Trans movement persecutes women’s rights activist for her commitment to imprisoned women

The Dark Lord. He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named. you know who One of JK Rowling’s most original ideas is that in the world of Harry Potter (almost) all wizards are afraid to call Lord Voldemort by name. That ranges from first graders to prime ministers. They dodge the villain’s name. With consequences. Rowling leaves no doubt in the books that she’s one of those people who wants to call things by their proper name. The books and the rights to the films and the merchandising around the magic student have also made her so rich that she no longer has to rely on any kind of income. The former welfare recipient has even started giving away parts of her wealth that she doesn’t need.

time to read

“Tichy’s Insight” – this is how the printed magazine comes to you

This has given Rowling the freedom to embark on a media battlefield that is murderous. So far only metaphorically. Although the author says that she has long been able to wallpaper walls with the death threats. And one murder of Rowling is literally already underway: character assassination. Hardly anyone reports on the best-selling author without using the epithet “controversial” and many start yelling “transphobic” as soon as she somehow sticks her head out of the window. Or others: The most recent reason for attacks against Rowling was the promotion of a Potter theater production for “Pride Month”, the month of pride, which originally advocated tolerance of homosexuality.

An example of the attacks is the page A comment like “the repeated transphobic derailments of its creator” is casually dropped by the editors in a debate contribution to the game “Hogwarts Legacy”. Without stating what “the repeated transphobic gaffes” actually are. In 2020, the creator of “you-know-who” tweeted that she poked fun at the word “menstruating people.” She then explained the 280-character joke by saying that such distorted terms made it difficult to advocate for women’s rights. Then, in 2021, Rowling shared an author’s post warning of a legislative initiative in the UK that would allow any convicted man to identify as trans without any investigation and be placed in a women’s prison. Which in turn becomes a danger for female prisoners in the case of sex offenders. wants to pursue the question of whether transsexuals are still allowed to consume Potter products. But despite this ambitious project, the editors do not take the time to present the allegations: Can you still consume the works of an author who made a joke? Are the products of a woman who campaigns for women’s rights still allowed? Admittedly, that sounds humorless, narrow-minded and intolerant. Taking action against the author with the “repeated transphobic derailments” seems much more powerful – even the unkissed computer nerd can still feel like a social warrior. thus adheres to the three commandments of the woken “debate culture” in the contribution.

  1. The accusation of transphobia is the verdict!
  2. Anyone who questions the judgment of transphobia is transphobic!
  3. Don’t discuss with trans enemies, they have to be destroyed! At least existentially!

As you Like It

JK Rowling and gender theory as a new 2+2=5

Many continue to want to make money from the tail of Potter fame. A decade after the seventh and last volume in the series of novels, another play by other authors was subsequently submitted, which in turn was staged in lavish stage productions. There is said computer game. Or the former child actors like Emma Watson or Daniel Radcliffe. They all try to stay in business and adapt to the market. Transgender activists launch boycotts, ruining business. So the economy – like politics – gives in to their accusations. So society becomes more and more like a family that aligns its life with the whims of the defiant child.

The multi-millionaire Rowling would not have to expose herself to all this – but she does anyway. It doesn’t matter that she has spoken out in countless articles for tolerance towards transsexuality. That the Potter books in particular promote the acceptance of alternative existences and life plans. Rowling still thinks the presence of the genders male and female is important. That is enough to accuse her of being transphobic, which in turn sets the three rules in motion, as a result of which Rowling is now being threatened.

It is her feminist approach that leads Rowling to insist on the existence of the female gender. If there were no longer a difference between the sexes, this would mean that shelters for women would have to be abolished: “If you open the doors of toilets and changing rooms to every man who thinks he is a woman or who thinks he is a woman woman feels … then you open the door for all men who want to come in.” She herself was a victim of domestic violence and sexual abuse in her first marriage. For this reason, too, she wants to protect other women: “The scars left by violence and sexual assault do not disappear, no matter how much you are loved and how much money you have earned.”

as Orwell once prophesied

JK Rowling gets demoted on her own ‘Fantastic Beasts’ movie

Instead of appreciating this commitment, people distance themselves from Rowling. Even those who became rich and famous through them. For example Emma Watson, who played Hermione Granger in the movies. The residual fame from this role brought her further film appearances and an engagement as a model for the Burberry brand. Overall a decent business. So lucrative that Watson appeared in the Panama Papers. But social commitment and hypocrisy is not the issue.

But Watson’s distancing from Rowling: “Trans people are who they say they are.” Now being determines consciousness. In the life of model Watson, there aren’t any discount clothing stores where men can show up in their fitting rooms because they say they’re not men. In the posh world of Panama Papers nobility, bodyguards protect a star like Watson. It’s easy to say that everyone is who they are. But what would consciousness be like if being were different: in prison, for example, where you could also end up for tax evasion?

Now prison with its threats is not Watson’s situation. She threw an unthinking quip out of her Panama Papers world to curry favor with a section of the audience — that’s standard show-business mendacity. But the attacks against Rowling go deeper, are harder: “On the other hand, the ‘Harry Potter’ author irritates once again by equating trans people with sex offenders,” reports about you. Without citation, without question marks – as an editorial statement. Warning against men who could pose as transsexuals is therefore equating transsexuals with sex offenders. This NTV logic can only be followed by those who heed the three woken debate rules.

The reality of the novelist is right: This is how she reports New York Post from a case on the prison island of Rikers Island. There, a man with a penis posing as a transsexual Diamond Blount raped an inmate last year. He has now been sentenced to a further seven years in prison. There is now a protective order against Blount. Regulations that inmates can choose their own gender have not existed for long and are not yet widespread – nevertheless, the first cases of abuse are already occurring. So Rowling’s warnings don’t come from a vacuum.

madness of the masses

identity politics or the fragmentation of society

Despite this, large currency is dealt against Rowling. Of course, the Nazi comparison should not be missing: “Can one still hear works by the German composer Richard Wagner, even though he was exploited by National Socialism? Can you buy and play a game like Hogwarts Legacy and thereby indirectly financially support Rowling’s anti-trans activities?” asks A women’s rights activist on a par with the openly anti-Semitic favorite composer of the greatest mass murderer in world history. Restraint looks different. then lets its users answer the open question: the offended trans people could continue reading the Potter books. They came from the very terrible Rowling. But after she put down the pen, the work is “not over yet”. Rather, “countless people have continued to think about the work”, which is why the work “passes over to the collective intellectual property of society”. Sounds weird. But historically it is not unique. There have been people who loved the poem about the Lorelei so much that they didn’t want to give it to the hated author. So it supposedly had an “anonymous author”. Incidentally, the people were – so much comparison is permitted – the Nazis. The author Heinrich Heine. And they hated him because of his Jewish heritage.

But the last word should not belong to bad-tempered computer nerds. In the world created by Rowling, Lord Voldemort must go into hiding after losing his power. He returns just before Harry’s 15th birthday. It will be a full year before the wizarding world takes notice of this return, although the signs are there. Because, according to the prevailing opinion, what should not be, cannot be. Because it is not allowed to say what is not opportune, the magicians ignore his comeback – and thus accept many unnecessary murders. In the book, she lets her favorite character, Dumbledore, promote an uninterrupted view of things and fight together against what is actually evil. In real life, it is Rowling who shakes hands with the scene from which she receives specific death threats: “Perhaps the best way to prove that your movement is not a threat to women is to stop stalking us, harassing us and to threaten.”