@blackadder1500.bsky.social
Challenging the questionable ‘approved opinions’ in Bluesky’s echo chamber - good faith debate only
Trans people already have the same rights as everyone else - to live, work, vote, marry, be protected under equality law, etc. The disputes are about policies in areas where rights collide, like single-sex spaces or sport. That’s not denying rights, it’s debating how to balance them.
September 30, 2025 at 3:04 AM
Trans people already have the same rights as everyone else - to live, work, vote, marry, be protected under equality law, etc. The disputes are about policies in areas where rights collide, like single-sex spaces or sport. That’s not denying rights, it’s debating how to balance them.
Rowling’s a human being with opinions, not a cartoon villain. Wishing death on her doesn’t strengthen your case. It makes you look like an idiot.
September 30, 2025 at 12:12 AM
Rowling’s a human being with opinions, not a cartoon villain. Wishing death on her doesn’t strengthen your case. It makes you look like an idiot.
The only clarity you’d accept is me denouncing my view that the single-sex spaces debate is nuanced. But it is nuanced, as a matter of fact, so I can't. You've decided it’s black and white, so any criticism of policy becomes 'a mask for bigotry'. Which is exactly why this debate never moves forward.
September 30, 2025 at 12:09 AM
The only clarity you’d accept is me denouncing my view that the single-sex spaces debate is nuanced. But it is nuanced, as a matter of fact, so I can't. You've decided it’s black and white, so any criticism of policy becomes 'a mask for bigotry'. Which is exactly why this debate never moves forward.
I’m not asking for credit. I’ve made it clear I don’t want trans people erased. You demanding proof beyond that is just you setting up a test no one outside your bubble could ever pass.
September 29, 2025 at 11:30 PM
I’m not asking for credit. I’ve made it clear I don’t want trans people erased. You demanding proof beyond that is just you setting up a test no one outside your bubble could ever pass.
Sure, show those posts to people outside your bubble, without your spin. Watch how fast the ‘evil bigot’ narrative evaporates. That’s what happens when you leave an echo chamber.
September 29, 2025 at 11:25 PM
Sure, show those posts to people outside your bubble, without your spin. Watch how fast the ‘evil bigot’ narrative evaporates. That’s what happens when you leave an echo chamber.
And that’s the problem with your approach. It’s all-or-nothing - if you’re not 100% in and parading your virtue, you’re branded a bigot. That shuts out people who genuinely sympathise with trans people but have rational concerns about policy. The aggression doesn’t help your cause, it alienates it.
September 29, 2025 at 11:19 PM
And that’s the problem with your approach. It’s all-or-nothing - if you’re not 100% in and parading your virtue, you’re branded a bigot. That shuts out people who genuinely sympathise with trans people but have rational concerns about policy. The aggression doesn’t help your cause, it alienates it.
Taking a case to the Supreme Court isn’t ‘erasing rights', it’s literally how democratic societies handle contested laws. Screaming that it’s genocide and calling for her death just makes you look unhinged.
September 29, 2025 at 11:13 PM
Taking a case to the Supreme Court isn’t ‘erasing rights', it’s literally how democratic societies handle contested laws. Screaming that it’s genocide and calling for her death just makes you look unhinged.
‘Divisive’ is an online label. Most people don’t spend their lives on Twitter/Bluesky - they either don’t know or don’t care enough about these debates to see Rowling as anything but the author of Harry Potter.
September 29, 2025 at 11:12 PM
‘Divisive’ is an online label. Most people don’t spend their lives on Twitter/Bluesky - they either don’t know or don’t care enough about these debates to see Rowling as anything but the author of Harry Potter.
Strongly disagreeing with Rowling is legitimate. Wishing her dead is not. If you want people to take your cause seriously, stop with the violent rhetoric.
September 29, 2025 at 11:09 PM
Strongly disagreeing with Rowling is legitimate. Wishing her dead is not. If you want people to take your cause seriously, stop with the violent rhetoric.
Those old critiques were ‘floating around’ because people nitpick popular works. Only once she spoke about sex-based rights did they get repackaged as evidence she’s some irredeemable bigot. That’s not proof - it’s opportunistic reframing.
September 29, 2025 at 11:02 PM
Those old critiques were ‘floating around’ because people nitpick popular works. Only once she spoke about sex-based rights did they get repackaged as evidence she’s some irredeemable bigot. That’s not proof - it’s opportunistic reframing.
Absolutely. I’ve repeatedly said this is a nuanced debate and I’m not anti-trans. Not having a black-and-white answer to hard questions about how rights should be balanced doesn’t mean I want anyone harmed. The same is true of JK Rowling - disagreeing about policy ≠ advocating violence or erasure.
September 29, 2025 at 11:00 PM
Absolutely. I’ve repeatedly said this is a nuanced debate and I’m not anti-trans. Not having a black-and-white answer to hard questions about how rights should be balanced doesn’t mean I want anyone harmed. The same is true of JK Rowling - disagreeing about policy ≠ advocating violence or erasure.
