What has JK Rowling said or done that’s transphobic

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/26895269.2024.2440856

Trans people are a marganised group by any realistic study or metric. Pretending they’re not because “they’re just men”, is transphobia.

JK Rowling has a moral obligation as a person of influence not to make lives more difficult for marganised groups and she is failing that obligation. She is punching downwards.

She writes about, talks about and campaigns for a great many other things. Her charity Lumos, for example, as well as her books and media projects.

There is little reporting on any of that because the only narrative the media is interested in is stoking an online bunfight with JKR as the Left's pantomime villain.

I think she just has no more fucks to give about 'playing nice' and pandering to all that nonsense. She is often blunt these days. I can't say I blame her, after the hate mail and violent threats she's put up with in the past 6 years.

Are you baffled that she created Beira's Place? Do you think she set it up from a position of sneering bigotry?

No I think it’s great and needed.

Orrr… she is standing up for women. You know, a group oppressed for years because of their sex. Or do they not count in your opinion? If trans rights don’t affect women’s rights, why is women standing up for their rights transphobic?

Why do you think it was needed? Was it because every other rape crisis centre in Scotland allowed Trans identified men in? Even though this meant rape survivors suffered more trauma. Or was it just because she’s an evil transphobic bigot?

Right so everyone agrees that you can't change sex. Spaces and services that are single-sex are, obviously, separated on the basis of sex not gender. Therefore there should be no controversy in excluding anyone, regardless of identity, from those spaces and services not aligned to their sex. (Which you acknowledge cannot be changed)

Which brings us to

if you labour under the misapprehension that gender is not real because it's a social construct, then you can very much just write the whole thing off and tell yourself you're not transphobic because there's no such thing as gender so therefore there's no such thing as transgender, so therefore transphobia doesn't exist.

Firstly I wonder whether you mean gender or whether you mean gender identity. Nevertheless, the notion of gender as an apparatus (socially constructed) of patriarchal oppression is not a particularly novel feminist concept. The idea of individuals having an innate gender (or gender identity) that occasionally somehow finds itself inside the 'wrong' body is newer, and heavily contested. Having said that, I can refuse to believe that individuals have a 'gender' in much the same way as I can refuse to believe that individuals have a soul that will return to heaven, or have a spiritual aura. My refusal to believe the first of those doesn't mean that 'transgender people' don't exist, any more than refusing to believe the others causes religious people or new agers to disappear.

What you really mean is that it is not enough to acknowledge that transgender people exist, everyone must also accept their beliefs about themselves and the world around them. According to you, failure to accept everything they believe somehow denies their existence and is therefore by definition transphobic.

The main one not only allowed men, it was run by a man.

Exactly the one who told rape survivors if they didn’t like being in groups with men in, they should “reframe their trauma”.

JK Rowling has a moral obligation as a person of influence not to make lives more difficult for marganised groups and she is failing that obligation. She is punching downwards.

JKR is defending the rights of women who have experienced rape and sexual violence by setting up and entirely funding Beira's Place.

She's bankrolling legal fees for working women discriminated against in the workplace for needing male-free changing facilities.

She's paid for the evacuation of female justices from Afghanistan to escape certain execution by the Taliban.

She's fighting against discriminatory laws that put vulnerable female prisoners in with violent male sex offenders

She's defending children in care and institutions across the world with Lumos.

If you think she's 'punching down', you aren't giving a shit about women and children, here and worldwide.

Trans people aren't facing abuse because gender critical feminists defend women's rights.

Yes I think it’s a good thing that people have an option to go rape crisis centres where only biological women are.

I think the issue with this debate is that all nuance is being lost.

I can believe this is a good thing whilst at the same time believe trans women’s lives are made harder by a wealthy acclaimed writer constantly belittling them, misgendering them and accusing them of being sexual deviants.

Trans people are not marginalised in Britain. They are free to present as they wish and change their names. They can use facilities everyone else does.

They are protected under the EqA and can work, rent or buy accommodation and marry.

What they cannot do is use services and opportunities designed for the opposite sex. But none of us can. They have the same rights as everyone else.

JK Rowling has a moral obligation as a person of influence not to make lives more difficult for marganised groups and she is failing that obligation. She is punching downwards.

Women are not obligated to pretend that men with gender identities are anything other than men.

