Continuation Transwomen are not women - part 13

[TurkeysGhost]

Originally Posted by lionking

Evidence for this ********.

I've asked before, but how about you having a crack at giving one transphobic quote from Rowling? You won't because there isn't one. But you and others will keep repeating Rowling is a TERF/bigot/transphobe with no evidence at all. You should be ashamed of yourself.

https://ew.com/movies/every-harry-po...nder-comments/

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by Aber

It appears that the drivers licence includes a field for "sex" and not "gender", with obvious consequences for single sex spaces.

Can you spell out the obvious consequences here? Are Kansas-based sports leagues, for example, somehow required to go off driver's license rather than birth certificate? Are the Jjimjilbang spas in Topeka required to allow bepenised patrons into female spaces because Kansas law makes driver's licenses determinative in the face of obvious sex markers?

[lionking]

Originally Posted by TurkeysGhost

https://ew.com/movies/every-harry-po...nder-comments/

No. You have nothing. How about transphobic/bigoted posts by Rowland? You don't have anything. Terribly embarrassing for you.

Man up and support your ridiculous claims. You can't. Sad.

[TurkeysGhost]

Originally Posted by lionking

No. You have nothing. How about transphobic/bigoted posts by Rowland? You don't have anything. Terribly embarrassing for you.

Man up and support your ridiculous claims. You can't. Sad.

Geez I've heard of motte and bailey, but cramming both together in the same post is especially lazy.

you disputed that people who have worked with Rowling have denounced her transphobic comments, I provided evidence. The three stars that made their careers off Rowling's work and almost certainly previously had quite a bit of admiration and gratitude towards her have distanced themselves from her as she's made her heel-turn into being an outspoken bigot. Take it up with Emma Watson or whoever if you think they're wrong to do so.

Go cry to someone else if you dispute whether Rowling's comments are TERFy or not, I'm not really interested in convincing you.

[IsThisTheLife]

Originally Posted by lionking

Evidence for this ********.

I've asked before, but how about you having a crack at giving one transphobic quote from Rowling? You won't because there isn't one. But you and others will keep repeating Rowling is a TERF/bigot/transphobe with no evidence at all. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Understand that not being a transphile is "transphobic" (I'll never use that word without quotes around it).

[JoeMorgue]

Quote:

Trans woman wins Miss Netherlands.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/post-...age-on-twitter

I don't care about this for one very, very important reason.

The Venn Diagram on people who really support trans people and the people who think beauty pageants are a good thing in 2023 are going to be two circles with very little overlap.

The kind of person who supports trans people is not going to be the kind of person who thinks parading women on stage to look pretty is a net positive.

And this brings me to the one of the few points where I think do think the Left come across as insufferable and smug; declaring something wrong and in the same voice demanding a greater percentage of it.

I would bet my next mortgage payment that 90%+ of people who present this as a positive would also be the kind of person to denounce the idea of beauty pageant if it came up in any other context.

It's why I got over the Bud Lite thing by like the second day. Because every, EVERY comment about it from my friends on the Left was exactly the same. "Yeah take that bigots, but yeah anyway Bud Lite tastes like piss."

[Darat]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

I don't care about this for one very, very important reason.

The Venn Diagram on people who really support trans people and the people who think beauty pageants are a good thing in 2023 are going to be two circles with very little overlap.

...snip...

Showing your age - the youngsters today are back with being OK with beauty pageants - often they are titled something like "Love Island" these days but they are all about the beauty.

It seems the age we matured in when it was considered demeaning that women were being judged for their closeness to some ideal physical stereotype was the blip.

ETA: Which is why - I think - you struggle with the idea that some trans folk and some trans activists appear to want to resurrect the stereotype of what a woman is "allowed" to look like, we grew up with the feminism that was saying a woman could be anything and a woman didn't have to conform to a past physical stereotype of what a woman was or how a woman could behave. The popular image from back then was the "Lad-et", a woman who could party and drink as they wanted, fart as they wanted and pick their noses.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by TurkeysGhost

https://ew.com/movies/every-harry-po...nder-comments/

You were asked to provide a transphobic quote from Rowling. Instead, you provided a link that contains no quotes from Rowling at all.

