Rowling, Blow & Co. - Does Buying Someone's Game Mean You Endorse Their Bullshit? - The Bear and Badger

Knight

MattyJ wrote:

Knight wrote:

People who opppsed this https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/tavistock-scandal-gender-clinic-puberty-blockers-nhs-investigation-ghrqxk8pn … are brave and admirable actually and I think it’s wrong that we’re using Rowling as an example.

And if you’re thinking, ‘it’s in the Times’… yeah probably because none of the left wing papers will cover this sort of thing. Multiple female journalists at the guardian have been effectively hounded out for daring to speak up about this.

I don't know enough of the subject to argue this, but a quick Google shows that at least the guardian has a few articles about Tavistock. They just appear to be balancing the story because they are not a right wing paper, like the times.

That’s true they have, eventually. Worth finding what Hadley freeman and Suzanne Moore have said about leaving the guardian if you’d like. But anyway, the female journalist who wrote the book the above article is based on is a BBC journalist and the article is a relatively straightforward reporting what she said. It saddens me that I even felt the need to mention the Times thing but I suspected someone would jump on it.

DrewMerson

DrewMerson

acemuzzy

Paul the sparky wrote:

Looking at it as straws on a camel's back is also dumb as fuck. If this game was shite and bombed to such an extent that absolutely no one bought it, trans issues would still be a thing

Andy kinda addressed this for me. I'm not saying trans issues wouldn't still be "a thing", but at that kind of scale, it starts moving the needle a little bit, right?

Paul the sparky wrote:

or in your case Muzzy, calling people defeatist for thinking it's not going to have any effect. And then making the leap to assume that people are going to think a certain way about everything based on one decision about a video game

The thing I was calling defeatist was an idea, not a person (I think/hope). Namely that if something takes a million people to make a difference, there's no point any individual making a change cos it will be so small (either actually or effectively zero).

I thought that was your argument for not bothering (it seemed to be the thing others were saying when you disagreed with them), but apologies if not; I certainly agree with a chunk of the other things you have said (that labeling people who don't do think the is likely counterproductive, when there are so many factors involved, including but definitely not limited to this one).

Tbh I'm still not quite sure if you're saying:
- at no scale whatsoever would this protest make any difference whatsoever
- at some scale it would make a difference, but it takes an unrealistic number of people, so there's no point me getting involved
- at some scale it would take a difference, but my contribution is so small it's not worth it for me vs enjoyment I hope to get from the game

I'm kinda fine with the third of those? Like you say, it would be hypocritical not to be. But it doesn't sound like your view in this case?
I don't think I agree with the first, but it's a potentially valid argument too (hard to say one way or the other); the second feels like the argument I was previously querying / calling defeatist, and we may just disagree on the numbers needed to make a difference (ie your first quite above). All very hard to quantify, and I'm starting to ramble, but I'm still kinda interested in understanding your stance more clearly (cos I find this stuff hard to wrangle with myself, not least cos I suck at doing the "right" thing so often!).

I also suck at leaving this thread. And at writing succinctly.

Brooks

I read a Hadley Freeman piece years and years ago, she seemed like a bit of a retard.

Knight

DrewMerson wrote:

Knight wrote:

It saddens me that I even felt the need to mention the Times thing but I suspected someone would jump on it.

Fuck’s sake, Matty, look what you made him preemptively do.

To be clear, I wasn’t blaming him, I’m just aware how easy we all find it to write stuff off if it appears from a different tribe to our own. Matty’s comment was perfectly reasonable and I don’t think he was doing that.

Knight

Brooks wrote:

I read a Hadley Freeman piece years and years ago, she seemed like a bit of a retard.

Well if you read a piece by her you’re definitely qualified to comment on her mental abilities.

Paul the sparky

Brooks wrote:

If it's anything like his paintings you can expect a middling retro platformer at best.

It'll be on Mootsy's Switch wishlist

dynamiteReady

drumbeg wrote:

If Hitler released a game, I wouldn't buy it.

