£1 million prize offered for anyone who can provide a clear example of a transphobic J.K. Rowling quote

I've been brainwashed into knowing there are just the two sexes.

Come on, unbrainwash me. Explain what trans is. And give me some examples of JKRs transphobia.

Should be simple, right? It's been nearly 4 years.

A police officer is trying to recall the events of decades ago and believed the suspect disguised himself in women’s clothing and a wig to avoid arousing suspicion.

But no serial killer would ever go to all the trouble of putting on a wig and a woman’s coat just to avoid getting caught by the police and sent to prison for the rest of his natural life! This is clearly transphobic af. 😡

It is. And as I say, disguises is a thematic of the series! Not really extraordinary in a set of detective stories.

Yes. That is it. In its entirety. There is nothing else. This one line was the entire cause of that outrage. Nuts, isn’t it?

Incidentally, the theme of disguise is across many of the Strike novels, the character of Robin is always dressing as different characters in the course of her work. Nothing odd about that, they are detective novels after all. But the theme of people not being as they first seem is recurrent in most/all of the 6 novels in the series so far.

@NotBadConsidering thank you :) Is that it?

Well I've read the book and couldn't remember a single reference to a cross dresser. Just re-skimmed it quickly (it is a brick!) and as far as I can see there is a reference to a detective looking at recalled witness evidence of two figures struggling in the rain outside a phone box. The witness said it was two women. But because the detective had a male suspect in mind, he assumed one of the taller women was actually a man. As it turns out the assumption was incorrect........ That is ALL I can find. Also watched the tv adaptation and zero mention of cross dresser as I recall. It just isn't there in any obvious way in Troubled Blood. Perhaps the poster above or anyone else can put me right though? Prepared to be proven wrong, but please point to a page reference. Not holding my breath!

In the book, the serial killer didn’t cross dress. A police officer is trying to recall the events of decades ago and believed the suspect disguised himself in women’s clothing and a wig to avoid arousing suspicion. This line forms the entirety of this particular accusation:

I always go a bit quiet round cross dressing, what with wearing blokes' pyjamas (nice and roomy, pure cotton, dirt cheap), blokes' socks (less than I used to now that the women's sizes sometimes go above 41), my dad's old gardening fleece (quite comforting, reminds me of him) and any nice cotton charity-shop shirt in a colour I like - even -gasp Hawaiian shirts.

Lord knows what the true believers would think that makes me.

Short hair too, and unadorned fingernails.

Or use it to win the £million!

It wasn't even 'cross dressing' - they put on a woman's coat as far as I remember. As already discussed on this thread, there is a different Robert Galbraith book with a specifically transwoman character throughout who is written sympathetically. I don't know why, if they want to prove 'how JK R writes actual trans characters' they don't use this as an example rather than a character who has never mentioned being trans/gender etc?

Dean, if they did that, then people would point out what a gross misrepresentation it is.

Actually, was it that one serial killer cross dressed once?

I wish all the people making claims about this book would give us the title, and if possible some page references.

Not even that serial killers sometimes cross-dress. That one fictional serial killer sometimes cross-dressed.

I don't think I'd get a million quid for that, mores the pity, I could do with some dosh.

She wrote an entire book with a transphobic premise

was the “transphobic premise” that serial killers sometimes cross-dress?

That wasn’t the premise, it was a couple of sentences in a brick thick book.

And anyway I hate to break it to you but real life has a “transphobic premise”: https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.457.3731&rep=rep1&type=pdf

I don't believe any redefinition of the word 'woman' could be written down, even. No-one's managed it yet.

I don't believe any redefinition of the word 'woman' could be applied retrospectively either. So, for twanw to be transphobic, you'd have to prove that the word woman included men and the person making the statement knew that at the time they made it.

It's all language, isn't it?

We're using the long standing definition of women. E.g. adult female humans.

Transwomen are males who wish to appear as feminine/female-like. Humans cannot change sex.

Transwomen literally cannot be women.

In order to believe that transwomen are women (as opposed to a fictional metaphor for kindness/acceptance) you have to either:

1. Believe that humans can change biological sex - an extraordinary claim that requires evidence. And you'll need to explain at what point this sex change occurs e.g. at first declaration/hair and clothing change/GRC/ hormones/surgery etc. And how the sex change could be independently verified e.g. DNA swab.

Or

1. You need to redefine the word woman to no longer mean adult female human. This sounds easier but the problem is that if you include adult male humans in the definition then it becomes absolutely meaningless, any and all humans are women. Alternative criteria like "feeling feminine" might include both some females and some males, but it also excludes many females, and I'm not just talking about transmen, non binary females or even butch lesbians. Loads of regular women don't identify with the gender stereotypes/roles/expectations associated with our sex, not least because they were used to control women and prevent us having power in society

Women who don't have stereotypically feminine interests/hairstyles/hobbies/careers/clothing are not somehow sub-women or part-men. We are female, and are just as affected by, female bodies, sexism and women's rights issues as more feminine women.

Defining womanhood on regressive gender stereotypes isn't enlightened, liberal or progressive. It doesn't make people more free.

Yes, we can't change our biology, and it will always have consequences for our lives, especially healthcare. But it doesn't have to limit our careers/hobbies/personality.

Look at the time line. She is responding to Simon Edge's post about Pink News pile-ons.

And this post is a sub par GCSE attempt at analysis. More holes than Swiss cheese.

Trans women are male - by definition. you have to be male to 'identify as a woman' for starters.

When you attempt a reasoned argument you'll get some reasoned responses.

Transphobia and antisemitism seem to be the two most socially accepted forms of discrimination

Purely anecdotal but on twitter/X I've come across accounts with the trifecta of Jeremy Corbyn support, blatant antisemitism and calling everyone transphobes level transactivism an awful lot lately.

It is always the same bez. And they wonder why we laugh at their ‘hot tales’!

TRA Plopper : you are all in an echo chamber and have no logic or free thoughts, probably because you're simple minded and don't do any research

Also TRA Plopper : blah blah something I read on the internet but never cross-checked, it's just obviously true because we all agree that we agree that we agree that it's the truth. Do your own research I am not going to do your work for you.

Some people are no fun are they. Keeping all those transphobic quotes to themselves.

Thats true. God, I could do with a million pounds. Sadly, I've read all JKRs books, her essay, follow her on twitter and I've not found anything yet.