Yeah, some actors denounced her. So what?

[TurkeysGhost]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

I don't care about this for one very, very important reason.

The Venn Diagram on people who really support trans people and the people who think beauty pageants are a good thing in 2023 are going to be two circles with very little overlap.

The kind of person who supports trans people is not going to be the kind of person who thinks parading women on stage to look pretty is a net positive.

And this brings me to the one of the few points where I think do think the Left come across as insufferable and smug; declaring something wrong and in the same voice demanding a greater percentage of it.

I would bet my next mortgage payment that 90%+ of people who present this as a positive would also be the kind of person to denounce the idea of beauty pageant if it came up in any other context.

It's why I got over the Bud Lite thing by like the second day. Because every, EVERY comment about it from my friends on the Left was exactly the same. "Yeah take that bigots, but yeah anyway Bud Lite tastes like piss."

I'm failing to see how a trans woman participating in a beauty pageant says much about the left's opinion about these events. Sure, anti-trans policies are currently a politically hot issue and the right has historically been quite hostile to queer people in a way that generally drives them towards more liberal or even left politics, but it's presumptuous to assume that every trans person is seeing things that way.

Trans people are people like anyone else, some have their own esoteric and perhaps even baffling views of the world. hard to say what motivates a trans woman to enter a beauty pageant or how they feel about them generally without asking her directly. Entirely possible this person has a more antiquated, anti-feminist perspective that is entirely consistent with entering a dog-and-pony show.

The "bud lite tastes like piss" strikes me as a more generational than left-right divide. American lite beer is pretty bad and younger markets are increasingly gravitating towards alternatives.

[TurkeysGhost]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

You were asked to provide a transphobic quote from Rowling. Instead, you provided a link that contains no quotes from Rowling at all.

Yeah, some actors denounced her. So what?

I dunno, i didn't think it was that controversial to state this plain fact that Harry Potter personalities have publicly distanced themselves from Rowling, but evidence was demanded and I provided it. Take it up with lionking who seems skeptical of this claim.

[Samson]

There was a failed attempt to repair the fake media reporting of this man's crime, since he was factually misgendered by the supreme court.

https://www.mediacouncil.org.nz/ruli...nst-nz-herald/

Someone might correct me with reasoning, and say he was correctly written up by the court.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

I really doubt that; most of what has been belabored here are single-sex spaces and leagues and whatnot.

What has been belabored is the rational basis for establishing and preserving sex segregation in a few key aspects of society.

Quote:

Is it your assumption that the driver's license markers would somehow change those other things?

State-endorsed fiat self-ID will of course affect wether transwomen will be able to transcend sex segregation on the basis of self-ID, and will also affect how they are reported statistically.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by TurkeysGhost

...snip...

Trans people are people like anyone else, some have their own esoteric and perhaps even baffling views of the world. hard to say what motivates a trans woman to enter a beauty pageant or how they feel about them generally without asking her directly. Entirely possible this person has a more antiquated, anti-feminist perspective that is entirely consistent with entering a dog-and-pony show.

...snip....

Or a more "up-to-date" feminist perspective which holds that if a woman wants to be a "barbie" (for a brief generalisation) that's fine, and if she doesn't that's also fine. The feminists of my youth - 80s and 90s - would vilify the women entering such competitions and hold them in more contempt than the men who arranged and then ogled and judged them.

(Of course, this is all overly broad stroke generalisations that ignores all subtleties.)

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Samson

There was a failed attempt to repair the fake media reporting of this man's crime, since he was factually misgendered by the supreme court.

https://www.mediacouncil.org.nz/ruli...nst-nz-herald/

Someone might correct me with reasoning, and say he was correctly written up by the court.

The article and decision was whether the newspaper accurately reported on what happened not the court.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by TurkeysGhost

Or JK Rowling, who could have spent the rest of her life on PR autopilot and been a mega celebrity much beloved by a generation of children who grew up with her books, to now being denounced by like half the people who ever worked with her and people treating Harry Potter fandom as a guilty pleasure.

Kinda sad how the TERF brain worms destroy people's lives like this. Rowling could be jetskiing in olympic sized pools filled with expensive champagne every day or pursuing luxuries that you and I can't even imagine, but rather she spends her time slap fighting on social media and writing bad fiction with strawman versions of her targets of derision. Real sicko stuff.

You have this backwards. Rowling hasn't ruined her life. She's untouchable. She has more than enough money for the rest of her life, and her properties are still so profitable that Warner Brothers and her publisher aren't going to drop her no matter how much anyone protests. As for fan sentiment, how'd that boycott against the Hogwarts Legacy game turn out? Oh. Don't confuse Twitter with real life.

What's sad is the actors who are denouncing her because they have to, or their lives will be ruined. They're not allowed to show gratitude towards the person who made them, but must kowtow to a bunch of lunatics who have done nothing for them and don't actually care about their welfare. That's pathetic.

And as for getting into online slap fights, if you really think that's such a terrible thing to do, why are you here, getting into online slap fights?

[TurkeysGhost]

Originally Posted by Darat

Or a more "up-to-date" feminist perspective which holds that if a woman wants to be a "barbie" (for a brief generalisation) that's fine, and if she doesn't that's also fine. The feminists of my youth - 80s and 90s - would vilify the women entering such competitions and hold them in more contempt than the men who arranged and then ogled and judged them.

(Of course, this is all overly broad stroke generalisations that ignores all subtleties.)

Sure, perhaps I'm speaking too glibly. There's tons of discussion and often quite intense disagreement even within feminist communities about whether or not women allowing themselves to be objectified (to varying extents) is good or bad, not to mention the often quite bitter debate over outright sex work and on and on it goes. Not trying to derail too far off topic. On the other side of things, beauty pageants are very aware of the negative stereotypes they are associated with and many have tried to clean up this perception while still being true to their roots. How successful these efforts have been is entirely subjective.

Suffice it to say my point is that a trans woman deciding to participate in a beauty pageant is not a referendum of the broader left on whether or not beauty pageants are regressive or not. Trans people are not a hivemind, neither is "the left".

[TurkeysGhost]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

You have this backwards. Rowling hasn't ruined her life. She's untouchable. She has more than enough money for the rest of her life, and her properties are still so profitable that Warner Brothers and her publisher aren't going to drop her no matter how much anyone protests. As for fan sentiment, how'd that boycott against the Hogwarts Legacy game turn out? Oh. Don't confuse Twitter with real life.

Well yeah, she has nothing to lose but her reputation. Rich people are pretty much untouchable, except in the most literal sense. Legacy is often sometimes people who don't have real problems worry about, maybe Rowling just doesn't care or maybe she thinks history will vindicate her position. hard to say. I agree there's basically no amount of reputational harm to Rowling that could have a meaningful material impact on her life considering her immense wealth.

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

What's sad is the actors who are denouncing her because they have to, or their lives will be ruined. They're not allowed to show gratitude towards the person who made them, but must kowtow to a bunch of lunatics who have done nothing for them and don't actually care about their welfare. That's pathetic.

Pretty weird to say this right after your comment about how Rowling is too rich to care. Watson, Radcliffe, and Grint are likewise sitting quite pretty. They got paid quite handsomely for these movies and probably get fat residual checks with regularity. They might want to keep working as an actor (presumably they get some pleasure out of it), but they aren't ever going to be hurting for money or beholden to another human being unless they want to be.

Awfully presumptuous to assume these people were pressured into this. Watson especially seems like someone not afraid to speak her mind. Seems really, really unlikely that at least some of them aren't being sincere when disowning Rowling.

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

And as for getting into online slap fights, if you really think that's such a terrible thing to do, why are you here, getting into online slap fights?

If I were rich I'd like to think i could afford better hobbies.

[Samson]

Originally Posted by Darat

The article and decision was whether the newspaper accurately reported on what happened not the court.

The decision supported the factual misgendering of a man.
Sex self id should be disallowed in some cases if not all.

[Chanakya]

I've looked in on this thread occasionally, occasionally exchanged a few comments with others, but so far by and large stayed sitting on the fence. Well, at this time, and thanks mostly to what I've seen people post here, I'm going to jump off the fence, to the one side on one issue, and to the other side on another issue.

-----

As far as these surgeries on pre-pubescents: That seems completely ****** up to me. Something as drastic as this should not be done without expert psychological evaluation. And I'm not sure how much psychological evaluation can ever be enough, given how ...fickle, are children's minds. How justifiedly fickle, given how little they've seen of the world, so that it stands to reason that they'll keep changing their mind as they learn more about themselves and more about the world.

I think the surgery option should be administered only to adults, who, for better or for worse, can take responsibility for their decisions. Not children. Not pre-pubescents.

(I suppose we can make exceptions for those rarest-of-the-rare cases, where actual experts can for all purposes guarantee that they've evaluated the child thoroughly enough to be almost 100% sure that a change of sex is what they do permanently want --- should such expertise even be a thing, and I don't know if it is. But this surgery business should NOT be generally available, not for children, absolutely not.)

-----

And this thing, where transwomen are winning beauty contests? That is perfectly fine, by my lights, without a shadow of doubt.

When it comes to sports, sure, it has rightly been argued that transwomen are at huge advantage compared to their cis sisters. There the argument was about whether that advantage is fair, given that so many other kinds of advantages people are allowed to get away with, and take full advantage of over those at a disadvantage, like height for instance, and so on. Net net I was, and continue to be, firmly on the fence on the sports issue, seeing merit on both sides to the argument. Like I'd said before, should there be a vote on this, I'd abstain.

But beauty pageants? This is one area, one contest, where, if anything, the transwoman is decidedly at a disadvantage. If despite that she can win the contest, then more power to her. Those protesting this really have zero grounds, other than merely their personal taste; the fairness argument simply does not apply here, or if it does then it does so actually on the side of the transwoman. For what it's worth, I'm firmly on the side of transwomen being allowed to compete in and win. Should other contestants not like losing to her, then that's simply them being sore losers. Should there be a vote on this very specific issue, then I'll certainly vote on the side of the transwoman contestants.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by TurkeysGhost

Well yeah, she has nothing to lose but her reputation.

Reputation with whom?

Quote:

Pretty weird to say this right after your comment about how Rowling is too rich to care. Watson, Radcliffe, and Grint are likewise sitting quite pretty.

Not like Rowling. Rowling is uncancellable, as the Hogwart's Legacy failed boycott demonstrates. The rest are not. They can easily be cancelled, and even if they literally have enough money to retire on, they don't have enough money to live the kind of life they want to live without getting more work. And they can't get that work without peer approval.

Quote:

Awfully presumptuous to assume these people were pressured into this rather than sincere.

Oh, I suspect some of them were. But I recognize a Maoist denunciation when I see one.

Quote:

Watson especially seems like someone not afraid to speak her mind.

Yeah, she's probably one of the sincere ones. But she is also a prime example of an intelligent fool, who doesn't recognize her own privilege. She's drunk the far left Koolaid.

[Myriad]

Originally Posted by TurkeysGhost

Or JK Rowling, who could have spent the rest of her life on PR autopilot and been a mega celebrity much beloved by a generation of children who grew up with her books, to now being denounced by like half the people who ever worked with her and people treating Harry Potter fandom as a guilty pleasure.

Kinda sad how the TERF brain worms destroy people's lives like this. Rowling could be jetskiing in olympic sized pools filled with expensive champagne every day or pursuing luxuries that you and I can't even imagine, but rather she spends her time slap fighting on social media and writing bad fiction with strawman versions of her targets of derision. Real sicko stuff.

If only she'd kept to her place! Nibbling bonbons and hosting garden parties and other such luxuries would have been so much more suitable than getting involved in social issues a mere female couldn't possibly understand. But when a woman has independent wealth, it's difficult for her husband to keep her in line.

[TurkeysGhost]

Originally Posted by Myriad

If only she'd kept to her place! Nibbling bonbons and hosting garden parties and other such luxuries would have been so much more suitable than getting involved in social issues a mere female couldn't possibly understand. But when a woman has independent wealth, it's difficult for her husband to keep her in line.

The same idiotic framing equally applies to Watson who has quite publicly rebuked Rowling. Maybe the little lady ought to mind her benefactors and stay quiet while the adults are talking

[TurkeysGhost]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Reputation with whom?

Don't be tiresome. Obviously reputation is in the eye of the beholder. For some, Rowling's pivot to TERFism makes her a hero, to others a villain, and to others they don't care or even know. At least to my eye she very much begrudges those that see her crusade as ignoble. In the UK there seems to be far more openness to this brand of liberal transphobia (at least at the elite/pundit level), where in the US TERFism seems to be entirely irrelevant when it comes to these broader issues. TERF island is a very interesting example and in many ways seems a special case. I imagine a lot of the mixed feelings about Rowling can be drawn by the UK/US cultural divide.

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Not like Rowling. Rowling is uncancellable, as the Hogwart's Legacy failed boycott demonstrates. The rest are not. They can easily be cancelled, and even if they literally have enough money to retire on, they don't have enough money to live the kind of life they want to live without getting more work. And they can't get that work without peer approval.

The Hogwarts game "boycott" was stupid, no argument from me. People on the internet are far too quick to declare things like "boycott" with no actual intention to follow through or realistic idea on how to make these things work. It's pretty tedious to see people constantly declaring toothless boycotts that are rapidly forgotten, but it seems to be a common occurrence for all stripes. (are people still "boycotting" nestle?)

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Oh, I suspect some of them were. But I recognize a Maoist denunciation when I see one.

Actually I'm a posadist. Respect the dolphin, bro

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Yeah, she's probably one of the sincere ones. But she is also a prime example of an intelligent fool, who doesn't recognize her own privilege. She's drunk the far left Koolaid.

I appreciate it. This thread is tedious enough already, I'm glad you do me the courtesy of entertaining that at least some of these high profile figures that have denounced Rowling aren't just being cowed by the oppressive forces of Cultural Marxism.

[IsThisTheLife]

TRA's who think they've successfully "ruined J K Rowling's reputation" are as delusional in this as in everything else. LoL.

[Myriad]

Originally Posted by TurkeysGhost

The same idiotic framing equally applies to Watson who has quite publicly rebuked Rowling. Maybe the little lady ought to mind her benefactors and stay quiet while the adults are talking

I agree it's idiotic, but you were the one posting the classic 19th-century "she would have been so much happier if she'd just known her place" narrative.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Chanakya

But beauty pageants? This is one area, one contest, where, if anything, the transwoman is decidedly at a disadvantage. If despite that she can win the contest, then more power to her. Those protesting this really have zero grounds, other than merely their personal taste;

That's true, but I don't think that's the end of the story, because I don't think that's as trivial a thing as you make it out to be. In some sense, a beauty pageant is an evaluation on the basis of nothing but taste. And if you're the kind of person who previously liked beauty pageants (I'm not) and the judges' tastes reflected your tastes, then if the judges' tastes suddenly change to no longer match your tastes, it's not unreasonable to be upset about it. Yeah, it's not a matter of unfairness like sports, but the pageant is still abandoning the preferences of at least some percentage of its former customer base. And nobody likes to have their preferences disregarded, even in "trivial" matters like entertainment. That would be equally true if the change was they started promoting obese women, or women who had ridiculously over-inflated collagen lips, or whatever. If you tell a customer their preferences no longer matter, they're going to be upset. And that's the part of this your post didn't grapple with. Now, that doesn't mean that pageants should never change their standards, or that the standards they have now are wrong. But it's not unreasonable for fans (the customers) to be unhappy about the changes.

[TurkeysGhost]

Originally Posted by Myriad

I agree it's idiotic, but you were the one posting the classic 19th-century "she would have been so much happier if she'd just known her place" narrative.

You're right that I don't know much about her inner mind and how happy she is, I can only speculate based on her public appearances. Maybe being the defender of cis womanhood from the trans menace is her dream job, who knows?

That said, it seems pretty non-subjective to say that her reputation would be much less controversial had she not waded into these matters.

Like I said, maybe history will vindicate her position (I doubt it), but it's not out of left field that her reputation has an asterisk applied to it now.

Rowling's anti-trans comments show have their own section on her wikipedia page, it's part of her reputation (good or bad) now.

[gnome]

redundant

[Chanakya]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

That's true, but I don't think that's the end of the story, because I don't think that's as trivial a thing as you make it out to be. In some sense, a beauty pageant is an evaluation on the basis of nothing but taste. And if you're the kind of person who previously liked beauty pageants (I'm not) and the judges' tastes reflected your tastes, then if the judges' tastes suddenly change to no longer match your tastes, it's not unreasonable to be upset about it. Yeah, it's not a matter of unfairness like sports, but the pageant is still abandoning the preferences of at least some percentage of its former customer base. And nobody likes to have their preferences disregarded, even in "trivial" matters like entertainment. That would be equally true if the change was they started promoting obese women, or women who had ridiculously over-inflated collagen lips, or whatever. If you tell a customer their preferences no longer matter, they're going to be upset. And that's the part of this your post didn't grapple with. Now, that doesn't mean that pageants should never change their standards, or that the standards they have now are wrong. But it's not unreasonable for fans (the customers) to be unhappy about the changes.

"Upset" in that sense, sure, why not. That's kind of like backing one contestant, and getting pissed that she ended up losing to someone who doesn't come anywhere close. That isn't unreasonable. Even voluble protest, in that sense of protesting, is fair enough, in terms of protesting the judges' decision. But none of that can reasonably be translated into not allowing transwomen to compete, is what I'm saying. (Not sure, tbh, if anyone has actually argued that. But people have commented ironically and sarcastically about this, which ...well, if they're being sarcastic about one specific choice, that's one thing; but if they're being sarcastic about the trend of transwomen starting to compete and women in beauty contests, then that's a different thing, that ...well, does not come across as nice.)

By that way, the part where you said you don't like beauty contests. Never actually thought about it, until now, but I guess I both do and don't. In principle I'm opposed to them. But in practice I sometimes do watch them, and like it too. That may or may not spell hypocrisy, I'm not sure!

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Samson

The decision supported the factual misgendering of a man.
Sex self id should be disallowed in some cases if not all.

No the decision said there was no case for the newspaper to answer.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by theprestige

State-endorsed fiat self-ID will of course affect wether transwomen will be able to transcend sex segregation on the basis of self-ID, and will also affect how they are reported statistically.

Can you spell out the "of course" part here? Are Kansas-based sports leagues, for example, somehow required to go off driver's license rather than birth certificate? Are the Jjimjilbang spas in Topeka required to allow bepenised patrons into female spaces because Kansas law makes driver's licenses determinative in the face of obvious sex markers? Why should we expect driver's licenses to determine all these other matters?



Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Can you spell out the "of course" part here? Are Kansas-based sports leagues, for example, somehow required to go off driver's license rather than birth certificate?

New York allows self-ID changes to birth certificate gender.

https://www.nyc.gov/site/doh/service...ons-birth.page

Using a birth certificate rather than a driver's license changes nothing when the state uses fiat self ID.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

New York allows self-ID changes to birth certificate gender.



https://www.nyc.gov/site/doh/service...ons-birth.page



Using a birth certificate rather than a driver's license changes nothing when the state uses fiat self ID.

Okay, but the article I linked was about KS not NY and driver's licenses not birth certificates.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Okay, but the article I linked was about KS not NY and driver's licenses not birth certificates.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

theprestige's more recent post wasn't about KS specifically, but about states that accept fiat self-ID. If the state accepts self-ID for some purposes but not others, then it doesn't fully accept self-ID.

New York appears to fully accept fiat self-ID.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by Darat

Or a more "up-to-date" feminist perspective which holds that if a woman wants to be a "barbie" (for a brief generalisation) that's fine, and if she doesn't that's also fine. The feminists of my youth - 80s and 90s - would vilify the women entering such competitions and hold them in more contempt than the men who arranged and then ogled and judged them.

(Of course, this is all overly broad stroke generalisations that ignores all subtleties.)

The, and this is all for lack of a better word, "cutting edge" of social advancement always has an element of that to it, that "traitors" are worse than enemies. I've often times observed that there always seems to be a demographic who is far more angry at people who think 2+2=5 then those who think 2+2=343 or 2+2=a potato.

Some of it is that running cause purity tests on people that think 99% like you is easier and less risky then actually arguing with people who have actual core functional disagreements with you.

It is something that seems to cool down as the movement advances from fringe to mainstream.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

The, and this is all for lack of a better word, "cutting edge" of social advancement always has an element of that to it, that "traitors" are worse than enemies.

Apostasy is always worse than heresy, not only on the cutting edge.

Which I think explains the vitriol of the backlash against Rowling. The TRA's expected her to be on their side.

[JoeMorgue]

Real talk. I don't think the Left would hate Musk nearly as much as they do at this exact moment in time if had gotten famous making gas cars and literally nothing else about the situation changed.

Yes there is, hard to define and harder to measure but I think there, element "But you were supposed to be on my side!" element to some of this that manifest is a certain type of anger.

We're drifting a little from topic but I do think this is a factor in how some of this discourse pans out.

[TurkeysGhost]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Apostasy is always worse than heresy, not only on the cutting edge.

Which I think explains the vitriol of the backlash against Rowling. The TRA's expected her to be on their side.

Not really unreasonable for liberals to expect other supposed liberals to take liberal positions. The existence of liberal transphobia (mostly on TERF island) is understandably galling.

It would be like a libertarian who thought age of consent laws were a good thing, totally out of sync with the whole project.

Joking aside, people generally tend to have higher expectations of those they see as their ideological allies (supposed or actual) than those they see as their adversaries.

In a two party system like in the US, often the most intense and consequential ideological battles occur within the primary or intraparty level, and that's not a left or right thing but universal.

[JoeMorgue]

And like I keep saying the worst thing the internet has done has taken social stances and turn them into fandoms, and the worst kind of fandoms the type that don't understand that 99% of people functionally on their side aren't part of their fandom.

[TurkeysGhost]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

And like I keep saying the worst thing the internet has done has taken social stances and turn them into fandoms, and the worst kind of fandoms the type that don't understand that 99% of people functionally on their side aren't part of their fandom.

This is nothing new.

Intraparty fights have a long, long history. It's the kind of thing that'll get you ice-picked in Mexico or you head stomp in by riot cops in Chicago, no internet required.

I wouldn't hand wave away these differences as "fandom". Whether or not the Labor Party in the UK is pro or anti-trans rights is a significant question for people, not trivial.

I find it strange that so many people hand wave away these kinds of civil rights questions as "social issues", as if that means they're less worthy of attention or earnest advocacy. i assure you these "social issues" have serious material impacts on lots of people, even if you or I are not one of them.