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?

Ha ha. Best tell my mother, who likes proper cigars, not cigarillos, and Formula One 😄

Oh. That is clear then.

I am a man too!

Me too. Coronas though.

Does she work on a building site?

You really need to listen to trans people.

https://x.com/marycatedelvey/status/1897370783816790064

I genuinely do not care if TRAs seize upon it. It's a fundamental concern.

JKR did not say 'all trans people' here. If TRAs lack comprehension skills, that's not our problem.

It is not vindictive and it's not false. Male fetish behaviour has been the driver of this from the very start.

The #bekinders know TWAM, but thnk they do no harm.

How do we reach these people and tell them that some are bad actors if we cannot talk about the bad actors?

The males that demand to enter women's toilets and changing rooms are indeed predatory deviants. And this is a sizeable percentage of those who identify as the opposite sex.

Which is of course what they are good at, given the blatant lie their movement is based on.

I’m very much heartened by the thread about the number of GPs now refusing to prescribe wrong-sex hormones. Many of them will have been pressured into doing it and will now feeling safety in numbers.

there really is literally no way that JKR can talk about this in a way some people will find acceptable

still, this thread has reminded me to order The Hallmarked Man

Fabulous woman

I disagree, she was instead very clearly explicit as to whom she was referring:

cross dressing
heterosexual
male fetishits

not

all trans
or
girls thinking they are trans
or
Gay boys believing they are trans
or lesbians confused about themselves

and no better woman to be explicit. Plus the usual on here, someone finds a teeny tiny way to attack her … (obviously not you! )

Fetishits is one of the finest typos ever.

Chapeau!

A few points. "Implying" sort of relies quite heavily on the reader's interpretation of what they are reading, often influenced by their own views. People often see what they want to see. Implying and inferring are two different sides of the same coin. What the author intended, and what the reader inferred during their reading.
This reminds me of Gryf Rhys Jones in the movie adaptation of Tom Sharpe's Wilt. Gryf is a murder suspect being interviewed by the hapless police inspector Mel Smith. Mel asks Griff what he was inferring when he said something. Griff replies I wasn't inferring anything, I was implying xxxxx. Griff then goes on to explain the difference between inferring and implying. Mel's police inspector ends up totally confused.

Yep, dog whistles give great plausible deniability. That she has effectively created a moral panic speaks to intention.

Anyway onto the meat and potatoes. Great job on the Motte and Bailey logical fallacy reference, although it would have been nice if you could have provided examples. Perhaps you could provide some of the nastier examples you have inferred from JKR's writings? Examples would help prove your point.
However one thing confuses me.

https://www.vox.com/culture/23622610/jk-rowling-transphobic-statements-timeline-history-controversy

Not to mention posting pics & reports of isolated instances of trans offenders.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faulty_generalization

You are clearly well versed on your logical fallacies, but you then go on to use one yourself.

"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."
This logical fallacy is called Relative Privation, or also known as the fallacy of appeal to worse problems if you want to use less fancy words.
Whenever someone has an issue with something and another person dismisses it because there are more worthy things that should in person two's opinion be considered instead. It's an attempt to distract from and dismiss the original issue. Don't look at that, look at this instead. It's an incredibly popular fallacy, second only to Strawmanning. I'm sure it must have slipped innocently past your finely honed logical fallacy filters because I doubt anyone who enjoys the words Motte and Bailey so much could be totally ignorant of Relative Privation.

I never said that issue at hand didn't have validity or didn't deserve attention rather it was "incessantly" in our faces to the point of overkill as if it were an existential threat.. so yeah strawmanning applies here as well not to mention hyperbole.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbole

The males that demand to enter women's toilets and changing rooms are indeed predatory deviants. And this is a sizeable percentage of those who identify as the opposite sex.

And your evidence is: 'Feelz'…

Oh look. It’s the bloke who thinks sexual assault should only be counted if it’s successful and women should be shamed for wanting single sex spaces.

Oh look, the fragile petal who relies on strawmanning when others don't agree with them…

Well their evidence for claiming they are women seem to be 'feelz'.

It's always very baffling to me why males think that being aggressive / belittling / condescending is a great strategy and convincing way to get women to say 'oh of course, we were completely wrong! Come on into our loos oh aggressive, belittling, condescending man!'

Fuckwits.

No one pointing out that it's wrong for men to use women's facilities is incorrect.
If they do not add please or consider feelings, they're still correct.
There's no wrong way to say men are men regardless of anything else.
However, policing people saying men are men is wrong.

We can talk about the bad actors (and I think we should) but we have to do it carefully. If #bekinders get all their news from the BBC (for example), they may not be getting a complete picture. They're likely to accuse us of demonising all trans people.

