sex
Ideally, maybe. In a future perfect society. But let's remember that the court case that triggered this was about whether trans women count as women for the purposes of meeting laws that require gender quotas. Quotas that most of us should support because of their importance in combatting existing gender inequalities.
I would say the contradiction you're showing in that hint at how you cannot genuinelly fight Discrimination by keeping on discriminating people on some characteristic they were born with but changing which "group" gets benefited and it should be instead done via fighting against any Discrimination (i.e. fighting explicitly for Equality for all).
It's funny that the only place in the UK I worked in which had gender quotas was the most sexist of them all and women working there were assumed and treated as implicitly less competent than men and even, in some cases, as de facto little more than eye-candy for management (something which was fair for some but unfair for others). Meanwhile my experience in The Netherlands which is way more equalitarian than the UK was very different when it comes to gender discrimination (or discrimination of trans people or of people with minority sexual orientations).
Agreed. The only people that really need to know your biological sex are your doctor and people you're seeking (sexual) relationships with.
For believing that the government has no business with my genitals and also believing that there's nothing inherently wrong with trans people...does that make me a trans inclusionary radical feminist?
When you transition, you in a very literal way change your sex. Chromosomes do very very little for sex differentiation. All a Y chromosome, or specifically the SRY gene, does is tell the gonads to develop into testes. From there on, everything is hormonal. Biological sex is largely determined by hormones, not genetics.
And moreover, very few ever actually have their chromosomes tested. If you think sex is chromosomal, well, you don't actually know your own sex.
Birth certificates are also a social construct and so they have no logical consequence to the question
this post was submitted on 27 Apr 2025
348 points (96.5% liked)
World News
48390 readers
644 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS