He craves human contact. He asks his sister if she has someone to hug. She replies, “My children.” But that word reminds him of something that’s even more forbidden than his desires…
As if to coincide with PRIDE month, June, a startling irony has been unfolding. You must have heard about JK Rowling’s “transphobic tweets”, a response to a devex.com headline that went “Creating a more equal post-COVID-19 world for people who menstruate”. Rowling mocked the headline’s use of the word “people”, saying that there was already a word for those who menstruate and that word is “women”. The denouncements, expectedly, came quickly. Many people online pointed out that Rowling had failed to consider transgender men who menstruate, transgender women who don’t menstruate, cis-gender women who no longer menstruate, and other categories of people who would be excluded if her “definition” were to be strictly followed.
Read the rest of this article here: https://www.firstpost.com/entertainment/reading-jk-rowlings-tweets-through-the-prism-of-polish-filmmaker-malgorzata-szumowskas-in-the-name-of-8476371.html
Copyright ©2020 Firstpost.
Baradwaj Rangan 
nikkie1602
June 13, 2020
J.K. Rowling continues to dig herself into a hole. Her essay as an attempt at an explanation of the tweets is pure cringe.
Sex and gender are complicated. I don’t think anybody fully understands what constitutes the trans experience. I don’t think we can even articulate successfully what it means to subjectively experience a gender. What we can do is to have empathy and be humble enough to not make sweeping declarations that just about erase the very real and viscerally felt sense of identity of a person. It’s sad really because she created such a beautiful world.
I liked what Daniel Radcliffe had to say about the art/artist thing. That what we shared with the books was something special. That it is highly unlikely that now our relationship with the books aren’t tainted but he hopes it isn’t tainted too much.
LikeLike
Voldemort (need a new moniker)
June 13, 2020
I had posted the link to her tweets on another thread, wondering what the well read and articulate people on this blog thought of it.
I am ashamed to admit this, last year when Rowling responded in a similar manner, I gave her the benefit of doubt. And I thought it was all one mistake. But continued bad behaviour is a choice.
Learning to separate art from the artist is really tough. Its like Ms. Rowling taught us about Slytherin and Voldemort so that we can hate her for this?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Voldemort
June 13, 2020
And I just couldn’t fully comprehend her tweets as well. How can saying “sex is real” and “I know and love trans people” come within 500 letters of each other?
LikeLike
tonks
June 13, 2020
Reposting my comment here :
While I understand that transwomen are women too, and should be treated as such, I also understand the people who worry about abuse if anyone who claims to be trans is let into women- only places. Would there be people (non-trans) taking advantage of such rules?
Am I the only one with ambiguous feelings about this matter?
Perhaps what it comes down to is a classic generational divide. Many families will have gathered round the dinner table with their young adult children during lockdown and found they are at loggerheads over this issue. Jonathan Ross was one who responded positively to Rowling’s initial tweet on “people who menstruate”. “For those who accuse her of transphobia,” he replied, “please read what she wrote. She is clearly not”
A couple of days later, however, the chat-show host reported that he had been challenged about that endorsement by his 23-year-old daughter, Honey, and had changed his tune. “I’ve come to accept that I’m not in a position to decide what is and isn’t considered transphobic.”
He doesn’t explain why, and it felt like he was reading from a script. Perhaps he doesn’t even quite understand himself what he had done wrong. For over this especially toxic question, the experience of talking at cross-purposes, with an unfathomable gulf between the generations, doesn’t seem to be confined to either the Rosses, or the currently fractured Harry Potter “family”
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/entertainment/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501119&objectid=12339244&utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=nzh_fb
LikeLike
Madan
June 13, 2020
I am posting the essay here. Not going to comment on it. But let people read the essay before they make up minds on this.
https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-rowling-writes-about-her-reasons-for-speaking-out-on-sex-and-gender-issues/
LikeLike
Madan
June 13, 2020
Would like to add, by the way, that if the purpose of her essay was to defend her comment on ‘people who menstruate’, I do not think the essay serves THAT purpose except as a whataboutism.
LikeLike
Rahini David
June 13, 2020
Ex-Voldemort, what was the previous instance about?
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
June 14, 2020
I was, frankly, zapped when I read it. Perhaps because we conflate the creation with the creator. S/he can’t be homophobic/transphobic/misogynist/sexist/[insert adjective of your choice here] because, ‘Look at the creation!”
I love the Harry Potter books, with all their flaws. In my mind I had a picture of Rowling that’s completely been erased by the tweet and the whataboutism that followed. The essay was cringeworthy.
As nikkie points out above, we, none of us, can really understand the trans experience. To a large extent, let me also say that it is difficult for me to put myself into LGBTQ shoes – they are what I’m not. And ‘trans’ is even more complicated because I cannot imagine being trapped in a body of a different gender (and I agree that this is just a very simplistic definition of trans people).
What I can do, however, is accept that sex and gender issues are more complicated than what we know about them even today. And in today’s times, I’m sorely reminded of the quote attributed to Abraham Lincoln: Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Madan
June 14, 2020
tonks : You’re definitely not alone in having concerns. But my take, harsh as it sounds, is the issues are very specifically pertinent to women so I as a man am going to stay out of the way. Because I don’t want to be told, “Oh, you’re just projecting your transphobia and using women as a conduit”. In that case, I am like, “shrug gonna stay the fuck out of this”. Navratilova spoke out last year. Now it’s JKR digging her heels. Others will/may or they may not, let’s see how it rolls.
Related: This is why I stay away from Twitter and strongly advise people to, unless you only use it as a push device for promotion of your work. JK’s tweet probably came out of acting on her anger at bullying by trans activists and in the process ended up hurting other trans people she may have never met. Twitter is so dangerous in the way it makes us act as the most infantile, unthinking version of ourselves.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Varsha Ganesh
June 14, 2020
She is just another person who has an opinion. In my view, we need to be able to separate people whose ‘actions’ are vile from people who hold opinions that you may disagree with. She’s a young adult novel author, even if she’s the most successful one. She’s not setting policies in government. I find it hard to believe that people whose minds aren’t made up are going to form an opinion based on whatever she says or doesn’t say. She has had trauma in the past and we can let her fight this battle out herself, as it mostly seems to be between different voices in her head. Her fault is airing this out as it’s completely unnecessary and doesn’t serve anyone. As long as she’s not ‘acting’ transphobically. Acting constituting not employing trans people if she has capacity to, causing physical discomfort/harm.
I wish she didn’t say whatever she said. But I also don’t think it’s worth everyone getting so riled up about. There are actual issues that aren’t just people’s opinions that needs looking into. Like the transgender health protection clause that’s being struck down right now. It’s not a question of we can’t think about two issues at the same time either. News cycle fatigue is real and people whose awareness is already low are going to stop caring if it’s just outrage after outrage for everything.
I would love to hear If you think my opinion above is faulty. I’m trying to make sense of this too and the regular commenters here always have a nuanced view.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Arjun
June 14, 2020
Wokes and Progs cannibalizing feminists. ROFLMAO is the best I can muster.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Madan
June 14, 2020
Arjun: Whether Trump reaps the benefits of it or not, Republican Party is starting at a super majority coalition few years down the line at this rate. Dems’ majority-minority dreams will get wiped out.
LikeLike
krishikari
June 14, 2020
Here are some of my opinions which I’m open to changing if something better comes along.
Twitter is bad but facebook is worse.
Sexual reassignment surgery on the very young has become increasingly common, and I think that’s dangerous because I have met terrible, absolutely untrustworthy professionals working in child psychology.
I don’t think what J.K. said in the essay was so terrible, only the bathroom part.
I did not think the HP books were especially well written.
I don’t care who uses public bathrooms, let them all be open to all sexes and genders. I’ll just use the clean ones.
The definitions of the words sex and gender are not fully understood by most people, plus language is always changing so that doesn’t help.
I also don’t understand the trans experience, so I’ll listen to them.
I think activists should not issue personal threats
Why is the word “man” not up for grabs, only “woman” is?
@madan Why do you think these issues are specifically pertinent to women? I thought they were specifically pertinent to men.
LikeLiked by 1 person
nikkie1602
June 14, 2020
@tonks: https://time.com/4314896/transgender-bathroom-bill-male-predators-argument/
LikeLiked by 1 person
KS
June 14, 2020
The idea that calling people who menstruate women would exclude “transgender men who menstruate, transgender women who don’t menstruate, cis-gender women who no longer menstruate, and other categories of people ” reminds me of the following joke:
A wife says to her husband, a computer scientist:
“Could you please go to the market and buy a carton of milk, and if they have eggs please buy 6”
So the husband goes to the supermarket and comes back with 6 cartons of milk
When she sees that the wife asks: “Why did you do that?”
And the husband replies: “Well, they had eggs.”
I totally agree with Varsha Ganesh here. Opinions of private individuals, however vile, are usually of little consequence. The only people whose opinions we should be concerned about are political leaders and billionaires, because they can actually act on their beliefs and affect everybody else. Even religious leaders in todays time have less influence. Celebrities, for all their popularity, have almost no influence on matters outside their domain. They might like to believe that as popular artists, they can affect peoples’ worldviews and change society. But thats a stretch.
A good example would be the bipolar relationship between Kamalahassan and TamBrahms. On the one hand, Kamal is the Saraswati Kadaksham poster boy for TamBrahms, but as soon as he starts spewing his commie opinions, he is quickly dismissed as a copycat, screen-hog, traitor, characterless womaniser, drunkard, etc. Its a similar situation with Rajini when it comes to politics. He’s the darling of the masses, but if you don’t like his opinions, he becomes a BJP-stooge or talentless fraud. Point being that celebrity opinions have value only as long as you agree with them.
Also, maybe I’m out of the loop, but is what she said offensive? Or is it another instance of the outrage industry telling us what should be considered offensive? After all, church leaders in the west regularly spout the vilest of statements on such issues. More than whataboutery, I’m talking about the uneven standards we have come to accept, where a religious leader saying something on the lines of “maybe we need not kill the gays” is seen as revolutionary kindness, but a celebrity saying “sex is real” is transphobic and hateful. Reminds me of another Tamil idiom or parable I heard my mom use, which roughly goes as follows: a beggar gets food everyday from a kind lady, while her neighbor would cruelly shoo him away. One day the kind lady has no food to give, while the neighbor lady gives him her leftovers. He says to her “the moodevi who gives me food everyday gave me nothing, but you’re my Mahalakshmi who has never given me food before but blessed me today”.
LikeLiked by 2 people
nikkie1602
June 14, 2020
Why is calling her out wrong? This isn’t the first time she has spoken about these issues. She has done it in the past too, was called out but then apparently did not learn anything from that. She is looked upto by a lot of people. Her influence is considerable. If she can be lauded for her performative wokeness of retconning Dumbledore’s sexuality then she can be called out for her transphobia and also her doubling down on it.
There are resources available plenty. Research backed. In this day and age, there is no excuse really. It shouldn’t be on the trans community to educate us. We can and should do that on our own. We may not be able to comprehend these issues fully, but we can offer support and most importantly just listen to those who get affected the most.
Words are powerful. The ones used to claim and reclaim an identity have real consequences.
LikeLiked by 1 person
ItsVerySimple
June 14, 2020
It’s not my place to tell women and trans community what to do about the restroom issue, but as a man, it’s clear enough to me that the issue here is not about transwomen but men who “claim” to be women and access women’s restrooms to assault women and girls or simply, predators. We could bring in sophisticated checks at the restroom doors to somehow stop these men but I think – it’s always fascinating how this point almost never gets addressed in this debate – it begins and end with transwomen’s restroom access – these predators are already out in the world, just a few steps outside the women’s restroom, having all the access they want to women and kids through their skills and their positions in the society – they could be drivers, teachers, coaches, employers, bosses. I assume there is no way to “check” these predators even if we wanted to. Just for fun’s sake, let’s try putting some limitations on the how cis men should move around and navigate in this world since they tend to make the bunch of predators. I mean – let’s just try floating some ideas and let’s see how it pans out.
Till that’s figured out, the minorities can pay for a problem that’s not even theirs and live – sometimes their entire – life in turmoil.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Madan
June 14, 2020
“Why do you think these issues are specifically pertinent to women? I thought they were specifically pertinent to men.” – The issue of men transitioning to women without reassignment surgery and wishing to present themselves as women including using women’s bathrooms specifically relates to women. Would I be affected if a trans woman looking like a man for all practical purposes decided one fine Sunday that she/he wants to use the men’s toilet? No. Would a professional male sportsperson be affected if a transitioned woman retransitions and plays in the male sport circuit? No. These issues affect women.
Going further, it is clear that, as JK covered in her essay, that a section of trans activists are making a political attack on feminism and women’s rights and want to appropriate a part of it for themselves.
Pl see here for an example of what’s up:
http://www.grrlalex.co.uk/what-is-transgender/?fbclid=IwAR0SeEIPTyXnZlqtyQQ0aFWkBM743Ljrsmdmt4OBLqtg3Sv9W2Dh8r8G0zI
I quote: “The ‘grrl’ part of grrlAlex is pronounced ‘girl’ but references a post-feminist ideology that questions and challenges female norms.”
As JK complains in the article, female identity was and continues to be defined by men in opposition to their own. And now you have the trans community joining this fight. I am sure there is a way to negotiate this through mature dialogue but that is evidently not an option today. Social media makes it too easy for people to turn into keyboard warriors.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Madan
June 14, 2020
“Just for fun’s sake, let’s try putting some limitations on the how cis men should move around and navigate in this world since they tend to make the bunch of predators.” – Not just for fun’s sake but serious. We need to, this is the need of the hour. As Rajeev Nigam would say, “Ab Bahut Hua Samman”.
LikeLike
Rahini David
June 14, 2020
I am trying to think of a situation of an assault on a woman because of allowing transpeople into restrooms and a real man misusing the option. The comment sounds a bit sarcastic and the questions sound rhetoric, but I actually am really asking these questions.
This apparently cannot happen in a crowded shop’s, or theatre’s or restaurant’s restroom facility. Other women will raise an alarm.
If it is secluded enough, say in night time, can the predator not enter anyway for the assault? Do security personnel stand around checking if people enter the right restroom?
I really can’t imagine a man trying this in an office. I mean he cannot possibly fill out all the paper work as a transwoman who was born a man just to eventually rape a woman when the situation was favorable to him.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Madan
June 14, 2020
“I mean he cannot possibly fill out all the paper work as a transwoman who was born a man just to eventually rape a woman when the situation was favorable to him” – He wouldn’t have to, unless the proposal is to ID transpeople before letting them use the bathroom of their choice. Is there going to be a guard stationed all the time then by the bathroom? How practicable is that?
There is and has always been the risk of a man making so bold as to just enter the wrong restroom anyway. But unless there is a foolproof system of making sure only trans women who look like men and not men in the guise of women are getting in, there is every possibility of the risk going up by making it easier for men to enter in this way. And strictly speaking, it doesn’t have to be for an attempted assault. If somebody does this just to check out women or whatever morbid reason falling short of a crime there might be, it is still wrong, it is still an intrusion.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rahul
June 14, 2020
“I wish she didn’t say whatever she said. But I also don’t think it’s worth everyone getting so riled up about.”
Firstly , transphobia is real. Lets assume for the sake of argument that JKR is not influential. But we are having a dialog around her opinion (that many people share) that is very important.
In a public forum if I am responding to someone, the response is not just meant for them . Otherwise I would not have posted more than half of my replies on the internet.
Secondly, “getting riled up” , “outraging” and “being politically correct”: are not bad things. These words have been diluted cynically by conservatives \ centrists. One more example. “Triggered” is a word supposed to be used by people who suffer ptsd attacks but has now been completely diluted as a term of ridicule. (misused by both conservatives and liberals). Lets leave out the extreme responses (abuse etc.) from either side. Still we have a lot left to chew upon.
Rahini David ,, precisely. My guess is that people who feel paranoid about bathroom use do not accept transgender identity, but this bathroom thing is a way to cloak their other non palatable opinions. They should answer your questions anyway.
I am going to add a few
What is stopping cis males to do this right now? They can dress up as women and enter women bathrooms.
Many places support access to bathrooms on basis of trans identity. How many incidents have been reported of this kind of assault? Please check this link of empirical data on this topic :
https://www.mediamatters.org/sexual-harassment-sexual-assault/15-experts-debunk-right-wing-transgender-bathroom-myth
Finally, there is this matter of child gender reassignment. Trans kids have almost 50 % rate of suicide attempt so this is an urgent matter that cannot be left to when they grow up . Gender reassignment takes place after a series of counselling sessions. Its not a fad or something.
Here is a vice documentary worth watching on this topic ( Its only just half an hour, encourage everyone to watch it)
LikeLiked by 2 people
nikkie1602
June 14, 2020
@Madan: how can trans community appropriate feminism? Is it truly feminism if it doesn’t include trans issues in the first place? That is intersectionality 101.
