Rupert Grint joins Harry Potter cast on Broadway

Do it for everyone else then.

You can't can you?

Yes & no. Depends on the disadvantage in the particular situation & the prevailing cultural expectations. That's why assessing proportionality/ balancing rights matters according to the particular circumstances matters.

The bigotry is more regarding the implication of harmful stereotypes against trans people as either transitory 'tom boys' or dangerous predators.

Its indeed interesting that those who purport to be against harmful stereotypes, certainly don't mind applying them when convenient.

"In an attempt to demonstrate her understanding of where transgender people are coming from, Rowling even says she too might have considered transitioning had the option been available to her as a teenager. “The allure of escaping womanhood would have been huge, “ she writes. “If I’d found community and sympathy online that I couldn’t find in my immediate environment, I believe I could have been persuaded to turn myself into the son my father had openly said he’d have preferred.”

The belief that gender identity is a phase, a choice, or something that is influenced by other people is a stereotype that minimizes the struggles of anyone who experiences gender dysphoria. Transitioning isn’t easy but Rowling seems to be saying people can choose to transition on a whim simply because they think it’s more convenient to be one gender than another.

In her essay, Rowling goes on to reveal that she is a domestic and sexual abuse survivor and those experiences have made her even more focused on biology, “out of solidarity with the huge numbers of women who have histories like mine, who’ve been slurred as bigots for having concerns around single-sex spaces.”

Referring to the debate around public washrooms in particular, Rowling claims she’s concerned for the safety of cis women and girls. “When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman—and, as I’ve said, gender confirmation certificates may now be granted without any need for surgery or hormones—then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside.”

Throughout her essay, Rowling talks about how easy it is for a biological man to become a woman in the eyes of the law and how potentially dangerous that could be for cis women. The fear that a large number of transgender women are just men who want to be able to use women-only spaces unchecked is a harmful stereotype that paints trans people as predators instead of just human beings who want to live their lives.

In her attempt to defend herself against the TERF label, Rowling just ended up providing more solid evidence that she is one. She works hard to disguise her views as feminism and genuine concern for the wellbeing of all women, but relies heavily on a number unsubstantiated opinions about trans people that the community has been fighting against for years. Rowling sees herself as highly educated on transgender issues but she still fails to see how her views—and her insistence on using her huge platform to promote them—are hurting transgender people."

https://inmagazine.ca/2020/06/j-k-rowlings-history-of-transphobia/

Just like some Mexicans happen to be rapists or some Haitians 'eat cats & dogs'?

“When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. […] They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people”

-Trump

Rowling states that she may have wanted to transition at some point had the option been available. The article states that this show she feels that the desire to transition is transient and a choice.

This is a logical some/all fallacy. Rowling stating that she may have had a transient desire to transition is not the same ad her saying all desire to transition is transient.

The negation of her statement, if she were completely wrong would be “No desire to transition us transient”. Since detransitioners exist, this negation is clearly incorrect. If the negation is incorrect, then Rowlings position, that it can be transient, is valid and truthful.

Indeed, Rowling has stated that she believes gender dysphoric is real and in some adults can be relieved by surgery on a number of occasions.

Sadly, logic isn’t really something that is valued by those who wish to hate her.

So the disadvantage to women and girls when sports, services and facilities are mixed sex is that it breaches their human rights as described in article 14 of the ECHR as it discriminated directly based on sex in circumstances where someone's sex is important.
To provide clarity in law the UK have made it clear where exceptions in the EA apply, such as toilets, changing room and sports amongst others, article 14 is applied.

Are you now going to state article 14 is bigotry?

The difference being that an Englishman, for example, wouldn’t pretend to be a Mexican to have unchallenged access to female only spaces. Neither would a Mexican pretend to be Haitian to be able to eat cats and dogs.
Your analogy makes no sense.
On the other hand, men worldwide have pretended to be something they are not in order to access children or female only spaces. Think priests, teachers, doctors, scout leaders, the list is endless. Maybe you could help us out by explaining which are the men invading our single sex spaces with ulterior motives and which ones are genuine?

Not sure why Youve quoted a magazine article about JKR. It would be more impressive and interesting if you had expressed your own views based on JKR’s own words.

