Rowling’s Books Burned or Banned Around the World Over Her Personal Views Of Gender

In Harry Potter, Albus Dumbledore told the students of Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry that “It takes a great deal of bravery to stand up to our enemies, but just as much to stand up to our friends.”  Many are learning the truth of that line written by famed author JK Rowling as self-described progressives burn her books or ban them from shelves because she personally holds an opposing view of gender.  Much like the boycott movement of Chick-Fil-A over comments by its CEO, people are seeking to punish Rowling through attacks on her literature.  We previously discussed the embracing of art destruction as analogous to book burning, but now actual book burning is being embraced as a weapon of the woke.

A TikTok series show people around the world burning copies of Rowlings’ books. In one video of a burning pile of books by TikTok user @elmcdo, a voice is heard saying

“You have to stop using ‘death of the author’ as an excuse to have your cake and eat it too. While the reader’s perspective is an important part of interpretation and meaning, it is impossible to completely divorce a work from its creator. The positive impact that J.K. Rowling’s work had on millions of readers does not negate how her hateful lobbying has affected the trans community.”

That sums up the logic of every book burner in history.  You cannot read a book because of the views or religion or identity of the author.  It is better to burn the book to protect society.

Then there is Rabble Books and Games in Maylands, Perth. The owner owner Nat Latter proudly declared on Facebook that he had removed all fo the Harry Potter books from bookshelves to guarantee “a safer space for our community.” So you can buy a Rowlings book by having it retrieved from behind the back room like pornography.  It is a form of censoring by making it more difficult to buy some books rather than others because you disfavor authors with opposing views. Latter seems to relish the role of a book censoring book seller:

“Whilst stocking a book isn’t an endorsement (good grief, that would be a minefield), and we will always take orders for books that aren’t in stock, there are more worthy books to put on the shelf, books that don’t harm communities and won’t make us sad to unpack them.”

Does Latter also hide works with opposing views on gender from the Bible to the Koran to classic novels?  Indeed, why not pull all of the work of authors like Hemingway and others for their views of women or race relations or other issues? Book sellers used to be people who wants to be gateways to knowledge and a world of different ideas and values. Now readers are being protected from even seeing the name of an author who personally holds opposing or offensive views.
What is most disturbing is not the flawed rhetoric of these individuals in justifying book burning and speech regulation but the relative silence from communities as a whole. We have seen increasing pressure to regulate art based on the identity or gender of artists.  Authors often hold unpopular views from society as a whole. Many are deeply religious or hold narrow views of certain social institutions or rights. These views are often not reflected in their art or writings. Indeed, Rowlings is viewed as extremely liberal but holds a narrow view of gender.  We can debate her on those views and denounce those that we find hateful or intolerant. However, burning or banning or hiding books (or destroying art) is the ultimate attack on free speech. It is the signature of oppression from the China’s Qin Dynasty to the Nazis to Southern segregationists. Saying that you are different because you are acting in defense of others is a transparently weak rationalization. Declaring intolerance in the name of tolerance captures the very illogic of book burning.
Thankfully, this remains a small minority of activists but there is a more pronounced anti-free speech movement growing in this and other countries
These actions only prove again what Albus Dumbledore said (and J.K. Rowlings wrote): “Dark times lie ahead of us and there will be a time when we must choose between what is easy and what is right.”

274 thoughts on “Rowling’s Books Burned or Banned Around the World Over Her Personal Views Of Gender”

    1. U got it wrong Man . . . .

      Hillary called and wanted to take RGBs place . . . Trump said he would try and arrange it with the Undertaker . . . lol

  1. Leftists are people with criminal minds because they have the core traits of criminals (e.g., immorality, self-entitlement, contempt for other’s rights), which is why leftists commit nearly all crime (as confirmed by multiple studies), vote for criminals to steal for them, turn government into organized crime, encourage fellow criminals to invade, attack police, vote for prosecutors who won’t charge or prosecute them, attack Republicans for engaging in their free speech and religion, demand that police and victims be disarmed, call their crimes “racial/social justice” and demand a “racial/social justice system” that supports their crimes. In short, leftists must be segregated from a free country.

  2. This is fascinating, but hardly unexpected. The whole gender reassignment surgery thing is reminiscent of the fad appeal of lobotomies back in the One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest days.
    ————–
    A major correction has been issued by the American Journal of Psychiatry. The authors and editors of an October 2019 study, titled “Reduction in mental health treatment utilization among transgender individuals after gender-affirming surgeries: a total population study,” have retracted its primary conclusion. Letters to the editor by twelve authors, including ourselves, led to a reanalysis of the data and a corrected conclusion stating that in fact the data showed no improvement after surgical treatment. The following is the background to our published letter and a summary of points of the critical analysis of the study.

    Perhaps nowhere in medicine and psychology is this problem of irreproducibility worse than in studies of people who claim to have a mismatch between their sex and their internal sense of being male or female.

    A paucity of gender-affirming surgeries also suggested loss to follow-up. Table 3 of their study showed that only 38 percent of people diagnosed with gender incongruence had any type of affirmative surgery, and only 53 percent of those—about 20 percent of the total—had surgery of the reproductive organs. Gender affirming surgery is free in Sweden, so where are these patients? And for those whose last surgery was ten or more years earlier, how many completed suicide, died of other related causes, or emigrated from Sweden prior to the study timeline?

    In terms of follow-up care, the authors only measured three outcomes as listed above. Overlooked were key data of completed suicides, healthcare visits, prescriptions, and hospitalizations for the litany of other medical or psychological diagnoses potentially related to gender-affirming treatments. Such information was available through Sweden’s multiple registry databases, so why not use it? These omissions suggested cherry-picking data in order to obtain the desired results.