LikeLiked by 1 person
krishikari
June 14, 2020
“As JK complains in the article, female identity was and continues to be defined by men in opposition to their own.”
That’s the men issue I’m talking about. Just as the BLM issue is about white people’s behaviour, and dalit lives matter is about how other castes behave.
I personally think the bathroom stuff is a non issue. As Rahini says above… if a male could rape a in a women’s bathroom he does not have to pose as a woman to do it. I’m sure it has happened but that’s not a reason to ban trans women from the ladies room.
LikeLike
tonks
June 14, 2020
Rahini : It happened once (allegedly) in a prison, I read about it two days back while trying to acquire knowledge about these things following this controversy. I suppose it can happen in hostels, too. Or gyms, pools, locker rooms etc. Maybe not a common situation. But possible.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/oct/11/transgender-prisoner-who-sexually-assaulted-inmates-jailed-for-life
LikeLike
tonks
June 14, 2020
Rahini :
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/seven-sex-attacks-in-womens-jails-by-transgender-convicts-cx9m8zqpg
LikeLike
tonks
June 14, 2020
nikki1602 : Thank you for the link. It cleared many things in my mind. And yes, I agree, trans genders are probably more vulnerable to assault than cis women.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Amit Joki
June 14, 2020
How does Unisex restrooms fit into the equation? I have just heard the term, and never actually seen it in real life.
LikeLike
krishikari
June 14, 2020
https://differently-normal.com/2020/06/10/example-post-3/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
Thought this might be of interest here
LikeLike
sai16vicky
June 15, 2020
I don’t intend this to be a digression to the great comments here but some general pondering about LGBT. Why is T combined with LGB? As I understand T is a gender identification issue (i.e., whom one identifies herself/himself as) and LGB is a sexuality issue (i.e., whom one is attracted to). Combining them seems to dilute both issues (the former is ~ 5% and the latter is ~ 0.5% of US population).
I bring the above point because any concern raised by transgenders suddenly gets escalated as a LGBT one and the other way around. And leads to more widespread (social) media attention.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rahul
June 15, 2020
@Tonks, not sure about the other attacks but at least two out of 7 attacks were done by Karen White , and in her case, even the basic common sense measures for deciding which prison to go to seem to have been ignored. She was on remand for various sexual offences against women. Such a person claiming a trans identity should not have been allowed in a women’s prison or even a restroom.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Madan
June 15, 2020
“how can trans community appropriate feminism?” – By insisting their issues need to be prioritized over cis women or even others in the LGBT community? Insisting for instance that lesbians who don’t want to date trans women are transphobic? I can flip the argument on its head and ask how can it be true intersectionality if the trans community prefers to label any woman with opposing views as a TERF rather than listen sometimes too? Why is the fact that Rowling was bullied merely for following people with transphobic views being erased now to make up this matrix where she was repeatedly transphobic and given many chances? No, this post where she mocked the phrase ‘people who menstruate’ is literally the first time she actually said something transphobic in public? Just why are people so comfortable with such Orwellian surveillance of a person’s social media activities?
But again, this is not my fight so I am done with this topic. Which brings me to…
“That’s the men issue I’m talking about. Just as the BLM issue is about white people’s behaviour” – Which is why I would respect the trans community a lot more if they spoke truth to power like black people and took the fight straight to the top. I agree completely that it should not be the fault of trans people that some cis men might choose to prey on women by passing themselves off as trans but in my view, it is unfair to put the burden of this on women and instead the question should be why can’t cis men mend their ways? Why are cis men standing in the way of trans people expressing themselves? Make that argument, put the burden where it rightfully lies. But if a woman brings up this concern and she gets called a TERF with no effort to address this concern…idk, all ye good people can decide how exactly that comes across as, as to who, if anyone, is being kind and just here.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Rahini David
June 15, 2020
Just to be clear, I didn’t mean a TransID, when I asked about paper work. More like if a cisman will put F instead of M in his recruitment form just to reap the advantage of, say, being able to watch women adjust their clothes in a restroom.
Thank you, tonks.
LikeLike
tonks
June 15, 2020
Such a person claiming a trans identity should not have been allowed in a women’s prison or even a restroom
I guess when you have an entire spectrum of people, it maybe difficult / gray to decide who goes where. A genuine trans person (even one with a penis, ie one who has had no surgery) may find it vulnerable, dangerous and disturbing in men’s prisons. What I feel is that these are not clear black and white issues in my mind, and like Madan, I too feel there was a lot of over-reaction and intolerance to a different POV to JKR’s views (including from her child stars). At least, that is what my level of understanding at present makes me feel right now. I’m learning.
LikeLiked by 1 person
tonks
June 15, 2020
By insisting their issues need to be prioritized over cis women or even others in the LGBT community? Insisting for instance that lesbians who don’t want to date trans women are transphobic? I can flip the argument on its head and ask how can it be true intersectionality if the trans community prefers to label any woman with opposing views as a TERF rather than listen sometimes too? Why is the fact that Rowling was bullied merely for following people with transphobic views being erased now to make up this matrix where she was repeatedly transphobic and given many chances? No, this post where she mocked the phrase ‘people who menstruate’ is literally the first time she actually said something transphobic in public? Just why are people so comfortable with such Orwellian surveillance of a person’s social media activities?
Well articulated, Madan.
LikeLiked by 1 person
brangan
June 15, 2020
tonks: I too feel there was a lot of over-reaction and intolerance to a different POV to JKR’s views (including from her child stars).
The child stars speaking out is also likely due to prodding from their PR people. I’m not saying it’s ONLY that — but we live in an age where it’s become imperative to distance yourself from anything problematic.
The most hilarious example I can think of is Timothée Chalamet’s disowning Woody Allen AFTER Dylan Farrow raked up the whole thing again. With Mira Sorvino, at least, I can understand the “I regret working with him”. She worked with Woody long before #meToo etc.
But this guy?
“I have been asked in a few recent interviews about my decision to work on a film with Woody Allen last summer. I’m not able to answer the question directly because of contractual obligations.”
Yeah, right 🙂
LikeLiked by 3 people
Arjun
June 15, 2020
Gosh, what a vacuous, fake display of performative wokeness. LOL again. No wonder liberals are losing everywhere.
LikeLike
Rahul
June 15, 2020
“I guess when you have an entire spectrum of people, it maybe difficult / gray to decide who goes where.”
A couple of points.
We are talking about prison, and this example underscores the general rapey nature of prisons . that inmates can get away with committing heinous crimes against other inmates. Not sure if these things are that complicated outside prison – (and even empirical data supports that.)
Secondly, Even taking the prison example and the same set of data that you have quoted, there is far more violence inflicted on trans people than by trans people. In fact what we are looking at is 7 examples in 9 years in women’s prisons. And this includes 2 by Karen White.
Here is more data
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-52748117
LikeLike
brangan
June 15, 2020
Here’s another instance that appears PR-motivated.
Spike Lee’s almost-immediate turnaround is dizzying. But then, he’s got a new movie on Netflix and if his defense of Woody creates a twitter shitstorm, the film could get screwed by bad publicity and his Oscar/festival chances could get affected.
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2020/jun/14/spike-lee-apologizes-after-defending-woody-allen
LikeLike
Rahul
June 15, 2020
Let’s suppose a lot\all of the arguments against JKR are PR motivated. How does that relate to the quality of the argument?
LikeLiked by 1 person
brangan
June 15, 2020
Rahul: I am not talking about the argument at all. I’m just responding to tonks’ comment — and what could be the reason for the actors speaking out.
Sometimes, you get the sense that people are not saying things because THEY believe in it, but because it’s the ‘right thing to do’. At least, that’s the sense I got. Of all, only Daniel Radcliffe’s response to Rowling seemed genuine, especially given his work with and for the LGBTQ+ community. As for the others…
But again, this is not about the discussion happening here. It’s only a reply to tonks.
LikeLike
krishikari
June 15, 2020
@amit “How does Unisex restrooms fit into the equation? I have just heard the term, and never actually seen it in real life.”
Not sure I understand the question, but they work like any normal restroom, no urinals, all stalls with lockable doors. People of any gender go in, do the needful, wash their hands and leave without raping anyone. The place I work has this. So does my house!
LikeLike
Amit Joki
June 15, 2020
@krishikari I was wondering if unisex restrooms could be a feasible solution as they are gender-neutral.
LikeLike
sai16vicky
June 15, 2020
@Amit: In Scandinavian countries, unisex restrooms are the deal. However, I don’t see them being applicable to Indian or the US setting mostly because of the concern that @Rahini raised on (potential) restroom violence. That’s one of the reasons transgenders in the US push for a separate restroom so that they make 2 into 3 and then eventually, the 3 can collapse into 1.
LikeLike
Aparna
June 15, 2020
I think this is part of a bigger culture of character assassination or just vicious trolling of public figures on a social platform, when their contributions to a particular field have possibly faded away or are no longer relevant. One instance is also of Ellen Degeneres who constantly faces a low level of online trolling about just being an unpleasant person or having some unpalatable views on matters that are considered woke today (I am not defending her). For example, she was heavily criticized for sitting next to Bush during a sports game, as if this is something she is not entitled to do. Instead, people are of the opinion that Ellen watching a sports match with Bush was approval of Bush’s controversial political legacy. People have seemingly forgotten Ellen’s contributions to the LGBT community and their rights, by coming out on TV, in a shockingly courageous move by putting her career on the line, in a time where she could have been ostracized forever from mainstream media. And, here she is 20-30 years down the line, facing brickbats because most people expect her to be a paragon of virtue, kind and to be aligned with everyone’s view of progressiveness. One thing I have learnt, actually from this blog only, that everyone has their blind spots and this transgender issue is JKR’s. I wouldn’t be surprised if 20 years from today, some famous celebrity makes the mistake of voicing out some unpopular views on Twitter and will be shunned as celebrity has-been.
LikeLike
Varsha Ganesh
June 16, 2020
Rahul – I agree, transphobia is real and we need to have a dialog around it. But how will we have a dialog if we call for bans and burning and canceling the moment someone lists something they are uncomfortable with? Why can’t people point out flaws in her argument instead of saying ‘the HP books are tainted’ and ‘JKR is Voldemort personified’ and ‘She is a sorry excuse of a human’? It’s not just the extremes. This seems to be what is expected if you are to show solidarity with a cause. This is plain and simple bullying and bullying never changed anyone`s opinions.
I also don’>t agree with this ‘Do your own research, you are not entitled to my labor’ arguments. You can’t have it both ways. If you call yourself an activist or even a supporter of a cause, you must have reasons you support it and you should be ready to list those out IF you genuinely care about changing people`s opinions. There has been no right-winger or religious extremist who ever said ‘do your own research if you want to join my tribe’. The minute you show an inkling of interest, they bombard you with their philosophies and cajole you and persuade you into why their crusade is important and how it will benefit you. I think this is how they win and why the liberals keep losing.
I call myself a feminist and there have been countless times I painstakingly educate male friends who say they care but haven’t taken enough of an interest in looking issues up. My first instinct is anger and resentment and judgment but what good is it going to do in winning them over to my side? So I have sucked it up and educated them and IT WORKS. They’ve gone on to understand, empathize, speak up and be allies. Should it be my job? No. Does it go towards furthering my cause if I put in that labor even if it sucks right then? Resoundingly yes. Any widespread change requires effort from people who care, often repetitively. It`s not fair, no but nothing ever is.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rahul
June 17, 2020
“Why can’t people point out flaws in her argument ” Btw, she disabled replies on her twitter post. And there have been countless people pointing out flaws in her argument. I will link a few here later on.
It’s a time tested strategy to highlight the abuses and ignore the sensible responses when you do not want to engage with any criticism of your point of view.
@BR understood.
@tonks. I have only looked at Daniel Radcliffe’s and Emma Watson’s responses. Which parts do you think were an overreaction ?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rahul
June 17, 2020
@Varsha Ganesh. Here is a search string with returns the tweets by people who have used the word “trans”. in the reply to JKR.
https://twitter.com/search?lang=en&q=trans%20(to%3Ajk_rowling)&src=typed_query
You can see for yourself how many are abusing and how many are trying to point out the flaws in her argument and how many are trolling , over reacting etc.
LikeLiked by 1 person
tonks
June 17, 2020
@tonks. I have only looked at Daniel Radcliffe’s and Emma Watson’s responses. Which parts do you think were an overreaction?
I meant the collective responses, the threats, the bullying, the outrage etc. In my mind too there are/were a lot of queries, and misgivings regarding some of the things she’d mentioned. I’d thought a dialogue on making her understand these matters would have been better than punishing her for her opinions. I guess I also feel that someone who gave us a series that gave so much importance to treating the underprivileged as equals, cannot really in her heart be a bad person. I feel that her some of her misunderstandings (as have mine to a large extent after I read about these things) would have been cleared up with a mature discussion.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Madan
June 17, 2020
“I guess I also feel that someone who gave us a series that gave so much importance to treating the underprivileged as equals, cannot really in her heart be a bad person.” – Oh, I don’t give her THAT much benefit of doubt. But then, as much as it may have appeared as if I was defending her here, I am not a huge HP fan. I respect the impact she had on the fiction world but I outgrew the books quickly and I guess I am generally way too cynical for something like HP. My argument was precisely with the bullying tactics which goes unaccounted. I get it, the Right does it. But if all we are going to do is Left-Right whataboutery all day, it’s the end of the world. Funnily enough, it does sort of feel that way this year. In a way, JK getting outed is also apt. As per BR’s title for a beautiful piece on QSQT, dreams die first.
LikeLike
Rahul
June 17, 2020
“I’d thought a dialogue on making her understand these matters would have been better than punishing her for her opinions. ”
I am not sure how this argument holds . See my above post addressed to Varsha. You can click on her twitter timeline and find countless people that are trying to engage with her but she does not seem inclined
Why doesn’t she engage with her actors? She can choose to reply to their comments, no ?
I don’t think any of them have been abusive towards her.
LikeLiked by 1 person
brangan
June 17, 2020
tonks: I think it’s really the TONE of her original tweet, the one that started it all.
“‘People who menstruate.’ I’m sure there used to be a word for those people. Someone help me out. Wumben? Wimpund? Woomud?”
See, a lot of us aren’t up-to-date with a LOT of things. So it’s important to approach a topic you are not an expert on with humility.
Had she just said, “Again, I am confused about this… yadda yadda yadda…” and explained her confusion, people might have taken this with less anger. The ultra-woke people would have still raged and rampaged, but the sane and rational voices on social media might have given her the benefit of the doubt.
But she comes off as both arrogant AND condescending in this tweet. And that, to me, is the real problem.
If you are not an expert on a subject, why even say something on Twitter? It’s the easiest way to reveal your ignorance to the world.
I see this all the time in people who tweet about cinema, with just basic knowledge and with just some half-Googled facts. I think it’s the desire to be “noticed”, but it comes at a cost. Because those who really know the area are going to come after you.
LikeLiked by 5 people
Madan
June 17, 2020
“But she comes off as both arrogant AND condescending in this tweet. And that, to me, is the real problem.” – 100%. Unless she apologises for the tweet and deletes it, the blot on her image is going to stay. That whole drama about people who menstruate was entirely unnecessary and unseemly.
LikeLike
Arjun
June 17, 2020
“People who menstruate” is a garbage nonsensical phrase. Anyone other than the ultra woke recognize this. The person who called liberalism a mental disorder was prescient. I’d much rather live under Sharia laws than laws made by wokes and progs that seeks to legalize stuff like gender reassignment surgeries for minors.
LikeLike
Rahul
June 17, 2020
Arjun, thanks for your thoughts, you make some really interesting points. Friends, can someone volunteer to engage with Arjun ?
LikeLike
Arjun
June 17, 2020
Rahul: Thanks, but no thanks. On the other hand, you and other uber wokes should try and engage with some real people IRL on this topic to see what they think about all this nonsense rather than hanging around all the time in echo chambers and “safe spaces” like this blog.
LikeLike
Santa
June 17, 2020
@Arjun: Yes, because only people who think that “people who menstruate” is a garbage phrase are real people. The so-called “wokes” and “progs” are fake humans, right?
But coming back to the point, I went through the original devex article and its substance is about educating people about menstrual hygiene. What’s more, throughout the article, the phrasing is actually like this: “crucial for women’s health”, “contraceptive access to adolescent girls and women”, “harmful long-term consequences for women and girls.” Not a single mention about trans-people.
But thanks to the title, the whole world is instead fixated on the “people who menstruate” phrase, and I doubt anyone recalls what the actual contents of that article were. Which makes me wonder: did the writers not anticipate that such phrasing would stir up a shit-storm, especially in these hyper-polarized, frenzied social-media times?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rahul
June 18, 2020
Thank you for continuing to offer your thoughts on this topic , Arjun. May I ask, if I leave “safe spaces like this blog and. ” meet “real people IRL” like you , and make the same arguments I am making on this board, how will you make it unsafe for me? Are you going to be verbally abusive, or try to beat me up?
