Welcome to Incels.is - Involuntary Celibate Forum

Welcome! This is a forum for involuntary celibates: people who lack a significant other. Are you lonely and wish you had someone in your life? You're not alone! Join our forum and talk to people just like you.

What's your opinion on the whole JK Rowling and the tranny drama?

thespanishcel

thespanishcel

Overlord
★★★★★
Joined
May 13, 2018
Posts
7,729
Probably everyone knows but in case you don't the author of Harry Potter (JK Rowling) is being constantly harassed and cancelled by trannies (and queers in general) because she said things like men can't have periods, trannies shouldn't compete in foid sports or they shouldn't be allowed in foid jails, bathrooms, changing rooms and all because they can rape. Common sense things but in this fucktard world they don't accept it kek. Th[UWSL]ey send her death threats and try to erase her from the Harry Potter universe despite being the fucking author and suddenly after being fanboys of Harry Potter for years they hate it. [/UWSL]

[UWSL]Tbh even if I don't like Harry Potter and that the author is a filthy radical feminist I prefer her than the trannies, many times they are even worse and more incel hating than real foids because many trannies were incel in the past and desperately try to fit in by hating other incels. Also that fucking "trans rights :foidSoy:" slogan is annoying af and everyone who uses it should be executed by firing squad. In minecraft of course. [/UWSL]
 
"I want everything from feminism, minus trans rights" just screams obscene entitlement to me. She's not even really openly anti-trans, she always uses weasely language and says that she supports all LGBT people.
Overall it's just annoying, not based.
 
"The Left" basically eating its own
 
"The Left" basically eating its own
It's like in the Spanish Civil War when commies and anarchists started killing each other kek. They call it "diversity of opinions" :feelskek:
 
J K. Rowling clearly stole the idea from Neil Gaiman's "The Books of Magic" comic book series, which was first published in 1990, 7 years before the first Harry Potter novel was published, to create her Harry Potter series.

There are many similarities between the main protagonists Harry Potter and Tim Hunter from the TBOM series and similarities between both stories and their characters. However, Neil Gaiman still defends Rowling and claims that this was just a case of different writers thinking alike, which I highly doubt.

The idea that gender is a social construct comes from mainstream feminism, which Rowling supported until she became aware of the tranny movement. For TERFs, the whole "gender is a social construct" nonsense, which feminists successfully used to to infiltrate and destroy male-only spaces, always had the disclaimer of "except women, who are special and unique" crap hidden in the footnotes.

Now that trannies are trying to get into female spaces, the real feminism comes out to shine. It was always about female supremacy. Notice how it's not "trannies invading sports" but "trannies invading female sports". As long as it's only men having to deal with the burdens of "gender diversity" everything is OK.

Feminists initially treated trannies as useful idiots, using them to virtue signal and "team up" to invade male spaces. When the goalposts started shifting away from shoving people into male spaces and towards shoving trannies in all spaces, the hypocrisy came out in full display. They happily push for invading male spaces, but jealously guard their "female" spaces like the hypocrites they are.
 
J K. Rowling clearly stole the idea from Neil Gaiman's "The Books of Magic" comic book series, which was first published in 1990, 7 years before the first Harry Potter novel was published, to create her Harry Potter series.

There are many similarities between the main protagonists Harry Potter and Tim Hunter from the TBOM series and similarities between both stories and their characters. However, Neil Gaiman still defends Rowling and claims that this was just a case of different writers thinking alike, which I highly doubt.

The idea that gender is a social construct comes from mainstream feminism, which Rowling supported until she became aware of the tranny movement. For TERFs, the whole "gender is a social construct" nonsense, which feminists successfully used to to infiltrate and destroy male-only spaces, always had the disclaimer of "except women, who are special and unique" crap hidden in the footnotes.

Now that trannies are trying to get into female spaces, the real feminism comes out to shine. It was always about female supremacy. Notice how it's not "trannies invading sports" but "trannies invading female sports". As long as it's only men having to deal with the burdens of "gender diversity" everything is OK.

Feminists initially treated trannies as useful idiots, using them to virtue signal and "team up" to invade male spaces. When the goalposts started shifting away from shoving people into male spaces and towards shoving trannies in all spaces, the hypocrisy came out in full display. They happily push for invading male spaces, but jealously guard their "female" spaces like the hypocrites they are.
And who do you think it's going to win? Do you think at some point in time feminism will go back to its origins or trannies have already hijacked it forever?
 
And who do you think it's going to win? Do you think at some point in time feminism will go back to its origins or trannies have already hijacked it forever?

The trannies will win. 30% of them are biological women (transmen), and TERFs are making fools of themselves by claiming that transmen, who are usually feminists themselves, are being groomed into the "trans cult" by predatory men.

Most feminists will continue to pretend that transwomen are women in order to sustain the lie that men and women are interchangeable and that gender is a social construct, even though this sometimes has unpleasant consequences for them, as shown by news stories about foids getting raped by trannies.

Just like trannyism, age of consent laws have hurt some women, as well as gay men who are feminist allies, but most feminists ardently support these laws because from their perspective, the drawbacks of repealing them far outweigh the benefits.

Feminists only view male sexuality as predatory and don't really like to see women getting arrested and imprisoned for sleeping with teenage boys, but to them, it's worth occasionally punishing a few "female predators" for the "greater good" of keeping men away from teenage girls. They know that most of the victims of these laws are men, not women.

The views of TERFs will eventually become just as marginalized as those of feminists who, like Simone de Beauvoir, opposed age of consent laws for being harmful to women who are attracted to teens.
 
One aspect of it is because she is independently wealthy they can't easily silence her. And she has a big following.

