J.K. Rowling's Essay on Her Skepticism About Certain Transgender Rights Claims

|The Volokh Conspiracy |

I saw the controversy about this, so I thought I'd have a look at it, and it struck me as calm, thoughtful, substantive, and, unsurprisingly, well-written. I'm not sure what the right answer is on all these questions, but I thought it was worth passing along; you can find it here. I would be glad to link to comparably substantive arguments on the other side as well. In the meantime, a short excerpt from the end, which is actually somewhat more pugnacious than most of the rest of the piece:

I refuse to bow down to a movement that I believe is doing demonstrable harm in seeking to erode 'woman' as a political and biological class and offering cover to predators like few before it. I stand alongside the brave women and men, gay, straight and trans, who're standing up for freedom of speech and thought, and for the rights and safety of some of the most vulnerable in our society: young gay kids, fragile teenagers, and women who're reliant on and wish to retain their single sex spaces….

The last thing I want to say is this. I haven't written this essay in the hope that anybody will get out a violin for me, not even a teeny-weeny one. I'm extraordinarily fortunate; I'm a survivor, certainly not a victim. I've only mentioned my past because, like every other human being on this planet, I have a complex backstory, which shapes my fears, my interests and my opinions. I never forget that inner complexity when I'm creating a fictional character and I certainly never forget it when it comes to trans people.

And from an item from the Times of London, which I believe is an editorial:

[JK] Rowling posted on social media at the weekend a gently mocking comment about an article that referred to "people who menstruate", rather than to women. She was swiftly condemned by transgender activists for her supposedly "transphobic" remark. The criticsm was joined by the actor Daniel Radcliffe, who as a child starred as Harry Potter in the film series based on Rowling's books. Radcliffe said: "To all the people who now feel that their experience of the books has been tarnished or diminished, I am deeply sorry for the pain these comments have caused you."

Though ostensibly emollient, Radcliffe voiced a pernicious principle verging on emotional blackmail. Free speech challenges people's deeply held convictions. That is the point of it and is how knowledge advances. There would be no purpose in expressing an opinion if it merely confirmed widespread convictions and social mores.

Rowling's insistence that sex differences are real rather than mutable was acutely  perceived and wittily expressed, but even if she had been wrong, Radcliffe would have no grounds for seeking to assuage the pain of her critics. Once a society allows that people who feel emotional anguish are entitled to apology and moral restitution, there is no limit to the abridgment of free speech it will allow in the name of compassion. Radcliffe should think again. His comments are, to coin a phrase, offensive and hurtful to those who cherish liberty.

Again, I'd be happy to link to and excerpt serious arguments on the other side from the Times on this.

UPDATE [June 14, 2020, 1:04 pm]: Many thanks to commenter Martinned for taking me up on my offer to link to thoughtful arguments on the other side; he passed along a Crooked Timber guest post by Prof. Sophie Grace Chappell, which I'm delighted to link to and briefly quote:

Women of every kind should be and feel safe in the public toilets. Of course they should; everybody should. But trans women are simply not a threat to women's safety—not as such. As you say yourself, "the majority of trans-identified people not only pose zero threat to others, but are vulnerable for all the reasons I've outlined. Trans people need and deserve protection." If we google hard enough, we can find bad anecdotes about trans women attacking other women in the toilets; the tabloids go to town on such anecdotes whenever possible, and so do some trans-unsympathetic feminists. But anecdotes aren't data. And you can find bad anecdotes about natal women attacking other women in the toilets, too. All of that should stop, of course it should. But trans women are not the problem here. Violence is….

Ms Rowling, it's certainly not my intention, or the intention of any trans activists whom I personally know, to erode or erase the biological reality of (cis) women's experience. Certainly not. Natal females start in a different place from trans women, and have a different journey and a different story, and undergo different things both good and bad. All these stories are worthwhile and valuable, and no one should be trying to prevent any of them from being told. Like the rest of the world, I look forward eagerly to seeing which of all these stories, in the future, you yourself choose to tell.

Advertisement

NEXT: Requirement of Licensing and Test for Tour Guides Violates the First Amendment

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Rowling was one of the most beloved celebrities of her time and now shes two steps from Derek Chauvin for this one deviation even though she’s otherwise a good little leftist.

