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

This. Apparently saying you can’t change your biological sex is upsetting.

@laughingnow there is a podcast series that discusses this whole thing specifically about JKR called "The Witch Trials of JK Rowling" it's a very good listen!

it starts off with discussions about her Harry Potter books and the impact in ultra religious US states but that's important context setting for the other episodes.

I’m much happier in my bubble than the people in the echo chamber seem to be. I haven’t said where I stand, just that I was surprised to see she hadn’t been cancelled everywhere. Thanks for someone printing out that children want accepted by their peers though; groundbreaking news. I did mention that I spoke of before I joined mumsnet, which was a few years ago. TBH less and less kids know who she is as they don’t seem to read the books as much now; we used to do the Harry Potter day but had to cancel a few years back as kids hadn’t read the books and it’s not something we’d read in secondary. They seem to know more of the theme park. I was surprised that a student chose JKR for a speaking and listening assessment recently.

I don’t see any adults discussing her openly, or of being a terf. Though someone posted on here earlier about pretending to react “oh that’s terrible, what has JK done?” so it’s made me think that people don’t talk the same way in real life as they do on these boards? I suppose that’s true on any part of mumsnet thiugh, I doubt anyone would speak to a stranger the way they do on here.

I don’t disagree with what she says, but I block the FWR forum because of the repetitive nature on there. You know what people are going to say before you open a thread. Women are allowed to be angry. It’s not the gotcha you think it is. Terfisaslur .com etc. My bubble is much more positive to live in and I’m happier for it.

She already had all the facts that she needed that Khelif is a male with a masculinising difference of sexual development, who had failed one test with the IBA and was then excluded from competing as a female in any the IBA and the WBC and the European Boxing organisations bouts. It had already been leaked by a coach also that another test was done by a Paris endocrinologist who confirmed the IBA test. And that an Algerian specialist was lowering Khelif's testosterone to fulfill the obiligation of testosterone suppression for the IOC rules.

She already had the information that the IOC had failed female athletes abhorrently because the IOC very publicly announced that they centred inclusion over fairness. And had done since the late 90s when a group of campaigners successfully convinced the IOC that it was cruel to sex test male people with DSDs that allowed them to utilise the male amounts of testosterone that their own body produces. Hence we now have a slew of male Olympic champions such as Caster Semenya who have competed in female Olympic events.

What made this even more egegrious is the fact that Khelif was at the Olympics punching women in the face for glory!

That you describe this as 'complicated' while supporting Khelif making a deliberate decision to punch female boxers in the ring is an issue you will have to come to terms with about yourself.

It is not complicated as the recent bout in the Nederlands has shown. Khelif had plenty of time to do the required test to compete as the bout organisers had been promoting that Khelif would. In fact, Khelif has already got at least two test results that Khelif could use by approved testing centres that would allow access into the female competition if Khelif was female.

But Khelif is male.

Khelif has a difference in sex development which led to a doctor at the time of birth wrongly stating that Khelif was female. This is obviously an issue for Khelif, however Khelif has known without doubt that they are male not female since 2023. It would be very hard to convince anyone that Khelif has not known since puberty that Khelif is female.

Yet, you are declaring JK Rowling as 'mean' for calling a male a 'man' when that male boxer puts female people at risk of great harm every single time they get in the ring to fight.

JK Rowling has read the very same studies that are available to us all to read, so she knows that Khelif is punching with the atleast 160% more power than the women Khelif is punching.

Yet you feel morally superior in your support of a male boxer punching women in the face.

Respect is never a one way street

But we are supposed to respect men barging in to single sex spaces? Not hear the threats of violence and rape? The actual violence and rape when men are housed in female prisons and hospital wards? Clap along when they steal our records and awards?

Khelif knew he was male as did his family when he went through male puberty. His coaches knew he was male when they put him in the ring to punch women.

I do not put men's feelings above the safety of women & I am pleased JKR doesn't either.

She appears to have been proved 100% right with Khelif though.

And whatever about Khelif's personal situation, it could not possibly justify him going into a ring and punching women in the full knowledge that he's a male with all the benefits of having gone through male puberty.

His opponents did not deserve to have to fight a man without their consent. I'm glad JKR called that out.

I thought calling Imane Khelif, the Olympic boxer, a man on social media was a particular mis-step. Yes she may have failed a gender eligibility test, meaning she might have some kind of intersex condition that makes her participation in professional sort complicated. But this is someone who was born a woman and lived as a women her whole life. Whatever she is, she is not trans. JKR was unnecessarily mean and muddied the water on the issue of trans women in women’s sport (which I’m absolutely against).

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

I would just add though, I think we’re ALL just loudmouths on the internet shouting into the abyss. No one is perfect, and acting like she is, is just as binary as her haters calling her the devil,

Genuinely thank you for posting that link. I'm so fed up of the hate surrounding her for her comments but when I've tried to look into there's never a direct quote, it's always someone 'interpreting ' what she said ie twisting into a transphobic comment.

I think she’s tried all of the ‘be kind’ bollocks in the past and the TRAs have walked all over her. So she’s fighting them at their own game using their rules. She has long since given up giving a fuck what anyone thinks of her. She is glorious.

