Xenophobic...

Luckbox: 1
uke_master: n-1

People get killed every day . Gay people, Asian people, White People, Black people. Every individual that is killed is tragic no one innocent persons death is more tragic than the other

As I said before if these two teens killed her because she was trans than they should be charged with a hate crime.

Also the word transphobic or transphobia is wrong . It means the fear of trans community No one is scared of the trans community you accuse them of hate

Please tell me what she said that was so evil or trans hateful ?

Since it's usually you starting the grammar derails, you may not notice them as much. But as you admit in this post, the same topic of which words comes up and derails discussions over and over again. So let's just get it into one clearly identifiable thread, so the next time we can just point them to that thread rather than rehashing the same arguments over and over and over.

And look, I get you dont like this change. I considered your position and went another way. So please dont try and relitigate your double standard objection in every thread going forward. Its not going to change anything.

And maybe, just maybe, if you posted this tidbit of word styling in the other thread, more people will see it and take it to heart than a random sentence in a random thread that many will never see, thereby requiring you to make this same correction a dozen more times each time any individual posts who may not be up to speed on the latest thought on word forms related to transgender discussion.

We're going to need a separate thread to discuss all things JKR (hence why omnibus threads exist).

It's just a dumb word to intimidate and/or disparage folks who disagree with their myopic agenda.

Up to 1000 contributors.

NYT memo to staff on all this.

The problem is there is no guarantee the person I'm responding to would go and check some entirely different thread to see where it was pointed out there grammar was wrong.

You spoke previously that you WOULD allow threads - even the trans threads - to "breathe", WOULD allow sidebars, WOULD allow expanded discussion from the OP, right? Noting someone's grammar doesn't need to be more than a pretty minor sidebar. Ok sure, if it becomes an entrenched and distracting tangent then moving it might fit the edict you are imposing on discussion of trans topics, but I think you are being particularly strict and imposing in this case even accepting your general edict.

This......is not a good response. Hardly one that shows any indication of listening, focused instead more on insisting they've never done anything wrong.

ALso, isn't NYT being a bit coy here? As in, there were two letters. GLAAD did submit its own letter. And there was also a separate letter from the thousands of journalists etc.

I don't get the impression that they do feel like they've done anything wrong. There was another reply I posted last night which says that they're proud of their coverage.

Nope. I know that it's easy to limit the meaning of "phobia" to "fear" because that's its most common use, but the word is not limited to that.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/phobia

Nope. I'm sure it *can* be used that way, but that doesn't make the word dumb. Just like homophobia and your feeling on that. They are both legitimate words with legitimate uses.

I guess you've missed a lot of JK Rowling news for a few years. I wouldn't necessarily use those words, but I think it comes down to the whole "trans women aren't real women" talking points being harmful to the trans community as a whole, as they often are used in a "lesser than" or dismissive manner.

Which is why I didnt move your comments to another thread. They were fine. But if you chose to contribute your thoughts on the use of transphobic in that thread as well, over time the need for your constant corrections should be reduced considerably.

This theory of change just seems quite wrong. It takes 5 minutes to skim the oft-quoted GLAAD style guide (sure nice to see their cultural weight with today's news!) to learn all the things! Hard to imagine how some rambling and disorganized thread putting together a variety of random corrections from other trans threads is more effective at reducing this need. I can hope you are right though!

No I am very familiar with what she said

Please list the threatening phrases or anything she said to the trans community

5 minutes i don't have as you nit pick a capital or and "s"

Your lecturing and talking down to folks gets old

Well, I've never suggested she made any threatening phrases, so I'm not sure why you'd ask me to list them. Pretty sure what I already said covered the issue as I see it:

If you are "very familiar with what she said", then I assume you don't need me to go find you examples of her making a distinction between women and trans women.

This tweet was particularly harmful because even if wumpen did exist, they wouldn't all menstruate. And everyone knows that being a wumpen is just a state of mind.

Is there going to be a Civil War (of sorts) among the gay rights activists, the transgender rights activists and the women's rights activists?

The transgender rights activists made long-time lesbian activist Martina Navratilova out to be their enemy, for example.

Caitlyn Jenner too is a self-hating transphobe. Although it shouldn't be too surprising that atheletes have some strong opinions about the division of the sexes in sports.

You know, when I originally saw that Tweet reference at the time, I thought it was caused by someone using the phrase "people who menstruate" as some kind of awkward-sounding replacement for women in an article about something else, which is the only thing that would make JK's, um, hysterical Tweet make sense. But it turns out that isn't the case at all; it's actually an article about menstruation and menstrual health. The only real call back to the headline is early on in the article:

In other words, the term is being used to avoid calling people who consider themselves "gender non-binary", women. JK's thing has been to distinguish women from trans women, and that opinion piece had nothing to do with trans women. Seems like a really weird article to target in the way she did - I wonder if she even read it, or just thought the headline was a good way to score some "points"?

Good example.

I think that was the first thing where you announced her TERF status to the world. Before that she was just a loveable author but the "people who menstruate" line was too much for her to handle.