Ms Rowling: insightful critic of gender policy or myopic [insult]

[billvon]

Things do seem to dogmatize. Especially when intellectuals take such issues up in their castles without talking with anyone down on Main Street. The street level emotional reactions to seeing a pair of hairy legs in the stall next to yours, or male giblets flopping around in the ladies dressing/locker room, or a trans female scooping up all the trophies at the girls track meet, are all vaulted over by the idealist in the tower.

Agreed. But by the same token, the uninformed zealot believes that "male giblets flopping around in the ladies locker room" and the "trans female scooping up all the trophies at the girls track meet" are so common as to be a huge risk. Such people have likely met several trans people in real life, but the trans person has wisely not come out to the zealot.

Why this reform can't somehow include some private stalls for the "un-opped" trans folk

?? It does. Here in California, in new construction there is almost always a "family bathroom" separate from the rest, for anything from changing diapers to a father taking his daughter to the bathroom to trans people who do not want to use regular bathrooms. At our brewery we just avoided the whole issue by labeling bathrooms "stand" or "sit."

When I first learned about transgender, fifty years ago, it was in a social climate where I could say "ewwwww!"

I still think it's "ewww." I feel the same about facial piercings and tattoos. But just because it's not for me does not mean that it does not work for other people.

And TBH there's still the lingering feeling that embracing one's inner gender doesn't have to necessarily be asserted by means of costly medical interventions

Agreed 100%. That's where much of the angst is directed nowadays, though.

 

[parmalee]

Agreed. But by the same token, the uninformed zealot believes that "male giblets flopping around in the ladies locker room" and the "trans female scooping up all the trophies at the girls track meet" are so common as to be a huge risk. Such people have likely met several trans people in real life, but the trans person has wisely not come out to the zealot.

Throughout the entirety of my adult lifetime, I've always known at least a few trans people--and I don't think they just started appearing out of nowhere in '90s. And as a lifelong aficianado of exploitation cinema (and also Wendy Carlos), it was on my radar at least even as a child (also, incidentally, so-called "exploitation cinema" is very often much more sympathetic to progressive causes than the mainstream and there is often a quite unexpected subversive element to it, but that's another subject). The people I've known were always pretty open about it, but mostly when they were in the right company--everyone's got a survival instinct.

I remember thinking of the whole Kaitlin Jenner thing 10-15 years back that they could't have come up with a worse posterchild for a cause: a quite wealthy person who transitioned much later in life--thereby avoiding the challenges facing younger women and women in the 70s/80s/90s--and who excelled in sports and who was also rather an asshole. The "they" above, of course, not being trans people, but rather the mainstream media.

 

[parmalee]

No. It's not plain and simple. It's nuanced and there is a lot of different areas.

The thing is, Rowling will on one occasion express what seems to be a reasonable, albeit perhaps misguided, concern, but then on another she will just say something ignorant and bigoted. In such instances as that, where I'm to suss another's viewpoint from a selection of things they've said and done, I'm gonna figure that the ignorant and bigoted remarks are more representative of her actual views.

 

[foghorn]

The thing is, Rowling will on one occasion express what seems to be a reasonable, albeit perhaps misguided, concern, but then on another she will just say something ignorant and bigoted. In such instances as that, where I'm to suss another's viewpoint from a selection of things they've said and done, I'm gonna figure that thed ignorant and bigoted remarks are more representative of her actual views.

" ignorant and bigoted" seems tame compared to how you come across in your posts. Someone with a sociopathic personality??
My bold below.
Support Trump… “that person needs a bullet in their skull”

"Why do we need speed limits and traffic lights?"

If that question is coming from a 7 or 8 year old kid, then it warrants a sincere, patient and thorough response. It's a fair question, coming from a little kid.

If that question is coming from a presumably semi-intelligent adult (Trump, Musk, the GOP, certain posters here), that person doesn't need a sincere response, i.e., "conversation", that person needs a bullet in their skull--and that is not hyperbole. Such persons are dangerous, antisocial, legitimate existential threats, and they ought be treated accordingly--and I can guarantee you that a lot of people will suffer and/or die needlessly as a consequence of eliminating or disrupting the administrative state. That's my justification for such an assertion.

That probably sounds heavy-handed, or a bit much, to some. To them I say, Seriously?

Support Trump, so that makes you a rapist too, so kill yourself ???

You are a rape supporter; consequently, there is a very strong probability that you are a sexual assailant, as well.
You should kill yourself. You have absolutely no value to anyone or anything in this world. I'm a pragmatist.

