- cross-posted to:
- worldnewsnonus@lemy.lol
- scotland@feddit.uk
- cross-posted to:
- worldnewsnonus@lemy.lol
- scotland@feddit.uk
JK Rowling has challenged Scotland’s new hate crime law in a series of social media posts - inviting police to arrest her if they believe she has committed an offence.
The Harry Potter author, who lives in Edinburgh, described several transgender women as men, including convicted prisoners, trans activists and other public figures.
She said “freedom of speech and belief” was at an end if accurate description of biological sex was outlawed.
Earlier, Scotland’s first minister Humza Yousaf said the new law would deal with a “rising tide of hatred”.
The Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021 creates a new crime of “stirring up hatred” relating to age, disability, religion, sexual orientation, transgender identity or being intersex.
…
Ms Rowling, who has long been a critic of some trans activism, posted on X on the day the new legislation came into force.
So if you were in the U.S., you would vote for Republicans despite the call for eradicating trans people and you wouldn’t spread awareness of the fact that it has been called for in quite an official way? And you wouldn’t even want to be informed about it?
Really?
What if it was black people that they promised to eradicate? Or Hindus? Still okay to vote for them and not worth spreading awareness?
???
How did you reach this conclusion?
I am also not here to be interrogated, you told me I “should care” about this whole subject (starting from the Rowling tweets), I said I don’t because I can’t care about everything and I prioritize according to my sensibility and values. You asked “what do you do”, and I have answered you. There is nothing else to say: the trans genocide in the U.S. (if it can be called like this) is something I don’t agree with (I have nothing against trans people, I have no problem with people choosing their pronouns, their toilets, their names, their aspect and what to do with their body) but I also don’t rank it high enough in the list of causes I care about. I explained what “caring” means. Caring in this context would mean for example reading and educating myself to form opinions about -say- puberty blockers etc. based on age. I don’t have the time to form a proper opinion about this, so I don’t.
I am sorry if this is a cause that is dear to you and that you wish everyone else would fight, but my whole wife’s family is in Ukraine and lives with air raids sirens day in-day out, our planet is on fire and I also need to work and do other stuff in my life. I simply need to choose to what dedicate attention.
Yes, again, I think you, and everyone else, should care about genocides. Because it means fewer genocides. If you can’t dedicate any attention to a genocide, maybe you should broaden your focus. Because otherwise, it still sounds like you’re okay with some genocide but not other genocide.
And I, again, disagree. First, I disagree with the premise: so far - based on the sources you used and a cursory review of what I found - I don’t find the arguments that define the trans genocide compelling. Second, as a consequence, I see you are back to guilt-tripping as a strategy. No, if I don’t care about something doesn’t mean I am OK with whatever happens. There are countless of examples probably of things going on in the world I don’t have energy or time or will to care about that I am not OK with. So, unless you have some fresh perspective that goes beyond relying on the word “genocide”, to argue the relative importance of this matter over others, we are at a deadlock.
Based on the arguments made so far, I stand by my initial position that the trans rights cause - despite I sympathize with it - is not high enough in the priority list to deserve my attention. Even less are the tweets of a celebrity about it.
I suppose it’s easy to not care about a genocide if you deny the genocide is happening.
Accusing me of guilt-tripping you won’t absolve you of genocide denial, sorry.