    We concluded our letter by comparing this study to the one we consider perhaps the best of its kind, also from Sweden, the 2011 Dhejne study. The Dhejne team made extensive use of numerous, specified Swedish registries and examined data from 324 patients in Sweden over thirty years who underwent sex reassignment. They used population controls matched by birth year, birth sex, and reassigned sex. When followed out beyond ten years, the sex-reassigned group had nineteen times the rate of completed suicides and nearly three times the rate of all-cause mortality and inpatient psychiatric care, compared to the general population. These important findings could have easily been updated by Bränström and Pachankis to the more current time frame.

    Which brings us back to the August AJP and why seven critical letters took ten months to see print. Along with the letters, the AJP editors published a correction that explained their need “to seek statistical consultations.” These consultants “concurred with many of the points raised.” The study’s authors were asked to reanalyze their data, and the results demonstrated “no advantage to surgery” for their three endpoints in the subject population. The authors noted in their response letter that their “conclusion” “was too strong.” [HINT: The AJP feared the response of the Gaystapo -SF]

    With respect to cross-sex hormones, it has been shown that 23 percent of patients on high-dose anabolic steroids like testosterone, which is prescribed to every female-to-male patient, meet criteria for a major mood syndrome, and 3 to 12 percent have developed psychotic symptoms. Why is this not reflected in the study or the reanalysis?

    Our co-author Dr. Paul McHugh ended sex reassignment surgeries at John Hopkins Medical School when a study from his department revealed that the mental and social health of patients undergoing sex reassignment surgery did not improve. He adds here that this paper, and even the correction, misdirects clinical thought in many ways. Most crucially it presumes an unproblematic future for these subjects, despite evidence that the psychological state of many will, after surgery, worsen with time. Our experience at Hopkins, when we first recognized that the psychological well-being of patients undergoing surgery did not improve, rested on relatively short-term assessments. The long-term Swedish study of Dhejne demonstrated that the serious fallouts including suicide emerged only after ten years. None of this clinical experience is reflected in this paper or its correction.

    Now how will the thirteen-year-old girls who have had breast amputations and testosterone fare? Abigail Shrier writes in her excellent exposé Irreversible Damage that, “Nearly all of the detransitioners I spoke with are plagued with regret. . . . They possess a startlingly masculine voice that will not lift. . . . They live with slashes across their chests . . . and flaps of skin that don’t quite resemble nipples.”

    How about children who are ultimately sterilized by puberty blockers followed by cross-sex hormones and even gonad removal? These unethical surgeries are receiving funding by the very NIH that claims to be working to correct problems of irreproducibility. These experiments are beyond reproducibility problems: they are ethical failures by which doctors cause long-term harm to children and adolescents, all based on political activism supported by faulty science.

    https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/pillars/sexuality-and-family/
    —————–

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    1. I stopped drinking Corona and went to Franzia Wine. Then I quit the wine too. Now, I sip a little Tennessee Honey when my voice gets raspy, and an occasional pitcher of Margaritas or Daquiris. You can get them at drive-thrus here in Louisiana. I also smoke a pipe which has a lot of people in the neighborhood thinking I am a Lesbian. Which I am not.

      I used to drink quite a lot but decided it was bad for my health. Particularly when I fell off a pole and hurt my back and had to spend months in a dang physical therapy rehab facility. Not for my back but for my knee which the therapists screwed up when I first got there and they dropped me on it.

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

    2. They likely classed them ALL as Corona . . . pays well I hear !

      Actually only a little over 1100 died Solely of Corona . . . ALL other died from complications of 1 or More Co-morbidities . . . average age in the 70s . . . . little risk for anyone under 50 and healthy.
      And of course Killer Cuomo and several other Dem Governors sent infected Seniors back to old folks homes which was a disaster.

      1. We don’t exclude people with comorbidities from the count of those who die from heart attacks.
        We don’t exclude people with comorbidities from the count of those who die from cancer.
        We don’t exclude people with comorbidities from the count of those who die from the flu.

        And we shouldn’t exclude people with comorbidities from the count of those who die from COVID-19.

        1. It’s ALL about the money . . .
          No one is dying from Heart Attacks, Seasonal Flu, or Cancer . . . ALL Wuhan Flu . . .

          Sweden is normal today, so is Switzerland and a number of other countries . . . it is more dangerous walking in an IKEA Parking Lot for anyone under 50 and healthy. Kids in 4 Euro Countries went back to school in MAY . . . and ZERO problems. Swedish kids never missed a day . . .

          This is ALL about the election in November . . . the hapless Demokkkrats want to drag it out . . .

          1. We have in the last 6 months . . . even Gunshots got classed as Wuhan Flu . . .
            Floyd died of a Drug Overdose . . . the corrupt AG finally released the Medical Examiners Report . . . he was not choked but had 3 times the Fentenyl in his system that would have killed him. The cops will walk . . . .

        2. That is foolish. There is the cause of death and there are comorbid conditions. If a person with heart disease is in a car wreck and his heart fails is the death from heart disease or the trauma from the auto accident? If a person has terminal heart failure and is in hospice waiting to die and he gets a mild case of Covid and dies, is that from Covid? If a person tests positive for Covid does that mean no matter the circumstances his cause of death is Covid.

          We are vastly overstating the number of Covid cases. Extra money is being paid if the person dies with Covid even if the person came into the hospital with a fatal heart attack. We don’t even know for sure who is really positive for Covid. PCR tests are multipliers of RNA and detection is based on the number of times the machine goes through the process of multiplication.

