So why did you write this? It comes across to me as “Oh. Here’s yet another dude who thinks we women should ‘be nice’ despite threats of rape and murder from men.” I am so over feeling unsafe in this world and I appreciate JK using her voice.
I wrote the piece because I'm deeply focused on depolarization, and I think that, if Rowling really has gotten more vicious towards TRAs and trans athletes lately, then it's because TRAs pushed her there. Like I said, it's human nature to want to fight fire with fire. I don't really blame her; much more, I blame the people who treated her so brutally that she decided to stop being kind back.
Like I said in the piece, this is something I've seen over and over again. John insults Jane repeatedly and viciously, and Jane starts to become vicious in response. But if John really does wish to be his sibling's keeper, and really does care about Jane's emotional state (and we should all care about each other in that way, IMO), then he ought to take real responsibility for how his actions radicalized her.
And I think most of us are John, at least a little bit.
Or as I wrote in the piece:
"And if our nastiness towards our political opponents can deform their soul, if it can make them less loving and more nasty towards us in turn, then don't we have an obligation to try and stop? Not only for our sake, but for theirs. We are our sibling's keeper, after all. We should try to behave in such a way that we do not cause our cherished brother or sister to stumble."
I often wonder how she manages to deal with this personally. The onslaught against her has been so vicious and far reaching. She been misrepresented and vilified for years. It must have affected her deeply.
Judging from the comments, I'm not sure I made my point as clearly as I could have in the article. So to be clear: what you said is EXACTLY what I was trying to say.
I've been on the receiving end of TRAs and liberal idealogues. My child claimed a trans identity and as I stayed gender critical, I was viciously verbally abused. At that time, I was a registered Democrat. It was shocking and added misery to such a scary traumatic process I had to manage alone as a single Mom. I was told to kill myself. I was accused of child abuse. I lost friends and family. Simply because I KNEW my child was not trans. ( said child is flourishing in college as biological sex ) Had I have paid attention to the 7 psychotherapists, 2 psychiatrists, oodles of teachers, friends and family, my child may be looking @ a lifetime of poor health, mentally and physically. It was worth it. To get my child back on course, listening to my gut, ignoring the nastiness, bulldozing through their lies. It was all worth it to get to where we are now. But what it broke inside me was 1. I will never trust authority without question, 2. I will never vote for anyone advocating OR silent on this issue, and 3. I will forever be gratefully indebted to the few who supported me through this nightmare. It changed everything for me. I see the human race so very differently now. Your mission is commendable. But I don't think you understand the level of evil that is out there.
I'm really sorry that happened to you. That's awful. And I really appreciate you opening up. I hope my kids never have to go through such insane and evil crap as what your child went through.
"Your mission is commendable. But I don't think you understand the level of evil that is out there."--I'm very open to that! I guess part of where I'm coming from is that I've been on the front lines fighting against DEI and CRT etc for a couple of years, and one thing that I've seen work over and over again is responding to evil and abuse with civility and kindness. It's weird, but it wins people over and I think it really provides a contrast with the evildoers.
Let me put it another way, because I'm sort of trying to articulate this for myself too: a lot of commenters seem to think that Rowling is more effective now at fighting TRA ideology than she was in 2020, and interpret me as advocating that she go back to being nicer but also less effective. That's the opposite of my intent. I think this is a battle we really need to win, because I do NOT want my children to be told they're trans when they're 6 years old (seriously, that's the median age of social transition in 1 study) or for my wife to have to deal with a predatory dude changing next to her because he self-identifies as trans. And I think that, as effective as Rowling is now, she was probably even more effective in 2020 when she was winning flies with more honey and less vinegar. I think on a purely strategic level, being kind can win people over that you never would have thought could be won.
I also think some (a lot of) TRAs act in evil and abusive ways. But a lot of young trans people are also being lied to by authority figures (some of whom are well-meaning, and some of whom are decidedly not). I think of the young folks being lied to almost like they're in a cult; they're victims of this ideology, and what they need to get them out of it is kindness and open arms. If we spit on them, we just drive them deeper into the arms of the cult and we give more fodder for the cult's message that everyone on the outside is out to get them. That's good for nobody.
I'd love to know if I'm radicalised. I worked for an organisation torn apart because half thought it was dandy to put rapists into women's prisons. Forgive me if I will never ever forgive those people for conducting an experiment on vulnerable women to give entitlements to men with mental delusions.
Most decent people would. And yet, we ended up across the western world with women routinely being raped, assaulted and beaten in prison by men placed in there because judges assumed they were vulnerable little men and care v little for the rights of women. Nobody reports on it except Reduxx. The whole world watched as states gambled women's dignity away, but you know who else didn't? A bunch of women globally, though a minority, who know right from wrong and understand how fundamentally immoral it is for the state to do this to vulnerable women. Those women were not extremely nice, because to be extremely nice in the face of trans activism is to have zero boundaries and submit fully to their demand.
It's insane. The only way in which she is a radical is in being gracious, generous and steadfast in the face of trans activist violence, threats and determination to reduce her to a grovelling mess, or put her in a coffin. She has a bunch of trans friends, and that never would cross the minds of a lot of people who call her radicalised. She cares for and values the voices of trans people, just not the ones who spend their time threatening women.
"She has a bunch of trans friends, and that never would cross the minds of a lot of people who call her radicalised. She cares for and values the voices of trans people, just not the ones who spend their time threatening women."--does she? I know she used to. I don't know her at all, so I'm open to being wrong about her!
She certainly does, and has taken pains to elevate their voices. Because a lot of vulnerable people have been steamrolled by this movement. Particularly young girls. She befriended and supported many voices who acknowledged autogynephilia was fueling the male side of this movement and a mixture of abuse history, autism or hatred of lesbians was fueling female side of this population. Minor research would show this. I find it hard to stomach men online who speak up about tone and how women being abused again and again by swathes of the globe, but variously did almost nothing materially to help us (the ones who couldn't find work, the ones who got outcast from friendship groups, pilloried by our communities), must be really kind to the perpetrators of mass abuse. It is perfectly reasonable for women not to turn the other cheek when our rights have been dismantled behind our backs, so much so that those dismantled rights are now labelled transphobic by people who have spent years enabling the worst predators do their thing. We are allowed to push back, but only if we do so politely. Of course. When was the last time women were allowed to prioritise women? Because she may make a comparison you think is not nice online, but then founded and funds the only actually single sex rape crisis centre probably left in the UK, after a male called mridul wadwha was put in charge of Edinburgh rape crisis centre, included males, bullied rape victims by telling them to correct their bigotry, asked rape victims about whether they orgasmd during their rapes. After this, Rowling decided to found and fully fund Beria. A place where perhaps the teenage girl gang raped in a park in Scotland may find refuge, after being turned away by crisis centres run by men with fetishes asking rape victims about orgasms, simply for wanting single sex provision. . This happened too. So, you may be disappointed, but if you did a bit more research, you would find a principled woman who materially has done an immense amount for women and girls, and I get the feeling acts that she has done, like open up a rape crisis centre are seen as trivial acts but to raped women being told their trauma is bigotry by trans activists, in their most vulnerable moments, that rape crisis is a lifeline provided by a woman who could have bowed down but she is unflinching and honest about the dystopian authoritarianism of the trans movement. Many of us have been on the wrong end of it and I'm grateful she can be blunt and honest. Because a lot of say it, get told similarly we are unkind for pointing this out and then we lose jobs and friends. Being nicey nice is why we are in this mess and women owe nobody niceness whilst attempting to get the courts, police, health system, local authorities, private business, central government even to rectify what they have done at the behest of trans activists.
I suppose I don't think of terrorists as the only ones who are or can be radicalized.
As an example: when Claire Lehmann says that young women have been radicalized (here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofi02RBDIe8) do you think she's calling them terrorists?
I think the term is abused and overrused hyperbolically. Akin to “racist”. Lost its meaning. Akin to “Nazi”, also lost its meaning, but using the term for anyone not a Nazi is an insult to the 11 million people they killed.
But you put words in her mouth, claiming she is likening trans people as ‘death eaters’, when she did not say that in the quote you shared. People get tired of having their words and arguments mis-portrayed. You seem to be projecting some amount of what you are claiming to observe about her behavior. How is that depolarizing?
It's certainly not my intention to mis-portray what she said, nor to put words in her mouth.
But when she says "You appear to have skipped the bits where a narcissistic villain and his acolytes, all of whom had an innate advantage over those they were persecuting", it sounds to me like she's comparing trans women who want to compete in women's sports (who "have an innate advantage" over the women they're facing) to Death Eaters.
Of course, my interpretation could be wrong! How do you interpret what she said?
Yes it sounds to you like that because you’re interpreting through your own lens.. and then adding on something that has other implications, and then accusing her of the conclusions you’re jumping to rather than taking her words to mean what they say.
If you’re attempting to understand how polarization happens and you can’t recognize that tendency you’re not going to get very far. It’s one of the most used fallacies being used these days.
JFunk, I completely agree with you. Rowling never mentioned “Death Eaters” nor does she at all reflect the attitude of a radicalized person. I too am tired of the transpeople who are radical and violent towards any person who disagrees with their ideology. Their MO is to take no prisoners, to destroy any opposition and raze it to the ground. I am willing to accept them but I will not be coerced into allowing their 1-2% of the population to dictate to the rest of us.
