This thread is specifically for people who think JK Rowling is awful so..

Could you post some of the links to her ‘anti-trans’ posts please.

The OP did want to see the evidence rather than just general accusations.

I don't think she is awful at all. I think she is clever, witty and can be very subtle. I love her books, she has used her money to rescue an area of natural beauty and environmental importance near me. I just dont have to agree with every thing she does. She probably wouldn't like me putting milk in with the tea bag before adding the water. You dont have to hate someone to dislike something that they do.

She could just block them. She has huge power on social media and I don't think she uses it well. She increasingly comes across as an obsessive crank. That's my opinion, feel free to disagree.

She has managed to fall out with the main actors the Harry Potter films

LOL

I think that her getting a bit salty or triumphalist does play into TRAs' hands. But, fuck it, I enjoy it. Let others be Patient Griselda.

Is that a joke? She set up and massively funds the Lumos charity which helps children around the world. She set up and funds Beira’s place for rape victims. She set up a fund for women attacked by activists. She still lives in Scotland which means she actually pays taxes (and at a higher level than in England). She used to donate to the Labour Party until they effectively drove her away.

To the person who mentioned Val McDermid, much as I like her books and admire her intellect I’ve never heard of her charity donations. This could mean that they’re secret but suspect there really aren’t many.

I think I must be reading your posts incorrectly, is this for or against?!

I agree. I'm not in favour of trans people taking part in sport in women teams. I'm totally against it, But her anti trans stand borders on hatred which isnt acceptable.

So, she should just ignore the people who target her with abuse and only take the high road in your opinion?

Should all women just respond to abuse in this way? Or just her?

Yes, that was everything I could find, and it boils down to her being a non-believer who has the freedom to do something about it. It's the lack of belief that is transphobic.

She’s not your Mum, Graham.

I dont think mumsnet should be encouraging and allowing abuse of a celebrity

When I read it, it did wonder but I read it again and came to this conclusion too.

Have you actually researched the people with transgender identities who she directly aims those posts at on social media? The ones you find deeply personal and mocking?

I encourage you to do so. From what I have seen, she only targets male people who have directly abused her.

Are you supporting those abusers directly or indirectly through your censuring? It might not be your intention, however, saying that a victim of abuse should not respond publicly to that abuse is limiting the victim’s response and inadvertently allowing that abuse to continue.

Why should she not directly respond to her abusers?

https://www.wearelumos.org/

The charity where JKRowling supports children's rights to a lovely family.

I think she’s a significant philanthropist. The reason she’s assumed an undue prominence on trans erosions of women’s rights is largely precisely because she’s rich and powerful, and can therefore speak frankly without fearing she’ll be fired or her books ‘cancelled’.

I can think of several writer friends, successful and famous in that their names would be familiar to the reading public, but who are reliant on university jobs and rpthejr books continuing to be bought, and live in dread of someone asking them about trans issues at a Q and A because they’re gender-critical, but aware of how kneejerk sympathies are.

Things like trans people ... are used by politicians as a diversion tactic to hide that they're not doing anything to address the actual issues.

That's weird. In popular discourse on politics, I hear a lot of "Keir Starmer doesn't know what a woman is." The poor sod. He can't win.

I would say the current government strikes more or less the right balance. In terms of policy, they've taken on board the Cass Review, the SC judgement, etc., but (IMO unlike the Conservatives at last year's GE) they don't make a song and dance about trans issues to win votes. That's probably as good as it gets.

Val McDermid isn’t in the same league success wise as JKR, she also supports wee Nicola Kranky and self ID, which naturally supports rapists being put in women’s prisons, there’s nothing nice about that.

I admire her charity work but dislike her social media presence because I think people with huge reach and influence who engage in petty smackdowns of people they disagree with is not a good look. Does she ever post about anything else?

She doesn't believe that humans can change sex.

Believing in the biological truth, the monster.

Surely if she "managed to fall out with the main actors the Harry Potter films" their actions also played a part in this. You could equally have said that they "managed to fall out with her" because of their extreme views on a divisive subject.

It's not so much that "J K Rowling is very divisive". It's more that the subject of whether women are deserving of rights is a divisive subject.

There’s a £1m reward for anyone who can show how terrible JKR is.

no one’s claimed it yet.

I think @theilltemperedmaggotintheheartofthelaw is quoting some TRA piece.

I think her constant posting on SM now comes across as a deep hatred of ALL trans people. There is no longer any light or shade. Lots
of her posts (and posts on here) feel
unnecessarily personal and mocking to me - for example attacking appearance. I think because of this she has become a bit of a caricature now.

Rowling published an essay on her personal website in 2020 in which she revealed that she was a survivor of domestic abuse and sexual assault, and stated that "When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he's a woman...then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside". This conflates TW with male predators.

I don't agree with the rest either, but this is a massive logic fail.

She's saying that if you let some men in, you let all men in. She's explicitly not conflating men with a feminine gender identity with predatory men, hence mentioning them separately.