The Harry Potter author described several transgender women as men in a series of social media posts.

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.

  • BertramDitore@lemmy.worldEnglish
    21517·
    9 months ago

    OR, and hear me out, you could just not be a total asshole? Maybe have a baseline of tolerance and respect for the people who made you a billionaire? No? Then fuck right off and accept the consequences of your hatred.

    • Dojan@lemmy.world
      1042·
      9 months ago

      It seems billionaires have really wacked out midlife crises. Instead of buying expensive cars and cheating on their partners, they come out as terfy nazis, build hate platforms, and crash companies. I mean to be fair, at this point the sample size is only two, JKKK Rowling and Musk, but it’s still surprising that it’d happen twice.

      • otp@sh.itjust.works
        81·
        9 months ago

        Bill Gates started a charity.

        Steve Jobs killed himself because he thought he knew better than his doctors. Well, that’s wacked out too, but at least it’s not being a Nazi…

        • FuglyDuck@lemmy.worldEnglish
          407·
          9 months ago

          Bill gates didn’t start the charity as a midlife crisis.

          It’s a tax dodge and a lot of other ways of protecting his money while also doing a little reputation washing/ morality banking

          • otp@sh.itjust.works
            14·
            9 months ago

            Wasn’t he 45 when he started the charity? That sounds like a perfect candidate to be a midlife crisis, haha

            • FuglyDuck@lemmy.worldEnglish
              226·
              9 months ago

              Just because it was midlife doesn’t mean it’s a crisis.

              He started the charity as a shelter for his obscene wealth. That is all.

          • gmtom@lemmy.world
            71·
            9 months ago

            It’s a tax dodge

            Have you ever worked with the Gates foundation? Because calling it a “tax dodge” like that is completely baseless, they’re a really reallyngood charity, like honestly one of the best in the world, and also that’s very ignorant of how taxes work.

            • FuglyDuck@lemmy.worldEnglish
              13·
              9 months ago

              and also that’s very ignorant of how taxes work.

              You could just google it and alleviate your own ignorance of all the scummy ways both the foundation and the trust are used to avoid taxes (and other expenses.) here’s a forbe’s article with the stuff they’re actually allowed to talk about. The “good work” you’re so keen to point out… is part of the grift.

              Specifically so schmucks like you pounce whenever some schmuck like me says “they’re not that nice.” That’s the part about “reputation washing”. he gives some money - literal pocket change for somebody that makes nearly 11 million per day.

              you don’t get that fucking rich by being “nice” or “decent” or even human, really. this is about Bezos, but it puts their wealth into perspective. Decent humans, with that kind of wealth could solve global housing. Or they could solve the food shortage. he hasn’t even come close to that. No. The foundation isn’t a force for good, even if it occasionally does good shit.

              for example, the Rich Douche exploited the pandemic to make money, by investing in vaccine companies. And refusing to release the IP on the Vaccine. Because that would hurt his the foundation’s profits.

              • gmtom@lemmy.world
                41·
                9 months ago

                My dude, I have worked with the foundation to help create diagnostic tools for deseases that would otherwise gone unnoticed in developing countries.

                The work we have done has saved thousands and thousands of peoples lives. So you can take your.

                The “good work” you’re so keen to point out… is part of the grift.

                And shove it right up your arse. If saving peoples lives is a “grift” to you because bill Gates didn’t sell his shares in Microsost before he gave them to his trust, because obviously the shares will keep increasing in price, then honestly I don’t fucking care.

                And yes I know Bill Gates did shitty things and screwed a lot of people over in his early carrier to become so rich and I’m not excusing that. But the Gates foundation isn’t part of that and has done way too much good for humanity as a whole for some ignorant chucklefuck with no first hand experience of what they do to dismiss it as a “grift”.

        • vividspecter@lemm.ee
          111·
          9 months ago

          Steve Jobs killed himself because he thought he knew better than his doctors. Well, that’s wacked out too, but at least it’s not being a Nazi…

          Steve Jobs was always a piece of shit, and he had that diet well before he got cancer. But yeah the fact he continued to double down in the face of death shows how much of a narcissist he was.

      • thyme@leminal.space
        81·
        9 months ago

        I think a factor with some of them, probably both the ones you mentioned, is that they can’t handle criticism. So when they get any push back they double down. Then they get drawn into conservative nonsense that reinforces their beliefs. Then it’s a downward spiral as they get radicalized far beyond their original positions.

        • Dojan@lemmy.world
          31·
          9 months ago

          To be fair, you just described my mother to a tee. She’s a narcissist and has managed to alienate everyone from her life.

    • Ogmios@sh.itjust.works
      1231·
      9 months ago

      So you would like it to be enshrined in law that it is acceptable for whoever holds power to arrest people whom they believe to be assholes?