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    I’m not sure what the right answer is on all these questions.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Yeah thats a tough one. Can you literally turn into a woman by cutting off your penis and taking some estrogen and ruining the lives of anyone who disagrees? Gee what a headscratcher for the ages. Next up, is the sky made of cheese if everybody really wants it to be?

    1. I think you probably can literally turn into a woman by cutting off your penis and taking some estrogen. But I will never ever agree that you can literally turn into a woman simply by saying you are one. No amount of social pressure will make me agree with that. Those who say it are lying, and those who believe it are literally insane.

      In social contexts I play along with transsexuals’ harmless delusions and address them as they wish to be addressed because it’s the polite thing to do. If someone wants to be addressed as a man, or a woman, or a dog or a lamppost, and it harms no one, then it’s rude to refuse. But that doesn’t mean I believe them. And I don’t believe they should be allowed to compete in sports as the opposite sex, or expose themselves to the other sex in locker rooms.

      1. I think you probably can literally turn into a woman by cutting off your penis and taking some estrogen.
        >>>>>>>>>>

        Then I would suggest you crack open some science books since that would indicate an extreme misunderstanding of the vast array of fundamental biological differences between the sexes even for a layman. Its sort of like claiming you can turn a honda into a jetfighter by adding wings and changing the gas to jetfuel.

        1. Aeronautics 101; if you have enough thrust, you can make a brick fly.
          (See McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II)

          1. Having lift and being able to maneuver as a fighter plane must are very different things.

    2. “Rowling was one of the most beloved celebrities of her time and now shes two steps from Derek Chauvin”

      Just like Bill Cosby.

      The Volokh Conspiracy appears to be determined to go down with the S.S. Clinger.

      1. Yup. At least Arthur is willing to open wide and accept the future.

        1. People like me are shaping the future.

          Clingers can follow, get out of the way, or get run over.

          I hope you choose wisely.

          1. Your impotent threats really give a great insight into why you’d choose to transition.

            1. Zing! I always assumed it was lead poisoning, a life of disappointment, and a diet heavy on soy that explained Kirkland’s ignorant ranting. But, you may have something.

            2. No threat involved.

              The culture war is settled, although it has not been completed.

              The losers can (1) change their minds and choose to support progress; (2) stay out of the way and accept America’s continuing improvement; or (3) continue to fight for backwardness and bigotry, be overrun by the winners, and perhaps precipitate the trampling of their preferences to even greater degree.

              Does anyone perceive another realistic path for conservatives in modern America?

            3. Impotent threats!?!

              Holy crap have you ever read a history book?

              What do you think the US has been doing the last 200 years, especially last century.

              OSHA
              Civil Rights Act
              Women voting
              Loving
              Obergefell
              Unions
              Monopoly break ups

              Pull your head out.

              1. I hope you haven’t forgotten . . .

                > prayer in legitimate schools
                > school lunch programs
                > contraception and abortion
                > environmental protections
                > creationism in science classrooms
                > women in graduate schools
                > Medicare
                > toppled Confederate monuments
                > voting rights
                > segregated schools
                > consumer protections
                > Medicaid
                > student aid
                > marijuana reform

                and there is plenty more where those came from . . .

              2. I think you’re going to be disappointed if you postulate a straight line to eternal progressivism based upon arbitrarily assigning arbitrarily chosen historical events to two modern philosophies.

                Institutionalized boy banging was arguably a new and progressive finger to traditional mores back in the day but it hasn’t really endured in popularity. Likewise consumerism is as popular as its ever been, even among the hipster anticapitalists.

  2. Read it yesterday. I was not surprised at the snowflake reaction, but it is, I dunno, dismaying, that these stupid little minds have so much sway in the media. I hate to say majority rules, but queers of all variations are a tiny minority, and I am tired of them expecting everybody else to bow and scrape. I care zero about gays, one way or the other, beyond liberty for all; of course they should be able to marry, adopt, teach, etc; but once they got that, why did they keep pushing to force every baker, florist, photographer, etc, to work for them? They wanted liberty, they deserved it, and then they worked to deny liberty to others. Fuck ’em.

    Then this recent crap. Yes, ALL lives matter, because that sleeping couple in Houston didn’t deserve to die in a fraudulent no-knock raid any more than Floyd deserved to die at the hands of an unfeeling psychopath. It is unaccountability at fault, not racism; racism itself is no more harmful than fraud, absent any associated crime which it enables.