I disagree with you about JKR. As a Christian you are certainly familiar with the concept of righteous anger. Even Christ himself demonstrated this at the temple with the money changers. We often focus on the command to turn the other cheek and forget that, as Christians, we are also commanded to defend the weak and oppressed (Psalm 82:3-4). This might take strong language and perhaps even strong action. JKR has been demonized and her life turned upside down for daring to express the common sense, biological reality of binary sex. As a physician, I marvel and am befuddled and dismayed at how we somehow distinguish gender dysphoria from other forms of delusional thinking. Nowhere else in medicine do we accept the delusional claims, including those of children, who feel they are in the wrong body and uncritically and affirm them with medical treatments and surgery. Doing this has led to the abomination that is gender-affirming care and destroyed the lives of countless children. We will soon see a tsunami of de-transitioners seeking to go back to their natal sex and find that what has been done to them is largely irreversible. If a mature adult believes he is a she or vice versa and can find a doctor to affirm this delusion, more power to them and they have my sympathy, but when children, who are regarded by society as incapable of making adult decisions, are medicalized to affirm their confusion (most of which resolves spontaneously by late teens or early adulthood if they are left alone) this is a bridge too far. Rick
I completely agree with 90% of what you wrote. I agree Rowling has been treated terribly and that a lot of what TRAs are fighting for (gender transitioning of children, trans women in female-only spaces (including sports, which I forgot to mention in the article; women's sports need to stay female-only)) are insane.
A question: how do you personally channel righteous anger while still treating the other person as someone who is made in God's image? That's something I struggle with. Where's the line?
Big picture, the least kind thing you can do to a person who is on a bad path is to enable them.
The adult who excuses a child bully (because tragic home life etc yawn) is not doing the child any favours because, eventually they will either end up alone and sad in some way, or else come across somebody less humane in their response.
It's even better than a fellow child stand up to a bully and hurt them, than the same bully as an adult face somebody with a baseball bat.
So, a brick wall now is better than a brick wall later, when the gathered momentum and wasted time will make the collision hurt.
Now, with respect to JKR and the Gender Wars: all she's doing is holding up a mirror, and doing so in a playful way.
Her opposition are pretty monstrous, with their doxings and dick pics and death threats, and their cancellation mobs - if you think that's exaggerated, there are plenty of examples of minor figures having their careers and livelihoods wrecked for not towing the party line.
There is no way to deescalate with people like that because any sign of weakness will be seen as an admission of guilt, because at a deep structural level, the conflict is a zero sum game, and because any concession will be rules lawyered.
If somebody calls you a "baby murdering christofascist white supremacist" there are very few responses that make you look good, and that's why they're calling you that.
It's easier to criticise a person than to understand them, though I see you tried. Once you understand the sheer depravity and cruelty on the other side, you begin to understand that "Death Eaters" is too nice a term to use for these tools of the Devil.
Her Majesty (I'd vote for her! /Monty Python) has suffered more than death threats. She has suffered viscerally as this movement of perverts, abusers, and their enablers has vilified women standing up for their rights and treated her like some kind of Nazi. People she knew turned against her. What we women suffer most from is the idea that we should ideally be cheerful grinning doormats, willing to accept any burden placed upon us, even to our own detriment. It's not just abusive treatment from strangers, it's the institutional abuse from the press, from people in positions of power and authority. And every woman feels that pain.
We respond in different ways to this. The intersectional feminists suck up to, enable, and excuse the abusers. GCs fight back in court, online, and in groups. Others just try to ignore it, hoping it will all go away.
You really don't get it. And unfortunately, you have joined the ranks of the enablers by doing what the wallpaper misogynists do: engage in tone policing women instead of standing up for us. Or with us.
Of course you will deny it. Men always do. But if you truly want to be Christlike, take a tip from your fellow sinner: remember the woman at the well. The woman caught in adultery. The woman who touched the edge of the cloak. Jesus did not tone police them. Nor did He wag His finger at them. Instead, He showed compassion to them as a brother. Go and do thou likewise. We have enough jerkery to put up with as it is.
Thanks in advance for your attention to this post.
Thanks so much for your thoughtful comment! I actually agree with more or less everything you said <3
Like I tried to make clear in the piece, I'm actually glad Rowling picked this particular hill to die on. It's an incredibly important hill. Women's rights have been hard-won, and women shouldn't have to worry about men entering (say) single-sex abuse shelters, sporting competitions, prisons, etc.
"Once you understand the sheer depravity and cruelty on the other side, you begin to understand that "Death Eaters" is too nice a term to use for these tools of the Devil."--I think it's possible that at the root of our disagreement (if disagreement it indeed is!) is a competing perspective on what Rowling said. If she had compared the TRAs who threatened her to Death Eaters, I would have absolutely supported her.
But when she says "You appear to have skipped the bits where a narcissistic villain and his acolytes, *all of whom had an innate advantage over those they were persecuting* (emphasis mine)", it sounds like she's not comparing violent TRAs to Death Eaters; it sounds to me like she's comparing trans women who want to compete in women's sports to Death Eaters. Like I said, I personally think trans women should not be allowed to compete in women's sports. But I think that comparing them to the sadistic villains of Harry Potter goes too far. Many of them are high school students who have been systematically lied to about this stuff, and encouraged to transition by a string of authority figures. I think they deserve love and support (and, again, to not be allowed in female-only spaces) rather than vitriol.
I'm afraid I disagree. You've accepted the notion that they're innocent sheep led to the slaughter because that's how woke folk portray them. Pay attention to the women and girls having to share locker rooms and podiums with them. The story is very different then. The difference arises based on who is being centered. I'm centering women and girls, so it's their voices I'm amplifying. I guarantee that anyone who's been on blockers, etc., is in no fit state to engage in competitive sports. So we're dealing with intact, fully-functional boys and men weaponising gender identity ideology against women and girls to invade their sports and spaces.
BTW there was a 14 year old boy who was permitted to use the girls' toilet at a Virginia school. He raped his female classmate. You may recall the video of the school board denying it and having him bodily thrown out of the meeting. He was finally arrested after abusing another girl.
The point is, she's right. And abusers can be teens. There's no age limit to it.
We need to keep boys far away from porn. It's at the root of all this.
I agree with you generally. I don't follow JKR closely at all, so I cant speak to a change in tone, but I don't personally feel the quote you inserted is all that bad. Yes its snark, and maybe even a little insulting, but its also correct - the gender ideology has exactly done what she described and they are not stopping. Plus their MO is all laid out in black and white in the Denton's Document. When you are dealing with real life authoritarians and Machiavellians, you really need to call them what they are.
If she had compared the TRAs who threatened her to Death Eaters, I would have absolutely supported her. That's just not how I read her quote.
When she says "You appear to have skipped the bits where a narcissistic villain and his acolytes, *all of whom had an innate advantage over those they were persecuting* (emphasis mine)", it sounds to me like she's not comparing violent TRAs to Death Eaters; it sounds to me like she's comparing trans women who want to compete in women's sports to Death Eaters.
Of course I could be wrong! But I'm curious: if not comparing trans athletes to Death Eaters, what do you think she meant with the emphasized term?
I agree its a little confusing, I read it as meaning that trans generally now have a social advantage now over everyone else (debatable) and are trying to lord it over everyone else (true I would say) and the metaphor is to Voldemort and his acolytes. I didnt see it as being related specifically to males in female sports. Its an imperfect metaphor in any case.
So, because you don't understand why her tone has changed (according to you) it's her fault and "she's become radicalised" and people on "her own team" aught to have reeled her in?
How can you not hear your own patronising and entitled tone?
Can you not hear your own male chauvinism that she must always 'be nice'?
Why "especially" prisons and rape crisis centres? It's all our spaces.... all of them.
You sound like a vilolent-threatening-male-trans-rights-activist apologist and JK Rawling is her own person who makes her own choices on her own terms. Grow the hell up!
Just to clarify, actually the people I'm criticizing in this piece are the TRAs who drove Rowling to become more radical. Those are the people that I wish more folks on the left would spend time calling out.
To be fair, I stopped reading, because I am too tired of listening to men being judge and jury on how women aught to behave....which is how you sounded, before I stopped reading. Having read a number of comments, I was clearly not the only one who heard this 'tone deaf' attitude, but I don't know if they read the whole piece either. 🙂
Serious answer: you wrote it because you are a writer. However, the reason is not important. What the article *says* is not good, and when Lola pointed that out, you first attempted to deny what it says, and now trying to change the subject.
I got a bit on someone's case the other day for exactly that - being nasty (online) to someone from the "opposition" who had posted, and had not shown any nastiness.
To me, that's just shootin' yourself, "our team" in the foot.
The nasty person just got nasty with me, which is almost expected.
People don't like to be called out when they get ugly.
I think Rowling is absolutely a hero. Like I said in the piece, I am EXTREMELY glad she chose to fight for women's spaces (and, on that note, while I think it is "especially" important to preserve female-only prisons and abuse shelters, I also think preserving other female-only spaces such as women's sports is very important too).
She was even more of a hero of mine in 2020, when I perceived her as fighting this fight with kindness and compassion towards the people who hated her. Partly that's because that's how I want to live my life; Matthew 5:44 ("Love your enemies and pray for them that persecute you") is sort of my North Star.
But I also don't think I'd hold up anywhere near as well as Rowling has in the face of the mountain of abuse and death threats she's faced, and I continue to admire her.
Let me put it another way: I wrote about her because I think her dynamic with TRAs is emblematic of an escalating cycle I see in lots of other arenas: John is vicious towards Jane, which makes Jane be vicious back, which makes John be more vicious in turn; and on and on and on. I think we all need to take a hard look at how we're contributing to (or enabling, by not calling out our allies who abuse and threaten our political opponents; many leftists have turned a blind eye to the abuse that TRAs have inflicted on Rowling in a way that I think is very wrong) that cycle of viciousness, and break it where we can. But that is VERY different from saying that I wish Rowling would just shut up and not speak up on this incredibly important topic. Does that make sense? What do you think of all of that?