Funny you should bring up that name.
I wanted to wedge it into this convo, somehow:

https://www.mic.com/articles/120411/how-hitler-s-mein-kampf-became-a-bestseller-in-india

Can't click, won't click?

Basically, Mein Kampf is surprisingly popular in some parts of India.

drumbeg

DrewMerson wrote:

You may have to expand...or not!

She isn’t a victim of cancel culture, as demonstrated by the fact that none of the things I said are true. She has not been cancelled. You know that, so I’m not sure why you said it. We could get onto the wider point (yet again) that ‘cancel culture’ is a phrase invented by right wing clowns in an attempt to gaslight people into thinking that ‘cancelled’ a) have indeed been ‘cancelled’ (they almost never have) and b) these people are victims of some left wing conspiracy to silence right wing voices, as opposed to people facing consequences for their predatory / hateful behaviour, which seems to me to be pretty close to the topic at hand.

Ah, I get you. When I said "victim of cancel culture", I meant specifically that there has been a concerted effort by groups to shun her and boycott her work. On that, I hope we can agree.

Frosty

Brooks wrote:

I read a Hadley Freeman piece years and years ago, she seemed like a bit of a retard.

Don't use language like that, it's shitty.

Bob

Brooks wrote:

If it's anything like his paintings you can expect a middling retro platformer at best.

The objective being to get to the far right ?

Paul the sparky

acemuzzy wrote:

Paul the sparky wrote:

Looking at it as straws on a camel's back is also dumb as fuck. If this game was shite and bombed to such an extent that absolutely no one bought it, trans issues would still be a thing

Andy kinda addressed this for me. I'm not saying trans issues wouldn't still be "a thing", but at that kind of scale, it starts moving the needle a little bit, right?

Not really. It might stop Harry Potter games getting made because they're not profitable, but I don't see that as a win for trans rights.

acemuzzy wrote:

Tbh I'm still not quite sure if you're saying:
- at no scale whatsoever would this protest make any difference whatsoever
- at some scale it would make a difference, but it takes an unrealistic number of people, so there's no point me getting involved
- at some scale it would take a difference, but my contribution is so small it's not worth it for me vs enjoyment I hope to get from the game.

I'm talking about it from the individual choice scale, because that's what you can control. What decision we make, why we make them. It's moot to even think "but if everyone did x then y would happen" because no individual is in control of that and that kind of unified thinking won't ever happen on any topic you can pull out of the hat. So that scale of thinking is irrelevant to me.

So I'm saying any individual buying the game or not doesn't make a difference to the overall cause. I think if you want to support the trans community, not buying it can make you feel like you're doing that, and if that's how you want to feel, go for it. But you're not really making any difference to the wider issue. A trans friend may appreciate your support maybe? Don't think you're going to have much more reach than that. As an act it's pretty much insignificant.

Same goes if you do decide to play the game. Doesn't automatically mean you're acting against the trans community, and you're not doing their cause any harm either. If you want to tit about as a wizard, have at it. You're not hurting anyone

hylian_elf

Bob wrote:

Brooks wrote:

If it's anything like his paintings you can expect a middling retro platformer at best.

The objective being to get to the far right ?

Brilliant.

hylian_elf

I mean, it’s making me laugh loud. Thank you, Bob.

davyK

If you don't want to buy the game because of the original IP creator's views, then don't. That's as far as all this goes.

Being vocal and saying it's a protest? They sure don't protest like they used to.

You can't accuse someone or be accused of being pro JK's views because they/you bought a game about wizard school - based on books she wrote decades ago.

I still watch Chaplin films and he was fond of a younger bride. Lewis Carrol was likely a nonce. Is the stair dance in Joker undermined by the music that's played over it?

There's many a cunt who creates enjoyable things. As long as those things don't contain an expression of that then does it really matter? We make our own choices about that and should be free to.