          If a person with heart disease dies of another cause, say cancer then heart disease is a comorbid condition. That person will not increase the number of deaths from heart disease.

          1. Point being . . . ALL these deaths were called Coved . . .

            In hindsight . . . had the country opened up when it was apparent there was no “Curve” . . . and just Protected the Seniors and those with Health Issues . . . the numbers today would likely be much lower.
            Were you aware that 2/3 of the Death were in Dem States?

            1. Left Bank, I am not sure where you are heading in your reply to me. What we do know is that Covid mostly killed the sick and elderly especially nursing home patients. We also know that some democrat governors mixed Covid patients with nursing home patients increasing the death rate to date in their states. Most if not all of them were democrat states. We also know that in deaths per million the highest rates were in democrat states.

              I beleive 6 states had over 1000 deaths per million and all were democrat states. The worst two were NJ and NY. How the numbers play out today between democrat states and Republican sstates I don’t know but 2/3rds sounds reasonable.

              I believe we would have been better off, like you do, that the sick and vulnerable should have been protected with voluntary isolation. There are variables that naturally prevent the death rate from being equal all over, but there were mistakes that increased the death rate in certain areas. Mixing Covid with nursing home patients and an unclean transportation system are two of them.

              1. U are on the right track . . . . unfortunately we followed the “China” Model and not the Sweden Model . . .

                I also agree with the Stanford Dr. who said that the under 40 crowds chances of dying from the Wuhan Flu were in the realm of 0.04%, lower than the seasonal flu.
                Children were not affected . . . Swedish kids never missed a day of school, and 4 Euro countries went back to school in May with zero problems.

  3. I care not how you sexual identity, but DO NOT TRY to change the scientific or biological meaning to advance your cause.

    On the road to Wigans Pier I encounter a Pig oh so near, only to find it was Queer. It said do not fear as I’m not only a Queer but possibly a Dear. It does not matter which, as long as I satisfy my twitch, for I always make the switch.

  4. So if you want to buy a book and burn it, fine. That is what freedom is about.
    If I buy a book and you burn it, not fine. That is not freedom.
    SCOTUS ruled burning the flag was fine. Books are no different.

        1. I am not going to look it up, but it involved someone who burnt someone else’s gay flag, a definite crime, but it was elevated to a hate crime with the potential of years in prison. I don’t know how it finally sorted out.

          It was another indication that hate crimes should be abolished. Just stick with crimes and leave it at thst.

          1. It was another indication that hate crimes should be abolished. Just stick with crimes and leave it at thst.

            It’s part of the liberal moral sense that criticism of and antagonism to their pets should be punishable BAMN. So, no, they won’t consent to eliminating ‘hate crimes. You gotta ram it down their throats.

          2. Thanks! No need to look it up. Like I said, I burn my book, OK!
            You burn my book, crime.
            Same as alternative sex flags, if you burn someone elses, thats a crime. Under what circumstances can determine hate or not.

          1. Agree totally! And if it is alternative sex flag, why and under what circumstances determine if it is hate frime or just distruction of personal property.

            1. Ask yourself, all other things being equal, would the person face the same severe punishment if he burned an American flag or a Confederate Flag or a Blue Lives Matter flag?

              I think you know the answer.

              1. Young, yes I know the answers.
                If I burn an American flag, I am anti-American. I dislike what America stands for.
                If I burn a confederate flag, I am anti-southern supporter of confederate beliefs.
                If I burn a blue lives matter flag, I am anti-police.

                None of these are covered by various state laws, and maybe federal laws based on race, color, religion, ancestry or national origin, gender disability, or sexual orientation. Some hate crime legislation in some states also protects people based on homelessness, gender identity or expression, and political affiliation.

                In all of these, it is a personal attack on the person. The first three are not.

                Now, do I agree that burning a gay flag is hate. If I were on a jury, there would need to be much more than just ashes to prove that crime.

                1. Some hate crime legislation in some states also protects people based on homelessness, gender identity or expression, and political affiliation.

                  In all of these, it is a personal attack on the person.

                  *****

                  Burning a flag is an attack on a piece of cloth, not a person.

                  It is a mistake to confuse the two.

                  1. As I said, the facts that go with the burning of the flag has to be taken into consideration.

                    Just burning a flag, no., Just like a noose hung from a garage pull t a race track.

                    Was there personal attacks, threats, other actions?

                2. Ron, there *was* more than just ashes:

                  “Martinez admitted his dislike of gay people was the reason he stole the banner from Ames United Church of Christ in June and burned it outside the Dangerous Curves Gentleman’s Club a few blocks away. He unsuccessfully argued for dismissal of an arson charge against him, contending that prosecuting him would violate his First Amendment right to free speech.
                  “Prosecutors in court documents referenced statements Martinez made to KCCI-TV soon after his arrest, which included a Bible verse. “It is a judgement and it is written: ‘To execute vengeance on the heathen and punishments upon the people,’” Martinez told the television reporter, adding that he was guilty and didn’t plan to fight the charges.
                  “A jury last month found Martinez guilty of arson, harassment and reckless use of fire or explosives. “Basically, he was looking at three years but as soon as he opened his mouth and said ‘This is why I did it,’ he gave them the motivation of why it occurred and he turned it into a hate crime,” said Drake University Law Professor Bob Rigg, who reviewed the case at the Register’s request.
                  “The hate crime status bumped the arson charge from an aggravated misdemeanor to a felony, which carries a more severe sentence. And because the arson conviction was a felony, the habitual offender enhancement also applied, further increasing the sentence.”
                  https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/2019/12/20/police-guard-iowa-church-center-hate-crime-uproar-after-lgbtq-flag-burned/2713216001/

                  1. A brutal increase to the sentence solely because of his opinions.

                    The courts are turned into the Inquisition in pursuit of thought crimes.

