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

[Tiassa]

… seems a bit obsessed with threats against JKR, but has yet to even acknowledge threats, and actual violence, against doctors, trans people, etc. (I could also add here that we have actual proof for these things, and numbers; given JKR's history with trying to conceal posts and such, who knows about the legitimacy of these alleged threats? I generally don't question people when they make such claims, but when people have a track record for lying and dishonesty...)

The lack of specific evidence in claims of threats against J.K. Rowling do not, as we are aware, mean nobody threatened her. However, once we parse out the bots, what if we have a hundred people instead of a thousand? And then we filter out a few provocateurs posing as trans allies, and so on and so forth. The resulting problem is demonstrated in 2020 Telegraph commentary by Nina Power↱:

The attacks on Rowling are alarming. Nothing she has said publicly or written in fiction has demonised trans people, yet she is repeatedly accused of having done so by people keen to make a witch out of this successful, self-made woman. More generally, the discussion around sex has been mind-bending in its wilful cruelty towards those women, in particular, who have suggested that there might be something to discuss in the moves to change the legal and metaphysical implications of words such as "woman". Rowling is repeatedly accused of holding "hateful" views, although nothing she has said shows this, while the same people who accuse her feel free to wish her dead.​

It's easy to get hung up on the first obvious sleight, that "Nothing [Rowling] has said publicly or written in fiction has demonised trans people", but we've seen that sort of argument, before↑: But is it transphobic? Is it really demonizing? Are you sure you're not just criticizing her for having an unpopular stance? Or, as Power complains: "Rowling is a public figure and a fiction-writer: to attack her personally for telling stories, or for expressing views you do not like, is to avoid listening to what she has to say." Or: "To attack someone because they write about things you don't like is childish: to demand an image of the world that conforms to how you would like it to be is positively demonic." Nowhere in Power's defense against her own projection is there any consideration of science or history; the entire complaint is built on denialism and projection.

And that's the thing: Who's doing the threatening? What are the threats? It's one thing to call out a celebrity, journalist, corporate leader, or politician for talking that way, so why not? After all the years in which traditionalists complained about political correctness, shaming, and silencing, why not call out, by name, the people who are doing this?

Is it becaue it's Johnny Serial Number? Jane Q. Poesur? Bobby Botly? The other day, at twitteX, even somewhat famous people were taking the time to smack down a bullshit claim about working in Medicaid for decades and witnessing so much immigrant fraud: No, you didn't work for Medicaid. Are the Rowling riders actually afraid that when they lay out their evidence, what we'll see is, yeah, that's all wrong and stuff, but it's not exactly unusual? Because, like I said↗, what comes next is to consider the manner in which we are to overstate the circumstance and show especial sensitivity on Rowling's behalf.

The noise is the noise is the noise, and while it is often difficult to identify genuine threats amid the cacophony, the return on investment for identifying every GAN, provocateur, and basket case is measured in security concerns and oft-abstract projections. As a political argument, though, it's not impressive: If socmed-scale reactions to a celebrity lending their credibility to infamy and insult is the reason one cannot support another's human and civil rights …?

Thus, the people of prestige, or, at least, general social respectability: Who among them is doing the threatening? The thing about naming names is, of course, the liability risk. For those who need the primer: Political language is imprecise, and often insupportable in a legalistic context. A few possibilities, for instance: To group all critics with the lowest criticism; to interpret recognizable colloquy (e.g., "long walk off a short pier", "go to Hell", "all the way to Hell") as explicit and formal; utter solipsism resulting in any number of pathways asserting the threat as the only logical conclusion of something one never actually said. In these cases, there are reasons they're not naming and shaming.

Now, that doesn't rule out legitimate cases; indeed, it's easy enough to presume that somewhere out there are at least a few actual human beings who ought to know better. But even in 2020, these individuals were curiously absent from the telling. And inasmuch as reaction against trans rights activism is sorta why↑ this thread exists, that strange dearth still stands out, these years later.

