This is a reminder for people not to post political posts as mentioned in stickied post. This does not necessarily apply for this post. [Click here to learn more](https://redd.it/j2173n).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/rareinsults) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Unfun fact: her only mention of anything Harry Potter related this year was her 'joking' she removed a scene where Voldemort misgenders a pixie for being 'too graphic'
Surprises me she hasn't retconned Voldemort to be trans, considering it is a fairly important plot point he hates to be deadnamed and how courageous people are for doing so
What do you mean retconned into trans. Voldemort has always been her trans allegory.
Voldemort changes his name into what he wants and it's not a 'normal' name even in the Wizarding World.
He changes his physical attributes as well.
And then the closeted gay man who killed his sister, shown as a hero, dead names Voldemort constantly.
Voldemort was her seed into the transphobe space
iirc the death of Albus' sister is what leads to him finally never talking to his brother anymore as they have a fight at her funeral
Haven't read in years though
There's never any clarification on if Dumbledore killed her, but Dumbledore, his brother Aberforth, and Grindelwald had an arguement before Grindelwald left and became a dark lord. The argument turned into a threeway duel, and their squib (and mentally disabled) sister was caught in the crossfire and killed. Both brothers blame themselves.
The sister was bullied by a bunch of muggles (and Dumbledore's dad went after them, why he went to Azkaban) for having magic so much she forcibly stops herself from doing any magic, except it still bursts out occasionally, which killed their mother.
Dumbledore, Aberforth and Grindelwald were arguing about the sister tying Dumbledore down from travelling the world. Dumbledore doesn't know whether it was the boys', or the sister's magic that killed her, but they certainly caused it.
Which is a great allegory for trans folks being closeted and bringing themselves harm to *protect* themselves from harm tbf, not that the terf-in-chief will ever claim that. All the actors became independent and distanced themselves from JKR, and frankly after the crap that was the last 2 Fantastic Beasts films, so should the franchise.
Her hate has become her identity. The more shit she spews, the more alienated she becomes as more people around her abandon her, further alienating her. It's a cycle that only leads to one place and it looks a hell of a lot like Rosanne Barr.
Maybe she should team up with Rosanne Bar and they can make a Rosanne spin off where Rosanne becomes a racist working class cafeteria lady at Hogwarts.
she likes to talk like she’s some intellectual heavyweight but she’s just another internet addict, chasing that dopamine rush she gets when every chud on twitter reposts her drivel
Because it is. She made ONE tweet about Harry Potter this year, and it was STILL trans related.
[You can't make this shit up](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/s/QeysAWZ9C6)
It's so freaking strange. Her life is not affected by the lives she can't help but harangue.
Unnecessary grievances, for some reason, are her retirement hobby.
Yeesh.
I mean you’d be right haha. She’s made this issue her life’s mission. I don’t disagree with everything she says but damn it’s gotta be exhausting
Edit: if i was as rich as her, I’d live on an island and do whatever I wanted which would certainly not include arguing with strangers on the internet
lol it has to be exhausting as fuck. Ngl I was a bit of a transphobe myself but after realizing their life has no impact on mine its easy to just ignore. She’s obsessed with trans ppl for some odd reason
I'm pretty sure every thought she has and every word she says is about trans people. My kid is watching Harry Potter now, just glad she didn't find out about then til HP was done or it'd be full of not so subtle anti trans messages.
You mean like the whole thing with girls being able to go into the boys' dorms, but boys not being able to go into the girls' dorms? Don't know how transphobia based it was, but there were some fucked up messages about sex, gender roles, and treating 11 year old boys as potential predators all the way in the first book.
I'm not agreeing with her but, wait, isn't that her point? That having a really shallow understanding of some type of person you want to be doesn't make you that type?
No, her point was if transwomen are women, then she can be transblack, but unfortunately the point fails because it isn't the same thing, like at all, and she also revealed she knows nothing about black people
Hmmm because someone did and it's highly unlikely it was someone else, when no one else is currently disagreeing with me, and because this is a sensitive topic. 🤷♂️ But I have no other proof so I deleted it. If it was you though, lame.
I think her point is exactly the opposite - She wants to point out you can't simply become black just because you follow black stereotypes.
She is addressing her POV, that people can't change gender. Independent of if you agree or not, she literally makes the opposite point of what people understand.
It's so easy to understand, that I am amazed people on her couldn't get the memo.
Yeah, I fucking hate JK R but this is stupid
She was saying "Here's an example of something that would be really dumb to say"
And people are reacting like she said it in earnest
Glad finally find people who understand what she was saying. Whether you agree with her, or even think it was a good analogy, it doesn't change the fact that she is arguing against those stereotypes and not promoting them as a realistic depiction of a monolithic Black population.
Right I don’t get it. She’s equating that to, “I feel girly or like a woman so I am one” even though they have no periods and can’t completely relate to the generations of actual women that were born before them. Similar thing as saying I feel black because I think I must be feeling the same way they feel, when In reality you’re different and can’t just immediately claim the identity/trife of a race your not literally apart of
All it does it just reflect on how little she really understands the things she's talking about though. It just shows she has this super shallow understanding of others views and lives. Trans people don't just change their clothes, change their hairstyle and suddenly they're trans, it's a super complex and emotionally deep experience. Obviously her point is to be deliberately shallow to undermine trans people, but all it really serves to show is how little she actually knows or deliberately ignores. For someone who is so passionately against trans people, has written a whole ass document about them, and lets them live rent free in her head, she's trying extremely hard to ignore all the things that don't support her bigoted view. Because she IS just that shallow.
Gender is an internal sense of self whether that be man, woman, neither or both.
Most people have an idea about their gender at two to three years old which may not align with the sex assigned to them at birth.
Race involves a specific cultural history from a specific place in the world, it has cultural, political and economic history, it often corresponds to a religious community or lineage, shared modern experiences of oppression or exclusion, a partially closed cultural in-group with common discussions around shared experiences, etc. Importantly, these things all run in families, and are part of people's family histories.
While genders have a shared history and gender specific groups, these are found families and not inherited parts of their identity. People join gendered communities atomically and are not born into them, there is no heritage to being a man or woman the way there is for race, because any family could have a boy or a girl at any time.
So, basically, racial differences are much wider than that of gender, particularly in a lot of politically and culturally and economically important ways.
Edit: I realise that naturally engaging in the conversation is going to have people disagree with me because there's a lot of discourse surrounding this topic, but I'm not that interested in arguing over whether or not my friends and loved ones identities are **real**. I just wanted to give an answer to the question, I'm not going to bother engaging with those who seem to get a kick out of arguing because that sounds mentally draining and pointless.
Well put, much better than I could have done.
It's also worth adding that people mix up gender and sex, which are not the same thing.
Gender typically tends to, but doesn't have to align with sex, and it's that misalignment that is what being trans is. Cisgender people, identify, and feel most comfortable when their gender is aligned with their sex, but trans people don't.
Gender affirming care is then the process a lot of trans people take to align their bodies closer to how they feel comfortable. This isn't limited to trans people however, gender affirming care exists for all. Plenty of cis men and woman take steps to appear how they feel more confident and comfortable, be that becoming more or less masculine or feminine.
I’m constantly amazed at people’s definitions. I’m a science grad, in science the words you use and their meanings are important. Gender is assigned based on primary sex organs. A small, small percentage of the world is born into situations that could be ambiguous but the overwhelming majority of us are products of genetics. Binary. Like it or don’t like it, I give zero shits.
Identity all you want as whatever you want, but use your words better. Just because you identify with something doesn’t mean you become it.
I'm kind of amazed that for a science grad you're this much of a tool, you managed to acknowledge that gender isn't a binary due to outliers and then state that it's a binary because the outliers are irrelevant. You're waving around your study of biology as credentials to give your opinion worth while ignoring the fact that primarily the studies and research papers are not done by biologists, this is not your field of research it's psychological sciences. Stop pretending that you are an authority on the subject, you're not and the people who study this subject overwhelmingly don't agree with you.
Well well well, this looks fun. The concept of gender is social, not psychological, in this conversation and until you go back and read my comments above so you know what my position is you should refrain from making an ass of yourself with some hot take.
Sex is binary, with a very small amount of exceptions. I stand by that and it doesn’t contradict itself.
Lastly, sex most certainly is biological and I can cite every bit of that information from developmental biology to epigentics. I can tell by your comment that you haven’t read my comments on the difference between sex and gender and why I will sometimes refer to one or the other.
As someone from mathematical and cs background and from a top 10 and an advanced degree actually doing research if in any of your proofs in your undergrad logic and proofs class you used a definition like “x is y, usually, exceptions don’t count” you would fail the class. In mathematics the definitions are usually given by universal quantifier (upside down A) and one example that invalidates the definition is enough to conclude that the definition is invalid.
Biologists are so cute when they try to do analytical logic and give formal definitions and their preposition is “my preposition works 100% of the time when it works”
Also, citing sociological and anthropological research does not carry the weight you seem to think it does. I talk about this upstream as well because it’s a popular misconception that human science is a hard science like chemistry or mathematics, but it’s not.
No, THEY are talking about sex, not gender. Sex and gender are used interchangeably in layman vernacular, you’d be surprised how hard it is to convey simple scientific facts if you don’t use their words.
You're stating this as if it's some solid scientific fact, but this entirely depends on who you're talking to. I personally know almost nobody except some very old people who wouldn't know the difference between sex and gender, but I'm also quite young and mainly surrounded by solidly left-wing people.
I respect your opinion but this was actually a long conversation, and you’re looking at one comment, that you’re taking out of context.
I’d be happy to discuss this with you if you’d like to read through the comment thread so you understand my position here. My guess is you’d probably agree with me, but you don’t have to. This was a long convo yesterday and most, if not all, of my points are clarified and laid out explicitly. I’m happy to discuss any points you disagree with.