                    He burned cloth. That’s it.

                  2. CTHD..I was not commenting on specific cases. I was making a general comment based on the original comment that burning a gay flag should not be a hate crime.

                    My comment was meant to describe the conditions that ANY hate crime involving a gag flag burning would qualify for being a hate crime.

                    Right now I am not in a position to comment on a specific case.

                    1. “My comment was meant to describe the conditions that ANY hate crime involving a gag flag burning would qualify for being a hate crime.”

                      Ron, why do you want different rules for different segments of the population? What is the rational for hate crimes. The crime itself is the offense. Are you saying one life is worth more than another or one design on a piece of fabric is worth more than another?

                    2. Did I say I want different rules for different segment of society? Copy and paste and reply. Then I can address your concerns.

                      I want the least amount of government involvement in life that is possible.

                      I was commenting on CURRENT LAW. Go back and read what I wrote because I am not going to write it again.

                    3. Ron, somewhere along the line you said a lot of different things and seemed to avoid saying whether you felt hate crime statutes should exist or not. Perhaps you can answer that question with a simple yes or no.

                    4. O.K.. I thought I made a comment concerning hate crimes and if they should exist.

                      Yes, I believe that hate crimes statues should exist, but I also believe the burden of proving those crimes should require very specific evidence that it was a hate crime. I said if I were on a jury I would not find anyone guilty of a hate crimes just because there was ashes of a flag. Just because you yell obscenities at someone does not make it a hate crime.

                      I can not list each and everything that I think might make it a hate crime, but I know in my mind it needs to be something substantially different than just burning a flag, yelling at someone, painting something on there home or car. Somewhere between a dead body and a burned flag is proof that a hate crime happened.

                      The burden of proof is on the persecutor to prove that existed.

                    5. “Yes, I believe that hate crimes statues should exist”

                      Ron, today I question the entire concept of hate crimes. They make us feel that we are adding civility so I understand the emotional attachment to them but ultimately I am afraid that the good is far outweighed by the bad.

                      That is why I asked: “why do you want different rules for different segments of the population? I’d like to discuss this question to get a firmer idea of what would be lacking if no hate crimes existed. It’s possible I could change my mind.

                      I think the underlying idea of hate crimes is to satisfy the political needs of our politicians and to soothe community outrage. I don’t see how it addresses rule by law especially since the hate portion of a hate crime is in the mind. We don’t punish thoughts, we punish crimes.

                      Perhaps you are able to shine light as to why you find the need for hate crimes, perhaps including examples. Young is involved in this discussion so as an attorney he might have ideas on the law to clarify the issues.

                    6. Allan, you asked good questions. I need to look at some specific laws and understand differences between a couple states to further discuss this subject. Will do sometime today and see if I can discuss this more intelligently.

                    7. Allan, Your question gave me the opportunity to look up Hate Crimes and I now believe the way the lawsvarevwritten, they are way to “vague” when hate is considered. I understand the hate crime conviction for gay flag burning. The flag was stolen from a church,taken to a gay bar, soaked with lighter fluid and set on fire ( among other things). During the trial, the accused showed no remorse and after conviction, basically said he was following gods law. So the hate intend was clear.

                      But just the fact that taking the flag down and burning it at the church could also be considered hate, even though specific individuals were not targeted ( like at the gay bar). This make it too broad and vague.

                      So I agree that there needs to be changes.

                    8. Ron, you stated the problem with hate crime laws. They are vague and I will add political. That flag burning you talk about should be tried like every other similar crime. The judge has discretion as to sentencing.

                      I would end hate crime laws.

                    9. Ron –“I can not list each and everything that I think might make it a hate crime,”.
                      ***

                      There’s the problem. What makes a hate crime is amorphous and sooner rather than later it will be applied unfairly and excessively. It is better to have clear and simply defined crimes when possible. Acts and consequences count. It’s overreaching to weigh souls. The scales can’t be trusted for that.

                    10. Young ” It is better to have clear and simply defined crimes when possible. ”

                      This I agree, but since 1968 states have begun legislating hate crimes with 46 states and D.C. having them now. Arkansas just voted on it.

                      So its been around for 50 years. Not much chance of getting rid of them. Jury selection very important if a states definition is not clearly defined.

    1. YOU ARE CORRECT, THING IS ONCE YOU START BURNING BOOKS OF THOSE YOU DISAGREE WITH OR HATE, BURNING PEOPLE IS NOT FAR BEHIND. GERMANY PROVED THAT BACK IN THE 1930’S AND 1940’S. OF COURSE THEY REFUSE TO TEACH HISTORY ANYMORE SO WE ARE BOUND TO REPEAT IT IN THE NEAR FUTURE.

      1. “BURNING PEOPLE IS NOT FAR BEHIND. ”

        That could be true, but our society already seems to have large blocks of “haters” willing to kill and burn property, so burning books does not seem to me to be much different.

  5. Funny thing, all books that are burned are actually already sold. Wouldn’t be surprised if the was a guerrilla marketing effort on the part of publishers seeking to spark (ha! pun intended) another spike in the HARRY POTTER franchise. Nothing like a little controversy to amp sales.

