“Heated Rivalry” author Rachel Reid on J. K. Rowling - “the bar is pretty high in how evil you have to be,” “ I’m extremely the opposite of everything she believes”

[YankSplaining]

Well, this is disappointing.

”[Reid] has a keen desire not to disappoint her fans, especially when they’re sending her photos of freshly inked tattoos of her words on their skin. ‘I know of another author that a lot of people got tattoos of but then wanted them gone. Like, J. K. Rowling,’ she says. ‘The bar is pretty high for how evil you have to be, but I don’t want to let a single person down.’ I ask if she’s a TERF. ‘No, I’m extremely the opposite of everything she believes,’ she replies.”

Well, too late, she let me down. “Extremely the opposite of everything she believes,” huh? I guess Rachel Reid thinks teenage girls should be forced to undress after PE in front of naked male classmates who gawp as their dicks get hard. Or that female inmates should be locked in cells with male inmates serving time for serial rape.

I don’t expect Reid to agree with Rowling on trans issues. It’s the monstering of Rowling that I take issue with - the “evil,” and the framing of Rowling as so extreme that Reid feels the need to be extremely the opposite of everything she believes.

Edit: title should read “on how evil you have to be”

Do you understand the concept of being able to prove what you state, the onus of which is on you.

Classic symptoms of Rowling Dearangement Syndrome.

The rules that appear to relate to JKR being the baddie in this case:
10. The worst thing about male violence is that it makes men look bad.
12. Women’s ability to recognise male behaviour patterns is misandry (ETA - in this case, perhaps this should be 'transphobia').

Ssshh women. Don't speak about male sexual violence against women and children - it upsets the men

That 'evidence' was totally discredited at the time.

Criminality
"In response to questions 38 and 39 Prof Freedman referenced “a well-known Swedish study” to imply that patterns of criminality are the same amongst trans women as they are amongst cis (non-trans) men. In her response to Q40 she alleged there were “Swedish studies” (plural). Additionally, Prof Stock referred to “male patterns” when talking about criminal behaviour in her answer to Q26.
I understand the “Swedish study” to be a single 2011 article published by Cecilia Dhejne and colleagues[1], in which the authors reported on mortality, suicidality, psychiatric care and conviction rates among individuals who transitioned in Sweden between 1973 and 2003. This study is widely but inaccurately cited by anti-trans groups on social media as evidence that trans women retain “male patterns” of criminality, an error repeated by Profs Freedman and Stock.
Dhejne herself rejected this interpretation explicitly in an interview with Cristan Williams of TransAdvocate in November 2015[2]. I attach the full relevant extract in Appendix B. A key point she makes is the study is “certainly not saying that we found that trans women were a rape risk” to cis women. Additionally, the study was not focused on investigating criminal behaviour, was drawn from a small cohort in one country, and only indicated a statistically significant increased risk of conviction for trans people who ‘underwent sex reassignment before 1989’:[3] a time when fewer opportunities and resources were available to trans people in Sweden, which may have resulted in increased criminalisation in a similar manner to other stigmatised groups. The authors therefore conclude that the best outcomes occur when individuals also receive long-term health and social care support in addition to any hormone therapy or surgery that they might require."

https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/21023/html/

She's not highlighting trans offenders to give the false impression that most sex offenders are trans.
She's doing it because that's the only subset of males that people are seriously arguing should be allowed full access to female spaces.

Transwomen commit sexual offences 5 times higher than other males. So it's not an 'exception'.

Are you seriously disputing JKR's twitter feed doesn't contain her posting instances of trans related sexual violence?

If this thread is going to turn into bashing women for writing or reading m/m romance, I’m out. That’s not why I started this thread in the first place. The issue I posted to discuss is Reid’s attitude towards Rowling, and I think that topic is important enough to get undivided attention in a thread.

Not addressing “pedophilic fantasies” poster, who, like the ghosts in The Sixth Sense, seems to only see what s/he wants to see.

Male sexual violence. Trans women are male.

Why is your problem with her and not the trans identifying male sex offenders? Is that really your position?

Ok so explain these then, not just UK but US, Canada and New Zealand: (the one without the label is Canada)

This is especially ironic since Rachel Reid has Parkinsons and one of Rowlings favoured charitable causes is research and treatment of neurological disease.

Canada and NZ:

I can understand it perfectly well. Where has she lied by omission? Specifically?

It's male related sexual violence.

I'm a mum who knows exactly how safeguarding works in schools regarding trans children (because my child is trans)

• reacting to someone writing utterly repulsive humiliation fantasies about kids.

it's not just totally untrue, it's filth. Writing things like that reveals exactly who someone is - who it's being written for is another, equally disgusting issue.

Violent men write this stuff to parents like me all the time, because that's what they get from the anti-trans movement - a place where they can write out the most appalling CSA fantasies and pretend it's because they care so much about kids' safety.

Discussing safeguarding does not involve sexualising kids (boys or girls, cis or trans) or writing paedophilic fantasies about them. It's sick.

Defending it says everything about you.

Aaaand...we're back to leveraging JKR to boost people's careers again.

IW does it. Other losers do it. We had a discussion about this on here a while ago.

They profess to hate her, but they need her. What would they do without her?

Violent MEN you say....?

She just loves 'reposting' about predatory trans women conveniently without her proviso they aren't the norm.

https://x.com/salltweets/status/1972074728535011697?s=20

If he tried that at my local pool he would be floating face down in the water 😊😬

If you don't understand the difference between offence rates & incarceration rates I can't help you.

What I find interesting is that most people who disagree with JKRs stance on trans issues, seem to be totally incapable of saying that she has also done a lot of good. Apparently upsetting the sacred group that is transwomen undoes all the amazing work she's done. Such as the Lumos foundation, or the Joanne Rowling clinic. Friends I know who loved all things HP now claim they are badly written, plagiarised etc etc. These are the same friends who introduced teenage me to feminism, who hated the fact that female authors (including JKR) historically published under either a pen name, or their initials, to hide the fact they were female. Yet now that's apparently more proof of her transphobia, because she "pretended to be a man when she needed to". All very sad.

What's even more interesting is many of those same people still love the likes of Neil Gaiman because "no one is all bad". No one except JKR that is!

Why should women not post examples of male sexual abuse and violence?

Should media not report on male sexual violence? Why should women not point out male sexual violence and general male abuse of female people when they see it or experience it?

Offence rates & incarceration rates aren't the same thing. Look it up.

Do you expect every post about male violence to have a big "NAMALT" disclaimer too?

'Cos, sorry, nope.

So you're saying trans identitllfying males commit fewer sex offences than other men, but just get sent to prison more? Do you have any evidence for that?