Telegraph- Whenever people accuse JK Rowling of transphobia, they never quote a single word she’s said.

[MrsJackRackham]

www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/if-it-weren-t-for-jk-rowling-nicola-sturgeon-would-never-have-fallen/ar-AA17wXhl?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=fd3aec318b9242f0a6c57313e19331c3
Apologies if this has already been posted. Nice and succinct.

Definitions vary:

Disagreeing is not the same as hating.

Wishing someone dead - threatening to rape them does suggest hatred.

I couldn't possibly say whether Corbyn personally is an antisemite. From what I recall, a lot of what he was criticised for was failing to clamp down on examples of antisemitism in his party which, if accurate, seems a very reasonable thing to be criticised for.

Yes.

Many don't really understand what antisemitism is. It doesn't just apply to things someone has said, but also when they remain silent, which is something Corbyn has done. Repeatedly. When Corbyn's antisemitism was a hot topic, some of my non-Jewish Labour supporting friend were very quick to tell me I, a Jew, is ignorant about antisemitism.

Like many, I stand with JK Rowling and whenever her supposed transphobia comes up in conversation and I ask her critics to give me actual examples, no-one ever can. Instead, they attack her and me, for being a bigot, TERFS etc. It's so boring when others are quick to attack and call names instead of debate.

Minorities like female rape/abuse victims who would prefer not to be counselled by people with male genes? Sadly I am in that marginalised minority and I am glad that JKR had the courage to speak out for the likes of me.

I also have Trans (males who identify as female) friends and am happy to support them. But not at the expense of others who have an equal right to be themselves.

Apparently she retweets tweets by people who are not public figures, and then other people dogpile on the non-public person, and this transphobic viciousness is JKR’s fault for retweeting. Make of that what you will.

Nelle are you able to tell the specifics of things she has said which are demonising others?

She's a powerful billionaire voice consistently focusing on a marginalised minority, amplifying only select information to demonise that minority and thus mobilising a movement against said minority.

Boundaries and safeguarding don't demonise people.

If your movement removes boundaries and safeguarding, or enables abusers; its doing something wrong, you need to stop and re-evaluate your methods and goals.

JKR is gender critical /pro women

Which, in the eys of some, is transphobic.

They don't need any more proof.

This really. For me it was always known that it wasn't anything she'd said, but that she'd 'liked' a series of tweets that were deemed by some to be transphobic. It's not a real mystery.

JK Rowling has done an interview with Megan Phelps-Roper, which is coming out on a podcast soon. I can't post the link, but it's called The Witch Trials of JK Rowling and it's on Apple.

I don't know. It was his public support for people who think their moral duty is to actually murder Jews that did it for me.

And the cheerful endorsement of a fantastically antisemitic image. Etc.

JKR is beyond reproach really. Corbyn is definitely not.

Re Corbyn; the time he made my daughter cry after sitting in the audience staring at and fiddling with his phone while she read an extract from her Jewish escapee grandmother’s memoir on Holocaust Memorial Day (and throughout the other speeches too) was pretty low. He had to be there but he clearly wasn’t interested.

The same daughter aged 15 actually took the time to read what JKR had written and told me ‘she actually said anything transphobic, has she?’

I think the real rage was directed at her for citing Maya Forstater & using the hashtag “I stand with Maya”.

Very few of us had heard of the Maya Forstater case before than. Iirc Maya was struggling to raise funds to appeal against her wrongful dismissal.

Turns out Maya was wrongfully hounded out of her job on the basis of her holding views that are worthy of respect in a democratic society. Contrary to a lot of the claims about her, she made no trans people in her workplace uncomfortable.

But it was part of the attack on Maya prior to the tribunal that only a Very Bad Person could possibly support her - and therefore JKR must be Very Bad Indeed.

Now that Maya’s vindication is crystal clear, she has been memory-holed. All that’s left are the lies about Rowling, who’s a bit harder to disappear.

You could in all fairness. And it is quite a shock to read a piece in the Torygraph which is 100 % true.
A refreshing change for its readership after years of Bozo's whoppers.

Here you go is a good summation from Forbes:

KEY BACKGROUND
J.K. Rowling has regularly come under fire in recent years for her views on biological sex and the transgender rights, which critics have called transphobic. In June 2020, she ridiculed an article headline for using the phrase “people who menstruate” (“I’m sure there used to be a word for those people. Someone help me out. Wumben? Wimpund? Woomud?” she tweeted), inspiring backlash from critics who said her tweet excludes transgender people. In response to backlash, she tweeted “if sex isn’t real, the lived reality of women globally is erased,” adding that she knows and loves transgender people but criticized the alleged erasing of the concept of sex. She also published an essay on her website, calling it unsafe to allow “any man who believes or feels he’s a woman” into changing rooms and bathrooms, and she’s since stirred controversy for authoring a book about a character who is killed after facing accusations of transphobia and for calling Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, who supported a bill making it easier for transgender people to be legally recognized as their preferred gender, a “destroyer of women’s rights.” Her comments have been criticized as transphobic by LGBTQ rights organizations including the Human Rights Campaign, and actors from the Harry Potter films have voiced support for transgender people in response.

