Since JK Rowling has blocked any reply to this litany of half-truths and transphobic dogwhistles, I thought I'd catalogue them properly here:
Quote Tweet
TERF wars
jkrowling.com/answers/
Conversation
Replying to
1a. In the case of Maya Forstater.
Firstly, she did not "lose her job" (she was a contract worker, her contract was not renewed). The distinction is important both legally and linguistically - since "losing a job" casts Forstater as the victim, implying she was fired.
119
774
14.8K
1b. Forstater also did not "ask the judge to rule on whether a philosophical belief that sex is determined by biology is protected by law".
She asked the judge to rule that (among other things) misgendering was protected speech. This was the judge's response.
74
1,314
21.5K
1c. And here's the full judgement, for those wanting to know more.
I'll also note that not once in JK's blog post does she reference an external source to support her views. She alludes to them, but never links.
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5e15e7f8
25
485
12.2K
1d. The distinction between the truth and JK's mischaracterisation is important - because *no one* is arguing that sex is not determined by biology.
This is a common transphobic attack to cast trans (and NB/intersex) rights in an absolutist light to make them seem absurd.
131
795
13.7K
This Tweet is unavailable. Learn more
2a. JK lists all the sources from which her view of trans rights has been informed. What's important here is that she's setting herself up as an authority - and so has *zero* defence for why she's so woefully uninformed on this issue, or why her views are so painfully one-sided.
46
471
10.1K
2b. Note also that Rowling declares her "fictional female detective" as being "of an age to be interested in, and affected by, these issues".
Surely if this is an issue facing all cis women, age doesn't factor into it?
47
291
9,918
2c. And - since trans rights don't actually impinge women's rights at all - neither the character nor Rowling is materially affected by the issue.
The majority of women have no issue with trans women (or trans people in general, though JK is addressing trans women in this post).
136
629
10.6K
3a. While any threats made against Rowling are deplorable - that would never justify a transphobic response.
The narrative JK is building here is one where she is the victim - not the trans community who are oppressed and marginalised every day.
57
716
11.4K
3b. Note that - if Rowling was receiving criticism for holding views she did not hold, this could easily have been remedied by her making a clear statement of support for trans people.
Instead, her publisher declared it a "middle aged moment".
45
478
9,566
4a. Rowling describes Magdalen Burns in the kindest of terms. Here's how Magdalen Burns described trans people.
For the avoidance of doubt, being transgender is not a "fetish". Psychologists don't think that. Doctors and Biologists don't think that. Only bigots think that.
74
1,194
12.7K
4b. Another transphobic trope is on display here - using lesbians as a cover to present yet another straw-man lie about the trans people.
If you want to learn what the vast majority of the Lesbian community think about trans people, I recommend following .
55
427
9,276
5a. The victimhood continues - with the hilarious contradiction that she was on her "4th or 5th cancellation".
Not only is she cherry-picking the worst abuse (which is deplorable, but does not excuse transphobia) she's ridiculing the harm of her actions.
25
319
7,871
5b. More than a quarter of trans people have attempted suicide. That's not "contemplated" - but "attempted".
When trans people - and allies like myself - get so engaged in these issues, it's stats like this that drive it.
stonewall.org.uk/sites/default/
64
759
10.9K
5c. Lives are literally at stake and the rejection of trans identities is the principle cause.
Imagine the impact on a young trans person to learn that someone they look to as an icon supports people who - loudly and publicly - call them mentally disturbed sexual deviants.
51
846
11K
5d. And yet Rowling presents this as abusive hyperbole - compared to the very real pain of learning someone mulched The Prisoner of Azkaban.
Abuse is not okay - but trans people are allowed to be angry at their oppression and to express that anger in non-abusive ways.
21
345
8,576
6a. Now Rowling moves on to casting herself as the saviour. All these people supported her for supporting Forstater - some of whom "working in fields dealing with gender dysphoria and trans people".
13
269
6,544
6b. Note the choice of words. Not trans charities or specialist medical professionals. "Working in fields dealing with".
That could mean anything. Bathroom architects could claim that designation. And there's no evidence Rowling checked any of these claims.
11
354
8,374
6c. What these anonymous supporters are *not* are psychologists or doctors dealing directly with trans people.
How do I know this? Because:
a) if she could have, she'd have said so
b) her views are at odds with the vast majority of the medical profession in this area
21
437
9,439
6d. And these people are "...worried about the dangers to young people, gay people and about the erosion of women’s and girl’s rights."
Women and girl's rights are not being eroded. Trans rights are a threat to no one. It's both wrong and transphobic to imply otherwise.
55
967
11.8K
6e. And finally we have the only acknowledgement of the impact of all this on trans people. And it's essentially concern-trolling about "trans youth" who are most afraid of their rights being curtailed - not of billionaires getting criticised for supporting people who hate them.
5
265
6,881
7. Again - Rowling turns to the very worst aspects of the conversation to tacitly justify her position.
That she was called misogynistic slurs is inexcusable - but there are no end of examples of her supporters doing the same. Here's just one prominent example:
42
317
6,463
7b. I'll stress again. Abuse is deplorable - but it does not license transphobia. Trans people receive this abuse (and far worse) every day - even more in the wake of Rowling's recent tweets.
18
460
8,365
7c. As for her "examples": the mother of the possibly-gay possibly-trans child is used to introduce another transphobic straw-man - the implication that non-trans people are receiving gender reassignment surgery.
13
304
7,348
7d. There are no end of checks required before trans people receive surgery - indeed, many do not transition or do not transition fully. And the waiting lists involved are years long.
19
373
7,735
7e. The idea of somebody's son being railroaded into surgery is just transphobic scaremongering.
If the mother believed that, it was transphobes who scared her into it. Trans people are the *very last people* who would ever want someone forced into a body of the wrong gender.
17
787
10.9K
7f. As for Marks & Spencer - the thing Rowling presents as outrageous here is a requirement under UK law and has been since the Equality Act 2010.
People should use the bathroom corresponding to their gender identity.
32
332
7,587
7g. This is another area beset with transphobic scaremongering and disinformation.
Trans women are no more a threat to cis women than other cis women. Here's some research to back that up:
28
603
7,737
7h. In short, the study found that an increased rate of criminality in trans women existed in the early part of the study (1973-88) but disappeared in the later half (89-03) as the lives of trans people improved.
10
279
6,636
7h. Transphobes sometimes misrepresent that study as saying the opposite of what it does - so here's the author giving one of several interviews refuting their false claims (from which the previous screenshot was taken).
31
377
6,852
Show replies