TBH your fundamental mistake is assuming Rowling means exactly what she says. She's clever enough to hide her bigotry behind the traditional cowardly bigot's stance of concern and nonsense like that and tow the line to just the right side of acceptable that someone relatively uninformed and neutral on the matter might think they are bein…
TBH your fundamental mistake is assuming Rowling means exactly what she says. She's clever enough to hide her bigotry behind the traditional cowardly bigot's stance of concern and nonsense like that and tow the line to just the right side of acceptable that someone relatively uninformed and neutral on the matter might think they are being reasonable.
She says doesn't hate trans people she just actively spends inordinate amount of time obsessing about them and campaigning against their rights. But no she doesn't hate them.
And you're making the mistake of thinking bigots have reasoning first when bigotry is the reactionary impulse first, followed by the intellectual justification second.
It's like nimbyism (ultimately it's both to do with the reactionary impulse) they react first and come up with justifications later. It's not her being rational it's her rationalising her prejudice
And that's assuming she means what she says and has not deliberately toned it down for a general audience which seems unlikely
But the crucial tell with Rowling is who she associates with and talks to online and IRL. And their views which are far far less self censored and far more openly extreme and bigoted.
But ultimately what she believes is irrelevant when the outcome of what she's ultimately doing is laundering transphobic messages which themselves are rehashed anti gay arguements.
It's so amazingly transparent a re-run of gay panic that it's astonishing people, even terfs, struggle to see that.
TBH your fundamental mistake is assuming Rowling means exactly what she says. She's clever enough to hide her bigotry behind the traditional cowardly bigot's stance of concern and nonsense like that and tow the line to just the right side of acceptable that someone relatively uninformed and neutral on the matter might think they are being reasonable.
She says doesn't hate trans people she just actively spends inordinate amount of time obsessing about them and campaigning against their rights. But no she doesn't hate them.
And you're making the mistake of thinking bigots have reasoning first when bigotry is the reactionary impulse first, followed by the intellectual justification second.
It's like nimbyism (ultimately it's both to do with the reactionary impulse) they react first and come up with justifications later. It's not her being rational it's her rationalising her prejudice
And that's assuming she means what she says and has not deliberately toned it down for a general audience which seems unlikely
But the crucial tell with Rowling is who she associates with and talks to online and IRL. And their views which are far far less self censored and far more openly extreme and bigoted.
But ultimately what she believes is irrelevant when the outcome of what she's ultimately doing is laundering transphobic messages which themselves are rehashed anti gay arguements.
It's so amazingly transparent a re-run of gay panic that it's astonishing people, even terfs, struggle to see that.