I like 'actuproof'. It's like proof with bells on.

“But if you have a public profile it’s your right to chose whether you want to put your individualism to one side and act as an ambassador for the cause or if you want to be another loudmouth on the internet. At the end of the day, she's just another human shouting into the abyss, with all the potential for human error that brings.”

Are you meaning to infer she is a loudmouth? And say she is just shouting into the abyss? Really?

She is hardly just shouting into the abyss. She has been pivotal in getting many things done.

Not only that, but I believe you have completely missed the Overton window impact she has. She moves the Overton window so that other people can speak with less fear of being cancelled. She cannot be cancelled so she often says things that need to be articulated by someone who refuses to be cancelled.

That is what being ‘loudmouthed’ can do. Like she drew fire when extreme activists were threatening women with the Scottish hate crime law when it became live.

Being an ‘ambassador’ is not enough sometimes. Sometimes you need to not simply remain polite and above it all. There are moments to move discussion into those areas some claim dismissively, and I believe in this instance incorrectly, are ‘culture wars’ to enact the change needed. Simply remaining ‘ambassadorial’ has been proven not to work.

But yet, we see this type of dismissal often when some people say things like, there has to be a middle ground, or women are so aggressive on this and they don’t need to be, the moderate approach is always best and so on. It is too often from people who really only have a periphery understanding of what has happened and how results are being achieved now.

I know she cares deeply about the cause and has a right to exercise free speech, but personally I don’t think she’s particularly strategic in how she communicates. It’s actually nothing to do with being kind, it’s about being tactical - knowing when to speak and when not to, when to wait for more facts, balancing personal comments with bigger picture ones.

When do you think she should have waited for more facts?

Quite

Yep. Completely agree.

Indeed.

Including women using their voice to usually cleverly highlight issues being akin to Katie Hopkins (wasn’t that mentioned as a comparator up thread) and loud mouthed, hateful and shouting into the abyss.

I still haven’t seen an example of bullying. So I can only assume it is one of those false characterisations or is based on her reacting to the abuse she gets directly from the person she is reacting to.

The reality is that many of her tweets, those which some may find a waste of her effort or uncomfortable reading or whatever they wish to complain about, really often highlight issues that then provide others the awareness to also respond. It is how some people find out about even smaller issues that some consider inconsequential.

I don’t believe that some people understand her power. She is uncancellable. She CAN say things that activists will try to exaggerate but when people are asked to point out the falsity or the hate, they cannot. But her saying it in the first place shifts the Overton window for others.

It is not hard to see the effect once you start looking for it.

I don’t have a doubt in my mind that she has been absolutely instrumental, if not pivotal, in turning the tide on gender.

She has every right to respond and not be kowtowed by the abuse she’s faced, and one of the greatest weapons in her arsenal is searing acerbic wit.

I think the time for decorum - tact, thoughtfulness, restraint, balance, diplomacy etc passed a few years ago.

It’s the age old misogyny though, isn’t it?
They could utter the same sentence and men are assertive, women are aggressive / rude.

Look, I’m a huge huge fan of her work, and in most cases I strongly agree with her viewpoints - especially her initial post and essay. She’s still in my top 3 fantasy dinner party guests. I’m not a hater.

I just think sometimes she plays into the hands of all the people who want to hate her, giving them the sound bites they’re looking for and it makes me roll my eyes a bit.

I know she cares deeply about the cause and has a right to exercise free speech, but personally I don’t think she’s particularly strategic in how she communicates. It’s actually nothing to do with being kind, it’s about being tactical - knowing when to speak and when not to, when to wait for more facts, balancing personal comments with bigger picture ones.

But if you have a public profile it’s your right to chose whether you want to put your individualism to one side and act as an ambassador for the cause or if you want to be another loudmouth on the internet. At the end of the day, she's just another human shouting into the abyss, with all the potential for human error that brings.

I wonder if anyone who believes that a woman who can be now classified as being a women’s rights campaigner should not post anything that someone will take exception to understands the burden of that expectation.

It effectively limits a woman’s voice. If someone cannot find educational value in any interaction, I wonder if they are really so limited as to only learn within a limited range of carefully curated content.

Oh well then. Since I don’t know anyone who disagrees with her does that mean we balance out.

And of course secondary students are not going to go around admitting to liking her with the risk of being ostracised are they? Shall I post the studies that show that around such topics these days that people aged between 18-28 remain silent about their views unless they feel confident they won’t experience negative ramifications? happy to, just let me know.

Why would children feel any different? I suspect there might be even more pressure to remain silent.

Yep, these are the charming people that women are expected to welcome into single sex spaces with open arms. I wonder why some of us are not so keen? 🤔

Same, same.

Yeah, when I first heard that she was an evil bigot who had been brainwashed by the far right into hating a vulnerable and oppressed minority, I thought, "Well, that sounds about as likely as David Attenborough being prosecuted for cruelty to animals, what has she actually said?"

And I went to look for myself, and before too long I was a TERF too.