If Daniel Radcliffe and the other Harry Potter actors can really cast a spell, perhaps, they can turn men into women. But that's not possible other than the world of Hollywood fantasy. However, this does not stop them from embracing the illusion that this sexual transformation could somehow occur in real life. Additionally, the actors as a group become defenders of this “faith” and reflexively attack anti-'trans' sane expressions. Hundreds of actors and writers have therefore recently signed an open letter opposed to the UK Supreme Court (UKSC) ruling last month. problem?
The verdict found that the 15-year-old British law meant “sex” when using the term “sex” and “sex” rather than the term misused in double letters and syllables (“gender”).
(The UKSC has made our Supreme Court embarrassed about this, meaning that a few years ago, MPs in 1964 didn't mean “gender” when writing “gender.”
However, one author who did not sign the letter of protest is Harry Potter creator JK Rowling. In fact, she posted a lengthy counterargument to X's efforts last Saturday. She also gave some great points.
Who are the extremists?
The kicker here is that the UKSC ruling was very narrow. The MUSS (Made-Up sexual status, aka “trans”) agenda was destructive and did not state that there were no “trans” individuals. It did not direct the UK's 2010 “Equality Act,” the law in question, could not be updated to include the broader insanity. This can be done. Since words mean things, we found out that “man”, “female”, “sex” in an act means “man”, “female”, “sex”.
Nevertheless, the aforementioned celebrities have problems with lexical correctness. Therefore, they signed a letter of protest (information here). However, commentator Andrea Widberg wrote,
You already know what it's saying. “Live in reality and threaten safety” … “expose trans people to shame and harassment” … “negative consequences for all women” … “harm what trans and gender misfits face” … something, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Widburg also looks at this effort.
There are a few things to understand about Pileon, “We love 'trans' people.” First, the entertainment industry is disproportionately populated by non-heterosexuals. In other words, most people know very few gay people and have never met anyone who claims to be “trans,” but entertainment types really believe that over half of the world is “spectral.”
This refers to the notion that gender is not binary quality, but rather a continuum like the left and right political spectrum.
Another reality
Later, in the entertainment industry case, Widberg announced the following spill by actress Cynthia Nixon, the lesbian herself.
Nixon's testimony is to stoke an eyebrow. She said her daughter was “trans” (and had “top surgery”). She also said her nie is “trans.” It's the same as cheers.
And, well, she's not finished yet.
So are her “best friend's child is a “trans”” and her “child's best friend.”
If this hits you statistically unlikely, join the club, to say the least. As a commenter for the video above, he was “Associate due to Transchausens Syndrome.” But that's not uncommon among Hollywood types.
But there's more to it. As Widburg points out, in entertainment, “metrics of success are popular.” What really matters is “being with the crowd.” In fact, this field has attracted a huge number of narcissists. So it's said that if you haven't talked about them about entertainment and the kind of media, they really aren't listening. (I think I've experienced this myself in the form of fellow media.)
In other words, not all Massachusetts defenders really believe in Dogma. However, career success requires attitude. rationalization is also a factor. Don't forget that people generally don't want to feel like us. So, as a coping mechanism, they will often convince themselves that “Yeah, this agenda really makes sense.” In this way, they can obtain approval not only of others, but of themselves.
But simply put, they are human respect, fashion creatures. If they had lived in Germany in 1936, they would have done goose steps.
Rowling's Realism
However, JK Rowling loses this trend. Of course, this becomes easier as she is a billionaire. She has enough Go Pond Sandwich money. However, she is also vilified by the pseudo-elite for her position and is subject to violent threats, so she deserves credit. Anyway, here she is celebrating the UKSC verdict.
And below is an example of criticism from Harry Potter actress Emma Watson.
Ah, the accusation of “fascism” – how original.
However, in this case, Rowling posted the aforementioned rebuttal (bottom)
This is a long, well written, unprotected post that creates many good points (and contains one or two errors). One in particular is very deep. In other words, in relation to Musas' lies, “trans women are women, trans men are men,” Rowling writes that its supporters have written.
Don't repeat it because it's true – they know well enough that it's not true – but because they believe that if they force everyone else, they can make it true.
What Rowling touches on is a way of thinking that rejects objective reality, particularly moral diversity.
Dive deep
In other words, there are two concepts: good and evil. One contains the idea that morality exists separately from human beings, universal, eternal and unchanging. Our only job is to discover it and adapt our lives to it.
Another concept is relativistic, and sadly we win today. It reflects the concept of the Greek philosopher Protagoras. “Man is a measure of everything.” This includes the idea of ​​inventing what we humans only call “morality.” And, of course, if we invented it, we can reinvent it – convenient.
This is explained in the story. About ten years ago, I was interacting with about 8 or 9 little girls who were in charge of me. Several topics arose and I mentioned moral orders. Well, she replied very innocently that it was not true (I am rephrasing it) because “all people can oppose it and think about anything else.” (I gently corrected her.)
This is the default relativist setting today. The idea is that “right and wrong” is merely a function of consensus social values ​​of what people believe. Ergo, change what people believe, and you can change “good and evil.”
How does this relate to the Muss agenda with scientific facts? First, when relativistic manipulation becomes instinctive, it begins to be applied beyond the moral realm. And why? If everything is relative, what is “wrong” by having your own alternative scientific “facts”?
Also, understand that moving forward with the Muss agenda is considered a moral obligation by its acolite. Furthermore, if the consensus determines “morality,” whether you are a “good” person is determined by the majority social vote. And it's one of the elections that entertainment narcissists and others don't really want to lose.
Unfortunately, embracing a lie has absolutely no relative results, as many mutilated children of celebrities prove.