 

[parmalee]

" ignorant and bigoted" seems tame compared to how you come across in your posts. Someone with a sociopathic personality??
My bold below.
Support Trump… “that person needs a bullet in their skull”


Support Trump, so that makes you a rapist too, so kill yourself ???

Yep. I have no tolerance for people who are demonstrably dangerous, with no likelihood for rehabilitation.

That said, I also have very little patience for people who are demonstrably illiterate and cannot even paraphrase correctly a passage that they just quoted. So there's that. But seriously, make an effort, for fuck's sake.

 

[Tiassa]

And my mind is not at all made up re Rowling's actual views on transgender. I started the thread in order to learn something and offer a couple posters who had clashed on the matter a venue for discussion.

And that's the part that is hard to believe.

So let's just try this one again: Does nobody remember the bit where Rowling started deleting defamatory social media postings after starring in a very public harassment campaign against a female athlete for not being ladylike enough?

The idea that Sciforums is where people finally learn about something that has been going on in the public eye for years is kind of strange. Moreover, the idea that people can't learn something unless someone else tells them should be just silly.

Think of it this way: Even in this thread, an apparent lack of information is the most powerful tool people have to defend J.K. Rowling; they might have strong feelings, but it turns out they just don't know what's going on.

Consider something one of our neighbors said:

What I resent - and therefore resist - is the extremely shrill campaigning pressure that denigrates people who remain deeply uncomfortable about some of this and tries to frogmarch them into unquestioning acceptance that an apparent man in women's clothing should be called a woman and accepted as such. I think Rowling articulates what many people feel about this.

If they ask me to burn a witch, I will refuse. If they ask again, next year, I will refuse. If they insist, the year after that, I will refuse. And there will always be someone to resents how refusal denigrates people who remain deeply uncomfortable about not burning witches and tries to frogmarch them into unquestioning acceptance.

This is a common turn of rhetoric, and keeps showing up as a tell.

Please consider that we were already fifteen years into the question when Rowling pitched her fit last year:

In a recent legal battle that has captured international attention, Imane Khelif, the Algerian boxer who clinched gold in the women's welterweight category at the Paris Olympics, has taken legal action against several high-profile figures, including JK Rowling, Elon Musk, and Donald Trump. Khelif's lawsuit centers around allegations of cyber harassment and claims that these public figures have perpetuated online abuse fueled by transphobia.

The controversy erupted after Khelif's bout against Italy's Angela Carini during the Olympics. Shortly into their match, Carini withdrew, alleging that Khelif's punches were unusually forceful. This led to a barrage of online attacks accusing Khelif of being transgender, despite her being born female and not identifying as transgender or intersex. The International Olympic Committee has supported Khelif, stating that "scientifically, this is not a man fighting a woman"

Amidst the swirling controversy, JK Rowling, the renowned author of the Harry Potter series, found herself embroiled in the dispute. Rowling, known for her outspoken views on gender and sex, had shared posts on X (formerly Twitter) that criticized Khelif.

In one tweet, Rowling shared a picture of Khelif's fight with Carini, implying that Khelif was a man taking pleasure in hurting a woman. Following the lawsuit, Rowling removed many of her posts related to Khelif from her X account, a move interpreted by some as an attempt to reduce her online presence and avoid further scrutiny. Despite this, some of Rowling's retweets remain visible, including one related to another controversy involving Taiwanese athlete Lin Yu-ting.

Elon Musk, the CEO of X, also became a focal point in the dispute. Musk shared a post by swimmer Riley Gaines, which criticized the inclusion of transgender women in female sports. Musk supported the post with a comment of agreement, "Absolutely" Meanwhile, Donald Trump joined the fray by posting an image from Khelif's fight with Carini and voicing his stance on keeping "men out of women's sports"

(The Statesman↱)​

Interestingly, the Newsweek↱ telling describes Rowling breaking silence and speaking out and marking her return after being named in a lawsuit, but says nothing of Rowling's attempt to cover her tracks. To be fair, the headline also observes that she renewed her attacks against Imane Khelif, so it's a mixed bag that, journalistically, captures the implicit prejudices of a view from nowhere.

The punch line among community allies goes, "Five hundred track meets over several years later, a trans girl finally wins one event, so now we have to pass a law to make sure it doesn't happen again."

But even before that, the attitude was such that born women should be chemically restrained from becoming too good at any sport. Or have we all forgotten Caster Semenya?