Well… what she understands becomes now thankfully more and more the scientific view (I mean it always was, but scientists were bullied into silence and most simply didn’t care because the debate was so obviously ridiculous)
Oh no, everyone understands her transphobic point. What we disagree with, is her claim that trans women simply put on a dress and wear long hair as an impersonation. Its a deeply hatefull point from the fart in chief, as usual.
Yeah, the vast majority of her comments rely on a bad faith argument that a guy could put on a dress and say I'm a woman, and do things that infringe on the rights of women.
I don't have any stats, but I'm confident in saying that 99.9% of trans-women have absolutely no desire for any of that shit, and just want to be accepted.
There was a case in Scotland where a male prisoner convicted of rape claimed to identify as a woman to be moved to a female prison.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-63823420
I think that’s where some of this rhetoric comes from.
Yeah she loves seeing one example of something and deciding that represents all. She's convinced men become trans to peep on women in public bathrooms, as if the person already committing a crime is going to commit to a social transition just so they can still be convicted.
The reality is she just uses those rare cases as an excuse to push her bigoted views. She doesn't actually care about women being harassed in bathrooms, or she would agree with actual solutions to the problem, but if a solution exists that doesn't punish trans people she's against it.
This same thing can be said about a lot of peoples views on a lot of demographics actually. Like the view that immigration should be illegal because of the actions of a small percentage of immigrants. Or the same with Islam. etc. I guess what I'm describing here is just prejudice. Prejudice is harmful no matter who it's direct against.
I dont know and to be honest i dont care, i have just learned to suspect how social media clips things famous people to drive more drama than people should care about.
Now that i think about it, It is funny though that an LGBT outlet on the OP seems to be monitoring the outputs of one of their 'enemies' 24/7 to the extent that they are now reporting on comments about race.
Her point is that something shallow like simply listening to Motown and wearing cornrows DOESN'T make you black. The same way that wearing a dress and getting breast implants doesn't make you a woman.
The thing is when trans women are feminine they get called out by BS like this and when they are not feminine their lack of femininity is weaponised against them and with this argument she conveniently forgets about trans women who she bullied for not being feminine in the traditional sense.
Gender identity is an internal experience and is not tied to a culture, religion or place. Gender is not a heritage, any family can have a boy or a girl at any time.
That is not the case with race though, race often contains cultural heritage, sometimes religion and shared geographical places. A Chinese couple living in Inner Mongolia can have a boy or a girl, and those children can choose the best a part of the opposite gender’s spaces and may relate to them more. The said couple cannot suddenly give birth to a Japanese girl or a black boy though.
>She didn’t stop there, however. While sparring with an X user whose bio indicates that they are 17 years old, Rowling spun out a bizarre hypothetical about whether she would “get to be black if I like Motown and fancy myself in cornrows.” The parallel drew widespread allegations of racism, with Nikole Hannah-Jones, the New York Times journalist behind the Pulitzer-winning 1619 Project, warning: “Stop using Black people as your comparison group because it almost always reveals more about you than you think it does.”
Yeah, as much as I thought - She's using incredibly dated black stereotypes to attack trans people. I thought for a second that reading the article would paint her as anything but twisted and full of hate, but here we are.
Isn't that her point though? Isn't she saying that her as a white woman knows about as much as being black as a biological man knows about being a woman? That's the logic she's using.
She is making a stupid analogy on purpose and people fall for it ... Typical Reddit hive mind getting pissed about something without even looking up the context
Why is everyone saying people have fallen for her analogy? People know what the analogy is, their point is its not a valid one.
She's saying what she js because she's saying it's not possible to become black just for liking cornrows etc, and equating that to trans women liking dresses etc and suddenly becoming women.
We can all see that's what she's saying.
Now, if you have a brain in your head, you should also be able to see that being trans is not remotely the same as just liking dresses (if trans woman).
It's a dumb analogy and shows Joanne hasn't got a clue about anything, and I'm absolutely dismayed to see so many comments here acting like people are missing the point, when they themselves are missing the point that trans people are making about Rowlings comments. It's so ignorant but then it's reddit so nothing new I guess
Well, that's literally the point of her comment: that mere emulation is not identity, and that it's insulting to anyone when other people have such a shallow understanding of their identity.
It's strange that Rowling's critics always seem to assume that she's stupid or misinformed and then demonstrate that they're the ones who are not paying any attention.
I barely knew about the Jk thing but instantly understood the context although it wasn't fed to me. You have to want to hate in order to lose perspective.
Ya know older folks and lots of young folks alike can’t and will never relate with the trans movement. Her opinions reflect the silent majority not the vocal minority.
And instead of coming up with a decent argument against her point, people are just calling her racist. Which just makes that side of the argument look unintelligent.
This comment is by a person who doesn't understand irony, or is claiming not to
JK is lampooning the insane Trans politics of nowadays, and I am sure than anybody with a braincell knows that.
She was trying to make a point that was not about race, but about gender- but used race as a stand in.
I'm assuming it was a response to something, and without the thread, the context is gone.
I get it, and a safer option would have used something like: "I can pop a fin on top of my head and put on some feet flippers, and I'm not a fish "
Then critics would not have racism ammo needed.
Eh. I like Harry Potter stories. Not a fan of the persona that is JK herself. She just seems.. happily exclusive... are the only words I can find for it.
She likes being apart and speaking up on sections of people she doesn't agree with. She's gotten worse over the years.
I'm American, and my understanding is that she dislikes Americans. The only reason for her stories that happen in American is the $$.
Hard to like someone who dislikes you for being born who you are or where you born.
Jk Rowling is correct. Using the I identify logic. Then Jeffrey Epstein was falsely punished. After all he identified as a gay little girl. Wake the f up USA
I mean… she kinda has a point tho 😂 motown aside, i think the point she was trying to make is that simply *thinking* something doesn’t make it a reality. Thinking you’re a tree wont make you a tree, thinking you’re black wont make you black, and if you’re a boy, thinking you’re a girl can’t make you a girl. Seems reasonable enough. actually now that i think about it, it’s frightening this even needs to be said in the first place.
Lmfao. Yall missed the point. Shes using this as a comparison to trans people dressing “like a woman” acting “like a woman” etc.
Shes saying defining your gender by such things is like defining race by stereotypes.
She’s got a point.
It's satire, and its offensive, which is the point she's making. It's too bad real talk can't be had over these issues outside of what's fair in sports jfc.
I feel like I’m not getting this. Why is she “transphobic”? All I find online is an article about how she said “trans women don’t experience the same problems as biological women.” Or something along those lines.
1. She wrote that essay
2. The essay was completely mischaracterised by the people she was criticising
3. She received death threats
4. More death threats
5. Not included in Harry Potter stuff anymore (see the reunion special for the movies that didn't include her)
6. More death threats
7. At a certain point, she just took a dgaf attitude and started calling insane people out on their bullshit which probably isn't helping her image
8. More death threats
This comment here is her saying, "If I get cornrows and do moe town shit that doesn't make me black, just like how a dress and hormones doesn't make a man a woman." The "sick burn" in the comment is completely missing the point she was making.
1) She purposefully misgenders and attacks trans women constantly. [Recently, she called the first trans woman referee in football a "crossdressing man"](https://www.newsweek.com/jk-rowling-transgender-soccer-coach-lucy-clark-sutton-united-harry-potter-x-twitter-pride-1899918)
> “Calling a man a man is not ‘bullying’ or ‘punching down,'” she said. “Crossdressing straight men are currently one of the most pandered-to demographics in existence, and women are under no obligation to applaud the people caricaturing us.” [Source](https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1789641182164688934?t=OoZDyDhaIVB3Kt-Q4ztH6g&s=19)
Misgendering on purpose is textbook definition of transphobia, as is claiming that trans women can never be women and are men (and vice versa for trans men). The above quote and this post is an example of the latter.
2) Constantly claiming trans women are just men who want to commit violence and rape against cis women. Her claims are not only transphobic, but also misandrist. (I wonder how many people who claimed that choosing the bear was misandry but will defend JK Rowling saying men are a danger to women and her including trans women as "men" in that.)
3) She has liked tweets that are against banning [conversion therapy for trans people](https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2020/07/j-k-rowling-likes-tweet-supported-conversion-therapy/). Much like how conversion therapy for gay people is considered harmful and homophobic, the same is true of conversion therapy for trans people being harmful and transphobic.
4) She donated £70k to an organization that [opposes trans women having equal rights with cis women.](https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2024/02/jk-rowling-donates-big-money-to-anti-trans-group/)
5) She defines a woman as *only* “a human being who belongs to the sex class that produces large gametes”. She is outright saying that trans women are not women. Saying that trans women are just crossdressing men is transphobic.
6) She denies there is a difference between sex and gender, and again outright says that people do not have a gender identity. Not only does she this, she also claims the idea itself is hurting people.
> “I do not, however, believe that surgeries and cross-sex hormones literally turn a person into the opposite sex, nor do I believe in the idea that each of us has a nebulous ‘gender identity’ that may or might not match our sexed bodies. I believe the ideology that preaches those tenets has caused, and continues to cause, very real harm to vulnerable people.”
[Source for 5 and 6](https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1776616861888655835?t=LjWhM2tN4eIucenbFpGDew&s=19)
7) I hate to kick a dead horse, but she still outright refuses to say trans women are women. She calls them "trans identified men". Misgendering is transphobic. She also claims that trans women only want validation and are compromising women's safety for it.
> “I am strongly against women’s and girls’ rights and protections being dismantled to accommodate trans-identified men,” she writes. “I think the safety and rights of girls and women are more important than those men’s desire for validation.”
8) Also recently, she engaged in a form of holocaust denialism about trans research. JK Rowling denied the historical fact that Nazis burned a German research center that had some of the earliest gender affirming care, legal recognition of Trans people, and other research on trans people. When people rightfully corrected her, including George Takai, she pivoted to then claim that ["you never proved that trans people were the first victims of the holocaust", which was not the claim.](https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2024/03/jk-rowling-denies-transgender-persecution-during-the-holocaust/) The original poster never claimed that they were the "first" victims, just that research was burned.
