I haven't watched the video yet, but Rick is such a naughty boy. First, he defends the Prequels and THEN dares to ask THAT question.
Except... J.K. Rowling isn't right about everything. Even the very premise is ridiculous. Clickbait title. I watched a good chunk of Rick Worley's aforementioned video last night, and while he makes salient points (and includes some disturbing examples of vile bigotry and nazi levels of intolerance and hatemongering from LGBT activists themselves), he takes a surprisingly conservative attitude toward the whole topic of transgenderism and gender identity, coming close to invalidating it as a genuine psychosexual and societal/cultural phenomenon.
To give an example, he briefly touches on the related topic of intersex people and/or people bearing intersex characteristics, but essentially dismisses it as one of mediocre concern as it pertains to the transgender movement. He is comfortably able to do this, or so he wants the viewer to think, because he first cites a "strong" statistic that approximately 1.7% of people are born with intersex attributes, but then claims a more recent and allegedly more trenchant analysis has revised the figure to "only" 0.018% (as confirmed within
the Wikipedia entry). Obviously, this would appear to make intersex people comparatively rare (vanishing in number from roughly 1 in 50 of the general population to 1 in 5000), which Rick seems to think hurts the idea that transgenderism is as widespread or as natural or inevitable as activists claim. However, the definition of intersex (like many topics involving biology and identity and the interaction thereof) is somewhat hazy. Experts disagree on precisely what constitutes a diagnosis of being or having intersex characteristics, or which set of characteristics are sufficient to support the term's application to an individual or group of people. In some interpretations, the lower number is perfectly valid. In others, it is thought better to use a higher number for various reasons, even if 1.7% might still be a bit on the generous side. Crunching humans down to simple numbers isn't especially helpful here; let alone when those numbers, conveniently approaching zero for someone who appears not to have done a great deal of research, and who is hastily using the topic as a cudgel to dismiss the transgender movement or sow doubt about its intellectual foundations, are used to give the impression that the other side is anti-science and spuriously inflating claims to support their specious ideology. But the one being a bit specious here, unfortunately, is Rick himself.
BTW... Little Harry Plinkett moment here...
What is it with Ricks?What's also a bit annoying is that Worley cites a good deal of material generally, but rarely gives a source. This lends the impression of scholarly depth, of an analysis done well, but it also breeds confusion and has the potential to mislead a viewer into thinking Worley has really done his homework. The editorial/authorial primacy of the video (well over an hour long), combined with this prismatic, kitchen-sink approach, brings a de facto weight to Rick's mode of argumentation, but doesn't necessarily make an open-and-shut case for Rowling vis-a-vis the transgender movement. In a way, it isn't even about Rowling. Rick's defence of her is something of a red herring. He instead spends most of the video (or the second half which I watched in full) attacking and supposedly illustrating the monomaniacal, even psychopathological, nature of the trans/LGBT movement, white-knighting for Rowling as he selectively highlights the absolute worst examples he can find from Twitter or recordings of young activists jeering at rallies and raging as unruly mobs in lecture halls. I mean, fine. There's plenty I could say (and have said) about woke culture and its vitriolic posturing toward anyone who disagrees or is perceived as obstructing sociopolitical progress for trans people and a range of other people and issues of the moment. That said, for all my personal disdain, this is my tribe, and reprehensible behaviour (and reprehensible views) is hardly confined to the political left. I don't recall Rick citing much in the way of hate crime against LGBT people, which is considerable, even as he implies LGBT people are themselves bigoted and intolerant; or worse still: guilty of stoking the very hatred and animosity they continue to receive in daily life.
I don't want to impugn or begin to sift through all his motives, but it seems that Rick waded into this topic because, as he points out more than once in his video (which I think makes this point fair game), he identifies as a gay man who is attracted to other gay or bisexual males. And as he goes on to emphasise, he is attracted specifically to biological men with standard male genitalia (i.e., men with penises). He seems personally offended by the rhetoric invidiously cast around by some of these activists and it's hard to hold that against him. I agree with him, in fact, that shaming people for preferring some body parts to others is absurd; not to mention, coming from these same activists, a total contradiction of the very diversity they claim to be promoting and want enshrined into law. By denigrating gay men, or the bulk of them, for only being sexually attracted to other men with dicks instead of vaginas, claiming that this makes them transphobic and therefore enemies of the movement, they are, as Rick points out, perpetuating a version of the very homophobia gay people are still fighting against or trying to get away from to this present moment.
