What has JK Rowling said or done that’s transphobic

This exactly. There are no examples of her being transphobic.

The belief that someone is born in the wrong body is just that - a belief. There’s no scientific backing to it. I don’t believe in gender identity just like I don’t believe in the teachings of the Catholic Church. It’s doesn’t mean I’m ‘Catholic Church-phobic’. There’s no crime in me saying I think the Catholic Church teachings are nonsense is there? Why the drama about someone thinking gender identity is made up nonsense?

I’ve never read the books or seen the films, I might give this new series a watch.

I’ve never read the books or seen the films, I might give this new series a watch.

Do you have any robust evidence to support that claim?

I think this is a much more legitimate question, because it moves away from “are trans people deluded (lying, pretending, etc. etc.?)” and onto the actual policy issue: how do we accommodate trans people while also protecting privacy, dignity, safety and sex-segregated settings?

I don’t think recognising trans women as women linguistically, socially or legally requires us to say that birth sex or reproductive anatomy must become irrelevant in every context. It is perfectly possible to be inclusive of trans people while also acknowledging that birth sex and anatomy can matter too. I also don’t think “everyone who says they are a woman must therefore be admitted everywhere women are” is the only possible model. Rules can take account of behaviour, safeguarding, privacy, medical transition, individual risk assessment or the particular purpose of the space.

What I object to is the framing of trans women as inherently deluded, mentally ill, dishonest or predatory, and the idea that their identity is therefore illegitimate and should be disregarded everywhere. I also think policy is moving in a very irrational and troubling direction. I don’t think there is any sound logic or good evidence to support the idea that excluding all trans women from women’s toilets would improve women’s dignity, privacy or safety.

Recognising that trans identity is real does not settle questions about language, toilets, prisons, etc. Those are separate conversations and I think they should be answered on evidence about actual risks and harms rather than by starting from the assumption that trans people are lying, deluded or illegitimate.

I think this is a much more legitimate question, because it moves away from “are trans people deluded (lying, pretending, etc. etc.?)” and onto the actual policy issue: how do we accommodate trans people while also protecting privacy, dignity, safety and sex-segregated settings?

I don’t think recognising trans women as women linguistically, socially or legally requires us to say that birth sex or reproductive anatomy must become irrelevant in every context. It is perfectly possible to be inclusive of trans people while also acknowledging that birth sex and anatomy can matter too. I also don’t think “everyone who says they are a woman must therefore be admitted everywhere women are” is the only possible model. Rules can take account of behaviour, safeguarding, privacy, medical transition, individual risk assessment or the particular purpose of the space.

What I object to is the framing of trans women as inherently deluded, mentally ill, dishonest or predatory, and the idea that their identity is therefore illegitimate and should be disregarded everywhere. I also think policy is moving in a very irrational and troubling direction. I don’t think there is any sound logic or good evidence to support the idea that excluding all trans women from women’s toilets would improve women’s dignity, privacy or safety.

Recognising that trans identity is real does not settle questions about language, toilets, prisons, etc. Those are separate conversations and I think they should be answered on evidence about actual risks and harms rather than by starting from the assumption that trans people are lying, deluded or illegitimate.

I think this is a much more legitimate question, because it moves away from “are trans people deluded (lying, pretending, etc. etc.?)” and onto the actual policy issue: how do we accommodate trans people while also protecting privacy, dignity, safety and sex-segregated settings?

I don’t think recognising trans women as women linguistically, socially or legally requires us to say that birth sex or reproductive anatomy must become irrelevant in every context. It is perfectly possible to be inclusive of trans people while also acknowledging that birth sex and anatomy can matter too. I also don’t think “everyone who says they are a woman must therefore be admitted everywhere women are” is the only possible model. Rules can take account of behaviour, safeguarding, privacy, medical transition, individual risk assessment or the particular purpose of the space.

What I object to is the framing of trans women as inherently deluded, mentally ill, dishonest or predatory, and the idea that their identity is therefore illegitimate and should be disregarded everywhere. I also think policy is moving in a very irrational and troubling direction. I don’t think there is any sound logic or good evidence to support the idea that excluding all trans women from women’s toilets would improve women’s dignity, privacy or safety.

Recognising that trans identity is real does not settle questions about language, toilets, prisons, etc. Those are separate conversations and I think they should be answered on evidence about actual risks and harms rather than by starting from the assumption that trans people are lying, deluded or illegitimate.

I think this is a much more legitimate question, because it moves away from “are trans people deluded (lying, pretending, etc. etc.?)” and onto the actual policy issue: how do we accommodate trans people while also protecting privacy, dignity, safety and sex-segregated settings?