What you consider to be harming trans people, many others see as protecting women and girls from misogyny. Your views appear to be deeply sexist.

if transitioning/gender identity is always deeply held or innate can can you please explain the obvious contradictions to your claim? Eg de-transitioned? Pips Bunce etc? And if you could explain what is a trans identity while you’re at it tgat would be really helpful?

ETA - oops I can see im not the only one who is unimpressed by you quoting someone else’s opinion rather than using JKR’s own words.., primary evidence is more highly valued here

Trump could make the exact same arguments about his 'Mexicans' statement. Why is this any different? And some make the exact same claims about Muslims as terrorists.

Making a show of pointing to exceptions from the norm to justify exclusion effectively smears the whole as being under suspicion. And Its in far right playbook to exploit instances as evidence of the necessity for exclusion.

The logical fallacy here is know as a faulty generalisation & it occurs particularly regarding minorities when a person draws a broad, sweeping conclusion about an entire demographic or minority group based on the actions or traits of a single individual or a tiny fringe minority AKA detransitioners.

Um, you forgot the proportionality bit…

27
(1)
A person does not contravene section 29, so far as relating to sex discrimination, by providing a service only to persons of one sex if—
(a)
any of the conditions in sub-paragraphs (2) to (7) is satisfied, and
(b)
the limited provision is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
(2)
The condition is that only persons of that sex have need of the service.
(3)
The condition is that—
(a)
the service is also provided jointly for persons of both sexes, and
(b)
the service would be insufficiently effective were it only to be provided jointly.
(4)
The condition is that—
(a)
a joint service for persons of both sexes would be less effective, and
(b)
the extent to which the service is required by persons of each sex makes it not reasonably practicable to provide separate services.
(5)
The condition is that the service is provided at a place which is, or is part of—
(a)
a hospital, or
(b)
another establishment for persons requiring special care, supervision or attention.
(6)
The condition is that—
(a)
the service is provided for, or is likely to be used by, two or more persons at the same time, and
(b)
the circumstances are such that a person of one sex might reasonably object to the presence of a person of the opposite sex.
(7)
The condition is that—
(a)
there is likely to be physical contact between a person (A) to whom the service is provided and another person (B), and
(b)
B might reasonably object if A were not of the same sex as B.
(8)
This paragraph applies to a person exercising a public function in relation to the provision of a service as it applies to the person providing the service.

Yes & no. Depends on the disadvantage in the particular situation & the prevailing cultural expectations. That's why assessing proportionality/ balancing rights matters according to the particular circumstances matters.

At some point it has to occur to people that actors etc will say things because they feel compelled to, not because they believe it.
It’s clear that JK isn’t getting cancelled and HP is not going away so they feel safe to backtrack.

I don't think agreeing to still be associated with an idea is in any way a concession to the creator's moral or political stance or helps perpetuate it. John Lithgow made this point recently that the work still maintains its value regardless & that's why he agreed to still be part of HP.

Just like the US constitution still maintains its moral relevance despite being written by slave owners, JKR's immoral position shouldn't matter particularly because the ideas in HP are contra to it that effectively inculcate generations of people against JKR's personal bigotry which only has a finite existence.

Men are not a minority. Men commit around 98% of sexual crimes. It is not a faulty generalisation to exclude men from places (not society!) where women are particularly vulnerable. HTH

Trump could make the exact same arguments about his 'Mexicans' statement. Why is this any different? And some make the exact same claims about Muslims as terrorists.

Making a show of pointing to exceptions from the norm to justify exclusion effectively smears the whole as being under suspicion. And Its in far right playbook to exploit instances as evidence of the necessity for exclusion.

The logical fallacy here is know as a faulty generalisation & it occurs particularly regarding minorities when a person draws a broad, sweeping conclusion about an entire demographic or minority group based on the actions or traits of a single individual or a tiny fringe minority AKA detransitioners.

I've said on another thread that the love Tom Felton got for playing Draco Malfoy on Broadway has been a delight. I hope Rupert gets the same. Although I find Tom much more charming in his delight at being part of the Potterverse

Oh and you forgot the “legitimate aim”.

Females aren’t actually human to you are we? You don’t think fairness and safety in sport for females is a legitimate aim.

You just want to use us to validate an “identity” that is false and so needs to be propped up.

One male person in a female sports space damages the experience, achievement and aspirations of a lot of female people involved in that sport and observing it. Male people do not have a place in female sports. You are not female.