But, then, consider the delicate↑ sensitivities↑ about the words, Rowling riders, which are actually based on a phrase, "if you ride with Rowling"↑, and describes the common behavior of several participants in this thread.

(Their behavior also describes them as crackpots, bigots or advocates of bigotry, and antiscientific. By contrast, I shouldn't call them illiterates, because that does not necessarily appear to be common to everyone in the bloc. Identifying Rowling's supporters according to their support for Rowling in a thread intended to support Rowling doesn't really rise to an "… insinuation that somehow everyone here who fails to completely condemn Rowling is in lockstep", which is in its way characteristic of these totally notasupremacist defenses of supremacists and supremacism.)​

And, yes, if you ride with Rowling, these are your allies, whether you want them or not. Such as "Nina Power—the 'gender critical' Telegraph writer and editor of Compact magazine" who last year declared bankruptcy↱ after a judgment against her and counterpart Daniel Miller for their campaign against Luke Turner, who also posted evidence (WhatsApp messages)↱ in which Power and Miller commiserate with Mein Kampf and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Furthermore↱:

The logs show Nina Power claiming "the social disapproval for 'racism' is a psyop to stop people realising that there *are* alien and fairy races", and that "black and white were alien races and very different".

Mr Miller replied, "yes you should not reveal this to most people".​

Additionally, Turner notes↱:

Former University of Roehampton PhD supervisor Nina Power is seen privately deriding a feminist dissertation on sexual assault as "hyper-super-woke", before telling Daniel Miller that "I'm definitely a Nazi now lol".​

And if, sure, it keeps getting worse↱ from there—("no fatties, no women no homo", "and definitely no trannies unless it's to admit they are just sick mfs")—that's sort of the way of these things. That's who Nina Power was even before she wrote the op-ed for The Guardian.

The Rowling riders shouldn't need to be shielded from this part: If they resent being seen on the trolley with infamy, maybe the important question is why they hopped on this particular line.

If there is some middle road I'm not seeing, not even the middle-roaders have found it, yet. That's one of the strangest things about the notasupremacist counterclaim: If they don't support the supremacism, why is their critique invested in it?

Just sayin': At some point, paying attention to history might have helped.
_____________________

Notes:

@LukeTurner. "I am delighted to report that I have successfully defended the libel claim brought against me in the High Court by Nina Power and Daniel 'DC' Miller, which I have been fighting for over four years. My full statement on today's Judgment can be read here:". 2023. (thread) X. 23 February 2025. X.com. 17 July 2025. status/1722241714172350559

Power, Nina. "Disagree with JK Rowling all you want – you have no right to wish her dead for telling stories". The Telegraph. 16 September 2020. Telegraph.co.uk. 13 July 2025. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/books/n...want-have-no-right-wish-dead-telling-stories/

 

[James R]

The lack of specific evidence in claims of threats against J.K. Rowling do not, as we are aware, mean nobody threatened her.

There is specific evidence of threats against JK Rowling. She has said, specifically, that she has received threats, and she has detailed the content of those threats.

Now, it won't surprise me at all if it turns out that Tiassa doesn't believe Rowling. That would be consistent with his hatred.

The resulting problem is demonstrated in 2020 Telegraph commentary by Nina Power↱:

The attacks on Rowling are alarming. Nothing she has said publicly or written in fiction has demonised trans people, yet she is repeatedly accused of having done so by people keen to make a witch out of this successful, self-made woman. More generally, the discussion around sex has been mind-bending in its wilful cruelty towards those women, in particular, who have suggested that there might be something to discuss in the moves to change the legal and metaphysical implications of words such as "woman". Rowling is repeatedly accused of holding "hateful" views, although nothing she has said shows this, while the same people who accuse her feel free to wish her dead.​

There is nothing problematic in this text from Nina Power. She is correct and reasonable.

Of course, it isn't surprising to learn that Tiassa hates yet another person who has said reasonable things about Rowling.