    Not sure book burning will ever have the original intended effect in digital reality that it did in strictly paper publishing. Although it appears Squeeky would be right at home around the camp fire.

  6. Italian Fascists did not burn books. German Nazis did.
    The Nazis also banned Italian Futurist artists because they were decadent, even though the original Fasci were supported by Marinetti and other Futurists (and people who turned on the Fascist regime, like Toscanini). More than a few Italians viewed Fascism as better than the corrupt political system which had seen liberal and conservative parties trade places, freezing out the Socialists, Anarchist, Catholics, and other political groups.
    Lenin was not Stalin, and Mussolini was not Hitler.
    Lenin came to power through a revolution, Mussolini and Hitler did so legally.
    Fascists considered Nazis brutal racists before 1933, then made their peace with Hitler for diplomatic reasons.
    Mao was a completely different sort of ideologue than Lenin or Mussolini, and Hitler was not so much an ideologue as a demagogue.
    If you want to condemn groups and trash individuals, know your groups and individuals. Read a little history. For starters, try Stephen Cohen’s biography of Bukharin. You might also want to read his views on the Soviet Union and Putin’s Russia. Cohen has just passed away, a true loss both to history and honest political discourse, but he left both interviews and published material.
    I do not want to sound condescending, but the reality is that human history is complex. Reducing it to slogans not only does a disservice to the past, it promotes ignorance in the present.
    Rowling is in some ways reaping what she has sown. She has expressed very simplistic and usually fashionalbe points of view which most on the left and in the center embraced, but this time round she has angered a group that is really aggressive rather than merely critical of her opinions.

    1. One thing Lenin, Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler & Mao had in common . . . they were ALL followers of Karl Marx . . .

      “Rowling is in some ways reaping what she has sown.” . . . Rowling stated the Science & Biology . . . there are only two genders . . . FACT!
      What a handful of dubious Psychologists come up with at a meeting in LA in 2013 to reclassify a mental disorder is as FAKE as Gorebull Warming.

    2. “If you want to condemn groups and trash individuals, know your groups and individuals”

      Thanks to the internet it is very easy to know the true agenda of any group.

      Because the BLM/Antifa group has no chance of gaining the support of the average working man, they are just doing what began in the 1960’s.

      It is a Socialist-Marxist-Communist movement that focuses on race, sexual orientation, gender, and illegal immigration, to create divisiveness. A divide and conquer approach which they need in order to destroy a Democratic-Republic based on Capitalism, free enterprise, and most hated of all — individual liberty.

      IOW, they are statists using the fascist tactics of Mussolini’s Black Shirts and Hitler’s Brown Shirts to try to silence anyone who is not in lock-step with their ideology. They will meet the same fate as the Black Shirts and Brown Shirts.

      Rowling is a really bad writer, and doesn’t qualify to shine Tolkien’s shoes. But she has every right to her personal opinions. The idiots burning books should keep in mind that she has already been paid for the books they are burning.

      1. If she were a ‘really bad writer’, she wouldn’t sell squat to anything but a niche market which didn’t care about the aesthetics.

    1. They didn’t understand the Truths her books expressed.

      Those who burn her books are no better than the characters in them who denied reality. It’s ironic.

  7. “that don’t harm communities and won’t make us sad to unpack them”

    Then we will be left with what? No great literature then, for sure, nor any books on history. Will he get rid of 1984 if he has any sorrow for Winston?

    Take heed, Latter, the lessons of The Wonderful O.

  8. I suggest the people(they know who they are) who started these gender wars work out a fair solution for all of us instead of penning diatribes and fantasies against those who have to earn an honest living.

  9. We’ve been conditioned to only blame a political party. All that does is force people to defend the party, instead of agreeing to condemn the action on principle. Of course silencing speech, burning books, censorship, doxxing, assault and worse, are all actions rational people oppose in a country dedicated to securing rights.

    But in the Trump era, opposition to Trump is priority 1. Everything that Trump is for, his haters are against. He’s Republican, so his haters are Democrats. Trump occupies ideological territory once supported by traditional Democrats. My guess is traditional Democrats still hold those views, but a minority of them will put party before principles. They will support candidates and policies that are detrimental to our rights, safety and happiness, for no rational reason.

    1. A significant fraction of Trump haters are Republicans, Olly, which is why you have groups of Republicans campaigning against him, like the Lincoln Project (https://www.youtube.com/c/TheLincolnProject/videos) and Republican Voters Against Trump (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC03-Q9vq-JyiStTnqasADVg). I disagree with Republicans like George Conway, Steve Schmidt, and Bill Kristol on a lot of things. That I join them in the belief that Trump is dangerous and unfit does not make them Democrats.

      1. A significant fraction of Trump haters are Republicans, Olly,

        They aren’t. Trump’s approval rating among Republicans is hardly different than what’s typical of any Republican president. There’s an irreducible population (generally between 9% and 15% of the population of self-identified Republicans) of dissatisfied persons among Republicans. They are so for inchoate and idiosyncratic reasons. That’s been so for forty years.

        The people you’re referring to are a population drawn from the Capitol Hill – K Street nexus salted with some opinion journalists. The best of them are the sort Samuel Francis referred to as ‘career conservatives’ and ‘courtier intellectuals’. The worst of them are just grifters (Nicolle Wallace and Rick Wilson, among others). Most of them have liberal patrons: Bezos, the Sulzbergers, Jeff Zucker, Pierre Omidyar. What they revealed of themselves in 2016 is that they have no rapport with Republican voters. What they’ve revealed of themselves since is that they have no interest in acquiring any.