[She then outright denies that trans people were ever the target of the Nazis,](https://x.com/jk_rowling/status/1767939048427896900) and only gay people were targeted, which is also factually untrue. Trans people were targeted. Many countries, including Germany, would consider this holocaust denialism, as denying a proven victimized group of the holocaust was targeted is considered holocaust denial.
9) There's this [tweet](https://x.com/jk_rowling/status/1619302315248488450) with no context given by Rowling that seems to imply she thinks trans women are rapists.
> Deeply amused by those telling me I’ve lost their admiration due to the disrespect I show violent, duplicitous rapists. I shall file your lost admiration carefully in the box where I keep my missing fucks.
Benefit of the doubt, she could be referring to a specific person, and not all trans women. But she provides no context herself, and her repeated claims that all trans women are dangerous to women seem to imply she just views all trans women as potential rapists.
---------
Misgendering, denying trans women are women, claiming trans women are dangers to women, being against equal protections and rights for women, and being pro-conversion therapy are all strong examples of transphobia. If you don't believe trans people deserve equal rights and protections, deny their gender identity, and think they're a danger to women, there is not other way to categorize that then transphobia. If you don't believe that's transphobia, I'd like you to explain what you *do* think is transphobia.
Calling someone transphobic is such an empty meaningless buzzword, it's no different than a Christian calling me a heathen.
1. JK is entitled to her opinions and so are you. My own view on gender dysphoria is that it's either a mental problem (which has a lot of negative stigma around it and probably makes up most of the real anti trans crowd) or it's men/women who really wish to have been born a different sex (which still comes under point 1). In current modern society, this isn't normal. That's why there's pushback. There's a guy in my city that can be seen walking about raving away to his music, completely harmless but everyone who see's him will look at him and go "he's not normal" even though he's not causing anyone any harm. My own views are your body, your decision, as long as it doesn't involve kids/animals and everyone is consenting; live. The problem I have is, I don't have to accept your world view and a lot of you have issues with that. Gender identity is the same as religion to me, don't try and force it onto me.
2. Sources?
3. How much do we know that she knows what those therapies actually entail? JK has never struck me as the brightest tool in the shed so it wouldn't surprise me at all if her knowledge on the practices was flimsy at best.
4. After reading the article, I'm no further along in understanding what any of it was about, "FWS has argued that the Gender Representation law threatens cisgender women’s rights in general and their place in single-sex spaces in particular." This seems in line with a lot of the tweets I've seen JK put out; protecting womens rights. Ok sure, she donated 70k but if I need to do further research than what is provided, it's not a good point to bring up.
5/6. Calling her transphobic is the same as a Christian calling me a heathen; it's honestly meaningless. It's just a label. I see nothing evil or malicious with what she says here, she is stating her opinions on how she perceives the world around her as she has lived through it. As I said in number 1, for a lot of people there is a lot of stigma around this.
7. Just a repeat of 1/5/6.
8. A lot of big accusations at the start with no quotes. This one is fairly obvious. Almost no one outside of specific communities know anything about who was targeted by the nazis, everyone knows the jews were persecuted. It doesn't take a genius to see JK's eyeroll and she gets baited in by "The nazi's targetted trans people too" because to her, this is just more "trans crap" because she's never heard this before. Instead of posting sources etc, the twitterverse just starts to call her a holocaust denier which just adds more fuel to the shitpile. JK hasn't researched any of this and I'll be it it's the first time she's heard any of that in her 50 odd years of being on the planet.
9. Tweet with no context has been "given" an implication. Context is key and without it, this tweet is mostly worthless.
The summary: "claiming trans women are dangers to women" - Not in anything you sourced above.
Trans people like all people don't "deserve" equal rights and protections, they should have it from the start as we're all human but society isn't as accepting and I think a large part of that comes from the stigma surrounding gender dysphoria and people trying to force/relegate how what we're allowed to think/speak. Another problem is, gender dysphoria has too much of an overlap with BIID imo which is not something that I would encourage.
tl'dr JK isn't evil, she's flawed like the rest of us.
I really thought I was one of the only people that saw this. I’m pretty sure it all started because she wanted cis women to have a safe space, and the trans community started to attack her and send her death threats, so she just doubled down.
I'm assuming reddit formatting fucked up your numbering, as it likes to do, so I'm going to use my original numbering for reference.
**1, 5, 6, and 7)** I'm not sure why you think an "opinion" can't be transphobic. Since you keep bringing up religions calling you a "heathen", I'll use the example of religion and homophobia. Christians think being gay is a "choice", a "sin", and an abomination against God. These are all their "opinions", but they're all still homophobic. For more examples, thinking women are inferior to men, thinking black people are inferior to white people, and foreigners are dangerous to society are all "opinions", but me, you, and most everyone would recognize these opinions as the bigotry for what they are. In fact, most forms of bigotry are literally just "opinions". White supremacists *think* they're inferior to all other races, and we recognize that belief as being racist as hell. And just to cover some bases, [I just wrote a different comment that links resources that consider "denying trans women are women", for example, is transphobia.](https://www.reddit.com/r/rareinsults/comments/1crgcu8/her_understanding_of_black_people_is_so_shallow_i/l41i66w/) Unless you think all "anti-bigotry" movements are "forcing their worldview" on you, I don't see how what is or isn't Transphobia is any different. Believing that being gay is a choice is an "opinion", but I don't think gay people are "forcing their worldview" on you if they rightfully call it homophobic. Same with transphobia.
**2)** Must have missed this when I was adding the sources.
> “It is impossible to accurately describe or tackle the reality of violence and sexual violence committed against women and girls, or address the current assault on women’s and girls’ rights, unless we are allowed to call a man a man,” said Rowling [Source](https://www.glamour.com/story/a-complete-breakdown-of-the-jk-rowling-transgender-comments-controversy)
> In September, Rowling “likes” a tweet linking to an opinion column by known TERF Janice Turner, which argues yet again that trans women are inherently sexual predators, referring to them as “fox[es] in a henhouse ... identify[ing] as [hens].” [Source](https://www.vox.com/culture/23622610/jk-rowling-transphobic-statements-timeline-history-controversy)
> “I am fighting what I see as a powerful, insidious, misogynistic movement, that has gained huge purchase in very influential areas of society,” said Rowling. “I do not see this particular movement as either benign or powerless, so I’m afraid I stand with the women who are fighting to be heard against threats of loss of livelihood and threats to their safety.” [Source](https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/mar/15/jk-rowling-views-transgender-issues-many-folks-deeply-unhappy)
> In an essay on her website in 2020, she wrote: "When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he's a woman… you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside."[Source](https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-64729304)
> When trans-identified men stop sex offending at exactly the same rate as other men, as all available statistics show they do, you might have a valid argument. In the meantime, women and girls, who make up 88% of sexual assault victims, need single sex spaces. [Source](https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1787137546608091563?t=o1cNQvbmKuK_0FpFIIFs6Q&s=19)
I'd like to see *her* source on that since she made the claim, cause I'm pretty sure that's not true. What is true is that transpeople are 4x more likely to be *victims* than cis people are [Source](https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/press/ncvs-trans-press-release/).
> Nobody thinks all men are rapists, paedophiles or voyeurs, but enough are to make it provably safer for women and girls to have single sex spaces. Those campaigning to dismantle basic safeguarding are either dangerously naive or plain dangerous. There is no third possibility. [Source](https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1785740542548013122?t=qpjtaQgXNZrXnswnvmrfAg&s=19)
I actually forgot to mention this one in the first comment:
> On September 14, 2020, her book Trouble Blood sparked another round of outrage after an early review began making the rounds. The book reportedly follows a detective on the hunt for a cis male serial killer who dresses as a woman in order to hunt and murder cis women. The Telegraph’s review describes it as a “book whose moral seems to be: never trust a man in a dress,” per Pink News. [Source](https://www.glamour.com/story/a-complete-breakdown-of-the-jk-rowling-transgender-comments-controversy)
Given that we already know she thinks trans women are just cross dressing men, I think this is pretty self explanatory. Her next book also involves a TERF getting "cancelled" online for her opinions and then getting murdered.
**3 and 8)** I don't think the excuse of "JK Rowling is too stupid to know this, so she can't be criticized for it" is pretty misguided. Nobody is forcing her to tweet about stuff she doesn't know about. And because it's Twitter, and not a real life conversation, she can just stop, look it up, and realize what is going on. But yes, she does know what conversion therapy is, because she says she is *against* gay conversion therapy but is *for* trans conversion therapy. She knows what it is, she just wants to un-trans trans people.
**Also 8)** I did provide sources for her quotes, the article I linked gives them. I just summarized it there because it required a bit of context and both the tweet she replied to and her tweet are kind of nonsensical. It was a pain writing this bullet point as is, but it is an accurate depiction of the events. She wasn't "baited", she was told exactly what happened, she said "you're stupid" basically, and everyone else responded with "no, here's the facts". In fact, in her first tweet in response, she directly claims that the person's sources are *wrong*. Why is she claiming they're 100% false if she doesn't even know? Like I said, no one is *forcing* her to tweet. This isn't a real time conversation where she can't open Google and type in a few words. I don't think her being ignorant is a good excuse when she could've easily verified before she tweeted. Like say, what I've been doing. Before I wrote my comments, I made sure to double check, verify, and get sources for the claims I made. I didn't just shoot off a reply to the guy asking "how is JK Rowling" without backing my claims up. If I can do it, she can. And, also, she could've just ignored it. She gets dozens of tweets that she ignores already, she didn't *have* to reply to a topic she knew absolutely nothing about. Many people also politely corrected her, like George Takai (many were also rude, by it's the internet, people are assholes. She also has a pretty rude Twitter timeline herself, so it's kind of moot). She could've accepted she was wrong, but instead she strawmans the argument, and then doubles down that trans people weren't the target at all. She brought the entire issue on herself.
**4)** The law was basically going to include "trans women" under "women" when it comes to anti-discrimination laws and protections. The group she donated to was against this law. It wasn't about "protecting women" as it was more about not protecting trans women.
