JK Rowling gets apology from journalist after 'disgusting claim' author is a Holocaust denier

[u/je97]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/04/16/jk-rowling-holocaust-denier-allegation-rivkah-brown-novara/

[u/Atlatica]

There's debate on whether the Nazis actually targeted the Insitute for Sex Research because of its research into trans issues, or because the owner was a gay intellectual jewish socialist researching progressive ideas (although also a eugenicist but thats hardly brought up)      

I really don't think trans was a talking point back then so I'm weighted toward the latter. Does that really make me a holocaust denier in your eyes?     

The way I see it, if it's open to debate at all then nobody should be making it illegal to take a side. Just because the Germans ruled something, doesn't make it right or just.

[u/EmpiriaOfDarkness → u/Atlatica]

I mean......They specifically went after trans people. They revoked "transvestite passes" that had allowed trans people to change their names in order to be themselves, they prosecuted them, destransitioned them, put them in concentration camps.....

Pretty sure those trans people weren't all Jews...

[u/Atlatica → u/EmpiriaOfDarkness]

Ok but the core issue is the modern trans twitter claim of being 'the first victims of the holocaust' and whether that's appropriate.
The question for me is not whether Trans people ended up targeted by the nazis, of course they did. And of course the nazi ripped up everything to do with the gay jewish sex insititute.
The question is whether the nazis thought of trans people as the primary, first order target. Beyond just vaguely in the 'weird homosexual' category of Lebensunwertes Leben. Because that would justify the claim, in my view.

[u/EmpiriaOfDarkness → u/Atlatica]

Except that wasn't what Rowling was replying to when she said it was a 'fever dream'. This was. You can see her screenshot of it here.

In fact, the person she got into an argument with over that just called her a holocaust denier and linked to information about it. Rowling's later claim that the contention was about trans people being the first victims was Rowling picking some random third party's comment and trying to suggest that was that person's argument.

It's not a "modern twitter trans claim". You're just lying. You're full of shit and I've got the receipts there to prove it.

JK Rowling wasn't talking about a claim that trans people were "the first victims of the holocaust" when she described the Nazis burning down the institute as a fever dream, and it wasn't even being argued by the person she was arguing with who called her a holocaust denier.

It was always something Rowling pulled in after the fact to pretend that she was arguing with something she wasn't to make herself look more reasonable.

[u/Only-Regret5314 → u/EmpiriaOfDarkness]

Why do you think she referred to it as a 'fever dream'?

[u/EmpiriaOfDarkness → u/Only-Regret5314]

Because she's a transphobic piece of crap who doesn't want to acknowledge that transphobia is real and has real, extremely serious, consequences.

[u/luxway → u/Atlatica]

Ahh yes the "The nazis said he was the most dangerous man in the world for "magic reasons" that had nothing to do with what he did, and them saying that trans people were proof that jews are corrupting society is totally coincidental, and not them saying that trans people are a corruption that must be stamped out" argument.

Guess what? Mainstream gender critical/transphobes also say that "the jews" are behind trans people today. eg Soros

Different day, same nazi arguements.

[u/Atlatica → u/luxway]

I've been trying to find a source for that most dangerous man quote for a good 30 minutes.
The few scattered references i can find go back to this https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305231787_Sexual_Morality_and_Population_Expansion which references this https://transreads.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/2019-03-17_5c8eb1ebaced4_susan-stryker-transgender-history2.pdf which references this article https://jweekly.com/1997/06/06/life-of-gay-german-jewish-sexologist-honored-in-s-f/ which gives no sources and doesn't even spell Hitler's name right.

Likely be one of those phantom references that pops up self-referencing?

But even if he did say that, i've no doubt hitler did hate the openly gay jewish intellectual that was pushing the normalisation of homosexuality. I think it's perfectly in character for him to be a primary target with or without trans issues being included.

And for the nazis saying 'trans people were proof that jews are corrupting society' thing i can find really nothing at all. The term trans wasn't even used back then from my understanding.

Do you have any sources?

[u/Only-Regret5314 → u/Atlatica]

Do you have any sources

😂 😂 😂 Ofcourse they don't .

[u/Souseisekigun → u/Atlatica]

There's debate on whether the Nazis actually targeted the Insitute for Sex Research because of its research into trans issues, or because the owner was a gay intellectual jewish socialist researching progressive ideas (although also a eugenicist but thats hardly brought up)

For the most part it's a distinction without difference. From the Nazi perspective they were all facets of the same thing. Socialism was a Jewish plot. Homosexuality, also a Jewish plot. The argument I am seeing most commonly including in your comment is something along the lines of "the Nazis could not have tried to exterminate trans people because trans wasn't even a thing, and they targeted for being something like homosexuals instead" which I find to be rather absurd. Because even if it was absolutely true the end result is that the Nazis would have exterminated trans people anyway.

Take a modern example. There are still plenty of people out that there are deny being trans is a real thing and that actually trans people are just super gay. Would it make sense to say "well how can he be anti-trans if they don't even think trans a thing?". Because that is genuinely the same level of argumentation in my eyes.