        1. You’re looking at the wrong set. My claim wasn’t about the percentage of Republicans who hate Trump, but about the percentage of Trump-haters who are Republican. Those two claims aren’t interchangeable (in the first, the comparison set is all Republicans, and in the second, the comparison set is all Trump-haters).

          LA Times: “No president in modern history has faced such an organized opposition to his re-election by members of his own party.”

      2. A significant fraction of Trump haters are Republicans,

        You’ve proved my point. Trump haters aren’t identifiable by political party any more than true Christians are identifiable by denomination. A significant fraction of Democrats aren’t really Democrats. The squad, Bernie, Harris are DINO’s. Unlike the RINO’s in the GOP, the DINO’s have forced the super-majority in their party to abandon any pretense of honoring the constitution. DINO’s control their party because Trump has taken away the relatively sane, moderate middle, Democratic politicians used to occupy. Conversly, RINO’s are a radical finge no true conservative believes is actually Republican.

        1. “You’ve proved my point”

          No, I didn’t, though that won’t prevent you from falsely claiming otherwise.

          “Trump haters aren’t identifiable by political party …”

          Sure they are: ask them what their party affiliation is.
          Some people have chosen to leave the Republican Party. Justin Amash is an example. But many Republican Trump-haters haven’t left the party; they want to defeat Trump and rebuild the GOP.

          “The squad, Bernie, Harris are DINO’s.”

          It’s not up to you to decide who is/isn’t a Democrat. Each person decides for him/herself via registration. AOC, Presley, Tlaib, Omar and Harris are all Democrats. Sanders is an Independent who caucuses with the Democrats.

          1. No, I didn’t, though that won’t prevent you from falsely claiming otherwise.

            LOL! It’s my point. If you don’t believe you proved it, then you didn’t understand it.

            It’s not up to you to decide who is/isn’t a Democrat.

            BS. I decide what I believe. And what I believe doesn’t decide it for anyone else.

            1. LOL. Apparently you don’t have a good handle on what does and doesn’t prove your point.
              And of course you decide what you believe. But believing something doesn’t make it true.

              1. But believing something doesn’t make it true.

                Well that was easy. Anyone committed to honesty would ask what then was your point? Your truth not facts ilk dispense with such clarifying questions, because you will not allow facts the opportunity to change your truth. Then, you finish with the very point Conservatives have made against Democrats and their radical left base in the Trump era. 😀

                1. You seem to be confusing honesty and something else. I can be honest without asking any questions at all; honesty only requires things like refraining from knowingly making false claims or fallacious arguments and correcting mistakes when one becomes aware of having made one. If you thought I needed a clearer explanation of your point, nothing prevented you from presenting it regardless of whether I asked.

                  As for your last sentence, rest assured that believing something doesn’t make it true long predates the Trump era. It’s not specific to politics or to the U.S. It applies to everyone.

          2. “You’ve proved my point” -OLLY

            It’s one of his favorite comebacks, even when it isn’t true — which is most of the time.

      3. CTHD these turncoats will be tarred and feathered in due time.. they are few but voices magnified by anti Trump centi billionaire donations

  10. Almost anything human can be screwed up during development. Babies are born without limbs and even without brains. Pretty much everything is on the table for accidents during construction. I doubt that gender identification is given special immunity from developmental problems. In short, at least some of the cases appear genuine. Try reading “Becoming Nicole”.

    However, having a genuine psychological identity as female does not alter the fact that a person has a male’s body and strength. Pretending that competition between women and men who identify as women is even remotely fair is the type of delusion that could only come from academia.

    1. Footnote– Rowling is probably right, but be she right or wrong, civilization is in greater danger from mobs who want to suppress any opinion or person with whom they do not agree. It is not such a big step from burning books to burning people.

    2. I doubt that gender identification is given special immunity from developmental problems. In short, at least some of the cases appear genuine.

      The problem would go away if the medical profession told them to take a hike.

        1. Oh, yes it would. It’s a variant of the iatrogenic illness. It didn’t exist until there was a (Scandinavian, natch) technology to ‘treat’ it and the ‘treatments’ don’t even address subjective distress. Paul McHugh was able to persuade officials at Johns Hopkins in 1975 to shut down the clinic run by John Money by showing them data on controlled studies of Money’s patients and the effect the ‘interventions’ had on them. Dr. McHugh offered a concise analogy, “we don’t give liposuction to anorectics”.

          What’s interesting is the medical-surgical-psychiatric profession assembles a hugely expensive quack program to treat people who fancy they’re the ‘wrong’ sex and people with sexual disorders are told to buzz off and that their understanding of the purposes of human sexuality and of what they should value in life is ‘wrong’. If we had any sense, a great deal of what MD’s do would under statutory law never be covered by insurers.

                1. Part of the charges against related to wearing male clothing. She promised not to. But they left male clothing in her cell convinced she would be unable to resist the need to put them on despite the terrors she faced. They were right. They found her in masculine clothing despite her promise and that was part of the evidence that led her to the stake.

                  As to her internal identification I know nothing. But it is significant she would risk the stake for that one thing that most of us would find easy to avoid.

                  So not so much in my imagination as in the history of her trial.

            1. Elagabalus was a degenerate. His grandmother had the Praetorians erase him. He offended Jove with his arrogance.

              As to the story of him seeking vaginoplasty, of course at the time there were well known procedures for producing eunuchs.

              But did you know, that in Hellenic Palestine, Jews who wanted to roll in the gymnasium, would seek foreskin restoration treatments?

              the wonders one can learn on the internet!