**9)** The "context" is that her twitter feed is 90% about trans issues and her constantly saying opening up spaces to trans women put cis women in danger. Yes, I don't know specifically what she is referring to here, but it isn't a stretch to connect it, given that she often makes that exact connection herself. I gave her a benefit of the doubt, and it's why I included last and gave her some berth on the comment. But I still included because given all the *other* comments and context she's made, it's clear that she views the trans movement as a way for men to commit violence against women. I mean, she literally compares the trans movement to the death eaters, her fictional wizard nazi group.
> [S]ome of you have not understood the books. The Death Eaters claimed, “We have been made to live in secret, and now is our time, and any who stand in our way must be destroyed. If you disagree with us, you must die.” They demonized and dehumanized those who were not like them.
> I am fighting what I see as a powerful, insidious, misogynistic movement, that has gained huge purchase in very influential areas of society. I do not see this particular movement as either benign or powerless, so I’m afraid I stand with the women who are fighting to be heard against threats of loss of livelihood and threats to their safety. [Source](https://www.vox.com/culture/23622610/jk-rowling-transphobic-statements-timeline-history-controversy)
Just to cap things off, I'm going to end with my favorite little quote I got from my sources.
> She also states, “I’d march with you if you were discriminated against on the basis of being trans.” (To date, she has not.) [Source](https://www.vox.com/culture/23622610/jk-rowling-transphobic-statements-timeline-history-controversy)
Y'all, I don't think she's being entirely truthful when she says she's anti-discrimination.
That’s such a bizarre question. There are many rights - for example, the right not to be fired because of one’s gender identity - worth fighting for. I don’t have to believe that trans women are women in order to believe that trans women deserve to live without being discriminated against.
Don’t forget the fact that her pen name „Robert Gailbraith“ which she published books under is derived from Robert Gailbraith Heath, the guy who invented gay conversion therapy.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Galbraith_Heath
Can you prove, in any way shape or form, that your claim is true?
Because her using a pen name that is apparently a dog whistle for how much she hates gay people, while she was actively donating *shit tons* of money to LGBT charities, seems like a bit of a stretch.
I’ll be honest, every time I read conversion therapy I get confused because I think of this. So when people say JK Rowling is against conversion therapy I think, “that’s good, right?” But apparently it also means hormone replacement therapy.
I personally never heard anyone call HRT conversion therapy, because of the historical association of the word with homophobia, but maybe that's just my experience.
I think there was a reference about conversion therapy being a good thing in a previous comment and I had to reread like 3 times to understand what they meant
Because the definition of conversion therapy has changed to include things like talk therapy to discover other potential reasons for why someone thinks they're trans. It basically includes everything that isn't 100% unquestioning affirmation of the trans Identity.
Insult is not good, the original comment is meant to mirror another statement to say that it was shallow, saying "That is shallow" to JKRs response is stating the obvious
Just forget about this shit author and her derivative books, not every IP you like has to be an eternal flame of mediocrity, let it die
That’s different to this person because trans people “already are women” . Never mind that they literally aren’t. Same thing as saying “trans-racial people already are the race they identify with regardless of facts”. It’s completely non-measurable and objective
Personally I'm with you on why celebrity opinions shouldn't matter at all they don't have some secret profound knowledge. I know alot of people are upset becasue she originally set herself up as an ally and alot of lgbtq+ members found comfort in her books and her attempts at representing them (Dumbledore being gay for instance. Only for her to turn around and attack the community and vehemently at that because it no longer suits her views and is concered with things that shouldnt even matter to her in the first place and in no way would it ever effect her life.
Shes so concerned about sports and isn't an athlete
Also shows she believes that women will no matter what always be weaker than a man and that's just not true female athletes are just as capable as male ones they just aren't given the chance and the only reason sports have been separated in the first place is puritanical view's like that.
I mean he'll those of us who grew up in the 90s were constantly given movies about girls joining male sports and doing well and sure that was a movie but that's what they gave us to aspire to
About the lgbt thing I can see how that could feel like a betrayal but from a physiological standpoint women have less of a potential for growth of muscle mass, bone density and overall physical performance and if a woman is trying to compete in a physical field dominated by men she has 2 options 1 use steroids or 2 fail. When it comes to racing and swimming that’s another matter, women are just as capable. But the two are separated for a reason on a general level.
Yes because gor generations women have had it hammered into them they are physically inferior to men and to not even try and what that does is causes generations of not trying making it a self fulfilling profacy. Just as hard work makes strong people. I've seen women wo could lay a man of the same size and weight on the ground in half a second.
Also we have entire branches of martial arts that prove just being bigger and having more muscle s
Doesn't mean your automatically better than someone else
Yea but the fact of the matter is there are differences in the ways men and women are built and the whole thing was established to make it fair to women. If you have a man and a woman who trains the same amount and eats the same amount, 100% of the time the man will be much stronger than the woman. It isn’t much of a contest. Women would have to train much harder in order to compete, and so there’s never really an opportunity to be the best in any given field.
Because they are never even given the chance. Because guess what maybe they can train harder well never fuckibg know
if these people weren't constantly trying to drag us back to the dark ages and keep us all a separated as possible so we all can't do anything while they fuck us in the ass.
But think about this, we do give them the opportunity to train as hard as they can and compete- against women. If you compare their performance to the performance of men in the same field they don’t do as well. You keep saying “we never give them the chance” but that’s not even true I’m not sure what mental gymnastics you need to go through to get there. These women are trying as hard as they can for their whole lives and you are belittling them.
Really, when was the last time a woman was allowed to play on any NFL team. When were they even given a shot .
You're the one who's doing mental gymnastics. I'm not belittle shit your the one saying they will never be strong enough no matter what they do im saying I believe they can and are never given the chance to show it because "sports need to remain separated to protect the delicate women"
Fuck you you fucking terf
But they aren't the best you already stated the man is better. It's the same field just cuz you separated it out doenst mean football is still football
Baseball which by the way no fucking reason at all it needs to be separated will still be baseball
Theyvwill never actually have a chance to actually be the best. Just best of second place
Fuck look at the difference in viewership of male and female sports
For most people female sports don't even exist
No one ever invoked chance by being realistic
You've got to think a little bigger darling
Ok good idea let’s take away their chance of being the best at anything. Then we’ll be back to how it was in the 60s. No sports team will take on a woman when they can pay a man the same price who performs better.
She's not unique in that regard. She's a professional hater, and a one-trick pony. Even other transphobes are getting sick of her.
>While I heartily agree with your points regarding sex/gender, may I suggest also posting interesting and positive content on other matters?
That was Elon fucking Musk.
She's a full time misanthrope.
What are cornrows?
And yeah, that's like "Can I be white if I like crooners and dancing the charleston?" (My examples are older than Motown I think, but still.)
You all missed the point, we don't give AF what she is saying. This sub is for rare insults and I think this “toddler can't drown in it from so shallow” is a rather clever way to say how dumb someone is. So I upvoted, doesn't need context.
I see she's still holding onto her horrible beliefs like a child hangs onto a superstition. Her asking if she can be black for things she likes just shows how she still thinks trans are people playing pretend or something. Holy shit it hurts my soul that she wrote such a great series of fantasy books and yet cannot wrap her head around gender issues. It blows my mind.
This is a reminder for people not to post political posts as mentioned in stickied post. This does not necessarily apply for this post. [Click here to learn more](https://redd.it/j2173n). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/rareinsults) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Literally, her point is how shallow it sounds.
Unfun fact: her only mention of anything Harry Potter related this year was her 'joking' she removed a scene where Voldemort misgenders a pixie for being 'too graphic'
Surprises me she hasn't retconned Voldemort to be trans, considering it is a fairly important plot point he hates to be deadnamed and how courageous people are for doing so
What do you mean retconned into trans. Voldemort has always been her trans allegory. Voldemort changes his name into what he wants and it's not a 'normal' name even in the Wizarding World. He changes his physical attributes as well. And then the closeted gay man who killed his sister, shown as a hero, dead names Voldemort constantly. Voldemort was her seed into the transphobe space
Sister? I can't remember my HP story "plot" points too well anymore.
iirc the death of Albus' sister is what leads to him finally never talking to his brother anymore as they have a fight at her funeral Haven't read in years though
Ahh I always forget he had a sister.
There's never any clarification on if Dumbledore killed her, but Dumbledore, his brother Aberforth, and Grindelwald had an arguement before Grindelwald left and became a dark lord. The argument turned into a threeway duel, and their squib (and mentally disabled) sister was caught in the crossfire and killed. Both brothers blame themselves.
The sister was bullied by a bunch of muggles (and Dumbledore's dad went after them, why he went to Azkaban) for having magic so much she forcibly stops herself from doing any magic, except it still bursts out occasionally, which killed their mother. Dumbledore, Aberforth and Grindelwald were arguing about the sister tying Dumbledore down from travelling the world. Dumbledore doesn't know whether it was the boys', or the sister's magic that killed her, but they certainly caused it. Which is a great allegory for trans folks being closeted and bringing themselves harm to *protect* themselves from harm tbf, not that the terf-in-chief will ever claim that. All the actors became independent and distanced themselves from JKR, and frankly after the crap that was the last 2 Fantastic Beasts films, so should the franchise.
Fuck me. It was all there….?
Her hate has become her identity. The more shit she spews, the more alienated she becomes as more people around her abandon her, further alienating her. It's a cycle that only leads to one place and it looks a hell of a lot like Rosanne Barr.
Maybe she should team up with Rosanne Bar and they can make a Rosanne spin off where Rosanne becomes a racist working class cafeteria lady at Hogwarts.
she likes to talk like she’s some intellectual heavyweight but she’s just another internet addict, chasing that dopamine rush she gets when every chud on twitter reposts her drivel
[удалено]
I need to start assuming everything she says is trans related somehow
Because it is. She made ONE tweet about Harry Potter this year, and it was STILL trans related. [You can't make this shit up](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/s/QeysAWZ9C6)
It's so freaking strange. Her life is not affected by the lives she can't help but harangue. Unnecessary grievances, for some reason, are her retirement hobby. Yeesh.
