J.K. Rowling is embroiled in a fresh row with another Harry Potter actor over transgender rights.
Following exchanges of fire with Daniel Radcliffe and others, Rowling has blasted David Tennant after the Goblet of Fire star voiced strident views on those who speak out against trans rights.
During an appearance at the British LGBT Awards over the weekend, he called on British equalities minister Kemi Badenoch to “shut up” after she advocated for banning trans women from entering women’s toilets and sports teams.
In an interview at the same event, Tennant called transgender critics “a tiny bunch of little whinging f*ckers who are on the wrong side of history, and they’ll all go away soon.”
Earlier in the week, Rowling branded people like Tennant the “gender Taliban.” In posts on X (once Twitter) on Friday, she expanded her comments to address Tennant’s “wrong side of history” quote.
Rowling wrote: “This man is talking about rape survivors who want female-only care, the nurses currently suing their health trust for making them change in front of a man, girls and women losing sporting opportunities to males and female prisoners incarcerated with convicted sex offenders.”
She added: “For a man who’s supposedly a model of compassion and tolerance, he sure does want a lot of people to cease to exist.”
My reply said nothing about only Tories being solely responsible, only that they have been primarily in charge/in power for the last 14 years and are about to take a major fall from power in the upcoming election this week.
I didn’t praise Labour, merely said they will be the primary benefactor of the change in power, and that they are the UK equivalent of Democrats in the US (a simplified comparison for a non-UK audience, that happens across this thread); which isn’t untrue in general, even with your above complaints.
This is indeed a UK thread, but JK and Tennant are world renowned, and having them both in the title will draw in a larger audience.
This is all the confirmation it takes. You’re close, but if you still think Starmer’s Labour is going to change anything fundamental about how things are run, you’ve not been paying attention.
Sounds like they were just hoping things would at least improve, which means not get actively worse nor remain strictly the same, but does not mean things become absolutely good and fixed. You’re the one putting “fundamental changes to how things are run” as their claim.
I found their comment quite helpful, and the content of the addition that labour may not do much better was also useful and fit in the framework they gave.
I don’t think the aggression was warranted or helpful, and only served to stagnate the discussion.
Lmfao, whatever makes you feel better and not have to confront realities that make you uncomfortable… 🙄
(E: realities that you actively contribute to by tone policing, and framing and dismissing people whose rights, and lives, are being abused and put at risk as “aggressive”, which is a classic and well documented silencing tactic, whether you knew you were doing it or not. You also literally contributed nothing to the conversation. So basically your entire reply is one big projection, almost impressive)
Re: edit - you should actually read the article on what tone policing is in their conception and what is harmful about it, not all being called out for dickish replyguy behavior is tone policing. Frustration and aggression can be warranted, and is fine to express, but when all you’re doing is arguing with no cogent point (see: yelling into the void) and misinterpreting what someone is saying to the point of absurdity, aggression is being actively harmful to the discussion. That’s just being an ass for catharsis.
And again, the point was to point out that the person you’re responding to did not say what you claimed they did, and that the addition about labour was helpful. You can be as frustrated and aggressive as you want about that, but this whole discussion could’ve been in agreement, you both appear to agree with each other on the meat of the politics.
Huh?
I mean… you are literally instead of discussing the politics of the UK, actively choosing to be antagonistic.
And antagonistic in a way that I have literally no idea what you’re even trying to say, beyond wildly thrashing into the void.