Oh, I see:

Why this reform can't somehow include some private stalls for the "un-opped" trans folk is a question for the Left to receive graciously, and I see that as why Rowling keeps pecking away at the notion that just donning a dress and claiming a pinkish brain gets you into the locker room or powder room.

There it is.

So, here's the thing↗:

Think back to Kansas and creationism, Texas and history, the transpartisan PMRC, Pledge of Allegiance, Commandments in classrooms, tolerance of terrorism; these days its Florida and Texas, Christian nationalists, any number of industrialists, and even Harry Potter fan fiction.

If, in history, we might agree there are religious extremists of a particular sort, it sometimes becomes necessary to consider the oppositional argument that simply disdains the religion, but not the extremism, and even quietly disdains the thought that something is extremist. In this way, especially, politics raises strange bedfellows. To wit, one need not be explicitly religious to be a terf or pilled masculinist, but if there's one belief terfs, masculinists, and Christian nationalists (and even actual Nazis) all share, it's the proper place of a woman.

This is an important circumstance to note, because another commonality among those and other beliefs is that at some point, they require redefinition of words in order to maintain their argument.

And if this is what, say, the Christians needed in order to advocate creationism as science, it's also what they need in order to object to oral contraception and IUDs, but that's right about the point where some ostensibly nonreligious folks who have particular beliefs and expectations about the place of a woman soften up on pseudoscience. That's an example of why some people end up blaming liberals for forcing them to support fascism ....

.... Why others might play along is its own question and pathology, but it really does seem the common attraction is a perception of empowerment. It would thus seem an important circumstance to observe, that a narrative should require redefinition of the terminology.

With medicine, words have certain definitions because other asserted meanings introduce imprecision and inconsistency. Similarly, the science and math are pretty straightforward, and somewhere between the armchair einsteins and the religio-pseudoscientists decoding scriptures in search of the real truth, some otherwise seemingly normal people will feel empowered by rarefied definitions that cannot be applied consistently, but justify personal gratification.​

And, yeah, that's how the Cass Report ends up a debacle, or we have weird American episodes with medical workers and even doctors breaking protocol as if whitsleblowers in order to lie about children's health care; the Trump administration just dropped charges against one of them for releasing children's medical information to conservative activists.

We need to change professional standards and even medical definitions in order to accommodate their argument, which, in turn, is not simply about "some private stalls for the 'un-opped' trans folk". This has been about literally regulating womanhood, such that cisgender women who don't meet the standard are expected to chemically constrain themselves until people like Rowling are satisfied, for a while now.

And, so, what's this? Another soft launch? Oh, imagine that, they need another mulligan. Why can't "the Left" "graciously" receive this swindle? Why can't the Right simply be honest? Why rebrand and relaunch? Who are they trying to fool? Why is the only fair thing to do that we should ignore history in order to give superstition another go?

I get it, I can repeat myself however many times, and it's simply not going to sway the antiscientific. We've been through this many times before; the anti-gay version ended up with the organziation founder getting caught hiring a gay escort.
____________________

Notes:

"JK Rowling deletes transphobic tweets amid lawsuit by Olympic boxer Imane Khelif". The Statesman. 22 August 2024. TheStatesman.com. 13 March 2025. https://www.thestatesman.com/entert...by-olympic-boxer-imane-khelif-1503334507.html

Power, Shannon. "JK Rowling Breaks Silence After Lawsuit, Renews Attack on Imane Khelif". Newsweek. 23 August 2024. Newsweek.com. 13 March 2025. https://www.newsweek.com/jk-rowling-imane-khelif-lawsuit-twitter-1943502

 

[parmalee]

But this part is particularly weird:

Support Trump, so that makes you a rapist too, so kill yourself ???

The passage you quoted said rape supporter--did you seriously not get that? And, yes, rape advocates are far more likely to be rapists than people who are not rape advocates. Do you actually dispute this?

 

[TheVat]

The idea that Sciforums is where people finally learn about something that has been going on in the public eye for years is kind of strange. Moreover, the idea that people can't learn something unless someone else tells them should be just silly

One can have partial learning of an issue (that whole having a busy life can't get to everything thing) and be motivated by a forum topic to start reading further on it. The second sentence of your quote applies to literally no one here. As for your meanders on religious extremism, not sure that's particularly relevant to Rowling's views, but okay.

