JK Rowling has challenged Scotland’s new hate crime law in a series of social media posts - inviting police to arrest her if they believe she has committed an offence.

The Harry Potter author, who lives in Edinburgh, described several transgender women as men, including convicted prisoners, trans activists and other public figures.

She said “freedom of speech and belief” was at an end if accurate description of biological sex was outlawed.

Earlier, Scotland’s first minister Humza Yousaf said the new law would deal with a “rising tide of hatred”.

The Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021 creates a new crime of “stirring up hatred” relating to age, disability, religion, sexual orientation, transgender identity or being intersex.

Ms Rowling, who has long been a critic of some trans activism, posted on X on the day the new legislation came into force.

  • brotkel@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Scotland was literally willing to leave the UK over this. I wouldn’t be putting money on Joanne to come out on top here.

  • poprocks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    She’s the female version of Trump except with money and actually self made. They’re both garbage humans and think that they’re untouchable.

    • melpomenesclevage@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      Nah. She wrote her own book, is less rapey, abd was moderately cute when she was younger. Plus, she’s a bigot because she hates herself, was less tacky about her house, and isn’t ever funny.

      They arguably deserve to end at the same gallows, but are not the same shit head.

  • stochasticity@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    She’s actually not the real author of Harry Potter. JK lent her name because the real author didn’t want a public facing persona. Unfortunately the identity of the real author remains unknown.

        • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          Eh not really, it’s a pretty old running joke of the internet, that anytime a beloved work turns out to have a shitty creator, that the “Official Story” becomes that the dirtbag ultimately stole credit from Hatsune Miku

          The joke originates from when Notch turned out to be a complete fucking monster, and someone on twitter joked that Hatsune Miku was the REAL creator of Minecraft the whole time… it just kinda stuck.

          People tried to say Five Nights At Freddy’s was made by Hatsune Miku, but it turned out the stories about Scott Cawthon being an Alt-Right Hatemonger were fabricated by some guy who doxxed him solely to troll the FNAF fanbase.

          But Hatsune Miku DEFINITELY wrote Harry Potter, there’s no fucking question about that…

          Admittedly if more people knew Richard Dawkins’ track record of transphobia and misogyny, I’m sure someone would make the argument that she wrote The God Delusion

  • niva@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    This is mental illness by now! Seriously wtf? Why is this so important for her that she can’t stop talking about it? If I had some irrational hate for trans woman, I would not go on about it in public all the time.

    Don’t we have more important problems then to bash people that are so unhappy with their body that they are willing to take hormones and let people operate on their genitals?

    This is such a simple thought, everybody should be able to think it, right? But on the other hand, she is not the only one hating transgender women or men. I mean it is not right to hate people for that. But if I would hate trans people then I would just not invite them for dinner and would stop talking about them all the time.

    It must be some form of mental illness I have no other explanation.

    • melpomenesclevage@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      She lives in a literal castle and will die before climate change kills her. She does not, in fact, have bigger problems than someone else getting bodily autonomy.

      Property is theft, ownership is a disease, and remember how the character trying to abolish slavery in her shitty books was a literal joke?

      • havocpants@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        have bigger problems than someone else getting bodily autonomy.

        Except her problem doesn’t seem to be with people having bodily autonomy, her problem seems to be with trans women in what should be safe spaces for women.

        I’m not saying I agree with her views, but it seems all nuance has been lost from public debate.

        • kinsnik@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          her problem seems to be with trans women in what should be safe spaces for women.

          She claims that that is her problem, but her solution isn’t “let’s make sure that we harshly prosecute those who abuse the goodwill of other’s trusting in your own self identification to invade and attack women”, is “all trans women are really perverts trying to invade women spaces to attack women”

          So, really, her problem seems to be with trans people existing at all…

        • melpomenesclevage@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          Lol, you think you can believe her words? She’s a Nazi, dear. The noises that come out of their mouths are wind. She’s just saying a less objectionable thing to popularize it, then she’ll take it a step farther, again and again and again.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          Hitler’s problem with Jews seemed to be was what should be done about them destroying the German economy.

          I’m not saying I agree with his views, but it seems all nuance has been lost from public debate.

              • sailingbythelee@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                3 months ago

                I know what it means. And, by all means, people can and should talk about Hitler and the Nazis in their historical context. WW2 was the defining conflict of the 20th century, after all. But you used it in the reductio ad Hitlerum sense. It’s just so boring to constantly see every Lemmy thread devolve into calling people Nazis or comparing them to Nazis, which is just the former with an extra step. It becomes meaningless after a while. So, when we are faced with an actual proto-fascist like Trump, the comparison has been exhausted and has little impact.

                • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  Not a reduction at all. The beginning of the Holocaust was when the Nazis destroyed the Institute for Sexual Research and burned all the books. I used Jews as an example rather than that because people were making the same “he’s keeping Germany safe” argument about Hitler persecuting the Jews that the person above is making about “they’re keeping women safe.” And I would not be at all surprised if they made the “they’re keeping women safe” argument about persecuting trans people then too.

                  It is encouraging genocide while defending someone who denied the Holocaust.

                  Why you think that is a reduction, I don’t know. It seems like a pretty close 1:1 comparison with Germany in 1933 to me.

                  Hitler didn’t start the death camps the second he came to power. You know that, right?

    • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      f I had some irrational hate for trans woman, I would not go on about it in public all the time.

      Even when I was a homophobic theist shithead I knew better than to say anything.

    • Orbituary@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      Operative word I your post is “irrational.” If she were being rational, she would probably shut up about it. She’s not either, unfortunately.

    • lath@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      I have another one.

      After enough time has passed since the initial conflict, it becomes less about the subject of the conflict and more about the conflict in itself. The reason becomes secondary and instead the goal becomes winning against the other side or at least making it hurt.

      • niva@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        Yes I think you are right. And I think this is borderline a mental illness if you can’t stop lashing out. As I understand it, she somehow thinks by bashing trans women she is doing something good for women. Trans women are somehow taking away her womanhood or something like that. I have read something like this several times from Rowling but I have no clue how trans woman could do that. But Rowling is obsessed with that, for what ever reason.

        • lath@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          Following this train of thought, what I gathered from other comments is that she had a bad experience with a man in the past, her targeted social media experience likely concentrated the bad news in that direction and her view is now that the trans movement is just evil men looking to invade women’s personal spaces in order to abuse them.

          If you look at her as someone bombarded with Fox News type of content, then perhaps that kind of paranoia and fear is what makes her so vocal in her opposition.

          • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 months ago

            Yeah. And it’s important to understand that the pipeline she followed does a swap. Once she became convinced trans women were the problem she began associating with men who are misogynists and support the harm to cis women that she fears. By the time she’s standing with Matt Walsh and funding groups that also oppose abortion access protecting cis women is no longer her primary concern, it may be what she thinks is her primary concern but if so she believes that trans women are a larger threat than the right to choose to stop being pregnant or men who want to relegate cis women back to traditional gender roles.

      • Dkarma@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        Nah its the female equivalent of white knight syndrome. They think they’re saving womanhood from impostors.

        • melpomenesclevage@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          No its straight up fascist misogyny bullshit.

          They genuinely believe women are worse than men. So they invent a magical mystical quality to womanness that let’s them keep believing that, and live like they’re roughly equal with men at the same time

          Trans people fuck all that shit up by forcing us to actually look at gender, putting all that shit in contact woth reality amd forcing us to really look at it, which invalidates their magical mystical shit they invented to call themselves feminists while still being archaic repressive misogynist pieces of shit who passionately hate women.

          Flattening the territory until its as featureless as the map they drew.

  • Jaccident@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    I’m utterly befuddled by this woman; somehow she hates the idea of trans women so much that she’s now closely allied with Posie Parker, a woman who hates women, hates suffrage, has advocated for the removal of women’s rights for years, and shares closely held opinions from just right of Goebbels.

    Somehow Jo has become so utterly single-minded, she’s paired with the antithesis of all the other things she believes in (and still claims to believe as justification of her anti-trans nonsense).

  • Blackmist@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Tbh, it’s a badly thought out “law” that seems to be just a case of letting the police decide whether to act on it or not, letting them deal with things based on their own prejudices (e.g. weed is illegal in the UK, but if you were a racist copper you could arrest some black youths for smoking it and not some white kids). It’s cowardly politics, and avoids actually defining anything or drawing any lines in the sand.

    Also, it’s not a crime to be a moron on Twitter. One might argue it’s where they belong.

  • Gabu@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Throw her in a cell with the burliest trans inmate they can find, just for the fun of it.

    • sudneo@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      I did not find any source about her being banned from Germany, I only saw some controversy about some tweets that some people call holocaust denial.

        • sudneo@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          I mean, I didn’t know this stuff even happened, I literally skimmed search results and what I found is a few articles calling something she said holocaust denial. Hence “some” people. I did not express any judgment on the merit of her claims, I am personally not interested.

          No need to be aggressive.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 months ago

            Expressing judgment on the merits of the claims of a Holocaust denier is something you should be doing and something you should be interested in.

            Apathy is not much better than direct support.

            • sudneo@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              3 months ago

              Sorry, you don’t get to say what I should or should not be interested in. I am not interested in what a celebrity says in a tweet, otherwise I would spend most of my time doing pointless arguments there.

              • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                3 months ago

                I’m afraid I do I get to say what anyone short or should not be interested in, which is why I said it and was not stopped from doing so or had my comment deleted.

                Maybe you don’t agree that you should be interested in someone fomenting genocide and denying a previous genocide, but I still get to say you should.

                Not agreeing, however, would suggest that you’re not especially interested in doing anything about an ongoing genocide. So I hope that’s okay with you.

                • sudneo@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  I’m afraid I do I get to say what anyone short or should not be interested in, which is why I said it and was not stopped from doing so or had my comment deleted.

                  Ok, this is purely a rhetorical linguistic argument, not particularly interesting either, ironically. Sure, you can say whatever you want, but you have no moral or any other authority to actually dictate what other people should be interested in. You can say whatever you want about what the penalty should be in a trial, but you don’t get to sentence anybody, to make an analogy. Thankfully, I add.

                  Not agreeing, however, would suggest that you’re not especially interested in doing anything about an ongoing genocide. So I hope that’s okay with you.

                  It is OK with me. There are many problems in the world, and it’s necessary to establish a hierarchy among them given our will power and mental energy is finite. Also, I disagree with your premises and therefore my characterization of the problem makes it hierarchically less important than other problems, such as the war in Ukraine or the environmental disaster.

                  Guilt tripping people is also not a great strategy to involve them in a cause, but if you want we can start digging to draft a very long list of atrocities that are happening in the world right now and that you (nor I) don’t care about.

      • Syndic@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Not only some people. The German law book is very clear about what constitutes holocaust denying and what now. Diminishing parts of the holocausts, such as claiming one group wasn’t targeted or wasn’t targeted as much is holocaust denial under that law.

        • sudneo@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          Thanks for the specification. That said, what’s wrong with “some people”? It’s the second comment that jumps on that word as if it diminishes the argument. “Some” is purely a quantifier which I used because clearly not everyone is calling her like that, and this was - in fact - a niche news that a few articles spoke about.

          Does the German law even applies here? Is there some formal recognition that can be used instead of relying on people’s opinion? I didn’t find anything, but if that were the case then she would be recognized by the German court/state as such.

          • Syndic@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            Thanks for the specification. That said, what’s wrong with “some people”? It’s the second comment that jumps on that word as if it diminishes the argument. “Some” is purely a quantifier which I used because clearly not everyone is calling her like that, and this was - in fact - a niche news that a few articles spoke about.

            For me a German law about the Holocaust just is more important than what some people say. It’s just so very vague. It reminds me a bit off Trump when he spouts some utter bullshit “some people” have said to him. That of course doesn’t mean that I think you said it in such an intention.

            And no, the German law of course only applies to people in Germany. Now what would happen if Rowling would set foot in Germany would be interesting, but I don’t think even then much would happen. Nevertheless I think the German legal view on such speech IMHO is a good indication of it’s intention. After all Germany is one of the few countries who put in a serious effort in critically reflect on a very dark spot in their past. That’s something a lot of other countries could learn quite a bit.

            And again, I really don’t think your choice of words were wrong in any way, my comment aimed to further elaborate on the topic and not criticise. I’m sorry if it came over in a different way.

            • Pika@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              After all Germany is one of the few countries who put in a serious effort in critically reflect on a very dark spot in their past. That’s something a lot of other countries could learn quite a bit

              I fully agree with this, especially in the US, going through the school system and then the post education system, every “bad” action of the country was either skipped or downplayed significantly.

              For example, they barely touched on the Vietnam war, and what little they did never mentioned anything that was controversial or inhumane such as the My Lai massacre, it was always what the “other side” did looking in.

              What little I did learn about more nefarious acts were from my grandfather who was a history teacher, they just don’t bring it up anymore.

              I get that shameful acts like that make the country look bad but not teaching the bad side and only showing the good side is counterproductive to setting up a healthy Viewpoint of the rest of the world. Not to mention disrespectful to anyone who is involved in the conflicts.

    • Pika@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      I didn’t find anything in regards to that but, I did find an interesting timeline article of the more controversial actions done here Granted it’s a commercial site and doesn’t contain sources, but everything is dated so could be fact checked if someone wanted to.

  • VinnyDaCat@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    You know what’s baffling to me?

    She was poor at some point. She lived in poverty off of government welfare. Chances are there are a good amount of children who grew up with her works that transitioned later on. They are part of the same fanbase that lifted her from poverty.

    How can you genuinely turn out that unsympathetic for your fellow human beings like that?

  • blazeknave@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    I have never and will never give her a dime. My kid is banned. We will never stream 1 second or flip 1 page.