To be oblivious to the issue people have with JKR? I thought she was a feminist. What have I missed?

It's of virtually no cost to you whatsoever to accept and accommodate trans people. All you have to do is address them as they asked to be addressed as you do for everyone else, and then otherwise leave them alone.

It would have virtually no impact on your life whatsoever, if any, if you simply woke up tomorrow and decided never to talk or worry about trans people ever again.

It’s always a disingenuous argument isn’t it? Always full of emotional statements such as “they all just want to be left alone” when we can see with our own eyes that this isn’t the case with every single trans person!

I saw an excellent interview with a Transwoman on YouTube. She was very measured and balanced and described how she used to be a TRA until she listened to women and others and understood their position. She was very intelligent and eloquent and understood their situation entirely. She isn’t upset when she gets misgendered and states that TRAs are doing far more harm than good.

Being trans is a fundamental characteristic of human diversity, like sexuality, disability, ethnicity, age and many others

I can’t speak for others but I agree that it is a fundamental characteristic of human diversity. Just like Narcissistic Personality Disorder is, just like being attracted to children is, just like being tall or short or whatever. The question is, how much do you expect people to budge up for others? If it’s at great cost to them then it’s not fair. Take disability as a good example - let’s assume someone tragically has lost the use of their legs and are in a wheelchair. Should the places they go to visit have wheelchair access? Too bloody right, that is a concession which doesn’t hurt or affect anyone else. Should they be allowed to get a job as a firefighter to rescue people from burning buildings? No. That’s heartbreaking if they once had their heart set on that… but you can’t risk other human lives to allow someone else to feel included.

Some concessions for trans people are fine. I personally have no issue with pronoun usage, for example. But what some trans people are asking for to feel included comes at great cost to others in society. Thats not ok

Readers note:

The UK Equality Act is very clear that there are forms of legitimate discrimination available to be used when needed.

It is important to understand that when a poster such as you see on these threads uses a plea about people not experiencing discrimination, that they don’t ever qualify whether this is legitimate discrimination they don’t want a group subject to or illegitimate. Of course, no people should be experiencing illegitimate discrimination.

However, what posts such as one quoted does is conflate both types of discrimination. Because the poster considers legitimate discrimination to be immoral and unjust too. They believe that a group of male people should not be subjected to having to follow the laws that exclude them from female single sex provisions.

This is a well used tactic.

And I think it is a dishonest one.

You can chose to accommodate them.(sic)

These 'accommodations' are demands to forcibly access the single sex services and spaces allowed in the EQA2010 for the safety and dignity of women.

The Supreme Court said no. Women are saying no.

No.

@Helleofabore and others on this thread.

I understand that your entire perspective on this situation rests on being able to diminish transness to a 'philosophical belief'.

Being trans is not a 'philosophical belief'. This is misunderstanding; this is prejudice. This is your failure to exercise imagination and judgement to understand a person who is different from you.

Being trans is a fundamental characteristic of human diversity, like sexuality, disability, ethnicity, age and many others.

Trans people have always existed, they are here. You can chose to accommodate them, or you can chose to diminish, exclude, discriminate, cause harm.

If you chose the latter, there are people who will fight this wrong until it stops.

The 'accommodations'

I’m sure some, perhaps a majority of trans people ‘simply want to be in the world without discrimination or exclusion’ but certainly not ALL of them.
This is another thing I see a lot, heterogeneity. People essentially saying that just because someone is trans, they are automatically an upstanding and moral citizen. There are arseholes in all walks of life.

The poster you quoted was absolutely spot on. If someone wants to become trans, that is obviously absolutely fine. It is not fine to expect to take other people’s rights away from them.

Take one of your examples - gay people. I personally think it’s embarrassing that it took as long as it did to legalise gay marriage. Of course gay people should be allowed to marry the person they love! But this doesn’t affect anyone else, doesn’t take rights away from anyone else. The equivalent would be legalising gay marriage and outlawing heterosexual marriage. Which of course would never happen.

SOME transwomen (not all) believe that women should budge up and allow them to compete against us in sports, enter our rape refuges etc. that’s not ok.

The equivalent would be someone with narcissistic personality disorder demanding everyone treat them as though they are better than everyone else. Someone with NPD would become quite distressed and angry if they aren’t treated as though they are special. But we wouldn’t concede to that.

