Can't believe I'm writing this, but disappointed in JK today

No she isn't.

She's not saying he should be in single sex spaces.

Hardly! Even those defending her are disagreeing with the female coded comment. Just defending her right to choose the pronouns she uses. As I choose the ones I use.

I don’t use preferred pronouns for the trans people in my life, and have managed to wing my way through it politely. But I don’t stop others from doing what they need to do.

But she isn't 'hand wringing'.

You seem to be missing the point that she's not calling for this TW to be treated like a woman, which is where the problem starts. She's not saying 'let my friend into the ladies'.

I don't think it's the massive hypocritical issue you're trying to make it. You seem to be making a lot of assumptions about what she might have meant.

I didn't like the 'female coded' woo comment either though.

There's also a massive difference between compelled pronoun use and choosing to do it as a courtesy. I personally wouldn't do it (I can just about manage 'they') but I will rage against compelled pronouns.

Ah. Yep. I did wonder.

Actually everyone on here accusing op of purity spiralling is doing the very same, creating pure saints and pure demons, the former group being uncriticisable.

It is possible to admire and be grateful for stuff JKR has done and said, but still criticise/scrutinise details. That's the opposite of requiring or expecting purity

Reverend is not a job. It’s a title that, traditionally, signifies that the minister is worthy of reverence because of their ordained status: their relationship with god, essentially.

If an atheist uses it to refer to a friend, are they betraying their own beliefs and movement? Affirming a lie? I think, in interpersonal situations where no one is in any doubt about who believes what, that they are not.

And that's part of why I specified that people shouldn't be forced to missex people at work.

No one is "dictating" or "compelling" JKR to do anything. Op says she's "disappointed" and I said I disapprove, of this particular comment of JKR's.

Also no one said they thought JKR would care what we think.

Why accuse us of stuff we haven't said?

And no one’s stopping you (well, no one here. IRL there are various obstacles we’re in court fighting about).
And no one’s building law and policy around ‘the good ones’.
JKR isn’t calling for her friend to have special treatment or to organise the world around his needs.

My problem with gender ideology and TRAs has always been their aggressive dictating of what I must believe, feel, accept and acknowledge as well as the unacceptable commandeering of women’s spaces and opportunities. A transwoman who didn’t believe he was a woman, wasn’t invading women’s spaces and sports and wasn’t telling me what I could think or say wouldn’t be a problem for me at all.

On the topic of dictating what other people should think, I am amused at the idea you think JK Rowlings would give a f.ck about your dissproval of her actions, opinions, friendships or words. I could be wrong but you may not be the first, Still, you could always threaten to burn your Harry Potter books to bring her back into line, that always seems to make the other people who disapprove of her feel better.

No because a Reverend is a title with a meaning relevant to the church.

Is a person who is against the monarchy lying when they refer to the King?

Yip.

Well at least we all get to debate this issue in 2026. Viva free speech.

How friends refer to each other is a private matter, so henceup to them. There's no public interest, safeguarding, or human rights infringement when JKR refers to a male friend as "she". It's not a choice I'd make, but I'm not going to condemn her for making it.

This is really sensible.

I think it's absolutely essential that we make a distinction between a) rejection of gender extremist ideology which tramples on women's rights, and b) straight out old-fashioned transphobia.

Let's leave the transphobia to MAGA and masculinist insecure men. I was really disappointed with KJK for the tweet linked to above. She is an utter hero, and I can understand what's led her to that position, but it's not one I can join her in.

But we need to keep insisting on the nuance. As JKR said: "Wear what you like, love whom you like etc etc" ... Her position is consistent, and is, I think, one which most people would agree with.

Your colleague Dave turns up to work one day announcing that he is now Davina. You play nice and call Davina 'she'.

How can you then say you're uncomfortable with Davina using the women's toilets? Haven't you just acknowledged Davina is a woman by using the word 'she'? In which case, what's your problem?

Is an atheist who refers to a friend as Reverend Smith lying?

I don’t think they are. Especially if they have gone out of their way to make their beliefs clear. What irrefutable fact are they denying by doing so?

I have a trans identifying friend who I have literally in 20 years of close friendship never used him or her to in their presence. I say 'you'. It's not difficult.

If he's not there I refer to him as him because he is a man.

Noone knows who JKR is referring to, except close circles perhaps. Noone is 'policing her speech'. But if she is talking about a man she needs to use 'he' and if a woman 'she'. Otherwise she's lying or we need a conversation about definitions.

Because if definitions depend on the speaker, we are very much back in the weeds.

JK was always on the softer side of GC just like Joanna Cherry.

Treat people face to face as you would have them treat you.

There are ways to call out grifters that do not undermine the rights of the confused.

I respect the rights of others to have religions I think are drivel

I will call a TIM by their chosen name
but will suggest they stay well clear of the ladies loos

its called being pragmatic