This is what I feel about that, and your essay....
All women's spaces are there for fairness, our dignity and our safety. Men cannot be women, and so have no business being there, full stop.
You say you see something "ghoulish" in JK Rawling comparing "trans women who want to compete in women's sports to death eaters".
A) she didn't do that, you did, and
B) These men need to be told NO in no uncertain terms. The way a lot of them behave in changerooms and accommodation while being in women's teams is sanctioned stalking and flashing (and it's has been shown that flashing very often leads to sexual assault and rape) and although I don't know what a Death Eater is, the term for this behaviour sounds appropriate to me.
You say she now comes across "bitter and vituperative". Vituperative means 'bitter and abusive'. She absolutely does not come across as either of these things to me. Far from it.
Then you claim she's "letting herself become radicalized" and suggest she's turned into "someone we never wanted to become". There's a couple of huge leaps there, but still, only your opinions, however I find them extremely harsh and completely indicative of how men express their entitlement to be judge and jury regarding how women behave and express themselves.
Then you start talking about people who "hate the other side". She has stated, adnauseum, that trans people should be free to live their lives freely in accordance with the human rights and sex based rights they are given, she has zero grief with them and that it's the extreme misogyny of the movement she opposes.
So, so far you have lead the reader down a path that suggests JKR is radicalised, abusive, hates trans people ( "the opposition") that her "team" has failed to call her out on it and that her "soul has been damaged".
Have you even met the woman?
You fail to entertain the (highly likely) idea that the sheer amount of gratitude and support that she has received from women (and some men) all over the world has been like balm to her soul, as we have congratulated her and held her up to be the absolute icon she has become. We have collectively had zero reason to "call her out". Zero.
As for suggesting she has become "someone we never wanted to become" maybe that's true. Maybe she never set out to be a beacon of hope for millions of women and children. But to suggest that her (mainly male) extreme haters have solely caused this change in here, well, quite frankly, is absurd as it is naive. You completely dismiss not only her ability to govern her own life as she sees fit, but all her supporters voices, while asserting that "rejoiners miss more than half the story". Pot/kettle?
Then you talk about Christianity which I won't comment on other to say that your use of JKR as a narrative plot is utterly unfair, exaggerated and, as I've said, chauvinistic. Whether you've personally supported women's rights or denounced DEI or trans people in sports is irrelevant.
Us women, the world over desperately need intelligent, coherent and sane advocates to go into battle for us and we have felt absolutely blessed to have JKR not only take up that fight at it's most heated and violent point, but fund a great portion of it.
As an adult human female who believes her soul has been harmed by men attempting to trample my sex based rights and worse my right to call myself a woman (I am not a cis woman, I am not a subset of woman, I am a woman) I can, absolutely hand in heart, say she has done more to heal that harm than God at this point, and certainly more than you.
All your essay did for me was highlight how even 'enlightened' and Christian men still don't get it.
If you really want to Heal The West as your substack suggests, you could start by gaining a better understanding of how the championing of men who seek to erradicate our spaces, our hard won rights and our sex, is misogyny in one of it's most extreme expressions, and how advising us to be nicer is merely parroting the useless message we've been given for 6000 years.
I'm sorry if you feel rebuked by this but you did ask me what I thought.
JK Rowling has had enough. Enough of the child mutilation in the name of kindness, enough of the insane, vacuous 'arguments' from the #bekind brigade in favour of allowing men in women's prisons, women's sports, women's rape crisis centres, she's had enough of the upending of society across the world in the name of gender ideology and queer theory. Many of us have. I have felt my own anger and frustration grow and my thoughts and comments become more uncompromising. Now I don't care about the feelings of anyone who wants to endanger children, women's single sex spaces or upend society by telling lesbians they should sleep with men who say they are women or they are the bigots. JKR can say what she likes, she earned it. Being kind got us into this mess and perpetuates it.
"Being kind got us into this mess and perpetuates it."--interesting! Are you willing to say more about that?
I guess part of where I'm coming from is that I've been on the front lines fighting against DEI and CRT etc for a couple of years, and one thing that I've seen work over and over again is responding to evil and abuse with civility and kindness. It's weird, but it wins people over and I think it really provides a contrast with the evildoers.
Let me put it another way: it sounds like you think that Rowling is more effective now at fighting TRA ideology than she was in 2020, and you interpret me as advocating that she go back to being nicer but also less effective. Is that fair?
If so: that's the opposite of my intent. I certainly don't want us all to hold hands and sing kumbaya while we fold on this vital battle and allow bio males into female-only spaces. That is NOT any kind of society I want myself, my wife, or our future kids to have to live in.
I think this is a battle we really need to win, because I do NOT want my children to be told they're trans when they're 6 years old (seriously, that's the median age of social transition in 1 study) or for my wife to have to deal with a predatory dude changing next to her because he self-identifies as trans. And I think that, as effective as Rowling is now, she was probably even more effective in 2020 when she was winning flies with more honey and less vinegar. I think on a purely strategic level, being kind can win people over that you never would have thought could be won.
I also think some (a lot of) TRAs act in evil and abusive ways. But a lot of young trans people are also being lied to by authority figures (some of whom are well-meaning, and some of whom are decidedly not). I think of the young folks being lied to almost like they're in a cult; they're victims of this ideology, and what they need to get them out of it is kindness and open arms. If we spit on them, we just drive them deeper into the arms of the cult and we give more fodder for the cult's message that everyone on the outside is out to get them. That's good for nobody.
Well put. It’s hard. I’m seeing Riley Gaines (local girl from my small hometown) leaning in that direction, although not fully there yet, thankfully.
You really do get to a place of hardened reasoning. That’s really where the part of the Christian comes in.
I recently heard a woman talking about her ex-husband saying, “Even after all the cheating and financial ruin he caused, I had to remember that he’s a child of God and let go of my resentment and forgive. Holding that bitterness wasn’t hurting him at all. It was only hurting me.”
For many, it’s not understanding the difference between Divine forgiveness and human forgiveness. Where Divine forgiveness is unconditional and its objective is restoration, human forgiveness is not. It releasing the need to desire vengeance over all else, giving it back to God, and wishing for their growth as a person, all while not choosing restoration, and in most cases, rightfully so.
That perspective would bring Rowling some healing. Having said that, the picture she posted of her smoking a cigar after the recent UK ruling was pretty epic.
Zero percent goulish. You just don't understand how evil trans delusion and their immoral followers are.
Death eaters is the perfect comparison, because that's literally what will happen if you destroy objective words and knowledge. Morality is built on objective knowledge and nothing more fundamental than man and woman.
It seems like you are emotionally blacked out and blind to the real reality of what is going on, since you are trying to defend the poison and villify the antidote.
To be clear, if all she was doing was comparing the TRAs who have insulted and threatened and verbally abused her to Death Eaters, I would have 100% agreed with her. I think that's a perfectly apt comparison.
But when she says "You appear to have skipped the bits where a narcissistic villain and his acolytes, all of whom had an innate advantage over those they were persecuting", it sounds to me like she's comparing trans women who want to compete in women's sports (who "have an innate advantage" over the women they're facing) to Death Eaters. I'm not sure that that's an apt comparison; because while some of those trans women are 100% predatory and just want to take things from women, others are decent high schoolers who are just trying to make their way in the world as best they can. I don't think they should be allowed to compete in women's sports, but I also don't think they're all villains.
You sound like a lying sneaky conman pretending to thank people for commenting.
Fuck off with your pretend nice guy. I see why your defending scumbag sneaky men and boys trying to take away women's individual rights. Go fuck yourself. Your type of spineless weak boys who defend this are the same as death eaters. You are a death eater too. You are literally defending poison. Destroying objective language will destroy all morality. You and your sneaky beta scumbag men and boys that you are pretending to condem while defending, are scum.
You are literally as anti-motality as it gets. I mean your literally defending a man boxing women and fuckinv them up, then smile and snickering about it.
Your as evil as the death threat scum who attack jk rowling bc your literally attacking her too.
Go fuck yourself you anti-moral gutless coward. 🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕
Jo Rowling did zero percent wrong, you goulish cowardly scum.
I tried commenting on a YouTube video today about transwomen in women's sport being fundamentally unfair due to male advantage and the YouTuber themself told me I was stupid, making things up to justify my hatred and that I was arguing in bad faith. No threats, but I was taken aback. I'm still a bit surprised at the long, rambling response I got, when I was being quite genuine in my comment. JK Rowling has been sneered at, accused of wanting children to kill themselves, called a hag and every anti-woman insult imaginable. She's had her life threatened. The UK Supreme court ruling caused protests where trans protesters carried 'hang JK rowling' signs and kill TERFs. After all she has done for literature, her philanthropy. To be spoken of with such vitriole, hatred and disdain. I understand her anger. I understand the cigar post. It was a middle finger at those who have been so awful to and about her since she spoke up, calmly, in support of Maya Forstater. The woman who lost her job for wanting to discuss the implications of letting males identify into the female sex category.
About 20 years ago I went political. I started by attempting to bridge the idea and dialog gap between myself supporting conservative libertarian principles (classic liberalism) including moderate social values... and the liberal progressive views that dominated my community.
That experience helped me understand that there was no bridge opportunity.
I realized that we were at war. The ideological gap was just a symptom of a large malady of the common battle between collectivism and classic liberalism.
This changed my orientation. I started slapping them as hard or harder than they slapped me. I made them squirm putting them on the spot... something easy to do because their arguments lacked a rational basis. They had to rely on artificial morality... slogans, screaming, shouting and mob tactics to get their way... because any one-to-one debate would result in them being embarrassed and humiliated.