Forbes on JK & Hogwarts Legacy

I find that when asked which specific part of the essay was incorrect, people often just post links to websites rather than engaging and answering for themselves.

I assume they don't know which bit is wrong but they have been told that "some have found it transphobic" without ever identifying what and why.

Either way, best to scroll on by if they're not engaging in good faith.

calling it unsafe to allow “any man who believes or feels he’s a woman” into changing rooms and bathrooms

To disagree with this is to claim that "it is safe to allow any man.... etc". Which has been proven to be incorrect.
So she was right to state that.

If you think it is safe to allow any man into female spaces then own it and say it and provide reasoning as to why you have reached that conclusion. Otherwise you're basically agreeing with JKR but being dishonest about it.

A question was asked. And an answer given. It's up to trans people to determine is something is transphobic or not. I would not presume to answer for them.

My favourite game on Reddit is to pretend to be totally naive about the issue and ask posters to show me the transphobia.

They normally cite an article that talks about JK being transphobic, so I respond along the lines of "oh, but that's someone writing about what she has written, do you know where I can find her actual words so I can see for myself?"

They normally either give up at the point or go on a convoluted rant about how her tweets have some sort of hidden meaning. It's hilariously predictable, I often wonder if I'm engaging with a bot.

It's really not. Because they'll say anything that doesn't fit their narrative is transphobic when it really isn't.

The whole bloody point is that there isn't a single quote to be had.

Where are people reading all these dreadfully, shockingly bad things, yet not being able to either quote or pinpoint where they're to be found?
You said JRK is a very intelligent person. She is.
You could hardly be accused of the same thing, unfortunately. Yet here you are, attempting an argument anyway. Bless.

Can I just say, irrelevantly, that Lumos shows that JKR is the actual opposite of what the TRAs claim she is. It serves an neglected and overlooked but genuinely very vulnerable group - and not just because someone said something they didn't like causing actual harm. I don't think it operates in a crowded field, either, which shows some thought and work went into choosing a cause.

I like the idea that @Nellle knows what JKR is saying in, not like actual words, but you know, tone? She's too smart to say what she actually thinks, but if you invent some new meaning, you can figure it all out.

It's up to trans people to determine is something is transphobic or not.

Really? So if they say water's transphobic should we ban it? It wouldn't we want some logic or reason to back their position up?

wouldn't we want some logic or reason to back their position up?

I think they've already been designated as transphobic.

Let's take a look shall we?

J.K. Rowling has regularly come under fire in recent years for her views on biological sex and the transgender rights, which critics have called transphobic.
In June 2020, she ridiculed an article headline for using the phrase “people who menstruate” (“I’m sure there used to be a word for those people. Someone help me out. Wumben? Wimpund? Woomud?” she tweeted), inspiring backlash from critics who said her tweet excludes transgender people.

Not transphobic to object to being called 'people who menstruate'

In response to backlash, she tweeted “if sex isn’t real, the lived reality of women globally is erased,” adding that she knows and loves transgender people but criticized the alleged erasing of the concept of sex.

Not transphobic to say sex is real

She also published an essay on her website, calling it unsafe to allow “any man who believes or feels he’s a woman” into changing rooms and bathrooms,

Actual quote in it's entirety (it's about self ID allowing predators to use this as a means of gaining access): 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.

and she’s since stirred controversy for authoring a book about a character who is killed after facing accusations of transphobia

I have not read this one yet, but am I right in thinking this was one page in a book where a suspected murderer dons a woman's outfit to slip away? I can't actually find any firm evidence for what's apparently the issue other than a third party review (not JRK) saying "never trust a man in a dress"

and for calling Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, who supported a bill making it easier for transgender people to be legally recognized as their preferred gender, a “destroyer of women’s rights.”

Not untrue after the whole rapist in woman's prison fiasco

Her comments have been criticized as transphobic by LGBTQ rights organizations including the Human Rights Campaign, and actors from the Harry Potter films have voiced support for transgender people in response.

And their evidence is...?

Once again evidence was asked for - you've produced an article that doesn't actually show any 'transphobia' and then told everyone trans people have the final say and that's that. Well no, because women objecting to being referred to their body functions has actually fuck all to do with trans people. It's about women. Women saying sex is real = it's important to women to their sex is recognised. Women wanting own sex space = yep, another women's rights issue.

Women's rights are about women and it's not transphobic to discuss them.

Countzacular

🙌🏽🙌🏽