Arjun, hopefully you will not mind if I use you as an exhibit to make some arguments. In return , you have my permission to use me as an exhibit “uber woke”. with the real people you meet IRL” of course.
Two questions have been asked – why cannot we engage with the opinions of transphobic people? Arjun has posted few times on this board. We know he is angry but it’s hard to tell why. If anyone volunteers to engage with Arjun you may experience firsthand, why it is not always possible to engage.
Second , why do such people need to be punished for their opinions? In last few weeks , we saw two Karens losing their jobs in USA for racist behaviour. To me it stands to reason that a racist and\or transphobic person will reflect their biases\ beliefs in their professional lives . In case of a writer like JKR , this is a bit more complicated and I think however controversial her opinions may be, they should be given a chance to play out in the battleground of ideas.
LikeLike
brangan
June 18, 2020
I’m curious about the term “safe space”. Does that imply that only a certain TYPE of commenter (liberal etc.) visits this blog? What would be an example of an “unsafe blog”?
Don’t all blogs/sites attract a similar kind of commenter — largely speaking — depending on the content, the language used, etc.?
I mean, is being a “safe space” a bad thing, because it’s some sort of echo chamber? I certainly don’t censor/suppress comments, and anyone is welcome to opinionate here. Arjun comments here and so does Rahul. Doesn’t that mean two different voices are present?
This is a question of genuine academic curiosity.
LikeLike
Madan
June 18, 2020
” Does that imply that only a certain TYPE of commenter (liberal etc.) visits this blog? ” – Or that they predominantly visit the blog. So be it, I say. The day Arjun and others on this blog with non-lib inclinations call out the non stop and vile trolling by the right wing on twitter is the day I will echo their sentiments on this. If you’re ok with that, you can’t object to the much more polite argumentation on this blog. And I don’t care what happened abroad, but in India, this phenomenon was started by the right wing. Around 2013 is when a certain party’s IT cell infiltrated Twitter. We used to be able to discuss politics much more freely until the Right decided anybody with different views from them is an anti national. When almost the entire nation is a safe space for the Right, to anyone concern-trolling this blog I say “Cry Me A River”.
LikeLike
Arjun
June 18, 2020
“Thank you for continuing to offer your thoughts on this topic , Arjun. May I ask, if I leave “safe spaces like this blog and. ” meet “real people IRL” like you , and make the same arguments I am making on this board, how will you make it unsafe for me? Are you going to be verbally abusive, or try to beat me up?”
Lol, what an irrelevant rambling non-sequitir. Rest assured, I’m not angry, I merely think all of academic “gender theory” is unadulterated bullshit. The “theory” appellation and the mathematical sounding”intersectionality” is all there merely to give these bogus things non-existent scientific airs.
And lol at right wing. This is the problem with progressives and why I will never identify as a liberal. If you dont believe in the gender theory crap and cancel culture, you’re automatically RW. I am the sort of person who is rooting for China in Ladakh right now and think Kashmiris should get a referendum to secede from India.
LikeLike
rsylviana
June 18, 2020
@BR – Neenga woke-aaamaaa!!!! Hahaha 😀
LikeLike
nikkie1602
June 18, 2020
@Arjun: the “bullshit” actually has a lot of science backing it. Maybe you should look it up if you are genuinely interested.
And about it not affecting anyone else IRL, it affects trans people and they have spoken up. It isn’t like non trans woke people are the only ones calling her out right.
LikeLike
Arjun
June 18, 2020
@BR: I call this blog a safe space because the majority of opinions expressed on gender and sexuality in this piece, for example are an extreme outlier and do not even remotely represent the views of the average person. Indeed these ideas are a topic of ridicule in private for most, but give plenty of opportunity for cheap virtue signalling and retweets.
LikeLike
brangan
June 18, 2020
Arjun: the majority of opinions expressed on gender and sexuality in this piece, for example are an extreme outlier and do not even remotely represent the views of the average person.
Maybe so.
But haven’t I always said my pieces/reviews are NOT indicative of what the public may perceive, and they are only MY views/analysis? So why is this particular piece any different from, say, my review of KAATRU VELIYIDAI — where, again, you could say my views “are an extreme outlier and do not even remotely represent the views of the average person”?
And how does this make my blog “safe” for commenters, who agree and disagree with my views a lot of the time?
And what would be an “unsafe space” for these commenters? Some other blog or news site? Real life?
Again, not being argumentative. Just trying to understand your point.
LikeLike
Arjun
June 18, 2020
Isn’t “safe space” part of standard woke vocabulary? I don’t think I need to explain why this blog is one.
To be fair, you certainly don’t censor contrarian opinions. So you are certainly more committed to FOE than say NYT who recently fired their opinions editor for giving some nutty republican senator oped space and whose replacement now urges the staff to let her know “if any content in the entire paper gives them “the slightest pause,”
LikeLike
abishekspeare
June 18, 2020
This is a blog read by a very specific kind of people. At least the ones who comment. It’s like an ecosystem. So even if two people have opposing views on a topic, they still belong to a same ‘community’. For instance, a die hard Thala Fan who’d get into fights in real life is likely not going to comment here on his extreme views. This is a place of DISCUSSIONS and disagreements and not ugly fights(usually). The maximum conflict possible here is BR removing a comment or banning someone from the blog. Compared to something like twitter where each comment is bound to be faced with a “fuck you”, yes, this is a ‘safe place’, as in it’s very exclusive. This is a BRtherhood
LikeLike
Rahini David
June 18, 2020
Apparently it is “a place or environment in which a person or category of people can feel confident that they will not be exposed to discrimination, criticism, harassment, or any other emotional or physical harm.”
So are you of the opinion that it is a safe place for liberals or you feel that it is unsafe for non-liberals? Do you feel less safe here than you would elsewhere? Or do not like liberals having any safe place whatsoever?
LikeLiked by 3 people
brangan
June 18, 2020
Hahaha. No, I know what a “safe space” MEANS. I was just… okay, never mind.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rahul
June 18, 2020
Coming back to the topic, here is a good thread about JKR .
LikeLiked by 1 person
Santa
June 18, 2020
@Arjun
Regarding what you wrote: “the majority of opinions expressed on gender and sexuality in this piece, for example are an extreme outlier and do not even remotely represent the views of the average person”
That may be true. But consider that the same was true about an average person’s outlook about gay people in the 1980s and earlier, when gay people were constantly subject to discrimination and attacks because of homophobia. The opinions of the ‘wokes’ and ‘progs’, as you like to derogatorily call them, were considered an outlier even then. I’m sure you would agree, however, that average person has come around accepting homosexuality as natural and normal. Something worth thinking about.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Anuja Chandramouli
June 24, 2020
Love this thread… All the diverse viewpoints were very interesting and educational. Really liked Varsha Ganesh’s and Madan’s points. Thanks Tonks for those links!
Like Varsha, I really feel it was unfair to bully JKR for her views, unpopular though they may be. People have the right to express their concerns without being attacked and trolled. Arjun’s point about woke folks and their performative progressiveness is spot on as far as I am concerned. And no that doesn’t make me a RW supporter or their reprehensi and rabid troll army. The problem is people are so concerned about saying the right things that nobody is bothered with doing the right thing.
While it is important to monitor and censor behavior (the way I see it you are free to behave as you please only as long as you are not trampling on the rights of others) especially when certain behavior causes destruction, I draw the line at thought control… Who the hell has the right to tell anyone how they ought to think and feel? Reminded me of a case in the U.S where a darling bakery was sued because they refused to make one of their customized wedding cakes for a gay wedding citing religious principles. I agree that homophobia is real and ought to be dealt with but how does it help the cause to drag a couple of old bakers to court because they are strict Catholics who have been raised on stories of Sodom and Gommorah?
I was educated in a Catholic school and the nuns definitely endorsed the view (most strongly) that homosexuality is an unspeakable evil and in today’s world they would be denounced but I know them as cantankerous but essentially kindly souls who in addition to running a school for girls were committed to caring for the sick, needy, homeless and abandoned old folks in the tiny hill station where the school was located. Just saying that a homophobic person is not necessarily a bad person and we need to give them time to get over their religious scruples instead of lashing out at them which will only be counterproductive. Besides all of us who studied there were also convinced that LGBTQ causes were freak shows when we were snot – nosed brats but most of us did grow and evolve. Even some of the Catholics from my school days no longer view homosexuality as a sin. These things just take time sometimes…
Another scary case that comes to mind is one where a transwoman sued an Asian beauty salon for women because the service providers flat out refused to wax her balls. (https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thesun.co.uk/news/10201139/jessica-yaniv-trans-loses-scrotum-wax-case/amp/)
The ruling went against the transwoman with the judge decreeing that women have the right to decide whether they want to handle male genitalia or not (Whew!) but Jessica (the transwoman) by going public with her trauma over the ‘discrimination and transphobia’ ensured a shit storm of hate and abuse descended on those ladies who had refused her service.
Also agree with Madan, that it is bloody ridiculous to accuse a lesbian who would rather not date a transwoman as a transphobe. How is this different from those who insist that women should only date men? Same intolerance! As Tonks pointed out, this kind of bullying gets you traction on social media but will only heighten wariness and work against the LGBTQ cause especially among the moderates (majority) who are open to educating themselves on the issue.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Arjun
June 25, 2020
More wokes cannibalizing classical liberals – https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/06/white-fragility-racism-racism-progressive-progressphiles-david-shor.html
LOLOLOL. Keep it coming. Totally loving it.
LikeLike
Madan
June 25, 2020
Arjun/Anuja: Like I said, Democrats can thank their stars they can run against Trump’s record this time and with the last big name centrist standing. I see things going way off the deep end over the next four years and GOP coming back to build a super majority. It is unfortunate that yet again, the legitimate grievances on which black lives matter have been hijacked by wokesteria and this statue toppling business. A lifelong liberal in my feed too was saying that she can understand removing Confederate statues but Mt Rushmore, seriously? Now of course she is going to vote against Trump this time but if it’s Marco v/s AOC in 2024/28, you bet she is flipping sides.
Aside from the politics, just how does anybody even defend calling someone racist for merely pointing out empirical data of the effect of riots on elections? Even assuming the data itself is contestable for some reason, that does not make the person sharing it a racist. LOL, who are these people even?
LikeLike
Arjun
June 25, 2020
“LOL, who are these people even?”
Lol, they are no different than the ones on this thread who want to lecture others about unadulterated fake bullshit like intersectionality 101
Look, I don’t give a fuck about US politics, but as far as I am concerned, liberalism which is basically virtue signalling sans any concrete action needs to die. If all these uber woke “white allies” care so much about black people, why don’t they start by pushing for policies that will give 15-20% reservation for blacks in universities and govt jobs. But none of them ever will, since all they are interested in is the dopamine high from likes and retweets of their performative wokeness. This, despite there being a ready, successful model for reservation policies -India. Instead they will hand-wring over fringe issues that only other wokes on twitter care about like if someone born with a dick can use the woman’s restroom and if it is transphobic to refuse to date a trans-woman and if sharing a tweet of a research article showing that violent protests are not useful is racist. Not to mention the whole intersectionality nonsense which is basically caste system inverted, a gradation of victimhood.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Madan
June 25, 2020
“Not to mention the whole intersectionality nonsense which is basically caste system inverted, a gradation of victimhood.” – I am with you on that. I do not think Rowling’s people who menstruate dig was necessary at all and I find your claim that you would be better off in sharia law specious to say the least but I do agree in that I find intersectionality taken to its current lengths counter-productive. It started off from a valid place, the intersection of feminism and the civil rights movement where the cause of a black woman was correctly identified as including problems of both black people and of women. But there are now so many sub divisions it’s a maze…and a mess. I don’t remember quite who I read saying this but it’s basically like offering identity as a product choice in a supermarket. In that sense, it’s a very neo-liberal device (and performative rather than consequential, as you argue). Notice how the wokeness around monuments and names has peaked just as BLM attained critical mass. The way I look at it, people are being played and a powerful moral imperative is constructed to make them go along with this. The interesting part is the woke set is perfectly capable of seeing the folly of a wholesale statue or monument destruction when it’s Yogi Adityanath disparaging Taj Mahal but somehow, Mt Rushmore is seen as up for grabs, the Winston Churchill statue needs police now to protect it from vandals. Look, I am completely with black people on the issue of police brutality but pulling down a Churchill statue is not going to make their problems go away.
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
June 25, 2020
how does it help the cause to drag a couple of old bakers to court
Because it is a business, and US laws (pre-Trump) does not allow businesses to discriminate based on gender, sexuality or illness.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Arjun
June 26, 2020
“I find your claim that you would be better off in sharia law specious to say the least ”
I said I would much rather live under Sharia laws. An argument can be specious, a stated preference cannot. I have lived under moderate versions of Sharia laws in a couple of gulf arab states and think it is much preferable to living under laws made by the uber-woke. No tolerance for degeneracy like underage sex-change operations, gay marrriage (I don’t oppose homosexuality or think it is unnatural, for the record), same-sex adoption, less crime, swift and harsh punishments for rape etc which act as strong deterrents. I’m not saying Sharia is perfect, but it is natural justice and to me, much preferable to even the Indian (in)justice system.
LikeLike
Madan
June 26, 2020
“I have lived under moderate versions of Sharia laws in a couple of gulf arab states and think it is much preferable to living under laws made by the uber-woke. ” – Moderate is a new wrinkle. Saudi has true sharia law and there you would have plenty of restrictions.
“No tolerance for degeneracy like underage sex-change operations, gay marrriage (I don’t oppose homosexuality or think it is unnatural, for the record), same-sex adoption, ” – Your degeneracy is somebody else’s natural. And besides even if it’s degenerate, so what? If suppose there wasn’t a woke thought police seeking to censure you for everything you say, would you still have a problem with gay marriage and why? How does it matter if two men call each other husband and wife? I mean, by the anti-woke logic, even husband and wife are just words so why should they be weaponized?
LikeLike
Rahul
June 26, 2020
This is the beauty of this blog and credit to the diverse voices it attracts that even a Sharia supporter can discuss with other wokes and liberals about transphobia. Thank you BR for this space.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Kaushik Bhattacharya
June 29, 2020
@Arjun, I do not mean this as a personal comment so please do not take offense but I wonder if you have ever appreciated the irony of your name being the same as that of one of the potentially “trans” characters from the Mahabharata?
I find it fascinating that you would use as an argument that just because a view does not represent the average view (or is close to the median view since you seem to have such a great desire to be precise), it’s not worth sharing. Or that the people you know represent IRL whereas the ones who engage on this blog don’t….
LikeLike
sai16vicky
June 29, 2020
Very likely that I am the ignorant one here but I am curious — what is the new law that Trump enacted that discriminates based on gender, sexuality or illness?
LikeLike
Arjun
June 29, 2020
@Kaushik: In full disclosure, I’ve formally converted out of the Hindu religion, so I don’t really care.
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
June 29, 2020
@saivicky, he removed the protections of LGBTQ employees citing ‘religious freedom’; the courts packed with his nominees ruled in favour of the so-called ‘Christian’ employers.
But the appeals reached the Supreme Court, and last week, they ruled in favour of the LGBTQ community. Hopefully, that will be the end of that, but I don’t know, with this administration. Women’s rights and LGBTQ rights have been set back decades in these past three years.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Anuja Chandramouli
June 30, 2020
‘he removed the protections of LGBTQ employees citing ‘religious freedom’; the courts packed with his nominees ruled in favour of the so-called ‘Christian’ employers.
But the appeals reached the Supreme Court, and last week, they ruled in favour of the LGBTQ community. Hopefully, that will be the end of that, but I don’t know, with this administration. Women’s rights and LGBTQ rights have been set back decades in these past three years.’
Anu Warrior: Actually, I expected this sort of legal to and froing with precious little gained on either side though there is endless antipathy, acrimony and unrelenting waves of hatred and intolerance. It is perilous to ignore religious sentiment even when it is unreasonable or prejudiced… Throughout history, that is just how it has been and it is unlikely to change however much we may wish it were otherwise. Therefore, we have to deal with it sensibly.
As an agnostic, I used to be extremely impatient with meaningless rites, rituals, and religious dogma. It took time to acknowledge that people’s faith matters to them if not to me, and to respect religious beliefs even if I am not a follower. Over the years, many of my friends, family and even acquaintances, people best described as moderates have told me that they feel Hinduism is under attack by the liberals who only go after Hindu beliefs which prompts them to take an extreme stand when it comes to all things religious. Dismissing them as bhakts doesn’t help either. It is heartbreaking when Hindus start to sympathize with OTT Hindutva doctrines. But it is inevitable given the hardcore tactics, moral policing and liberal bullying which are the preferred tactics of the SJWs.
