Wow. I’m guessing my count is in the hundreds - including getting full penis in a ladies restroom (stall door WIDE open, but it was San Francisco in the 1990s). Everything from locker rooms, where you expect people to be changing and are giving consent to seeing naked bodies, to nude beaches, to having a guy expose himself to me. My local gym and pool has no privacy facilities outside the family dressing room (and you need young kids to enter, I haven’t had kids young enough for the family dressing room for years).
Depends if you’re here to fight ignorance, or to win an argument.
How about Colin Kaepernick, or Eliza Dushku?
…well lets see.
…how about them?
Did you post these two people because they were victims of so-called “cancel culture” or did you post them to simply “win an argument?”
…and what twitter mob was demanding the firing of Eliza Dushku? And what does any of this have to do with JK Rowling and the trans furore?
These different experiences help explain why some people think it’s such a non-issue and anyone concerned is being unreasonable.
I’ve seen naked men at a nude beach, but I chose to be there. It’s interesting the relative lack of young, attractive people in such places.
I posted them because they are examples of people fired to avoid bad publicity, who probably didn’t deserve it. There are plenty of others, but since you’re the type of person who agrees with the Twitter mob there’s not much point listing them.
All these proponents of cancel culture should remember that after sending everyone who disagreed with them to the guillotine, the Jacobins ended up there too.
…except Eliza Dusku wasn’t fired to “avoid bad publicity.” She was written off the show as retaliation because she confronted the star about his sexist misogynistic behaviour. Kaepernick wasn’t fired. He was told he was going to get released, he opted out instead, and then didn’t get resigned. Neither got “cancelled.” Neither were fired as a response to “twitter mobs.”
If there were “plenty of others” you would have listed those instead of posting a couple of really bad examples.
And what Twitter mob are you claiming I agree with? And what type of person do you think I am?
Are you trying to cancel me? Perhaps you need to read that Harpers letter a bit more closely.
The guillotine? Do you think ridiculous hyperbole somehow makes your evidence-free assertions more convincing?
There’s some listed in this article, have at them:
This is awful. People have perfectly valid reasons for not wanting to be unclothed in front others. Seems like that should be a ADA lawsuit waiting to happen.
…you’ve flipped from being “intentionally vague” to the “gish gallop” but the result is exactly the same. You want me to do your work for you.
And you are citing Jon Ronson. Ronson’s work is problematic for a number of reasons. But lets ignore that for a minute. Should Justine Sacco have lost her job for tweeting “Going to Africa. Hope I don’t get AIDS. Just kidding. I’m white!" Sure. Absolutely. I would have fired her myself. I’m brown. And I couldn’t have someone who made those sorts of joke represent me, my brand or my business.
The article mentions Adira Richards, here’s a rebuttal to what Ronson wrote.
So I’ve “had at” a couple of the people in the article. Any others you want to offer up? And I still can’t see what either has to do with JK Rowling.
Hold on.
You’ve made an unwarranted logical leap here, in service of making your rhetorical point.
Why do you say that the desire to bring one’s physical appearance into consonance with one’s gender identity means that the physical change is “more important” than the mental state?
If it was really “more important”, then a transwoman would not really feel she was a woman before transitioning. But transgender individuals by and large state that this is not the case; they are quite confident of their transgender status whether they’ve physically transitioned or not.
The reason they seek physical transition is to resolve the conflict between the mental and physical. That doesn’t mean one is more important than the other.
And I’m kind of stunned I’m the first person in this thread to call you out on it.
Powers &8^]
…after signing the Harpers Letter complaining about “cancel culture” JK Rowling tries to cancel Jennifer Finney Boylan. What a classless act. And she is a big giant hypocrite.
Ayaan Hirsi has come out in defense of JKR. She wrote this article:
I predict in the coming weeks, many more voices will come forward to support Rowling’s take on how women’s rights are being hurt by gender ideologists. Progressives are going to have a lot of ‘splainin to do when it’s all said and done.
You are struggling with the concept of irony.
…is that the best you’ve got?
Sometimes it would be nice to have likes. 
I hope you’re right. When the left won’t support free speech and embraces groupthink, not only is it bad in itself, it pushes voters towards the right.
Aside from those assholes making death and rape threats against women who speak out on either side, no one is opposing free speech, and disagreeing with and criticizing JKR isn’t “embracing groupthink”.
I agree, but I do see people kneejerking all over the place. I read AHunter’s blog piece. We don’t see eye-to-eye on everything and I have pushed back on some of the ideas he’s shared with us in the past. But I don’t see why anyone would tear his head over for what he wrote. Disagree, sure. But being mad over it, no. Being offended by it, no.
I am not looking forward to the day when I describe my own body anatomy and physiology as “female” and someone tells me I’m being offensive for using that term since “female” describes a gender, not a sex class, and like how dare I neglect all the women dicks that fall under the “female” umbrella. I don’t want words that are 100% neutral and useful to suddenly be transformed into landmines. I’m okay with some criticism of JKR. But folks need to understand that people are supporting her not because they agree with everything’s saying. They are supporting her because they are genuinely concerned that the discourse no longer seems to be conducive for diverse set of opinions and views. It is like we aren’t being given the chance to reach a consensus on anything–a compromise that gives everyone some of what they are looking for with everyone also sacrificing something. Instead, we are being told what’s going to happen and if we have a problem with that, then we’re big evil meanos who are just being hateful for no reason.
But being mad is okay. Being offended is okay. Being passionately angry, even, is okay. It’s okay to passionately, angrily, and even harshly disagree. Threats are not okay, obviously. But being really, really mad, and saying so, is absolutely fine… and if folks are afraid of angering others by expressing their opinion, then that’s their problem – sometimes opinions, especially on fraught topics, will make people really, really mad.
I’m sure some of the criticism and backlash to JKR is just “kneejerking”, but lots of it is passionate, angry, and IMO very clear and logical. And when lots of people find some of the stuff she said hateful, then it shouldn’t be surprising that they’re going to angrily criticize those who stand up for her and defend her writing. Again, threats are not okay, but passionate and angry criticism is just fine. It might be a messy process, and not everything everyone says in anger is perfect and appropriate, but IMO this is just how discussion happens (minus the threats). Hurt feelings and all. Eventually, presumably, society will come to some sort of consensus.