Bob

hylian_elf wrote:

I mean, it’s making me laugh loud. Thank you, Bob.

tin_robot

Knight wrote:

People who opppsed this https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/tavistock-scandal-gender-clinic-puberty-blockers-nhs-investigation-ghrqxk8pn … are brave and admirable actually and I think it’s wrong that we’re using Rowling as an example. And if you’re thinking, ‘it’s in the Times’… yeah probably because none of the left wing papers will cover this sort of thing. Multiple female journalists at the guardian have been effectively hounded out for daring to speak up about this.

OK, let's talk about the Tavistock.

I'll spoiler, because this will be long...

Spoiler:

I can't read the Times article because it's behind a paywall, but I'm guessing it's similar to the many, many other newspaper articles about the Tavistock and the GIDS service. Yes, including in left wing papers.
I suppose the first thing to say is that the fate of the Tavistock has very little to do with Rowling's position, although she certainly tweets about it a fair bit. Ultimately it's the story of a failing hospital - albeit a very specific one - rather than about whether biological sex and gender are indistinguishable. To conclude that the failings of the Tavistock somehow demonstrate that we don't need a service for trans people, is rather like concluding that the Alder Hey scandal proves we shouldn't have paediatricians.
The Tavistock is closing, but the intention is - at least in theory - that gender clinics continue, albeit in more localised hubs, and with a slightly different approach. The plan is to have 8 centres across the UK. I'll come back to why I've written "in theory" a bit later.
So, what's the issue with the Tavistock? For the uninitiated it's a clinic for people with Gender Identity Disorder, which has existed for the last 33 years, and is now closing following an interim report on the independent review by Dr Hilary Cass. (Itself a result of whistle blowing, and concerns from the Care Quality Commission.) Some of the issues she raised included the centre's inability to cope with the massive demands placed upon it, and the way in which treatment approaches have rapidly changed without going through the usual reviews and governance processes. She echoes concerns that many medical professionals have expressed for a long time about the intersection of gender dysphoria, neurodiversity and psychosocial needs - and whether enough is done to explore the latter before addressing the former.
Based on Cass's findings, and the reports and whistle blowing that led to it, the decision to review what services exist for Trans people is both welcome and long overdue. It's also clear that the processes in the Tavistock itself were not adequately regulated - a situation made worse by the absence of any other institution to set it against.
However. It's also a big problem. We're a long way from having the afore mentioned 8 Gender Identity hubs, and the Tavistock closes in the Spring. We already know what will fill the vacuum because the difficulty accessing the Tavistock in the first place means that alternatives already exist. And ion the Tavistock was less than ideal, the rest is pretty much the Wild West.
Here's some context. According to the data out there, less than 20% of people that went to the Tavistock got referred for any kind of hormone treatment or similar (despite press reports to the contrary). People that were referred invariably went through a number of sessions assessing their need, their mental state, and offering other forms of support.
At least, that's my understanding. None of my trans patients have ever actually made it to the GIDS service. The wait was simply too long. So they've found other solutions. A popular option is something called "Gender GP". It's run by a couple off doctors who are based in Spain, because they can't legally practice in the UK. They get plenty of patients though, because people are desperate. Rightly or wrongly this service seems much happier to start patients on medication which they pay for until they run out of money. At which point they come to their GPs asking us to continue it, creating one hell of a moral dilemma. (Do we continue despite it not really being our specialty, and knowing they may not have been properly assessed, or do we stop causing massive emotional distress, and unwanted physical changes.) If seen through GIDS these people would have counselling, they would look at other options, they would have support in freezing their sperm or their eggs if they want to have children in the future etc etc. Instead, they're getting quick fixes privately, and then being left in a mess. The absence of any real political desire to ensure we have really good services for trans people means that the support network that's so desperately needed to prevent all this looks likely to become yet more diminished when the Tavistock goes. It was shit, but it was almost certainly better than nothing.
All of which means that the cheering that has greeted the closure of the Tavistock feels at best misplaced. Perhaps I'll change my mind if, and when, we actually have a meaningful service in its place. (It's worth saying as well that Cass's final report is yet to come out, and we don't know if more damning stuff is to come out, or alternatively whether it will be watered down from the interim report. I guess it's also worth saying that a number of trans people are unconvinced by Cass's "independence", which I think is almost certainly unfair, though her reference to a lack of consensus about treatment - whilst true in the UK - ignores a fair amount of consensus internationally, and the review does seem to be oddly inward looking - arguably the same problem that we had with the Tavistock itself.)
Are the "people who opposed it" brave? It depends on which people you mean. The initial whistle blowers absolutely are. All health systems rely on people being prepared to shout when things aren't right, and clearly they weren't at the Tavistock. The very existence of the Cass investigation implies that the system, whilst slow, is responding. However it's been slow at least in part because live was made very unpleasant indeed for some of those early whistle blowers who were vilified precisely because the debate about trans people is so extreme. So, yes, they're brave and should be commended for taking a stance.
Those who have taken the issues at the Tavistock and used them as a stick to beat the trans community with though? No, they're not brave. As I say, a failing hospital doesn't negate the reality of the experience of trans people. It's incredibly distressing, and frustrating, to see the one thing being equated with the other. The Cass report was frequently cited by Conservatives as a reason not to oppose "Conversion therapy" for trans people for instance. Meanwhile, as mentioned, I've not seen much evidence of these new "hubs", we don't yet have the final Cass report to say what, if anything they will offer, and there's growing concern that the answer will be "not a lot". If so, that will be actively harmful to a large number of trans people in the UK. (As talked about before, whilst there remains a great deal of debate about the exact nature of gender dysphoria, there's a very clear view that acceptance is incredibly important if you're hoping to reduce the risk of depression and suicide.)