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreskin_restoration

              “In the Greco-Roman world intact genitals, including the foreskin, were considered a sign of beauty, civility, and masculinity.[2] Foreskin restoration is of ancient origin and dates back to the reign of the Roman Emperor Tiberius, when surgical means were taken to lengthen the foreskin of individuals born with either a short foreskin that did not cover the glans completely[2] or a completely exposed glans as a result of circumcision.[3] In Classical Greek and Roman societies, exposure of the glans was considered gross and improper, and did not conform to the Hellenistic ideal of gymnastic nudity.[2] Men with short foreskins would wear the kynodesme to prevent exposure.[4] As a consequence of this social stigma, an early form of foreskin restoration known as epispasm was practiced among some Jews in Ancient Rome.”

              [One inference that is obvious from the above, is that homosexuals were excluded too, as the glans of an intact, aroused man exposes itself]
              [the gay lobby exaggerates the commonality of homosexuality in the classic world. they considered it a vice even if it was somewhat tolerated]
              [otherwise the whole set of lgbtq “issues” rates a big “who cares” with me and I say ignore]

  11. A guy went to a building in town and came out with many books. Out the back door to the parking lot where he puked ten up. Many trips in and out. He set them in fire. Someone in town said that they were bibles. What are those books about? He said: “Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition.”

  12. 26 genders eh?

    A man in a dress I still a man, even with surgery. Chromosomes.

    Marxist, they won’t like the outcome of this Revolution.

        1. If people want to boycott Rowling’s works because of her views, OK, but book burning is foolish. And better still to engage in a discussion of her ideas, and why overly-simplistic views of sex and gender are just that: overly simplistic.

            1. No, Squeeky, I’m not “kewl with Democrats throwing Molotov cocktails at people and burning buildings and cars.” In fact, I’ve repeatedly spoken out against rioting, other violence, looting, destruction of others’ property, etc.

              But don’t let the facts get in the way of your imagination.

              For the record, book burning is generally distinct from destruction of others’ property, as the former generally occurs with one’s own property. So although I think it’s foolish, I don’t object to it as I do with destruction of others’ property.

              1. Book burning “generally occurs with one’s own property.”
                ***
                True, but the spirit behind it has recently led to attempts to purge books by ‘dead white me’ from libraries and bookstores. That is much more serious than burning one’s own books but arises from the same destructive impulse.

          1. My 11:46 comment was not supposed to have been threaded. It was not intended as a response to Squeeky, though I did post a response to her as well, which presumably will post in a minute.

            1. No, I don’t think it was accidental. I think you are one of those pervs who liked to be kicked around by Strong and Smart Women so you replied to my comment so I could verbally abuse you some and get you going this morning.

              Sometimes a cigar is really a stiletto heel! (Sigmund Freud)

              Squeeky Fromm
              Girl Reporter

              1. ROFL. You’re probably above average in intelligence, but you aren’t a strong woman, Squeeky. Your endless denigration of others is a sign of weakness, and I feel sorry for you. I certainly don’t like your choices.

                It was an accident. I started to respond to you, then I decided that I first wanted to post a general response to the column, and I guess I forgot to click on “cancel reply” and go to the bottom of the page to post an unthreaded response.

                1. Commit– “Your endless denigration of others is a sign of weakness.”
                  ****
                  Odd to hear this from you. You can scarcely post a response without including some little insult. I have mentioned this before as, I think, have others.

                  1. Matthew 7:3
                    And why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye?

                2. I was just messing with you. But actually, sometimes bullying is a sign of being a strong and dominant human being. The notion that being a bully is always a sign of an inferiority complex is too simplistic and often wrong.

                  Squeeky Fromm
                  Girl Reporter

                  1. If you were actually strong, Squeeky, you’d be able to say “I was wrong” about your false claim that people with both XX and XY cells “will probably be infertile and have small testicles.”

                    Trump, too, has difficulty admitting when he’s wrong.

                    1. If you have to argue about whether or not you are strong you probably are not strong.

                      But who cares?

        2. Squeeky, learn more biology. Presumably, Anon. was talking about genetic chimerism. It’s not itself a physical disorder, nor does it mean that the person is male. Most women who’ve been pregnant are microchimeric, and pregnancies that might have developed into fraternal twins may instead result in fusion chimerism. Sometimes these are XX/XY combinations, and other times both of the zygotes were XX or both were XY. In an XX/XY chimera, the apparent sex of the baby will depend on which cell line develops into the reproductive organs. People who’ve received an organ transplant will also become chimeric (sometimes temporarily, but other times permanently, as when it’s a bone marrow transplant).

          Your claim that “They will probably be infertile and have small testicles” is nonsense.

            1. I see that it’s hard for you to say “I was wrong” about your false statement “They will probably be infertile and have small testicles”

              I don’t need to look up Klinefelter syndrome, and it is not related to genetic chimerism.

              What a sad person you are that you need to call people “freaks.” Grow up. Learn compassion.

              1. I like the word “freak” when it comes to trannies. That is what they are. There are people who really that believe they are amputees, and society does not encourage them, or doctors, to whack off their arms, legs, or whatever. But when it comes to transgender FREAKS, we fall all over ourselves to permit them to whack off their penises or various female parts to satisfy their stupid delusional beliefs.

                Tell me there is a difference between the two, and why we are kewl with whacking off a penis but not whacking off an arm.

                Squeeky Fromm
                Girl Reporter

                1. Squeeky– You raise an interesting point. What is the difference between people who want amputation of a limb and a transsexual wanting surgery?

