I think the moral arguments aside, there is just the practical matter that having read what he did, I cannot stomach to consume content made by him. The association is naturally aversive, I don’t need a rational argument about how it’s immoral to support a rapist - I just don’t like it.

it is a fairly complex topic, I think McBride sides with the moderate and centrist Democrats and aligns with political pragmatism that tends to be business friendly and puts ideology aside in favor of deal-making.

On the one hand pragmatism makes sense because politics is about outcomes, and without deal making and compromises nothing happens.

On the other hand, being fundamentally pragmatic means being willing to compromise on anything and a dynamic can arise that allows for a race to the bottom such that the outcomes that are achieved are too far away from what is acceptable, and what is sacrificed is too much.

Furthermore, McBride has an extra burden as a trans woman to signal her loyalty to the pragmatic, more conservative Democratic leadership so she isn’t left out on the assumption her identity aligns with the Progressive Democrats who are more ideological in their commitments (and who are more vocally pro-trans than the rest of the party) and are thus more demanding and less interested in compromising (which can be used as a political strategy itself to influence the Overton window, etc. - but which can be politically risky if by not compromising you don’t get any of the outcomes you needed).

I think a lot of us trans girls are in the same situation. I learned to read on HP books, and Hermoine was a deeply important character to me growing up 😅 It’s hard for me, but I have gradually moved away from the series as it increasingly becomes associated with Britain’s Top Transphobe.

ick, I wouldn’t be surprised if that fails commercially … I mean, I watched the first season before all this stuff came out and I’m certainly not returning for a second season - I doubt I’m alone.

such incredible insight, Rowling as an anti-trans activist is engaged in a genocidal movement which has of course a much larger scale of both number of people harmed and the severity of that harm

oo, I didn’t know about this, thank you - GERM is much better than TERF, lol

This is a good moral compromise in that it allows you to enjoy the art without the moral complications of commercially supporting a rapist, but I think some people might argue that it doesn’t go far enough and that we should essentially culturally boycott the art as well, that an artist’s reputation rests partially on how their art is perceived, and by continuing to enjoy that art and share it with others, you continue to support the artist in some sense.

Not sure I know how I feel about that argument, but I think it’s an intuition some folks have or an argument they make.

… was that a drag pun? well done. 👏

tbh my feelings seem to be guiding things before anything like rational morality does - I feel cognitive dissonance about his art because of the association with him as a rapist, and that’s enough for me to ditch his art without having to justify it as a moral necessity that others must do as well.

I think my cognitive dissonance was too strong, I got rid of my Gaiman. :-(

But I feel you - his works were important in my life before, I’ve just been downsizing and even though it wasn’t the best, I decided to get rid of mine (not because it’s “right” but just because I don’t like being reminded of him).

this is actually the main sadness I have re Gaiman, I never finished the Sandman series and I just never will now.

I know there’s plenty to be said about separating the work of art from the moral judgement of the artist, but tbh it’s just like a taboo, psychologically the association turns me off whether there is a rational justification for it or not.

yes, she sees herself as a kind of martyr and victim of a witch-hunt, which does change how she responds to the cultural backlash she receives for her behavior.

Telling someone there is something wrong with them because they are trans, when their experience of gender is perfectly normal, will not support their mental health.

The only tension here is that even if we lived in a fully trans-accepting society, people with gender dysphoria (unlike being gay) would still requires medical treatment (much like any other endocrine disorder).

It’s great to recognize trans folks as a part of the natural biodiversity of humans, but there are limits to that claim.

This article’s main concern is how the RNZ article handled reporting trans issues, from OP’s link:

The RNZ article is peppered with subtle and overt suggestions that being trans is a problem, reflecting an outdated treatment of trans people within Western medical science.

As far as I can tell the RNZ article does not directly depict being trans as a problem or pathology as much as they tell a story that indicates the teen’s trans identity was not authentic or legitimate, quoting from the RNZ article:

Their only child was able to keep them at a distance on the grounds they did not accept the teen was transgender - an identity the parents say the teen later abandoned.

However, the couple allege that while attentive to their child’s gender identity, various care professionals failed to adequately respond to the threat from a long-standing eating disorder.

…

At high school, she was also introduced to the concept of gender diversity and at some point in 2021 became non-binary.

Vanessa adopted a gender neutral name (“V”) and pronouns, which were used by staff and students.

However, Catherine said immediately after a messy break-up with the boyfriend, Vanessa started identifying as a boy.

At home, the arguments were now about gender identity as well as food, with Vanessa/V accusing the parents of being transphobic.

“She tried to ‘educate’ us by sharing influencer videos. She said she must be right because all the health professionals and online articles agreed with her.”

Some clinicians quickly affirmed V’s boy identity.

However, Catherine said the teen’s long-term psychiatrist was sceptical.

"The psychiatrist advised us that Vanessa was using the transgender identity as a mask for her continuing anorexia - that Vanessa was saying the reason she didn’t want a curvy, female body was not because she was suffering from anorexia, but because she was really a boy.

“The psychiatrist recommended not affirming Vanessa’s transgender identity.”

…

However, her parents said subsequently, Vanessa phoned her father and then her mother to say she was “seriously questioning the ‘gender identity thing’” and wanted them to know she was indeed their daughter.

…

Catherine said it appeared there was “wilful blindness” on the part of those professionals, who were so focused on affirming Vanessa’s gender identity, but did not pay the same attention to the eating disorder which would kill her.

Mostly the article comes across as conveying the skepticism around the trans identity, highlighting that before V died they reversed their trans identity and reaffirmed their assigned gender.

I think the RNZ article does come across as dismissive, but not necessarily as pathologizing, unless I’m missing something. A charitable read is that they are highlighting the need for clinicians to better parse gender dysphoria from other psychological issues, and to take those seriously, but I tend to think articles like this are not being written about the way people are getting misdiagnosed one way or another and not given adequate psychological treatment - autism mistaken as OCD or ADHD and so on - so reading between the lines I see an attempt to write something that can be used to credibly stoke moral panic about and undermine trans identities with the public - using the death of a single individual and making the argument that this was caused by too much focus on gender identity allows audiences to easily draw their own transphobic conclusions.

yeah, agreed - Gaiman’s fans are far less willing to tolerate his SA, HP fans are more general public and transphobia is more socially acceptable than SA.

Basically this post is essentially saying, “it’s a shame transphobia is so acceptable to people”

overview: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Gaiman#Sexual_assault_and_misconduct_allegations

some reporting: https://www.vulture.com/article/neil-gaiman-allegations-controversy-amanda-palmer-sandman-madoc.html

note: content warning, NSFL

I wonder if there is any real relationship between influence and immorality, or if it’s just a salience error (those with influence are more likely to be scrutinized and immorality brought to everyone’s attention, and we just don’t notice the people who aren’t a problem while we do notice those who are).

Agreed, Gaiman fans are not the average person, I think this partially accounts for the difference (as well as the difference between how culturally acceptable transphobia is compared to rape).

You can read about it here: https://www.vulture.com/article/neil-gaiman-allegations-controversy-amanda-palmer-sandman-madoc.html

Massive content warning, very disturbing.

With the gay rights movement, didn’t the gains of activism consistently stay ahead of public opinion? It seems like public opinion lagged behind the changes, it wasn’t until the Supreme Court ruled in favor of gay marriage that it seemed like there was a cultural shift.

I think “inclusive” in the context of a women-only community means it’s a women’s space that doesn’t exclude lesbians and trans women (or other LGBT+ folks who feel they belong in a women-only space, like some enbies and so on).