JonB

drumbeg wrote:

Ah, I get you. When I said "victim of cancel culture", I meant specifically that there has been a concerted effort by groups to shun her and boycott her work. On that, I hope we can agree.

So you said something that wasn't actually what you specifically meant at all. Its funny how reasonable it sounds once you take the word 'victim' out of it, eh?

drumbeg

Bob wrote:

Brooks wrote:

If it's anything like his paintings you can expect a middling retro platformer at best.

The objective being to get to the far right ?

Bravo!

Brooks

Most reactionaries are fairly convinced trans people are just aping internet trends and will grow out of it anyway, no big deal.

JonB

MattyJ wrote:

People who opppsed this https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/tavistock-scandal-gender-clinic-puberty-blockers-nhs-investigation-ghrqxk8pn … are brave and admirable actually and I think it’s wrong that we’re using Rowling as an example. And if you’re thinking, ‘it’s in the Times’… yeah probably because none of the left wing papers will cover this sort of thing. Multiple female journalists at the guardian have been effectively hounded out for daring to speak up about this.

I don't know enough of the subject to argue this, but a quick Google shows that at least the guardian has a few articles about Tavistock. They just appear to be balancing the story because they are not a right wing paper, like the times.

The Guardian has its fair share of transphobic content anyway. A few years ago Guardian staff in the US ended up complaining about the UK paper's editorial position on trans issues because they felt it was so regressive.

Still hasn't stopped them though. They did publish this recent piece of genius:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jan/28/forget-andrew-tate-what-about-the-host-of-misogynists-in-labours-ranks

Brooks

Gurno does seem to relish showing its whole ass with its columnists.

drumbeg

JonB wrote:

drumbeg wrote:

Ah, I get you. When I said "victim of cancel culture", I meant specifically that there has been a concerted effort by groups to shun her and boycott her work. On that, I hope we can agree.

So you said something that wasn't actually what you specifically meant at all. Its funny how reasonable it sounds once you take the word 'victim' out of it, eh?

Nah. I think what I said originally captures the gist of what I meant, but obviously required some clarification.

It’s largely irrelevant anyway. Main point is that I would possibly boycott products from someone whose values offend me.