I don’t think recognising trans women as women linguistically, socially or legally requires us to say that birth sex or reproductive anatomy must become irrelevant in every context. It is perfectly possible to be inclusive of trans people while also acknowledging that birth sex and anatomy can matter too. I also don’t think “everyone who says they are a woman must therefore be admitted everywhere women are” is the only possible model. Rules can take account of behaviour, safeguarding, privacy, medical transition, individual risk assessment or the particular purpose of the space.

What I object to is the framing of trans women as inherently deluded, mentally ill, dishonest or predatory, and the idea that their identity is therefore illegitimate and should be disregarded everywhere. I also think policy is moving in a very irrational and troubling direction. I don’t think there is any sound logic or good evidence to support the idea that excluding all trans women from women’s toilets would improve women’s dignity, privacy or safety.

Recognising that trans identity is real does not settle questions about language, toilets, prisons, etc. Those are separate conversations and I think they should be answered on evidence about actual risks and harms rather than by starting from the assumption that trans people are lying, deluded or illegitimate.

I'm going to follow the general theme of the TRAs on this thread that have failed to even acknowledge my question and say

Trust me bro

insert wall of word salad here

I'm not google. If you want to refute it, look it up.

.. MN tech error duplicate post

I'm going to follow the general theme of the TRAs on this thread that have failed to even acknowledge my question and say

Trust me bro

insert wall of word salad here

I'm not google. If you want to refute it, look it up.

Thanks for sharing the screenshot. Even taking it at face value, I don’t think there is enough context there to know exactly what she meant, and certainly not enough evidence to conclude that India Willoughby is literally deluded about her anatomy. A single remark like “show you my cervix” could be rhetorical, sarcastic or imprecise. It doesn’t establish a persistent false belief about what anatomy she has.

There also doesn’t appear to be any contemporaneous reporting or archived copy of the tweet, and it is no longer on her account. If the screenshot is genuine, we cannot know from this alone whether it was a serious literal claim, something said rhetorically or in frustration, or something she later deleted because she realised it was unhelpful.

I certainly don’t think a single unverified screenshot with no context should be relied upon as evidence on which to build a wider argument about trans people as a group.

No I don't accept that characterisation of the general discussion or my contributions to it.

I’m not going to be dragged into a completely separate argument about sexual offending statistics. Even if I took your claims at face value (I don't), they arent relevant to the point I was making.

My argument was simply that being trans does not logically require someone to be delusional or mentally ill, and that describing a person’s sense of themselves as “the brain telling them something false” is an oversimplified way of talking about cognition.

I certainly haven’t claimed that trans people have “female brains”. And repeatedly demanding that I explain sexual offending rates is asking me to defend a claim I didn’t make.

If you want to respond to what I actually said, that’s fine. I’m not going to keep following unrelated tangents.

I’m not going to be dragged into a completely separate argument about sexual offending statistics. Even if I took your claims at face value (I don't), they arent relevant to the point I was making.

My argument was simply that being trans does not logically require someone to be delusional or mentally ill, and that describing a person’s sense of themselves as “the brain telling them something false” is an oversimplified way of talking about cognition.

I certainly haven’t claimed that trans people have “female brains”. And repeatedly demanding that I explain sexual offending rates is asking me to defend a claim I didn’t make.

If you want to respond to what I actually said, that’s fine. I’m not going to keep following unrelated tangents.

It's very telling how much evidence you require, and how quick you are to suggest alternative explanations, for facts that don't fit your narrative compared to your absolute confidence in the veracity of trans people's subjective "recognitions" existing in their own right and your absolute rejection of alternative explanations that fit the observed facts equally well.

It's very telling how much evidence you require, and how quick you are to suggest alternative explanations, for facts that don't fit your narrative compared to your absolute confidence in the veracity of trans people's subjective "recognitions" existing in their own right and your absolute rejection of alternative explanations that fit the observed facts equally well.

“Do you have any robust evidence to support that claim?”

That’s a no, then.

How much evidence I require? You think pointing out that an unverified screenshot of a single tweet, without context, cannot reasonably be relied upon as evidence that an individual is delusional — let alone as the basis for a wider argument about trans people as a group — demonstrates an excessive standard of evidence??

But you’re failing to come up with anything tangible that anyone more that you can refinish as being a thing. And that will be why I think gender identity is nonsense. And they will be why you think it’s not, cause you can see something that I can’t. So gender critical people - like JKR - take an absolute hammering for not seeing something that they’re blind to or may not even exist. Does that sound fair?

And can we agree that single sex spaces should be divided by biological sex only, as per the law? It’s they only way for women to maintain their privacy, dignity and safety.