JKR asking similar questions to what I have been asking for years on here.

[DialSquare]

Copied from Nitter

J.K. Rowling@jk_rowling29m
As another man who once worked with me declares himself saddened by my beliefs on gender and sex, I thought it might be useful to compile a list for handy reference. Which of the following do you imagine makes actors and directors who aren’t involved with the HBO reboot of Harry Potter so miserable?

Is it my belief that women and girls should have their own public changing rooms and bathrooms?

That women should retain female-only rape crisis centres?

That men don’t belong in women’s sport?

That female prisoners shouldn’t be incarcerated with violent men and male sex offenders?

That women should remain a protected class in law, because they have sex-specific needs and issues?

That language should reflect reality rather than ideological jargon, especially in a medical context?

That women shouldn’t be harassed, persecuted or fired for refusing to pretend humans can change sex?

That women should not be threatened with violence and rape when they assert their rights?

That freedom of speech and belief are essential to a pluralistic democratic society?

That troubled minors, especially those who are gay, autistic and trauma-experienced, should be given mental health support instead of irreversible surgeries and drug treatments on non-existent evidence of benefit?

That gay people shouldn’t be pressured to include the opposite sex in their dating pools, nor should they be smeared as ‘genital fetishists’ when they don’t?

That cross-dressing heterosexual male fetishists aren’t actually oppressed, but having the time of their lives piggybacking off gender identity ideology?

That said ideology, and the privileged, blinkered fools pushing it because they suffer zero consequences themselves, have done more damage to the political left’s credibility than Trump and Farage could have achieved in a century?

Let me have your thoughts.

This sums up the views of the majority of posters on this board, however, we often have other posters tell us they don’t agree with us, but never what views they don’t actually agree with.

So, those of you that don’t agree with the majority view on here, what is it about the above that you don’t agree with?

So go in, post some evidence males with a trans identity are in danger from men in men’s spaces. And that must be evidence from the UK. I don’t mean “weird looks”. I mean actual danger. And if you make all spaces mixed sex as you seem to wish, won’t that put males with a trans identity in danger? I mean, if they’re in so much danger in men’s spaces, how will they not be in as much danger in mixed sex spaces? Or are you saying we only let men in dresses in women’s spaces? Isn’t that discrimination? You can’t have a single sex space if you allow some of the other sex in, so your idea of only allowing some men in falls at the first hurdle doesn’t it? You either let all men in or none. Have you asked your trans brethren about how they feel about mixed sex spaces?

What you claim is 'sneering' and 'spiteful' is simply straightforward and common sense to us, devoid of spite or nastiness. Maybe it's how you see it that is the issue.

@ThisChicPinkRaven so do you also condemn the language the TRA use against women and the threats of rape violence and death? Or is it just women who have to #bekind and watch their tone?

Yes, they talk about 'nasty' and 'pejorative' and 'tone', but then use words like cult and stupid. They are such hypocrites. We know who the nasty ones are. It's the ones hurling about 'cult' and 'stupid' and 'idiot'. Far worse than anything JK has ever said.

So go in, post some evidence males with a trans identity are in danger from men in men’s spaces. And that must be evidence from the UK.

Why the UK? Unless you can prove there are confounding factors associated with other jurisdictions being surveyed then that's irrelevant. Of course you would have been only happy to accept the Dr Cass recommendations based international research…funny that…

williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/press/ncvs-trans-press-release/

I don’t mean “weird looks”. I mean actual danger.

Relax your ability to express your immature high school mean girls impulses is far from the problem here.

And if you make all spaces mixed sex as you seem to wish, won’t that put males with a trans identity in danger? I mean, if they’re in so much danger in men’s spaces, how will they not be in as much danger in mixed sex spaces?

Depends on if they pass. Its a lot easier for trans men to pass as men that trans women as women. I mean, plenty of men present as scrawny males like Kathleen Stock. 😂

Or are you saying we only let men in dresses in women’s spaces?

No, & I'm talking about trans women 'not men in dresses'.

