Did I get this right?

But you’re not policing the falsehood. You’re policing the correcting of a perceived falsehood. You are arguing that no one can challenge anyone on Reddit because “that wasn’t what the thread was about”.

Bonkers.

I feel like a dementor has entered the thread....

🤔🤨🤣

I'm not confused. Yes you did miss something out, you shouldn't have posted any challenge at all.

But you’re not policing the falsehood. You’re policing the correcting of a perceived falsehood. You are arguing that no one can challenge anyone on Reddit because “that wasn’t what the thread was about”.

Bonkers.

Let me get this straight, you're complaining because the OP discussed something on a discussion board?
Just like you're doing?

Hold on, I thought we weren’t allowed to contradict the OP?

Also Lacksie doesn’t rinse the recycling before putting it out.

I'm responding to a thread where the OP is asking if their response was correct. I'm saying it was not correct because the thread didn't ask for debate of that nature.

I'm responding to a thread where the OP is asking if their response was correct. I'm saying it was not correct because the thread didn't ask for debate of that nature.

No, I'm answering the OP's query about whether her post was correct or right as she used in the thread title.

Does the thread in Reddit say:

“Opinions only, no replies or challenges”?

It says

"Which celebrity can you no longer look at the same way after learning about a controversy or something disturbing they did?"

That's the entire thing.

But you’re saying she is incorrect because she

checks notes

replied to a post on Reddit. Not what she replied, not why. Just the act of replying.

Like I said, bonkers.

So you are policing the act of replying by proxy? There’s nothing to say someone can’t reply?

JKR has described trans women as “men performing their idea of femaleness”, mocked inclusive language, repeatedly described trans women as men, and portrayed trans-inclusive policies as potentially providing cover for sexual predators. Her rhetoric characterises trans identities as performances, imply deception, and repeatedly associate trans inclusion with threats to women

There’s a meaningful distinction between saying that someone’s biological sex may be relevant in particular circumstances and suggesting that their entire identity is a pretence. The former is a position about sex and its practical implications. The latter is a judgement about the authenticity of another person’s experience of themselves.

Transphobia doesn’t require overt hatred it can manifest in persistent stereotyping, ridicule, suspicion, and the systematic delegitimisation of a group.

Most concerning, however, is that this has gone far beyond expressing personal opinions. Rowling has used her considerable wealth to fund legal challenges with potentially far-reaching consequences for trans people’s rights. She donated £70,000 to For Women Scotland’s Supreme Court appeal.
She has subsequently established the J.K. Rowling Women’s Fund, specifically to finance legal action concerning sex-based rights. Its own website explicitly identifies strategic cases that establish legal precedents and enforce its interpretation of equality law as objectives.

Of course, funding litigation is lawful, and the courts are responsible for their own decisions. But I think there are legitimate concerns about the extent to which an extraordinarily wealthy individual can help determine which legal questions are pursued, which arguments receive substantial resources, and ultimately how the rights of a much less powerful minority are defined and implemented.

JKR has described trans women as “men performing their idea of femaleness”, mocked inclusive language, repeatedly described trans women as men, and portrayed trans-inclusive policies as potentially providing cover for sexual predators. Her rhetoric characterises trans identities as performances, imply deception, and repeatedly associate trans inclusion with threats to women

There’s a meaningful distinction between saying that someone’s biological sex may be relevant in particular circumstances and suggesting that their entire identity is a pretence. The former is a position about sex and its practical implications. The latter is a judgement about the authenticity of another person’s experience of themselves.

Transphobia doesn’t require overt hatred it can manifest in persistent stereotyping, ridicule, suspicion, and the systematic delegitimisation of a group.

Most concerning, however, is that this has gone far beyond expressing personal opinions. Rowling has used her considerable wealth to fund legal challenges with potentially far-reaching consequences for trans people’s rights. She donated £70,000 to For Women Scotland’s Supreme Court appeal.
She has subsequently established the J.K. Rowling Women’s Fund, specifically to finance legal action concerning sex-based rights. Its own website explicitly identifies strategic cases that establish legal precedents and enforce its interpretation of equality law as objectives.

Of course, funding litigation is lawful, and the courts are responsible for their own decisions. But I think there are legitimate concerns about the extent to which an extraordinarily wealthy individual can help determine which legal questions are pursued, which arguments receive substantial resources, and ultimately how the rights of a much less powerful minority are defined and implemented.

Yes the content is entirely incorrect because it isn't what the thread asked for. You know you can just let me post my opinion and not challenge it and then this wouldn't go on for pages.

Yes the content is entirely incorrect because it isn't what the thread asked for. You know you can just let me post my opinion and not challenge it and then this wouldn't go on for pages.

Are you suggesting that if no one responds to your posts, you’d not make any further comments?

But these things are all true, and are good things!

Funding legal challenges to support women's rights? Well hell yes. I donated to FWS Supreme Court case, not 70k mind you - does that make me evil? I did it not because I am a transphobe but because I am a feminist and if you can't define women properly you can't advocate for them. Just look at the hell that women are going through in Australia right now.

Saying trans women are men? Well, duh, they are.

The point is when one individual has that much personal wealth and is using it to shape the law of a democratic country it's a serious problem .

You are completely naive if you think otherwise.

There’s nothing to stop you from leaving the thread either?

Imagine if someone on that Reddit thread said:

”I can’t look at Mr Rogers in the same way after learning he was a military sniper who killed people.”

And someone corrected that poster.

And then you came along and said “you shouldn’t have corrected the poster who said Mr Rogers was a sniper, because the thread didn’t ask for that.”

Then you spent ages arguing about how you are correct to hold that view.

That’s how bonkers your argument is.

Why don’t you just be honest? You think the OP is wrong because you hate JKR and think the OP’s opinion about her is wrong, not the fact she posted it at all.

Rowling has used her considerable wealth to fund legal challenges with potentially far-reaching consequences for trans people’s rights.. Oh lacksie, you’ll be shocked if you hewr
about the GLP and their funding of legal challenges re trans rights….

Helping to fund a case doesn't mean the case will succeed, that is up to the courts. Just ask Jolyon Maugham.

It also wasn't correct because JKR is clearly propagating and funding transphobia on a mass scale.