    Folks, just live your lives and let others live their lives. If that means leaving bigots alone, so be it; bigots hurt themselves, their social lives, and their economic lives, more than they hurt others. Life is a lot easier and fun if you leave others to their own miserable lives and get on with your own free lives, than when you have to spend so much time minding other people’s business that you have no time to manage your own.

    1. >They wanted liberty, they deserved it, and then they worked to deny liberty to others.
      These aren’t necessarily the same “theys”, same as with other rights movements.
      Why were some bigots in the old days not content with their superior position, but had to actively humiliate disadvantaged groups? Why did some mean Southern whites make blacks bow and scrape, and why do some people bash gays? Some people are opportunistic bullies, and it cuts across all demographics.
      And a lot of people entertain narcissistic revenge fantasies, like Liza Doolittle against ‘enry ‘iggins, if only they can gain the king’s favor:

      “Next week on the twentieth of May
      I proclaim Liza Doolittle day
      All the people will celebrate the glory of you
      And whatever you wish and want I gladly will do”

      1. You’re right, not just one unified “they”, thanks for the reality check :-O

        But it is still depressing that so many people want to mind other people’s lives.

    2. “of course they should be able to marry, adopt, teach, etc;”

      My chief objection to their being able to marry was the way it was accomplished, which was profoundly anti-democratic, and made a hash of the rule of law. This isn’t a cause that prevailed by winning over the public. This is a cause that prevailed by sweeping through the judiciary as a fad, and then the judiciary just steamrollered every democratic effort by the public to stop them, in the space of terrifyingly few years.

      Now stunned resignation may be turning into genuine support, or it might just be a well founded fear of the consequences of not pretending to support the cause.

      On adoption, I can not agree. You don’t adopt for you, you adopt for the child. Only a few percent of people have messed up sex drives, and there’s no way to arrange for ‘gay’ couples to only adopt the few children who were going to end up that way. So, unavoidably, most of the time you’re setting up children to be raised in a family without any role models for their own eventual sexuality. This does not strike me as a good idea. And I’m concerned that, in the current atmosphere, if the evidence proves that it’s a bad idea, what researcher would dare to prove it?

      Teach? I suppose I’m OK with that, so long as they keep to the proper subject matter, since ideally their sexuality shouldn’t have anything to do with the job.

      1. Keep talking, Brett.

        It’s guys like you who will ensure the Republican Party is stomped into political irrelevance by better Americans.

        The Volokh Conspiracy — not bigoted, but number one with bigots!

        1. I mean really, is it nothing but threats with you?

          1. I merely predict that the tide of American progress — which has favored the liberal-libertarian mainstream throughout our lives — will continue to arrange progress against the wishes and efforts of conservatives.

            Do you disagree?

      2. So, unavoidably, most of the time you’re setting up children to be raised in a family without any role models for their own eventual sexuality. This does not strike me as a good idea. And I’m concerned that, in the current atmosphere, if the evidence proves that it’s a bad idea, what researcher would dare to prove it?

        So lesbians can only adopt girls and vice versa.

        It turns out that studies have been done and the sexuality of the child is unaffected by that of the parents, and gay parents are generally better than straight couples (probably due to higher education and income).

        1. and gay parents are generally better than straight couples (probably due to higher education and income).

          A “study” that doesn’t correct for basic confounding variables like those USUALLY isn’t seen as much of a study.

      3. That’s a silly objection. A fundamental right to be left alone should be so fundamental that the question never comes up; but if it is violated, it ought to be condemned by any means. Too much legislation violates too many rights, and I want the courts to be far more pro-active in protecting rights.

      4. “You don’t adopt for you”.

        Some people don’t understand there’s anything else in the world besides “for you”.

    3. “Folks, just live your lives and let others live their lives.”

      Arnold Kling used to use the acronym FOOL (Fear Of Others’ Liberty) to describe why many segments of the population want to portray this sentiment as morally wrong.

    4. “Why were some bigots in the old days not content with their superior position, but had to actively humiliate disadvantaged groups?”

      To retain the power structure by quelling all dissent.

  3. Is there a serious counter argument?

    Other than a few “studies” that try to reinforce a scientific notion that gender is a social construct, I really can never find one.

    And I don’t think there is a serious scientific consensus on the nature of gender. it isn’t that I think that perhaps gender dysphoria might not exist in this world. If it does though it is exceedingly rare, perhaps less than one in a million are affected. Far less then what proponents would like us to believe.