Isn’t that discrimination? You can’t have a single sex space if you allow some of the other sex in, so your idea of only allowing some men in falls at the first hurdle doesn’t it? You either let all men in or none. Have you asked your trans brethren about how they feel about mixed sex spaces?

I personally think its up to to the trans man because some might not pass & be at risk…& after all harm not feelings is the point. As far as discrimination goes this was never a problem in the past until a manufactured moral panic made one.

The unintended consequence that you don't seem to comprehend which is ironically attached to stereotypes you pretend to be against is that plenty of CIS women can pass for men as evidenced by the increasing harrassment by transphobes of them in public bathrooms.

https://www.vox.com/2016/5/18/11690234/women-bathrooms-harassment

Her sneering, spiteful punching down comments against certain groups in society is not.

Punching down? Since when were men lower status relative to women? Men have been successfully invading, colonising, women's spaces and redefining womanhood out of existence. Pushing back against a colonising invader is punching up.

after all harm not feelings is the point

🤣🤣🤣🤣

Evidence shows boys have strength and advantage as early as 8. Not 12.

It's the female communal space that gives women support. Safety in numbers, women can also help each other in the toilets if a woman is escaping a male chasing her and having a miscarriage. Single stall toilets are not and never have been the answer.

Puberty blockers cause enormous problems and are not reversible.

Ultimately what a woman is defined by is a personal subjective opinion as to what associations an individual more identifies with

Doesn't work. Is discriminatory against women (the real meaning of the word 'women', the one everybody understands, not the neo nonsense of the trans ideology). Is a supremely selfish definition that serves only the purposes of trans ideologues.

*That cross-dressing heterosexual male fetishists aren’t actually oppressed, but having the time of their lives piggybacking off gender identity ideology?

What does this have to do with anything above - I think tossing this in conflates trans rights and fetishism*

It's the transgenderists who have conflated trans and fetish. Stonewall placed crossdressing fetishists firmly under the trans umbrella and the fetishists embraced transgenderism with glee.

Oh, and remind me again how we tell apart cross-dressing, fetishist men from men who truuuuly believe that they are women? Or cross-dressing, opportunist, criminal men from perfectly safe men who truuuuly believe that they are women?

Ultimately what a woman is defined by is a personal subjective opinion as to what associations an individual more identifies with
Doesn't work. Is discriminatory against women (the real meaning of the word 'women', the one everybody understands, not the neo nonsense of the trans ideology). Is a supremely selfish definition that serves only the purposes of trans ideologues.

You're confused because you don't recognise your own culpability in gender identification because you are relying on your theoretical definition. But you, just like everyone else would assume sex based on stereotypical/archetypal associations IN PRACTICE because you rarely know another persons chromosomes or full morphology for sure. Trans people don't make the rules on social sex categorisation, wider society does. Wider society has decided by their actions that female sex distinctions aren't just limited to secondary sexual characteristics or chromosomes but also include behaviour.

You also don't seem to understand how definitions come into being. They are not prescriptive but descriptive of how wider society use them. IE social usage hence sex distinctions including behaviour being included. See 1(b)

SEX (1)
a
: either of the two major forms of individuals that occur in many species and that are distinguished respectively as female or male especially on the basis of their reproductive organs and structures
In the past, couples could hold fast to their dreams about their baby's sex until the moment of truth in the delivery room.—Jacquelyn Mitchard
b
: the sum of the structural, functional, and sometimes behavioral characteristics of organisms that distinguish males and females

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sex

I’d say that these three are about trans identified females. If not exclusively, their needs are considered in these areas:

That female prisoners shouldn’t be incarcerated with violent men and male sex offenders?

Surely that means no females in the male estate for their own safety no matter where it might be more “affirming” to put them.

That women should remain a protected class in law, because they have sex-specific needs and issues?
That language should reflect reality rather than ideological jargon, especially in a medical context?

Maternity care and pregnancy as a protected characteristic were key arguments in FWS for why sex should be treated as biological or pregnant trans identified females would lose their protection. And women not being called up for cervical smears is as much a problem as men not being called up for prostate exams due to inaccurate records.

That troubled minors, especially those who are gay, autistic and trauma-experienced, should be given mental health support instead of irreversible surgeries and drug treatments on non-existent evidence of benefit?

