Why do some people view JK Rowling as transphobic?

[Backwardsbinn]

Where do people get the idea that JK Rowling is transphobic from? Where? I’m having this argument with an acquaintance who tells me she’s the most transphobic person on earth but cannot point to one single thing that she’s done or said that’s transphobic. Is this the widest held totally bullshit view ever?

That's disputable.

All trans people are essentially saying is

Who appointed you official spokesperson for trans people?

Basic logic.

All trans people are essentially saying is they have more in common with the typical behaviours of the opposite sex.

Where in the GRA or the PC of GR do men have demonstrated thet have more in common with the typical behaviours of women?

What are these behaviours?

Trans people believe that they have more in common with their PERCEPTION of the opposite sex... not what those oeople actually are

Not believing that trans-identified men are women is a legally-protected belief. As is not believing that Allah is the one god and Mohammed his last messenger. Neither transphobia nor Islamophobia.

Belief in another person's beliefs is not mandated. Lack of belief and active disbelief are not hatred, are not fear, are not discriminatory.

Yes it’s a legally protected belief

and the definition of transphobia it seems

you don’t expect common sense and logic from people who believe you can change sex do you ?

Which transgenderism totally lacks.

And there we have it in a nutshell : transgenderism = women have no rights and men can take what they want from women.

Why would it be disputable?

Why do you think men should be able to take women's things (single sex spaces), just because they want them, despite women not giving their consent?

If you think that's legitimate, it could only be because you don't respect women's rights, boundaries or consent. You think men should just take what they want.

That sounds like an incel position to be perfectly honest.

It comes back around to the idea that the definition of women is anything a man wants it to be, therefore the purpose of womens space is anything a man wants it to be, too.

A man wants woman to be a collection of changable behaviours, therefore womens spaces are places to perform these behaviours.

And yet I do (work in academia).

Do you have any answers for all the posters here asking you to defend why you think male and female are primarily psychological rather than physical categories? And why safeguarding is concerned with actual statistics about male violence that is overwhelmingly aimed at female people.

Perhaps go and read a few of the posts before you waste anyone’s time with another illogical non-answer.

I have so many questions about how this works in practice...

Are adults of female body who don't exhibit said typical behaviours not women?

Is there a cutoff, or is just one of the (undefined) behaviours enough?

Are there typical behaviours that indicate whether an infant is a boy or a girl, or are all infants non-binary until their behaviours kick in?

How about unconscious people of female body? There's a whole porn genre about having sex with them - are the men (presumably men anyway, based on their behaviours) experiencing pansexual attraction until the body wakes up and displays woman behaviour, at which point the man's sexuality collapses into straightness? Or can ones sexuality detect the implicit gender of a partner even though the behaviours aren't currently being exhibited?

Actually, same question applies outside porn as well - if someone isn't at that point in time displaying a gender-defining behaviour, are they in a state of agenderness? If not, what determines their gender for others during these periods of non-display?

Do drag artists become women for the period of their act, or is drag itself a man-behaviour? If the latter, how does one differentiate between a man performing the manly behaviour of exhibiting women's behaviours as a act and an actual woman of male body exhibiting her natural woman's behaviours?

And of course, and oldie but still a classic: given that physical sex differences clearly exist independently of gender-defining behaviours, are generally at least as easily recognised as gender-defining behaviours and manifestly have both physical and social consequences, why exactly does it make sense to take the pre-existing words for the two sexes ("men" and "women") and appropriate the pre-existing sex-based rights and resources for this new idea of "defining people by their average behaviours" , thereby trying to make the new average behaviours idea work in boxes that frankly don't fit it, make no sense when lookedcat closely, and create bad outcomes especially for people of female body who no longer have protections based on their sex, rather than simply coining new language and determining new, well fitting support structures built to meet these gender-defining behaviour needs from the ground up?

But they can’t expect to seek it in the space set aside for females, surely?

What does that do to the privacy and dignity of females?

Howse that indeed. Maybe a glass of Bailey's on a cold Icelandic Night will elucidate this point further...🤔

Lots of men - particularly ND men in my experience- would ‘prefer it’. Do they all go in with the women or just some of the male people?

Do you have any answers for all the posters here asking you to defend why you think male and female are primarily psychological rather than physical categories?

I never said that. My position is its upto the individual's values & beliefs to determine what they identify with more.

And why safeguarding is concerned with actual statistics about male violence that is overwhelmingly aimed at female people.

Male violence is more relevant to person's known to the victim in their own homes, workplaces & schools & not in public toilets by trans women so that's irrelevant.

Are the old “we can’t eliminate risk everywhere, so we shouldn’t mitigate it anywhere” argument.

You are confused.

Firstly women are not a monolith so they don't necessarily agree with your personal subjective prescriptions of what women want.

And secondly, women don't 'own' anything. Proportionality & the prevailing culture does.

That sounds like a misandrist position to be perfectly honest.

Ah the old 'data doesn't matter unless we say it does' 'argument'.

Male violence is more relevant to person's known to the victim in their own homes, workplaces & schools & not in public toilets by trans women so that's irrelevant.

Doesn't the same apply to TW wanting to avoid other men? Therefore why do they need to use women's spaces?

Complete nonsense.

Women's single sex spaces are not men's to take. If you think they, that's basically the same position as incels have. Is that what you're going for?

If women and men want to hang out in unisex spaces, then they can knock themselves out.

But leave women's single spaces alone, they aren't yours to have or give away.

@Northernlightsss “And secondly, women don't 'own' anything. Proportionality & the prevailing culture does.”

WOMEN own womanhood!!

Tut tut @6ate9 apparently that's gatekeeping and exclusionary

As in he was already a professor at the university of Glasgow when he applied for Cambridge.

He was highly appointed. That is not highly qualified. And his appointment at Glasgow was also based on false pretences.

The fact that others weren’t analysed as deeply as him - whether true or not - didn’t make him “highly qualified.” HTH.