    The argument for “transgender rights” seems mostly to be banal accusations of generalized bigotry and appeals to feelings such as generalized acceptance of people regardless of outward traits. This usually plays out by simply shouting down someone who does not agree with this argument or otherwise boxing them out of public debate. Rarely do they ever address points head on.

    So yeah I would love to see these serious arguments from the other side.

    1. Gender IS a human construct. Thats the trick. They hijacked the term ‘gender’ from linguistics as a replacement for the older more objectively used term of sex. That way when they’re called on it they can run back and rightly claim ‘gender’ is a vague term that encompasses delusion. And then when your back is turned they go back to enforcing it as a synonym for sex. In this way a new definition is normalized in the public consciousness. Similar to how the word ‘marriage’ was the ultimate prize in the SSM fight far more than any underlying legal rights.

      They are obsessed with the manipulation of language and meaning. We have our own very own Orwellian drama going on under our noses, not in a stupid generalist superficial sense everybody always talks about for random events but in very literal ways and nobody notices.

      1. The same seems to go for “privilege”. How can having ancestors being white (genetics) be a privilege? If, as they claim, being straight/gay is genetics, how can being one or the other be a privilege? Keep going down that list of privilege claims.

        1. Privilege is not asserted, it is bestowed by others. Thus privilege is not the’owner’s’ problem but the ‘fault’ of others.

          1. Tell that to Karen.

        2. I’m unaware that anyone has shown that gay and straight are genetic. Lots of current progressive dogma and anecdotal evidence shows instead that sexual identity comes in a wide range and can change over time. I suspect that it’s a way more complex mixture of predisposition, life experience and current circumstance.

          I’m in the let everyone do their own thing according to their own beliefs camp as long as no one is injured.

          1. Heterosexuality is genetic; The correlation between your chromosomes and sexual identity is extremely strong. As is to be expected of something so essential to the propagation of the species.

            Homosexuality isn’t so much genetically determined, as it represents a failure of the genetic determination of heterosexuality. Not a different mechanism, the same mechanism broken. Something destabilizes your sexual identity, and then environmental causes are capable of messing with it, or not, as happens.

            That’s why it’s so hard to find a genetic basis for homosexuality; There’s one way you become heterosexual, and every way that mechanism can break for you to become something else.

      2. The terror of “1984” was never the cameras, it was newspeak.

        1. The cameras facilitate the state oppression.

          And we have both cameras and newspeak.

  4. “I refuse to bow down to a movement that I believe is doing demonstrable harm in seeking to erode ‘woman’ as a political and biological class and offering cover to predators like few before it.”

    !!! Cover for predators??? That’s the sentence that has to be addressed. What is she talking about?

    1. Basically men pretending to be women in order to invade women’s spaces. ‘Transgenders’ dominating women’s sports, for instance.

    2. There are convicted offenders who claim that because they’re now a different gender that their past crimes don’t count.

      Take, for example, “Karen White” (formerly David Thompson, née Stephen Wood), a convicted pedophile and rapist who claimed he was a woman when he was arrested. The local transgender rights group insisted he should be placed in a women’s prison. He (unsurprisingly) raped other inmates.

    3. “!!! Cover for predators???”

      Yeah, idk. Men and Women, cis and trans, can be predators, and if a trans women forces herself on her roommate at a battered women’s shelter, that’s simply female on female violence, which is an unfortunate fact of life. No cover necessary.

      1. This is as bad as saying that gay rights is just a cover for pedophiles. I don’t see how it’s “thoughtful”.

        1. Well, not “just”, but “also”.

          The problem with trans ‘rights’ is that it elevates a pathology, gender dysphoria, to a right, and tries to force everybody around the nutcase to play along with them.

  5. Although I was born in 1949, I identify as a Millennial, and expect all the benefits, like being able to say absolute nonsense with conviction and being believed by my peers.

  6. Wow, the rules of civil discourse really must have changed in the Age of Trump, because I certainly remember a more innocent time when someone who accused people she disagreed with of being in league with child molesters and rapists wouldn’t have been described as “calm” and “thoughtful”.

    1. “Calm” and “thoughtful” both have to do with the manner in which you advance a position, not the substance of the position.