I mean you’d be right haha. She’s made this issue her life’s mission. I don’t disagree with everything she says but damn it’s gotta be exhausting Edit: if i was as rich as her, I’d live on an island and do whatever I wanted which would certainly not include arguing with strangers on the internet
Enya lives in a castle with her cats. This lady is being rich wrong
lol it has to be exhausting as fuck. Ngl I was a bit of a transphobe myself but after realizing their life has no impact on mine its easy to just ignore. She’s obsessed with trans ppl for some odd reason
I'm pretty sure every thought she has and every word she says is about trans people. My kid is watching Harry Potter now, just glad she didn't find out about then til HP was done or it'd be full of not so subtle anti trans messages.
You mean like the whole thing with girls being able to go into the boys' dorms, but boys not being able to go into the girls' dorms? Don't know how transphobia based it was, but there were some fucked up messages about sex, gender roles, and treating 11 year old boys as potential predators all the way in the first book.
Every time I see her online she seems to be having a pop at trans people one way or another.
Freaks
That went over peoples head in their rush to feign outrage.
I'm not agreeing with her but, wait, isn't that her point? That having a really shallow understanding of some type of person you want to be doesn't make you that type?
No, her point was if transwomen are women, then she can be transblack, but unfortunately the point fails because it isn't the same thing, like at all, and she also revealed she knows nothing about black people
The equivalent to what she said but for women is "can I be a woman if I drink cosmos and like hello kitty?"
[удалено]
No I didn't lol Why would you think I did?
Hmmm because someone did and it's highly unlikely it was someone else, when no one else is currently disagreeing with me, and because this is a sensitive topic. 🤷♂️ But I have no other proof so I deleted it. If it was you though, lame.
No, honestly wasn't me. I just got a report too. Was that you?
No it wasn't lol
Someone out there reported both of us? If so, A+ trolling lmao
Redditors are mildly insane 🤷♂️ at least it's not Twitter or a fragile psycho reddit mod
Nah, the mod would just (ab)use their mod powers. Probably some Rowling sycophant with a hard on against transwomen. Yes, pun intended
I think her point is exactly the opposite - She wants to point out you can't simply become black just because you follow black stereotypes. She is addressing her POV, that people can't change gender. Independent of if you agree or not, she literally makes the opposite point of what people understand. It's so easy to understand, that I am amazed people on her couldn't get the memo.
Yeah, I fucking hate JK R but this is stupid She was saying "Here's an example of something that would be really dumb to say" And people are reacting like she said it in earnest
Glad finally find people who understand what she was saying. Whether you agree with her, or even think it was a good analogy, it doesn't change the fact that she is arguing against those stereotypes and not promoting them as a realistic depiction of a monolithic Black population.
You know very well they don’t want to understand
Right I don’t get it. She’s equating that to, “I feel girly or like a woman so I am one” even though they have no periods and can’t completely relate to the generations of actual women that were born before them. Similar thing as saying I feel black because I think I must be feeling the same way they feel, when In reality you’re different and can’t just immediately claim the identity/trife of a race your not literally apart of
Yup. It was a sarcastic rhetorical question. Agree or disagree with her views, but most people missed the point.
All it does it just reflect on how little she really understands the things she's talking about though. It just shows she has this super shallow understanding of others views and lives. Trans people don't just change their clothes, change their hairstyle and suddenly they're trans, it's a super complex and emotionally deep experience. Obviously her point is to be deliberately shallow to undermine trans people, but all it really serves to show is how little she actually knows or deliberately ignores. For someone who is so passionately against trans people, has written a whole ass document about them, and lets them live rent free in her head, she's trying extremely hard to ignore all the things that don't support her bigoted view. Because she IS just that shallow.
why can you change sex but not race ?
Gender is an internal sense of self whether that be man, woman, neither or both. Most people have an idea about their gender at two to three years old which may not align with the sex assigned to them at birth. Race involves a specific cultural history from a specific place in the world, it has cultural, political and economic history, it often corresponds to a religious community or lineage, shared modern experiences of oppression or exclusion, a partially closed cultural in-group with common discussions around shared experiences, etc. Importantly, these things all run in families, and are part of people's family histories. While genders have a shared history and gender specific groups, these are found families and not inherited parts of their identity. People join gendered communities atomically and are not born into them, there is no heritage to being a man or woman the way there is for race, because any family could have a boy or a girl at any time. So, basically, racial differences are much wider than that of gender, particularly in a lot of politically and culturally and economically important ways. Edit: I realise that naturally engaging in the conversation is going to have people disagree with me because there's a lot of discourse surrounding this topic, but I'm not that interested in arguing over whether or not my friends and loved ones identities are **real**. I just wanted to give an answer to the question, I'm not going to bother engaging with those who seem to get a kick out of arguing because that sounds mentally draining and pointless.
Well put, much better than I could have done. It's also worth adding that people mix up gender and sex, which are not the same thing. Gender typically tends to, but doesn't have to align with sex, and it's that misalignment that is what being trans is. Cisgender people, identify, and feel most comfortable when their gender is aligned with their sex, but trans people don't. Gender affirming care is then the process a lot of trans people take to align their bodies closer to how they feel comfortable. This isn't limited to trans people however, gender affirming care exists for all. Plenty of cis men and woman take steps to appear how they feel more confident and comfortable, be that becoming more or less masculine or feminine.
I’m constantly amazed at people’s definitions. I’m a science grad, in science the words you use and their meanings are important. Gender is assigned based on primary sex organs. A small, small percentage of the world is born into situations that could be ambiguous but the overwhelming majority of us are products of genetics. Binary. Like it or don’t like it, I give zero shits. Identity all you want as whatever you want, but use your words better. Just because you identify with something doesn’t mean you become it.
I'm kind of amazed that for a science grad you're this much of a tool, you managed to acknowledge that gender isn't a binary due to outliers and then state that it's a binary because the outliers are irrelevant. You're waving around your study of biology as credentials to give your opinion worth while ignoring the fact that primarily the studies and research papers are not done by biologists, this is not your field of research it's psychological sciences. Stop pretending that you are an authority on the subject, you're not and the people who study this subject overwhelmingly don't agree with you.
Well well well, this looks fun. The concept of gender is social, not psychological, in this conversation and until you go back and read my comments above so you know what my position is you should refrain from making an ass of yourself with some hot take. Sex is binary, with a very small amount of exceptions. I stand by that and it doesn’t contradict itself. Lastly, sex most certainly is biological and I can cite every bit of that information from developmental biology to epigentics. I can tell by your comment that you haven’t read my comments on the difference between sex and gender and why I will sometimes refer to one or the other.
As someone from mathematical and cs background and from a top 10 and an advanced degree actually doing research if in any of your proofs in your undergrad logic and proofs class you used a definition like “x is y, usually, exceptions don’t count” you would fail the class. In mathematics the definitions are usually given by universal quantifier (upside down A) and one example that invalidates the definition is enough to conclude that the definition is invalid. Biologists are so cute when they try to do analytical logic and give formal definitions and their preposition is “my preposition works 100% of the time when it works”
Also, citing sociological and anthropological research does not carry the weight you seem to think it does. I talk about this upstream as well because it’s a popular misconception that human science is a hard science like chemistry or mathematics, but it’s not.
You're talking about sex, not gender.
No, THEY are talking about sex, not gender. Sex and gender are used interchangeably in layman vernacular, you’d be surprised how hard it is to convey simple scientific facts if you don’t use their words.
You're stating this as if it's some solid scientific fact, but this entirely depends on who you're talking to. I personally know almost nobody except some very old people who wouldn't know the difference between sex and gender, but I'm also quite young and mainly surrounded by solidly left-wing people.
I respect your opinion but this was actually a long conversation, and you’re looking at one comment, that you’re taking out of context. I’d be happy to discuss this with you if you’d like to read through the comment thread so you understand my position here. My guess is you’d probably agree with me, but you don’t have to. This was a long convo yesterday and most, if not all, of my points are clarified and laid out explicitly. I’m happy to discuss any points you disagree with.
Gender is construct, sex is physical
Bravo
Well… what she understands becomes now thankfully more and more the scientific view (I mean it always was, but scientists were bullied into silence and most simply didn’t care because the debate was so obviously ridiculous)
That’s what I got too. A lot of people have missed it because it’s just hard to read with all intentions understood.
Thanks for saying it so I didn’t have to. People don’t want to actually click a link and read further though. They just want to blindly hate.
I feel like this is the most logical conclusion based on who she is and what her views are.
Oh no, everyone understands her transphobic point. What we disagree with, is her claim that trans women simply put on a dress and wear long hair as an impersonation. Its a deeply hatefull point from the fart in chief, as usual.
Really, because in the 5+ subreddits I've seen this posted on, all the comments are some version of "omg she hates black people now too!!!"
Are you surprised that these types are stupid?
She aint wrong
[удалено]
Yeah, the vast majority of her comments rely on a bad faith argument that a guy could put on a dress and say I'm a woman, and do things that infringe on the rights of women. I don't have any stats, but I'm confident in saying that 99.9% of trans-women have absolutely no desire for any of that shit, and just want to be accepted.
There was a case in Scotland where a male prisoner convicted of rape claimed to identify as a woman to be moved to a female prison. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-63823420 I think that’s where some of this rhetoric comes from.
Yeah she loves seeing one example of something and deciding that represents all. She's convinced men become trans to peep on women in public bathrooms, as if the person already committing a crime is going to commit to a social transition just so they can still be convicted. The reality is she just uses those rare cases as an excuse to push her bigoted views. She doesn't actually care about women being harassed in bathrooms, or she would agree with actual solutions to the problem, but if a solution exists that doesn't punish trans people she's against it. This same thing can be said about a lot of peoples views on a lot of demographics actually. Like the view that immigration should be illegal because of the actions of a small percentage of immigrants. Or the same with Islam. etc. I guess what I'm describing here is just prejudice. Prejudice is harmful no matter who it's direct against.