Also, no disagreement that trans girls winning track meets is a rare event. It's not something I'm personally concerned about. But media tend to focus on the rare, amplify it, and if there's a perceived issue of fairness that story gets a lot of mileage. People tend to latch onto rare events that have some aspect they feel anxious about, and sometimes see it as the start of a trend (i.e. less rare in the future, if more choose gender reassignment or affirmation or whatever term you prefer). I don't have a dog in that fight, just hope some cooler heads can figure out if male-at-birth generally confers more fast-twitch muscle fibers, lung capacity, or other factors that would give decisive advantages. Chemical constraint, as you put it, seems like a poor solution (Harrison Bergeron ish?). Some people are concerned about fairness to cis girls, but not out of some religious or transphobic mindset. Sports fans will argue for years over a playing field that's tilted by one micron. I note this as a former Red Sox fan.

 

[exchemist]

One can have partial learning of an issue (that whole having a busy life can't get to everything thing) and be motivated by a forum topic to start reading further on it. The second sentence of your quote applies to literally no one here. As for your meanders on religious extremism, not sure that's particularly relevant to Rowling's views, but okay.

Also, no disagreement that trans girls winning track meets is a rare event. It's not something I'm personally concerned about. But media tend to focus on the rare, amplify it, and if there's a perceived issue of fairness that story gets a lot of mileage. People tend to latch onto rare events that have some aspect they feel anxious about, and sometimes see it as the start of a trend (i.e. less rare in the future, if more choose gender reassignment or affirmation or whatever term you prefer). I don't have a dog in that fight, just hope some cooler heads can figure out if male-at-birth generally confers more fast-twitch muscle fibers, lung capacity, or other factors that would give decisive advantages. Chemical constraint, as you put it, seems like a poor solution (Harrison Bergeron ish?). Some people are concerned about fairness to cis girls, but not out of some religious or transphobic mindset. Sports fans will argue for years over a playing field that's tilted by one micron. I note this as a former Red Sox fan.

There is no question that in sports requiring strength men will perform better than women. Just look at the times in rowing events. I've always been a strong supporter of women's rowing and have spent some time coaching and coxing women's boats. But they are not going to be as fast. A transwoman sculler would therefore be expected to beat a woman sculler of equal technical competence and fitness. Pretty tough if you are the woman who comes up against one.

 

[foghorn]

Yep. I have no tolerance for people who are demonstrably dangerous, with no likelihood for rehabilitation.

That said, I also have very little patience for people who are demonstrably illiterate and cannot even paraphrase correctly a passage that they just quoted. So there's that. But seriously, make an effort, for fuck's

" demonstrably dangerous," Your opinion. Lucky we have courts to make decisions to send people to the chair, and not just a web nut job.

 

[parmalee]

" demonstrably dangerous," Your opinion. Lucky we have courts to make decisions to send people to the chair, and not just a web nut job.

Luckily we have people who actually know how to read, write and paraphrase and not just some idiot on the internet who can't distinguish between "Trump supporter" and "rape supporter" and who seemingly cannot understand that someone who supports something is more likely to do thatsomething.

All the same, I'm sure that rapists will appreciate your valiant defense for them.

Also, just curious: Are you genuinely confused by the notion of probability, as well? Sad.

 

[Pinball1970]

There is no question that in sports requiring strength men will perform better than women. Just look at the times in rowing events. I've always been a strong supporter of women's rowing and have spent some time coaching and coxing women's boats. But they are not going to be as fast. A transwoman sculler would therefore be expected to beat a woman sculler of equal technical competence and fitness. Pretty tough if you are the woman who comes up against one.

I think there are things to discuss.

Education of children w.r.t. sex and gender.
Medical care of children w.r.t. gender dysphoria.
Issues relating to J.K Rowling's comments, women's rights and how that sits with trans rights. (putting a pin on the question of her being a bigot)
Sports and inclusion of w.r.t. trans community.
Terminology in general parlance w.r.t. trans points.

The first two are easy, I don't know because I am not a child educational expert, child psychologist or pediatrician. A discussion there should be based on the available published scientific literature which I have not read.

Womens rights are closer to home because I know a lot, work with a stack and it is handy to know how women discuss these things. Age range is 23-55.
Too long to get into all but a negative view of the women space point, toilets and changing rooms.

Sports I know something about and I have strong views on that.

Terminology wise, views also. Probably the first thing that came into my life on all of this and where these discussions started for me.

 

[foghorn]

But this part is particularly weird:
The passage you quoted said rape supporter--did you seriously not get that? And, yes, rape advocates are far more likely to be rapists than people who are not rape advocates. Do you actually dispute this?

That’s funny since you were replying to Trek, and so knowing he /she was a Trump supporter, and so you assumed there was a chance Trek was a sexual assailant as well.

