Is there an artist so horrible that no matter how hard you try that you cannot separate their art from them?
Similar to the recent question about artists where you can successfully separate them from their art. Are there any artists who did something so horrible, so despicable, that it has instantly invalidated all art that they have had any part in?
You are viewing a single comment
Very boring answer but JK Rowling.
Her books already had some questionable shit in them but witnessing that shockingly venomous transphobia really recontextualizes everything. I used to re read the Harry Potter saga every few years, but never again now, this whole, very nostalgic for me franchise is forever ruined now.
Can I recommend reading/listening to Ursula K. Le Guin's Earth Sea books?
They're also coming of age books about a young wizard, which almost certainly heavily inspired Rowling (although AFAIK she never admitted it), but the author is far less problematic. Also arguably much better books, so they're more enjoyable to read for adults too.
And the cherry on top is this. You may notice a bit of misogyny built into a first couple books in the series, which is surprising given that Ursula is a woman. She not only noticed, admitted, and confronted that patriarchal slant, but corrected it by writing later stories in the same world that reversed that course. Those stories end up being much better than the foundational works in the series. I have become an instant fan of any author that can confront the flaws of their earlier writings and deliberately alter course to do better in their life and their writing.
Yeah, I actually read her last book in the series first, (it’s a distant sequel, very far removed from the rest of the series), and I can attest to the fact that she grew tremendously. I went back and read the first book, and was surprised at how different the last book was.
Another great choice is The King Henry Tapes by Richard Raley. It's a take on HP, but the magical kid from a dysfunctional family is a juvenile delinquent with a foul mouth. One of my favorite series.
Pendragon by DJ MacHale is also a great set of books.
Id kill for an HP quality set of movies of this series.
Hey I know that series! And agree, though I think the last few books kinda lost me.
The Quillan Games is the book I remember being a bit tougher. It's been quite a long time since I've read the series.
Yeah if I recall correctly it was basically a mix between Squid Game and Hunger Games? Before either one existed.
I always thought harry potter was boring as shit. Never got through a movie, never read a book.
But the people who I did see reading the books in class were the ones who definitely would take issue with Rowling's transphobia.
Yeah I was already a tiny adult when they came out. I tried reading them as an older adult and only got through one and a half.
Chamber of Secrets is definitely the weakest book in the series
Her vehement and vocal hatred for trans people is pretty strange to me. She just won't let it go, no matter the fact that her very vocal opinions on the topic are destroying her own legacy.
I get that people are entitled to their opinions. But most people keep their thoughts to themselves if they start getting a lot of backlash. But she just keeps picking at it and making things worse for herself. I don't know if it's some sort of resentment born out of deeply hurt feelings, or unbridled arrogance that as a very rich and successful person people need to accept her opinions. Or maybe both. But it's not working and she's doing more harm than good, including to herself.
Try the Mage Errent series by John Bierce. It's a full fantasy world with a hard magic aystem that's about kids going to magic school.
same
I looked up all her tweets, and I don’t see much to disagree with.
If you go to Thailand, trans men are called ladyboys and if you ask them if they are women, they say, no, I’m a ladyboy. There’s nothing wrong with having the opinion that trans women will not be real women. She’s not saying she hates trans people, just that they will never be the same as biological women.
Yes, but Thailand is not the entire world, nor was it even the target audience of those tweets.
In the west, when you transition to another gender, it is because you want to identify as that gender. Thus when you say shit like 'trans women aren't real women' you're denying the identity of thousands of women worldwide.
But... the west isn't the entire world either.
I think that's the point. That culture matters and there's not a one-size-fits-all interpretation or response that satisfies all of them.
People in the west want to believe their culture is the best and all others should follow, but that simply isn't how the world works. That won't stop them from getting mad over it, though.
We are talking about a western author broadcasting on a western platform in a western language, often directly in response to other westerners or western ideas of transsexuality. Makes it pretty clear who the target audience and culture is.
This may come as a shock to you, but a lot of westerners don't believe in transexuality either.
Hey, we're talking about one right now!
This is what I mean by thinking your culture is the best and all others should follow. Do you think Rowling would be justified if she tweeted in Thai? Lol. If not, then she isn't unjustified for engaging with westerners.
Try to understand your way of life is not the only, or even the best, way of life.
No, they believe that transsexuals are heathen abominations that should be stripped of all human rights and dignity. There is a difference.
Try to understand that your way of life should not get in the way of others trying to enjoy theirs when it doesn't harm other people.
Some of them, sure. But some just disagree with the notion that trans-X are identical to their cis counterparts.
I totally agree.