Seems to be quite similar in the USA where even irregular churchgoers dig in and become overly protective of their faith when they see one of the flock dragged to court, shamed and trolled for acting in accordance with their religious beliefs. It’s a pity because most moderates are amenable to reason and if they are given time to come around and accept that the things they were taught to regard as sinful aren’t actually, perhaps they would be willing to re-educate themselves and change their outlook on their own terms.
The hardliners are a different story but if we can work on the moderates without alienating them by trying to bludgeon them into accepting things they are uncomfortable with like LGBTQ rights or abortion, we will soon have the actual numbers needed to make a lasting change.
Even while feeling passionate about a righteous cause we need to remember that people will allow themselves to be persuaded not forced to join the cause.
LikeLike
sai16vicky
July 1, 2020
@Anuja: This isn’t restricted to just US and India. It’s happening all over the world. Conservatives (religious and otherwise) have gotten serious existential worries about continuing their way of life. And when one has existential fears, they suppress other inhibitions and treat the elections as their fight against the elite. Any candidate who projects him/herself as the man of the masses unduly gets elected. In this sense, it’s like 18th century all over again, where it was the worst time to be a part of the elite.
(I think I have mentioned this in another thread as well) Unless liberals start listening to concerns of the other end, instead of name-calling the other side (as fascists) and dismissing them as outdated, I don’t see this ending any time soon.
LikeLike
Santa
July 1, 2020
Anuja: People’s faith certainly matters to them and absolutely needs to be respected. It makes me really cringe when I hear atheistic fundamentalists belittling people’s faith. Not only is it disrespectful, it is also utterly arrogant.
The problem is when religious people want their sincerely held beliefs to apply to society at large. When you say “they see one of the flock dragged to court, shamed and trolled for acting in accordance with their religious beliefs,” I’m assuming that you are referring to the case of the Masterpiece Bakery in Colorado who was taken to court for refusing the bake a wedding cake for a gay couple. I completely believe that the baker was acting out of his religious beliefs in this case, but his actions still amount to discrimination against gays. Would the same baker, acting out of his religious beliefs, refuse to bake a wedding cake for a heterosexual couple who had, for instance, indulged in pre-marital sex, or sex without a contraceptive (I believe that either of these are prohibited in Catholicism)? I’m guessing not.
The problem with waiting for the so-called moderates to coming around accepting things like LGBTQ rights is that in the interim hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of LGBTQ people have to undergo actual oppression and discrimination, while the moderates merely have to learn to deal with their discomfort. As Jon Stewart said about race, “You’re tired of talking about race? Try living it!”
In terms of LGBTQ rights, it comes down to one very simply question: should LGBTQ people be discriminated against because of their sexual identity and orientation? The very simple answer is no. And that answer is not contingent on how other groups feel about them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Anu Warrier
July 1, 2020
The point is, Anuja, that you can’t mix your business with religion. Religion is (or is supposed to be) a personal matter in the US. If you don’t want to invite an LGBTQ person (or black, or [insert group of your choice]) into your home, that’s your business. No one can sue you for that. But, you have a bakery, your job is to make cakes or bread or whatever. To refuse to serve a customer because their religious/sexual/political beliefs don’t align with yours is antithetical to the rules that govern businesses.
I have no issues with anyone who believes in God, or takes succour from the tenets of organised religion. I know it can be comforting. Whatever helps someone through their times of crises is a good thing, IMO. I don’t hate them for their belief in God, or look down upon them, or mutter or even think pejorative comments about their deities. There are some temples in Kerala which give me a great sense of calm, even if I’m an agnostic.
But when these religious beliefs infringe on my fundamental freedoms as a citizen of a country,
then matters change. And yes, it’s a fundamental freedom of my adopted country that I, irrespective of my sexual orientation or religious identity, am allowed to walk into a shop that sells cakes and order a cake for my wedding or for any other reason under the sun. Unless the message I’m asking them to write on it is hate speech or inciting violence, they have no reason to deny me service. Discrimination against any section of society, based on a religious belief, is a dangerous tool.
Look at it another way – These bakery owners do not serve the LGBTQ community because it’s against their religion. Do you see the slippery slope there? It sets a precedent. Then doctors don’t have to provide counselling services to pregnant women because ‘it’s against their religion’. Companies don’t have to hire LGBTQ employees because ‘it’s against their religion’. You’re now denying a section of society their civil rights and fundamental freedoms because of ‘religious beliefs’. It is to avoid this pitfall that the Founding Fathers inserted the ‘separation of Church and State’ clause into the constitution.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Rahul
July 1, 2020
Agree with Anuja Chandramauli and sai16vicky.. LGBTQ people should not have rights unless and until the moderate sharia supporters are onboard with the idea.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Madan
July 1, 2020
I do not have a problem (problem is maybe the farthest from accurately describing how I received it) with the recent SCOTUS judgment and to echo Anu Warrier, strongly feel business and religion should not mix. Religion is personal and at the most communal; you do not have the right to impose an entire societal order based only on your religious views. And if moderates, knowing what is it that hardliners weaponize, still choose to side with them, then you’re accountable for what you choose, what you elect. This is as ridiculous as Lloyd Blankfein saying he would rather have Trump than Sanders. If you’re saying you prefer Jews Won’t Replace Us to higher taxes and welfare payouts, your depravity knows no bounds.
But let’s get back to JKR here. As I said, religion is personal. Likewise, sex and relationships are personal. There is a problem if the trans community weaponizes the rhetoric of discrimination to insist that the rest of the world must unconditionally accept to date them or get laid with them. Sorry, it does not work that way. If a person is fine with you doing what you want to but does not want to have a relationship with you, you HAVE to be OK with it. People have been and continue to be ok with that for a variety of reasons by the way. There is no requirement even to specify the reasons for that. Once you accept the argument that it is sheer bigotry for a lesbian to say she doesn’t want to date trans women, that’s a heck of a slippery slope.
And note that all this is going on at the same time as Linda Sarsour and others have similarly weaponized the rhetoric of discrimination to seek permission to associate themselves with regressive cultural practicies. Look, you have the right to wear a hijab but you do not have the right to de-hyphenate yourself from what the hijab stands for. If somebody wore a KKK outfit and said, no, actually I am just a liberal and this has nothing to do with me, nobody would accept the argument.
In short, you have moderates getting squeezed from both sides because the left-liberal alliance condones if not enables and facilitates both radical left on the one side and regressive ideologies that we are supposed to ignore because they are a ‘beleagured’ minority (well, why the f did you come to US or UK if you just want to install sharia law in these places too). And the worst part is this is just a fringe that has needlessly been granted a much bigger megaphone than it deserves. There have always been and there will always be people with radical views; that is the very essence of a democratic society. What is NOT is to then hound the moderates and attempt to force them to apologize or repent and threaten them with cancellation. That is certainly capitalism at work, yes, wielding the threat of bad publicity to get corporations to capitulate, but it is not democratic if you will refuse to even listen to the other side.
I am sure you are all going to have arguments that at least in your head sound very convincing and forceful to rebut what I have said. But you will not be able to argue against election results. You will be able to disdain them until the point where they have got enough power to roll back the advances of the last 40-50 years. And they are pretty damn close now. Ginsburg conks off and the SCOTUS is gone. I said this in 2016 and I will say it again now. Pl keep an eye on the big prize. All battles may be important but the one to preserve hard earned civil liberties is the most important of all. God help you if you take that one for granted.
LikeLiked by 2 people
sai16vicky
July 1, 2020
Certainly not. Let me ask you a related question — should people be discriminated against simply because of the caste they are born in? The answer is clearly NO but getting equal rights for LGBTQ is as hard (if not harder) a problem as eradicating casteism. And the solution has to be dense, multifold and across multiple generations. One of the main reasons the caste movement gained traction is because the average citizen got interested in it. In the LGBTQ case, the average citizen probably doesn’t understand the issue in a serious capacity at all. Educating and make them understanding the issue should be the starting point.
The current discourse is more like if someone says ‘oh, I think LGBTQ is a cultural fad’, then he/she is called all kinds of names. If someone says ‘I support Trump’, then the response ‘oh, you’re a bloody racist’. This is what happened in 2016. Many Trump supporters didn’t admit their support for him openly and he laughed all way the way to the voter bank.
@Rahul: Thanks for trolling! Unless you have the average citizen on your side, no movement is going to win and history keeps giving us examples from time-to-time for this. Period.
LikeLike
Madan
July 1, 2020
“The current discourse is more like if someone says ‘oh, I think LGBTQ is a cultural fad’, then he/she is called all kinds of names” – It would be understandable if it was just that. But it’s stretched to the point where as I said stating your sexual preferences makes you a transphobe or raising your concerns makes you a transphobe likewise. You’re basically not supposed to say anything at all, pretty much. It’s got to where people are going to say, “OK, you think I am a transphobe? Big whop, I don’t give a shit.” And THAT will be very damaging. JK has already done this in a way, kind of challenging cancel culture, saying I won’t cancel myself, what are you going to do. With Tories in power, Hachette feels comfortable supporting a blockbuster best selling author like her too. There are limits to the strategy of naming and shaming people rather than seeking legal recourse and the strategy works better when liberals are happy to call out those who mis-cancel people and rein in the overenthusiasm of the activists. If you don’t do that, you will be seen as condoning anything and everything the activists do and throwing moderates to the wolves.
LikeLike
sridharraman
July 1, 2020
Just wanted a clarification here. Given the frequent usage of “average citizen” and the topic of this thread, was JKR an “average citizen”? Also, can we have examples of movements that have been won by keeping quiet, ruffling no feathers and causing anyone (average or otherwise) no discomfort/inconvenience?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Anu Warrier
July 1, 2020
to insist that the rest of the world must unconditionally accept to date them or get laid with them.
Do they, though? Or is this a transphobic viewpoint that’s getting mileage? (Serious question.) People are allowed to have preferences – from as shallow a one as ‘I prefer guys with grey eyes’ to ‘I like women who are curvy.’ It restricts your dating pool, and people may judge you as shallow, but then that’s the curse of putting an opinion out there – people will judge you for it.
@saivicky – apples and oranges. Eradicating casteism in a society where it’s deeply entrenched is problematic and change will only happen over generations. Much like racism – as can be witnessed in the US today.
Whereas for the LGBTQ community, it’s thousand pinpricks – apart from caste (in India), religion, class, they also have to worry about who they fall in love with. The point is no one asks a heterosexual their sexual orientation; neither are they derided for being ‘straight’.
Yes, in 2020, if someone does come and say ‘LGBTQ is a cultural fad’ I would definitely look askance. I don’t call names, but I would call out that bigotry. And if you want to continue to be a bigot in your personal life, that’s your concern. [general you] But if you bring that attitude to your place of work, and discriminate based on that ‘cultural fad’ then, I’m sorry, you’re going to have to face the consequences.
As for Trump – after these three years, and after what I’ve witnessed first hand, I’ve no compunction in saying that if you [general you] still support Trump, then a) you are a racist and a bigot, and b) I really have nothing to say to you. Because Trumpers have shown that they don’t want to learn. Every freedom that we hold dear has fallen by the wayside – and if the ‘moderates’ feel they are being bludgeoned by the ‘liberal left’ then perhaps they should voice their dissent against this bigotry loud enough to be heard over the cacophony of the right-wing extremists who are baying for blood.
“All that’s needed for evil to flourish is for good men to remain silent.” And in that silence is complicity.
LikeLiked by 1 person
ItsVerySimple
July 1, 2020
So we are not supposed to drag people who discriminate us over our sexuality to the courts, we are supposed to smile and invite a person who thinks LGBTQ is a cultural fad for a conversation without getting triggered and educate them after decades of educating and fighting for rights? Ah man, what a tough life we have been condemned with.
May be you all should drop this monkey-balancing of being centrists and start speaking out. It is not ONLY on us to educate others. Instead of telling us what to do and how to be nice and inoffensive, do your part. Tell the homophobes to pick up something other than their religious text and read. Stop treating them with kid gloves. It’s not your life that’s going for a waste. I am sure if someone is letting you not live you life, you wouldn’t be this callous and on the fence and all Hey Why Don’t You Explain Nicely.
People were getting fired because they are gay till this year and may be they will continue to be and the discourse is about the pain some nutcases are having imagining two men having sex. This isn’t about Trump, Liberals, Wokes or God and if you keep framing the argument around only these, you are most likely part of the problem.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Madan
July 1, 2020
“Do they, though?” – Yes and one of the attacks on JK Rowling was in fact because she offered support to a lesbian who made that very statement. And I am not going to dox but there are lots of answers on Quora affirming that this is indeed transphobia. And there they politely add that it’s fine, it’s your preference but it’s still transphobia. But that’s not what we see in practice on twitter for instance. There is instead an urge to make the entirety of the person about that one allegedly transphobic tweet and erase his/her existence. I do not find my left liberal friends too keen to call out the people who indulge in such cancel culture, possibly for the reason that they don’t want to get cancelled either. But in that scenario, blaming everyone who stands up to the online bullies is not very helpful. You don’t want to do it, don’t, but let us.
Which brings me to Trump. I said right at the outset that with a bland centrist candidate like Biden and Trump’s epic mishandling of covid, Trump’s days COULD be numbered. Emphasis on COULD, nothing is certain until the votes are actually cast and counted. And even if they aren’t numbered and he wins, I do agree that yes people should be able to weigh and choose the lesser of two evils. So this is not about Trump and I am looking ahead to the future. The very fact that when it came down to it, Biden was seen as the one viable candidate to beat Trump, not Warren (no appeal with POCs), not Sanders (too economic lefite), not Bloomberg (stop and frisk), not Tulsi (Assad ‘toadie’ as per Bari Weiss’ famous faux pas on Joe Rogan), should give liberals pause when it comes to political strategy.
What is Biden’s appeal? Not quite bigoted enough to turn off minorities (though he sometimes misspeaks and gets into trouble like telling Charlamagna Tha God that if you can’t decide between me and Trump, you aren’t black) and not quite left enough to turn off moderates. Moderates ARE a large voting bloc so the continuous assault on them is counterproductive. I am going to flip what you said – why doesn’t the left instead engage right wing extremists and beat them? Why exactly is that not a priority? Or is it that moderates are a softer target and their acquiescence is more easily obtained? If the latter, then we are approaching the limits of that strategy, which should not have been followed in the first place. You do not keep attacking fellow travelers on your journey. You lose them and your support base shrinks. Yes, they will turn up their nose at Trump but all GOP will have to do in 2024 is field a moderate Republican, by which time the Left would have eaten up the Democratic Party.
Note above the double standard when it comes to Biden. Had JK herself said half the things Biden has said about black people, she would have got cancelled long ago (and let’s not even talk about Tara Reade). No, left liberals are well capable of adjusting their standards of moral puritanism when it comes to beating Trump. But it shouldn’t be just about beating Trump. Trump is not an aberration and more Trumps will emerge barring changes in the underlying circumstances that enabled his rise.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Madan
July 1, 2020
“So we are not supposed to drag people who discriminate us over our sexuality to the courts” – No, you should. You should focus on the consequential stuff. But if you break too much sweat over the inconsequential stuff, the former complaint loses its bite because people develop complaint fatigue. That is what is happening now. You can of course (as you likely will) characterise that as a ‘privileged’ position but that is not a winning argument.
Again, why did the trans community bother much more about JK ‘liking’ or ‘following’ the ‘wrong’ tweets than people getting fired for their sexual orientation? Isn’t the latter a much, much bigger issue? I know what JK eventually said and I have unequivocally said it was wrong. But I haven’t seen one left liberal say unequivocally that the prior bullying of her for following certain people was wrong. If you accept one version of an Orwellian surveillance dystopia, prepare to find yourself plunged into another and one that may not necessarily be to your liking.
LikeLiked by 1 person
ItsVerySimple
July 1, 2020
@Madan,
I wasn’t responding in the context of JK Rowling’s tweets and it’s not even relevant to the point I made. The comments here have become far more general about how LGBTQ+ should fight discrimination and I was addressing that.
I am specifically addressing some comments that talk abut “consequential” stuff, but I have to definitely address this “inconsequential” stuff along with it? Why?
LikeLiked by 1 person
sridharraman
July 1, 2020
@Madan:
Is there any evidence for either of these claims?
Where are you getting the notion that people on the left aren’t debating with the right-wing extremists? Or how do you know that the trans community hasn’t been fighting for the rights of people getting fired for their sexual orientation? I know of so many people who do both these things. And more.
I can understand people having finite time / resources / mind-space to focus on limited issues. Why doesn’t the “moderate majority / majority moderate” understand all this?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rahul
July 1, 2020
sai16vicky, Why do you think I was trolling? Was what I said an incorrect representation of your opinion?
LikeLike
Aman Basha
July 1, 2020
@Madan: This might be a trigger to a whole new bunch of arguments but given the relatively peaceful haven nature of this blog, it might be safe to express one of my ideas about this debate.
Honestly I count myself as very liberal on many issues but I was stumped to know that trans women menstruate. I never knew of this before and my sheer lack of knowledge made me wisely avoid making any comment on this.