And given the huge uptick in autistic girls in the number of patients at the Tavistock it’s quite clear that this also includes trans identified females in her concerns.

See, this is the problem with trans activists. They reference a second hand and third hand source, such as 'vox', which gives their own interpretation of what JK said. Vox will say this is what she said, "BUT this is what she really meant."

You never go straight to the ACTUAL SOURCE, JK herself, her own words. Instead, you rely on someone else's words, twisting what JK said. Give us a link straight to JK's....own....words. Not someone else's manipulative interpretation of it.

HER.....OWN.....TWEETS. HER.....OWN....WORDS. Not someone else's article. HER OWN WORDS AND TWEETS. Without an interpretation.

Ultimately what a woman is defined by is a personal subjective opinion

I think I speak for many when I say that I have clearly been had.

Years of pregnancy and breast feeding and DH could have done all of it? The whole ‘woman’ thing was all in my head?

See, this is the problem with trans activists. They reference a second hand and third hand source, such as 'vox', which gives their own interpretation of what JK said. Vox will say this is what she said, "BUT this is what she really meant."
You never go straight to the ACTUAL SOURCE, JK herself, her own words. Instead, you rely on someone else's words, twisting what JK said. Give us a link straight to JK's....own....words. Not someone else's manipulative interpretation of it.
HER.....OWN.....TWEETS. HER.....OWN....WORDS. Not someone else's article. HER OWN WORDS AND TWEETS. Without an interpretation.

Lol, can you even read? The quotes & links are all in the piece.🤡

Can you show me your evidence please.
A list would be useful particularly in the U.K.
Not anything you have mentioned before from other countries.

It's 2025, we biologists pretty much sequence anything that doesn't move out of our way fast enough and several services exist that sequence you if you pay them for it, like Ancestry, and yet all these hundreds of thousands (millions more likely) of people who had their genome done either for medical or personal interest reasons and we don't come across people who are the opposite genomic sex to the one that everybody around them observes them to be. The "nobody knows their chromosomes" is so stupid.

Firstly the context of the response was claiming all trans women were predatory deviants sans evidence.

No one has ever made any such claim.

Secondly, the justice system is predicated on harm prevention not 'feelz' of which there's no evidence trans women pose to women in public bathrooms but trans women do experience in mens.

There is evidence that MALES pose a risk, both physically and psychologically, to FEMALES. Which is why the sexes are segregated in these spaces. By SEX. Not by a male-who-identifies-as-a-womans 'feelz'. And the evidence OVERWHELMINGLY shows transwomen are a higher risk to females than other males.

Replying back - Why apart from your ignorance & stupidity do you hate facts so much?

JKR writing an unequivocal list of what transactivism means has really boxed its proponents into a corner.

TRAs have no-where to go - it's all insults, stupid arguments and increasing aggression.

It will be interesting how the less unhinged deal with it tho.

The Williams 'institute' has been debunked over and over and over and over again. Even they themselves say their studies are not reliable. Only a fool would keep re-posting it. Same with the vox article which seeks to blame women for our natural response to males being allowed in our spaces, in the first place.

Re-posting the same debunked garbage only in a different thread won't change the fact that it's debunked garbage. It won't suddenly become true if you re-post it on the 11th time.

The 'piece' puts it's OWN INTERPRETATION on it and twists and distorts what she actually said. '🤡' back at you.

Everyone who is a cross dressing heterosexual male fetishist is someone who is not oppressed, and is someone who is having the time of their lives piggybacking off gender identity ideology.

I can’t believe I have read pages of semantic arguments about something perfectly clear. There is nothing ambiguous nor controversial about what she wrote, unless you’re a trans activist determined to find fault or a cross dressing heterosexual male fetishist who doesn’t like the truth being pointed out.

unless you’re a trans activist determined to find fault or a cross dressing heterosexual male fetishist who doesn’t like the truth being pointed out.

💯

plenty of CIS women can pass for men

If true, would have really helped back when women weren’t allowed to go to university or vote.

Alas, however, I suspect what the article describes is prejudice against people who are gender non conforming.