But here is the secret that we have been missing. There are a few at the top, and what they have done is to devise an ideology of popular elitism. The get followers because the followers think this is higher status... cool.
The correction requires a shift in what is popular and cool. That requires that we start humiliating them for their beliefs.
I think that is where J.K. Rowling as landed. She was once kind and caring, but it did not move the needle at all. In fact, it probably helped enable the mob against her to have more power because she was a safe target. But now, because Ms. Rowling will sharply humiliate those that attack her, the enemy is more wary, and their mob followers are more likely to consider that opposing J.K. Rowling is much less fun and cool.
So let me ask you a question, if you're up for it:
"I started slapping them as hard or harder than they slapped me. I made them squirm putting them on the spot... something easy to do because their arguments lacked a rational basis. They had to rely on artificial morality... slogans, screaming, shouting and mob tactics to get their way... because any one-to-one debate would result in them being embarrassed and humiliated."--how many political opponents have you won over to your side with this strategy?
You are not fully informed on this issue. J. K. Rowling is standing in the gap for women who have lost jobs, been exiled from their sports teams, and lost medals to men pretending to be women—she’s vocal because she cannot be cancelled, and is the voice of thousands of women who have lost opportunities and livelihoods to trans activist insanity. In all this, Rowling has maintained that she has no enmity towards trans individuals, but merely believes women deserve the right to have safe, male-free spaces. As a gay man, who sees this push from trans activists as inherently misogynistic and homophobic, I’d say you have some homework to do.
First, by “trans athletes” she means something quite specific: men, the large majority of whom (like swimmer Lia Thomas) are fully intact (no surgeries, some hormone blockers in Thomas’s case, but not enough to erase the advantage he has as a male swimming against women) and also admit to being attracted to biological females—who have been able to deprive women athletes of medals that should rightly be theirs, while gaining access to their private spaces and forcing them to undress in those same spaces in front of a fully intact male. All the women on Thomas’s team were told “if you have a problem, seek counseling for your bigotry.”
Do you know anything about autogynephilia? This is fetishistic cross dressing for sexual pleasure (formerly known as transvestism), mostly practiced by straight men. Men with autogynephilia are now being included under the trans umbrella, and I’d say William/Lia Thomas is a prime example of this phenomenon.
Rowling has said nothing about trans women athletes being barred from sports. She wants them to be barred from competing against (and winning against) biological women. She isn’t required to come up with a solution—she is trying her best to protect single sex spaces for women, which five minutes ago all of us understood was both good and necessary. She is also trying to protect opportunities for women athletes. Have you looked at how many high school and college level women have been deprived of awards and medals by opportunistic men claiming to be women? The number is shocking, and continues to grow. I’m sure you can find several lists just by searching.
And yes, I in fact agree with her that given that men statistically commit far more sex crimes than women, and in most of those crimes, women are the victims—and also given that there are ALWAYS bad actors willing to exploit opportunities for gain—men pretending to be women who insist on competing against women are like “death eaters.” Either they are seeking easy wins at the expense of women, or they are acting out a sexual fetish while also depriving women of opportunities to compete fairly—and in either case somehow their needs are supposed to be more important than the needs and safety of those women.
The issue of trans women in sports must be resolved in a way that protects women’s spaces and opportunities. And trans women, who are in reality MEN, do not have rights that somehow supersede the rights of biological women, nor in this context should any man be allowed to self-identify onto a woman’s team. It’s the supreme expression of selfishness and misogyny—and “death eater” is an apt comparison, since what death eaters do according to Professor Lupin is deprive their victims of everything that gives them joy, and leave them only with sadness and misery.
I actually agree with a ton of what you said. I clearly didn't do a good job of explaining this in the piece, but the truth is that I'm pretty center-right on trans stuff. I think trans women belong nowhere near ANY female-only spaces (including sports, prisons, abuse shelters, etc). I think it's awful that women are having sports medals stolen from them by trans athletes. I also think that children should NOT be allowed to gender transition. I have trans friends who I love and admire and who just want to live their lives in peace, and who are horrified at the absolute insanity (abuse, threats, insane demands that women let anyone into their changing rooms who self-IDs as a woman, etc) of a lot of TRAs.
And I think that some (perhaps many) trans women who want to compete in women's-only sports really are predators.
But I also think a lot of young trans people (including some bio males who become trans women and want to compete in HS sports) are also being lied to by authority figures (some of whom are well-meaning, and some of whom are decidedly not). I think of the young folks being lied to almost like they're in a cult; they're victims of this ideology, not perpetrators; and what they need to get them out of it is kindness and open arms. If we spit on them, we just drive them deeper into the arms of the cult and we give more fodder for the cult's message that everyone on the outside is out to get them. That's good for nobody.
"J. K. Rowling is standing in the gap for women who have lost jobs, been exiled from their sports teams, and lost medals to men pretending to be women—she’s vocal because she cannot be cancelled, and is the voice of thousands of women who have lost opportunities and livelihoods to trans activist insanity."--I actually agree with everything you've said.
"In all this, Rowling has maintained that she has no enmity towards trans individuals,"--I suppose this is the crux of our disagreement. I'm genuinely curious: how do you square this sentiment with her tweet comparing trans athletes to Death Eaters? Or do you disagree that that's what she was doing?
Wow, I entirely disagree that Rowling’s comment you quoted represents anything that Iooks like vitriol. She makes a valid comparison between the BEHAVIOR of trans activists (narcissists, cry-bullies, authoritarian) and those of characters in her novel. It is an objectively true description of TRAs and like the great Magdalen Burns said, “It’s not hate to speak the truth”.
You are yet another man telling a woman to be kind. Your qualification that her response is justified doesn’t negate the fact that you are saying she is being unkind. No she is not and the standard you are applying to her reeks of gendered nonsense.
If she had simply compared the TRAs who threatened her to Death Eaters, I would have absolutely supported her. I agree many TRAs are narcissists, cry-bullies, and authoritarians.
But when she says "You appear to have skipped the bits where a narcissistic villain and his acolytes, *all of whom had an innate advantage over those they were persecuting* (emphasis mine)", it sounds like she's not comparing violent TRAs to Death Eaters; it sounds to me like she's comparing trans women who want to compete in women's sports to Death Eaters. I don't think trans women should be allowed to compete in women's sports; but I also think attacking them is a different and more pernicious thing than attacking TRAs.
Of course, I could be mistaken! How do you interpret the part of her tweet that I quoted?
Obviously I meant symbolically. Pick Florence Nightingale if you like. Your question exposes you as a bad-faith, argumentative gaslighter. Edit: Sorry dude that was a little harsh lol im having a bad night. I just mean, she is brave. God social media brings out the worst in me. Peace and love dude.
No worries! I agree she's brave <3 Like I tried to say in the piece (and maybe I could have said it better), she's one of my heroes in no small part because she's shown a willingness to die on this hill for all of our sakes. My wife and future children are safer for the work she's done.
I don't see her comments that way at all. Or your definition of "nastiness". Are you this analytical and hyper-sensitive over male remarks, or is it just women who get the "be nicer" lecture? Just curious.
But I'm also curious why you think the point of my piece was to lecture Rowling? That actually wasn't my goal at all; instead, I was using what I see as the effect on her of the vitriol and verbal abuse directed at her by TRAs to make an argument that we should all stop being so vicious to each other.
That's why I wrote, for instance, that people who want to blame Rowling in all of this "miss more than half the story."
I actually wrote this piece with mostly a leftist audience in mind, with the goal of persuading them to be less vicious towards Rowling. That's why I said things like "If injustice tempts our fellow human to anger and despair, then we should fight that injustice. That's true even if the injustice is coming from our own lips." The chief injustice I had in mind was TRAs abusing Rowling, not her response.
Does that make sense? What do you think of all that?
The Rowling thing has been a disaster for the Trans community. Honestly, I was left-center when her letter first came out and disagreed with it (though not enough for some I knew), but seeing the reaction I'm now in firmly in the gender critical camp.
The speed and glee with which a bunch of people with dicks in dresses started throwing out the c-word and making raped-to-death jokes revealed a much deeper pathology than they would have willingly shown the public, and once seen cannot be unseen.
Given the many threats of murder and rape against her, as well as the doxxing of her family, I think she sounds remarkably gracious.
FWIW I don't think I'd hold up half as well as she has.
So why did you write this? It comes across to me as “Oh. Here’s yet another dude who thinks we women should ‘be nice’ despite threats of rape and murder from men.” I am so over feeling unsafe in this world and I appreciate JK using her voice.
I appreciate the question!
I wrote the piece because I'm deeply focused on depolarization, and I think that, if Rowling really has gotten more vicious towards TRAs and trans athletes lately, then it's because TRAs pushed her there. Like I said, it's human nature to want to fight fire with fire. I don't really blame her; much more, I blame the people who treated her so brutally that she decided to stop being kind back.
Like I said in the piece, this is something I've seen over and over again. John insults Jane repeatedly and viciously, and Jane starts to become vicious in response. But if John really does wish to be his sibling's keeper, and really does care about Jane's emotional state (and we should all care about each other in that way, IMO), then he ought to take real responsibility for how his actions radicalized her.
And I think most of us are John, at least a little bit.
Or as I wrote in the piece:
"And if our nastiness towards our political opponents can deform their soul, if it can make them less loving and more nasty towards us in turn, then don't we have an obligation to try and stop? Not only for our sake, but for theirs. We are our sibling's keeper, after all. We should try to behave in such a way that we do not cause our cherished brother or sister to stumble."