But I do think a large majority of people have little or no idea about these issues simply because they might not have the time, education or willingness to deal and discuss it. And that’s where Trump scores. The Russia allegations, the fact that Hillary won the popular vote still can’t leave us in doubt about the fact that a significant amount of people voted for him in 2017. This might be because while the most I could hear of Hillary was LGBT rights, Trump went all out on issues that the elite never paid attention. Sanders did the same but far more dignified and honest than Trump who simply whipped people who were not basically bigots or racists but people with a very real sense of insecurity and concern and fed it with fear. He played it reckless with a lot of rhetoric and zero policy and with the media attention his antics got, the voters fell for him. The issues discussed here made me wonder if Obama for all my liking of him was even a good President. For some of his work like legalizing same-sex marriage didn’t matter to a lot of people for whom jobs and economy were still a concern.
Plus the whole general characterization of the whole base as bigots and racists probably widened the gap. Such a hard swing to the right could have been countered by swinging a bit left and Bernie was the right way if the DNC hadn’t rigged it for Clinton and let’s face it, sexism was a cause but nowhere as big as the non support of many other democrats for Clinton.
I honestly doubt if Sanders would have won or even planned to, his was still a ideological crusade and he’s winning given how the public and Democrats are turning to his way. Its always a cycle of liberalism, intellectualism and populism. Biden has already taken the free college idea and more people are looking at healthcare for all as the pandemic continues.
But Trump as a President is a whole different deal from Trump as campaigner. Given how 2016 turned out, no one’s taking any chances but Biden needs a VP mate who can match Trump in that shouting match or he’s done for or maybe it’s just so hard to be sure what will happen given how wild and messy American politics have become. All Trump might have to do is whip up some anti China hysteria to win and that man frankly is willing to do anything for his cause. More than Democrat or Republican, it’s Dr. Faucci who’ll influence the election more.
Its truly testing for America in more ways than one and honestly, I’d dread to see a world where the Russia and China are the only dominant world powers.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Anuja Chandramouli
July 2, 2020
Mostly agree with Santa, Warrior and Madan.
‘In terms of LGBTQ rights, it comes down to one very simply question: should LGBTQ people be discriminated against because of their sexual identity and orientation? The very simple answer is no. And that answer is not contingent on how other groups feel about them.’ Santa, not disputing this at all. In an ideal world this is how it ought to be, but we aren’t living in an ideal world and solutions are far more complicated when it comes to righting a wrong and I just feel the current approach of naming, shaming, litigating and cancelling those in groups who are not quite pro but also not entirely anti – LGBTQ community is not working.
‘The point is, Anuja, that you can’t mix your business with religion. Religion is (or is supposed to be) a personal matter in the US. If you don’t want to invite an LGBTQ person (or black, or [insert group of your choice]) into your home, that’s your business. No one can sue you for that. But, you have a bakery, your job is to make cakes or bread or whatever. To refuse to serve a customer because their religious/sexual/political beliefs don’t align with yours is antithetical to the rules that govern businesses.’ Fair enough Anu. Ideally religion should not be allowed to seep into business or politics and it is best relegated to a private space far removed from public spheres, but practically speaking that is impossible. Even in the Masterpiece Bakery Colarado case ( Thanks Santa) the SC ruled in favour of the defendant declaring that impermissible hostility to religion had been expressed. The lower courts clearly felt that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation had taken place (it clearly had) but the SC felt otherwise and overturned the ruling no doubt influenced by public opinion. As you pointed out, this case has set a precedent and later a florist who refused service to a gay couple was also let off the hook legally. Not saying that discrimination against LGBTQs must be allowed to continue in this manner, I am just questioning the methods in place to counter discrimination which have proved ineffectual as well as counterproductive and am offering the bakery case as an eg. of how ignoring religious sentiment or lambasting the faithful with scorn can set the cause no matter how righteous back by several decades.
The trouble is that these thing come down to equal rights vs personal liberty. Nine out of ten care more about protecting the latter at all costs which is why it is hard to work things out to everybody’s satisfaction. But that is no reason to stop trying to find a middle path where everyone can co – exist without being at each other’s throat all the time. Forcing people to pick a side or risk being denounced as a traitor or worse, cancelled outright merely ensures that we keep fighting a war with no end in sight resulting in endless casualties on both sides.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Madan
July 2, 2020
“Where are you getting the notion that people on the left aren’t debating with the right-wing extremists” – Because most twitter rants, most Op Eds are on this endless circle jerk blaming the moderates by holding up morality purity tests. The way this works is the Left will refuse to work with moderates because compromise is unholy. And if that leads to right wing grabbing more and more power, they can go on blaming moderates for it. As you all are now. In spite of the fact that I have not said a single bigoted thing in this thread. Go ahead, show me where I did and I will retract it pronto. You dislike even being challenged on your positions and immediately resort to what you take to be ‘cleverly’ sussing out the ‘hidden’ bigotry. But there’s no there there. What we’re saying is no, we will not accept your positions as axiomatic truth. Make the case for it if you can, don’t act like it’s so obvious and anybody who can’t see 100.00% the way you can is bigoted. OR, go ahead and act like it and go ahead and keep blaming others when your tactics fail.
LikeLike
Madan
July 2, 2020
” Forcing people to pick a side or risk being denounced as a traitor or worse, cancelled outright merely ensures that we keep fighting a war with no end in sight resulting in endless casualties on both sides.” – Preach, preach.
LikeLike
Aman Basha
July 2, 2020
@Madan: These are thoughts swimming restlessly in my head for a long time and given the relatively safe haven nature of the blog, thought I’d express them. I count myself as liberal in a lot of places and issues yet was genuinely stumped to know that trans women menstruate. My sheer lack of information made me unwilling to even participate since I needed to know better or more about it to do so.
I believe there are scores of people who are not racist or sexist per se but simply don’t have the time, willingness and knowledge to comprehend and understand issues like LGBT rights. And most likely these people are also those who still worry about their jobs or economy. These are the votes that propelled Trump to win. True, there were racists and supremacists who supported and amplified him but these people were a lost cause anyway. Despite Russia and all the other dirt that’s come out, a large size of people apart from the popular vote, had voted for Trump because he appealed to their fears and insecurities with his reckless fear mongering. Hillary only promised the status quo and had nothing for people. “I Stand With Her” is very lame against a “Make America Great Again”. I left wondering, for all my liking of Obama, was he actually a good president? It’s after his term that the line between left and right seems to have turned into an abyss.
A lot of people also did say the economy was doing well and jobs were available which seemed to be these voters’ concern and they seemed fulfilled. Was it just a continuation of Obama or did Trump’s tax cuts which were shown to mostly benefit the rich actually improve their lives? Of course COVID-19 has changed all that.
For such a hard swing to the right, the best bet in 2016 was Bernie Sanders. If Trump went one way, Bernie went another but both focused on these voters. If the DNC had not done the coronation, Bernie could have won and beaten Trump. He lost in 2016 and ’20, the establishment, other candidates and voters deciding Biden would be more acceptable. But Sanders won anyway, his was a ideological crusade and it worked. If not, he had no need to go to Fox News of all places for a Town Hall. His ideas are already being taken by Biden’s campaign and I expect more and more people to rally to Healthcare for All with this pandemic worsening in the US. Biden’s chances are growing stronger but after 2016, no one wants to write off Trump. President Trump and Campaigner Trump are 2 different ball games and Biden might not fare well against someone who can politicize masks. He needs a really charismatic VP who can handle all that pressure and even go up against Trump if push comes to shove.
It’s a crucial election with ramifications around the world and not just America.
LikeLike
Madan
July 2, 2020
“Honestly I count myself as very liberal on many issues but I was stumped to know that trans women menstruate. ” – I would have been too if I weren’t clued in previously to understand the context. I get it, on the one hand, minority groups of various stripes have been discriminated against for so long that THEY feel that things still aren’t moving fast enough for them. But from a cis person’s point of view, things have moved very, very fast. Those of us on the younger side of the age spectrum can educate ourselves and get up to speed but it is not always easy for older people to do that. And older people are a huge political constituency too in USA and Western Europe. If you demand that everyone should be previously informed and educated of each and everything before saying anything at all, you WILL alienate a lot of people. And I am sorry if that feels unfair but life isn’t fair.
Re HRC, it was much more complex than her only talking about LGBT rights. She made specific utterances that alienated traditional Democratic bastions. Like landing up in Virginia and saying her climate change oriented policies would “put a lot of coal miners out of business”. I think you can be concerned about climate change WITHOUT saying something so blunt, so tone-deaf (but note again that tone-deafness only matters to the woke crowd when POCs are targeted and white working class might as well be stateless as far as they are concerned, no matter how much Bush Sr and Clinton screwed them over with trade deals).
There was also something of an everyman about both Bill Clinton and Obama that allowed them to finesse the less edifying aspects of their platform by relating to voters. This was something HRC lacked. Here is a classic juxtaposition: rock bands repeatedly sued or otherwise instructed Trump to not play their songs at his rallies because they didn’t want to have anything to do with him. But they would have to BEG HRC to play their songs. Know what music she had playing in the background during her TV appearances? Katy Perry. I mean, you listen to Katy Perry and you think you’re so ultra cultured compared to the ‘deplorables’? Speaking of which, the basket of deplorables…classic political suicide.
If anything, American voters did find Trump unpalatable on balance and therefore the election was really close. Because HRC did not make much of an effort to get the people to like her. And note what I said above about Bill or Obama. So it’s not a sexist double standard; Democrat candidates have usually only done well when they were likable (Kennedy being another example) and Republican candidates have usually done well by projecting tough guy attitude. HRC and her advisors mistakenly believed they were in for a 1964 like landslide (and likewise, their strategy mimicked LBJ scaring voters away from Goldwater). This, in the face of polling that clearly indicated a tough fight in the swing states. And HRC even acknowledged the populist insurgency in an interview to Ken Auletta of New Yorker. It’s not like she didn’t know. But like other elites, she wished the populism away.
In short, in many ways, HRC’s loss was electoral because it was precipitated by poor strategies and poor optics as well as a general fatigue after Dems had been 8 years in power. The response chosen by Dems was to fire up their base to turn out in big numbers in 2020 by painting Trump as uniquely demonic and representing an existential threat to US. In some ways, he does. But…he didn’t appoint Scalia (or attempt to appoint Bork), Thomas or Alito to the SCOTUS. Those were appointed by three smiling ‘sunshine’ Republican Presidents. And it was Biden himself who proudly sponsored tough-on-crime legislation back in the day. So, even if an electoral loss gets Trump out of office, the pathologies that created him in the first place aren’t going away. Pursuing policies to stymie climate change is a most worthwhile goal…but you cannot throw ordinary people working in industries that will be affected by such policies under the bus. And you have to have an economy that generates jobs. If you do not do either and add the additional layer of this moral imperative to be woke, you will make voters feel like it’s just too much of a hassle for scant returns.
LikeLike
sridharraman
July 2, 2020
@Madan:
I am confused. You have been blaming the left wing through these comments. All that I wanted to know was where the assumption that “Twitter rants” was the only/majority task that the left wing has been doing. I don’t think I am convinced by your explanation – only because, my anecdotal evidence shows a lot of these people working on issues on all fronts.
I don’t think I claimed that either. I have read your comments here and in other threads and I definitely won’t make that accusation/assumption.
Let me try to re-frame the question. Are Twitter rants the sole characteristic of the left wing? Isn’t it common in the right wing as well? Then, how are they able to win electorally. In fact, let’s go back to 8 years of GWB – was it woke culture that was responsible for him ‘winning’ two terms? I don’t think things are that simple.
LikeLike
Madan
July 2, 2020
” All that I wanted to know was where the assumption that “Twitter rants” was the only/majority task that the left wing has been doing. ” – Wait, I was talking about the woke left and you have now expanded the scope to cover the entire left as such. As you would well know, there are sections of the Left that do not agree either with the Woke Left. Most Sanders supporters are not part of the Woke Left (and for this sole fact they receive much calumny from woke media –
again, as if Sanders and not Trump is the problem). The Woke Left behaves exactly in the way Clarence Thomas characterised white liberals – that what they are interested in is an aesthetic of anti-racism, not substantive change. In other words, as long as you say the right things, it doesn’t matter if you support brutal policies that have the net effect of affecting minorities the most. Hence, the twitter rants and the obsession with cancel culture. So yes, there are sections of the Left also working on the issues that matter. They are just not the same people, though. And because left liberals easily cave in to cancel culture and turn around and confront other liberals in a circle jerk that never ends, the perception that substantive change does not matter gets solidified (and if it is misplaced, it is for want of any efforts from left-liberals to correct this perception). I mentioned this upthread and I will repeat it again: police reforms have been defeated in the Senate while you have latest recruit Trevor Noah explaining why cop shows are bad and such. Yes, because banning cop shows or GWTW or defiling Mt Rushmore will totally create a back utopia in America.
“Are Twitter rants the sole characteristic of the left wing? Isn’t it common in the right wing as well?” – Yes, they are but that then leads to the natural conclusion that you are only ‘left’ with two sides of crazies who don’t believe in debate and discussion and only in demonising their opponents. In that case, why should I side with the Left? You (as in a general you) can keep saying if you’re not with us, you’re against us at which point I will issue the usual reminder that George Bush said those words and leave it there.
LikeLike
ItsVerySimple
July 2, 2020
@Madan,
If I read a comment that tells me I shouldn’t go to the courts if I am discriminated for being gay or that I should tolerate LGBTQ+ being considered a cultural fad, I am going to tell them they are wrong.
It affects my everyday life personally and my response to them is complete/valid. If that comment doesn’t serve your long crusade against “left liberals” that you have turned this comment section into – I am not sorry and I don’t even care. Neither am I obliged to take a purity test for you to prove I am not sweating over inconsequential stuff, nor I am going to be a stand-in for a “left liberal” to explain to you “again why did the trans community bother about” whatever.
To respond to my comment about “consequential” LGBTQ+ discrimanation and to ask me focus on “consequential” stuff only and also to demand to explain why someone else did an “inconsequential” outrage and to score another point against left liberals is quite an asshole move.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Aman Basha
July 2, 2020
@Madan:
Also, this election is extremely important in an international perspective not only since the USA is a major world nation but also since it’s the biggest left vs right battleground that’s the left’s last chance to reverse what is an international trend of right wing domination. This tendency of left woke liberals “of either with us or against us” or the infighting is what is causing this right ward tilt. The only good thing Trump could claim of in his shambolic presidency filled with scandal, Stormy and that mystical yuck type is the economy and jobs which I think he helped develop through the strong post Obama economy and throwing the environment to the wind. With COVID, the economy is damaged and according to Dr. Faucci, the worst is still not over. The stakes are crazy high and while LGBT rights are important and so are African American issues, these statue attacks and lack of nuance while explaining LGBT issues and simply attacking people divides. Maybe it’s time statues are not broken but put in museums to inform other people of your frustration, breaking them comes off as vandalism and can be easily spun as such.
“Most Sanders supporters are not part of the Woke Left (and for this sole fact they receive much calumny from woke media –again, as if Sanders and not Trump is the problem)”
Trump’s Twitter is too much to take and still manages to out do itself like all these books coming out on him. Honestly, this might be radical but I do think the media and other democrats highlight this issue far too much to discredit Bernie. Now that’s the example of a perfect liberal-he stands for many progressive measures and is willing to explain them to even people who might be just shocked not out of some flaws in character, thought or education but simply because of how new it is to them. Unlike Clinton, who famously used the term “deplorables”, I think? I say this because Sanders himself has repeatedly condemned such people and given the treatment he gets from media outlets in the debates. Yes, I read the Revolution and though I’m an Indian, I’ve become a Bernie Bro.
LikeLike
sridharraman
July 2, 2020
@Madan:
If you talk to the right wing, Sanders supporters would be the extremists of the Left. So where do the Woke Left fit in this spectrum? Are they to the left of Sanders? Are they moderates with a penchant for ‘cancellation’? As I said in my previous statement, there are too many variables.
I am quite prepared to read thought-pieces on how the Woke Left was responsible for Trump’s re-election. But the problem lies elsewhere and is more systemic.
LikeLike
Madan
July 2, 2020
“If I read a comment that tells me I shouldn’t go to the courts if I am discriminated for being gay or that I should tolerate LGBTQ+ being considered a cultural fad, I am going to tell them they are wrong.” – If you mean Anuja’s comment, then she didn’t say you shouldn’t go to the courts. She was making a larger point about the culture war itself. If you can point me to the comment where somebody said you’re wrong to seek judicial redressal that is afforded you under the law, I will appreciate it. Otherwise, I will file this under the usual tactics of exaggerating whatever people opposed to your views say and underplaying that which those with whom you make common cause, do. Furthermore, I expressed my agreement with Anu Warrier that there is nothing wrong with seeking judicial redressal so I never stopped you from protesting anyone who asks you not to approach the courts. Your outrage on that point is a made up diversion as far as I can tell.