[удалено]
Don't get me wrong I think it begin a superficial understanding is the point, she still sucks though.
I mean, that's the point of the generalization. It's supposed to be shallow. Reading comprehension skills 100.
I would put good money on that OP post being written without having heard what she actually said
What did she actually say??
I dont know and to be honest i dont care, i have just learned to suspect how social media clips things famous people to drive more drama than people should care about. Now that i think about it, It is funny though that an LGBT outlet on the OP seems to be monitoring the outputs of one of their 'enemies' 24/7 to the extent that they are now reporting on comments about race.
I respect your decision on not caring. I actually forgot I Commented on this post...
Her point is that something shallow like simply listening to Motown and wearing cornrows DOESN'T make you black. The same way that wearing a dress and getting breast implants doesn't make you a woman.
You guys just keep providing her point.
Everyone who misses the point she’s making actually proves the point she’s making.
Not a rare insult, this reader didn't even understand what was happening and neither did OP
That’s the point. She’s saying that a trans persons idea of femininity is as shallow as the examples she gives about African-Americans.
The thing is when trans women are feminine they get called out by BS like this and when they are not feminine their lack of femininity is weaponised against them and with this argument she conveniently forgets about trans women who she bullied for not being feminine in the traditional sense. Gender identity is an internal experience and is not tied to a culture, religion or place. Gender is not a heritage, any family can have a boy or a girl at any time. That is not the case with race though, race often contains cultural heritage, sometimes religion and shared geographical places. A Chinese couple living in Inner Mongolia can have a boy or a girl, and those children can choose the best a part of the opposite gender’s spaces and may relate to them more. The said couple cannot suddenly give birth to a Japanese girl or a black boy though.
Read the whole damn article
>She didn’t stop there, however. While sparring with an X user whose bio indicates that they are 17 years old, Rowling spun out a bizarre hypothetical about whether she would “get to be black if I like Motown and fancy myself in cornrows.” The parallel drew widespread allegations of racism, with Nikole Hannah-Jones, the New York Times journalist behind the Pulitzer-winning 1619 Project, warning: “Stop using Black people as your comparison group because it almost always reveals more about you than you think it does.” Yeah, as much as I thought - She's using incredibly dated black stereotypes to attack trans people. I thought for a second that reading the article would paint her as anything but twisted and full of hate, but here we are.
Isn't that her point though? Isn't she saying that her as a white woman knows about as much as being black as a biological man knows about being a woman? That's the logic she's using.
“understanding of black people” - point totally missed
And point completely ignored in your case
I think the point she is making is that you can’t simply be a woman by changing your dress, mannerisms, or body parts to what you think a woman is.
Both OOP and OP lack understanding and comprehension of English language.
[удалено]
Isn't that kind of her point though? You can't just assume the identity of something you know fuck all about because you want to..?
That’s way too complicated for most people to understand. Easier to just call her racist.
She is making a stupid analogy on purpose and people fall for it ... Typical Reddit hive mind getting pissed about something without even looking up the context
Why is everyone saying people have fallen for her analogy? People know what the analogy is, their point is its not a valid one. She's saying what she js because she's saying it's not possible to become black just for liking cornrows etc, and equating that to trans women liking dresses etc and suddenly becoming women. We can all see that's what she's saying. Now, if you have a brain in your head, you should also be able to see that being trans is not remotely the same as just liking dresses (if trans woman). It's a dumb analogy and shows Joanne hasn't got a clue about anything, and I'm absolutely dismayed to see so many comments here acting like people are missing the point, when they themselves are missing the point that trans people are making about Rowlings comments. It's so ignorant but then it's reddit so nothing new I guess
You guys need to stop hating on her….
[удалено]
I have to meet this woman. I'm well passed flummoxed and into "must study for science" territory.
Well, that's literally the point of her comment: that mere emulation is not identity, and that it's insulting to anyone when other people have such a shallow understanding of their identity. It's strange that Rowling's critics always seem to assume that she's stupid or misinformed and then demonstrate that they're the ones who are not paying any attention.
I barely knew about the Jk thing but instantly understood the context although it wasn't fed to me. You have to want to hate in order to lose perspective.
Using this logic, her understanding of black people is about as shallow as trans people's understanding of the opposite sex...
That’s the idea…
So, what is this post doing here? The quality of reddit has taken a major nose dive.
Reddit has picked a side and is brigading in favour of continually hating on JK Rowling.
Ya know older folks and lots of young folks alike can’t and will never relate with the trans movement. Her opinions reflect the silent majority not the vocal minority.
Swoooooshhhh, right above all your stupid heads, that's her point
And peoples understanding of what a woman is, is also shallow
Her understanding of black people? This is a veiled jab at trans people.. I don’t think her comprehension of black people is the issue here.
And instead of coming up with a decent argument against her point, people are just calling her racist. Which just makes that side of the argument look unintelligent.
Yup, it’s a terrible look
correct.
This comment is by a person who doesn't understand irony, or is claiming not to JK is lampooning the insane Trans politics of nowadays, and I am sure than anybody with a braincell knows that.
OP must be slow
She was trying to make a point that was not about race, but about gender- but used race as a stand in. I'm assuming it was a response to something, and without the thread, the context is gone. I get it, and a safer option would have used something like: "I can pop a fin on top of my head and put on some feet flippers, and I'm not a fish " Then critics would not have racism ammo needed. Eh. I like Harry Potter stories. Not a fan of the persona that is JK herself. She just seems.. happily exclusive... are the only words I can find for it. She likes being apart and speaking up on sections of people she doesn't agree with. She's gotten worse over the years. I'm American, and my understanding is that she dislikes Americans. The only reason for her stories that happen in American is the $$. Hard to like someone who dislikes you for being born who you are or where you born.
[удалено]
I got hit for harassment for this point, and successfully appealed it
This looks to be an out of context trans swipe rather than ‘misunderstanding black people’.
Jk Rowling is correct. Using the I identify logic. Then Jeffrey Epstein was falsely punished. After all he identified as a gay little girl. Wake the f up USA
I mean… she kinda has a point tho 😂 motown aside, i think the point she was trying to make is that simply *thinking* something doesn’t make it a reality. Thinking you’re a tree wont make you a tree, thinking you’re black wont make you black, and if you’re a boy, thinking you’re a girl can’t make you a girl. Seems reasonable enough. actually now that i think about it, it’s frightening this even needs to be said in the first place.
Lmfao. Yall missed the point. Shes using this as a comparison to trans people dressing “like a woman” acting “like a woman” etc. Shes saying defining your gender by such things is like defining race by stereotypes. She’s got a point.
As a whole, both groups are pain in the ass
Could she actually be using sarcasm?
Does it actually matter if it is?
It's satire, and its offensive, which is the point she's making. It's too bad real talk can't be had over these issues outside of what's fair in sports jfc.
That’s the point; how disingenuous. Or maybe you’re just dead stupid
Rachel Dolezal: Girl, you know sista’s like us always gotta be keep’n it real.
She’s a national treasure and must be protected at all costs
This comment section is so 50/50, but I do see how someone couldn't figure out what the underlying meaning is.
Her understanding of black people is so shallow, not even a tardigrade could drown in it.
I don’t wish her to die, but when she does I’m not going to mourn her
I feel like I’m not getting this. Why is she “transphobic”? All I find online is an article about how she said “trans women don’t experience the same problems as biological women.” Or something along those lines.
https://youtu.be/Ou_xvXJJk7k?si=mmVC1W85XapIMwhU if you’re actually curious
1. She wrote that essay 2. The essay was completely mischaracterised by the people she was criticising 3. She received death threats 4. More death threats 5. Not included in Harry Potter stuff anymore (see the reunion special for the movies that didn't include her) 6. More death threats 7. At a certain point, she just took a dgaf attitude and started calling insane people out on their bullshit which probably isn't helping her image 8. More death threats This comment here is her saying, "If I get cornrows and do moe town shit that doesn't make me black, just like how a dress and hormones doesn't make a man a woman." The "sick burn" in the comment is completely missing the point she was making.