Congratulations America - you got the president you deserve

In the wake of the oncoming fascist regime, authoritarianism and cruelty of that which will be the Trump administration, few if any will be ok. Trump will easily plunge us into ww3 with his arrogance and stupidity of which most world leaders are all well aware. It’s up to you buddy. I’m looking...

www.sciforums.com

The same goes for you meeting 'poster here' Trek in the street and putting a bullet in his/ her skull for being a Trump supporter.
My bold below.

If that question is coming from a presumably semi-intelligent adult (Trump, Musk, the GOP, certain posters here), that person doesn't need a sincere response, i.e., "conversation", that person needs a bullet in their skull--and that is not hyperbole.

My bold.
So, with you, it's bullet in the skull just for supporting trump.
Do have a gun licence? Hope not.

 

[Pinball1970]

That’s funny since you were replying to Trek, and so knowing he /she was a Trump supporter, and so you assumed there was a chance Trek was a sexual assailant as well.
View attachment 6593

Congratulations America - you got the president you deserve

In the wake of the oncoming fascist regime, authoritarianism and cruelty of that which will be the Trump administration, few if any will be ok. Trump will easily plunge us into ww3 with his arrogance and stupidity of which most world leaders are all well aware. It’s up to you buddy. I’m looking...

www.sciforums.com

The same goes for you meeting 'poster here' Trek in the street and putting a bullet in his/ her skull for being a Trump supporter.
My bold below.
My bold.
So, with you, it's bullet in the skull just for supporting trump.
Do have a gun licence? Hope not.

I'm totally guilty of this guys with Tiassa. However, I listened to you lot and backed off from tit for tat, eventually not right away, I am no angel or even tempered person if pushed.

Your interjections helped.

 

[parmalee]

That’s funny since you were replying to Trek, and so knowing he /she was a Trump supporter, and so you assumed there was a chance Trek was a sexual assailant as well.

:facepalm:

As already noted, Trek is a rape advocate--this is well established. How fucking dumb are you?

And, no, I'm not doing your fucking research for you. There's a search feature here--do you know how to use it? Just plug in "rape" by poster "Trek" and you'll get all the evidence you need. Are you capable of that?

View attachment 6593

Congratulations America - you got the president you deserve

In the wake of the oncoming fascist regime, authoritarianism and cruelty of that which will be the Trump administration, few if any will be ok. Trump will easily plunge us into ww3 with his arrogance and stupidity of which most world leaders are all well aware. It’s up to you buddy. I’m looking...

www.sciforums.com

The same goes for you meeting 'poster here' Trek in the street and putting a bullet in his/ her skull for being a Trump supporter.
My bold below.
My bold.
So, with you, it's bullet in the skull just for supporting trump.
Do have a gun licence? Hope not.

Sorry, I'm not wasting any more time on someone who plainly struggles with reading comprehension. Go whine about some protestors blocking traffic or something.

 

[parmalee]

I'm totally guilty of this guys with Tiassa. However, I listened to you lot and backed off from tit for tat, eventually not right away, I am no angel or even tempered person if pushed.

Your interjections helped.

Thing is I simply cannot tolerate someone attributing to me things that I did not say. Even after I clarified what I explicitly said and he explicitly quoted, this... person who struggles with thought repeats his idiotic mistake. I just can't take that shit.

 

[Pinball1970]

Thing is I simply cannot tolerate someone attributing to me things that I did not say. Even after I clarified what I explicitly said and he explicitly quoted, this... person who struggles with thought repeats his idiotic mistake. I just can't take that shit.

Ok. Fair enough.

 

[parmalee]

Ok. Fair enough.

I don't mind people calling me out for supporting violence--though I typically clarify that I am speaking theoretically, as there are an abundance of logistical and practical problems with such. Also, it can potentially make for an intersting discussion with respect to state-sanctioned violence--I mean, what do we think the CIA and MI6 are doing? Or the drone program? Any number of things really. Then, of course, we can get into the lies many of us are fed about, say, Gandhi, MLK, and Nelson Mandela and their supposed "non-violent" movements.

But having people distort your words is infuriating.

 

[TheVat]

I've always been a strong supporter of women's rowing and have spent some time coaching and coxing women's boats.

Is it my understanding that the cox must never stand in a women's boat?

(showing myself out now....)

 

[exchemist]

Is it my understanding that the cox must never stand in a women's boat?

(showing myself out now....)

I did once cox a women’s boat in which the stroke was so gorgeous that I was grateful to be wearing roomy lower garments. But that was before the outing got under way. Once the blades were in the water, professional technical interest took over.