“demand to explain why someone else did an “inconsequential” outrage” – It was not someone else, you yourself chose to not breathe a word about the tactics used by the outrage mob against Rowling. It was a bit like the Aussies hounding Harbhajan Singh until he finally said that which he should not have. I have drawn attention to these tactics twice or thrice now and every time, people in this thread choose not to say anything about it. I am going to presume now that this silence of omission is intentional.
LikeLike
Madan
July 2, 2020
“To respond to my comment about “consequential” LGBTQ+ discrimanation and to ask me focus on “consequential” stuff only and also to demand to explain why someone else did an “inconsequential” outrage and to score another point against left liberals is quite an asshole move.” – Again, I never opposed seeking judicial redressal or any other form of consequential activism. But you chose to tar all centrists with the same brush and write a general ‘y’all’ comment, so I had to defend myself. And even then, I made clear what I support and do not support. Now if you felt too lazy to precisely quote the texts you disagreed with, that’s not my problem.
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
July 2, 2020
But Madan, the left liberals may be ranting on Twitter just like the right wing – but the moderate left are engaging with moderate right wherever they can. And yes, when the majority of moderate right (I engage with) admit they are fed up of the status quo (here in the US), but don’t make a push to speak up say, “enough, they don’t speak for me/us” then yes, I will call them out. And here I speak as someone who calls out my Hindutva-leaning brother and a left-of-left cousin as well. As well as my very-left leaning son.
And as Sridhar points out, just because someone targets JK Rowling for her tweets doesn’t mean that the trans community isn’t fighting for LGBTQ rights.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Anu Warrier
July 2, 2020
@Anuja, both those judgements were not only shocking to me, they just legalised discrimination under the ‘religious freedom’ tag. It’s a Supreme Court packed with conservatives, I suppose I shouldn’t have been surprised. By allowing ‘religious freedom’ into a place of business, the SC has opened a can of worms. The situation is dire for the LGBTQ community as it stands, and now it’s gotten worse. Which is why, the current Gorsuch ruling on LGBTQ came as such a relief.
And as It’sVerySimple points out, I wager you wouldn’t think it’s okay to take generations to get equality on board if you were consistently at the receiving end of discrimination. How long do you think they should wait to be considered human?
That ‘religious freedom’ has been the cause of the many setbacks that women’s rights has suffered in these past years. Because not only does that ‘religious freedom’ pertain to themselves, they inflict it on others as well.
As i said before, anyone is free to believe what they want. But when their beliefs, religious or otherwise, tread on my fundamental values as a human being and an equal citizen in a country, then, hell, no, I’m voicing my opposition. And the current civil unrest here is just that – an attempt to be seen as human, as equal, irrespective of race, colour of your skin, sexual orientation. That seems to frighten people who are happy with the privilege that status quo confers on them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Madan
July 2, 2020
” just because someone targets JK Rowling for her tweets doesn’t mean that the trans community isn’t fighting for LGBTQ rights.” – I didn’t say they don’t fight for it, I said why do they spend more energy on targeting JKR, why do they regard that as more important?
I am going to post the exact words here because somebody inaccurately paraphrases what I say and then it somehow becomes tantamount to my position itself. I’d have thought at least by now people here would know I am a patient enough debater that I won’t let that slip by. 😀 Anyhow:
“Again, why did the trans community bother much more about JK ‘liking’ or ‘following’ the ‘wrong’ tweets than people getting fired for their sexual orientation”
If I used an adverb much more, it means much more. There’s no NOT to be inferred there.
Isn’t it more important to fight for and preserve your rights than finding a suitable label to paste on a prominent person with a worldview you find hostile? And yes, the Left likes to believe they can carry out war on all fronts at the same time but it’s not working. Because then these more insignificant issues hog all the limelight. I would much rather prefer to read about every single case of a trans worker being fired for revealing their sexual orientation. I read of someone who was fired from a funeral service operation because he came out as she. Now that is hardcore intolerance that ought to be called out. That is what needs to be trending on the news and only when consciousness about every such incident is heightened will there be lasting change. The sort of consciousness there now is over George Floyd which wasn’t there when similar incidents happened four years back and when kneeling looked so violent to the Right.
But if instead, we only hear all the time about the Left quibbling over language, it makes the Left look very undemocratic. The whataboutism to that cannot be “Right is undemocratic too”. Yeah, and they hold power, end of. And my point isn’t to put politics at the forefront of it; the point is as the Right consolidates power, they are going to want to reverse many of the gains made over the last forty years. These guys are crazy enough to want to overturn Roe V Wade, what’s trans rights compared to that?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rahul
July 2, 2020
Madan, I want to tackle one thing. Why JKRs tweets , language and bathroom etc are consequential. Even a cursory google search will tell you that Transgender teens are.at a high risk of suicide. Here is a link
https://www.hrc.org/blog/new-study-reveals-shocking-rates-of-attempted-suicide-among-trans-adolescen
JKR is a probably as big a teen icon as any other. Hence, I would assume , what she thinks is of monumental importance to the trans community. If her transphobia is not countered effectively it is not far fetched to think it will be internalized by many cis and even trans teens.
I remember what the mother of a trans kid said in a meeting about school bathrooms (Its in the VICE documentary). “We are not just fighting for the bathrooms we are fighting for their lives.”
Insisting on using the correct pronoun may be a “woke fetish” for people like Arjun, but it’s a matter of basic respect and acknowledgement for a transgender.
LikeLiked by 1 person
ItsVerySimple
July 2, 2020
@Madan,
Eh? “..Who the hell has the right to tell anyone how they ought to think and feel? Reminded me of a case in the U.S where a darling bakery was sued because they refused to make one of their customized wedding cakes for a gay wedding citing religious principles. I agree that homophobia is real and ought to be dealt with but how does it help the cause to drag a couple of old bakers to court because they are strict Catholics who have been raised on stories of Sodom and Gommorah?” and this about the gay people suing for their protections at workplace – “Actually, I expected this sort of legal to and froing with precious little gained on either side though there is endless antipathy, acrimony and unrelenting waves of hatred and intolerance. It is perilous to ignore religious sentiment even when it is unreasonable or prejudiced… Throughout history, that is just how it has been and it is unlikely to change however much we may wish it were otherwise. Therefore, we have to deal with it sensibly.”
If you are that centrist who wishes for “sensible” dealing of LGBTQ rights instead of legal to and fro-ing or to not challenge the notion that LGBTQ+ is a cultural fad, you absolutely must defend yourself since I did write about you. FWIW – I read most of your comments in this thread, some of them not completely and I still didn’t presume you – as in you, the specific you – are discouraging legal recourse for LGBTQ+ rights.
I don’t have a problem with your presumption, Madan. And you do sound a lot like the extreme Left that you are rallying against when you say things like these. “Tactics” are not right-wing or left-wing, after all. You are absolutely free to insist I must make my position about the outrage mob targeting JKR clear in the same breath as I talk about LGBTQ+ discrimination. And I am free to not to do that.
LikeLike
Madan
July 3, 2020
“Hence, I would assume , what she thinks is of monumental importance to the trans community.” – And yet we are reprehensible for even daring to suggest that perhaps, perhaps the behaviour of Bollywood nepots enabled SSR’s suicide. Sorry but your hypocrisy is showing now.
Even if Rowling’s words push some trans gender people to suicide, what then? Are you going to hunt down and cancel each and every person with views alleged to be transphobic? I have no doubt by the way that the woke left proposes to do exactly that and that is simply not practical. Engage respectfully and persuade. These are views we are talking about, not infringement on rights so please check out any MLK evocations at the door.
LikeLike
Madan
July 3, 2020
ItsVerySimple: Again, all of those quotes only have Anuja pontificating about the efficacy of judicial redressal as a larger societal issue. Nowhere has she said YOU cannot go to the courts and challenge anybody discriminating you. I know that is too much nuance for you because you are already bent on hyperventilating at 11, but it is possible for a person to question the long term effectiveness of seeking solutions only through a legal mechanism that does not involve changing the minds of people while also not denying your own right to do that which the law permits you to. Again, you attack her (and a general centrist ‘y’all’) for her views. And this time, not even because she actually said anything transphobic. You CAN argue with her or other centrists on this point itself – that whether legal redressal is the best solution – but don’t make it out like she told you not to go to the courts. Again and again, you overstate complaints to reassure yourself that you are on the right side of things and everyone else is terribly wrong. But please don’t assume people are stupid or kind enough not to see through that.
“FWIW – I read most of your comments in this thread, some of them not completely and I still didn’t presume you – as in you, the specific you – are discouraging legal recourse for LGBTQ+ rights.” – And how t.f am I supposed to know that if you launch into a general attack in a space where everyone by habit quotes people specifically? Even when we are not able to quote specific sentences, we write the name of the person to whom the comment is directed and prefix with an @. And you’re not new here, you know the drill. Nor are you exactly dealing with a massive horde of countless centrists here. There are the three of us who were posting and all three said different things.
No, no, no, it is simply that you don’t care. You delighted in making a general attack because you have convinced yourself that it is ok for ‘privileged’ centrists to have to get back every time saying, “Hey, I didn’t say this”. And that is the exact reason why you have remained silent on the issue of people hounding JKR when she merely ‘liked’ or followed posts or people. In your head, you think any collateral damage on the path to salvation is acceptable. That even if JKR wasn’t really a transphobe and she had in fact followed those people for reasons that could be entirely bonafide, it would be ok because she is cis and privileged and she should therefore repent for the sins of other cis/privileged/both who have indulged in transphobic behaviour.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Rahul
July 3, 2020
“And yet we are reprehensible for even daring to suggest that perhaps, perhaps the behaviour of Bollywood nepots enabled SSR’s suicide. Sorry but your hypocrisy is showing now.”
No idea what you are referring to here, mate.
“Even if Rowling’s words push some trans gender people to suicide, what then? Are you going to hunt down and cancel each and every person with views alleged to be transphobic?”
I explained why her views are important,. You were insisting that these things were inconsequential. Are you willing to revisit your opinion? Rest of your post should probably be addressed to someone else .
LikeLiked by 1 person
Madan
July 3, 2020
” You were insisting that these things were inconsequential. ” – Yes, they are. Unless we want to go down the whole slippery slope of interrogating the possible consequence of anything and everything. Like the whole argument about somebody playing a kind of character causing consequences. Yeah, so? If you stretch it to the logical extreme, you can make everything out as having a consequence; if I drove 20 km today morning while learning to drive and spent 2 litres of petrol, that’s a consequence too if we want to go far enough. That is not what I meant when I said consequential. I said having JKR cancelled for her views is not going to change the views of millions of others and OTOH she has not acted in such a way as to impinge on the rights of trans persons, so it is an inconsequential battle in that sense. The consequentiality I am talking about here is with regard to whether any material outcome in the fight for trans people is obtained at all from picking on a person for their views. I don’t think so and therefore, no, I am not going to revisit my opinion on that.
LikeLike
Arjun
July 3, 2020
“Honestly I count myself as very liberal on many issues but I was stumped to know that trans women menstruate”
Lol, what is this nonsense. Women, who “transitioned”and “identify” as men, menstruate as they still have a uterus. You literally cannot bleed if you dont have a uterus. Men who go on intense hormone therapy to “transition” experience “period like symptoms”. There is a difference. The whole thing is just so fake.
Enjoying the liberal infighting btw. Please dont stop. I catch up on this thread with a bag of popcorn everyday
LikeLike
ItsVerySimple
July 3, 2020
@Madan,
I am not. Her question about does it help to drag darling old bakers who refuse to serve gay couple to courts and elsewhere mentioning giving people time to get over their religious scruples is what I am addressing. The legal cases doesn’t have to help anyone else or the Cultural War – nobody has to think about whether it will help dragging anyone or wait to go to the courts to enforce or rewrite the law about basic rights till everyone in the society is on board.
Sure.
My original response was only about two points and it starts with precisely those two – about dragging people to the court – the specific choice of word used in a previous comment – and tolerating the opinion that “LGBTQ+ is a cultural fad” which is verbatim from a previous comment. I am asking them to stop treating homophobes with kid gloves and monkey-balancing and being centrists in these matters. I have zero interest in worrying how this centrist tag fits in your broad political, economic, social, all-encompassing comment-on-everything spectrum. I don’t know if they are the two other centrists you mention or that they are even centrists in the sense you use that word but they were indeed saying different things than you. But you want to make this about you – that is your choice and not my problem – and also demand why I am saying these things about you – I don’t get it, but you do you.
I was telling you that I didn’t think you were discouraging court battle for LGBTQ+ rights because a) I gave the benefit of doubt already before you made those disclaimers b) in your responses may be more than once that you mentioned you are not discouraging them as disclaimers and I was saying yes, I was not debating that you are and c) I wasn’t addressing you in my original comment but the “two other centrists” (who are saying two other different things even according to you) and I get a “how the fuck I am supposed to know that if you launch into a general attack ..” and yeah I am the one hyperventilating. You are saying a truck load of things in your comments and any single comment I write is not going to cut all the corners you expect and check all your boxes and I don’t even have the desire to fashion a response to that effect.
This was bizarre when you said it the first time and it continues to be so. You can imagine me to be the enemy you badly need in-person in this comments section. You can say I am making up a diversion from god-knows-what and that I display silent solidarity with online mobs – presumably the LGBTQ+ variety and “left liberal” variety only – and waiting with glee to watch and achieve collateral damage. I have zero control over these but it’s still thankfully only as far as you can tell and how really far you can tell, shows. I find your Eureka moment amusing, nevertheless. I have got nothing more to add.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Anuja Chandramouli
July 3, 2020
I wasn’t going to engage with you, @ItsVerySimple , because clearly I have pissed you off big time and that was not the intent. But I feel its unfair that Madan is getting lambasted for defending my comments while I stay silent. For the record, he really did get my point. You are free to go to court if you want to and I never said otherwise, I just don’t think it is a good idea. Again, I was talking in terms of cause and effect as well as the most efficient way to bring about lasting change but you have made your contempt very clear for those who take the middle path and actually make an attempt to listen to both sides (monkey – balancing as you called it) and seemed most determined to misinterpret what I was trying to say.
To reiterate my point, punishing people for not seeing things exactly the way you do is not going to yield positive results. People will just nurse their wounds, hang on to their existing bias for dear life and bide their time waiting for an opportunity to strike back. Nobody wins in these situations. Period. That is all I am saying. I wouldn’t presume to tell the LGBTQ community what they can or cannot do. That was never the point. This was just a discussion.
‘I am sure if someone is letting you not live you life, you wouldn’t be this callous and on the fence and all Hey Why Don’t You Explain Nicely.’
Again, I cannot presume to know the hardships of your lived reality but let us go back to JK for a second. She is privileged and powerful but she is also a victim of abuse and assault, hence she wrote about her concerns for women’s safety. What is so wrong about that? Also, she is a woman and hence women’s rights clearly matters more to her that trans rights. She was just honest about it (we all care more about our private issues than the issue du jour trending on Twitter even if they are deemed petty and inconsequential by the great majority) and I don’t get why she was so viciously attacked for it. (In all fairness, there were a few trans activists who also spoke out in her defense) I am also going to assume lesbians care more about living their own lives and far less about being politically correct about trans rights. Does that make it okay for them to be accused of transphobia because they don’t wish to date transwoman? #BlackLivesMatter may not have LGBTQ rights at the top of their minds right now or the people agitating about the murderous cops in Sathankulam. Would that make them callous?
I was trying to say that it would be better to address the concerns raised by people like JKR with rational argument instead of trying to bury her under invective and cancel her. That’s it. Its the same with those who are uncomfortable with LGBTQ issues on account of religious beliefs instilled into them. Instead of treating them with revulsion and disrespecting their religion, why not make the attempt to engage or give them a wide berth instead of insisting on making a fight out of it? I genuinely feel many will come around if they are given time… But that’s just me and I am sure there will be may here who are convinced I am talking out my butt.
As for Madan, he has called out liberal bullying much to the chagrin of many here. I don’t get why there is so much defensiveness over it. At least, the right wing nut jobs don’t pretend to be anything other than the hooligans they are even if they feel they are upholding culcher, tradison,Hornur and what have you. In fact, many take pride in being chauvinists and douchebags when they torch down buildings, burn buses, and throw themselves into rioting and looting with enthusiasm. The extreme left on the other hand, are so full of it. They like to think they are morally superior to everyone else and genuinely believe themselves to be paragons of virtue even as they commit themselves to destroying lives and careers over a tweet or a viewpoint that is at odds with their own. All this while pretending to fight for tolerance, compassion and understanding. Worse, they are clueless about how ironical and hypocritical this is. And people get mad when I refuse to ally myself with either the right or the left and choose to walk in the middle.
LikeLiked by 5 people
Honest Raj
July 3, 2020
Enjoying the liberal infighting btw. Please dont stop. I catch up on this thread with a bag of popcorn everyday.
