'As I said in my initial post regarding JK Rowling's transphobic posts, they are implicitly framed. Plausible deniability & all that'
For an accusation of 'implicitly' saying that 'all trans people are predatory sex fetishists' to be considered valid, she would have to have shown that she was not just talking about male people who are sex fetishists.
For example, the poster picked out this quote :
"Rowling revealed she is a survivor of domestic abuse and sexual assault and said this led her to sympathize with women who had "concerns around single-sex spaces." She argued against throwing "open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he's a woman.”
And made this interpretation:
'Dog whistle for trans people as deluded pedatory sex abusers'
Notice how dishonest this interpretation is considering they accused her of saying 'ALL' trans people. This quote they have chosen refers only to men. Explicitly she is saying that some male people with transgender identities may cause female people harm, in other words this includes distress, by being in that space.
She may believe that any male person who would enter a female single sex space is there to cause the female people in the space harm intentionally, but she could also believe something else.
The interpretation of 'Dog whistle for trans people as deluded pedatory sex abusers' is taking an absolutist, catastrophised view and assuming the worst in words that don't explicitly say what has been claimed.
In any case, this doesn't support the accusation of 'all'.
Here is another example in this quote:
Rowling published a new novel titled "Troubled Blood" under the pseudonym Robert Galbraith. The book, which revolved around a male serial killer who dresses like a woman, was accused of being anti-trans.
It was disappointing that Rowling was propagating a "long-standing and hurtful presentation of trans women as a threat," a spokesperson for Mermaids, a charity that supports trans children, said to CNN. Rowling, meanwhile, said the book "was loosely based" on real killers.
The interpretation was:
'Dog whistle for trans people as mentally ill abusers of women'
Did the poster even read this book? I did . And many others did. Perhaps the poster would like to know that there have been male people in the past, who did not have a transgender identity, who used dressing to look like a female person to gain access to victims or to get close to victims. It does happen. The Cambridge Murderer (there is a thread on this active on FWR at the moment) did this.
So, which is more likely in this supposedly 'implicit' statement that 'all trans people are predatory sex fetishists'? That she referenced real life examples for her book (the perpetrator was didn't have a transgender identity by the way!) or that she thinks 'all trans people are predatory sex fetishists'?
Oh... and... the character was male. So again, this does not support the flawed accusation at all.
In fact, the implication from her character would be that 'some male people will present in a way that will gain the trust of their intended victim' which is true. And if someone wanted to make a negative implicit meaning, it would be that 'all men are predators' which is also not true.
Then there is this example:
"When Scotland's new Hate Crime and Public Order Act went into effect in April, Rowling tried to bait them into arresting her with posts online. The law criminalizes "stirring up hatred" against people based on their race, religion, disability, sexuality or gender identity. By passing the law, Scotland "placed higher value on the feelings of men performing their idea of femaleness, however misogynistically or opportunistically, than on the rights and freedoms of actual women and girls," Rowling said in the thread on X. If anything she wrote qualified as an offense under the new law, "I look forward to being arrested when I return to the birthplace of the Scottish Enlightenment," Rowling said."_
The interpretation of this quote was:
'Dog whistle for trans people as deluded/mentally ill predatory abusers of women'
Nope. The tweet that I bolded in that quote refers to 'male' people with transgender identities. Any 'implicit' interpretation that tweet would also be reasonable to be said to be only limiting that tweet to male people who demanded to access female single sex provisions. By provisions, I refer to anything designated as being just for female people.
Again, it is not about female people with transgender identities at all. Because those female people are included in the rights and freedoms of actual women and girls. She has generally made that clear so it would be a deliberate bad faith interpretation to assume she included female people in that quoted tweet.
Then finally the quote:
"Rowling posted t, accusing Khelif of being a man who was "enjoying the distress of a woman he's just punched in the head."_
The interpretation
'Dog whistle for mentally ill trans person who enjoys abusing of women'
Again, as others have already said, Khelif is not transgender at all. Nothing to do with trans people. Khelif is a male boxer with a DSD that led to him being erroneously listed at 'female' in his passport.
Plus there is nothing in that tweet that says that Khelif is mentally ill either. So that is another falsity there too. No one has to be mentally ill to enjoy a woman's distress. They may be. But they also have a just as much likelihood of not being mentally ill.
TL/DR: There was nothing in that linked article that stated or even implied that 'all trans people are predatory sex fetishists'. It is not even logical to make this point when considering there are female people with transgender identities as well who JK Rowling, nor any pro-woman poster on this board that I know of, would categorise as being a predatory sex fetishist.
However, it does show how very biased and unreasonable some people's interpretations of JK Rowling's tweets can be.