This crap again.
There’s a new billboard in Vancouver that says “I heart JK Rowling.” You can write the rest yourself.
A billboard in East Vancouver championing author J.K. Rowling, who has been widely accused of transphobia, was removed Saturday after drawing outrage and condemnation.
The billboard didn’t “draw” outrage and condemnation, people decided to direct outrage and condemnation at it.
Let’s remember that Rowling has never said she hates trans people, or wished bad things on them. Let’s remember that she doesn’t advocate violence or repression or revenge or anything of that kind. Let’s remember that her point is that women have rights too.
The billboard, which was visible from busy Hastings Street, was black with white text that read, “I (heart) JK Rowling.”
Not “I heart Hitler” or “I heart Stalin” or “I heart Mugabe.” Just “I heart JK Rowling” – the woman who wrote that popular series of kids’ books.
Vancouver city councillor Sarah Kirby-Yung said she was discouraged to see the billboard put up in her city, given Rowling’s controversial statements criticizing the trans rights movement.
Rowling’s statements are only “controversial” because people like Kirby-Yung have accepted the propaganda.
Photos of the untarnished billboard were shared on social media on Sep. 11. But when CTV News Vancouver visited the billboard on Sep. 12, it had been marked up with blue paint splatter. About an hour later, a Twitter user posted a video of a person hoisted up in a cherry picker and covering over the billboard.
All because Rowling thinks women’s rights matter too.
Nicola Spurling, a trans YouTube personality and LGBTQ2+ advocate in Metro Vancouver, tweeted out her disapproval of the billboard before it was covered up. She asked for it to be taken down and questioned why the billboard company allowed it in the first place.
Probably because all it says is “I heart JK Rowling.” She’s not Stalin, she’s not Trump, she’s not Kim. She’s not evil and she’s not harming anyone.
The people claiming responsibility for the billboard issued a statement on Twitter Saturday insisting they aren’t transphobic, while also openly denying the identities of trans women. They described womanhood as “a biological reality, not a feeling,” which is a common refrain among opponents of transgender rights.
However common it is, is it true? Of course it’s true. Women are adult human females. We’re not fantasies or dysphoria or cosplay. We have a right to “exclude” men from claiming to be women, just as black people have a right to “exclude” a Jessica Krug from claiming to be black.
Comments
16 responses to “We can’t have that”
Where can I get the t-shirt? :)
twiliter, right here:
https://www.redbubble.com/i/t-shirt/I-love-JK-ROWLING-by-LovingLavender/53689701.WFLAH?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=g.pla+notset&country_code=US&gclid=CjwKCAjw4_H6BRALEiwAvgfzq9dZ5qsMYBykUqzdxFmjbCYHdPNaHj_So0dHv337ZVVYodNcI7zgohoC_m4QAvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds
(Don’t know how to do links properly; forgive the mess)
‘Message’ clothing isn’t really my thing, but that’s one I’d wear happily.
Thanks Ikn!
iknklast:
Google HTML (stands for hypertext markup language) or else something like https://www.edx.org/learn/html
Hope this helps.
This must be like being a “self-admitted avowed atheist who denies God.”
From the Department of Redundant Overkill.
@Iknklast #2
You can also do this J. K. Rowling t-shirt
Where you type <a href=”https://www.redbubble.com/i/t-shirt/I-love-JK-ROWLING-by-LovingLavender/53689701.WFLAH?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=g.pla+notset&country_code=US&gclid=CjwKCAjw4_H6BRALEiwAvgfzq9dZ5qsMYBykUqzdxFmjbCYHdPNaHj_So0dHv337ZVVYodNcI7zgohoC_m4QAvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds”>J. K. Rowling t-shirt</a>
Note: you can copy and paste the link as plain text.
Another hint – everything including and following a question mark in a link can be discarded, because it is tracking information and has nothing to do with the actual link.
So your link would become a slightly more manageable:
https://www.redbubble.com/i/t-shirt/I-love-JK-ROWLING-by-LovingLavender/53689701.WFLAH
@tigger_the_wing #8
Thanks, I did not know that.
I think from time to time it’s a good idea to remember what J. K. Rowling actually said in her original “transphobic” tweet:
Do any of the people who claim to have been offended disagree?
Do any of the people who claim to have been offended disagree?
Do any of the people who claim to have been offended disagree? Maybe, if they think that a pretend woman has the right to demand a “lesbian” relationship with a real woman, or to have their scrotum shaved by a real woman?
Do any of the people who claim to have been offended disagree? Maybe, if they think cis people must expect to be harrassed.
That’s clearly the one that provoked the storm, but really …! Her implied “no” is just common sense.
Items following the question mark in a URL aren’t necessarily for tracking, although they are in this case.
They are parameters. Sometimes they are necessary and sometimes not.
@Athel,
I’ve seen people taking (or at least performing) offence at every line of Rowling’s tweet, although it’s a stretch, as I’m sure you can imagine.
The one I’ve seen most strongly objected to is:
Which is said to imply that Rowling thinks only strange or somehow deviant people should want to sleep with a trans person. Like I said, one hell of a stretch and proof that the objectors are not in the least interested in what Rowling actually wrote.
I’ve yet to see someone actually point to any specific statement of Rowlings as the one – or one of the ones – that damn her as a transphobe. I just get the runaround: All of her tweets! Constantly transphobic! Read them! It’s not my job to educate you! etc.
In the minds of trans activists, the fact that Rowling points out that there is any conflict at all between the rights of women and trans identified males* means that she does hate trans people, that she does wish bad things on them, that she does advocate for violence, repression, and revenge. If she were a good ally, she would, shut up, submit, and obey. The fact that she refuses to do so makes her powerful, and dangerous to their cause.
Using the term “trans identified males” makes it much easier to see and acknowlege that there is and will be conflict with the rights of women and girls.
That can work, but I prefer OBs “men who pretend to be women”. Of course, that is much more in your face and while it says the same thing, it is not as ‘nice’ as ‘trans-identified males’ – though it is certainly as accurate.
And both terms undoubtedly constitute “literal violence.”