What has JK Rowling said or done that’s transphobic

TRAs sending their best again, I see. LOL indeed.

It's funny because it's a patently ridiculous, absurd and outrageous attempt at a straw man.

"You think it should be a condition of employment that women should have to undress in front of men and expose their undressed bodies to them?"

Said no one ever.

To be honest your posts aren't worthy of a response. But I thought I'd give them a lol.

It's been explained very clearly on the first page why people consider JKR transphobic.

Rowling holds gender-critical beliefs under which sex is immutable and trans women remain male, campaigns to ensure that law and institutions treat sex rather than gender identity as decisive in all contexts, and repeatedly has used language that portrays trans female identity as false, performative or male intrusion. People who define transphobia as including systematic invalidation or denigration of transgender identities therefore have substantial direct evidence for calling her transphobic.

The response from the majority of posters has been - yeh but that's just true!

So, yes, do the maths.

basically anyone who thinks that women/female is only someone who is biologically of the class that might be expected to be able to bear children at some point in their life is automatically transphobic

and anyone who thinks that class of people deserves their own name, and may have things done solely for them ( such as medicine tested on the female population ) is automatically transphobic

it is transphobic to ask for a middle ground where we all live respecting each other.

People must accept people with penises as women in any circumstance if they want to avoid being considered transphobic

simple

So not only have they redefined women to be all females plus anyone else who wants to be female

they have also redefined respectful disagreement with to be “phobia”

We currently have some old bloke in a girl's school uniform hanging around outside schools locally.

Is it transphobic to point out that we don't want that kind of shit in our spaces?

Is it an acceptable trans identity?
He just wants to be like the other girls!

I can see @Lacksie 's point. If your definition of Transphobia means not accepting that someone's internal sense of gender identity is what makes them a man or a woman, JKR is transphobic.

As are the majority of the population, the accepted definition of Man and Woman throughout history, the law of the U.K. and material reality.

The trouble for gender critical people is that this is as blatantly obvious as "your age is how long you've been alive, not that you still feel 22 inside."

We can't accept an internally subjective perception being more important than objective material reality. Society and its mores just fall down if we have no agreed terms or frame of reference.

For example, most countries can probably agree child labour is bad, but if some countries decide a child is under 3 and others say under 19, we have no agreement at all.

That's a straw man I'm afraid.

It is not automatically transphobic to say that biological sex exists, that birth sex can be medically relevant, or that there are some contexts where sex matters.
The disagreement is about whether those facts justify treating trans women as fraudulent, ridiculous or inherently threatening, or refusing to recognise their identity.

You can believe that sex matters in medicine, sport or some safeguarding contexts without saying that trans women are simply “men performing femaleness”, or suggesting that recognising them as women is inherently a “foundational falsehood”.

So no, the choice is not “accept anyone with a penis as a woman in every conceivable circumstance or be called transphobic”. There is obviously room for distinctions and competing rights. The question is how people talk about trans people and what conclusions they draw from sex differences, not whether biology is allowed to exist.

Tbh, your posts just show your ignorance of the Sandie Peggie case, as that is exactly what it was about, amongst broader issues - the tribunal found that her employer harassed her because she complained about a man being in the female changing room, and they continued to permit him to be in there, while she and other women were in there undressing.

Furthermore, Dr Upton was malicious enough to complain about her refusing to dress in front of him, and NHS Fife sided with him, disciplining Peggie for removing herself from a situation where she would have to expose her undressed body to him. That created a situation where she had to undress in front of a man or be disciplined.

It's not so long ago that a man in a female changing room would have been swiftly and correctly identified as a flasher or a Peeping Tom, or both. Thankfully, we are now returning to this state of sanity.

To be honest your posts aren't worthy of a response. This did make me chuckle, coming as it did from somebody who drops a lol as a response to a serious point, but I respond to you more so that others can be informed:

There are a lot of problems with the logic here, but I’ll challenge just this one: reducing being trans to a false “subjective perception” that somehow defies “material reality”.

That is not a neutral description of trans people. It assumes the conclusion from the outset: that gender identity is simply an false belief about reality, rather than a real, material, and psychologically meaningful characteristic of human diversity. It rests on a fundamental misunderstanding of what being trans actually is.

Once you define trans identity as a delusion or mistaken feeling, the rest of the argument follows very easily — but only because you have built the rejection of trans identity into the premise.

That framing does matter, because treating trans identity as inherently false, irrational or detached from reality is exactly the kind of belief that generates prejudice and discrimination.

Edited - post appeared twice, 10 minutes apart for some reason.