It is absolutely a burden when male people’s demands for additional privileges negatively impact female people.

And it is a burden to general society when changes to language are demanded for all society to follow based on one group’s philosophical belief about themselves that doesn’t reflect material reality.

I see though you have not acknowledged the fact in your list of comparators, that is ”women, men, children, disabled people, old people, children with SEN, gay people, minority ethnic people”, that these accommodations you demand are for a group’s philosophical belief about themselves that doesn’t reflect material reality.

Can you name other groups in society who have a philosophical belief that doesn’t reflect material reality that have societal accomodations where they are to be treated as if their belief is materially real? Because that would be the correct comparators.

Otherwise you have use falsity to support your argument and are just relying on emotional manipulation. As usual

No - they are actually asking for a world where women can not be given any safeguarding, and where the playing field for women can not be levelled

they ard asking to do away with all sex based rights ( dressed up as just a transperson wanting to go to the toilet of their choice and get on with thier lives)

not everyone has gender , it’s ill defined at best so we can’t provide any laws based on gender

all we can do by trying to accommodate gender in single sex spaces is remove single sex

its MRA in a dress

Trans people are not a burden any more than women, men, children, disabled people, old people, children with SEN, gay people, minority ethnic people, or any other category of people you can think of are a 'burden' simply for asking you to accommodate them.

They are not putting any burden on you or anyone else.

They are simply asking to be in the world, without discrimination and exclusion, like anyone else.

They just want to be left alone. 😥

'Men with underdeveloped penises are still men. Men with differences of sexual development are as male as any other man'.

I am pulling this out of my post to point out something else that is entirely relevant here.

JK Rowling posted this.

Seeing this quote by itself, does anyone think this quote is anything but supportive to male people who have a medical condition? She is saying that male people with a specific group of medical conditions are still male and we should accept them as such.

Yet, people consider this quote problematic. Why? Because a male boxer used a safeguarding loophole created in the IOC rules to allow male athletes to compete as female athletes because of campaigning from lobby groups back into the 1990s. And that despite all the evidence that showed this loophole to be harmful to female athletes and blatently unfair, the IOC refused to change it and put the responsibility back on sporting federations.

And so because a male boxer (more than one at the time ) made considered choices to ignore the needs of female people - safety, well being and other wise - and got into a boxing ring, because of the ‘F’ on a passport, some people believe that JK Rowling’s statement above is the problem.

Once you see the disconnect, it becomes rather clear.

That's not what we were talking about here. Do you not agree that respect is not a one-way street and that it is entirely possible to care about a variety of causes and communities of people? The PP I was replying to confidently stated that issues encountered by asexuals were totally irrelevant to wider society and they should basically shut up and grow up. I dispute that statement because I think issues that are not well understood should be better explained - for the sake of open mindedness and empathy. Why look for antagonism where there isn't any?

We all owe her one, even the women who don't get it.

A very important point

This resonated with me.

It is a burden that they are putting on others.

By all means have a gender identity if that is meaningful to you in some way.

If that means you no longer feel comfortable sharing single sex spaces with members of your own sex, you need to accept that you are now limited to mixed sex spaces or single user spaces, and that competitive sport is probably not for you. (Most people do not do competitive sport, regardless of gender identity.)

But don't put the burden of accommodating your gender identity on other people. Don't be a burden for the taxpayer. Don't be a burden for legislators. Don't be a burden for women who really do just want a safe space to pee.

It is entirely your choice to believe that there is such a thing as an identity which matches or doesn't match any type of genitalia.

Yes, she's a common sense feminist! A real one. Plenty of men and women are appalled by her, but they are a loud minority to the vast, vast amount of people that agree with her.

She's holding the line on a value system that was the way we all thought only a few years ago. One example is that men shouldn't be able to use women's toilets. She understands that if you change the meaning of the word woman, plus change who counts as 'trans' (i.e. count cross dressing men) then women will be the losers.

She's just beyond awesome. She was my hero before this whole debate anyway. We all owe her one, even the women who don't get it.

I think I'd be a little bit ashamed of myself if I'd just swallowed the 'jkr is an awful person' line without any kind of investigation to see if it was true.

I mean, did it seem likely?