(I don't know who Nina Power is, exactly, but there's nothing problematic in her words quoted above.)

It's easy to get hung up on the first obvious sleight, that "Nothing [Rowling] has said publicly or written in fiction has demonised trans people", but we've seen that sort of argument, before

This "obvious sleight" would be a lot more obvious if Tiassa could come up with an example or two of where Rowling has demonised trans people.

We see lots of rhetorical flourish and posturing, but next to nothing in the way of supporting evidence. It's mostly just Tiassa spouting his own hate-fueled opinions.

Or, as Power complains: "Rowling is a public figure and a fiction-writer: to attack her personally for telling stories, or for expressing views you do not like, is to avoid listening to what she has to say." Or: "To attack someone because they write about things you don't like is childish: to demand an image of the world that conforms to how you would like it to be is positively demonic."

Power is correct, again/still.

Nowhere in Power's defense against her own projection...

Hating on Power, now. Because she dared to call out some haters who hate the person that Tiassa hates?

And that's the thing: Who's doing the threatening? What are the threats?

Why didn't Tiassa do his homework on this, before posting in defence of those who have threatened Rowling? Before attempting to excuse the inexcusable.

It's one thing to call out a celebrity, journalist, corporate leader, or politician for talking that way, so why not?

Calling out is somewhat different to threatening to murder their children.

Are the Rowling riders actually afraid that when they lay out their evidence, what we'll see is, yeah, that's all wrong and stuff, but it's not exactly unusual?

No doubt that is exactly what Tiassa would choose to see. Apparently, the take-away message here is: if abuse and threats is not unusual, then we ought to accept it, like Tiassa does.

Because, like I said↗, what comes next is to consider the manner in which we are to overstate the circumstance and show especial sensitivity on Rowling's behalf.

Woe betide those who show especial sensitivity to public figures whose children are threatened by ideological extremists.

The noise is the noise is the noise, and while it is often difficult to identify genuine threats amid the cacophony...

Oh yes. Provide cover. If it turns out that there actually are threats, and Rowling isn't a lying liar, then it's probably the case that the threats aren't genuine. In other words, there'll still be nothing that a trans activist like Tiassa needs to concern themselves about or dissassociate themselves from.

Now, that doesn't rule out legitimate cases; indeed, it's easy enough to presume that somewhere out there are at least a few actual human beings who ought to know better. But even in 2020, these individuals were curiously absent from the telling.

Is this Tiassa giving people who threaten Rowling a free pass because they don't know any better? After all, the Rowling haters are all on the side of right and good, ultimately. It's not their fault if they accidentally cross a line and make the odd accidental death threat against Rowling's children. At least they are fighting the good fight for trans people. Death threats are therefore acceptable, for the cause.

Additionally, Turner notes↱:

Former University of Roehampton PhD supervisor Nina Power is seen privately deriding a feminist dissertation on sexual assault as "hyper-super-woke", before telling Daniel Miller that "I'm definitely a Nazi now lol".​

Of course, it's not possible for any "feminist dissertation" to be "hyper-super-woke", because there's no such thing as being too radical, or being at all incorrect or misguided, when it comes to this stuff. Not in Tiassa's book, anyway.

The Rowling riders shouldn't need to be shielded from this part: If they resent being seen on the trolley with infamy, maybe the important question is why they hopped on this particular line.

This is the thing, though. It is not the case that anybody who is willing to take a measured, unbiased look at what Rowling has written and said about a single issue must therefore be willing to line up in support of neo-Nazis or anti-trans haters or white supremacists or whichever other groups Tiassa assumes they must be sympathetic to, just because he can't imagine how anybody could possibly support the evil JKR to any degree and not be all of those other things that he hates so much.

If there is some middle road I'm not seeing, not even the middle-roaders have found it, yet.

I have news that isn't really news: there is a "middle ground" that, perhaps, Tiassa was once able to see. Sadly, following his increasing radicalisation over the years, that appears to be something that is no longer possible for him.