I am well acquainted with the case. Needless to say I fully reject your 9interpretation of who was "malicious" and harassing.

Without getting in to that here - there was no requirement of Sadie Peggie's employment for her to undress in front of any person, regardless of their gender. To assert that there was is perfectly silly.

I'm sure you do reject my interpretation of who was malicious and harassing, as your posts make it patently clear that you are anti-women's rights, and prioritise men's feelings over women's safety.

there was no requirement of Sadie Peggie's employment for her to undress in front of any person, regardless of their gender. You clearly are not as well-acquainted with the case as you presume, as this was, in effect, what NHS were demanding.

I don’t define gender identity as a delusion

I do see it as a belief - a mental image
it’s one that not everyone has
and it I examine my “gender” I don’t see myself as a woman

and I can’t see why gender identify is import at though - why it’s should trump biological reality

you might identify as British but if the immigration office sees you as objectively holding an Afghan passport and no British one - your identify will be ignored. It’s utterly irrelevant.

and that might feel dismissive to someone who finds it important to them. But life is tough and it isn’t all about you and your identify

Quite, I would agree broadly with this, but I would add that there are very good reasons why gender identity should not trump biological reality, and it is nothing but misogyny to assert otherwise.

I feel the whole gender identify thing is imisogynistic but generally sexist - enforcing of gender expectations

Ad hominem attack 🙄 <yawn>. I’m a feminist. I hate MRAs, etc. etc.

And no, that was not “in effect” what the NHS was demanding, nor is it what the tribunal found.

There was no requirement of Sandie Peggie’s employment that she undress in front of Dr Upton — or indeed in front of anyone, woman, man or otherwise.

Saying that the NHS was effectively requiring her to do so is simply silly.

But describing gender identity as simply a “belief” or “mental image” is far too superficial. Being trans really isn’t analogous to believing in a religion or holding an opinion about yourself. That is a misunderstanding of what gender identity is.
Reducing transness to a subjective belief ignores the complex interaction of neurobiology, development and psychology underlying gender identity.

A lot of people don't understand these things and haven't taken the time to look into them, and then easily dismiss being trans as simply another "subjective belief". That's really, really, really, not what it is, it leads to misunderstanding, discrimination and prejudice, and it's the kind of thing that JKR systematically spends her time promoting.

But if you say that TIM should not be allowed in women’s sports or some women’s spaces, you are acknowledging they are not women and therefore should not be allowed in any women’s spaces. No woman is excluded from women’s sports or spaces. Men are though. However they present or claim womanhood.

but Upton is a man. He was in the female changing room. He should not have been there. He is a predatory, nasty man.

@Lacksie
You can believe that sex matters in medicine, sport or some safeguarding contexts without saying that trans women are simply “men performing femaleness”, or suggesting that recognising them as women is inherently a “foundational falsehood”.

As a man can never be a woman - it is biologically impossible, it is confirmed as legally impossible in the UK as well…

how would you wish to describe a man who dresses as / pretends to be a woman…

man performing femaleness sounds quite accurate…

And if it’s not a falsehood then what is it - certainly not truth…

He is a predatory, nasty man

This is transphobia right here.
DU was a lovely young doctor, who, through no fault of her own, is trans.

reducing being trans to a false “subjective perception” that somehow defies “material reality”.

If a woman is female human being like a mare is a female horse and a vixen is a female fox, a transwoman can never be a woman because they fail at the first hurdle, being female.

I assume we all accept trans people have not altered their birth sex, Lacksie? Femininity is gender, female is sex. Transwomen cannot be female and women and transmen cannot be men.

(We don't talk about transmen as much as they don't present a potential threat to men, being female, that transwomen potentially present to women. Th risk is all on the transman's side and that's for them to decide on. Plus, as a second wave feminist, I include transmen in my feminism)

That doesn't make their inner sense less important to them, nor does it mean they should be treated poorly because of it. However, our internal realities don't govern policy. Nor do they allow people to access things made for the opposite sex. That disadvantages the members of that sex and is neither reasonable nor proportionate.

There's definitely a discussion to be had about when and where sex segregation is reasonable.

Hahahaa no. The only criteria to be a TIM is to be a man. He preyed on nurses to validate his delusion. He claimed to be a biological female and stated if a patient requested a female doctor, he would treat them. So therefore nasty and predatory. Prove me wrong…. I’ll wait.

He preyed on nurses to validate his delusion. He claimed to be a biological female and stated if a patient requested a female doctor, he would treat them. So therefore nasty and predatory.

All of this is a flagrant, brazen expression of transphobia, and is precisely the kind of attitude systematically promoted by JKR.