What has JK Rowling said or done that’s transphobic

A specific brain injury is not a mental illness. No. And it's not helpful to think of it that way or assume it can be cured through psychological treatments and therapy, or that it say anything about about the person’s wider mental health or psychological wellbeing.
A neurological injury can alter perception, cognition or body representation without making the person mentally ill in the broader psychiatric sense.

Just because it's directed at trans women and not trans men doesn't mean it's not transphobic. I'ts mocking trans women.

Straw man. I’m not claiming that a brain injury is the same as mental illness. Try again.

If it’s not delusional, answer me this without resorting to circularity or regressive stereotypes.

What does it mean to feel like a woman?

Straw man. I’m not claiming that a brain injury is the same as mental illness. Try again.

Straw man. I’m not claiming that a brain injury is the same as mental illness. Try again.

Well then you are not addressing the only point I was making 💁🏼‍♀️. I was trying to explain that the brain can represent the body in ways that do not necessarily map directly onto physical anatomy without the issue being mental illness.

It's mocking and deriding trans experience.

Actually, people can experience phantom limbs despite having been born without the limb in question, so once again your assumptions - and the sweeping conclusions you are drawing from them are simply wrong. buddy.

So rather than the analogy “falling at the first hurdle”, your objection actually demonstrates the very assumption I was challenging — that the brain can only represent a body state it has physically experienced before. Neurologically, that simply isn’t true.

Also fyi the type of neurological phenomenon I am describing really can't be cured by 'therapy'.

Well then you are not addressing the only point I was making 💁🏼‍♀️. I was trying to explain that the brain can represent the body in ways that do not necessarily map directly onto physical anatomy without the issue being mental illness.

Hang on, though. Lacksie clearly believes that you are, and that, by Lacksie's lights, makes it a fact. Now what?

Well then you are not addressing the only point I was making 💁🏼‍♀️. I was trying to explain that the brain can represent the body in ways that do not necessarily map directly onto physical anatomy without the issue being mental illness.

Well then you are not addressing the only point I was making 💁🏼‍♀️. I was trying to explain that the brain can represent the body in ways that do not necessarily map directly onto physical anatomy without the issue being mental illness.

Your examples are examples of the brain mapping the body incorrectly. Which would suggest when a transperson claims to be the other sex - because that is ‘what their brain is telling them’ - they are also incorrect.

No one is asking you to affirm a “delusion”. They are asking you to recognise that their neurocognitive experience is real, and to treat them in ways that do not unnecessarily intensify the psychological distress or discordance associated with that experience.

You can disagree about the boundaries of law, medicine, sport or particular sex-based spaces without pretending that the underlying experience itself is fake, delusional or merely attention-seeking.

When you look at yourself in the mirror and recognise yourself as female, that is your gender identity. The fact that it feels completely unremarkable or invisible to you doesn’t mean you don’t have one — it simply means that your gender identity aligns with your birth sex, so you’ve never had any reason to notice or question it.

I don’t think it’s a question of whether something is “correct” or “incorrect”. Why are you so determined that trans people must be "wrong"?

It’s no more “incorrect” to be trans than it is to be gay or to have a disorder of sex development — they are simply varieties of human diversity.

A trans person can be fully aware of their physical anatomy while still having a persistent sense of themselves as male or female that does not correspond to the sex associated with that anatomy. That is a neurocognitive and psychological experience; it is not the same thing as being factually mistaken about what body parts they have. it's not a proposition that can meaningfully be marked as right or wrong, it's simply an cognitive reality that some people have to live with.

No. I’m saying I disagree with your dogmatic and rather self-important insistence that your preferred use of language is the only objectively legitimate one.

No one is asking you to pretend that trans women were born with female reproductive anatomy. They are not asking you to pretend anything.

They are asking you to recognise that being trans is a real human experience, and to allow language and social treatment to reflect that reality rather than insisting that reproductive anatomy must dictate every aspect of how a person is described and treated in society.

You are perfectly entitled to think birth sex or reproductive anatomy matters in particular contexts. What you are not entitled to do is turn your preferred definition of the word “woman” into an empirical proof that trans people are deluded.

In fact, the pretence runs the other way: you are asking trans people to deny or suppress a deeply rooted aspect of themselves because it does not fit your preferred linguistic framework.

I don’t think it’s a question of whether something is “correct” or “incorrect”. Why are you so determined that trans people must be "wrong"?

It’s no more “incorrect” to be trans than it is to be gay or to have a disorder of sex development — they are simply varieties of human diversity.

A trans person can be fully aware of their physical anatomy while still having a persistent sense of themselves as male or female that does not correspond to the sex associated with that anatomy. That is a neurocognitive and psychological experience; it is not the same thing as being factually mistaken about what body parts they have. it's not a proposition that can meaningfully be marked as right or wrong, it's simply an cognitive reality that some people have to live with.

It’s no more “incorrect” to be trans than it is to be gay or to have a disorder of sex development — they are simply varieties of human diversity.

Your attempts to conflate the material and moral senses of the word “correct” are much more obvious than you think they are. Try again.

Hmmm
actually your use of these words is doing more work than you acknowledge.

“Correct” can mean factually accurate, but when you apply it to a person’s identity or way of being it also easily takes on a normative — even moral or religious — sense of being the “right” or “proper” kind of person.

My point is that being trans is not usefully understood as either a factual mistake or a moral error. A trans person can understand their physical anatomy perfectly well while still recognised/ perceive themselves as the other sex.

That experience is not a false proposition about anatomy; it is a neurocognitive reality that they have to live with everyday. So I don’t think that whether a trans person is “correct” or “incorrect” about who they are is a meaningful or relevant question.

Hmmm
actually your use of these words is doing more work than you acknowledge.

“Correct” can mean factually accurate, but when you apply it to a person’s identity or way of being it also easily takes on a normative — even moral or religious — sense of being the “right” or “proper” kind of person.

My point is that being trans is not usefully understood as either a factual mistake or a moral error. A trans person can understand their physical anatomy perfectly well while still recognised/ perceive themselves as the other sex.

That experience is not a false proposition about anatomy; it is a neurocognitive reality that they have to live with everyday. So I don’t think that whether a trans person is “correct” or “incorrect” about who they are is a meaningful or relevant question.

Of course.

"gender critical theory/ feminism" is a political movement which gained traction in the UK in the late 2010s around the time of the proposed reforms to the gender recognition act. "gender critical" feminists argued that replacing the "objective" construct of "sex" with the "subjective" construct of "gender" in law, was a threat to the “sex”-based rights of women and girls, compromising fairness, service provision, accurate data collection, dignity, safety, and protections against discrimination and violence.

The problem with gender critical theory/ feminism is that it rests of a number of overly simplistic and ultimately erroneous core assumptions that result in contradictions. The most important of these are: the positing of “sex” as an objective, fixed and unitary measure, and second (relatedly), the framing of “sex” and “gender” as fundamentally distinct and separable constructs.