Does that help?
I often wonder how she manages to deal with this personally. The onslaught against her has been so vicious and far reaching. She been misrepresented and vilified for years. It must have affected her deeply.
Well said <3
Judging from the comments, I'm not sure I made my point as clearly as I could have in the article. So to be clear: what you said is EXACTLY what I was trying to say.
I don't think JKR has been vicious or nasty at all.
Fair!
You mean ‘males’ and transvestites. If anything she’s been too kind.
I've been on the receiving end of TRAs and liberal idealogues. My child claimed a trans identity and as I stayed gender critical, I was viciously verbally abused. At that time, I was a registered Democrat. It was shocking and added misery to such a scary traumatic process I had to manage alone as a single Mom. I was told to kill myself. I was accused of child abuse. I lost friends and family. Simply because I KNEW my child was not trans. ( said child is flourishing in college as biological sex ) Had I have paid attention to the 7 psychotherapists, 2 psychiatrists, oodles of teachers, friends and family, my child may be looking @ a lifetime of poor health, mentally and physically. It was worth it. To get my child back on course, listening to my gut, ignoring the nastiness, bulldozing through their lies. It was all worth it to get to where we are now. But what it broke inside me was 1. I will never trust authority without question, 2. I will never vote for anyone advocating OR silent on this issue, and 3. I will forever be gratefully indebted to the few who supported me through this nightmare. It changed everything for me. I see the human race so very differently now. Your mission is commendable. But I don't think you understand the level of evil that is out there.
You didn't break, you grew wiser 👍🏼
Well said <3 I second that Jenny. Wiser and stronger it sounds like.
I'm really sorry that happened to you. That's awful. And I really appreciate you opening up. I hope my kids never have to go through such insane and evil crap as what your child went through.
"Your mission is commendable. But I don't think you understand the level of evil that is out there."--I'm very open to that! I guess part of where I'm coming from is that I've been on the front lines fighting against DEI and CRT etc for a couple of years, and one thing that I've seen work over and over again is responding to evil and abuse with civility and kindness. It's weird, but it wins people over and I think it really provides a contrast with the evildoers.
Let me put it another way, because I'm sort of trying to articulate this for myself too: a lot of commenters seem to think that Rowling is more effective now at fighting TRA ideology than she was in 2020, and interpret me as advocating that she go back to being nicer but also less effective. That's the opposite of my intent. I think this is a battle we really need to win, because I do NOT want my children to be told they're trans when they're 6 years old (seriously, that's the median age of social transition in 1 study) or for my wife to have to deal with a predatory dude changing next to her because he self-identifies as trans. And I think that, as effective as Rowling is now, she was probably even more effective in 2020 when she was winning flies with more honey and less vinegar. I think on a purely strategic level, being kind can win people over that you never would have thought could be won.
I also think some (a lot of) TRAs act in evil and abusive ways. But a lot of young trans people are also being lied to by authority figures (some of whom are well-meaning, and some of whom are decidedly not). I think of the young folks being lied to almost like they're in a cult; they're victims of this ideology, and what they need to get them out of it is kindness and open arms. If we spit on them, we just drive them deeper into the arms of the cult and we give more fodder for the cult's message that everyone on the outside is out to get them. That's good for nobody.
Anyway. What do you think of all that?
I'd love to know if I'm radicalised. I worked for an organisation torn apart because half thought it was dandy to put rapists into women's prisons. Forgive me if I will never ever forgive those people for conducting an experiment on vulnerable women to give entitlements to men with mental delusions.
I think putting rapists into women's prisons is insane FWIW.
Most decent people would. And yet, we ended up across the western world with women routinely being raped, assaulted and beaten in prison by men placed in there because judges assumed they were vulnerable little men and care v little for the rights of women. Nobody reports on it except Reduxx. The whole world watched as states gambled women's dignity away, but you know who else didn't? A bunch of women globally, though a minority, who know right from wrong and understand how fundamentally immoral it is for the state to do this to vulnerable women. Those women were not extremely nice, because to be extremely nice in the face of trans activism is to have zero boundaries and submit fully to their demand.
It's insane. The only way in which she is a radical is in being gracious, generous and steadfast in the face of trans activist violence, threats and determination to reduce her to a grovelling mess, or put her in a coffin. She has a bunch of trans friends, and that never would cross the minds of a lot of people who call her radicalised. She cares for and values the voices of trans people, just not the ones who spend their time threatening women.
"She has a bunch of trans friends, and that never would cross the minds of a lot of people who call her radicalised. She cares for and values the voices of trans people, just not the ones who spend their time threatening women."--does she? I know she used to. I don't know her at all, so I'm open to being wrong about her!
She certainly does, and has taken pains to elevate their voices. Because a lot of vulnerable people have been steamrolled by this movement. Particularly young girls. She befriended and supported many voices who acknowledged autogynephilia was fueling the male side of this movement and a mixture of abuse history, autism or hatred of lesbians was fueling female side of this population. Minor research would show this. I find it hard to stomach men online who speak up about tone and how women being abused again and again by swathes of the globe, but variously did almost nothing materially to help us (the ones who couldn't find work, the ones who got outcast from friendship groups, pilloried by our communities), must be really kind to the perpetrators of mass abuse. It is perfectly reasonable for women not to turn the other cheek when our rights have been dismantled behind our backs, so much so that those dismantled rights are now labelled transphobic by people who have spent years enabling the worst predators do their thing. We are allowed to push back, but only if we do so politely. Of course. When was the last time women were allowed to prioritise women? Because she may make a comparison you think is not nice online, but then founded and funds the only actually single sex rape crisis centre probably left in the UK, after a male called mridul wadwha was put in charge of Edinburgh rape crisis centre, included males, bullied rape victims by telling them to correct their bigotry, asked rape victims about whether they orgasmd during their rapes. After this, Rowling decided to found and fully fund Beria. A place where perhaps the teenage girl gang raped in a park in Scotland may find refuge, after being turned away by crisis centres run by men with fetishes asking rape victims about orgasms, simply for wanting single sex provision. . This happened too. So, you may be disappointed, but if you did a bit more research, you would find a principled woman who materially has done an immense amount for women and girls, and I get the feeling acts that she has done, like open up a rape crisis centre are seen as trivial acts but to raped women being told their trauma is bigotry by trans activists, in their most vulnerable moments, that rape crisis is a lifeline provided by a woman who could have bowed down but she is unflinching and honest about the dystopian authoritarianism of the trans movement. Many of us have been on the wrong end of it and I'm grateful she can be blunt and honest. Because a lot of say it, get told similarly we are unkind for pointing this out and then we lose jobs and friends. Being nicey nice is why we are in this mess and women owe nobody niceness whilst attempting to get the courts, police, health system, local authorities, private business, central government even to rectify what they have done at the behest of trans activists.
Agree, Page. I also think it over the top to describe her as “radicalized”, a term associated with terrorists.
Interesting!
I suppose I don't think of terrorists as the only ones who are or can be radicalized.
As an example: when Claire Lehmann says that young women have been radicalized (here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofi02RBDIe8) do you think she's calling them terrorists?
I think the term is abused and overrused hyperbolically. Akin to “racist”. Lost its meaning. Akin to “Nazi”, also lost its meaning, but using the term for anyone not a Nazi is an insult to the 11 million people they killed.
But you put words in her mouth, claiming she is likening trans people as ‘death eaters’, when she did not say that in the quote you shared. People get tired of having their words and arguments mis-portrayed. You seem to be projecting some amount of what you are claiming to observe about her behavior. How is that depolarizing?
Thanks so much for commenting!
It's certainly not my intention to mis-portray what she said, nor to put words in her mouth.
But when she says "You appear to have skipped the bits where a narcissistic villain and his acolytes, all of whom had an innate advantage over those they were persecuting", it sounds to me like she's comparing trans women who want to compete in women's sports (who "have an innate advantage" over the women they're facing) to Death Eaters.
Of course, my interpretation could be wrong! How do you interpret what she said?
Yes it sounds to you like that because you’re interpreting through your own lens.. and then adding on something that has other implications, and then accusing her of the conclusions you’re jumping to rather than taking her words to mean what they say.
If you’re attempting to understand how polarization happens and you can’t recognize that tendency you’re not going to get very far. It’s one of the most used fallacies being used these days.
JFunk, I completely agree with you. Rowling never mentioned “Death Eaters” nor does she at all reflect the attitude of a radicalized person. I too am tired of the transpeople who are radical and violent towards any person who disagrees with their ideology. Their MO is to take no prisoners, to destroy any opposition and raze it to the ground. I am willing to accept them but I will not be coerced into allowing their 1-2% of the population to dictate to the rest of us.
I disagree with you about JKR. As a Christian you are certainly familiar with the concept of righteous anger. Even Christ himself demonstrated this at the temple with the money changers. We often focus on the command to turn the other cheek and forget that, as Christians, we are also commanded to defend the weak and oppressed (Psalm 82:3-4). This might take strong language and perhaps even strong action. JKR has been demonized and her life turned upside down for daring to express the common sense, biological reality of binary sex. As a physician, I marvel and am befuddled and dismayed at how we somehow distinguish gender dysphoria from other forms of delusional thinking. Nowhere else in medicine do we accept the delusional claims, including those of children, who feel they are in the wrong body and uncritically and affirm them with medical treatments and surgery. Doing this has led to the abomination that is gender-affirming care and destroyed the lives of countless children. We will soon see a tsunami of de-transitioners seeking to go back to their natal sex and find that what has been done to them is largely irreversible. If a mature adult believes he is a she or vice versa and can find a doctor to affirm this delusion, more power to them and they have my sympathy, but when children, who are regarded by society as incapable of making adult decisions, are medicalized to affirm their confusion (most of which resolves spontaneously by late teens or early adulthood if they are left alone) this is a bridge too far. Rick
I completely agree with 90% of what you wrote. I agree Rowling has been treated terribly and that a lot of what TRAs are fighting for (gender transitioning of children, trans women in female-only spaces (including sports, which I forgot to mention in the article; women's sports need to stay female-only)) are insane.
