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?

To be fair she does not say or imply whether she thinks that "cross-dressing heterosexual male fetishists" are 1% or 100% or somewhere in between of male trans people.

As far as I can see, paraphiliacs (autogynephiles and transvestic fetishists) are likely to be somewhere in the region of 40% to 90% of all male trans people (but that is total guess.

Yes - it’s not a cap meant to fit all transgender people, so they’re under no obligation to wear it. I mean for one thing it clearly doesn’t apply to trans identified females.

So you think the banker who has 2 email address two phone numbers for work and likes the hookeRus over the professional bootNsuit banker look falls with in the "cross-dressing heterosexual male fetishists" or the "very confused and unhappy"?

If you class the cross-dressing heterosexual male fetishists as trans why do you think they are very confused and unhappy when they are allowed to what is effectively for them carrying out sex acts in public spaces with people who never consented?

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

That trans identifying men, who cross-dress and are heterosexual and have fetishists aren’t actually oppressed, but having the time of their lives piggybacking off gender identity ideology?

I think actually her words are crystal clear on that point: that there is a wide gulf between a distinct cohort of cross-dressing male fetishists on the one hand, and people identifying as trans for a variety of other reasons, on the other.

That trans identifying men, who cross-dress and are heterosexual and have fetishists aren’t actually oppressed, but having the time of their lives piggybacking off gender identity ideology?

if we're discussing the meaning of words, there's an important comma in this sentence which changes the meaning a lot from that JKR wrote.

That trans identifying men who cross dress ... (means the subset of those who trans identify that also cross dress)

vs.

That trans identifying men, who cross dress ... (refers to all trans identify men entirely and notes that incidentally they all also cross dress)

It's called a Motte & Bailey.

If JKR's 'opinions' were just limited to the above that would be a reasonable view despite them being easily managed to minimise harm. But she does as so many GC's do which is so much more via her twitter account in routinely implying trans people are dangerous delusional predatory sexual deviants with no associations to women.

When called out for this behaviour she immediately reverts to her more palatable view point as if that's all she is doing. An utterly conniving manipulative cruel fraudster who not only facilitates the political & social harms trans people are forced to face as a result of her huge reach & influence but the distraction from significantly more serious feminist issues such as endemic domestic violence, sexual violence, women's mental health issues & online misogyny to name a few.

Media focus being finite means that where one issue incessantly dominates other issues get left for dead. Perhaps that's why far right misogynistic men are so delighted to have such a distraction from male responsibilities not to mention a return to women being no more than their reproductive characteristics is a regression dream come true.

Wake up useful idiots.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy

Men who cross dress for fetishistic reasons are fetishists.

I think what people don't like about that sentence is that it acknowledges that cross dressing fetishes exist and are very much are part of the movement.

This proves she is not transphobic. If she was, she would be mentioning transmen (trans identifying females) more. She wishes to retain female single sex provision which does not change if a transman uses them.

This happens with her a lot more than her die-hard fans would care to acknowledge (I'm sure we all remember her tweet in which she unnecessarily mocked an awareness day for asexuals).

Her support for women and women's rights is laudable and isn't in question [I've emphasised this for the hard of thinking]; it's the nasty and, perhaps tellingly, spiteful, opinionated behaviour she often exhibits that creates such disapproval of - and opposition to - her.

Another example of the power she wields? Her cult will be along shortly in an attempt to character assassinate me for posting anything other than fawning, mindless adoration of her.

I love the way she is so articulate! I know what I want to say but always get so tangled. She truly is amazing.

Hi Brian.

Are you still arguing that the BBC is obliged to use female pronouns for a male murderer of children, or have you given that up for a bad job?

This would be useful to know, if you're expecting your criticisms of JKR's alleged bad faith to be taken seriously.

I'm sure the men wanting to perve on girls and women in changing rooms will be along in a minute to tell us why JKR is wrong.

Mutter mutter dog whistle mutter mutter wikipedia link mutter mutter link to opinion piece in Medium mutter mutter butch lesbians in toilets mutter mutter

Nope. She says that trans identified males are no different to any other males and as a class, they are dangerous to women. Which is why we have single sex provision in the first place.

As for what she does for feminism, maybe go and read up about it before talking bollocks.

So you don’t like the way she says it?

Hi Brian.
Are you still arguing that the BBC is obliged to use female pronouns for a male murderer of children, or have you given that up for a bad job?
This would be useful to know, if you're expecting your criticisms of JKR's alleged bad faith to be taken seriously.

Hi Misojoe,

Are you still arguing that women are a monolithic stereotype when it comes to opinions? IE only a maaaan would disagree? 🤡

The vitriol started to be poured on JKR right at the start when she first put her head above the parapet with the mildest of tweets followed by a thoughtful explanation of her position. I think her detractors conveniently forget that.

Interruptaron incoming.

I know right? Why can't she take the moral high ground like the TRA Neo-Sexists do?

https://terfisaslur.com/j-k-rowling/

Oh. Awks.

I read it that as she's not mentioned trans people, she's referring specifically to the cross-dressing heterosexual male fetishists.

I don't personally know if JKR thinks this description covers all trans people, I would guess not. She's obviously describing some trans people at least.

Blah blah blah

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're not deliberately missing the point here.

On that basis, if you re-read my post and think about it you will (hopefully!) see that I have no issue with - indeed, actively support - her work for us, our right to single-sex spaces, etc. My issue is that she repeatedly and demonstrably sneers at certain groups in our society. It's ugly, unnecessary, and unwelcome.

The problem is not her own, clearly embittered, opinion about certain groups of people; it's that her very public spite is absorbed my the less enlightened among her followers and that, in turn, becomes what I can only imagine is frighteningly aggressive ideological opposition to the rights of said groups.
Again, that kind of behaviour is ugly, unnecessary, and unwelcome.

I see that Incel School still haven't taught their students to use the quote button.

Having had Brian explain at tedious length why a male murderer of children merits the use of female pronouns, I look forward to him further pwning JKR by explaining why rape survivors don't deserve single sex peer counselling.

I havent read/listened to the Chris Columbus interview, was there context to his 'love the art not the artist' comment?