      • BertramDitore@lemmy.worldEnglish
        383·
        9 months ago

        No, not even a little bit. There is a difference between being an asshole and committing a hate crime. Hate crime laws, when properly crafted and enforced, are an important component of a functional society. They can act as a deterrent, but they are also a way for those materially harmed by a hate crime to get justice. Free speech is never a universal right, anywhere in the world. There are always legitimate restrictions to ensure the public’s overall health and safety.

        • bostonbananarama@lemmy.world
          817·
          9 months ago

          No, not even a little bit. There is a difference between being an asshole and committing a hate crime.

          I’m not sure there is a difference with this law.

          Hate crime laws, when properly crafted and enforced, are an important component of a functional society.

          I’m not sure that’s true. Freedom of speech is an important component, and sometimes that means tolerating distasteful speech.

          They can act as a deterrent, but they are also a way for those materially harmed by a hate crime to get justice.

          What constitutes harm though? The UK tends to include offense (or offence) as a harm.

          Free speech is never a universal right, anywhere in the world. There are always legitimate restrictions to ensure the public’s overall health and safety.

          Absolutely, but being offended by a bigot probably shouldn’t be criminal without some component of advocacy for violence.

          A person commits an offence if they communicate material, or behave in a manner, “that a reasonable person would consider to be threatening or abusive,” with the intention of stirring up hatred based on protected characteristics.

          • Gnome Kat@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
            113·
            9 months ago

            We don’t have to tolerate the intolerant, they refuse to abide by the mutual contract of tolerance so they don’t deserve the protections of a tolerant society.

            JKR isn’t just doing a little bit of free speech she is a billionaire advocating for hate on a massive platform and donating to hate groups, she has influence and power. She is absolutely advocating for the restriction on trans peoples rights, that is violence. Especially in a time when anti trans hate is on the rise we should be even more skeptical of claims of free speech, right now across the world hate crimes against trans people are going up and our rights are being stripped away.

            Arguments about free speech are just a way to ignore the issue and do nothing as transphobia continues to thrive and spread. Stop defending hate.

            • aidan@lemmy.world
              51·
              9 months ago

              Until the intolerance of the intolerant is applied to not tolerate you… You see hate crime laws being used to defend religions from criticism for example.

              • Gnome Kat@lemmy.blahaj.zoneFulfulde
                22·
                9 months ago

                Oh my what ever might that be like, having to deal with intolerance. I never have to deal with that nope. Nope it’s definitely not a daily occurrence for pretty much all trans people.

                But the transphobes get to advocate for my erasure and that’s just free speech… yep makes sense… totally fair and balanced

                • aidan@lemmy.world
                  31·
                  9 months ago

                  What? I think you missed what I was saying. For example they could argue criticism of their religion is itself intolerant and should therefore be illegal.

                  • Gnome Kat@lemmy.blahaj.zoneFulfulde
                    13·
                    9 months ago

                    So… we should just let bigots get their way and let them continue to successfully advocate for the rights of trans people and other minorities to be stripped away because they might also try to do a religious theocracy?

            • bostonbananarama@lemmy.world
              36·
              9 months ago

              Arguments about free speech are just a way to ignore the issue and do nothing as transphobia continues to thrive and spread.

              No, arguments about free speech recognize that there is no more important right that a free society can have. If a group can dictate that the language that they find distasteful is criminal, then so can any other group.

              Without protections for free speech, what happens when an authoritarian like Trump determines that support for trans people is actually misogyny, or that support for POC is racist against white people and then criminalizes that speech? These are arguments they already make.

              You’re talking about prior restraint which, at least in the US, has always been harshly scrutinized. As it should be. A line needs to be drawn, but promoting violence should be that line, not merely that which is distasteful.

                • bostonbananarama@lemmy.world
                  41·
                  9 months ago

                  Ok keep defending hate speech, I think your a bigot and are a bad person.

                  And I think you’re naive, and terrible at grammar (it’s “you’re” not “your”). Am I pro-murder too because I don’t like the death penalty either? I know that you have a tiny inept brain, but try to imagine that I could dislike something and not want to criminalize it.

                  Oh look, they’re already following the obvious playbook. If you make speech criminal it’s not going to be used against the people you want it used against.

                  https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/apr/01/trump-stephen-miller-anti-white-racism-plan

                  • Gnome Kat@lemmy.blahaj.zoneFulfulde
                    11·
                    9 months ago

                    I deleted it like 2 seconds after I posted it because I was angry, but what ever quote it I guess.

                    I am tired of people like you standing up for hate speech while I just have to stand by and watch my rights gets stripped. JKR is advocating hate and violence and you just sit there and defend it. Leave me alone you are not an ally of mine and you never will be.