A question: how do you personally channel righteous anger while still treating the other person as someone who is made in God's image? That's something I struggle with. Where's the line?
They have rejected the image they were made in.
2 It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.
God still loves them.
"But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us."
If God still loves them, can we do less?
Sometimes the most loving thing is to be the brick wall people collide with. This can look cruel but it is how people learn about reality.
Interesting! Can you say more about that?
Big picture, the least kind thing you can do to a person who is on a bad path is to enable them.
The adult who excuses a child bully (because tragic home life etc yawn) is not doing the child any favours because, eventually they will either end up alone and sad in some way, or else come across somebody less humane in their response.
It's even better than a fellow child stand up to a bully and hurt them, than the same bully as an adult face somebody with a baseball bat.
So, a brick wall now is better than a brick wall later, when the gathered momentum and wasted time will make the collision hurt.
Now, with respect to JKR and the Gender Wars: all she's doing is holding up a mirror, and doing so in a playful way.
Her opposition are pretty monstrous, with their doxings and dick pics and death threats, and their cancellation mobs - if you think that's exaggerated, there are plenty of examples of minor figures having their careers and livelihoods wrecked for not towing the party line.
There is no way to deescalate with people like that because any sign of weakness will be seen as an admission of guilt, because at a deep structural level, the conflict is a zero sum game, and because any concession will be rules lawyered.
If somebody calls you a "baby murdering christofascist white supremacist" there are very few responses that make you look good, and that's why they're calling you that.
I don’t align with any particular religion but I appreciate your comments, regardless.
<3
It's easier to criticise a person than to understand them, though I see you tried. Once you understand the sheer depravity and cruelty on the other side, you begin to understand that "Death Eaters" is too nice a term to use for these tools of the Devil.
Her Majesty (I'd vote for her! /Monty Python) has suffered more than death threats. She has suffered viscerally as this movement of perverts, abusers, and their enablers has vilified women standing up for their rights and treated her like some kind of Nazi. People she knew turned against her. What we women suffer most from is the idea that we should ideally be cheerful grinning doormats, willing to accept any burden placed upon us, even to our own detriment. It's not just abusive treatment from strangers, it's the institutional abuse from the press, from people in positions of power and authority. And every woman feels that pain.
We respond in different ways to this. The intersectional feminists suck up to, enable, and excuse the abusers. GCs fight back in court, online, and in groups. Others just try to ignore it, hoping it will all go away.
You really don't get it. And unfortunately, you have joined the ranks of the enablers by doing what the wallpaper misogynists do: engage in tone policing women instead of standing up for us. Or with us.
Of course you will deny it. Men always do. But if you truly want to be Christlike, take a tip from your fellow sinner: remember the woman at the well. The woman caught in adultery. The woman who touched the edge of the cloak. Jesus did not tone police them. Nor did He wag His finger at them. Instead, He showed compassion to them as a brother. Go and do thou likewise. We have enough jerkery to put up with as it is.
Thanks in advance for your attention to this post.
Love,
The Martha type.
Thanks so much for your thoughtful comment! I actually agree with more or less everything you said <3
Like I tried to make clear in the piece, I'm actually glad Rowling picked this particular hill to die on. It's an incredibly important hill. Women's rights have been hard-won, and women shouldn't have to worry about men entering (say) single-sex abuse shelters, sporting competitions, prisons, etc.
"Once you understand the sheer depravity and cruelty on the other side, you begin to understand that "Death Eaters" is too nice a term to use for these tools of the Devil."--I think it's possible that at the root of our disagreement (if disagreement it indeed is!) is a competing perspective on what Rowling said. If she had compared the TRAs who threatened her to Death Eaters, I would have absolutely supported her.
But when she says "You appear to have skipped the bits where a narcissistic villain and his acolytes, *all of whom had an innate advantage over those they were persecuting* (emphasis mine)", it sounds like she's not comparing violent TRAs to Death Eaters; it sounds to me like she's comparing trans women who want to compete in women's sports to Death Eaters. Like I said, I personally think trans women should not be allowed to compete in women's sports. But I think that comparing them to the sadistic villains of Harry Potter goes too far. Many of them are high school students who have been systematically lied to about this stuff, and encouraged to transition by a string of authority figures. I think they deserve love and support (and, again, to not be allowed in female-only spaces) rather than vitriol.
What do you think?
I'm afraid I disagree. You've accepted the notion that they're innocent sheep led to the slaughter because that's how woke folk portray them. Pay attention to the women and girls having to share locker rooms and podiums with them. The story is very different then. The difference arises based on who is being centered. I'm centering women and girls, so it's their voices I'm amplifying. I guarantee that anyone who's been on blockers, etc., is in no fit state to engage in competitive sports. So we're dealing with intact, fully-functional boys and men weaponising gender identity ideology against women and girls to invade their sports and spaces.
Who are you centering?
BTW there was a 14 year old boy who was permitted to use the girls' toilet at a Virginia school. He raped his female classmate. You may recall the video of the school board denying it and having him bodily thrown out of the meeting. He was finally arrested after abusing another girl.
The point is, she's right. And abusers can be teens. There's no age limit to it.
We need to keep boys far away from porn. It's at the root of all this.
I agree with you generally. I don't follow JKR closely at all, so I cant speak to a change in tone, but I don't personally feel the quote you inserted is all that bad. Yes its snark, and maybe even a little insulting, but its also correct - the gender ideology has exactly done what she described and they are not stopping. Plus their MO is all laid out in black and white in the Denton's Document. When you are dealing with real life authoritarians and Machiavellians, you really need to call them what they are.
Thanks for commenting!
If she had compared the TRAs who threatened her to Death Eaters, I would have absolutely supported her. That's just not how I read her quote.
When she says "You appear to have skipped the bits where a narcissistic villain and his acolytes, *all of whom had an innate advantage over those they were persecuting* (emphasis mine)", it sounds to me like she's not comparing violent TRAs to Death Eaters; it sounds to me like she's comparing trans women who want to compete in women's sports to Death Eaters.
Of course I could be wrong! But I'm curious: if not comparing trans athletes to Death Eaters, what do you think she meant with the emphasized term?
I agree its a little confusing, I read it as meaning that trans generally now have a social advantage now over everyone else (debatable) and are trying to lord it over everyone else (true I would say) and the metaphor is to Voldemort and his acolytes. I didnt see it as being related specifically to males in female sports. Its an imperfect metaphor in any case.
Fair!
So, because you don't understand why her tone has changed (according to you) it's her fault and "she's become radicalised" and people on "her own team" aught to have reeled her in?
How can you not hear your own patronising and entitled tone?
Can you not hear your own male chauvinism that she must always 'be nice'?
Why "especially" prisons and rape crisis centres? It's all our spaces.... all of them.
You sound like a vilolent-threatening-male-trans-rights-activist apologist and JK Rawling is her own person who makes her own choices on her own terms. Grow the hell up!
Thanks so much for commenting!
Just to clarify, actually the people I'm criticizing in this piece are the TRAs who drove Rowling to become more radical. Those are the people that I wish more folks on the left would spend time calling out.
Does that make sense?
....and thanks for replying.
To be fair, I stopped reading, because I am too tired of listening to men being judge and jury on how women aught to behave....which is how you sounded, before I stopped reading. Having read a number of comments, I was clearly not the only one who heard this 'tone deaf' attitude, but I don't know if they read the whole piece either. 🙂
Nice try! Lola Coco in her reply clearly emphasized all the ways you condemned jkr in this very article.
Serious question: why do you think I wrote this article?
Serious answer: you wrote it because you are a writer. However, the reason is not important. What the article *says* is not good, and when Lola pointed that out, you first attempted to deny what it says, and now trying to change the subject.
I don't get that take at all from him.
I agree on his main point.
I got a bit on someone's case the other day for exactly that - being nasty (online) to someone from the "opposition" who had posted, and had not shown any nastiness.
To me, that's just shootin' yourself, "our team" in the foot.
The nasty person just got nasty with me, which is almost expected.
People don't like to be called out when they get ugly.
Well, a number of other commenters did, so maybe we all have our own biases. My bias is, I think JK is an absolute hero, I'll admit it 😃
I think Rowling is absolutely a hero. Like I said in the piece, I am EXTREMELY glad she chose to fight for women's spaces (and, on that note, while I think it is "especially" important to preserve female-only prisons and abuse shelters, I also think preserving other female-only spaces such as women's sports is very important too).
She was even more of a hero of mine in 2020, when I perceived her as fighting this fight with kindness and compassion towards the people who hated her. Partly that's because that's how I want to live my life; Matthew 5:44 ("Love your enemies and pray for them that persecute you") is sort of my North Star.
But I also don't think I'd hold up anywhere near as well as Rowling has in the face of the mountain of abuse and death threats she's faced, and I continue to admire her.