      1. That is at least arguably true for “calm”. You can definitely calmly assert to be Napoleon or Jesus, at least outwardly calmly. But thoughtfully claiming to be Jesus seems like a bit of a stretch…

        1. It’s still possible to do, but very few people enjoy the factual predicate necessary to pull it off.

          I think it’s telling that you feel the need to address this topic in terms of claims that are objectively false. I object to statues being torn down by mobs, and am told I am in league with white supremacists; How is what Rowling’s doing materially different? Except that, for instance, an increasing number of women’s sports records are being claimed by men, so she does seem to have some basis for complaining.

          1. I object to statues being torn down by mobs, and am told I am in league with white supremacists

            That’s because you are. That’s what “in league” means. Noscitur a sociis.

            an increasing number of women’s sports records are being claimed by men

            Name one. I’ll wait.

            1. For instance.

              But I know what you’re planning: You’ll just assert that Cece actually is a woman. But asserting a lie doesn’t make it so, he’s a guy who walked away with the NCAA women’s track championship.

              1. That’s a woman. It says so right there in the title. I’m not sure why that’s confusing.

                (For the record, I fully agree that the world of sport needs objective, measurable criteria for who gets to compete in women’s sports, but the effect of that would be that some women – like Caster Semenya – don’t get to compete with other women. It wouldn’t somehow make them not women.)

            2. Google “Australian Women’s Handball Team.” Check out the photos, especially the ones of the cowering opponents.

  7. J.K. Rowling’s Essay on transgender rights is totally wrong. All transgender should have their rights increased and fully supported and even encouraged. Those rights start as soon as a person thinks that they are in a body of a different gender regardless of age. This should be the law of the land and if the parent or caregivers will not support the person that is not yet of majority that transgender person should be liberated and a supporting home found for that child. If that child is old enough to survive on its own then that person should be given a income until the person is capable to provide for itself. That income would include a full scholarship to a school in the state where the person lives.

    1. ” that person should be given a income until the person is capable to provide for itself. That income would include a full scholarship to a school in the state where the person lives.”

      Are you signing up to provide the income out of your own pocket, or telling other this is what they must do , to placate you?

  8. Can’t turn an X into a Y.

  9. On the – remote – chance that anyone here is interested in having a serious conversation about this topic, the venerable Crooked Timber blog has just posted a guest-post in response to J.K. Rowling that is well worth reading: https://crookedtimber.org/2020/06/14/guest-post-an-open-letter-to-jk-rowling-blog-post-on-sex-and-gender-by-sophie-grace-chappell/

    1. It’s worth reading. It’s too bad Crooked Timber is so heavily censored these days; They used to host some interesting discussions before the purge. Theses days every comment goes straight to moderation so that wrongthink can’t be seen. Everything gets a good going over from every perspective from A to Aa.

      It was sad to watch happen, and one left leaning site after another has made the jump to comprehensive censorship.

      1. Yes. I’ve had it in my RSS reader for as long as the Volokh Conspiracy, but I would never dream of trying to comment there.

        1. I used to be something of a regular there, before the purge. It’s fun arguing with people who disagree with you. Now it’s just frustrating reading the site, as they gradually descend into insanity. Some of these discussions they hold today, you want to ask what color the sky is in their universe, and is that really English they’re speaking?

  10. Why must compassion go in only one direction?

    JK Rowling says that she feels hurt, she feels she has had her identity taken away, she feels threatened.

    Who will have compassion for her?

    Is compassion nothing more than an instrument of power? Something that victors can compell their vanquished to have for them, or else?

    It wasn’t so long ago that the ex-Confederate folks were equally loudly demanding our compassion for the wrongs and losses they suffered in the Civil War, and equally expressing their sense of hurt as a tool to suppress critical speechijg suggesting maybe they might not have been so completely in the right as they thought they were.

    It’s not like these new bosses invented the genre of a cult of victimization as justification for power, compassion as a tool to deflect and avoid criticism. Or are behaving any differently from the old bosses.

    These folks are practically walking Confederate monuments.

    1. The left has succeeded in defining words to mean their opposites. Compassion means hating people who offend you. Tolerance means being intolerant of anyone who disagrees with you. Equality means you are superior to others. I could go on but I think you get the idea.