Apparently, this isn’t the first time but I guess that’s the nature of this blog. 🙂
LikeLike
Rahul
July 3, 2020
Madan, really grateful that you even considered revisiting your opinion. You are predicating your whole opinion on the straw man that everybody is set to cancel JKR. For anyone else who is interested in this I am copy pasting the relevant sections from my very long post -> This is why it is important to engage and counter JKR
“JKR is probably as big a teen icon as any other. Hence, I would assume , what she thinks is of monumental importance to the trans community. If her transphobia is not countered effectively it is not far fetched to think it will be internalized by many cis and even trans teens.”
But don’t worry Madan, not asking you to revisit your opinion that you have already once revisited. Thanks again on behalf of the trans community .
But could you revisit that statement you made about SSR ? What was that about? It is not that important though.
@Arjun, good to see you here again, my friend. If we are still on talking terms , just curious, what is your preferred method of celebration when homosexuals are sentenced to death under Sharia? Do you login to wordpress.com to mock liberals with popcorn and coke, or do you plan something more substantial with your real-life friends, you know, those who are real and not imaginary like us.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Isai
July 3, 2020
@Anuja:
“They like to think they are morally superior to everyone else and genuinely believe themselves to be paragons of virtue even as they commit themselves to destroying lives and careers over a tweet or a viewpoint that is at odds with their own. All this while pretending to fight for tolerance, compassion and understanding. Worse, they are clueless about how ironical and hypocritical this is. And people get mad when I refuse to ally myself with either the right or the left and choose to walk in the middle.”
Amen.
Your comments have made me react like this (from 03:13 – 03:17 in the video below) a lot of times. Please keep writing here. Thanks.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Madan
July 3, 2020
“You are predicating your whole opinion on the straw man that everybody is set to cancel JKR. ” – When there is a complete lack of balance in the debate, I am left with no other inference to make. That you and others really think it is ok to relentlessly bully somebody and that if that somebody turns around and says, “You know what, I am going to tell you how I really feel and you can’t handle it”, you will go gotcha and cancel her. I have brought this up a thousand times already in this discussion and you guys make it so like walking on eggshells that you cannot even bring yourself to proffer an opinion on that. But I am not afraid of getting cancelled because there isn’t much, if anything, to cancel me for anyway, and I really don’t care what saying that makes people think about me. And this is not a “I am done caring” moment, don’t worry; this is how I am. I have lashed out at political correctness and cancel culture before and this won’t be the last time.
“But could you revisit that statement you made about SSR ? What was that about? It is not that important though.” – Er, the notion that speculating about how he really died would somehow push poor, fragile KJ and co to suicide themselves. So juxtapose that with “JK saying what she does might cause some trans youth to commit suicide so she shouldn’t”. But where does it end then, man? In light of that argument, were the people who condoned the attack on Charlie Hebdo right? Or why are their beliefs less important, less worth nurturing and being careful? And how exactly are we going to decide whose feelings are important?
It is GOOD, certainly, to be polite and considerate in your interactions with anyone, irrespective of their creed, as far as possible. But it has now got to the point where the Left makes it out like a mandatory stipulation and the threat of dire consequences for not complying. That’s just not going to work. I am not saying this because I want the right to issue homophobic or transphobic insults. I don’t even refer to musicians as gay unlike my SJW friend who called Peter Gabriel gay and then unironically got upset when somebody said something homophobic about Queen. But I just don’t see the point of this massive word-policing undertaking that it seems like people would like to have, what is that going to achieve? If not in their teens, trans people are also going to face bigots at some point in their lives. They will have to deal with the world one way or the other. A better solution would be for parents to teach them how to screen out stuff that doesn’t matter. And somebody somewhere on the net saying something hateful really doesn’t matter. Really, it doesn’t. I know. I HAVE received racist abuse on the net and I laughed at the abuser’s face and never heard back from the idiots in question. I would never dare compare online abuse to somebody doing that to me in person, but since we are talking about online abuse anyway, it is a relevant comparison.
LikeLike
ItsVerySimple
July 3, 2020
Thank you for engaging with me, Anuja. My first comment was a response to you but in the successive comments to Madan, I wasn’t demanding that you explain more to me or trying to put you in a spot. I hope you don’t feel so. (This isn’t a big deal when you feel I have misinterpreted you, but still).
If you think it’s not the ideal solution, not a good idea, the second good idea or may be a bad idea – my comment still stands. If you are telling me that it’s not a good idea to go after JKR over her comments, I understand that. I don’t think there is a middle ground in enforcing civil rights. If someone is failed by the state in enforcing their sanctioned civil right – gay, straight, man, woman – I don’t know why it is not a good idea to go to the courts as courts are sort of that middle ground. I am not saying these demanding you should agree with me.
That’s wrong, at least in the context of legal battle argument and that’s why your original comment sounded callous to me. To begin with, I am being punished because people don’t see homosexuality like I door how it should be seen in public places and the legal cases are the only way to rectify many of the concerns and that’s where it begins . I am not punishing anyone else by going to the court.
All the civil protections earned so far by any party are the wins and positive results. If anyone is going to strike back, let them, I cannot not achieve the positive results anticipating what will come. With respect to our discussion, the LGBTQ+ civil rights currently in place were won mostly through courts. Why are these not considered positive results? I cannot be legally prosecuted in India for having sex only in the past two years and that is a win and that came through the courts. For years I have heard people tell me it’s not a good idea to the courts and work with the society instead and I have always responded as I did to you. I will even say that is the only idea available to us in most countries to fight discrimination. Every time I join a new team at work, I spend weeks in utter anxiety – hiding my sexuality, politely drawing boundaries on what questions are allowed about my personal life and still not antagonizing anyone and of course convincingly explain why I haven’t married yet a hundred times. I am able put myself through that torture partly because my organization has a sexual orientation discrimination policy at least on paper and I have a bit of hope I could use it if things come to that. I am not trying to score any argument here citing my agony – it’s simply a fact. It’s not my burden to wait for any of them to come around, when I all need is a job.
I agree they are same but only in the context of two mobs fighting in their personal space. They aren’t the same in the context of discrimination assuming that’s one of the “LGBTQ issues” you cite. JKR is not discriminating anyone and trans community don’t have any legal case against her. Discrimination can bite any moderate who are uncomfortable with “LGBTQ issues” in their asses too. And the issues you seem to be comparing aren’t the equivalent either.
I appreciate this sentiment and that this is your personal opinion – but just a window into my reality – there is no way to say which ones will come around and which ones wouldn’t and how long each of them is going to take and what to do ultimately if some people don’t come around. My family that I mostly love and that mostly has nice people – hasn’t come around for years. People who know me well don’t see me for who I am. That’s why I rely more on constitutional morality than the public morality – it’s not out of choice, it’s my only option and idea, at least for deciding civil rights and discrimination. Discrimination is the worst form of cancel culture, after all.
I am not sure if you are asking me but, just for the record, it’s not okay to accuse them of being transphobic and I have been accused of the same in my dating pool. I am not expecting everyone to have LGBTQ+ rights all the time as their priority but when they are talking about LGBTQ+ rights, if i find some of them being callous, yes, that bothers me. (It’s entirely debatable if I am right in finding them callous, of course).
Trans community’s issues with JKR began few years back when a transwoman character featured in one of her books, the depiction and the politics behind it. I am not saying in the tone of did-you-even-know but that’s the starting point as far as I know. And it has progressed over the years and predictably entered the TERF zone. JKR “liking” transphobic comments isn’t a bug, it’s a feature. But that’s my opinion only and there is a lot of middle ground in these discussions about how to address these and I am not picking an argument over these with anyone here, neither am I defending people cancelling her. I just don’t agree with your middle ground approach over civil rights. I am sorry I misinterpreted your comments as “do not got to courts” but your original comments elaborated on why you don’t think that going to courts help and I don’t agree with them as they largely amount just next to not-going-to-the-courts in practical terms in my reality. But that’s my opinion only. That’s all.
LikeLiked by 7 people
Arjun
July 4, 2020
@Rahul: This is getting pretty stale and boring. Your Islamophobia is showing too. Homosexuality was common in Pre-modern Islamic societies, with even many Sultans having gay lovers. However there is a clear line between that and allowing gay couples to marry and adopt children. That is child abuse. Btw, this is yet another sleight of hand of the liberals, clubbing unrelated issues together. What has LGB got to do with T
It amuses me that JK Rowling, a highly accomplished and free thinking woman is sought to be cancelled by dudes masquerading as women. Lol.
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
July 4, 2020
allowing gay couples to marry and adopt children. That is child abuse.
Huh?
LikeLike
Altman
July 4, 2020
“Allowing gay couples to marry and adopt children. That is child abuse.”
This issue is often overlooked. Many psychologists have pointed out that nuclear family is the minimum requisite for a child to grow up to a physically and mentally stable adult. It used to take a tribe to raise a child. Now in our fragmented society, it’s just Mom and Dad. Imagine a kid being deprived of that. The media goes gaga over Ellen DeGeneres or Neil Patrick Harris raising kids with their respective partners which is projected as progressive. But they belong to the one percent who can give anything under the Sun to their kids. Think about the working class gay couples. Two women raising a boy/girl who grows up without a father to look up to or vice versa is normal?
If one simply points out the inherent defect in such practices, he/she is a bigot. It is common sense to not allow someone with a penis into a women’s restroom. Think about the trauma of girls when they see a boy “who identifies as a girl” in their school restroom. It is sheer madness to even consider such a thing.
LikeLike
Amit Joki
July 4, 2020
Anuja: Thank you for your comments. Much appreciated.
Regarding adoption, AFAIK, single male parents aren’t allowed to adopt a girl child. Now we all know what’s the reasoning behind that. How would this dynamic work in gay couples?
LikeLike
ItsVerySimple
July 4, 2020
@Altman,
As normal as working-class widowed heterosexual men or women raising a boy/girl without having a father or mother to look up to and only as inherently defective as these households are compared to a mom-and-dad-both-alive-and-kicking households, Altman.
LikeLiked by 9 people
Madan
July 4, 2020
“As normal as working-class widowed heterosexual men or women raising a boy/girl without having a father or mother to look up to ” – Blimey, one would have never guessed that happens, huh. 😀
LikeLike
Ramit
July 4, 2020
@Altman, you are saying the rich gay couples can tend to the needs of their adopted child but not-so-rich gay couples cannot, so they shouldn’t be allowed to adopt. In that case, what about not-so-rich straight couples? Should they be allowed to have or adopt children?
You are implying that it is not normal for a child to grow without a father figure. So, lesbians shouldn’t be allowed to have kids. In that case, what about children raised by single mothers?
You are so worried about the healthy growth of a child. So, you want families to have a mom and a dad. In that case, what about divorced couples? Or dysfunctional families? Are they not allowed to have kids?
Genuinely trying to understand your apprehensions here. Because I believe a child needs a loving, caring and accepting home, and that is independent of the gender of the parents.
Regarding, the trauma of girls when they see a boy “who identifies as a girl” in their school restroom, I am really not sure what’s traumatic about that. In fact, girls gel well with feminine boys.
Regarding, It is common sense to not allow someone with a penis into a women’s restroom., if there are no stand-in urinals, and everyone has to use a personal cabin in the toilet then neutral restrooms can work out.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Ramit
July 4, 2020
Regarding the movie discussed in the article above, I was put-off by its big surprise, which we had seen coming from quite a distance. The filmmaker treated homosexuality as a sensational topic, which is different from the characters treating it as sensational. Consider, Land of Storms. The setting is quite conservative. So, homosexuality is a big issue there. But the movie is quite cool about it. It normalizes the affairs when the leads are in their private space. On the other hand, In the Name Of treats the sex scenes as BIG scenes, which was a bit embarrassing to watch.
LikeLike
Ramit
July 4, 2020
@ItsVerySimple, that’s an awesome, long comment above. Fan of your writing and thought process.
LikeLike
Altman
July 4, 2020
“As normal as working-class widowed heterosexual men or women raising a boy/girl without having a father or mother to look up to and only as inherently defective as these households are compared to a mom-and-dad-both-alive-and-kicking households, Altman.”
It’sVerySimple, you have missed the point. Children whose parents are divorced still have a Mom and Dad. Same goes for children who lost one or both their parents. It’s entirely different than children conceived and raised without a father or mother in the first place. You don’t have a Dad but you have Moms. Don’t you see how weird that sounds? Can you even imagine the psychological toil of such a setting on the children? If everything is normal than the word loses its meaning.
Ramit, I wasn’t clear about my point regarding Ellen DeGeneres. I meant since the media portrays them as ideal and the kids can anything they want, it seems desirable but it isn’t so. It can have a detrimental effect.
But who cares about all that stuff anyway right? Until you are seen as a progressive supporting every perversity without thinking about it’s implications since it isn’t gonna affect you personally, everything is all right.
LikeLike
Anuja Chandramouli
July 4, 2020
@ItsVerySimple Thank you so much for addressing specific points of mine. Particularly after some of my earlier comments which you were not in agreement with. Seriously, this is why I love BR’s blog.. you learn so much and gain insights on so many levels. I have been trying to read up and educate myself on LGBTQ rights but I can honestly say that it was your last post which gave me a new perspective and a more genuine handle on how things stand.
Thanks for sharing a little of your personal experience as well. It couldn’t have been easy. In light of that, I can see now why my statements came across as callous and privileged. I apologise if it appeared that I was sympathetic to homo/transphobes. Not really. It is just that my heart goes out to whoever is at the receiving end of excessive aggression, hostility, trolling et al. and I keep wishing for peaceable solutions.
As with Santa, Madan and Anu’s arguments I am pretty much in agreement with the main crux of what you wrote. However, allow me to elaborate a little further on the litigation thing just in the interest of clarity and possible long-term gains.
‘With respect to our discussion, the LGBTQ+ civil rights currently in place were won mostly through courts. Why are these not considered positive results?.’ No argument there. Those were solid, hard fought wins and I laud the bravery of all who made it happen despite naysayers like yours truly. But… (There is always a pestilential big fat but isn’t there?)
I won’t deny that in a democracy the law is of the ultimate importance. And yet it would be naive to place our faith in the law and it’s minions blindly since it is hardly ever enforced or executed in the intended spirit. After all, we have some excellent, supposedly ironclad laws to safeguard the interests of citizens and yet we all know that civil rights and personal liberties are routinely violated with nary a consequence. Rape is a serious crime. So is murder. So is discrimination. And yet more often than not rapists, murderers, and bigots get away with their crimes while it is the victims who are punished some more. Hate to rain on your parade, but the long overdue legalizing of homosexuality is not nearly enough if we cannot ensure equal rights for the LGBTQ community as a matter of course.
Which is why I would focus on bringing about change in people’s heads, hearts, minds and behaviour rather than remain satisfied with the tokenisms and perfunctory legal measures that are so big with the hashtag activists. But I will say that a harmonious blend of judicial provisos and societal overhaul in terms of attitude and tolerance would be ideal and perhaps this is what we should be working towards. Together. Even if we are not in complete agreement about how best to get there.
I mentioned the Masterpiece Bakery case, because the great majority felt the good Catholic baker had been dragged to court for failing to bake a CAKE (restaurants reserve the right to deny service don’t they?) and the ruling made in the lower courts was overturned by the SC which clearly ignored the law which says folks cannot be discriminated against in favour of popular religious sentiment. Merely pointing out that in this instance most felt litigation was unnecessary. I am not at all saying that what happened was right. Not at all. I am saying we should take note of what went down irrespective of whether it was right or wrong and act accordingly.
Now take the Savita Halapanavar case in Ireland. This young mother lost her life because she was denied an abortion though the baby was in trouble and the doctors said the child would not survive. However in a Catholic country like Ireland, the law at the time said that it was illegal to evacuate the contents of her womb, while a foetal heartbeat could be heard. By the time, the heartbeat stopped a few week later Savita had contracted Septicimia and died shortly after. It took an unspeakable, easily avoided tragedy but the law was amended and with overwhelming public support. I am not saying that activists should wait for tragedy to strike before moving to court, merely that legal recourse is not always the best or only solution and is often not enough since the court of public opinion counts as well. It needs to be pointed out that a more nuanced, discerning approach taking in the specifics of a given situation might work better than an aggressive one size fits all force fit which so many favour.
‘there is no way to say which ones will come around and which ones wouldn’t and how long each of them is going to take and what to do ultimately if some people don’t come around. My family that I mostly love and that mostly has nice people – hasn’t come around for years. People who know me well don’t see me for who I am. That’s why I rely more on constitutional morality than the public morality – it’s not out of choice, it’s my only option and idea, at least for deciding civil rights and discrimination. Discrimination is the worst form of cancel culture, after all.’ If this is how you have been made to feel, it is a collective failure on the part of all of us as a society and I would say it is imperative we work to amend the situation, even if it takes a lot longer than is acceptable. And I am going to say it. Constitutional morality cannot stand without the bolster of public conscience. Either of the two won’t stand on its own. Cynical as I am about the law, I need to believe that when push comes to shove, people will find it in themselves to do the right thing.
