It was no April Fool’s joke.
Harry Potter author-turned culture warrior J.K. Rowling kicked off the month with an 11-tweet social media thread in which she argued 10 transgender women were men — and dared Scottish police to arrest her.
Rowling’s intervention came as a controversial new Scottish government law, aimed at protecting minority groups from hate crimes, took effect. And it landed amid a fierce debate over both the legal status of transgender people in Scotland and over what actually constitutes a hate crime.
Already the law has generated far more international buzz than is normal for legislation passed by a small nation’s devolved parliament.
She might be “just spewing nonsensical bollocks and bile” OR she might be publicly and seemingly proudly flouting Scottish law.
So why not her?
I mean in fairness it will probably end up being both. It would appear she’s danced along the line of being incendiary-but-not-enough-to-get-charged up to now, but I can’t see it being long until she talks enough shit that she ends up with a fine - which is a bit pointless in her position as it’s probably lost in the noise of whatever riches she sits on.
As for why not her, I’d argue that - based admittedly on some pretty big assumptions - what experience has she had of being marginalised in recent times? How have the struggles for trans rights recognition negatively (or positively) affected her? What has she done to constructively make life better for the LGBTQIA+ communities which may have averted the need for a hate crime law?
My assumption is that the answer will largely be fuck all, where there are people - a set that I couldn’t possibly quantify - who are actively struggling with getting to grips with their own identity, or have lived experiences of marginalisation or ill-treatment that can actually speak on the issue of how the hate crime law is a net positive or net negative for those communities.
Those are the people I feel are the ones who are best placed to make for a constructive discussion on the matter, not someone who’s opinion is somehow disproportionately amplified because of her bank balance and status. That’s the argument I’m trying (and probably failing to do so articulately enough) to make - not just for Rowling, but for Musk and Rogan too seeing as they were named in the initial article.
Interesting stuff though, and I appreciate your input!
the answer to your question is basically that we’re just seeing the sort of, crystallized wisdom that anger is a great marketing motivator. musk, rogan, and rowling sell news headlines, not in spite of their brainlet idiot takes, but because of their brainlet idiot takes. people (broadly, also, said disparagingly), don’t want to hear from a well-spoken, humanized, smart trans woman who knows what the fuck she’s talking about, both because, on a meta level, that works to cut down on the propaganda driven controversy, but also because the things which she might say would not be as controversial as these dickheads.
free market news, and in free markets, everyone tends to race to the bottom, because, given an even playing field, the cheapest possible growth strategies tend to be the ones that win and accumulate mass quicker than the others.