That is, these activists are telling gay men (and, in some cases, gay women) that being attracted to
only penises
or vaginas is wrong, and they should realise their sexual desires are rooted in prejudice that they need to confront in themselves and evolve beyond. In other words, they should try to be less gay and more inclusive; implying that sexual orientation is malleable and anybody can convince themselves to like anything with sufficient effort. This, of course, is something gay people routinely hear from the political right (when they're not simply being called sinful or evil), and the same aberrant notion is also the pivot for gay conversion therapy and diabolical historical antecedents, like electroshock therapy once routinely administered at psychiatric hospitals to "cure" people of their homosexuality. Now, there is something to the notion that we should, in theory, be open to loving anybody and not ruling out romantic/physical intimacy with anyone merely on the basis of them having (or lacking) one characteristic or another. However, sexual attraction doesn't really work like that, and there's a major irony that a range of sexual orientations and preferences are recognised within the broader corpus of LGBT ideology, as if that's a positive by itself; yet, somehow, a gay man or woman is wrong to desire another person of their sex with the same equipment as themselves and to
not be inherently attracted to trans people who may be packing something different down there.
I don't say this to shock or because I'm looking to make any kind of LGBT brag (or, for that matter, to creep anyone out), but I am personally attracted to pre-op trans females; or what one might in pornography see labelled as "shemales" or "ladyboys" (I am aware that these terms are problematic in "normal" usage). Know why? Because a) they are trans, and b) they have dicks. Now, obviously, this isn't true of all trans people. It is merely a subset. Trans people naturally vary, not only biologically and psychologically, but in terms of the hormones they take (if they take any), the effect those hormones have on their bodies, and how much (if any) surgery they choose to have (or can afford to have or have access to). And, of course, most people don't appear in porn to begin with; even if most people view or consume porn of one type or another. So pornography, in this regard, presents a distorted reality; but one that many of us partake of. And it's enjoyable to me personally.
I like both the strength and the (oft-not-considered) vulnerability of a penis on an androgynous or female-like frame, not to mention the somewhat contradictory (contrapuntal?) nature of it, as well as seeing a trans girl reaching orgasm and cumming over herself or her partner. Sorry if this is too much detail, but I feel it should be out there as full disclosure. I have a dog in this fight. That is not to say I don't find genetic/cis girls and women attractive. I do. But there is nevertheless a conceptual/psychological/endocrinological/ontological difference between the two that powers my attraction to trans females whenever my attraction to trans females is what I am focused on. I am single but am open to dating one in the future. Does this mean I am putting all emphasis on her/their genitals? I hope not. No, I actually want to date one -- would be
happy to date one. On the other hand, I also like what I like. It isn't wrong to have certain expectations when it comes to sexual attraction. I am not asking anyone to share my attraction (although, obviously, many people do, whether they admit it or not).
Also... A word on labels here. Call me what you want. A tranny chaser. A faggot. A retard. A pervert. A creep. By and large, it doesn't matter. I've always found the human impulse to label anything and reduce that thing to its label as amusing as it is frustrating. Not to mention, at times, idiotic, toxic, and dangerous. Labels can hinder understanding as much as assisting it. What is contained is also destroyed. Moreover, labels have leaky borders. That said, they are often a necessary evil. We should take care, then, to choose or apply the correct ones, and also recognise the limitations of labels in the same instant. This is also why I don't like people reflexively attacking someone for using a word or a term that they disagree with. Yes, I wish people exercised better judgement, at times. When it comes to words/terms, can't we always choose better ones; or reach for a more nuanced discourse? Still, labels have their place, even when they're meant in a somewhat derogatory way (e.g., the "Mary Sue" term in relation to Rey or other female characters one finds overpowered or unbelievable in fiction). I don't think banning them, let alone unpersoning people for using them, is really the answer.
Along with that, as I said back on the first page some months ago, I think saying that J.K. Rowling should be cancelled and her books never read again is an over-the-top reaction. A reaction, in fact, that has more in common with the religious and totalitarian impulse (and impulsivity) to censor/erase anything perceived as hostile to that ideology. On the other hand, I think I understand why that impulse arises, and why the disappointment/anger toward Rowling is so strong. Rowling herself is no ordinary author. On the contrary, she is a world-builder, a mythologist,
a creator: an escapist-architect/allegorist on a par with J.R.R. Tolkien, Frank Herbert, and our very own George Lucas. And the Harry Potter books, like the Star Wars movies, were designed to hold appeal to young, impressionable minds, to both spur their imagination and to root their ethical development in a fantasy construct that could serve as idealised/heightened mirror for the real world.
This is also where Rick Worley's closing bash of HP fans is both tacky and fatuous. He implies that people who took the HP books as some kind of replacement for reality are morons; and that it isn't hard to see, perhaps, why some of them appear so intellectually stunted now. That's a very cheap attack that is very nearly an attack on literature itself. Not only is it smug, but it fails to acknowledge the extremely fertile soil that literature, and a fantasy series involving magic and the growing pains of youth, often serves as; especially for readers attempting to form and understand their own identities and looking for guidance on how best to navigate a difficult, complicated world. Ergo, when a creator like Rowling sneers that trans people are somehow inauthentic and that their concerns and struggles matter less than "real" women, she is manifesting a Dark Mother quality; as if personally striking them in the face and telling them they were idiots to take her books seriously (and line her pockets) in the first place. When you read a book, you often form an intimate bond with the book's author (or authors); a book is a very direct and precious form of communication. Rowling herself has destroyed the intimate bond her readers formed with her by proxy when they immersed themselves in her fantasy creation; and allowed themselves to believe they were being guided and entertained by a creator sympathetic to their identities and to their cause. They aren't wrong to feel betrayed.