 

[parmalee]

When the topic of debate is specifically whether a trans man ought to be considered indistinguishable from a cis woman for one purpose or another, it becomes important to specify precisely what one is talking about when one mentions sex and/or gender.

???

What debate? JKR has routinely referred to transgender women as "trans identifying men" in posts about various athletes, transgender high school kids, etc. Examples of such have been provided, multiple times, within this thread. Not within the context of a debate.

Also, who has claimed that "a trans man ought to be considered indistinguishable from a cis woman"? Examples.

And so... what?

???

Uhhh... you asked me to provide a quote and citation for something which I have already elaborated upon--it's like, literally, a couple of posts above. Do you seriously have such memory issues?

Do you support making threats towards JKR? That is, are you going to state that you do not support it? Just so we're all clear?

Never said that I did. Are you going to retract your claim that I support making death threats against JKR? You made the claim. You back it up. You do understand how these things work, yes? Are we no longer pretending that this is a "science" forum?

Are you going to state that you don't think JKR is an antisemite, or leave that one hanging, too?

Again, I never said JKR was an antisemite. You, on the other hand, have claimed that I did. Now, back up your claim.

(At the same time, I have accused another person of posting antisemitic content--you know, the whole thing about suggesting that a thing cannot have antisemitic content if a Jew or two was peripherally invovled in the making of said thing and the repeated insistence that a bunch of seemingly random Jews are "happy" to portray antisemitic stereotypes. But you don't seem to find such egregiously antisemitic content to be problematic for reasons I can only speculate upon.)

You've said you think those bigotries are correlated: if you have one, you're likely to have others. Or don't you think that?

Do you not understand what is meant by the term "correlated"? Bigotries are correlated by virtue of being... well, bigotries. One would think this would be obvious.

Examples of what?

You figure it out.

 

[Tiassa]

Also, who has claimed that "a trans man ought to be considered indistinguishable from a cis woman"? Examples.

Some days ago, I had occasion↑ to make the point that I was tempted to demand someone produce the original essay instead of relying on the critic's description, but inasmuch as I had been through that sort of thing, before, it was easier to get it myself.

If I reiterate the primer—

• Political language is imprecise, and often insupportable in a legalistic context. A few possibilities, for instance: To group all critics with the lowest criticism; to interpret recognizable colloquy (e.g., "long walk off a short pier", "go to Hell", "all the way to Hell") as explicit and formal; utter solipsism resulting in any number of pathways asserting the threat as the only logical conclusion of something one never actually said.​

—it is to observe that it's one thing if there is an only logical conclusion according to particular solipsism, but the main reason those pathways aren't explained is that they either don't make sense, or require extraordinary circumstance in order to make sense. People are generally aware, at least instinctively, of a certain danger in opening up rhetorical legitimacy that way. Indeed, that's why so much of this discussion is one-way, and why the relativism of personal judgment↑—("But are these transphobic … Or does she just have an unpopular stance?")—has such favor among the Rowling riders.

A more general iteration, then, has to do with any number of pathways asserting a result as the only logical conclusion of something unsaid. It's actually pretty common political straw.

It's actually medically unsound to claim that a trans man and cis woman are indistinguishable.

(Note in real time: I actually got to this point in the post before it finally clicked, and I had to go back to #561↑ to figure out what happened, i.e., "you'll note that direct quotes from JKR have been provided multiple times within this thread, including the tweets in which she refers to trans women as 'trans identified men'" But, sure, either way, something something only logical concluson of straw. Meanwhile, medically speaking, that indistinguishability will kill patients; it's an error common in political projection, attributing to others according to one's own definitions. Or, as such, the most likely context for answering your inquiry is, approximately, 「any number of pathways」.)​

 

[James R]

parmalee:

Your latest reply shows either confusion or dissembling on your part. Unfortunately, I think it's probably the latter.

What debate?

This one.

