Keira Knightley Breaks Silence Amid Backlash Over Her Harry Potter Casting

Nathaniel, you said "She has had her opinion. And the criticism is deserved". Funny how whenever Rowling gives her opinion she is 'attacking' and 'lashing out' and causing all kinds of (unspecified) harms, but the flood of hate and threats that she receives is mere 'criticism'. Turning the abúsers into the abúsed - classic DARVO right there.

I am talking about criticism. Are there people who take it too far? Of course there is, on both sides. We should be concerned by he hate Rowling receives? What about the hate transgender people receive? The flames of which she is fanning.

Has Rowling been sending threats of violence, rápe threats, déath threats? Has she been parading around with banners showing images of trans people being burned at the stake? Or emblazoned with 'Punch A Trans' and 'The Only Good Trans Is A Dead Trans'? Does she send gangs to smash windows at venues where trans people are meeting? Have them stood outside banging drums, setting off alarms and yelling through bullhorns to drown out the voices of the speakers inside? Get them to scream a***e at trans people entering and leaving? Because that's only the start of what Rowling and other GC feminists are getting all the time, so don't come it with your Trumpian 'both sides' bullshít.

The "gender cult" and it's just people who want to live their own f*****g lives lmao

No, it isn't people who just want to live their own lives. It's people who demand that everybody must agree with everything they say; must centre them in everything: they are people who are insisting that their personal feelings of self - their ethereal identities - must override reality and demand that laws be rewritten to make it official. When living their own lives means disrupting the lives of everybody else; when it means trampling on the rights of others; when it means forced compliance to an ideology - that, my friend, is a cult.

There is no gender cult you toad. She isn't being attacked either. She pedals nonsense and celebrates when trans women are discriminated against. What threats has she gotten? None? Got it. Go on and keep being a conservitard. No rights are being trampled on and no laws are being rewritten, just updated. There is no forced compliance to an ideology, if anything thats what you cretins are doing, also if these things are "distrupting" your life, you really need to live in reality and stop being a karen. Bet you'd get pissed if people called you a woman wouldn't you? All they want is basic human decency, but cretins like you deny them that. Instead you celebrate when they lose rights/when the law says its ok to discriminate against them because they aren't a cishet man. Maybe pick up a book and stop pedaling lies. Then again your name is UKgranddad, so I don't expect you to look past your hate. Older folks tend to hold onto that forever. Plus consider for one minute, most people support queer identities.

Rowling hasn't been threatened? From a BBC News report: 'An internet troll who posted "chilling" online messages threatening to k**l Harry Potter author JK Rowling and former MP Rosie Duffield has been sentenced. Glenn Mullen, 31, uploaded audio clips in Gaelic threatening to k**l Ms Rowling "with a big hammer" Mullen was described in court as "a man of previous good character" who had "strong views about gender equality". https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c044vevjyd7o.amp The rest of your screed is as dishonest as the first claim and as easily dealt with. Men are not and cannot become women. Women's rights are based on séx, not on a nebulous feeling of gender identity, so including those men in women's rights would mean that they are no longer women's rights. There's no forced compliance but anybody who disagrees even slightly with the ideology is a bigot? That does not add up. What rights have they lost? None. Not having their demands met is not losing rights. They have the same rights as everybody else. What they want are additional rights, rights that conflict with séx-based rights that they are not entitled to because they are not of that séx, and 'identifying as' does not change that basic fact. The law does not say that it's OK to discriminate against them because they aren't 'cishet' men: the law says that regardless of their gender identity they are men and enjoy exactly the same set of rights as all other men. 'Queer' identities are irrelevant to the conversation. I shan't even bother with the ad hom nonsense. If you can't present your argument without resorting to childish insults then it's clear that your argument is too weak to stand on merit.

Imagine Rowling had attacked another minority group and you were calling out those who retaliated.

Nathaniel, how about staying on topic instead of playing 'what if' games? Also, Rowling hasn't 'attacked' anybody. OK, I get why you need to use melodramatic language; you know how pathetic it would sound if you were to try justifying the torrents of hate directed at Rowling on the grounds that she criticises trans ideology. So instead she is always said to 'attack', 'lash out' 'cause harm to trans people' because then, in the time-honoured pattern of abúsers of all stripes, the hate, the threats, the demonising of a woman is just 'self defence, isn't it! We told her to shut up but she just carried on. She made us do it to her; she brought it on herself'.

I am staying on topic. A minority group is being attacked but apparently it is okay to attack them because they are transgender? Melodramatic language? You are doing quite well on that front. Go back a few decades, imagine what the homosexuals went through, the women wanting equal rights? People of colour wanting basic respect? Would you have defended the people judt giving their opinion on why these groups should not be accepted?

It is absolutely fine to criticise a group that is actively working to destroy the rights of others by taking them for itself. The gay movement, the women's right's movement and the civil rights movement were about equality. They were making legitimate claims for the same rights as everybody else. Transgender people already have the same universal rights as everybody else and the same séx-based rights as those of their own séx. What they want is to be granted rights that they are not entitled to because those rights are specifically for the séx that they are not. More specifically, men who claim to be women want inclusion in the single-séx rights of women, which at a stroke would mean that women no longer have séx-specific rights because those rights would also apply to men. EDIT: and here we go again - can't refute my arguments so resort to downvotes in the hope of getting the comment hidden, the internet version of shouting over speakers so they can't be heard.

If we're talking about a directly comparable minority group with "group-only" safe spaces - there aren't that many that come to mind. Maybe if someone with a sprained ankle claimed to be disabled so that they could take a disabled parking space - would you defend their right to do so? Or Jews who identified as Muslims so that they could infiltrate a mosque? What JKR is doing is defending womanhood against terms like "pregnant people", and she's entitled to do that.

No she's not defending anyone. How about she call for cishet male coaches to be banned from womens sports, but I don't see her doing that, nor any of you people. She brings s*x into the equation when thats not even being discussed, GENDER IS. 2 seperate things. Plus if she's "defending womanhood" then why does she celebrate every time a trans woman gets discriminated against? Why does she make up lies about them? Why has she been caught accusing cis women being trans women? I doubt you'll answer any of these questions. Conservitards can't answer these questions.

I'm not politically right wing; there are plenty of people on the left who don't agree with trans ideology, including the big bad witch herself, a life-long supporter of the Labour Party. She brings séx into the equation because the genderists are trying to intrude on women's séx-based rights. If you really understood that gender is separate from séx, then you'd understand why identifying as a woman is not the same thing as being a woman - the former is all in the head of the believer while the latter is a biological fact - and you wouldn't get so confused about why women's séx-based rights by definition excludes men who identify as women. They are, as you say, separate things.