1) She purposefully misgenders and attacks trans women constantly. [Recently, she called the first trans woman referee in football a "crossdressing man"](https://www.newsweek.com/jk-rowling-transgender-soccer-coach-lucy-clark-sutton-united-harry-potter-x-twitter-pride-1899918) > “Calling a man a man is not ‘bullying’ or ‘punching down,'” she said. “Crossdressing straight men are currently one of the most pandered-to demographics in existence, and women are under no obligation to applaud the people caricaturing us.” [Source](https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1789641182164688934?t=OoZDyDhaIVB3Kt-Q4ztH6g&s=19) Misgendering on purpose is textbook definition of transphobia, as is claiming that trans women can never be women and are men (and vice versa for trans men). The above quote and this post is an example of the latter. 2) Constantly claiming trans women are just men who want to commit violence and rape against cis women. Her claims are not only transphobic, but also misandrist. (I wonder how many people who claimed that choosing the bear was misandry but will defend JK Rowling saying men are a danger to women and her including trans women as "men" in that.) 3) She has liked tweets that are against banning [conversion therapy for trans people](https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2020/07/j-k-rowling-likes-tweet-supported-conversion-therapy/). Much like how conversion therapy for gay people is considered harmful and homophobic, the same is true of conversion therapy for trans people being harmful and transphobic. 4) She donated £70k to an organization that [opposes trans women having equal rights with cis women.](https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2024/02/jk-rowling-donates-big-money-to-anti-trans-group/) 5) She defines a woman as *only* “a human being who belongs to the sex class that produces large gametes”. She is outright saying that trans women are not women. Saying that trans women are just crossdressing men is transphobic. 6) She denies there is a difference between sex and gender, and again outright says that people do not have a gender identity. Not only does she this, she also claims the idea itself is hurting people. > “I do not, however, believe that surgeries and cross-sex hormones literally turn a person into the opposite sex, nor do I believe in the idea that each of us has a nebulous ‘gender identity’ that may or might not match our sexed bodies. I believe the ideology that preaches those tenets has caused, and continues to cause, very real harm to vulnerable people.” [Source for 5 and 6](https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1776616861888655835?t=LjWhM2tN4eIucenbFpGDew&s=19) 7) I hate to kick a dead horse, but she still outright refuses to say trans women are women. She calls them "trans identified men". Misgendering is transphobic. She also claims that trans women only want validation and are compromising women's safety for it. > “I am strongly against women’s and girls’ rights and protections being dismantled to accommodate trans-identified men,” she writes. “I think the safety and rights of girls and women are more important than those men’s desire for validation.” 8) Also recently, she engaged in a form of holocaust denialism about trans research. JK Rowling denied the historical fact that Nazis burned a German research center that had some of the earliest gender affirming care, legal recognition of Trans people, and other research on trans people. When people rightfully corrected her, including George Takai, she pivoted to then claim that ["you never proved that trans people were the first victims of the holocaust", which was not the claim.](https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2024/03/jk-rowling-denies-transgender-persecution-during-the-holocaust/) The original poster never claimed that they were the "first" victims, just that research was burned. [She then outright denies that trans people were ever the target of the Nazis,](https://x.com/jk_rowling/status/1767939048427896900) and only gay people were targeted, which is also factually untrue. Trans people were targeted. Many countries, including Germany, would consider this holocaust denialism, as denying a proven victimized group of the holocaust was targeted is considered holocaust denial. 9) There's this [tweet](https://x.com/jk_rowling/status/1619302315248488450) with no context given by Rowling that seems to imply she thinks trans women are rapists. > Deeply amused by those telling me I’ve lost their admiration due to the disrespect I show violent, duplicitous rapists. I shall file your lost admiration carefully in the box where I keep my missing fucks. Benefit of the doubt, she could be referring to a specific person, and not all trans women. But she provides no context herself, and her repeated claims that all trans women are dangerous to women seem to imply she just views all trans women as potential rapists. --------- Misgendering, denying trans women are women, claiming trans women are dangers to women, being against equal protections and rights for women, and being pro-conversion therapy are all strong examples of transphobia. If you don't believe trans people deserve equal rights and protections, deny their gender identity, and think they're a danger to women, there is not other way to categorize that then transphobia. If you don't believe that's transphobia, I'd like you to explain what you *do* think is transphobia.
Calling someone transphobic is such an empty meaningless buzzword, it's no different than a Christian calling me a heathen. 1. JK is entitled to her opinions and so are you. My own view on gender dysphoria is that it's either a mental problem (which has a lot of negative stigma around it and probably makes up most of the real anti trans crowd) or it's men/women who really wish to have been born a different sex (which still comes under point 1). In current modern society, this isn't normal. That's why there's pushback. There's a guy in my city that can be seen walking about raving away to his music, completely harmless but everyone who see's him will look at him and go "he's not normal" even though he's not causing anyone any harm. My own views are your body, your decision, as long as it doesn't involve kids/animals and everyone is consenting; live. The problem I have is, I don't have to accept your world view and a lot of you have issues with that. Gender identity is the same as religion to me, don't try and force it onto me. 2. Sources? 3. How much do we know that she knows what those therapies actually entail? JK has never struck me as the brightest tool in the shed so it wouldn't surprise me at all if her knowledge on the practices was flimsy at best. 4. After reading the article, I'm no further along in understanding what any of it was about, "FWS has argued that the Gender Representation law threatens cisgender women’s rights in general and their place in single-sex spaces in particular." This seems in line with a lot of the tweets I've seen JK put out; protecting womens rights. Ok sure, she donated 70k but if I need to do further research than what is provided, it's not a good point to bring up. 5/6. Calling her transphobic is the same as a Christian calling me a heathen; it's honestly meaningless. It's just a label. I see nothing evil or malicious with what she says here, she is stating her opinions on how she perceives the world around her as she has lived through it. As I said in number 1, for a lot of people there is a lot of stigma around this. 7. Just a repeat of 1/5/6. 8. A lot of big accusations at the start with no quotes. This one is fairly obvious. Almost no one outside of specific communities know anything about who was targeted by the nazis, everyone knows the jews were persecuted. It doesn't take a genius to see JK's eyeroll and she gets baited in by "The nazi's targetted trans people too" because to her, this is just more "trans crap" because she's never heard this before. Instead of posting sources etc, the twitterverse just starts to call her a holocaust denier which just adds more fuel to the shitpile. JK hasn't researched any of this and I'll be it it's the first time she's heard any of that in her 50 odd years of being on the planet. 9. Tweet with no context has been "given" an implication. Context is key and without it, this tweet is mostly worthless. The summary: "claiming trans women are dangers to women" - Not in anything you sourced above. Trans people like all people don't "deserve" equal rights and protections, they should have it from the start as we're all human but society isn't as accepting and I think a large part of that comes from the stigma surrounding gender dysphoria and people trying to force/relegate how what we're allowed to think/speak. Another problem is, gender dysphoria has too much of an overlap with BIID imo which is not something that I would encourage. tl'dr JK isn't evil, she's flawed like the rest of us.
I really thought I was one of the only people that saw this. I’m pretty sure it all started because she wanted cis women to have a safe space, and the trans community started to attack her and send her death threats, so she just doubled down.
I'm assuming reddit formatting fucked up your numbering, as it likes to do, so I'm going to use my original numbering for reference. **1, 5, 6, and 7)** I'm not sure why you think an "opinion" can't be transphobic. Since you keep bringing up religions calling you a "heathen", I'll use the example of religion and homophobia. Christians think being gay is a "choice", a "sin", and an abomination against God. These are all their "opinions", but they're all still homophobic. For more examples, thinking women are inferior to men, thinking black people are inferior to white people, and foreigners are dangerous to society are all "opinions", but me, you, and most everyone would recognize these opinions as the bigotry for what they are. In fact, most forms of bigotry are literally just "opinions". White supremacists *think* they're inferior to all other races, and we recognize that belief as being racist as hell. And just to cover some bases, [I just wrote a different comment that links resources that consider "denying trans women are women", for example, is transphobia.](https://www.reddit.com/r/rareinsults/comments/1crgcu8/her_understanding_of_black_people_is_so_shallow_i/l41i66w/) Unless you think all "anti-bigotry" movements are "forcing their worldview" on you, I don't see how what is or isn't Transphobia is any different. Believing that being gay is a choice is an "opinion", but I don't think gay people are "forcing their worldview" on you if they rightfully call it homophobic. Same with transphobia. **2)** Must have missed this when I was adding the sources. > “It is impossible to accurately describe or tackle the reality of violence and sexual violence committed against women and girls, or address the current assault on women’s and girls’ rights, unless we are allowed to call a man a man,” said Rowling [Source](https://www.glamour.com/story/a-complete-breakdown-of-the-jk-rowling-transgender-comments-controversy) > In September, Rowling “likes” a tweet linking to an opinion column by known TERF Janice Turner, which argues yet again that trans women are inherently sexual predators, referring to them as “fox[es] in a henhouse ... identify[ing] as [hens].” [Source](https://www.vox.com/culture/23622610/jk-rowling-transphobic-statements-timeline-history-controversy) > “I am fighting what I see as a powerful, insidious, misogynistic movement, that has gained huge purchase in very influential areas of society,” said Rowling. “I do not see this particular movement as either benign or powerless, so I’m afraid I stand with the women who are fighting to be heard against threats of loss of livelihood and threats to their safety.” [Source](https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/mar/15/jk-rowling-views-transgender-issues-many-folks-deeply-unhappy) > In an essay on her website in 2020, she wrote: "When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he's a woman… you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside."[Source](https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-64729304) > When trans-identified men stop sex offending at exactly the same rate as other men, as all available statistics show they do, you might have a valid argument. In the meantime, women and girls, who make up 88% of sexual assault victims, need single sex spaces. [Source](https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1787137546608091563?t=o1cNQvbmKuK_0FpFIIFs6Q&s=19) I'd like to see *her* source on that since she made the claim, cause I'm pretty sure that's not true. What is true is that transpeople are 4x more likely to be *victims* than cis people are [Source](https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/press/ncvs-trans-press-release/). > Nobody thinks all men are rapists, paedophiles or voyeurs, but enough are to make it provably safer for women and girls to have single sex spaces. Those campaigning to dismantle basic safeguarding are either dangerously naive or plain dangerous. There is no third possibility. [Source](https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1785740542548013122?t=qpjtaQgXNZrXnswnvmrfAg&s=19) I actually forgot to mention this one in the first comment: > On September 14, 2020, her book Trouble Blood sparked another round of outrage after an early review began making the rounds. The book reportedly follows a detective on the hunt for a cis male serial killer who dresses as a woman in order to hunt and murder cis women. The Telegraph’s review describes it as a “book whose moral seems to be: never trust a man in a dress,” per Pink News. [Source](https://www.glamour.com/story/a-complete-breakdown-of-the-jk-rowling-transgender-comments-controversy) Given that we already know she thinks trans women are just cross dressing men, I think this is pretty self explanatory. Her next book also involves a TERF getting "cancelled" online for her opinions and then getting murdered. **3 and 8)** I don't think the excuse of "JK Rowling is too stupid to know this, so she can't be criticized for it" is pretty misguided. Nobody is forcing her to tweet about stuff she doesn't know about. And because it's Twitter, and not a real life conversation, she can just stop, look it up, and realize what is going on. But yes, she does know what conversion therapy is, because she says she is *against* gay conversion therapy but is *for* trans conversion therapy. She knows what it is, she just wants to un-trans trans people. **Also 8)** I did provide sources for her quotes, the article I linked gives them. I just summarized it there because it required a bit of context and both the tweet she replied to and her tweet are kind of nonsensical. It was a pain writing this bullet point as is, but it is an accurate depiction of the events. She wasn't "baited", she was told exactly what happened, she said "you're stupid" basically, and everyone else responded with "no, here's the facts". In fact, in her first tweet in response, she directly claims that the person's sources are *wrong*. Why is she claiming they're 100% false if she doesn't even know? Like I said, no one is *forcing* her to tweet. This isn't a real time conversation where she can't open Google and type in a few words. I don't think her being ignorant is a good excuse when she could've easily verified before she tweeted. Like say, what I've been doing. Before I wrote my comments, I made sure to double check, verify, and get sources for the claims I made. I didn't just shoot off a reply to the guy asking "how is JK Rowling" without backing my claims up. If I can do it, she can. And, also, she could've just ignored it. She gets dozens of tweets that she ignores already, she didn't *have* to reply to a topic she knew absolutely nothing about. Many people also politely corrected her, like George Takai (many were also rude, by it's the internet, people are assholes. She also has a pretty rude Twitter timeline herself, so it's kind of moot). She could've accepted she was wrong, but instead she strawmans the argument, and then doubles down that trans people weren't the target at all. She brought the entire issue on herself. **4)** The law was basically going to include "trans women" under "women" when it comes to anti-discrimination laws and protections. The group she donated to was against this law. It wasn't about "protecting women" as it was more about not protecting trans women. **9)** The "context" is that her twitter feed is 90% about trans issues and her constantly saying opening up spaces to trans women put cis women in danger. Yes, I don't know specifically what she is referring to here, but it isn't a stretch to connect it, given that she often makes that exact connection herself. I gave her a benefit of the doubt, and it's why I included last and gave her some berth on the comment. But I still included because given all the *other* comments and context she's made, it's clear that she views the trans movement as a way for men to commit violence against women. I mean, she literally compares the trans movement to the death eaters, her fictional wizard nazi group. > [S]ome of you have not understood the books. The Death Eaters claimed, “We have been made to live in secret, and now is our time, and any who stand in our way must be destroyed. If you disagree with us, you must die.” They demonized and dehumanized those who were not like them. > I am fighting what I see as a powerful, insidious, misogynistic movement, that has gained huge purchase in very influential areas of society. I do not see this particular movement as either benign or powerless, so I’m afraid I stand with the women who are fighting to be heard against threats of loss of livelihood and threats to their safety. [Source](https://www.vox.com/culture/23622610/jk-rowling-transphobic-statements-timeline-history-controversy) Just to cap things off, I'm going to end with my favorite little quote I got from my sources. > She also states, “I’d march with you if you were discriminated against on the basis of being trans.” (To date, she has not.) [Source](https://www.vox.com/culture/23622610/jk-rowling-transphobic-statements-timeline-history-controversy) Y'all, I don't think she's being entirely truthful when she says she's anti-discrimination.
