The issue here is if we are dealing with something that is a religious belief then we can't just ignore it and rewind the clock. Because unfortunately we have something of a militant group here. There has to be some careful threading here. Everything I know about JKRs and her understanding of authoritarianism and religious beliefs would say she is fully aware of the pitfalls of just going into hard reverse.
We need to create a situation where there is a removal of the enforcement part on others to this ideology and that sex based rights are properly recognised. With the ability to take action when there is an abuse of this (eg someone saying they are female when they are not).
We need to create a situation where the concept and lie that you can change sex is killed off.
We need to create a situation where not believing is fully protected and respected.
We need to create a situation where it's understood that the words gender and sex are not seen as interchangeable.
This means the creation of third spaces and the respect FOR EACH OTHER in the workplace. Which everyone should have anyway, without harassment.
A huge amount of what is going on is driven by these flaws and issues. Huge amounts of this are driven by power dynamics and poor understanding of stereotypes and the ability to abuse the system.
The whole thing is held up by a culture of fear and compulsion. Remove the 'how many fingers am I holding up Winston' and people will stop going along with it so blindly.
That also allows honest conversations about harms and conflicts of interest and abuses of power. We start having conversations about ethics again. And the impact on wives and siblings.
Without the power to enforce and control others, a lot of the attraction starts to collapse.
Ive talked about the parallels with anorexia before - and how girls with anorexia often know they are underweight. Their compulsion is driven by the desire to control not their desire to become thin.
What's fuelling this movement and made it become so extreme is a total lack of saying no.
You can't erase a belief whether you like it or no. You have people who can't cope with it. That's society. That's what freedom of speech is about. What you do however is draw lines in the sand over acceptable behaviour and none acceptable behaviour. You make the point that tolerance involves mutual respect and there are some situations where it is not acceptable to be making demands of others due to their beliefs and feelings.
You make sex completely visible but you also make it totally unacceptable to harass, harm or abuse people who believe in something different to you. Because we are all equal in belief.
This means a woman having the right to know who is treating her and to refuse if she prefers. Male doctors don't get the hump as being thought of sexual predators because a patient would prefer to see a female one. Why should a transgender one? Unless they think their emotional needs should come before those of a vulnerable patient. In which case they are unsuitable for the job because it's an abuse of power.
JKR is wise enough to understand that if you remove the tools to abuse women and you reinstate safeguarding, then huge parts of the attraction collapse because it's that - not gender identity as a concept alone - that's driving it.
If you start to recognise the extremist behaviour and treat that accordingly then society stops feeling controlled by it.
Remember allyship is driven by the well meaning to do good. If it's recognised that being good and respectful does not require great acts of self harm that are damaging to other parts of society, then again what's driving this falls apart.
JKR understands what's driving this in a lot of quarters is a pursuit of power and control over women. Because it's a mens rights organisation. Remove that and essentially 'whats the point' for a lot of people. And a lot of the significant comorbid mental health issues will become apparent.
You will also see the rise of sane conversations in the middle as an anchor. Stuff like 'why are trans identifying teens automatically blocked from accessing over mental health support when they say the magic word'.
The point is this: when MN started to allow sensible conversations, questions got asked.
This is what TRAs don't want to happen. They want you to focus on identity not behaviour, because the shield of identity allows for the unacceptable behaviours they want. If you decide to focus on behaviour it means they no longer hold power over others.
Equally is about everyone being equal in law - and not held hostage to someone else nor holding power over anyone else.
They don't want equality. And that's what's driving things.
Remove that and the political movement completely changes. You separate the militancy from the vulnerable who have various other additional needs (which we should be sympathetic towards). It splits the fundamentals of the movement and you can start to focus on protecting those who are actually vulnerable for a variety of reasons, from those who are suggesting this is a homogeneous group but have an agenda which seeks power over others.
It's been talked about before in terms of how middle aged male transitioners are the only group that are rent-a-quote for the media. For legitimacy they need young female transitioners to be lumped together as being the same as them. Yet the power dynamics are fairly obvious in terms of who gets to speak - the BBC never rings up a 20 year old female to speak on behalf of teenage girls transitioning. It's always men in their 40s screaming about how evil the Cass Review is. And we can't ask questions about why a male in his 40s with no medical is the appropriate person to be speaking about concerns over vulnerable girls with masses of comorbidities being allowed to have life limiting drugs with huge side effects.
Talking about repelling the GRA frankly isn't helpful. It only allows narratives about erasure and legitimatises victimhood.
If you put everything else into place, then the need and demand for a GRA should reduce anyway. And you don't get the same militant backlash (because you address behaviour first) being backed by the well meaning but clueless.
JKRowling understand how there's multiple groups here with varying needs. See them, understand their needs and how we can start to reach them, rather than entrenching and making them draw closer to those using this as a tool of power for nefarious reasons.