TDT 4: What the $#@! is a "womxn", anyways?

[Jack Thomas Lang]

Brian Jacques is like the only good children's author.

[Izandai]

I don't think many people think Rowling is an antisemite. You don't have to be antisemitic to include antisemitic imagery and themes in your work. You just have to be ignorant on the subject, and given the ignorance of Rowling's comments about trans people, that's much much less of a stretch.

Now that people are talking about these sorts of things perhaps you'd think more about how you use goblins as a new author. But I'm not sure how fair it is to rake an author individually over the coals for the presence of staple genre elements in their story that they themselves didn't invent and which weren't massively controversial at the time. We don't like her much because she's had some crap takes on things lately, but the pile-on and chucking everything but the kitchen sink at her comes across as a bit ahistorical and opportunistic.

Yeah, while it's definitely a good thing to critically examine the content of the books, I think the people throwing out these "The Harry Potter Books Are Bad, Actually" Hot Takes™ are taking things way too far. Forgive me this idle speculation, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if a significant portion of the people saying such things are just people who didn't like the books and have been annoyed with their cultural prominence eagerly taking advantage of it now being "okay" to hate Harry Potter now that it's come out that their author is a shitty person. The books are good. They aren't "high art" (whatever that means), they've got technical flaws beyond the problematic content, and I'll be surprised if they're still very culturally relevant in a few decades, but they're good. I'll continue to recommend them to anyone who's considering giving them a go (though with the caveat that they not be acquired in any way that gives money back to their author who, as has been previously established, is a shitty person).

[VVerkia]

I read these books. I like them. I don't care whatever JKR is transphobe or not, or is only "made" as such. Sincerely (trans)female

[Vassenor]

Now that people are talking about these sorts of things perhaps you'd think more about how you use goblins as a new author. But I'm not sure how fair it is to rake an author individually over the coals for the presence of staple genre elements in their story that they themselves didn't invent and which weren't massively controversial at the time. We don't like her much because she's had some crap takes on things lately, but the pile-on and chucking everything but the kitchen sink at her comes across as a bit ahistorical and opportunistic.

Yeah, while it's definitely a good thing to critically examine the content of the books, I think the people throwing out these "The Harry Potter Books Are Bad, Actually" Hot Takes™ are taking things way too far. Forgive me this idle speculation, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if a significant portion of the people saying such things are just people who didn't like the books and have been annoyed with their cultural prominence eagerly taking advantage of it now being "okay" to hate Harry Potter now that it's come out that their author is a shitty person. The books are good. They aren't "high art" (whatever that means), they've got technical flaws beyond the problematic content, and I'll be surprised if they're still very culturally relevant in a few decades, but they're good. I'll continue to recommend them to anyone who's considering giving them a go (though with the caveat that they not be acquired in any way that gives money back to their author who, as has been previously established, is a shitty person).

Read the books as a kid. Enjoyed them at the time. Now I'm looking back and realising "wait, that's actually kind of fucked up once you start thinking about it".

[Izandai]

Yeah, while it's definitely a good thing to critically examine the content of the books, I think the people throwing out these "The Harry Potter Books Are Bad, Actually" Hot Takes™ are taking things way too far. Forgive me this idle speculation, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if a significant portion of the people saying such things are just people who didn't like the books and have been annoyed with their cultural prominence eagerly taking advantage of it now being "okay" to hate Harry Potter now that it's come out that their author is a shitty person. The books are good. They aren't "high art" (whatever that means), they've got technical flaws beyond the problematic content, and I'll be surprised if they're still very culturally relevant in a few decades, but they're good. I'll continue to recommend them to anyone who's considering giving them a go (though with the caveat that they not be acquired in any way that gives money back to their author who, as has been previously established, is a shitty person).

Read the books as a kid. Enjoyed them at the time. Now I'm looking back and realising "wait, that's actually kind of fucked up once you start thinking about it".

And that's totally fair! I had a similar reaction when I realized exactly what was going in with Tash and his followers in the Narnia books. But I think that just as it's entirely reasonable for such content to completely ruin one's enjoyment of a work, I think it's also reasonable to be able to enjoy a work in spite of such content, and that doing so isn't the same thing as condoning the content or whatever message one thinks it's presenting.

[Centai Mal]

Well, we’re in a thread talking about JK Rowling’s problematic personal actions and how that factors into her writing, and I figured if people wanted a book written by someone who WASN’T problematic, and didn’t have a problematic cast or sketchy undertones, I’d suggest Rick Riordan books. There’s a lot of great books that I’d recommend, but Riordan’s books are both amazing and have diverse characters

Look, Riordan literally wrote the Percy Jackson series so that his son (who has ADHD and dyslexia) could see himself in a story. I loved Percy Jackson as much as I did because it was the first book I ever saw myself in - I have ADHD and learning disabilities. Obviously the book is amazing, I’ve read so many great book series, but that one was always special to me because I got to see myself in the main character. The fact that a few of the characters are LGBTQ throughout somewhere like 20 books between his main series is also nice, because it’s just nice to see yourself in books.

I like Percy Jackson series alot but the Harry Potter series is better written. Just because a book has diversity in it doesn't mean its a good read.

Percy Jackson is a very well-loved, well-written book series. I wasn’t saying that a book is only good because it has diversity, I was recommending a good book that is also pretty diverse.

I disagree that the Harry Potter series is better written, though. Too many plot holes, a lot of the characters don’t get great character arcs, and way too much retconning from the author. It’s not a bad series, I enjoyed reading it, but it just isn’t “better written”

[South Odreria 2]

Read the books as a kid. Enjoyed them at the time. Now I'm looking back and realising "wait, that's actually kind of fucked up once you start thinking about it".

And that's totally fair! I had a similar reaction when I realized exactly what was going in with Tash and his followers in the Narnia books. But I think that just as it's entirely reasonable for such content to completely ruin one's enjoyment of a work, I think it's also reasonable to be able to enjoy a work in spite of such content, and that doing so isn't the same thing as condoning the content or whatever message one thinks it's presenting.

What was going on with tash and his followers?

[The Emerald Legion]

And that's totally fair! I had a similar reaction when I realized exactly what was going in with Tash and his followers in the Narnia books. But I think that just as it's entirely reasonable for such content to completely ruin one's enjoyment of a work, I think it's also reasonable to be able to enjoy a work in spite of such content, and that doing so isn't the same thing as condoning the content or whatever message one thinks it's presenting.

What was going on with tash and his followers?

They were fairly blatant Muslim standins who were also utterly horrible people.

[Izandai]

What was going on with tash and his followers?

They were fairly blatant Muslim standins who were also utterly horrible people.

Eeeyup. What's amusing (and maybe a little shameful) is that as a kid I think I actually "got" what was going on there, to some extent, but it wasn't until years later that I looked back and realized that it's kind of fucked up.

[Vassenor]

So it seems that the hate groups are starting to realise that the rhetoric they've spread since getting into bed with the fundamentalist conservatives might actually be harming women's rights in general.

[Izandai]

So it seems that the hate groups are starting to realise that the rhetoric they've spread since getting into bed with the fundamentalist conservatives might actually be harming women's rights in general.

Those tigers have eaten more people's faces than Carl.

...Okay, maybe not more than Carl. That dude's fucked up.

[Vassenor]

So it seems that the hate groups are starting to realise that the rhetoric they've spread since getting into bed with the fundamentalist conservatives might actually be harming women's rights in general.

Those tigers have eaten more people's faces than Carl.

...Okay, maybe not more than Carl. That dude's fucked up.

Caaaaarl...

[Auzkhia]

So it seems that the hate groups are starting to realise that the rhetoric they've spread since getting into bed with the fundamentalist conservatives might actually be harming women's rights in general.

Sometimes, TERFs are even more extreme than religious conservatives

The North Carolina Republican Party wants to ban trans people from any single sex restrooms in government buildings.

Whereas the TERF run Georgia Green Party wants to ban trans people from any single sex restrooms in all public buildings, privately owned or state owned.

[Slaughter None]

This article is aimed at explaining people why there are only two genders and believing that is not homophobic or transphobic. If you have a valid reason then please post it for everyone to see. Thank you and have a good day.

[Liriena]

Where's the article?

[Galloism]

Where's the article?

Let’s face it, it probably wasn’t worth reading anyway.

[Crockerland]

You didn't link an article.

No one ought to need an article to know there are two genders, though.

[Liriena]

You didn't link an article.

No one ought to need an article to know there are two genders, though.

Anti-intellectual arrogance is so cool.

You're literally making the same argument as flat-earthers.

[Mirjt]

Biology, sociology, psychology, etc... says there are 3 human sexes (male, female, and intersex) and that gender is a human social construct that can have as many or as few categories as is socially constructed in a given society (I find the categories cisgender conforming, cisgender non-conforming, transgender, third gender, agender, androgyne, multigender, fluid gender, and non-binary gender, to be useful categories in our current social environment).

[Crockerland]

You didn't link an article.

No one ought to need an article to know there are two genders, though.

Anti-intellectual arrogance is so cool.

You're literally making the same argument as flat-earthers.

Believing science even if it contradicts political correctness = literally a flat earther

okay.

[Mirjt]

Anti-intellectual arrogance is so cool.

You're literally making the same argument as flat-earthers.

Believing science even if it contradicts political correctness = literally a flat earther

okay.

You claimed there are only two genders. That is scientifically wrong. If you are using the word gender as a stand-in for human sexes, then there would be three, male, female, and intersex. If you are using the word gender as it is intended by sociologists then the number of genders there are changes based on the social contexts.

[Liriena]

Anti-intellectual arrogance is so cool.

You're literally making the same argument as flat-earthers.

Believing science even if it contradicts political correctness = literally a flat earther

okay.

You claim you "believe science" but also think you don't "ought to need" to read to know about gender.

Yep, that's actual flat-earther logic right there. It's the same "I don't need to read to know science" mentality.

[Thermodolia]

Biology, sociology, psychology, etc... says there are 3 human sexes (male, female, and intersex) and that gender is a human social construct that can have as many or as few categories as is socially constructed in a given society (I find the categories cisgender conforming, cisgender non-conforming, transgender, third gender, agender, androgyne, multigender, fluid gender, and non-binary gender, to be useful categories in our current social environment).

Intersex really isn’t a separate sex but a mix of male and female

[American Pere Housh]

Biology, sociology, psychology, etc... says there are 3 human sexes (male, female, and intersex) and that gender is a human social construct that can have as many or as few categories as is socially constructed in a given society (I find the categories cisgender conforming, cisgender non-conforming, transgender, third gender, agender, androgyne, multigender, fluid gender, and non-binary gender, to be useful categories in our current social environment).

[Liriena]

Biology, sociology, psychology, etc... says there are 3 human sexes (male, female, and intersex) and that gender is a human social construct that can have as many or as few categories as is socially constructed in a given society (I find the categories cisgender conforming, cisgender non-conforming, transgender, third gender, agender, androgyne, multigender, fluid gender, and non-binary gender, to be useful categories in our current social environment).

Let the record show that American Pere Housh refuted Mirjt's argument by spamming the rofl emoji nine times.