Someone not rich they just threaten to fire them or wreck their business. And just delete all their social media posts and account.

With copyright she has a 75 year copyright on the books, in fact I wouldn't be surprised if she has already sold the copyrights anyway.


One thing we used to rely on is people who were wildly rich, mainly by inheritance speaking their minds. The powers that be aren't willing to give the state the power to seize property or the state would be coming straight for the powers that be's own property.

Probably what they will do is deplatform her.
 
Liberalism has been killed by the idea of inclusionsism before there was a genuine principle in society that people we're accepted based on there similar ideas and experiences to each other in a cause or political movement. Ever since third wave Marxism came in it became more about the collective experiences of oppressed minorities.

So instead of someone just obviously saying they support a said person or ideal you now have to announce you support any and everything no matter how degenerate and fuck up it is in principles. Thus killing freedom of thought and ability to dissociate yourself with a certain person, actions or principles. This allows no leg room to be personalize your own beliefs to only be politically correct and fore fronting to everyone's enjoyment, creating a hugbox of no creativity or thinking outside of the box you set in your proverbial mind.

We took on the cult of positivity and wanting to make everyone feel good about whatever they wanna be and believe. To the detriment of actual rigorous debate and progression. We cannot now discussion anything that is truly scientific or against someone personal ideology without a shitstorm insuring. No one allowed to be themselves as humans, to embrace differences, and sometimes reject someone as a person for there own reasons, thus killing original libertarian values.

The modern interpretation of any debate I see online is like two people standing in different rooms shouting through the walls not actually able to cut to the core of disagreement to not be politically correct. The elephant in the room motto. Everyone wants to be a good person without caring how bad that action is in purpose. When you enable good behaviour and positive approval to self destructive people you encourage their further decline and anti behavioural thought patterns.

It's reverse psychology it's why the right wing people are every the left is against. One side must be the polar opposite always to maintain balance. Ying and yang. If you're asking people to be a bit more meaner/tougher, a bit more close minded, and a bit more actually scientific accurate to the detriment of something fee fees you ain't getting that in a clownworld society we live in.

So all in all it's just the same shit different person. JK Rowling getting destroyed because she's a human being she's a different person with a different ideology to them. Group thinking at it's finest. And it's why we are in the shithole we are in now. :feelsmage:
 
The person below me is a tranny.
 
On the one hand, what she said about trannies is based and true. On the other hand, Rowling is still a liberal cunt who only got thrown under the bus because she wasn't as extremist as the other leftist extremists. She's also a foid.
 
Radcliffe seems like a cuck
 
I used to like Emma Watson
 
"I want everything from feminism, minus trans rights" just screams obscene entitlement to me. She's not even really openly anti-trans, she always uses weasely language and says that she supports all LGBT people.
Overall it's just annoying, not based.
1643719245306
 
[UWSL]The idea that gender is a social construct comes from mainstream feminism, which Rowling supported until she became aware of the tranny movement. For TERFs, the whole "gender is a social construct" nonsense, which feminists successfully used to to infiltrate and destroy male-only spaces, always had the disclaimer of "except women, who are special and unique" crap hidden in the footnotes.[/UWSL]

Now that trannies are trying to get into female spaces, the real feminism comes out to shine. It was always about female supremacy. Notice how it's not "trannies invading sports" but "trannies invading female sports". As long as it's only men having to deal with the burdens of "gender diversity" everything is OK.

Feminists initially treated trannies as useful idiots, using them to virtue signal and "team up" to invade male spaces. When the goalposts started shifting away from shoving people into male spaces and towards shoving trannies in all spaces, the hypocrisy came out in full display. They happily push for invading male spaces, but jealously guard their "female" spaces like the hypocrites they are.
This. TERFs, or gender critical feminists, are actually WORSE than queer theory (pro-trans, queer, and sex work) feminists, because they are ultimately more female supremacist. Nothing a man can do, from going trans, to joining BDSM, to being into femdom, to hiring a prostitute, can save him in the eyes of a gender critical TERF/SWERF.

Gender critical radfems are, in fact, almost always MORE man-hating/misandristic than your generic Twitter queer theory #transrights feminist.

They just hate all non-20% males regardless of if they identify as a woman or not.

While being more logically consistent with their own values, and bring against transgenderism (a good thing), or being against Islam (a good thing), their own values are shit, so them being consistent with their shit values means that they are more consistently shit.

At least the current woke order would see prostitution legalized (see Kamala Harris) and allow men the "option" to escape traditional manhood through going trans or BDSM.

Gender critical TERFs want a dreary, Soviet-style world where gender is abolished and no individual expression is allowed except female supremacy.

Queer theory #transrights feminists want a loud, degenerate, fast-paced, promiscuous, rainbow, dysfunctional hippy world that would quickly fall apart into chaos and misery, but at least it's rainbow and fun for a while for some people.

They are certainly different, but both options are ass. Perhaps equally so.
And who do you think it's going to win? Do you think at some point in time feminism will go back to its origins or trannies have already hijacked it forever?
LMAO transgenderism will win, it's more offensively effective as a bludgeon against traditionalism. Even if gender critical feminists would create an equally miserable outcome, queer theory feminism is better at destroying traditionalism due to it's attacking on all fronts rather than hyper-focusing on one and its lack of internal consistency making it impenetrable to logic.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

WorthlessSlavicShit
Replies
43
Views
2K
go2sleep
go2sleep
thespanishcel
Replies
9
Views
185
lifeisfucked215
lifeisfucked215
H
Replies
18
Views
395
failednormie_
failednormie_
Ellsworth
Replies
0
Views
166
Ellsworth
Ellsworth

Users who are viewing this thread

shape1
shape2
shape3
shape4
shape5
shape6
Back
Top