For what it's worth, I don't think Rowling has helped her own case by taking on a strident, supercilious tone and doubling down on her numerous protestations against trans people over the cause(s) of cis women. It shouldn't be either/or. Yet, if one looks at the tweets that have caused such acrimony, Rowling always weights group over the other and uses a belittling tone to convey her "superior" understanding. I'm not even sure why she began this odd posturing in favour of "real" women. She has chosen to pick a fight with trans people and trans activists for no particular reason. Even the main stars of Harry Potter, like Daniel Radcliffe and Emma Watson, have tacitly rebuked her in their own ways. Certainly, some of the hatred and vitriol Rowling has received in response is absolutely terrible, but that doesn't erase her own bigotry. She picked a strange hill to ruin her reputation on. It shouldn't wipe out all the good, kind things she has done, but she has definitely harmed her image by going down this path.
Now, Worley brings up other issues in his diatribe against trans people that I don't have the space or time to get into, such as sex reassignment surgery. That's too much of a can of worms to get into right now. Procedures and outcomes vary. However, there can be an assumed bias on his part due to him mentioning and even presenting pictures of himself as a child, wherein he suggests he might have been encouraged to change his sex/gender if trans ideology had been then what it is (or is argued to be) now. He even floats a tweet from Rowling out in support of his point. In that tweet, Rowling offers three scenarios, in which -- naturally -- only her tribe, committed feminists, are supportive of the notion that a boy wearing a dress is simply that: a boy wearing a dress. The other two scenarios, one a far-right person telling a boy to remove the dress, or the "gender theorist" scenario (her wording), where the boy is presumed to be wearing the dress because the boy is actually female, constitute a rigged and rather ugly conflation of a trans activist with a far-right conservative. In that tweet, Rowling strawmans the LGBT position, sowing panic and advancing the misunderstanding that LGBT people are trying to convert people at the earliest possible sign of even mild gender-norm divergence. Worley goes a stage further and suggests that this means trans activists are guilty of stereotyping gender behaviours and ignoring a range of standard gender-mixing behaviour, instead interpreting it (on their part) as evidence of a person showing gender dysphoria, who should be encouraged to transition. This is a gross simplification on the part of Rowling and Worley.
Unfortunately, as I said earlier, Worley cherry-picks the worst, most damning examples he can find, and presents other sources out of context; and often so rapidly that you can scarcely read what is actually said in a given article or document. None of this is to say that there aren't examples of bad actors, or people acting sincerely but too eagerly, within the LGBT community. However, the wider trans panic being promulgated in the video isn't good. The topic itself is far too broad and extensive for one video on someone's YouTube account to adequately encompass. LGBT people trying to gain true freedom and equality is the civil rights issue of the 21st Century. At the same time, not all tactics employed by LGBT people -- or, rather,
some LGBT people (and LGBT-supporting people) -- can be called acceptable. Worley might be trying to raise consciousness on this issue, which is fine. However, his video seems to lean more toward delegitimising trans people as a collective and as individuals, offloading all the sins of society onto them and blatantly ignoring the injustices and hate crimes trans and LGBT people suffer on a daily basis. I would recommend anyone look up hate crime statistics against trans people. Here's just a scintilla of the kind of bigotry and oppression trans people currently experience in the UK, for example:
www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-54486122In places like Brazil, hate crimes against trans people are rampant, and Brazil itself has the highest number of trans people killed in a single country:
pulitzercenter.org/stories/brazil-continues-be-country-largest-number-trans-people-killedThe statistics there especially sadden me because Brazilian trans porn stars have brought me a lot of joy. Brazil is obviously a country racked with problems. It is sad how one person's source of joy can be another's target for abuse, intimidation, harassment, rape, torture, and murder. Jerking off to trans people in porn hardly gives one the moral high ground in and of itself, but it is surely better than harassing, stalking, and murdering them. It's an obscenity that we can't all enjoy a peaceable existence on this fragile rock of a world, floating tenuously in space, cherishing our limited revolutions around a vast and ancient source of light before our consciousness is extinguished, maybe forever. It seems to be a very twisted "god" who made this reality, if one made it at all, but that's another discussion.
Rowling needs to educate herself on how widespread and appalling the issue of transphobia and transphobia-motivated hate crimes actually are. Rock Worley is only supporting a person who has chosen to condescend and speak down to trans people, gaslighting them that their problems are minor and nothing compared to what cis women endure. That's patently false. There's no need to turn this into a zero-sum game. Why a person of Rowling's innate intelligence thinks it should be is anyone's guess. On the one hand, it's interesting that she can envision a parallel reality of fantastic powers and diverse personalities bonding through adversity; yet trans people are somehow "lesser" and people born female with functioning uteruses matter more. There's a better world ahead and Rowling has chosen to jab and sneer and belittle. Very sad.