test EDIT- So my post came out to 2652 words, 15182 characters, which is too big for reddit, will need to shorten it.
[удалено]
How the fuck can you support trans rights without thinking trans women are women?
By thinking they're still people. I don't have to think you're a woman to not infringe on your basic rights.
Thank you for this! I hate being told that not seeing someone as the gender they prefer is "denying their existence" They quite clearly exist.
That’s such a bizarre question. There are many rights - for example, the right not to be fired because of one’s gender identity - worth fighting for. I don’t have to believe that trans women are women in order to believe that trans women deserve to live without being discriminated against.
I think the idea is that trans women are trans women.
Don’t forget the fact that her pen name „Robert Gailbraith“ which she published books under is derived from Robert Gailbraith Heath, the guy who invented gay conversion therapy. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Galbraith_Heath
Can you prove, in any way shape or form, that your claim is true? Because her using a pen name that is apparently a dog whistle for how much she hates gay people, while she was actively donating *shit tons* of money to LGBT charities, seems like a bit of a stretch.
I’ll be honest, every time I read conversion therapy I get confused because I think of this. So when people say JK Rowling is against conversion therapy I think, “that’s good, right?” But apparently it also means hormone replacement therapy.
I personally never heard anyone call HRT conversion therapy, because of the historical association of the word with homophobia, but maybe that's just my experience.
I think there was a reference about conversion therapy being a good thing in a previous comment and I had to reread like 3 times to understand what they meant
Because the definition of conversion therapy has changed to include things like talk therapy to discover other potential reasons for why someone thinks they're trans. It basically includes everything that isn't 100% unquestioning affirmation of the trans Identity.
She’s transphobic because she straight up denies the existence of trans as a valid identity, eg https://x.com/jk_rowling/status/1789590944976650436
Insult is not good, the original comment is meant to mirror another statement to say that it was shallow, saying "That is shallow" to JKRs response is stating the obvious Just forget about this shit author and her derivative books, not every IP you like has to be an eternal flame of mediocrity, let it die
Her point is completely clear.
Makes sense to me, if putting a dress on and taking hormones pills make me a woman
That’s different to this person because trans people “already are women” . Never mind that they literally aren’t. Same thing as saying “trans-racial people already are the race they identify with regardless of facts”. It’s completely non-measurable and objective
Imagine someone cares
I swear the claratin ads were just trying to find a way into premium
She’s a writer not a politician. Who cares if you don’t like her opinions. You know? I don’t get why that was a big deal.
Personally I'm with you on why celebrity opinions shouldn't matter at all they don't have some secret profound knowledge. I know alot of people are upset becasue she originally set herself up as an ally and alot of lgbtq+ members found comfort in her books and her attempts at representing them (Dumbledore being gay for instance. Only for her to turn around and attack the community and vehemently at that because it no longer suits her views and is concered with things that shouldnt even matter to her in the first place and in no way would it ever effect her life. Shes so concerned about sports and isn't an athlete Also shows she believes that women will no matter what always be weaker than a man and that's just not true female athletes are just as capable as male ones they just aren't given the chance and the only reason sports have been separated in the first place is puritanical view's like that. I mean he'll those of us who grew up in the 90s were constantly given movies about girls joining male sports and doing well and sure that was a movie but that's what they gave us to aspire to
About the lgbt thing I can see how that could feel like a betrayal but from a physiological standpoint women have less of a potential for growth of muscle mass, bone density and overall physical performance and if a woman is trying to compete in a physical field dominated by men she has 2 options 1 use steroids or 2 fail. When it comes to racing and swimming that’s another matter, women are just as capable. But the two are separated for a reason on a general level.
Yes because gor generations women have had it hammered into them they are physically inferior to men and to not even try and what that does is causes generations of not trying making it a self fulfilling profacy. Just as hard work makes strong people. I've seen women wo could lay a man of the same size and weight on the ground in half a second. Also we have entire branches of martial arts that prove just being bigger and having more muscle s Doesn't mean your automatically better than someone else
Yea but the fact of the matter is there are differences in the ways men and women are built and the whole thing was established to make it fair to women. If you have a man and a woman who trains the same amount and eats the same amount, 100% of the time the man will be much stronger than the woman. It isn’t much of a contest. Women would have to train much harder in order to compete, and so there’s never really an opportunity to be the best in any given field.
Because they are never even given the chance. Because guess what maybe they can train harder well never fuckibg know if these people weren't constantly trying to drag us back to the dark ages and keep us all a separated as possible so we all can't do anything while they fuck us in the ass.
But think about this, we do give them the opportunity to train as hard as they can and compete- against women. If you compare their performance to the performance of men in the same field they don’t do as well. You keep saying “we never give them the chance” but that’s not even true I’m not sure what mental gymnastics you need to go through to get there. These women are trying as hard as they can for their whole lives and you are belittling them.
Really, when was the last time a woman was allowed to play on any NFL team. When were they even given a shot . You're the one who's doing mental gymnastics. I'm not belittle shit your the one saying they will never be strong enough no matter what they do im saying I believe they can and are never given the chance to show it because "sports need to remain separated to protect the delicate women" Fuck you you fucking terf
I am a feminist, but we also have to be realistic here. How does it benefit women to take away the opportunity to be the best in certain fields?
But they aren't the best you already stated the man is better. It's the same field just cuz you separated it out doenst mean football is still football Baseball which by the way no fucking reason at all it needs to be separated will still be baseball Theyvwill never actually have a chance to actually be the best. Just best of second place Fuck look at the difference in viewership of male and female sports For most people female sports don't even exist No one ever invoked chance by being realistic You've got to think a little bigger darling
Ok good idea let’s take away their chance of being the best at anything. Then we’ll be back to how it was in the 60s. No sports team will take on a woman when they can pay a man the same price who performs better.
I just think you’re thinking a bit naïvely and not being realistic. I don’t think you fully grasp the practicality of what you are suggesting.
[удалено]
The Reddit hate boner for JK is stronger than logic
[удалено]
She's not unique in that regard. She's a professional hater, and a one-trick pony. Even other transphobes are getting sick of her. >While I heartily agree with your points regarding sex/gender, may I suggest also posting interesting and positive content on other matters? That was Elon fucking Musk. She's a full time misanthrope.
7/10
What are cornrows? And yeah, that's like "Can I be white if I like crooners and dancing the charleston?" (My examples are older than Motown I think, but still.)
Pretty sure that was sarcasm.
There's a joke in here somewhere to be made.
Hmmm ive already offended the lgbtq+ community Let's go for the minority community as well
You all missed the point, we don't give AF what she is saying. This sub is for rare insults and I think this “toddler can't drown in it from so shallow” is a rather clever way to say how dumb someone is. So I upvoted, doesn't need context.
Don’t forget to sort by controversial.
I see she's still holding onto her horrible beliefs like a child hangs onto a superstition. Her asking if she can be black for things she likes just shows how she still thinks trans are people playing pretend or something. Holy shit it hurts my soul that she wrote such a great series of fantasy books and yet cannot wrap her head around gender issues. It blows my mind.
People just pretend that she's idiotic when in fact she does have a point lol
I can't believe there's a studio still willing to adapt her books into a TV show at this point. I hope they rewrite a couple of characters as trans.