JKR understands the safeguarding fails if we pretend that men are women. That's not punching downwards, thats protecting women and children.

and accusing them of being sexual deviants

I think the actual convicted sex attackers who claim a trans identity (Karen White, Barbie Kardashian, Isla Bryson, Katie Dolatowski, Andrew Miller/Amy George etc all) are doing the bulk of the convincing people there are sexual deviants in the trans movement.

Misgendering them? You mean correctly sexing them.

Accusing them of being sexually deviant? you mean calling out the numerous cases, like that of trans identified male Isla Bryson, of males who access women’s spaces (in this case a male rapist in a women’s prison) for nefarious means.

Belittling them? responding with tongue in cheek edge to posters like India Willoughby who attack JK in an ongoing non humorous and often very spiteful and poisonous fashion.

If anything, JK is exceedingly calm and composed in the face of TRA thugs, some of whom are still sending her a dozen death threats a day every day.

That’s not how marginalisation works…

You argee with JKR that women need space away from all men, include TW.

Therefore you do not see TW as women?

Thats all JKR has said to be acused of being transphobic.

If you were in the same position and able to fund women only spaces, you would be accused of being transphobic, too.

The 'constant belittling' is TRA being aware that her centre exists.

But don’t you think women’s lives are made harder by trans allies issuing rape threats, death threats, threats of violence and being called bigots and transphobes just for saying they want and need single sex spaces? Didn’t a prominent trans ally state he believed women asking for their single sex spaces deserved to be raped with a splintery rolling pin?

In what way then do you believe they are marginalised?

Then why haven't they claimed the million pound reward offered for any proof of a transphobic statement by JKR? should be easy if what you say is true.

Exactly how are 'trans people' marginalised.

I am a white male British citizen from a good social background / public school etc. - I am probably the most stereotypical you can get of non-marginalised groups of people...

yet if I claim to be a woman (I need do nothing else - no putting on a skirt / no surgery / no pronoun or name change) - just claim to be a woman - suddenly I am 'trans' and I am now marginalised?!

The claims on here become more ridiculous by the day - and need calling out for the absurdity that they are...

so how do you define trans / how do you define marginalised etc. - using normal meanings of those word - 'trans people' aren't marginalised...

As for JKR's obligations - I think she does more than most as others have said...

Look. It's very simple.

Of course social constructs can be real, or at least have real consequences. After all, plenty of architectural womders have been built and atrocities and wars committed for gods who probably don't exist beyond a social construct.

Indeed, a key insight of Feminism was exactly that there is a difference between the fact of being female and the social constructs laid on top of that fact. We understood that way before Genderist activism. We knew how those constructs placed expectations on and about female people and that had (and still has) very real consequences for us, often far more than the consequences of our physical differences to men.

Indeed, you could very easily make the arguments that Sexism is basically a collective noun for the consequences of Gender constructs being applied on top of sex.

That's exactly why we reject a social movement that frames gender as more significant than sex. Because to a Feminist, Gender constructs are the mechanism through which sexism and misogyny get enforced and replicated.

But consuder: if sex isn't gender then gender isn't sex.

And if gender isn't sex then there is and never has been any justification to change the language of sex to label gender identity.

And there certainly isn't any justification to point at things created for female people, point at the word "woman" and say basically "yeah but we decided woman means something different now so that means these things must have been supposed to be for our new "women" instead".

If Genderists really believed in Gender as something real and meaningful they wouldn't be trying to hide it under language. They'd give it its own language to show it isn't sex and talk about it plainly.

But they don't. They play a double game where sex isn't gender when it comes to arguing that male people are "women" or female are "men", but gender is sex when it comes to arguing that female people are irrational to say to to trans women's inclusion in clearly sex-based concerns like provision of intimate care.

Amd the fact they don't is all anyone really needs to see to understand this movement is not an honest one.

I do wonder if people think that JK refusing to accept biological men as women is worse than the hundreds/thousands of death threats and other horrific things that have been directly said to her.

Of course it's far, far worse, @TheJuryIsOut ! See Bewilderness's rules 3 and 4 of misogyny:

3. Women speaking for themselves are exclusionary and selfish.

4. Women’s opinions are violence against men, thus male violence against women is justified.

If only we evil witches would shut up, those nice activists wouldn't have to threaten to kill or rape us. We're asking for it, when you think about it.