We all need to be more conscious than ever before of the power of our echo chambers. Some very odd ideas have taken hold in the political extremes of both sides of the divide.

I don’t think some people understand the degree of burden they put on others to be honest.

There is comfort in being able to point out and declare that she is worthy of being censured because they need to feel they, personally, are kind and nice. Whereas, when you end up extrapolating their personal view further, it is their view that causes harm to female people.

I suppose the difference is that our 'echo chamber' actually makes a difference. The combined might of politically and socially engaged women writing to their elected representatives, contributing to crowd funders, signing petitions etc has actually made an impact. The most egregious forms of the takeover of women's rights has been pushed back in Scotland in particular by grassroots activism. The founders of For Women Scotland actually met on Mumsnet and have taken on the entirely captured Scottish Government. And won.

I'll be able to look back and be proud that my tiny contribution to this pushback made a difference. I didn't stick my fingers in my ears and keep to my happy, positive bubble.

Yup. JKR is 'mean' but this kind of sign is A-OK apparently.

It's also worth being in mind that the two women pictured in this photo are -

Kirsten Oswald MP who, at the point this photo, was taken was the Shadow SNP Spokesperson (Equalities), and Shadow SNP Spokesperson (Women).

And

Kaukab Stewart, who was at that point a member of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee and is now the Minister for Equalities.

Scottish Government Ministers.

For anyone who still believes that some male people’s feelings that they are not male people should be treated as material reality, maybe this will help clarify why the majority of people don’t agree that those male people should have access to single sex provision based on their philosophical belief that they are female.

Amy Sousa (knownheretic) tweet 17/6/2025

”Feeling are sensations. They are either physical sensations or emotional sensations.”

”There are no female physical sensations that men have access to experience, so they can’t “feel like a woman” physically.”

”And there are no woman specific emotions. So they can’t “feel like a woman” emotionally.”

”The phrase “feel like a woman” is actually and obsessive ideation. The obsessive thoughts may cause anxiety or depression or other feelings, but female is not a feeling.”

I find the asymmetry of the empathy/benefit of the doubt shown to each side on this issue very telling,

Significant sympathy for Khelif who may or may not have been brought up female until puberty. But never a mention of the women who had to box against him for their Olympic experience - despite not consenting to box a man.

Similarity, so much scrutiny as to JKR's words, timing, tone - yet the TRAs wave signs saying 'decapitate TERFS' and no one seems to bat an eye.

Funny that

Well, bring back Potter day. The TV series is going to be huge!

'This is just an example of when her response felt kneejerk and news driven rather than smart.'

And this is an example of the degree you feel the need to stay in your own narrow comfort zone and to need a person who refuses to take responsibility for his own actions to be honest before you will credit those who could see and speak with the clarity you choose not to have.

JK Rowling does the work of researching the topics that she posts on. When it comes to supporting prioritising sex over gender where sex matters to the issue at hand, she has rarely, if ever, put a foot wrong. She researches and probably strategically contacts her legal team before she posts on twitter about these topics. She often carefully chooses her words.

'I thought calling Imane Khelif, the Olympic boxer, a man on social media was a particular mis-step.'

Accuracy matters. Looking at JK Rowling's time line, please link us to the first tweet where she calls Khelif a 'man'. And this is why to you she is a loud mouth, to others she really is more strategic then you seem to be able to credit her for.

JK Rowling called Khelif a 'male' boxer at the start. ie from the Paris Olympics until 31 May 2025. She used the phrase 'Men with underdeveloped penises are still men. Men with differences of sexual development are as male as any other man'. on 29th May. But this is not directly calling Khelif a man.

On the 31 May, World Boxing announced that Khelif specifically would need to do a PCR test to prove eligibility under their new rules for competing. The next day a previous test result was leaked by a journalist who had a copy.

So, you put higher value on a male boxer's feelings than you do on the safety of female boxers, and their right to not be punched by male boxers. Particularly male boxers who have known for a long time that they are male and who made very deliberate decisions to still punch women.

You do this behind the comfort of a platitude of 'it is complicated'. No. It really isn't when you understand how the OIC allowed this and perpetuated the travesty that caused harm to women and girls. To female athletes in any event that allowed a group of male people to enter the Olympics as female athletes.