Let me put it another way: I wrote about her because I think her dynamic with TRAs is emblematic of an escalating cycle I see in lots of other arenas: John is vicious towards Jane, which makes Jane be vicious back, which makes John be more vicious in turn; and on and on and on. I think we all need to take a hard look at how we're contributing to (or enabling, by not calling out our allies who abuse and threaten our political opponents; many leftists have turned a blind eye to the abuse that TRAs have inflicted on Rowling in a way that I think is very wrong) that cycle of viciousness, and break it where we can. But that is VERY different from saying that I wish Rowling would just shut up and not speak up on this incredibly important topic. Does that make sense? What do you think of all of that?
This is what I feel about that, and your essay....
All women's spaces are there for fairness, our dignity and our safety. Men cannot be women, and so have no business being there, full stop.
You say you see something "ghoulish" in JK Rawling comparing "trans women who want to compete in women's sports to death eaters".
A) she didn't do that, you did, and
B) These men need to be told NO in no uncertain terms. The way a lot of them behave in changerooms and accommodation while being in women's teams is sanctioned stalking and flashing (and it's has been shown that flashing very often leads to sexual assault and rape) and although I don't know what a Death Eater is, the term for this behaviour sounds appropriate to me.
You say she now comes across "bitter and vituperative". Vituperative means 'bitter and abusive'. She absolutely does not come across as either of these things to me. Far from it.
Then you claim she's "letting herself become radicalized" and suggest she's turned into "someone we never wanted to become". There's a couple of huge leaps there, but still, only your opinions, however I find them extremely harsh and completely indicative of how men express their entitlement to be judge and jury regarding how women behave and express themselves.
Then you start talking about people who "hate the other side". She has stated, adnauseum, that trans people should be free to live their lives freely in accordance with the human rights and sex based rights they are given, she has zero grief with them and that it's the extreme misogyny of the movement she opposes.
So, so far you have lead the reader down a path that suggests JKR is radicalised, abusive, hates trans people ( "the opposition") that her "team" has failed to call her out on it and that her "soul has been damaged".
Have you even met the woman?
You fail to entertain the (highly likely) idea that the sheer amount of gratitude and support that she has received from women (and some men) all over the world has been like balm to her soul, as we have congratulated her and held her up to be the absolute icon she has become. We have collectively had zero reason to "call her out". Zero.
As for suggesting she has become "someone we never wanted to become" maybe that's true. Maybe she never set out to be a beacon of hope for millions of women and children. But to suggest that her (mainly male) extreme haters have solely caused this change in here, well, quite frankly, is absurd as it is naive. You completely dismiss not only her ability to govern her own life as she sees fit, but all her supporters voices, while asserting that "rejoiners miss more than half the story". Pot/kettle?
Then you talk about Christianity which I won't comment on other to say that your use of JKR as a narrative plot is utterly unfair, exaggerated and, as I've said, chauvinistic. Whether you've personally supported women's rights or denounced DEI or trans people in sports is irrelevant.
Us women, the world over desperately need intelligent, coherent and sane advocates to go into battle for us and we have felt absolutely blessed to have JKR not only take up that fight at it's most heated and violent point, but fund a great portion of it.
As an adult human female who believes her soul has been harmed by men attempting to trample my sex based rights and worse my right to call myself a woman (I am not a cis woman, I am not a subset of woman, I am a woman) I can, absolutely hand in heart, say she has done more to heal that harm than God at this point, and certainly more than you.
All your essay did for me was highlight how even 'enlightened' and Christian men still don't get it.
If you really want to Heal The West as your substack suggests, you could start by gaining a better understanding of how the championing of men who seek to erradicate our spaces, our hard won rights and our sex, is misogyny in one of it's most extreme expressions, and how advising us to be nicer is merely parroting the useless message we've been given for 6000 years.
I'm sorry if you feel rebuked by this but you did ask me what I thought.
JK Rowling has had enough. Enough of the child mutilation in the name of kindness, enough of the insane, vacuous 'arguments' from the #bekind brigade in favour of allowing men in women's prisons, women's sports, women's rape crisis centres, she's had enough of the upending of society across the world in the name of gender ideology and queer theory. Many of us have. I have felt my own anger and frustration grow and my thoughts and comments become more uncompromising. Now I don't care about the feelings of anyone who wants to endanger children, women's single sex spaces or upend society by telling lesbians they should sleep with men who say they are women or they are the bigots. JKR can say what she likes, she earned it. Being kind got us into this mess and perpetuates it.
"Being kind got us into this mess and perpetuates it."--interesting! Are you willing to say more about that?
I guess part of where I'm coming from is that I've been on the front lines fighting against DEI and CRT etc for a couple of years, and one thing that I've seen work over and over again is responding to evil and abuse with civility and kindness. It's weird, but it wins people over and I think it really provides a contrast with the evildoers.
Let me put it another way: it sounds like you think that Rowling is more effective now at fighting TRA ideology than she was in 2020, and you interpret me as advocating that she go back to being nicer but also less effective. Is that fair?
If so: that's the opposite of my intent. I certainly don't want us all to hold hands and sing kumbaya while we fold on this vital battle and allow bio males into female-only spaces. That is NOT any kind of society I want myself, my wife, or our future kids to have to live in.
I think this is a battle we really need to win, because I do NOT want my children to be told they're trans when they're 6 years old (seriously, that's the median age of social transition in 1 study) or for my wife to have to deal with a predatory dude changing next to her because he self-identifies as trans. And I think that, as effective as Rowling is now, she was probably even more effective in 2020 when she was winning flies with more honey and less vinegar. I think on a purely strategic level, being kind can win people over that you never would have thought could be won.
I also think some (a lot of) TRAs act in evil and abusive ways. But a lot of young trans people are also being lied to by authority figures (some of whom are well-meaning, and some of whom are decidedly not). I think of the young folks being lied to almost like they're in a cult; they're victims of this ideology, and what they need to get them out of it is kindness and open arms. If we spit on them, we just drive them deeper into the arms of the cult and we give more fodder for the cult's message that everyone on the outside is out to get them. That's good for nobody.
Anyway. What do you think of all that?
Well put. It’s hard. I’m seeing Riley Gaines (local girl from my small hometown) leaning in that direction, although not fully there yet, thankfully.
You really do get to a place of hardened reasoning. That’s really where the part of the Christian comes in.
I recently heard a woman talking about her ex-husband saying, “Even after all the cheating and financial ruin he caused, I had to remember that he’s a child of God and let go of my resentment and forgive. Holding that bitterness wasn’t hurting him at all. It was only hurting me.”
For many, it’s not understanding the difference between Divine forgiveness and human forgiveness. Where Divine forgiveness is unconditional and its objective is restoration, human forgiveness is not. It releasing the need to desire vengeance over all else, giving it back to God, and wishing for their growth as a person, all while not choosing restoration, and in most cases, rightfully so.
That perspective would bring Rowling some healing. Having said that, the picture she posted of her smoking a cigar after the recent UK ruling was pretty epic.
Agreed <3
"Having said that, the picture she posted of her smoking a cigar after the recent UK ruling was pretty epic"--I actually love that picture.
I agree...I loved that cigar pic.
Much deserved.
Thank goodness the UK Supreme Court didn't go totally off the cliff.
Right? I didn't see that coming (not that I follow this stuff closely) but I was thrilled by the UK Supreme Court's decision to affirm biological sex.
Zero percent goulish. You just don't understand how evil trans delusion and their immoral followers are.
Death eaters is the perfect comparison, because that's literally what will happen if you destroy objective words and knowledge. Morality is built on objective knowledge and nothing more fundamental than man and woman.
It seems like you are emotionally blacked out and blind to the real reality of what is going on, since you are trying to defend the poison and villify the antidote.
Thanks for commenting! I really appreciate it <3
To be clear, if all she was doing was comparing the TRAs who have insulted and threatened and verbally abused her to Death Eaters, I would have 100% agreed with her. I think that's a perfectly apt comparison.
But when she says "You appear to have skipped the bits where a narcissistic villain and his acolytes, all of whom had an innate advantage over those they were persecuting", it sounds to me like she's comparing trans women who want to compete in women's sports (who "have an innate advantage" over the women they're facing) to Death Eaters. I'm not sure that that's an apt comparison; because while some of those trans women are 100% predatory and just want to take things from women, others are decent high schoolers who are just trying to make their way in the world as best they can. I don't think they should be allowed to compete in women's sports, but I also don't think they're all villains.
What do you think?
You sound like a lying sneaky conman pretending to thank people for commenting.
Fuck off with your pretend nice guy. I see why your defending scumbag sneaky men and boys trying to take away women's individual rights. Go fuck yourself. Your type of spineless weak boys who defend this are the same as death eaters. You are a death eater too. You are literally defending poison. Destroying objective language will destroy all morality. You and your sneaky beta scumbag men and boys that you are pretending to condem while defending, are scum.
You are literally as anti-motality as it gets. I mean your literally defending a man boxing women and fuckinv them up, then smile and snickering about it.
Your as evil as the death threat scum who attack jk rowling bc your literally attacking her too.
Go fuck yourself you anti-moral gutless coward. 🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕
Jo Rowling did zero percent wrong, you goulish cowardly scum.
I tried commenting on a YouTube video today about transwomen in women's sport being fundamentally unfair due to male advantage and the YouTuber themself told me I was stupid, making things up to justify my hatred and that I was arguing in bad faith. No threats, but I was taken aback. I'm still a bit surprised at the long, rambling response I got, when I was being quite genuine in my comment. JK Rowling has been sneered at, accused of wanting children to kill themselves, called a hag and every anti-woman insult imaginable. She's had her life threatened. The UK Supreme court ruling caused protests where trans protesters carried 'hang JK rowling' signs and kill TERFs. After all she has done for literature, her philanthropy. To be spoken of with such vitriole, hatred and disdain. I understand her anger. I understand the cigar post. It was a middle finger at those who have been so awful to and about her since she spoke up, calmly, in support of Maya Forstater. The woman who lost her job for wanting to discuss the implications of letting males identify into the female sex category.