                  In his book ‘Blank Slate’ Stephen Pinker mentioned phantom limb syndrome. It is familiar to amputees who still sense the presence of a body part that has been removed.

                  Interestingly, Pinker also mentions that some people born without limbs and never having experienced them also have phantom limb syndrome.

                  That suggests that there might be an ideal image of one’s body somewhere in our minds. But what happens if that mental body image is damaged during development? It is less than perfect. People with the desire to remove a hand or foot sometimes are obsessed with the idea that it isn’t really a part of them. That would be consistent with a deformed mental body image.

                  Taking it in a different direction, what if the flawed development of the mental body image leads to a mismatch between gender notion and actual sex of the body? One might want badly to change it.

                  I have no idea if any of this would prove to be true, but if, as it appears, there is something akin to a deeply embedded idea on one’s body then it opens the door to accidents in development that would damage that image.

            2. Squeeky- There is an unusual group of people in the Dominican Republic who have children who appear female at birth but are actually male. They are more or less raised as girls and then at puberty the testicles descend and there is an actual gender reveal. Surprise! Then they assume male roles. The odd thing is that this appears to have no adverse psychological consequences. I read that some tribe in Africa has a similar phenomenon. Our species is complex and does not always conform to expectations.

              1. I know, I have read about them before. And I do not disbelieve that some very few people have legitimate physical problems. But that is not what makes up the transgender community. Most of their problem is mental. About half of males trannies are simply queers who want to make themselves more sexually appealing to men, and particularly straight men.

                I do not think we do a service to the mentally ill to play along with their delusions. You might want to check out this website:

                https://sexchangeregret.com/all-posts/

                Squeeky Fromm
                Girl Reporter

                1. And I do not disbelieve that some very few people have legitimate physical problems.
                  ***

                  Well that’s the thing. The people in the Dominican Republic do not have physical problems.

                  There is no reproductive .or psychological pathology associated with their unusual development. That’s what makes them interesting.

  13. The BLM/Antifa fascists and their supporters favorite word and action is “Burn”.

    They are following the lead of Mussolini, Hitler, Mao, Lenin, and Stalin. All of whom made sure that any books that didn’t conform to party propaganda were burned in order to bolster the revolution.

    So they are just following the directions contained in Mao’s Little Red Book.

    1. One thing that Mussolini, Hitler, Mao, Lenin, and Stalin all had in common, is that they rounded up and stifled various fanatics and trouble-makers to the Left of their own position, at different times in their storied careers.

      Perhaps there is something to learn in these histories.

      Perhaps the thing to learn is, at some point you have to deal with adversaries of flesh and blood, as they present themselves.

      Wars of words only go so far.

  14. Turley is wrong on both counts. This is not the equivalent of a bunch of unhinged Democrat voters destroying and vandalizing public art and monuments. The book burners are destroying private property. Presumably, the books are THEIR property. They can do with them what they want: read them, burn them, eat them, whatever. They are choosing to burn them to express how much they disapprove of Rowling’s views (I happen to agree with Rowling, but I’m arguing on principle.)

    In the case of the book seller, assuming he is the sole owner, he takes the financial risk to operate his business. He has a limited amount of shelf space. He gets to decide what merchandise he wants to display on his shelves.

    If the book store owner is economically rational, and he wants to optimize his firm’s financial performance, he will stock the shelves with books he knows his customers want to buy to maximize his sales. He will be indifferent to the values of the author.

    But it’s his business. He has free will. If he does not want to be rational and stock his shelves with the books his customers want to buy, and he does not want to operate his business in a way that maximizes his firm’s financial operations, then it is his right to do so. He is willing to accept earning sub-optimal returns to express a value that means more to him than maximizing his earnings.

      1. FredW-are: Burning Fahrenheit, They don’t want you to read about what’s coming.

        Off Topic: Crazy Nancy at it again, she’s going to impeach the President if he nominates a replacement. The Democrats are truly the most dangerous political group to the country.

      1. Correct. That’s why I’ve said I believe the Civil Rights Act of ’64 is unconstitutional. Both parties and LBJ pretended the constitutionally protected right to freedom of assembly wasn’t really part of the 1A,

        We have a well developed economy. The largest economy in the universe. The vast overwhelming majority of bakers WILL behave in their economic self interest and “bake the cake”. A tiny few will not.

        The homosexual extremists actively seek out the religiously devout to force them to defy their conscience. It’s a pure power play. Use government force to make the baker submit to the will of the homosexual extremists.

        It seems far more sinister, repugnant and evil and anti-freedom to force someone to do what they don’t want to do. The homosexual extremists have plenty of bakers who WILL happily bake the cake. Go to one of them.

        1. Amen! I also think the 1964 bill went too far as a Federal thing. States do have the right to pass public accommodation laws though so sooner or later we would have ended up at the same place, where Bob’s Bar B Que would have serve colored patrons whether they wanted to or not. But when you go beyond commodities like cans of beans or smoked ribs, into personal services, then I think you go too far.

          If blacks had any sense they would have created their own businesses to compete with the white only lunch counters and sooner or later they would have gotten ahead of the game. As it is, they fought for the right to give money to white people who did not want them in their business. Crazy.

          Squeeky Fromm
          Girl Reporter

          1. More examples of why blacks are crazy to not want to be part of today’s GOP with members like Scott and Sadie Mae Glutz.

            By the way Sadie, dollars to donuts the guy doing the cooking at Bob’s Barbecue is black.

        2. Patty cake, Patty cake. Bakers man. Put it in the oven as fast as ya can. Putt it and pay it and fart it with a T. Put it in the oven for Patty and me!

Leave a Reply