dandelion

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 had to look up "gopnik" and now ТРИ ПОЛОСКИ is permanently in my brain 😁

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).