I completely agree with this <3
About 20 years ago I went political. I started by attempting to bridge the idea and dialog gap between myself supporting conservative libertarian principles (classic liberalism) including moderate social values... and the liberal progressive views that dominated my community.
That experience helped me understand that there was no bridge opportunity.
I realized that we were at war. The ideological gap was just a symptom of a large malady of the common battle between collectivism and classic liberalism.
This changed my orientation. I started slapping them as hard or harder than they slapped me. I made them squirm putting them on the spot... something easy to do because their arguments lacked a rational basis. They had to rely on artificial morality... slogans, screaming, shouting and mob tactics to get their way... because any one-to-one debate would result in them being embarrassed and humiliated.
But here is the secret that we have been missing. There are a few at the top, and what they have done is to devise an ideology of popular elitism. The get followers because the followers think this is higher status... cool.
The correction requires a shift in what is popular and cool. That requires that we start humiliating them for their beliefs.
I think that is where J.K. Rowling as landed. She was once kind and caring, but it did not move the needle at all. In fact, it probably helped enable the mob against her to have more power because she was a safe target. But now, because Ms. Rowling will sharply humiliate those that attack her, the enemy is more wary, and their mob followers are more likely to consider that opposing J.K. Rowling is much less fun and cool.
Interesting ideas! Thanks for commenting <3
So let me ask you a question, if you're up for it:
"I started slapping them as hard or harder than they slapped me. I made them squirm putting them on the spot... something easy to do because their arguments lacked a rational basis. They had to rely on artificial morality... slogans, screaming, shouting and mob tactics to get their way... because any one-to-one debate would result in them being embarrassed and humiliated."--how many political opponents have you won over to your side with this strategy?
You are not fully informed on this issue. J. K. Rowling is standing in the gap for women who have lost jobs, been exiled from their sports teams, and lost medals to men pretending to be women—she’s vocal because she cannot be cancelled, and is the voice of thousands of women who have lost opportunities and livelihoods to trans activist insanity. In all this, Rowling has maintained that she has no enmity towards trans individuals, but merely believes women deserve the right to have safe, male-free spaces. As a gay man, who sees this push from trans activists as inherently misogynistic and homophobic, I’d say you have some homework to do.
First, by “trans athletes” she means something quite specific: men, the large majority of whom (like swimmer Lia Thomas) are fully intact (no surgeries, some hormone blockers in Thomas’s case, but not enough to erase the advantage he has as a male swimming against women) and also admit to being attracted to biological females—who have been able to deprive women athletes of medals that should rightly be theirs, while gaining access to their private spaces and forcing them to undress in those same spaces in front of a fully intact male. All the women on Thomas’s team were told “if you have a problem, seek counseling for your bigotry.”
Do you know anything about autogynephilia? This is fetishistic cross dressing for sexual pleasure (formerly known as transvestism), mostly practiced by straight men. Men with autogynephilia are now being included under the trans umbrella, and I’d say William/Lia Thomas is a prime example of this phenomenon.
Rowling has said nothing about trans women athletes being barred from sports. She wants them to be barred from competing against (and winning against) biological women. She isn’t required to come up with a solution—she is trying her best to protect single sex spaces for women, which five minutes ago all of us understood was both good and necessary. She is also trying to protect opportunities for women athletes. Have you looked at how many high school and college level women have been deprived of awards and medals by opportunistic men claiming to be women? The number is shocking, and continues to grow. I’m sure you can find several lists just by searching.
And yes, I in fact agree with her that given that men statistically commit far more sex crimes than women, and in most of those crimes, women are the victims—and also given that there are ALWAYS bad actors willing to exploit opportunities for gain—men pretending to be women who insist on competing against women are like “death eaters.” Either they are seeking easy wins at the expense of women, or they are acting out a sexual fetish while also depriving women of opportunities to compete fairly—and in either case somehow their needs are supposed to be more important than the needs and safety of those women.
The issue of trans women in sports must be resolved in a way that protects women’s spaces and opportunities. And trans women, who are in reality MEN, do not have rights that somehow supersede the rights of biological women, nor in this context should any man be allowed to self-identify onto a woman’s team. It’s the supreme expression of selfishness and misogyny—and “death eater” is an apt comparison, since what death eaters do according to Professor Lupin is deprive their victims of everything that gives them joy, and leave them only with sadness and misery.
I actually agree with a ton of what you said. I clearly didn't do a good job of explaining this in the piece, but the truth is that I'm pretty center-right on trans stuff. I think trans women belong nowhere near ANY female-only spaces (including sports, prisons, abuse shelters, etc). I think it's awful that women are having sports medals stolen from them by trans athletes. I also think that children should NOT be allowed to gender transition. I have trans friends who I love and admire and who just want to live their lives in peace, and who are horrified at the absolute insanity (abuse, threats, insane demands that women let anyone into their changing rooms who self-IDs as a woman, etc) of a lot of TRAs.
And I think that some (perhaps many) trans women who want to compete in women's-only sports really are predators.
But I also think a lot of young trans people (including some bio males who become trans women and want to compete in HS sports) are also being lied to by authority figures (some of whom are well-meaning, and some of whom are decidedly not). I think of the young folks being lied to almost like they're in a cult; they're victims of this ideology, not perpetrators; and what they need to get them out of it is kindness and open arms. If we spit on them, we just drive them deeper into the arms of the cult and we give more fodder for the cult's message that everyone on the outside is out to get them. That's good for nobody.
What do you think of all of that?
Thanks for the thoughtful comment!
"J. K. Rowling is standing in the gap for women who have lost jobs, been exiled from their sports teams, and lost medals to men pretending to be women—she’s vocal because she cannot be cancelled, and is the voice of thousands of women who have lost opportunities and livelihoods to trans activist insanity."--I actually agree with everything you've said.
"In all this, Rowling has maintained that she has no enmity towards trans individuals,"--I suppose this is the crux of our disagreement. I'm genuinely curious: how do you square this sentiment with her tweet comparing trans athletes to Death Eaters? Or do you disagree that that's what she was doing?
Wow, I entirely disagree that Rowling’s comment you quoted represents anything that Iooks like vitriol. She makes a valid comparison between the BEHAVIOR of trans activists (narcissists, cry-bullies, authoritarian) and those of characters in her novel. It is an objectively true description of TRAs and like the great Magdalen Burns said, “It’s not hate to speak the truth”.
You are yet another man telling a woman to be kind. Your qualification that her response is justified doesn’t negate the fact that you are saying she is being unkind. No she is not and the standard you are applying to her reeks of gendered nonsense.
Thanks for the thoughtful comment!
If she had simply compared the TRAs who threatened her to Death Eaters, I would have absolutely supported her. I agree many TRAs are narcissists, cry-bullies, and authoritarians.
But when she says "You appear to have skipped the bits where a narcissistic villain and his acolytes, *all of whom had an innate advantage over those they were persecuting* (emphasis mine)", it sounds like she's not comparing violent TRAs to Death Eaters; it sounds to me like she's comparing trans women who want to compete in women's sports to Death Eaters. I don't think trans women should be allowed to compete in women's sports; but I also think attacking them is a different and more pernicious thing than attacking TRAs.
Of course, I could be mistaken! How do you interpret the part of her tweet that I quoted?
Oh shut up Julian. That’s your complaint? That she’s not Mother Theresa basically?
Thanks for commenting!
That's an interesting question. So let me ask you: do you think being or acting like Mother Teresa is a noble goal?
Obviously I meant symbolically. Pick Florence Nightingale if you like. Your question exposes you as a bad-faith, argumentative gaslighter. Edit: Sorry dude that was a little harsh lol im having a bad night. I just mean, she is brave. God social media brings out the worst in me. Peace and love dude.
No worries! I agree she's brave <3 Like I tried to say in the piece (and maybe I could have said it better), she's one of my heroes in no small part because she's shown a willingness to die on this hill for all of our sakes. My wife and future children are safer for the work she's done.
I hope your night gets better :)
Many of us have turned the other cheek - and we are out of cheeks. Certainly Rowling is.
https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/879d5d66-63f3-4fb1-8b49-1ea6d3cc39ff
I don't see her comments that way at all. Or your definition of "nastiness". Are you this analytical and hyper-sensitive over male remarks, or is it just women who get the "be nicer" lecture? Just curious.
Thanks for commenting!
To answer your question: not a gender thing.
But I'm also curious why you think the point of my piece was to lecture Rowling? That actually wasn't my goal at all; instead, I was using what I see as the effect on her of the vitriol and verbal abuse directed at her by TRAs to make an argument that we should all stop being so vicious to each other.
That's why I wrote, for instance, that people who want to blame Rowling in all of this "miss more than half the story."
I actually wrote this piece with mostly a leftist audience in mind, with the goal of persuading them to be less vicious towards Rowling. That's why I said things like "If injustice tempts our fellow human to anger and despair, then we should fight that injustice. That's true even if the injustice is coming from our own lips." The chief injustice I had in mind was TRAs abusing Rowling, not her response.
Does that make sense? What do you think of all that?
The Rowling thing has been a disaster for the Trans community. Honestly, I was left-center when her letter first came out and disagreed with it (though not enough for some I knew), but seeing the reaction I'm now in firmly in the gender critical camp.
The speed and glee with which a bunch of people with dicks in dresses started throwing out the c-word and making raped-to-death jokes revealed a much deeper pathology than they would have willingly shown the public, and once seen cannot be unseen.
I agree with everything you said <3