JKR has routinely referred to transgender women as "trans identifying men" in posts about various athletes, transgender high school kids, etc. Examples of such have been provided, multiple times, within this thread. Not within the context of a debate.

Yes. And...?

Also, who has claimed that "a trans man ought to be considered indistinguishable from a cis woman"? Examples.

Try to keep up. The catchcry from the trans activists is "trans women are women!" Right?

The "debate" that you seem unable to follow along with is, in part, over the question of the extent to which that is true. My own position on the matter is that a trans woman (i.e. a biological male who prefers to identify as a woman) is not identical to a woman.

It might be useful if you could state your position on this matter, rather than trying to avoid the question all the time.

Uhhh... you asked me to provide a quote and citation for something which I have already elaborated upon--it's like, literally, a couple of posts above.

I can't find any "elaboration" from you, regarding that particular quote from Rowling.

In fact, in a previous post, I raised the question of what, in particularly, it is that you find objectionable in that particular quote from Rowling. Since then, you still haven't said what you think is problematic in it, or why.

Do you seriously have such memory issues?

It's not my fault if you're having trouble keeping up with the discussion. Maybe try answering the questions I ask you. Concentrate. Don't let the anger cloud your mind.

Never said that I did.

I asked you "Do you support making threats towards JKR? That is, are you going to state that you do not support it?"

I take it, from your reply, that your answer is "No."

Why is that, paramalee? Do you want to explain yourself?

Are you going to retract your claim that I support making death threats against JKR? You made the claim.

Where did I make that claim? Link, please.

Wouldn't it just be easier for you to say that you do not support people making death threats against JKR if this is actually something you do not support? Why all this beating around the bush?

You do understand how these things work, yes?

Yes, parmalee. I understand exactly how these things work. Did you really think I wouldn't notice your avoidance and attempted deflection of my questions to you? Were you hoping I wouldn't remark on it?

Are we no longer pretending that this is a "science" forum?

Focus, parmalee. What are you even talking about, with that nonsense?

Again, I never said JKR was an antisemite.

Once again, I remind you that the question I asked you was: "Are you going to state that you don't think JKR is an antisemite, or leave that one hanging, too?"

I take it from your attempt to dodge this one, too, that your answer to the question I asked you is "No", you're not going to say you don't think JKR is an antisemite (for some reason), and that you intend to leave the question of what you actually think about that hanging.

Why is that, parmalee? Why can't you just be honest with the readers about what you think? Is it really so difficult?

Do you feel that you're conceding too much power to me by actually answering straightforward questions I put to you? Therefore, you stonewall even the simple questions? Is that it? Or what?

You, on the other hand, have claimed that I did.

I don't think so. Link, please.

Now, back up your claim.

Which claim?

Look, parmalee: do you think JKR is or was an anti-semite? That's a simple yes/no question. Just answer it and we won't have to worry about me backing up alleged claims that I supposedly made or didn't make.

Or is there some reason you won't answer? Is it just so you can keep the conversation going? Attention seeking?

(At the same time, I have accused another person of posting antisemitic content--you know, the whole thing about suggesting that a thing cannot have antisemitic content if a Jew or two was peripherally invovled in the making of said thing and the repeated insistence that a bunch of seemingly random Jews are "happy" to portray antisemitic stereotypes. But you don't seem to find such egregiously antisemitic content to be problematic for reasons I can only speculate upon.)

1. I am not aware of any poster here making the specific claim you allege was made, in the paragraph quoted here. Can you document (again, a link would be nice) where that specific claim was made?
2. Please document "repeated" insistences that "random Jews" are "happy to portray antisemitic stereotypes", if that has happened. Links.
3. What "egregiously antisemitic content" are you accusing me of finding unproblematic? Be specific.
4. Why don't you just ask me whether I think specific content is antisemitic and/or problematic, if you really want to know what I think? Why do you find yourself having to draw these dubious inferences about what I think? Wouldn't it be easier to just ask me? Why won't you do that, parmalee? Is it because you'd rather insinuate that I hold beliefs or opinions that I do not, in fact, hold? Why do you want to make such insinuations, parmalee? Be honest.