Maybe because you told me to ‘shut the fuck up’ in your first reply. And then you went on to imply you wanted to cut a woman’s head off lmao... apologies if I came off a bit cold.
September 29, 2025 at 10:54 PM
Maybe because you told me to ‘shut the fuck up’ in your first reply. And then you went on to imply you wanted to cut a woman’s head off lmao... apologies if I came off a bit cold.
You haven’t ‘rested your case', you’ve just admitted you won’t accept anything short of performative allegiance. Safeguarding concerns can exist without being anti-trans, whether or not you’re willing to acknowledge it.
September 29, 2025 at 10:46 PM
You haven’t ‘rested your case', you’ve just admitted you won’t accept anything short of performative allegiance. Safeguarding concerns can exist without being anti-trans, whether or not you’re willing to acknowledge it.
You’ll never see her as anything but an evil bigot, fine. But let’s be real - the ‘racist, antisemitic, fatphobic’ stuff is mostly recycled critiques of Harry Potter written decades ago. 90s literary tropes aren’t evidence of malice or her politics today.
September 29, 2025 at 10:46 PM
You’ll never see her as anything but an evil bigot, fine. But let’s be real - the ‘racist, antisemitic, fatphobic’ stuff is mostly recycled critiques of Harry Potter written decades ago. 90s literary tropes aren’t evidence of malice or her politics today.
No one has to issue a disclaimer every time they raise a safeguarding concern. It’s obvious criticism of policy ≠ hatred of people. Rowling’s said repeatedly she has nothing against trans people - but apparently, unless she chants your slogans, it doesn’t count.
September 29, 2025 at 10:40 PM
No one has to issue a disclaimer every time they raise a safeguarding concern. It’s obvious criticism of policy ≠ hatred of people. Rowling’s said repeatedly she has nothing against trans people - but apparently, unless she chants your slogans, it doesn’t count.
Guilt by association isn’t an argument. Rowling agreeing with Musk or Trump on complex one policy doesn’t make her aligned with them politically - she’s been outspokenly against their politics in general. Complex issues can produce overlap without shared ideology.
September 29, 2025 at 10:34 PM
Guilt by association isn’t an argument. Rowling agreeing with Musk or Trump on complex one policy doesn’t make her aligned with them politically - she’s been outspokenly against their politics in general. Complex issues can produce overlap without shared ideology.
I don’t agree with anyone who wants trans people gone. But recognising women’s safeguarding concerns as proportionally significant isn’t the same as erasure.
September 29, 2025 at 10:31 PM
I don’t agree with anyone who wants trans people gone. But recognising women’s safeguarding concerns as proportionally significant isn’t the same as erasure.
Not gatekeeping - just asking a simple question. Surely it can’t be that hard to answer?
September 29, 2025 at 10:27 PM
Not gatekeeping - just asking a simple question. Surely it can’t be that hard to answer?
Imagine living in a headspace where every mild disagreement with your, frankly, extreme takes = ‘Nazi haha.’ As an empath, I genuinely pity you.
September 29, 2025 at 10:26 PM
Imagine living in a headspace where every mild disagreement with your, frankly, extreme takes = ‘Nazi haha.’ As an empath, I genuinely pity you.
Accusations, conspiracy theories, and refusal to engage aren’t proof - they’re the opposite. If you had evidence, you’d show it instead of declaring me evil and walking off.
September 29, 2025 at 10:22 PM
Accusations, conspiracy theories, and refusal to engage aren’t proof - they’re the opposite. If you had evidence, you’d show it instead of declaring me evil and walking off.
Occam’s Razor cuts the other way: after years of abuse and threats, ‘love it when a plan comes together’ reads as defiance and a legal win - not glee at ‘harming trans people'.
September 29, 2025 at 10:21 PM
Occam’s Razor cuts the other way: after years of abuse and threats, ‘love it when a plan comes together’ reads as defiance and a legal win - not glee at ‘harming trans people'.
Hence why I'm asking you, who claims to know a lot about feminism etc.
September 29, 2025 at 10:19 PM
Hence why I'm asking you, who claims to know a lot about feminism etc.
Women make up half the population; trans women are a very small fraction. That’s the balance I’m talking about - proportions matter when rights collide. Women’s safeguarding concerns can’t just be dismissed; they carry more weight in how we structure spaces. Of course the weighting isn’t the same.
September 29, 2025 at 10:14 PM
Women make up half the population; trans women are a very small fraction. That’s the balance I’m talking about - proportions matter when rights collide. Women’s safeguarding concerns can’t just be dismissed; they carry more weight in how we structure spaces. Of course the weighting isn’t the same.
You read that photo as her ‘hating trans people.’ I read it as a defiant middle finger to the years of abuse, rape threats and death threats she’s had to endure. Context matters.
September 29, 2025 at 10:11 PM
You read that photo as her ‘hating trans people.’ I read it as a defiant middle finger to the years of abuse, rape threats and death threats she’s had to endure. Context matters.
You talk a lot about feminism and women... can you define woman?
September 29, 2025 at 10:04 PM
You talk a lot about feminism and women... can you define woman?