P S: @Isai and @AmitJoki Nandrigal.
LikeLike
Ramit
July 5, 2020
@Altman
“It can have a detrimental effect.”
It can have a detrimental effect and it has a detrimental effect, are two different things. Do you have any evidence in stating that the children raised by gay parents are less normal/healthy than the ones raised by straight parents? Or, are you just passing off your phobia by presenting an imaginary bleak scenario?
LikeLiked by 2 people
ItsVerySimple
July 5, 2020
@Ramit – Oh! Thank you very much and thank you for making the arguments you do 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
ItsVerySimple
July 5, 2020
@Altman,
Dude, I am gay. I will be buying the tickets for the horror films you imagine in your comments only to watch you sitting in the front row being horrified and all weird-out and be utterly delighted.
I wasn’t missing the point. I was only trying to help to peel off the various layers – many-psychologists-say, Ellen-is-rich and working-class-parents-can’t-afford-whatever-that-is-needed-to-raise-a-kid-into-a-stable-adult – to quickly get to your core argument that same-sex-couple parents won’t be normal parents.
You are still giving enough space to open up various counters – what exactly is looking up to a parent mean when some kids have been raised almost their entire lives with one of them dead (like me), do every alive heterosexual parent pass the test of a-good-parent-to-look-up-to and if the many psychologists have any tests that we can subject them to before making any more babies, if all of the biological parents of the kids looking to be adopted – who couldn’t raise their children for various genuine, tragic reasons – would have passed the test of can-raise-a-child, how much of the psychological stress that kids in same-sex parent household go through actually comes from homophobic assholes giving them a hard time and so on.
But I am not going to indulge you in a discussion as I think, I might be wrong, that it will only be futile. Enjoy your Sunday.
LikeLiked by 2 people
ItsVerySimple
July 5, 2020
@Anuja,
Thank you, I appreciate it.
I am happy that we could meet half-way, how much ever we could and hence I am not really trying to extend the argument or continuing this in the spirit of pointing out a flaw, but merely stating it and not demanding a response.
Ireland’s Constitution/Law can be amended only by public referendums. It’s debatable if public referendums are the best way to bring changes in law but to Ireland’s credit – they have been doing these referendums for decades, they have an efficient mechanism in place to hold these referendums, they are time-bound and can achieve a result, good or bad, in a quantifiable sense – 65 percent said YES. This isn’t possible in many countries. Anjana Harish died of suicide after her family subjected her to conversion therapy to “cure” her bisexuality a month back in Kerala, it triggered as much as public outrage as it could but it wouldn’t result in any change to the those we need it in India. Only elected representatives can act on bringing some change and they have no real scale to assess the public mood. Even the very few do, say like Tiruchi Siva, have to work alone literally, bringing up private member bills and almost working in the activist zone to bring the change. And that might still not be reflective of the mood in the courts of the public. I do understand the significance of changing the public perception and agree with you that it needs to be done and only differ in the ways I have stated.
Thank you, again.
@Madan,
I know. in my sitcom voice : Didn’t happen to me at all!
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
July 5, 2020
Same goes for children who lost one or both their parents.
Hmm.. my best friend was raised by her widowed mother; she never knew her father, having lost him while she was still in the womb. Her mother and grandmother raised her – two women. She is not unique. Plenty of kids raised in women-only households, or men-only households due to circumstances. Doesn’t make them psychologically any weaker or stronger than kids raised in two-parent households.
Not to mention the psychological scars faced by children who are abused in some two-parent households; child abuse by one parent and the silent complicity by the other leaves trauma that takes its toll.
And your homophobia seems to also conflate homosexuality with paedophilia. As in, two men who have a child through surrogacy or adoption must certainly abuse them.
The only thing weird about considering same-sex marriage or same-sex adoption or surrogacy ‘perverse’ is the perspective that thinks that only heterosexuality and the ‘mother-father-children forms a family’ is normal.
‘Normal’ only means ‘the norm’ and since gays are as normal as anyone else, their having families is also normal. Whether you agree with it or not.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Anu Warrier
July 5, 2020
@ItsVerySimple – ah-ha! That’s why you’re gay! You were raised by two women. /s
Also, I know you said this tongue-in-cheek, but I honestly feel every person wanting to be a parent needs to be tested for his/her suitability for the job. Plenty of people around who should never have been parents in the first place. A feeling that has only been strengthened by hearing first-hand tales of neglect and abuse. 😦 Unfortunately, that’s a cycle that is paid forward, too.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Arjun
July 6, 2020
https://mobile.twitter.com/sapinker/status/1279934082210816003
“Cancel culture has reached its decadent phase”- Most succinct summary by no less than Steve Pinker. Attempt to cancel JK Rowling is a sympton of the same. The woke are punching above their weight and will pay dearly for it. Good.
LikeLike
Madan
July 6, 2020
” The woke are punching above their weight and will pay dearly for it.” – Actually, as I watch Hypernormalisation, I am able to now crystallise an idea that I may have vaguely had before and which the documentary suggested to me. With the retreat of the Left from politics in the wake of the disillusionment of the 1970s, they lost the ability to organise. Because they cannot organise, they cannot call for boycotts which would have been the traditional response. Instead, they reach out to govt and corporations and call for cancellation. It is a needy approach and cedes too much power to people who are far too corrupt to be given so much of it. But to understand the implications of it, you have to think in terms of power structures and not just left-right divisions as if it’s some cricket match. Ironically, the Right has shown hints of grasping this idea though they choose to co-opt this to pursue imagined foes instead. But their response to the meltdown was not to deny but to protest and organise. Even during the pandemic, it was the Right that organised protests demanding they be allowed to work and operate their businesses. And idea that may not seem so ridiculous NOW as it did then as the pandemic rages on and we grasp the futility of putting economies into deep freeze and wait. Of course, granting we do grasp the futility of it and some still don’t.
LikeLike
ItsVerySimple
July 7, 2020
@Anu Warrier,
😀
Pretty much my experience observing around too. People don’t even seem to acknowledge it – completely beats me why.
LikeLike
Arjun
July 8, 2020
https://harpers.org/a-letter-on-justice-and-open-debate/
Cancel Noam Chomsky, Rushdie and Margaret Atwood now? They are on the same letter as JKR. Surely this means they are standing up for JKR’s blatant transphoboia. Guilt by association, right? Come, on. do it, wokistas!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Madan
July 8, 2020
Arjun: Even Michelle Goldberg has signed onto the letter. I guess the mob asking for Pinker’s head was the last straw. As for associating with transphobia, they’re already on the job. A communist friend of mine is circulating a made up paraphrasing of the letter on FB where words like transpeople or transphobia are added after every sentence. Nevermind that the issue of the NYT editor stepping down over the Tom Cotton op-ed had sod all to do with transphobia or Rowling. So even before you could say it, they have already taken the bait.
LikeLike
Arjun
July 8, 2020
More LOL
https://twitter.com/jessesingal/status/1280603481531912192
I hope all of this will lead to the fake and dangerous trans movement quickly losing support even among other (mostly fake) liberals. It is totally entertaining to witness this schism unfold within the progs. Reminds me, I need to buy more popcorn.
LikeLike
Madan
July 8, 2020
Arjun: Where you’re wrong is in thinking this has only to do with the trans movement (and by saying that you play into the left’s narrative of a culture war). For these ‘free speech lovers’ (I don’t know any other way to club the previously pc-tolerant Michelle Goldberg, the anarchist Chomsky and the Never Trumper David Frum, among others, together), Steven Pinker was their George Floyd, the dam-burst movement. After some linguist academics attempted to get Pinker cancelled from the LAS, they seem to have decided it was too dangerous to remain silent any longer. And this is only the latest in a wave of successful or unsuccessful cancellations, the most ridiculous of them being that David Shor was fired for reproducing with a brief summary a study that observed that peaceful protests help liberals in elections while riots help conservatives. He did not insinuate anything about what BLM ought to do, he only produced a paper about election impact that he apparently agreed with.
The point is it is less about agreement on issues (the three in particular that I mentioned barely agree on anything at all other than that Trump needs to go) but about cancel culture rapidly gaining ground and reaching ridiculous proportions (as the Shor example clearly shows; for context, Shor is a Democrat and worked on the Obama reelection campaign). It is why I have in this discussion at times sound intolerant too when people pushed back saying there is no cancellation of JKR. I have been hearing this for too long even as concrete examples where it was not only a thing but also completely not on have mounted and multiplied rapidly. It’s, ironically, the mirror image of white denial of racism or police brutality. You go on denying till finally there is this one incident where it requires too much suspension of disbelief to deny. I thought that moment was reached with Shor but he’s a kid (I mean, he’s nearly 7 years younger than me) and these big name intellectuals, writers and journalists didn’t care then. But now that a big name academic is caught in the crosshairs of twitter outrage, they had to. That is what somewhat exposes them to allegations of being self-serving and deservedly so.
It would have been nobler had they written the same letter after the firing of Shor which was the most batshit crazy example of cancel culture I have ever seen. It honestly made me thankful I did NOT opt to come to America to study economics and pursue an academic career in it, something which I had dreamed of back in 2008 (people advised me against it then due to the meltdown). I find the environment particularly for these three-four professions – academics, journalists, writers and think-tank operatives (Shor) – quite scary and the complete spinelessness of corporations in the face of the twitter mob appalling. I am glad that at least in defence of Pinker, important and influential voices have spoken up and I hope it will be enough. I doubt it. (PS: Not that there aren’t serious problems in India, but at least there are ‘known’ problems and I deal with them already)
LikeLike
Arjun
July 9, 2020
The whole modern liberal movement is a scam as far as I am concerned. Notice that these signatories are all mostly boomer, white/Jewish elites. In US, all this intersectionality nonsense that involves finding imaginary overlaps between various unrelated issues is essentially a way of diluting, obfuscating and ultimately sabotaging THE MOST important issue which is racial justice. Again, why do none of these liberal mediapersons or academics ever write open letters calling for a comprehensive reservation policy in universities, police departments etc etc? By the way, have you seen figures for black representation in NYT, WaPo etc? It’s absymal to say the least. A black activist once observed that the goal of feminism seemed to be the transfer of power from white men to white women.
Similarly in India one finds that so-called anti-BJP upper caste men and women copy their white counterparts by jumping onto the bandwagon of several fringe issues and trying to pretend as though there is some intersectionality between these and Dalit or Muslim issues. To paraphrase, in India, the goal of feminism is to transfer power from Brahmin men to savarna women.
I couldn’t care less for either of these liberal camps and hope they end up cannibalizing each other.
LikeLike
Madan
July 9, 2020
“Notice that these signatories are all mostly boomer, white/Jewish elites.” – Plenty in that list who don’t fit that characterisation. Salman Rushdie, Uday Mehta, Meera Nanda, Fareed Zakaria, etc. I am not even ID-ing everyone. BUT even if the list is diverse, it somewhat fits the description of a racially diverse but culturally similar elite in Mohsin Hamid’s Reluctant Fundamentalist. That they represent a certain erudite cultural elite of society is beyond dispute.
So…” A black activist once observed that the goal of feminism seemed to be the transfer of power from white men to white women.” – OR, as Clarence Thomas put it, what white liberals and by extension their ‘allies’ want is an aesthetic of anti-racism where there is token representation of POCs as opposed to a substantial change of the underlying conditions. The latter does not interest them. Again, I don’t think Chomsky fits that description at all (and he swings to the extreme of supporting Pol Pot’s regime or absolving CPM in the Nandigram massacre), so as I said this is a rare letter that has genuine ideological diversity because those like Chomsky or conservatives like Brooks/Frum who always opposed free speech restrictions have made common cause with liberals like Goldberg belatedly realising the perils of cancel culture.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Madan
July 9, 2020
A wonderful article that incisively unpacks the flaws of cancel culture as well as the general reaction yesterday of lefties to the letter. Go ahead, darlings, if you really think Margaret Atwood is so dangerous and all, then maybe a real reincarnation of Hitler is what the doctor ordered for you.
https://reason.com/2020/07/08/lefties-hate-on-liberal-open-letter-on-free-speech/
LikeLike
Arjun
July 9, 2020
https://mobile.twitter.com/primalpoly/status/1281224917489311745
Lol, sure sounds like a Soviet reeducation camp. Orwell couldnt have made this up.
LikeLike
Madan
July 10, 2020
But Arjun, aren’t you a communist yourself? At least I remember you saying something to that effect once. So why do Soviet or Mao like tactics amuse you? Or are you under the belief that every communist seems to hold dear, that somehow your dream communist revolution would be devoid of the totalitarianism that was seen in every prior one, be it Soviet or Mao’s China or Cuba?
LikeLike
brangan
July 10, 2020
…the letter goes on to decry what it calls “a new set of moral attitudes and political commitments that tend to weaken our norms of open debate and toleration of differences in favor of ideological conformity”
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/jul/08/jk-rowling-rushdie-and-atwood-warn-against-intolerance-in-open-letter
LikeLiked by 3 people
Madan
July 10, 2020
I think ‘new attitudes and political commitments’ are all fine. Because when they put it that way, it sounds suspiciously like trying to monopolize the ideological grounds of discussion (which they couldn’t have meant, because of the ideological diversity of the signatories).
The fundamental issue with cancel culture as it operates is the notion that it is ok to fire someone for a tweet without affording them an opportunity to explain their side or, if the tweet is found to be still offensive, to apologise and remove that tweet. Free speech absolutists will say even that is not necessary but I am aware that workplace laws can take a much stricter line on whether what you say causes offence and in America, what you say outside our workplace CAN be held against you and amount to a cause of firing.
But if you’re just fired fired even when your ‘offensive’ communication was clearly not bigotry of any sort, that is and should be frightening. In the Reason.com article I posted, another case of a middle aged government worker was documented. She wore dark paint to mock Megyn Kelly (who had then lost her MSNBC gig for asking why blackface was racist) but the joke didn’t go down well with two humourless millennials. And look at the vindictiveness of the duo, they were not satisfied that the woman felt humiliated and left the party in tears when she was confronted about an obviously satirical take. So two years later, they got in touch with WaPo to see to it that action was taken and the woman lost her job.
None of this has anything to do with JKR. She has put herself out there as cancel-proof and it’s working. It’s also that cancel culture is not yet as effective in the UK as it is in the US and attempts to transplant the same culture met their resistance in the form of JKR. I do not know if her tweets were reason enough to cancel a publishing contract but what I can say is she was certainly more in the wrong than either David Shor or Sue Schafer.
Shor and Schafer’s cases, among others, present the clear cut evidence, for anybody who cares to look, that cancel culture has gone way out of control. If it’s just a minor transgression and if there is room for benefit of doubt for the person who said it, get an apology and be done with it. And I have had my fill with the rhetoric of ‘easy for privileged persons to call it minor’; nope, it is NOT ok to say you won’t give any benefit of doubt at all and will simply refuse to look at both sides in all such cases (such an approach is merited in cases like Amy Cooper’s where she did WAS flagrant). And note that white progressives were instrumental in getting both Shor and Schafer cancelled, so it’s the cancellers who usually presume to speak up for the would-be offended. Actually, Amy Cooper too. Chris Cooper himself said, whether you agree with him or not, that firing her and destroying her life was too extreme, but nobody was listening.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Arjun
July 10, 2020
“But Arjun, aren’t you a communist yourself? ”
Seems to be a case of mistaken identity, so I am not going to bother with the rest of the rant.
LikeLike
Madan
July 10, 2020
“Seems to be a case of mistaken identity” – OK because I remember when Enigma called you out as a communist, you said yes. You also said above you’re not a right winger and you are supporting China and Pakistan against India. It is not clear then what ideological spectrum such views fit into. It is odd that you would support China if you think free speech is important.
LikeLike
Altman
July 10, 2020
Rowling compared the current climate to the McCarthy years, adding: “To quote the inimitable Lillian Hellman:
‘I cannot and will not cut my conscience to fit this year’s fashions’.”
LikeLike
An Jo
July 11, 2020
LikeLike
Arjun
July 11, 2020
@Madan: Lol. It is both strange and funny when liberals think that if one is not a right winger, he must be a communist. Apparently gender is a “spectrum”, but ideology has to be binary. Strange, deluded people.
LikeLike
Madan
July 11, 2020
“It is both strange and funny when liberals think that if one is not a right winger, he must be a communist. ” – I didn’t say that and wouldn’t, as a left-liberal myself. But if you oppose thought control in USA while supporting the Chinese regime, there is a contradiction in your stance. I am consistent on THAT issue, maybe not on others, but I certainly don’t see how supporting China squares with opposing political correctness. If anything, those ADVOCATING PC in USA and also remaining mum about China’s follies are often accused of being Chinese agents because that would seem of a piece.
LikeLike