It's never been about proving trans and cis folks of the same gender are "identical", no one is arguing that, obviously there are some physical, biological differences. Differences that trans folks are painfully aware of, and that take a lot of time and effort to mitigate for many them to feel like themselves.
It's just about being accepted as, being seen, and talked to as the gender of your choosing.
People like Rowling who argue against the existence or the rights of trans folks overwhelmingly do so out of ignorance, fear, or simply malice. It's not a philosophical question, it's not up for debate whether trans people "exist", if you don't believe in them then you're just objectively, provably, scientifically wrong.
And if you agree they exist and still want to make their lives miserable, then you're just an asshole.
Speak for yourself, I see people arguing it all the time.
Yeah, just like if you don't believe homosexuality is a mental disorder in 1952 then you are "scientifically wrong." Soft sciences aren't 'objective' like hard sciences, which is why they are currently having a reproducibility crisis.
Do you believe in otherkin? I'm sure they would react identically as you towards people who don't see them the way they want to be seen.
Bringing up otherkin is plain what-about-ism, so it proves nothing. So much for some second-class Republicans who tried to push the narrative that schools now add special sandboxes instead of toilets to accomodate them. Reproducibility crisis that is an utter joke, especially when you defend the science-denialist position. All major medical organizations recognize the existence and validity of the trans experience. The one's who don't are the ones who are usually the science deniers on a range of topics. Scratching homosexuality (like after Kinsey studies) and trans identity from mental disorders was not a politically motivated decision, but reflected development of scientific thought about sex and gender, for instance 1600 biologists condemned Trumps idea that he could define biological sex on the basis of chromosomes and external genitalia at birth, Scientific American has published that biological sex is a spectrum, and that trans girls belong to high school women sports because there is no scientific basis for exclusion. It also deemed theories like "Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria" as pseudoscience. So are you reading actual medical organizations or Dawkins Institute shit, because some of them are militant anti-trans agitators, not advocates of science. It is clear from what you write that you read all the wrong things and formed an ill opinion. 4) And most important, cis and trans might not be identical but neither are people within trans and cis categories. Trans people aren't identical to their birth gender either. And in the end of the day it doesn't even matter, respecting a trans personality has nothing to do with their biological sex, binary or not, fluid or not. It is an ideological stance (fascism) to not respect people who are not cis and/or straight. Even if it is a hairy, 200-lib pre-HRT bulky trans woman it is still a woman in the eyes of the law, like it or not. Source: Scientific American Trans girls belong to female Sports https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/trans-girls-belong-on-girls-sports-teams/ Scientific American visualizing sex as a spectrum https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/sa-visual/visualizing-sex-as-a-spectrum/ 1600 biologists condemns Trump anti-transgender proposal https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-46067559 American Psychological Organization advocates for trans youth https://www.apa.org/monitor/2022/07/advocating-transgender-nonbinary-youths World Helath professional Association advocates for transgender adults and youth https://www.wpath.org/publications/soc And as of the last point, if you are out to misgender trans people on the basis of your dogmatic chromosomal determinism and half-baked scientism, here is what happened in the past: “if part of the belief necessarily will result in the violation of the dignity of others, that is a component of the belief, rather than something separate, and will be relevant to determining whether the belief is a protected philosophical belief,” which is from https://criticallegalthinking.com/2021/06/29/not-a-nazi-but-forstater-v-cgd-europe/ .
Yeah I'm not gonna waste more time trying to change a transphobe's mind, peace
I am in the west and don't think we have the best in every way culture. The more I travel the more I am aware of where we have plenty of room for improvement. I prefer living here, most people given the choice would as well, but that doesn't mean best.
Just because one group that has a passing resemblance to another group says something doesn't mean that it applies to every group with a passing resemblance. Especially when the group is from a completely different culture.
What's a biological woman?
What is a human? What is knowledge? What is virtue? What is justice?
We have known for 2500 years that some words are very difficult to define in such a way that every single edge case is handled, it is complete, and short. The most famous example, 2500 years ago, was an academy defined human as a featherless biped. The next day someone released a plucked chicken.
For those words that are very difficult to define we develop criteria and gradually alter the criteria as time goes on, mostly based on the idea of ordinary language.
They mean people born with female bodies. So Cis women or FtM men.
I want him to define it.
Even cis women might not be 'biologically female'
It comes from a high school level understanding of genetics.
I do get what you mean, it's oversimplifying a complicated subject.
A major issue is that she isn't loyal and has her own opinions on the matter.
Independents are seen as enemies in the eyes of tribalists. Eventually, they become enemies.