      1. Diversity means conformity. Sharing means taking. Expression means suppression. And so on and so forth.

      2. War is Peace
        Ignorance is Strength
        Arson is Protest

  11. It appears Rowling believes transitioning has become a fashion, pushed by the most misogynistic period of her lifetime, that has ensnared vulnerable women with mental health issues to escape womanhood. I am unfamiliar with this fantasy world where being transgender is the easy escape. In the real world, women are making a very difficult decision, guided by physiological professionals, to transition and face discrimination and danger for doing so because they suffer from gender dysphoria.

    Additionally, Rowling believes predator men, pretending to be transgender to harm women, is a commonplace problem that justifies shutting out trans women from safe spaces for women. Again, I am unfamiliar with this fantasy world.

    1. “guided by physiological professionals”

      You’re thinking of 20 years ago, which explains your admitted lack of familairity with the relevant facts.

      1. “Physiological” was a spellcheck correction for what was supposed to be “psychological.”

        1. it’s still wrong

            1. To what end? A cursory examination of both the post by Rowling that you obviously didn’t read or any recent literature on the process would disabuse you. It is in fact discussed in the post by Rowling. If you read it, why do you need me to go on? Address her points on the subject.

              If you wanted to be educated you wouldn’t have started by reveling in your ignorance.

              1. As I said below, I believe I have accurately described, and addressed Rowling’s arguments. What do you think I got wrong?

                1. I just told you.

                  1. No, you did not. All you did was claim that “It is in fact discussed in the post by Rowling,” without mentioning what the “it” is.

    2. Strawman defeated. Kudos.

      1. I believe I have accurately described Rowling’s arguments. What do you think I got wrong?

        1. Quote her words where she says those things. If you can’t quote nearly identical words and phrases to the ones you used, then you created a strawman.

          1. It appears Rowling believes transitioning has become a fashion, pushed by the most misogynistic period of her lifetime, that has ensnared vulnerable women with mental health issues to escape womanhood

            I’m concerned about the huge explosion in young women wishing to transition. […] multiple friends and even entire friend groups became transgender-identified at the same time. I would have been remiss had I not considered social contagion and peer influences as potential factors […] The more of their [trans men] accounts of gender dysphoria I’ve read, with their insightful descriptions of anxiety, dissociation, eating disorders, self-harm and self-hatred, the more I’ve wondered whether, if I’d been born 30 years later [We’re living through the most misogynistic period I’ve experienced], I too might have tried to transition. The allure of escaping womanhood would have been huge. I struggled with severe OCD as a teenager.

            Rowling believes predator men, pretending to be transgender to harm women, is a commonplace problem that justifies shutting out trans women from safe spaces for women.

            When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman […] then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside. […] the Scottish government is proceeding with its controversial gender recognition plans, which will in effect mean that all a man needs to ‘become a woman’ is to say he’s one […] I believe my government is playing fast and loose with womens and girls’ safety.

            1. In the first case she can hardly be said to be describing something so whimsical as a “fashion”. I guess you have some alternate explanation for groups of people in contact developing the condition? Ideas of all kinds can be spread among people.

              In the second case, she is predicting the future, not describing the past.

              1. I took “entire friend groups” to mean transitioning was a fashionable thing to do. But, even if you want to replace “fashion” with some other phrase, the gist of her argument remains that vulnerable woman are being pressured into transitioning. That still strikes me as a fantasy.

                Assuming Rowling thinks gender self-identification laws will enable future predators, that also still strikes me as a fantasy.

                1. Maybe vulnerable women are getting the idea that their problems are gender dysmorphia rather than some other problem. It’s not like emotional issues and confusion are rare in teenage and early-twenties humans.

                  And predictions of the future are all fantasy of one sort or another.

    3. Josh R
      June.14.2020 at 12:17 pm
      It appears Rowling believes

      Ah yes, the inevitable attempt by a man to silence and deny the lived experience of a woman.

      Please join us in the 21st century.

    4. Of course ideas become fashionable. No less so than suicide. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK207262/
      And of the course those with mental issues are more vulnerable to dangerous fancies.

    5. Josh R

      This may be an into in the world you are unfamiliar with.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxVmSGTgNxI

  12. One reason Rowling drives them crazy is because they know they can’t cancel her.

    And good for her for not bending the knee.

    And the stuff about menstruating is silly. Some women do not menstruate, either due to age or some sort of medical condition. However, anyone who does menstruate is a woman. It’s that simple.

    This reminds me of that college that cancelled “The Vagina Monologues” because “not all women have vaginas”.