Possibly the 80th person to say this but
It’s a bit weird that you have made this all about you in the thread title. Literally everyone on this board has been making these points for ten years, surely?

disclaimer - havent read full thread bcs have heard and made all these points before and just can’t be arsed ultimately

Where to even start with this nonsense?
Perhaps it might be helpful to remind everyone that in 2019 she tweeted the following:
"Dress however you please. Call yourself whatever you like. Sleep with any consenting adult who’ll have you. Live your best life in peace and security. But force women out of their jobs for stating that sex is real? #IStandWithMaya #ThisIsNotADrill”
She was immediately set on by an angry mob with metaphorical pitchforks. That was what started all the rape and death threats.
Then there was the tweet objecting to women being called "menstruators". And again, the trans activists lost their shit.
Then there was her famous essay which in my opinion is perfectly measured and reasonable, and which was nonetheless cited as evidence of her bigotry and hatefulness, mainly by people who, when pushed, will admit to not having read it.
There were the people who claimed that she had written a "transphobic book", apparently based on the factually inaccurate and arguably defamatory review in the Telegraph in which Jake Kerridge he/him alleges that the moral of the story is "never trust a man in a dress". Quite how one could arrive at such a conclusion having actually read the book is beyond me, but nevertheless, a lie gets halfway round the world before the truth has time to put its pants on, and some people will still insist today that Troubled Blood is a book in which the murderer is a trans woman.
All of this happened long before she ever tweeted anything as inflammatory as "cross-dressing male heterosexual fetishists".
So if you are going to allege that it is not what she says but the way in which she says it, perhaps you could give your considered opinion on why the nice rainbow people were threatening to rape and murder her long before she said it in that way.

Nice white washing, now here's the facts:

www.vox.com/culture/23622610/jk-rowling-transphobic-statements-timeline-history-controversy

Finally, if you object to women being defined according to their reproductive role, could you suggest a more progressive definition for us please? And, while you're at it, tell us what terminology we can now use when we actually want to refer to members of the childbearing sex, or if you don't think we need a word for this group, explain why you think that and how you propose to protect this group against illegal discrimination if we have no way of identifying what it is and who is in it?

Strawman. I don't object to women being associated to their reproductive role. I just know that's not all of who they are which includes the behavioural, psychological & cultural associations. Ultimately what a woman is defined by is a personal subjective opinion as to what associations an individual more identifies with whether they be reproductive or behavioural, psychological & cultural. We as a society don't get to make that decision for individuals & we have no right to.

Now that's not to say there won't be competing rights/potential harms in accepting sub groups of women but it's not as if they can't be managed. We can & have put restrictions on women's sports. We can & have given special exemptions for the discrimination in favour CIS women in necessary circumstances. Managing competing rights isn't new & isn't rocket science nor is it the existential threat some purport it to be.

"You mean eg one tweet where she said male rapist and men and TRA lost their shit and decided that it has to be about "all 'genuine' trans iding males who could nvere be a rapist because (checks notes) 'genuine' trans Iding males dont rape and if the male is a rapist he could not have been a 'genuine' trans IDing male to begin with"
Was that about right or can you provide evidence of your claim?"

https://www.vox.com/culture/23622610/jk-rowling-transphobic-statements-timeline-history-controversy

"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."
What?
Like Lumos (including children of Ukraine, donations to homeless people, refugee organisations, anti-slavery work,
Biera's place
Volant Charitable Trust supporting women, children and young people at risk
Gingerbread
Anne Rowling Regenerative Neurology Clinic
including female lawyers out of Afghanistan
This list is just from the top of my head.
You mean she is not contributing to 'more serious feminist issues' such as those above ^ ?^
(Shall I take your tone: Fail / False / emoji / emoji / insult) or do you have an inkling of self awareness and realise just how ignorant your post really was?
Edit: Too slow and cross posted.

Strawman. No one is suggesting JKR doesn't 'contribute' to other issues she just sucks out all the air from the media space with hyperbole existential claims effectively ensuring no other issues take dominance.

significantly more serious feminist issues such as endemic domestic violence, sexual violence, women's mental health issues & online misogyny to name a few.
And do you know what dealing with all of those things requires? A fundamental recognition that women are a sex class different to men.
Are you getting it yet?

Strawman. That reproductive characteristics aren't the only way to distinguish men from women doesn't preclude that sub group of woman existing & by extension issues relating to them. It's like saying acknowledging 'black women exist & have needs must cancel out those of white women'. 🤪

Are you getting it yet?

Ooo we have resorted to the dictionary.

How about

Woman; adult human female.

?

It's not hyperbole.

Many of us have witnessed the harms trans ideology has done first hand.

Or are you going to deny us our lived experience as well as our own identity and shared identities?