Sunday, March 19, 2023

So I Just Now Had Time to Read The Whole JK Rowling Thing ...

UPDATE, 3/24/2023: Moments ago, Governor Beshear just vetoed the anti-trans/anti-drag bill!  🌈🌈🌈


So two people have mentioned to me that they don't like JK Rowling anymore because she's "anti-trans."

Neither had read what JK actually said, and I hadn't either.

So because this is the second time I've heard avoidance of JK Rowling since the Harry Potter series came out (for two very different reasons), I went and researched everything she actually said on the issue. 

Because the first time I heard to avoid her was from people on the right side of politics, who said she's a witch and her books are Satanic.

Of course, none of the people saying this about her had actually read her books themselves. 

So after reading the books myself and not suddenly wanting to become a witch or hating God (lol), my first thought was " How come no one says that about Tolkien  and Lord of the Rings?"

I mean, her stuff admittedly heavily borrows from the pagan themes (dwaves, elves, centaurs, wizards) used by both Tolkien and CS Lewis, but is still founded on Judeo-Christian values, just like they were - although not biblical commentary like they were. 

So then the only real difference, IMO, is that she's a female writing  about these same things, you see :)

Now we hear a different tale on reasons to avoid her, from the other side of politics, my side, the left side - that she's anti-trans, a bigot, a trans hater.

So because the first time she was accused, it was all gossipy nonsense -  and because I'm a huge JK Rowling fan since -  I figured I owed it to her to read everything I could find that she said, in her own actual words.

However, since I also despise hero worship to the degree of blinding yourself to very serious, even dangerous flaws in these people (cough, cough, Trump is Exhibit A), when I read her own words on this trans issue, I read them critically, with eyes wide open. 

And after reading JK's comments on the transgendered, TBH, I wouldn't say she's "anti-trans" or a "trans-hater" - but I WOULD agree that she's definitely  trans-phobic - particularly of men transitioning female.

 In fact, in her June 2020 "manifesto," she came across as being terrified of men in general? lol

She seemed to contradict herself - one minute she's laughing at efforts to legalize the definition of women as "people who menstruate" as being too narrow and sexist  -  which I happen to agree with, I'm much more than a menstruator, plus there are plenty of young women from birth who are "amenorrheic" for various reasons (yes, there's actually a medical term for not menstruating) - but then the very next minute, she's trying to define women herself and does a very poor job of it.

Then she goes off on an irrational argument, something about (paraphrasing - NOT a direct quote) "If we let men say they're women just because they want to, aren't we giving men even more rights and somehow eroding women's rights in this way?"

Sigh.  As my little sister said, "It's not a pie" - and I would add that it's also not either/or - either men's right or women's rights, it's about all HUMANS having EQUAL rights.  

And she uses the same old tired of arguments of avoiding same-sex bathrooms because some creepers will say they're women just to use it to attack women.

Erm - and you think men hiding in women's bathrooms doesn't happen already, dressed as men or not?

It's not like there's a guard outside of women's restrooms, this happens all the time.

In fact, Google for yourself the amount of sexual assaults and rapes of women at public rest stops/areas in the last year alone - places funded and run by state and federal government, but have no cameras or attendants.

You will also note that although all of these assaults were performed by men, not a single one of them was dressed as a woman.

So if State Governments are soooo concerned about women's safety in bathrooms, then instead of using money to create law  bans that no one knows how to enforce,  use that money instead to put up some more damn security cameras and have 24-hour security attendants at ALL of your interstate rest areas and public bathrooms -  regardless of gender?!?

If nothing else, you'll see who it really is sexually assaulting women in bathrooms - and it's not trans men.

Not to mention, it's not just females who get sexually assaulted in bathrooms!

(This is why if we stop at a rest area while traveling, Mark always watches my entry and exit, as well as who goes in after me - he stands right there outside the door to do so and tells any incoming women that is what he's there to do, keep his wife safe while using the facilities.)

So how about this?

Why do we NEED to legally define gender?

And why are we almost singularly focused on just defining the gender of a woman, when there are also women transitioning into men?

And why is this issue of the legal definition of gender soooo important - seemingly currently  more important than any other issue to Republicans? 

And those most up in arms about it are the usual suspects - ya know, white male Republicans with an unusually obsessive need to define/control women and their choices and blame all of the world's problems on women.

And here's an even more interesting question - how is it that these same members of the supposed party of "small government" are the ones sooooo eager to have the government to define gender, marriage, and reproductive rights? 

Honestly, I'll be damned if I let the government define me, my gender, my marriage. or my family choices.

But if it's on my ballot and I HAVE to choose, I'll choose gay marriage being legal, transgendered people having the same rights as everybody else, and abortion being legal with restrictions, rather than abortion being entirely illegal without exception! 

In fact, I don't have the power to define who is male or female or what marriage is, that's above my pay grade and authority, and I'm not sure the government should have that much power over our personal choices either. 

Now - the only thing I semi-agreed with JK on is transitioning surgically before the age of 18 - I'm still on the fence about that.  It's not that I'm against it, per se, I just have some concerns I'd like to be reassured about first.

I DO know that there are very rigorous psychological screening programs in place - but it does bother me that if even one of those children truly is just young and gender confused versus truly trans, well, it's too bad later, it's too late - your reproductive organs are gone. 

Now - where she lost me on even this point is saying that's she talked to social workers, psychologists, etc. about the psychological damage of doing so, without citing any clinical studies on this.

I don't have them either, but as long as we're using limited personal experience as "proof," I used to transcribe for Boston Children's Hospital Gender Reassignment Department.

(As an aside, you'd be surprised with the amount of children born with some element of both genders). 

 I agree with MDs there - the fact is, the brain develops last, after the gradual development of reproductive organs (which is why men have nipples, the brain is still undecided on gender until later).  

So being that we know as fact that the brain develops last, I believe it's entirely possible that the brain could even be an entirely different gender  from the body, and until I'm proven wrong, I will continue to believe this is not only possible, but happens more frequently than you would think. 

But more important to the point about psychological issues, the only psychological problems that I personally transcribed were the children being born with some element of both organs and the parents choosing their gender for them, rather than waiting to let the child decide.  

The parents choosing the gender for these particular children, based on what they wanted, invariably caused psychological issues in the child, 100% of the time.

Along these same lines, as you may have heard, my state of Kentucky (among other southern states), is trying to pass a bill to make drag shows illegal.



With all that's going on in the world, Republicans biggest concern is men dressing up in sometimes over-characterizations of women for comedic effect or lip-synching songs by iconic women?

Seriously, Republicans - with some actual threats to the health and safety of our children (School shootings? COVID?) -  do you realize how petty and delusional you sound, trying to force through laws about drag queen shows? LOL

If this bothers you so much, why didn't you legally ban Milton Berle or Flip Wilson or Dame Edna for dressing up as women and telling stories, singing, and dirty jokes on national TV then?

Otherwise, as I said, I will define you by whatever gender you want me to, and your relationship however you want me too, and support whatever decision you want to make about your reproduction/family rights, since I'm not the one raising your child/providing care. 

If you're a man that wants to wear a dress and sing songs and tell stories, I'm not going to stop you ....

Whether you wear your dress like this .... 

Or you wear your dress like this ... 

Speaking of which, I have yet to hear of one single case of a drag queen molesting a child, but I can cite multiple cases where "men of the cloth" have. 

BUT, I digress to my original point.

I will NOT be canceling or boycotting JK Rowling for her  transgender stance, which is curiously diametrically-opposed to the rest of her self-proposed liberal and gay-supporting politics.

Because I don't feel it was "bigoted hatred" or "anti-trans," as people are saying, sorry - but it WAS transphobic. 

Sometimes fear and hatred go hand-in-hand, but not always - sometimes there's just fear,  which is almost always based on ignorance/lack of experience or education

And IMO, with people that are simply afraid/ignorant, the very last thing we should do is make ourselves scarier by hurling stuff at them and excluding them from further conversation, right? 

She has a right to her ... very odd, inconsistent, incongruent, and somewhat ignorant opinion. 

And if I canceled or boycotted every author that said or did something I disagreed with in their personal life, I'd have nothing left to read lol.

For me, I guess it's really about percentage - well, not an actual percentage, but if the majority of things that come out of your mouth or off your fingertips are things that I strongly disagree with, especially if they are hateful, then I'm probably not going to listen or read anything further that you say lol.

If it's just one or two things you say that I don't like, well, I'll give you the same courtesy I'd like for myself - I assume not everyone will agree with every point I make, either :)

JK still "identifies" herself as a liberal and truly has supported other very liberal causes, whether you agree with her definition of being a liberal or not.

We're actually a pretty diverse group, those of us claiming to be liberal.  

In fact, though it's less common in the Democratic party, I've even met gay racists and homophobic, even truly bigoted people of color, all professing to be liberal Democrats - this is especially common in the bible-belt  South.

Maybe I wouldn't consider you a "liberal" with those ideas, but it's not up to me, I don't really get to define "liberal" - and if you define yourself that way, who am I to say  you're not? 

Though I would never condone racist or bigoted attitudes in my party, speaking more generally, it's the acceptance of diversity, of differing opinion - not just in skin color or faith, but in actual opinion in general, is one of the things I like most about being a liberal.

It's what separates us from people like Trumpers who demand that you drink ALL the Kool-Aid and check ALL the boxes or else you're a RINO or something. 

I may not agree with you on this point or that one, but if YOU consider yourself a liberal still, who am I to say you're not? 

And that is the culmination point of my post - only YOU get to define you, your relationship, your gender, your reproductive rights, and even your politics, nobody else  - not me, not the church, and certainly not the government. 

(But if you actually restrict rights based on these attributes, then you're going to see me involve the government by voting against you ;)

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.