Do you not understand what is meant by the term "correlated"?

You've hit the nail on the head, there, parmalee. Clearly I do not understand. I am quite unfamiliar with the meaning of the word "correlated", despite the fact that I used it in the post to which you were replying, there. I commonly use words that I don't understand, you see. I'm a bit stupid, like that.

Is that what you want to hear, parmalee? Or is that what you are trying to insinuate? Why are you doing that, parmalee? Why not be honest, instead?

Bigotries are correlated by virtue of being... well, bigotries. One would think this would be obvious.

Okay. You're playing dumb, now.

Your whole post demonstrates that you're not posting in good faith, parmalee. Not a good look for you, I'm afraid. Try to do better.

 

[parmalee]

Pretty much every "link" or evidence you request here has been provided multiple times, within this thread and the multiple splinter threads you've created, presumably to "space out" you dishonesty to perhaps make it less blatantly apparent. You are just trolling. And considering some of the content, i.e., the matters of antisemitism, it's frankly disgusting. Not a good look for you, James. Very poor form.

But I'll address one specific matter, which has also already been addressed repeatedly--in this case, by other posters, as well. If only because it's particularly bizarre:

Black women are women. In your mind then, are Black women therefore indistinguishable from white women?

 

[James R]

parmalee:

I'm not at all surprised to see that, again, you decided to skip out on answering some very straightforward questions. While you're keen to accuse me of trolling, you're the one of the two of us who is being evasive.

I get it that your aim at this point in the discussion is to try to score some hits on me by slyly insinuating that I hold odious opinions (which I have nowhere expressed), while trying not to tell lies that are so obvious that you'll be caught out. You're trying to save face after what has been, let's face it, a fairly poor showing from you in this thread. But none of this is really working well for you. So maybe time to stop? What do you think? Maybe you should just continue to cheer Tiassa on from the sidelines, as he continues to blog, seemingly oblivious to any pushback on his particular bullshit.

Nah. On second thoughts, you're not doing any worse than he is, at this, so it's probably unfair to suggest that you to take a step back. Especially seeing as you're enjoying this discussion so much.

Pretty much every "link" or evidence you request here has been provided multiple times, within this thread and the multiple splinter threads you've created, presumably to "space out" you dishonesty to perhaps make it less blatantly apparent.

That's a very old trick, parmalee. "Oh yes, you'll remember that I already supplied all of that evidence and stuff ... er... somewhere else... in a previous post I made. We all remember when I did that, right? So, from here on I'm exempt from having to back up my claims with evidence!"

In the end, what will remain is the thread, with the evidentiary gaps as unfilled as they ever were, along with weak protestations and excuses like that one.

And considering some of the content, i.e., the matters of antisemitism, it's frankly disgusting.

There is little about antisemitism in this thread. Perhaps you have it confused with some other thread. The topic here, if you recall, is JK Rowling and her views concerning transgender issues.

If I recall correctly, somebody did introduce something about antisemitism into this discussion, but I moved it to a separate thread because it was off-topic.

Some people sought to imply, also, that JKR is an anti-semite, for instance by alleging that the goblin bankers in the Harry Potter books are, in fact, caricatures of Jewish people, and perhaps that JKR intended them to be so. That's fairly disgusting, if you ask me.

Black women are women. In your mind then, are Black women therefore indistinguishable from white women?

In my mind, they are not indistinguishable. Which is why I consider it bizarre when certain people insist that transgender women are, for all intents and purposes, indistinguishable from cisgender women.

What's in your mind, parmalee?

 

[billvon]

In my mind, they are not indistinguishable. Which is why I consider it bizarre when certain people insist that transgender women are, for all intents and purposes, indistinguishable from cisgender women.

Hmm. I have two male-to-female transgender friends you would not be able to tell from cis women.

 

[DaveC426913]

Hmm. I have two male-to-female transgender friends you would not be able to tell from cis women.

... by perfunctory sight alone (I assume you mean to add).

There are some "intents and purposes", as James mentioned, that might involve a little more than that.

 

[billvon]

There are some "intents and purposes", as James mentioned, that might involve a little more than that.

Oh, even then.

 

[DaveC426913]

Oh, even then.

Just a few, in order of least most telling:
hands, adams apple, knees, genitals.

And thats just scratching the surface.
They do not menstruate or get pregnant for example.

 

[billvon]

Just a few, in order of least most telling:
hands, adams apple, knees, genitals.

And thats just scratching the surface.
They do not menstruate or get pregnant for example.

Like I said, you wouldn't be able to tell.

 

[Sarkus]

Just a few, in order of least most telling:
hands, adams apple, knees, genitals.

Just being nitpicky, but the Adam's apple thing is not as clear cut as you might think. Both male and female have cartilage covering their voice box. During puberty, males tend to have more growth of the cartilage than females due to the testosterone, or some such, but, in short, it is quite natural for a woman to develop a prominent AA, or for a man not to. Natural, but not the norm.

 

[TheVat]

Just being nitpicky, but the Adam's apple thing is not as clear cut as you might think. Both male and female have cartilage covering their voice box. During puberty, males tend to have more growth of the cartilage than females due to the testosterone, or some such, but, in short, it is quite natural for a woman to develop a prominent AA, or for a man not to. Natural, but not the norm.

Yep. From my experience, hands are the most telling of the uncovered anatomical features. And, as covered exhaustively in the "man-hands" episode of Seinfeld , there is quite a range of variation there, too. In forensic analysis of skeleta, foot bones (especially the talus and third cuneiform bone) are considered fairly reliable (when other skeletal measurements are provided), but that's not useful in social situations where you generally don't X-Ray your company.

 

[James R]

Hmm. I have two male-to-female transgender friends you would not be able to tell from cis women.

Visually, I assume you mean. And fully clothed, and all that. On the other hand, I said "for all intents and purposes".

 

[billvon]

Visually, I assume you mean. And fully clothed, and all that. On the other hand, I said "for all intents and purposes".

Even in a bathing suit. I've never seen either one naked so I can't speak to that.

So yes, for all intents and purposes they are indistinguishable. If you find that bizarre that's fine with me. I would suggest that once you meet a few you will not find it as bizarre. (In fact, it is most likely that you HAVE met some, and not been able to tell.)

 

[RainbowSingularity]

statistically how many people do you meet with the intent to have sexual intercourse with ?

 

[DaveC426913]

Just being nitpicky, but the Adam's apple thing is not as clear cut as you might think.

Yes. That why it's down there on the list.

 

[DaveC426913]

Even in a bathing suit. I've never seen either one naked so I can't speak to that.

So yes, for all intents and purposes they are indistinguishable.

Again, you are talking about superficially and fully clothed. I don't think that's what James meant when he said "for all intents and purposes". They're kind of opposite end of the spectrum.

If you find that bizarre that's fine with me. I would suggest that once you meet a few you will not find it as bizarre. (In fact, it is most likely that you HAVE met some, and not been able to tell.)

It's not about bizarre.

But, as I said, there are a thousand ways trans women are distinct from biological women. Superficial looks is merely scratching the surface.

(One of my closest and dearest friends is trans. (Am I virtue-signaling? ) She's a hottie. It doesn't hurt that shes 6 foot 6 inches tall. Did great for her modeling career and her Wonderwoman costuming. Most people don't know, or at least don't know for sure. )

 

[billvon]

But, as I said, there are a thousand ways trans women are distinct from biological women. Superficial looks is merely scratching the surface.

Yep. And there are a thousand ways that masculine looking women are different than feminine looking women. Everyone is different. And thinking "well, it's pretty clear which is which" is a mistake IMO.