    1. The only time a man has a vagina is when it is wrapped around his penis!

    2. I hope she never finds that they can cancel her, because they absolutely can. Not while leaving her alive, of course, but for the left that’s not always an obstacle.

  13. Dealing with these issues thoughtfully isn’t going to work out the way they want. So it will be important to keep people on an emotional knife’s edge. Infinite drama incoming.

    Has Rowling been accused of murder yet?

  14. “”the majority of trans-identified people not only pose zero threat to others, but are vulnerable for all the reasons I’ve outlined. Trans people need and deserve protection.””

    My objection to the orthodoxy currently being promulgated by the SJW folks has nothing to do with perceived safety. It is simply that we are being asked (or required depending on your profession) to parrot statements when the science is most certainly not nearly “settled”).

    On a side note, the worst part of the debate over global warming is having to hear the phrase, “The science is settled.” It’s an equivalent of accusations of racism in lieu of actual engagement with the other person’s claims.

    Similarly, “Diversity is our strength” is a logically null statement.

  15. Perhaps someone can explain why people who do less deserve more in return. Progressive progress makes people who build and sustain civilization and humanity, who work and pay for government and civic institutions, who obey laws, follow rules, and try to get along and not be a burden — it makes them a subservient class, secondary in status to anyone with troubles, regardless of the source of those troubles.

    J. K. Rowling did a lot for people. Maybe more than all trans women put together. Maybe less. Why shouldn’t we recognize that and respect it and accept her input along with all others?

    Why do you guys keep valuing against value? It leads away from better lives for more people and toward power plays based on victimization hierarchies. Power plays and victimization contests are objectively bad. Fights have casualties and collateral damage, even when you “win”. If you have goodwill, why cause problems? (If you don’t have goodwill, these questions all have obvious answers.)

    1. In my lifetime, America’s bigots have gone from dominance — open, common, casual bigotry, with dissenters mocked, beaten, and ignored — to whimpering impotence — ‘oh, please, show some mercy and let us espouse bigotry without being criticized, shunned, or forced to watch our Confederate statutes fall.’

      That’s progress.

      1. Weird, they seem to be begging for TP and smokes in the CHAZ.

        Not very dominant at all then.

        1. Open wider.

          Or not.

          The progress will continue regardless of your level of discomfort.

  16. It seems like the proposition is that [someone] has the right to feel comfortable in [some setting]. Do institutions routinely go out of their way to make you feel comfortable?

    I don’t remember any institution ever addressing my comfort level in any way except occasionally to intentionally make things worse for me. Mostly institutions do their institutional business with zero regard for my comfort either way. I wonder how I became second-class.

  17. I wonder why so many people are defensive of trannies.

    When I was in high school, there were no trannies there.

    1. If I wasn’t familiar with your sincere posts I’d assume this was a parody account.

      You can’t possibly believe your high school experience should be the objective basis for… well anything other than your high school experience.

    2. What does it mean to be “defensive of trannies”? Genuine question; I’m trying to parse the English, and I’m not understanding the preposition. (And it’s not nit-picking…the pronoun chosen, I think, profoundly could change the meaning you’re trying to convey.)

    3. I feel sorry for adults silly or desperate enough to think mutilating their bodies will help with problems centered in their minds. But if that’s what they want, and they pay for it themselves, it’s no business of mine. Unless they try to make it mine by demanding I humor their delusions.

      What really enrages me, though, is parents dragging their kids through this. Munchhausen by proxy.

      1. I don’t think it’s Munchhausen. On the left, the absolute pinnacle of virtue signaling is being openly proud and supportive of your transgender child.

  18. What’s with that Times editorial? Whose free speech is being abridged? Rowling’s piece got massive attention, and whatever blowback there is online is just what happens when you’re a famous person who weights in on a contentious subject. Freedom of speech isn’t freedom from consequences, etc.

    Then Radcliffe got to say what thought needed to be said.

    No one was kept from speaking. But Radcliffe should refrain from his “abusive and hurtful speech” in response to Rowling’s speech? That was three paragraphs of nonsense.

  19. The counter argument is interesting because it collides directly with the feminist mantra “all men can rape…” A transgender person who still has a penis is physically capable of raping of a woman. Maybe the fact they no longer identify as a “man” removes the rapist from them, but the “all men can rape…” narrative relies upon the physical capabilities more then the male-female sexual dynamic.

Please to post comments