JK right again

[AngryBird6122]

https://x.com/jk_rowling/status/1983848989213553091?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet

aibu to think she is spot on? shame on glamour magazine (does anyone still read it?)

Exactly

Wow, do you realise how outdated your thinking is? A lot of trans-people would be incredibly offended by the assertion that there’s something defective about them - in fact a vast, vast majority of trans women do very little surgery and it’s over 92% that keep their male genitalia.

As it happens as well, a trans activist was going to release a paper with medical ‘proof’ of trans-ness but had to recant because a very angry mob of trans people (predominately male) didn’t want it released. Can you think why that might have been?

And what would you have thought about it if only some trans people met the criteria of medical proof? Would you have conceded that some are in fact only in it for the fetish?

Or can there only ever be two possible choices, both of them absolute at all times

Are you saying there is a difference between a man and a woman (in which case, you'll be able to say what it is), or that there isn't? (In which case transitioning is utterly meaningless).

I actually find the whole concept of "dolls" to be problematic.
A set of Trans women who want to be seen as an inanimate object that is frequently fetishised?
Very very creepy

If these men want to call themselves “dolls” have at it. They aren’t women.

She’s 100% right and Glamour’s response is awful.

I thought their response was really funny.

It was as funny as a paper cut.

Sorry, what actual real science evidence is this based on?

Or is it just a complete guess based on absolutely nothing that you've made up yourself?

Totally agree. Very weird.

‘Really funny’ yeh no

Yep. And nothing screams MEN'S privilege and arrogance more than making women feels physically vulnerable and violated.

That's how you know TW are men. And will always be men.

My brain initially misunderstood. I grasped the 'Barbie' - it was the rest that momentarily fazed me.

She absolutely isn’t right and Glamour UK’s response was spot on. They’ve only featured a trans woman twice ever on the cover so she needs to get off her tedious obsessive high horse.

Perhaps real women should give up on the objectifying rubbish promoted by "women's magazines" and hand it all over to the transes, who appear to enjoy that sort of thing so much.

Similarly while my instinctive reaction to the word "dolls" to describe transwomen is that it's sickening misogynistic, at least it's not being applied to real women in this instance and if these weirdos want to pretend to be children's toys then maybe we should just let them.

Go ahead and feature them on the cover, or do articles on them, why not? But pretend that they are women, and what’s more, make them out to be better at being women than actual women? No, absolutely not. JKR is right.

Oh do give over they are absolutely not making the trans community to be better than women. In the magazines 30 year history trans women have only been on the cover twice, JK Rowling herself has been on it. It’s so dull and ridiculous, the levels of obsessiveness and attempts to make a meal out of nothing over and again. Has she seriously got nothing better to do and has she seriously got such a poor view of women that she feels they’re threatened by a magazine cover celebrating achievement. It’s really sad and she does women a dis service.

It was a sly dig.

Women’s rights are tedious are they now? Nice

Nope she is tedious and so is her obsession.

This relentless need to prioritise men with special feelings over women no matter what is tedious.

it’s so dull and ridiculous, the levels of obsessiveness and attempts to make a meal out of nothing over and again.

Do you think you could accurately summarise her viewpoint (in a way she'd agree was accurate)?

If not, perhaps worth reading up on it?

Yes. A funny one.

Have done thanks

I don't get your humour. What do you find funny about their response?