Of course Keira Knightley was fully aware of JK Rowling's views and the boycott before she took the job on the audiobook. Celebrities at that level are a business with an entire PR team. She's lying and laughing and telling trans people she couldn't give a shit about them.
She'll have been told that if she gets a question about it to go with "I wasn't aware, and can't we all just try to get along?"
Next thing you'll be telling me you believed it years ago when Rowling's PR said she "accidentally" liked a transphobic tweet.
I've seen "she's chronically offline", and "she's a working mother" etc as reasons why she isn't fully informed, as if the entire team that very successfully runs "Keira Knightley Inc." is somehow suddenly incompetent.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Reality is acknowledging the existence of trans people - their innate humanity - and legislating accordingly, in the exact same way as we had to change the constitution in 2015 to legislate for gay people's existence, even though a lot of people didn't want Ireland to do that. 1/
Ireland has a long and pretty disgusting history of bigotry against LGBT+ people. Our treatment of women and children, and LGBT+ people under the iron grip of conservative Catholicism is a stain on Ireland's legacy that will never - and should never - be erased. 2/
Shamefully, we didn't decriminalise homosexual acts until 1993. If you look back now, you will see some horrific headlines about gay people, especially in 1980s British tabloids, which were sold here. In the UK around that time 75% of people in a poll were against gay rights. 3/
If the vast majority of trans kids go from puberty blockers to HRT without regret (true), it demonstrates that "the pause button" of puberty blockers is not necessary.
That's inescapable logic.
Trans kids have the right to experience puberty along with their peers.
When studies came out that trans kids do vastly go from puberty blockers to HRT (because of course they do, being trans is an innate human reality), Transphobic people interpreted this as puberty blockers "concreting" (their word) "trans identities."
Their idea is that if trans kids were fed into their conversion "therapy" machine, you know, the one that suggests they just go on long walks to work out the dysphoria (not a joke, actually one of their real "therapeutic" methods), they could stop them being trans.
1. It isn't "bigoted" or "bad" to not mourn or be sad when a bigot and a bad person dies.
2. "Leftism does not make you a good person" is a strawman argument.
3. Left Wing ideals are better than Right Wing ideals, and create a better world for more people. 1/
Reading this article, once you get past the nonsensical strawman based on a quite silly personal story, it seems that @stellaomalley3 is struggling with two very personal questions:
1. Am *I* a good person?
2. Am *I* Right Wing? (and is it bad if I am?) 2/
@stellaomalley3 1. One way to feel like a good person, if you're doubting that you are, is to label everyone who disagrees with you as "bad." If everyone who stands against you "celebrates murder", simplistically, this makes you "good" by default. 3/
Would be great if the Irish Times and other national papers would platform trans people on how Graham Linehan and his relentless campaign of abuse - typical of "gender critical" actvists - has effected their lives. Instead we get yet another handwringing article by a cis person.
I would wonder if Graham had called for another minority to be punched in public would we have handwringing about "free speech" and a "both sides" defence?
At least, I suppose, the endless string of "he's not a transphobe" articles seem to have stopped.
That's something.
For example, homophobes used to argue for segregation of gay people in toilet provision. If they called for lesbians and gay men to be "punched" in toilets, would we call that free speech or incitement?
I listened to a bit of a "friendly" live stream where this woman was interviewed. At the top of the interview she said that she her friends didn't agree with her because they weren't as well informed, but then demonstrated she wasn't well informed in the rest of the interview 1/
For example, she brought up Judith Butler, who is the "gender criticals" pantomime "queer theory" villain. So, naturally, the interviewer asked her for her thoughts on queer theory and she said she didn't really know too much about it. All she knows is Judith Butler bad. 2/
She said that she as a big fan of Graham Linehan's erstwhile "Mess We're In" Youtube show (which, again, she couldn't remember the name of.) That was a show where they essentially repeated the same talking points ad nauseum for two years, until they finally got tired of it. 3/
Graham tried to sue me once for repeating three things that were said on his Youtube channel by someone else. My solicitor replied with a non-exhaustive list of 30 instances where he had defamed and abused me. I never heard from his solicitors again. 1/
This is the threat. It is vindictive, nasty, threatening, full of abuse and is in reply to a perfectly reasonable repetition of what was said on his channel. (The legal letter he eventually sent did not challenge the tweet at all, because it was true.)
Who's the bully here? 2/
Now, @jk_rowling, you call yourself a free speech champion, but is that true? Haven't I the right, in a reasonable debate, to repeat what was actually said on his channel? Graham is far wealthier than I am, so he was trying to blackmail me into shutting up. Are you for that? 3/