I’ve not seen anything Rowling has said that puts her in that bracket. Granted, I’ve not followed all of her exchanges on social media etc.

JonB

Frosty wrote:

Brooks wrote:

I read a Hadley Freeman piece years and years ago, she seemed like a bit of a retard.

Don't use language like that, it's shitty.

Agreed. I thought we were beyond that kind of crap.

JonB

drumbeg wrote:

JonB wrote:

drumbeg wrote:

Ah, I get you. When I said "victim of cancel culture", I meant specifically that there has been a concerted effort by groups to shun her and boycott her work. On that, I hope we can agree.

So you said something that wasn't actually what you specifically meant at all. Its funny how reasonable it sounds once you take the word 'victim' out of it, eh?

Nah. I think what I said originally captures the gist of what I meant. But obviously required some clarification. It’s largely irrelevant anyway. Main point is that I would possibly boycott products from someone whose values offend me. I’ve not seen anything Rowling has said that puts her in that bracket.

Well, it's really not clear at all now.

Vela

Why does it appear there is often more scrutiny of the people making a principled stand, than there is of the people being boycotted?

The latter never seem to have to justify themselves and just keep on being a twat.

Diluted Dante

tin_robot wrote:

OK, let's talk about the Tavistock. I'll spoiler, because this will be long...

Spoiler:

I can't read the Times article because it's behind a paywall, but I'm guessing it's similar to the many, many other newspaper articles about the Tavistock and the GIDS service. Yes, including in left wing papers. I suppose the first thing to say is that the fate of the Tavistock has very little to do with Rowling's position, although she certainly tweets about it a fair bit. Ultimately it's the story of a failing hospital - albeit a very specific one - rather than about whether biological sex and gender are indistinguishable. To conclude that the failings of the Tavistock somehow demonstrate that we don't need a service for trans people, is rather like concluding that the Alder Hey scandal proves we shouldn't have paediatricians. The Tavistock is closing, but the intention is - at least in theory - that gender clinics continue, albeit in more localised hubs, and with a slightly different approach. The plan is to have 8 centres across the UK. I'll come back to why I've written "in theory" a bit later. So, what's the issue with the Tavistock? For the uninitiated it's a clinic for people with Gender Identity Disorder, which has existed for the last 33 years, and is now closing following an interim report on the independent review by Dr Hilary Cass. (Itself a result of whistle blowing, and concerns from the Care Quality Commission.) Some of the issues she raised included the centre's inability to cope with the massive demands placed upon it, and the way in which treatment approaches have rapidly changed without going through the usual reviews and governance processes. She echoes concerns that many medical professionals have expressed for a long time about the intersection of gender dysphoria, neurodiversity and psychosocial needs - and whether enough is done to explore the latter before addressing the former. Based on Cass's findings, and the reports and whistle blowing that led to it, the decision to review what services exist for Trans people is both welcome and long overdue. It's also clear that the processes in the Tavistock itself were not adequately regulated - a situation made worse by the absence of any other institution to set it against. However. It's also a big problem. We're a long way from having the afore mentioned 8 Gender Identity hubs, and the Tavistock closes in the Spring. We already know what will fill the vacuum because the difficulty accessing the Tavistock in the first place means that alternatives already exist. And ion the Tavistock was less than ideal, the rest is pretty much the Wild West. Here's some context. According to the data out there, less than 20% of people that went to the Tavistock got referred for any kind of hormone treatment or similar (despite press reports to the contrary). People that were referred invariably went through a number of sessions assessing their need, their mental state, and offering other forms of support. At least, that's my understanding. None of my trans patients have ever actually made it to the GIDS service. The wait was simply too long. So they've found other solutions. A popular option is something called "Gender GP". It's run by a couple off doctors who are based in Spain, because they can't legally practice in the UK. They get plenty of patients though, because people are desperate. Rightly or wrongly this service seems much happier to start patients on medication which they pay for until they run out of money. At which point they come to their GPs asking us to continue it, creating one hell of a moral dilemma. (Do we continue despite it not really being our specialty, and knowing they may not have been properly assessed, or do we stop causing massive emotional distress, and unwanted physical changes.) If seen through GIDS these people would have counselling, they would look at other options, they would have support in freezing their sperm or their eggs if they want to have children in the future etc etc. Instead, they're getting quick fixes privately, and then being left in a mess. The absence of any real political desire to ensure we have really good services for trans people means that the support network that's so desperately needed to prevent all this looks likely to become yet more diminished when the Tavistock goes. It was shit, but it was almost certainly better than nothing. All of which means that the cheering that has greeted the closure of the Tavistock feels at best misplaced. Perhaps I'll change my mind if, and when, we actually have a meaningful service in its place. (It's worth saying as well that Cass's final report is yet to come out, and we don't know if more damning stuff is to come out, or alternatively whether it will be watered down from the interim report. I guess it's also worth saying that a number of trans people are unconvinced by Cass's "independence", which I think is almost certainly unfair, though her reference to a lack of consensus about treatment - whilst true in the UK - ignores a fair amount of consensus internationally, and the review does seem to be oddly inward looking - arguably the same problem that we had with the Tavistock itself.) Are the "people who opposed it" brave? It depends on which people you mean. The initial whistle blowers absolutely are. All health systems rely on people being prepared to shout when things aren't right, and clearly they weren't at the Tavistock. The very existence of the Cass investigation implies that the system, whilst slow, is responding. However it's been slow at least in part because live was made very unpleasant indeed for some of those early whistle blowers who were vilified precisely because the debate about trans people is so extreme. So, yes, they're brave and should be commended for taking a stance. Those who have taken the issues at the Tavistock and used them as a stick to beat the trans community with though? No, they're not brave. As I say, a failing hospital doesn't negate the reality of the experience of trans people. It's incredibly distressing, and frustrating, to see the one thing being equated with the other. The Cass report was frequently cited by Conservatives as a reason not to oppose "Conversion therapy" for trans people for instance. Meanwhile, as mentioned, I've not seen much evidence of these new "hubs", we don't yet have the final Cass report to say what, if anything they will offer, and there's growing concern that the answer will be "not a lot". If so, that will be actively harmful to a large number of trans people in the UK. (As talked about before, whilst there remains a great deal of debate about the exact nature of gender dysphoria, there's a very clear view that acceptance is incredibly important if you're hoping to reduce the risk of depression and suicide.)

