Anyways, my point is this sort of thing is rapidly becoming something nobody cares about, and that's due to feminism and it's a good thing.
By all accounts, JK Rowling hasn't suffered any negative consequence of her transphobia, she has even marketed it and is benefiting from it: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Ink-Black-Heart-Robert-Galbraith-eb... https://www.amazon.co.uk/Troubled-Blood-Cormoran-Strike-5-eb...
And Harry Potter merchandising and derived works are still selling like pancakes.
The wikipedia page outlines the charge that it contains "pernicious anti-trans tropes" and continues:
Nick Cohen, writing for The Spectator, argued that the transphobia accusations were baseless and slanderous, noting that Dennis Creed is investigated along with a dozen other suspects.
He also stated that the book does not engage in the politics of women-only spaces and access to gender reassignment treatments.
Alison Flood, writing for The Guardian, expressed similar views, arguing that people who have not read the book were making wrong assumptions based on a single review.
Allan Massie, writing for The Scotsman, stated of the character of Creed that "there is no suggestion that he was transgender".
She definitely used all that drama to sell books and benefited from it.
Which character in Troubled Blood is transgender? Is there a transgender character in The Ink Black Heart ?
It's not Dennis Creed as I recall from my reading some time past, certainly not Edie Ledwell.
The Spectator is a right-wing British newspaper with dozens of anti-trans articles and op-eds. The Scotsman and The Guardian also have very anti-trans skews. (The latter less so, but definitely more anti than pro overall.)
It's fair to say that fearmongering about trans people isn't the central focus of the novel, but she obviously knew exactly what she was doing and why.
And Barry Humphries is a beloved Australian entertainer who cross dresses. Neither are transgender.
Further, the prime suspect of the novel, Dennis Creed, is closely based on real life serial killers such as Angus Sinclair, Jerry Brudos, and Russell Williams who all share victim name details and traits with the fictional Creed, such as messing with bodies, fetishism, etc
None of these real life serial killers were trans gender, at least two cross dressed, and there are very few serial killers that lack a pathology.
There appears to be some in the world who will see a crime genre author write about a serial killer and immediately conclude that killer must be trans and some kind of transphobic stereotype.
I'm not one of those people.
FWiW I did vote for Leigh Varis-Beswick as mayor of Kalgoorlie but that was mainly due to her having some good ideas for change and having been a lifelong friend of my sister.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Williams_(criminal)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Brudos
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World%27s_End_Murders
https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/heavy-metal-heaven-20050828...
No it wasn't. Even in the UK, a supposed hellscape of unfree speech, she only finally got into any trouble when she repeatedly told outright and trivially knowable lies about another person. There's no guarantee she loses that court case either, so she hasn't exactly faced any repercussions for her speech. Companies are still making boatloads of harry potter content and it still sells like hotcakes.
Which is illegal in most places.
Maybe think about which side of history you prefer to be on.
In exactly the same way as having an OF account, its up to the person doing these things to judge the consequences of whether they are happy with some people in the world looking down on them.
I don't know anyone who has been denied a job or an opportunity because of those issues. I also don't know anyone who has been denied an opportunity because they made adult content. Does it happen? Absolutley. Is it crippling to the point of ostracization? Not even close.
If anything, being able to filter out people who would look down on those attributes/experiences is increasingly becoming a net positive. I wouldn't wan to associate with someone who disparaged people because they have a piecing or like to take naked photos.
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/tiktok-tattooed-wom...
> Is it crippling to the point of ostracization?
Nobody is arguing that it is, I think you are taking this a bit too far. All anybody has said is that some people have a dim view of sex work, thats it, and its true. Stop trying to extrapolate and assume further than the point in question.
> being able to filter out people who would look down on those attributes/experiences is increasingly becoming a net positive
And there I was foolishly thinking we were all trying to move to a more tolerant and accepting world. Thats an incrdibly devisive opinion and is the basis for cancel culture. I for one would rather try to understand peoples opionins and discuss it with them rather than to 'filter them out'.
> I wouldn't wan to associate with someone who disparaged people because they have a piecing or like to take naked photos.
Then we are very different people. I will associate with anybody, and try to find the best in them along with some common ground to work on together.
Want a better world? You can only change peoples minds with kindness.
I think even if you were to spend your life just getting to know and educating 1 bigotted person so much so that they change they views just a little, that would be a life well spent.
Well, you should. If you don't, you should work on formulating more correct opinions that you believe in and can defend.
Thanks for telling me what to do!
> you should work on formulating more correct opinions that you believe in and can defend.
No thanks, Im happy being open minded and willing to have good debates which can change either sides opinion. If you are not open to having your mind changed, you can not call yourself open minded.
Lets not let this devolve any further into a spat about opinion. Im not telling you yours is wrong, you can stop trying to tell me mine is now.
Fuck em. Progress happens when a new idea achieves enough cultural cache that the expressing the backwards view becomes a fringe belief, worthy of ostracization. 30 years ago, gay marriage was a contentious issue. Today, it's sociopolitical suicide to oppose it. Before that it was women entering the workforce, or desegregation.
History judges people on how they treat the people they disagree with.
How would they know? I suspect there's some selection bias at play here because it might not be legal to discriminate on this basis.
> (...) because they have a piecing or like to take naked photos.
That's a strawman. The discussion doesn't concern people who "like to take naked photos"; it concerns people who do it for money. Depending on your values, that can be a significant difference.
And there is very little that is more obnoxiously smug than making "right side of history" claims. If anything, I want to be on the opposite side of people who do that, because they're so fucking self-righteous I can't stand them.
If somebody who takes a dim view of promiscuity sees that you have an only fans account, they are going to immediately have bias in any decisions that involve you. This is just a fact of life, and nothing to do with the gross reduction of 'women needing to be pure'.