I know of far more people who have gone DIY than have successfully navigated the NHS. Closing the Tavistock will just result in many more doing so. That said though, it's not just the baffling maze and glacial progress that sends people that way. For many, GP's just refuse to deal with them at all, so even if these hubs do materialise (I'm not holding my breath) plenty of people won't be able to get there because they can't get past the first obstacle.

SpaceGazelle

I'm all for trans rights but I wish the anger was shared out amongst other needy groups. If I was a person of colour I'd be pissed off. I was talking to a group of 12yr olds recently (kids in my boy's class) and they were outraged about trans rights way more than anything else. Way, way more.

They learn about misogyny, domestic abuse, refugees and racism but because trans rights are trending they weren't so angry about those things, more a bit sad. It seems disproportionate to me. I'm glad they're angry about trans rights but the focus right now is very specific.

I suppose this anger could translate to other groups once trans folk are given their due rights but somehow I doubt it.

SpaceGazelle

I'm all for trans rights but I wish the anger was shared out amongst other needy groups. If I was a person of colour I'd be pissed off. I was talking to a group of 12yr olds recently (kids in my boy's class) and they were outraged about trans rights way more than anything else. Way, way more.

They learn about misogyny, domestic abuse, refugees and racism but because trans rights are trending they weren't so angry about those things, more a bit sad. It seems disproportionate to me. I'm glad they're angry about trans rights but the focus right now is very specific.

I suppose this anger could translate to other groups once trans folk are given their due rights but somehow I doubt it.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories